Transcriber’s Note: As a result of editorial shortcomings in the
original, some reference letters in the text don’t have matching entries
in the reference-lists, and vice versa.




THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD

[Illustration: HUME]




                             THE HISTORIANS’
                                 HISTORY
                               OF THE WORLD

     A comprehensive narrative of the rise and development of nations
    as recorded by over two thousand of the great writers of all ages:
     edited, with the assistance of a distinguished board of advisers
                           and contributors, by

                       HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS, LL.D.

                              [Illustration]

                          IN TWENTY-FIVE VOLUMES

                   VOLUME XVII--SWITZERLAND (Concluded)

                            RUSSIA AND POLAND

                           The Outlook Company
                                 New York

                         The History Association
                                  London

                                   1905

                             COPYRIGHT, 1904,
                         BY HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS.

                          _All rights reserved._

                       Press of J. J. Little & Co.
                            New York, U. S. A.




Contributors, and Editorial Revisers.


    Prof. Adolf Erman, University of Berlin.
    Prof. Joseph Halévy, College of France.
    Prof. Thomas K. Cheyne, Oxford University.
    Prof. Andrew C. McLaughlin, University of Michigan.
    Prof. David H. Müller, University of Vienna.
    Prof. Alfred Rambaud, University of Paris.
    Capt. F. Brinkley, Tokio.

    Prof. Eduard Meyer, University of Berlin.
    Dr. James T. Shotwell, Columbia University.
    Prof. Theodor Nöldeke, University of Strasburg.
    Prof. Albert B. Hart, Harvard University.
    Dr. Paul Brönnle, Royal Asiatic Society.
    Dr. James Gairdner, C.B., London.

    Prof. Ulrich von Wilamowitz Möllendorff, University of Berlin.
    Prof. H. Marczali, University of Budapest.
    Dr. G. W. Botsford, Columbia University.
    Prof. Julius Wellhausen, University of Göttingen.
    Prof. Franz R. von Krones, University of Graz.
    Prof. Wilhelm Soltau, Zabern University.

    Prof. R. W. Rogers, Drew Theological Seminary.
    Prof. A. Vambéry, University of Budapest.
    Prof. Otto Hirschfeld, University of Berlin.
    Dr. Frederick Robertson Jones, Bryn Mawr College.
    Baron Bernardo di San Severino Quaranta, London.
    Dr. John P. Peters, New York.

    Prof. Adolph Harnack, University of Berlin.
    Dr. S. Rappoport, School of Oriental Languages, Paris.
    Prof. Hermann Diels, University of Berlin.
    Prof. C. W. C. Oman, Oxford University.
    Prof. W. L. Fleming, University of West Virginia.
    Prof. I. Goldziher, University of Vienna.
    Prof. R. Koser, University of Berlin.




CONTENTS


                               VOLUME XVII

                        SWITZERLAND (_Concluded_)

                                                                      PAGE

                                CHAPTER V

  THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY                                                 1

    The conspiracy of Hentzi; the insurrection of Fribourg, 1.
    Disorders at Geneva, 4. Tumults in Neuchâtel, 8. Aristocracy
    and democracy, 9. Davel, 10. Federal relations of the Swiss
    states, 13. Switzerland feels the shock of the French
    Revolution, 16. French troops in Switzerland, 20. The
    capitulation of Berne; the Constitution Unitaire, 23.

                               CHAPTER VI

  SWITZERLAND SINCE 1798                                                26

    Changes of constitutions and administrations, 26. The
    evacuation of Switzerland; the nomination of deputies, 28.
    The act of mediation (1813 A.D.); Cabals follow Napoleon’s
    fall, 30. Switzerland develops along new lines, 35. Reaction
    and reform; effects of the revolution of July, 35. Siebener
    Konkordat; disputes over asylum and religion, 38. The
    Sonderbund War, 39. Colonel Dufour is made commander of the
    army, 40. Preparations of the Sonderbund, 41. The capitulation
    of Fribourg and Lucerne end the Sonderbund, 42.

  BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS                       48

  A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SWISS HISTORY                               49

  A CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF SWITZERLAND                 56

                                 RUSSIA

  INTRODUCTION. THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA. By Dr. A.
    S. Rappoport                                                        71

                                CHAPTER I

  LAND AND PEOPLE AND EARLY HISTORY (TO 1054 A.D.)                      79

    Extent, configuration, and climate, 79. The similarity of
    European and Asiatic Russia, 80. The dualism of north and
    south, 81. The soil of the Black Lands and the Steppes,
    82. Diversity of races, 84. The Finns, 85. Ethnological
    distribution of religions, 87. The Great Russians and the
    Little Russians, 91. Social and political organisation,
    92. The treaty with Constantinople, 96. The first written
    document of Russian history, 97. The reign of Igor, 97. The
    regency of Olga, 99. Nestor tells of the baptism of Olga, 100.
    Sviatoslav; the victory of north over south, 101. Nestor’s
    account of Vladimir’s conversion, 103. The death of Vladimir
    the Christian, 106. Sviatopolk is succeeded by Iaroslav, 107.
    Iaroslav’s code of laws, 110. Iaroslav dies, 115.

