66b9uk5yPH

Avoiding this perspective meant the ability of changing internal policies and rebuilt the national diplomatic system according to late 19th century needs.

In this frame, Great Britain shouldn’t have any kind of intervention but Spain, where Teles stayed for part of his exile, wasn’t fit as an alternative. Unlike a considerable number of his fellow republicans, Teles demonstrated awareness and acceptance regarding Herculano’s thoughts about Spain. Keeping the stability of peninsular borders forced Portugal to nourish a healthy relation with

Spain; yet, the Iberian neighbour couldn’t replace Great Britain’s basilar position in diplomatic terms.

Not neglecting a straight commercial relation with Spain, Teles refused any political understanding since politically, both Spanish monarchic parties or Spanish republican movement felt an evident attraction for the ideal of an Iberian Union. For Teles, preparing Portuguese Republic and assuring Portuguese collective existence, in Europe and colonial areas, implied conceiving a diplomatic network formed by two kinds of preferable allies: small and medium European powers and republican regimes, granting a particular relevance to Brazil.

As republican regime was implemented in Portugal, in October 5th 1910,

Teles’s criticism to Great Britain assumed new formulas. After British recognition in September 1911, the author reconsidered gradually his perspectives without forgetting the proximity between German and British Empires before Great War. The talks held by the two powers on Portuguese colonial territories, during 1912 and 1913, inspired Teles to a complex understanding regarding the causes of the conflict and, consequently, the need of a maintaining the ancient alliance in order to protect Portuguese interests and Republic .

Brito Camacho (1862-1934) shared Teles’s considerations on geostrategic and political perspectives although his analysis emphasised 19th century’s complexities in military views and diplomatic terms. In 1890 decade, to Camacho, European imperialist system constituted an ultimate challenger to Portugal, an ancient nation-state, endangered by external public debt. National partial bankruptcy, declared in 1892, along with 1890 British Ultimatum, had undoubtedly inserted Portugal on Salisbury’s definition of dying nations – those, like Chinese or Ottoman Empires were recognized as institutional realities determined to be replace by the progressive nations.

Member of Republican Group for Social Studies, founded in August 24th 1896, Camacho revealed simultaneous concerns with Great Britain, a threat to Portugal in Africa, and with Spain, which represented a similar situation for peninsular borders. Not strangely, Camacho argued the need of preparing the Portuguese republican transition without any Spanish contribution. This

120

perspective meant an important rupture within the national republican movement since, as previous stated, the federalist segment considered utmost relevant the Iberian neighbours’ actions not only to a political change in the Peninsula – Portuguese Republic couldn’t stand alone – but in Europe. Camacho’s perspective has consolidated even if the author was forced to review his position over England, especially after the king Carlos I’s murder, in

February 1st 1908. For Camacho, among others, preparing the Revolution meant assuring the absence of England’s intervention on Portuguese institutional questions, even if this forced Portuguese Republican Party to observe British requirements: a non violent revolution and the Royal Family’s integrity.

Once as member of the provisional government, in 1910-1911, Camacho had no hesitation in presenting a very pragmatic orientation on diplomatic sense; since then, both Great Britain and Spain were elevated to preferable allies, a premise justified by historical factors and geographic aspects. a special mention should be made as to linkage between the two powers to Portuguese Republic, according to Camacho. The negotiations with Lisbon and London would be far more effective and assuring to Portuguese interests if Lisbon achieved a stable understanding with Madrid; the same was applied to the Iberian relations. In this context, the two previous adversaries became strategic partners, a condition broadly developed as Great War began.

As belligerence broke up in Europe, Camacho, then leader of the Unionist Republican Party, defended vividly the strict observation of the British Alliance, unlike Democratic Republican Party, supporting Portuguese belligerence even if England disapproved similar participation. Since August 1914 to February 1916, this question divided deeply national elites and drove Portugal to a latent civil war. For Camacho, however, British position on this issue gave no margin of doubt: in the newspaper he directed, since 1906, A Lucta, exposed the political purposes underlying Democratic Party orientation towards the European conflict, not embodying solidarity with small nations under German repression but taking advantage of the war context to control Portuguese state, a process contrary to national interests and Portuguese sovereignty.

