the zemstvos, which congratulated him upon his ascension to the throne, expressed the hope that he would listen to “the voice of the people and the expression of its desires,” the reply of the new Czar was a grim warning of what was to come.  Nicholas II told the zemstvos that he intended to follow the example of his father and uphold the principles of Absolutism, and that any thought of participation by the zemstvos or other organizations of the people in state affairs was a senseless dream.  More significant still, perhaps, was the fact that the hated Pobiedonostzev was retained in power.

The revolutionists were roused as they had not been for a decade or more.  Some of the leaders believed that the new reign of reaction would prove to be the occasion and the opportunity for bringing about a union of all the revolutionary forces, Anarchists and Socialists alike, peasants and industrial workers.  This hope was destined to fail, but there was an unmistakable revolutionary awakening.  In the latter part of January, 1895, an open letter to Nicholas II was smuggled into the country from Switzerland and widely distributed.  It informed the Czar that the Socialists would fight to the bitter end the hateful order of things which he was responsible for creating, and menacingly said, “It will not be long before you find yourself entangled by it.”

IV

In one respect Nicholas II differed from Alexander III—­he was by nature more humane and sentimental.  Like his father, he was thoroughly dominated by Pobiedonostzev’s theory that Russia, in order to be secure and stable, must be based upon Nationality, Orthodoxy, and Autocracy.  He wanted to see Holy Russia homogeneous and free from revolutionary disturbances.  But his sensitive nature shrank from the systematic persecution of the non-orthodox sects and the Jews, and he quietly intimated to the officials that he would not approve its continuance.  At the same time, he was not willing to face the issue squarely and openly announce a change of policy or restore religious freedom.  That would have meant the overthrow of Pobiedonostzev and the Czar’s emancipation from his sinister influence, and for that Nicholas II lacked the necessary courage and stamina.  Cowardice and weakness of the will characterized his reign from the very beginning.

When the officials, in obedience to their ruler’s wishes, relaxed the severity which had marked the treatment of the Jews and the non-orthodox Christian sects, the change was soon noted by the victims and once more there was a revival of hope.  But the efforts of the Finns to secure a modification of the Russification policy were quite fruitless.  When a deputation was sent from Finland to represent to the Czar that the rights and privileges solemnly reserved to them at the time of the annexation were being denied to the people of Finland, Nicholas II refused to grant the deputation an audience.  Instead of getting relief, the people of Finland soon found that the oppression steadily increased.  It was evident that Finnish nationality was to be crushed out, if possible, in the interest of Russian homogeneity.