                               CHAPTER II

  THE PERIOD OF THE PRINCIPALITIES (1054-1224 A.D.)                    117

    The character of the principalities, 117. The unity of the
    principalities, 120. The theory of succession, 121. Civil wars,
    122. Vsevolod, 124. Sviatopolk, 124. Vladimir Monomakh, 126.
    The “Instruction” of Vladimir Monomakh, 127. The fall of Kiev
    and the rise of Suzdal, 129.

                               CHAPTER III

  THE TIME OF TATAR DOMINATION (1235-1462 A.D.)                        133

    Jenghiz Khan; the Tatar invasion, 134. Influences of Tatar
    domination, 136. Alexander Nevski, 139. Death of Alexander
    Nevski; appreciation of his character, 142. The grand
    princedom, 143. The growing ascendency of Moscow, 144. The
    principle of direct succession, 148. The battle of the Don or
    Kulikovo, 151. Significance of the battle of Kulikovo, 152.
    The destruction of Moscow, 153. The death of Dmitri Donskoi;
    his place in history, 154. The reign of Vasili Dmitrievitch,
    156. Vasili Vasilievitch (afterwards called “The Blind” or
    “The Dark”), 158. Jonas becomes metropolitan, 159. A review
    of the internal development during the Tatar period, 160. The
    influence of Tatar domination, 163. Wallace’s view, 164.

                               CHAPTER IV

  FROM IVAN THE GREAT TO IVAN THE TERRIBLE (1462-1584 A.D.)            166

    Accession of Ivan (III) Vasilievitch, 166. Character and aims
    of Ivan, 168. Ivan Vasilievitch marries the Greek princess
    Sophia, 170. The growth of autocracy, 171. Subjugation of the
    republics, 172. The final overthrow of the Tatars, 176. Affairs
    of Lithuania, 179. Last years of Ivan; inheritance left to his
    sons, 181. Appreciations of Ivan Vasilievitch, 181. Accession
    of Vasili Ivanovitch, 184. Wars with Lithuania, 184. Wars with
    the Tatars, 188. The growing power of Russia, 189. Maxine the
    Greek, 190. Private life of Vasili Ivanovitch; his death, 192.
    A forecast of the reign of Ivan (IV) the Terrible, 192. The
    minority of Ivan IV, 194. Ivan assumes the reins of government,
    196. The discovery of Siberia, 197. The restraining influences
    of Anastasia, 198. Ivan’s atrocities, 199. The Polish invasion,
    200. The reign of terror, 202. The march against Novgorod, 203.
    Carnage in Moscow, 205. The struggle for Livonia, 207. Projects
    of alliance with England, 208. Death of Ivan the Terrible, 208.
    Karamzin’s estimate of Ivan, 209. Ivan the Terrible compared
    with Peter the Great, 212.

                                CHAPTER V

  THE CENTURY AFTER IVAN THE TERRIBLE (1584-1682 A.D.)                 213

    Character of Boris Godunov, 214. War with Sweden, 215. Serfdom,
    218. Death of Dmitri, 219. The reign of Boris, 222. The false
    Dmitri appears, 224. Career and murder of Demetrius, 227.
    The false Dmitri; marriage and death, 228. Vasili Ivanovitch
    Shuiski, 229. Accession of the house of Romanov, 237. The
    Cossacks, 239. Last years of Michael, 242. Alexis, 243. Feodor,
    247.