Recent history was taken into account on the articles presented to Brito Camacho’s readers in A Lucta: in August 1914, reviewing Portuguese position during the second British war against Transvaal, the alliance prevailed although Portugal remained neutral while Great Britain was belligerent. Later, in September would look at history once more to describe how Portuguese neutrality served mainly British interests, a situation enduring while Great Britain considered it convenient. The following month, Camacho insisted on the subject, establishing the limits of neutrality and explaining the terms of the ongoing cooperation between the two allies. In December 1914, the conflict between Unionists and Democrats entered in a deeper phase: unionists senators

121

dismissed from the chamber, immobilizing the government supported by Democrats and Unionist newspapers were suspended by executive’s orders. The quarrel on the significance of British alliance and Portuguese belligerence or neutrality lasted until the end of 1915, a tragic period for Portugal, characterized by the emergence of a dictatorial experience in January, disrupted in May 14th, by a military coup which caused heavy mortality in Lisbon and others Portuguese cities.

The third selected author, José de Macedo (1874-1948), presents an alternative understanding on how British Alliance and Great War were observed in Portugal. Member of Portuguese Socialist Party, founded in 1875, Macedo became known for two main aspects: the first, his polemic positions and articles against Portuguese monarchy and the second, for his intransigence in cooperating with other anti-monarchical parties – republicans and anarchists. At the end of 19th century, the author forced himself to an exile in Angola to avoid being a predictable prison sentence. Abroad, as before in Lisbon, José de Macedo followed Socialist Party’s programme, mainly critic to British Alliance. In this context, Macedo denounced Portuguese dependence from Great Britain which, in his perspective, applied to Portugal a similar framework as another British protectorate. Although Portuguese state remained officially independent, effectively wasn’t as 1890 British Ultimatum and subsequent national reaction had prove.

The author returned to Lisbon in 1910 and, after the republican revolution, declared himself as committed to the new institutions, a mean to promote his social ideals. As foreign affairs were concern, Macedo presented a divergent pattern; unlike previous perspectives, the author assumed the vivid defence of British alliance, a change explained by his understanding over European dynamics. According to Macedo’s views, imperialism constituted a complex trend, nourished by the growing need of industrial needs and commercial interests. For the author, in every industrial state, institutional and political structures lost leadership and autonomy since political issues were determined by economic aspects.

For this reason, Portuguese sovereignty was endangered since Armed

Peace began and, reviewing his convictions, Macedo emphasised Britain’s intervention on behalf of Portuguese interests. Once the global conflict emerged, in Europe but also in Asia, under a straight attention of United States of America, Portugal was forced to become belligerence. To Macedo, the outcome of the war would determine the nature of international relations afterwards and its agents. Not least important, the victory would indicate the prevailing powers. Being neutral meant not be able to participate on a decisive process through which small and medium state-nations were fighting to earn unconditional respect.

122

On the other hand, to Macedo, the war represented a danger to all Europe; undoubtedly provoked by German Empire support to Austrian intervention in Serbia, the conflict has been, on the long term, caused by the emergence of imperialist aspirations. The author appointed the case of Great Britain, during Lord Salisbury government, the expansion of Japan and, more worrying, United

States of America’s purposes of controlling the Pacific, while observing the political evolution in Europe. According to this premises, Macedo shared simultaneously the ideas of Herculano, on Great Britain, and Oliveira Martins, regarding Spain: to the author, the survival of Portuguese sovereignty depended on the prevalence of Europe and its powers. A lasting war would turn Europe into a fragile great market to North American exports and capitals.

Conclusion

During the 19th century, the Portuguese liberal historiography established key ideas regarding national identity and its relation with the contexts of the emergence of Portugal as a nation-state. Attending to Iberian Medieval political geography and further institutional evolution, during the Modern Age, for Herculano such as for Oliveira Martins, Portuguese independence was largely achieved due idiosyncratic aspects as the maritime nature and the Atlantic proximity, two elements which contributed to an alliance system. To both authors, although with different understandings, the British alliance reached a permanent status to Portuguese diplomacy after 1840 Restoration.

Nevertheless, the British Alliance assumed a growing controversial dimension in Portugal as European aspirations for colonial territories in Africa became evident in international conferences. Portuguese republican and socialist movements, aware of Herculano’s historical premises, observed 19th century England’s policies regarding national interests as a result of a long-term process by which the ally tried to deepen national dependence. In this sense, England stood as an obstacle to Portuguese development.

Furthermore, to Basilio Teles, Brito Camacho and José de Macedo, in different moments, British Ultimatum constituted an outrage to Portuguese sovereignty and demonstrated how fragile the Portuguese alliance system was. One of the key concerns for each author relied on how to rebuild the national framework in order to consolidate Portuguese projection in Europe, during the Armed Peace.

The beginning of the Great War constituted a structural modification on the authors’ thinking: to all, the British Alliance regained a strategic value while neutrality, familiar to Portuguese 19th century diplomatic options, ought to be replaced by undisputable belligerence. The eager perceptions about a rapid and dramatic change taking place in Europe during the Great War made British Alliance crucial yet insufficient for the coming consequences.

123

Bibliography

1.Camacho, Brito, “A Situação”, A Lucta, nº 3125, August, 25th 1914, p. 1.

2.Camacho, Brito, “Velhos Aliados”, A Lucta, nº 3160, September 29th

1914, p. 1.

3.Camacho, Brito, “Est Modus”, A Lucta, nº 3167, October 7th 1914, p. 1.

4.Camacho, Brito, “Participação na Guerra”, A Lucta, nº 3177, October

11th 1914, p. 1.

5.Costa, João Paulo Oliveira e, “Um País Periférico, Cristão, Marítimo”, História da Expansão e do Império Português, coord. por João Paulo

Oliveira e Costa, Lisboa, A Esfera dos Livros, 2014.

6.“Grupo Republicano de Estudos Sociais sessão plenária Resoluções Importantes”, O País, 2nd year, nº 456, February, 2nd 1897, p. 1.

7.Herculano, Alexandre, “Carta 1ª. Sobre a História de Portugal”, Revista Universal Lisbonense, nº 27, 7 de Abril de 1842, pp. 316-318.

8.Herculano, Alexandre, “Carta 2º Sobre a História de Portugal”, Revista Universal Lisbonense, nº 29, 21 de Abril de 1842, pp. 341-343.

9.Herculano, Alexandre, “Carta 3º Sobre a História de Portugal”, Revista Universal Lisbonense, nº 37, 16 de Junho de 1842, pp. 437-439.

10.Herculano, Alexandre, “Carta 3º Sobre a História de Portugal”, Revista Universal Lisbonense, nº 41, 14 de Julho de 1842, p. 485-487.

11.Herculano, Alexandre, História de Portugal. Desde o Começo da Monarquia até ao final do Reinado de D.Afonso III, 8ª ed., tomo IV,

Lisbon, Aillaud e Bertrand., s.d [1846].

12.Macedo, José de, O Conflito Internacional sob o ponto de vista português. Estudo Político e Económico, Porto, Renascença, 1916, p. 30.

13.Martins, Joaquim Pedro de Oliveira, Portugal Contemporâneo, II vols, 9th edition, Lisbon, Guimarães Editores, 1986.

14.Nunes, Teresa, “José Veríssimo de Almeida – ideias políticas e militância partidária”, José Veríssimo de Almeida. Percursos de Agronomia e Política Portuguesa (1870-1912), Lisboa, ISApress, 2017.

15.Teles, Basílio, Do Ultimatum ao 31 de Janeiro. Esboço de história política, 1905.

16.Teles, Basílio, Para a História da Crise Europeia, Documentos Diplomáticos, 1905-1914, 1914.

17.Teles, Basílio, A Guerra (notas e dúvidas), de 1914.

18.Teles, Basílio, A Situação Militar Europeia, de 1915.

19.Teles, Basílio, A Inglaterra Pacifista, A França e a Guerra de 70 e O Nó dos Balkans, de 1916.

20.Teles, Basílio, Acquaviva, de 1917.

21.Teles, Basílio, Na Flandres: o episódio militar de 9 de Abril, 1918.

22.Teles, Basílio, O Flagelo dos Mares, 1918.