                               CHAPTER VI

  PETER THE GREAT (1684-1725 A.D.)                                     249

    The childhood and youth of Peter, 251. Peter asserts control,
    253. Military reforms, 255. Azov taken from the Turks, 256.
    Schemes of conquest, 258. Conspiracy to murder Peter, 258.
    Peter travels to acquire knowledge, 259. Peter in Holland,
    England and Austria, 261. The insurrection of the Strelitz,
    265. War with Sweden, 265. Rallying from defeat, 267. The
    antecedents of an empress, 268. Military success: Foundation of
    St. Petersburg, 269. Renewed hostilities, 272. Polish affairs,
    273. Charles XII invades Russia, 275. Revolt of the Cossacks of
    the Don; Mazeppa, 277. Mazeppa joins Charles XII; Pultowa, 279.
    Peter and the Powers, 281. Catherine acknowledged as Peter’s
    wife, 281. War with Turkey, 282. Catherine’s heroism: the Peace
    of Pruth, 283. War with Sweden, 285. A naval victory; Peter’s
    triumph, 286. Peter at the height of power, 287. Peter’s second
    European tour, 289. The czarevitch Alexis disinherited, 294.
    Death of the czarevitch Alexis, 297. Domestic affairs, 299.
    Renewed hostilities with Sweden, 302. Peter as administrator,
    304. The church and the aristocracy, 309. Commerce with the
    East, 311. War with Persia, 312. Last years and death of Peter,
    314. Soloviev’s estimate of Peter’s work, 318. Kostomarov’s
    estimate of Peter, 323. Haxthausen’s estimate of Peter’s
    influence, 326.

                               CHAPTER VII

  CATHERINE I TO PETER III (1725-1762 A.D.)                            327

    Catherine I (1725-1727 A.D.), 327. Peter II (1727-1730 A.D.),
    328. Anna Ivanovna, 331. War with Turkey, 335. Internal
    administration, 337. Biron the favourite, 338. Death of Anna,
    (1740 A.D.); the succession, 339. A Russian estimate of Anna
    and of Biron, 340. The nominal reign of Ivan VI, 341. Anna of
    Brunswick assumes the regency, 342. Sweden renews the war,
    342. Successful conspiracy against the regent, 345. Elizabeth
    Petrovna, 350. Foreign affairs, 352. Antecedents of the
    future Peter III, 353. The future Catherine II appears, 354.
    Court intrigues: the death of Elizabeth, 355. Spread of art,
    literature, and education under Elizabeth, 356. Bain’s estimate
    of Elizabeth, 359. Peter III, 360. Impolitic acts of Peter III,
    362. Catherine plots against the Czar, 364. Catherine usurps
    the crown, 367. Death of Peter III, 368.

                              CHAPTER VIII

  THE AGE OF CATHERINE II (1762-1796 A.D.)                             372

    Catherine’s own views on Russia, 373. The Polish succession;
    the policy of the nations, 376. Poland is dismembered, 378. War
    with Turkey, 380. The Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji, 383. The
    migration of the Kalmucks, 383. The Kalmucks reach China, 385.
    Insurrections and pretenders, 386. Favouritism under Catherine
    II, 387. The rise of Potemkin, 389. The official status of the
    favourite, 392. Potemkin’s schemes of conquest, 392. General
    Suvarov, 396. The favourites Lanskoi and Iermolov, 396. Joseph
    II visits Catherine; A spectacular tour, 397. Outbreak of the
    Austro-Russian war with Turkey, 399. The Swedish war, 400.
    The campaign of 1790; the Treaty of Varela, 403. Progress
    of the Austro-Russian war with Turkey, 405. Successes of
    Laudon, 405. Victories of Suvarov, 406. Austrian and Russian
    valour; Austria’s withdrawal, 408. Russia prosecutes the
    war; the storm of Ismail, 409. European intervention; the
    Treaty of Jassy, 410. The death of Potemkin (1792 A.D.);
    Ségur’s characterisation, 411. The question of the imperial
    succession, 413. The last of the favourites, 415. Debaucheries
    at Catherine’s court, 416. The subjugation and final partition
    of Poland, 417. The annexation of Courland, 420. Last years and
    death of Catherine, 421. A Russian estimate of Catherine, 422.

                               CHAPTER IX

  RUSSIA IN THE NAPOLEONIC EPOCH (1796-1815 A.D.)                      426

    Early measures of the reign of Paul I, 426. Imperial
    eccentricities, 427. Paul’s foreign policy, 432. The campaigns
    of Korsakov and Suvarov, 433. Paul reconciled with France,
    436. The armed neutrality, 438. Assassination of Paul, 440.
    The accession of Alexander I (1801 A.D.): His early reforms,
    443. The incorporation of Georgia, 444. Russia joins the third
    coalition, 445. The campaign of Austerlitz, 446. The campaign
    of Eylau and Friedland, 451. Meeting of Alexander and Napoleon
    at Tilsit, 455. Russia declares war against England, 456. The
    conquest of Finland, 457. War with Persia and with Turkey, 459.
    Congress of Erfurt, 463. Renewed war with Turkey, 466. War with
    Napoleon, 468. Napoleon invades Russia, 471. The abandonment of
    Moscow, 473. The retreat of the grand army, 476. Napoleon on
    the road to Smolensk, 477. The battle of Viazma; Smolensk is
    found evacuated, 480. Kutusov’s policy, 481. Campaigns of the
    Grand Alliance, 484. Alexander I at the capitulation of Paris,
    487. The Russian occupation of Paris, 488. Alexander I and
    the congress of Vienna, 490. Alexander’s religious mysticism;
    Baroness Krüdener, 493. Alexander’s holy alliance, 496.