124

УДК 1(091) ББК 87.3

F. Benvinda

School of Arts and Humanities University of Lisbon Lisbon, Portugal

FROM BANEFUL INFLUENCE TO MARK OF UNION:

ZÓFIMO CONSIGLIERI PEDROSO’S CONCEPT OF RUSSIAN

BORDER

Abstract. Zófimo Consiglieri Pedroso (1850-1910), Portuguese republican writer, historian and ethnologist provided the readers of his historiographical, ethnological and journalistic work with a shifting conception of Border, specifically related to the Russian Empire and based upon his concepts of Race, Civilization and Progress.

In his 1874 history manual, Pedroso weighed two concepts of Russian border against one another: on the one hand, he argued that the empire’s political border was to be kept stable, as long as it remained an absolute monarchy, so it wouldn’t become a “baneful and domineering” influence upon the “amiable and progressive” Slavic race.

On the other hand, the Author contended the race’s achievement of progress rested upon a closer relationship with Russia. Hence, he wrote, the cultural border that encompassed all Slavic peoples could become a political one.

In 1889, in his newspaper Os Debates, Pedroso once again framed Russian influence as overbearing upon the newly independent Balkan states and warned against a third type of Russian border: a diplomatic one. Worried about the maintenance of European peace,

Pedroso shifts his readers’ attention to Serbia, Montenegro and Russia’s growing connection to the Balkan monarchies.

In 1896, after the Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, in his ethnographical notes on Russia, Pedroso melded the concepts of Russian border he had put forward in 1874 into one overarching idea: The Border was to encompass all Slavic peoples, which could live federated in harmony under the power of a democratic Russian state.

As the Great War and the end of Pedroso’s life drew closer, he adopted a pragmatic view: Russia, having ended the Great Game through the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, should ally with France, England and the Latin nations to ensure victory over Germany, so that the idea of an expanded Russian border may come to fruition.

Key words: Border; Peace; Pan-Slavism; Russian Empire.

125

Ф. Бенвинда

Школа искусств и гуманитарных наук Университет Лиссабона г. Лиссабон, Португалия

ОТ ГУБИТЕЛЬНОГО ВЛИЯНИЯ К НАЧАЛУ СОЮЗА: КОНЦЕПЦИЯ РОССИЙСКОЙ ГРАНИЦЫ ЗОФИМУ КОНСИЛЬЕРИ

ПЕДРОЗУ

Аннотация. Португальский республиканский писатель, историк и этнолог Зофиму Консильери Педрозу (1850–1910) представил читателям своей историографической, этнологической и публицистической работы изменяющуюся концепцию Границы, непосредственно связанную с Российской империей и основанную на его концепциях Расы, Цивилизации и Прогресса. В своем пособии по истории 1874 года Педрозу сопоставил две концепции российской границы: с одной стороны, он утверждал, что политическая граница империи должна сохраняться стабильной, пока она остается абсолютной монархией, поэтому она не окажет «губительного и довлеющего» влияния на «дружелюбную и прогрессивную» славянскую расу. С другой стороны, автор утверждал, что достижение расой прогресса основывалось на более тесных отношениях с Россией. Следовательно, писал он, культурная граница, охватывающая все славянские народы, может стать политической. В 1889 году в своей газете Os Debates Педрозу еще раз назвал российское влияние "властным" в отношении новых независимых балканских государств и предостерег от третьего типа российской границы - дипломатической. Обеспокоенный вопросом поддержания европейского мира, Педросо перенес внимание своих читателей на Сербию, Черногорию и растущую связь России с балканскими монархиями. В 1896 году, после франко-русского союза 1894 года, в своих этнографических заметках о России Педрозу объединил концепции русской границы, выдвинутые им в 1874 году, в одну всеобъемлющую идею: граница должна была охватить все славянские народы, которые могли жить федеративно, в гармонии под властью демократического российского государства. По мере приближения Великой войны, на склоне лет Педрозу принял прагматичный взгляд: Россия, закончив Великую игру посредством англорусской конвенции 1907 года, должна вступить в союз с Францией, Англией и латинскими народами, чтобы обеспечить победу над Германией, и таким образом идея расширенной российской границы могла бы осуществиться.

Ключевые слова: граница, мир, пан-славизм, Российская Империя.

1.Summary of Consiglieri Pedroso’s life and work

Zófimo Consiglieri Pedroso was born in Lisbon, in March 10th, 1851. He studied in Lisbon’s Curso Superior de Letras, between 18681 and 18702, later becoming a professor in 18793. As a republican, he was selected to be a member

1Curso Superior de Letras, Livro de matriculas do Curso superior de Letras, Lisboa, Curso Superior de Letras, [s.d.]. Location: PT/AHFLUL/CSL/Cx.05/Cap.06, f.121.

2Idem, Ibidem, f.147.

3Curso Superior de Letras, Livro do registo dos termos de juramentos dos professores do Curso superior. de Letras, Lisboa, Curso Superior de Letras, [s.d.]. Location: PT/AHFLUL/CSL/Cx.05/Cap.02, ff. 4-5.

126

of the Portuguese chamber of representatives from 18841 to 18892. In 1888, he co-founded the republican newspaper Os Debates. Pedroso also focused on scientific writing, taking interest in the study of languages and ethnography.3 A respected member of the Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa, he rose to the presidency of the association in 19094. Pedroso’s interests led him to become an even more prolific author, writing various political pamphlets from the 1870’s to the 1890’s, and undertaking the writing of various history manuals. Consiglieri Pedroso died in Sintra, on September 3rd, 1910.5

2. Consiglieri Pedroso’s Concepts of Race, Civilization, People

and Progress

These concepts formed the nucleus of Consiglieri Pedroso’s conception of a European continent divided into racially homogenous blocs, each with their own linguistic, cultural and gastronomic connections.

Nonetheless, it was anatomy that allowed for the broadest distinction between races: black, yellow and white6. From this wide spectrum, Consiglieri Pedroso selected the white race as the one that had birthed the largest number of people’s that had achieved a high enough level of civilization to be considered for historical study 7 . From the white race came the Hamites, origin of the Ancient Egyptians; the Semites, origin of the peoples of the Near East and the Aryans or Indo-Europeans, origin of all civilized peoples: The Hindus, Romans, Celts, Germanic Peoples (Germans and Anglo-Saxons), Slavs8 and Latins9.

The concept of Civilization helped to describe two different realities: Firstly, it was used to describe the economic, political and artistic achievements of different racial groups, peoples and of European nations at different periods in the history of the continent. Hence why Consiglieri Pedroso speaks of an Arab10, Egyptian11, Greek1 and Roman2 civilization, but also of a Medieval3,

1Câmara dos Senhores Deputados da Nação Portuguesa, Diário da Câmara dos Senhores

Deputados, Lisboa, [s.n.], Session n.2, 17th of December 1884, p. 3.

2Idem, Ibidem, Lisboa, [s.n.], Session n.7, 10th of January 1889, p. 29.

3VENTURA, António, “Zófimo Consiglieri Pedroso” in MEDINA, João (dir.), História de

Portugal, Vol. 9, Amadora, Ediclube, 2004, pp. 373-374.

4CAMACHO, Brito (dir.), A Lucta, Year III, nº1296, Lisboa [s.n.], 30th of June de 1909, p. 1.

5VENTURA, António, Ibidem, pp. 374-375.

6PEDROSO, Zófimo Consiglieri, Compêndio de História Universal (2nd ed.), Porto, Livraria Universal de Magalhães e Moniz, 1885, p. 13.

7Idem, Ibidem, p. 14.

8Idem, Ibidem, p. 14-15.

9PEDROSO, Zófimo Consiglieri, Manual de Historia Universal, Paris, Guillard, Aillaud e

Cia., 1884, p. 21.

10Idem, Ibidem p. 258.

11PEDROSO, Zófimo Consiglieri, Op. cit., p. 14.

127

Early Modern4 and Contemporary civilization5. The last three refer specifically to European achievements made in the artistic, economic and political fields during these time periods.

Progress between them was argued to be an inexorable reality. Each civilization or period was understood as having been influenced by the ones that came before it and was considered more progressive the more it went beyond the cultural characters it had inherited, a conception based upon social

Darwinism called “transformism”6.

On the other hand, Consiglieri Pedroso used the term Civilization to tell apart developed or undeveloped races/peoples by gauging how close they were to the level of economic, political and artistic development achieved by the European nations of the Belle Époque, the only group of states and peoples considered to be truly civilized.

Nonetheless, within Europe, these differences persisted. They were influenced by Consiglieri Pedroso’s Pan-Latinist ideals, according to which France was the bulwark of true Civilization 7 . Using the 1889 Universal Exhibition, that took place in Paris, as a showcase, Consiglieri Pedroso argued France had developed beyond any country in Europe, especially after having been defeated in 18718. It boasted the most advanced political system in the continent: a republic 9 and had achieved a respectable level of economic development, even if diplomatically isolated by Bismarck’s network of alliances10.

Consiglieri Pedroso’s ideal was an anti-German one. The Latin bloc he wanted to see formed was to include all countries that shared a linguistic and cultural connection to Ancient Rome: Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Romania, France and Italy11 and was meant to prevent German expansion and guarantee Latin military, economic and demographic superiority in the continent.

1Idem, Manual de Historia Universal, Paris, Guillard, Aillaud e Cia., 1884, p. 146.

2Idem, Ibidem, p. 216.

3Idem, Op. cit., p. 176.

4Idem, Ibidem, p. 580.

5Idem, Ibidem, p. 582.

6MATOS, Sérgio Campos, Historiografia e memória nacional (1846-1898), Lisbon, Edições

Colibri, 1998, p. 182.

7PEDROSO, Zófimo Consiglieri (dir.), Os Debates, Year II, nº333, Lisbon, [s.n.], 5th of September 1889, p. 1.

8Idem, Ibidem, Year II, nº270, Lisboa, [s.n.], 20th of June 1889, p. 1.

9Idem, Ibidem, Year II, nº234, Lisboa, [s.n.], 7th of May 1889, p. 1.

10MILZA, Pierre, As Relações Internacionais de 1871 a 1914, Lisbon, Edições 70, 2007, pp. 42-43.

11PEDROSO, Zófimo Consiglieri, Manual de Historia Universal, Paris, Guillard, Aillaud e Cia., 1884, p. 216.

128

The German bloc, however, was to extend only as far as Germany’s linguistical borders. Therefore, the nationalist motto “as far as the German language rings” 1 was taken to mean that the German bloc could only legitimately encompass Germany and Austria. Schleswig and Holstein were to become part of Denmark, Alsace and Lorraine a part of France2 and Polabian Slavs were to join the largest of the three racial blocs envisaged by Pedroso: The Slavic bloc3. At its core lay Consiglieri Pedroso’s conception of Russian Border.

Border.

3.The evolution of Consiglieri Pedroso’s concept of Russian Border

3.1.Russia as a “Domineering influence” (1884)

In his 1884 History manual, the Author presented the reader with his views on Russian expansion by tying Russian history to the concept of civilization and using it to warn of Russia’s capabilities of encroaching on the sovereignty of Eastern European states.

Consiglieri Pedroso first mentions Russian development under Peter I (1672-1725). According to him, the czar was “the creator of Modern Russia”4, who had focused on modernizing the country by, among other things, instituting a larger focus on the teaching of “mathematics, astronomy and nautical knowledge” 5 , implementing all the progressive [ideas] that his voyages to

Holland, Germany and France allowed him to come in contact with.” 6 His violence in implementing them was, according to the author, justified by the need to bring Russia up to par with the level of development other European nations had already reached. In his own words, by the need of “transforming a country in such a state of rudeness.”7 To implement his reforms, Peter I focused on economic development, access to the sea and military modernization 8 . Influenced by the ideas he had brought back from his European travels9, the czar

2Idem, Ibidem.

3Idem, Vinte dias na Rússia: impressões de uma primeira viagem, Lisbon, Feitoria dos Livros Livros 2015, p. 144.

4Idem, Op. cit., p. 330.

5Idem, Ibidem, p. 330-331.

6Idem, Ibidem.

7Idem, Ibidem, p. 331.

8CRACRAFT, James, the Revolution of Peter the Great, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2003, pp. 32-35.

9Idem, Ibidem, pp. 75-76.

129