                                CHAPTER X

  ALEXANDER I, MYSTIC AND HUMANITARIAN (1801-1825 A.D.)                499

    The complex character of Alexander I, 499. Ministerial
    influences; Speranski and Araktcheiev, 501. Educational
    advances; the Lycée and the library, 502. Expulsion of the
    Jesuits from St. Petersburg, 504. Liberation of the peasants of
    the Baltic provinces, 505. The emperor and the quakers, 506.
    Secret societies under Alexander I, 510. Closing of the masonic
    lodges, 513. Turgeniev’s comment on the secret societies, 514.
    Literary activity of the period, 516. Alexander I as a patron
    of literature, 517. Failure of the Polish experiments, 518.
    Constitutional projects, 520. The military colonies, 521.
    Alexander and the great uprising, 523. The great inundation
    of 1824, 525. The close of Alexander’s reign, 527. Death of
    Alexander I, 530. Alison’s estimate of Alexander I, 531.
    Skrine’s estimate of Alexander I, 532.

                               CHAPTER XI

  THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I (1825-1855 A.D.)                             533

    The interregnum, 533. The accession of Nicholas, 537. Trial of
    the conspirators, 539. The coronation of Nicholas, 539. Changes
    in internal administration, 540. Reforms in the administration
    of justice, 541. War with Persia, 543. War with Turkey, 544.
    The Polish insurrection, 545. The outbreak of cholera and the
    riots occasioned by it, 548. The war in the Caucasus, 550.
    The emperor’s conservative patriotism, 555. Unveiling of the
    monument at Borodino, 556. Death or retirement of the old
    ministers, 557. Great fire in the winter palace, 558. The
    emperor Nicholas’ views of Louis Napoleon, 559. Events leading
    up to the Crimean War, 560. Outbreak of the Crimean War, 562.
    France, England, and Turkey in alliance, 562. The taking of
    Bomarsund, 563. The seat of war transferred to the Crimea, 564.
    The battle of the Alma, 565. The seizure of Balaklava, 570.
    The advance on Sebastopol, 571. The Battle of Balaklava, 572.
    The Battle of Inkerman (November 5th, 1854), 573. Death of the
    emperor Nicholas I, 576. Skrine’s estimate of Nicholas, 576.

                               CHAPTER XII

  ALEXANDER II, THE CZAR LIBERATOR (1855-1881 A.D.)                    578

    The fall of Sebastopol, 579. Amelioration in the condition of
    the soldier, 585. The emancipation of the serfs, 586. Laws
    and social rights granted to the peasants, 588. Text of the
    imperial proclamation, 589. Effects of the new conditions,
    593. Abolition of corporal punishment, 595. Reforms in the
    courts of justice, 596. The Polish insurrection of 1863, 597.
    The subjection of the Caucasus, 598. The taking of Schamyl,
    599. Wars with Khokand and Bokhara, 600. A glance at the past
    history of Bokhara, 600. The conquest of Khiva, 601. The
    Russo-Turkish War, 602. Spread of education and civilisation,
    606. The death of Alexander II, 607.

                              CHAPTER XIII

  REACTION, EXPANSION, AND THE WAR WITH JAPAN (1881-1904 A.D.)         610

    The reactionary policy under Alexander III, 611. The
    Russification of the provinces, 613. Foreign policy; the French
    alliance, 614. The conquest of the Tekke-Turcomans, 615.
    Accession of Nicholas II, 617. Kuropatkin on the Russian policy
    of expansion, 619. Russia in Manchuria, 621. The war with
    Japan, 622.

                                APPENDIX

                  DOCUMENTS RELATING TO RUSSIAN HISTORY

  I--THE TREATY OF PARIS                                               626

  II--THE TREATY OF BERLIN, 1878                                       631

  III--THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE                                      634

  BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS                      641

  A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RUSSIAN HISTORY                            643

  A CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA                     653


[Illustration]




SWITZERLAND (_Concluded_)




[Illustration]




CHAPTER V. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

    There is an evil worse than war and that is the debasement
    of peoples. The wounds of war may be healed, but moral
    degradation leads nations to the tomb. During the peace that
    followed the battle of Villmergen up to the time of the French
    revolution Switzerland suffered more calamities than in all
    the wars against Burgundy and Austria. For during the eighty
    years of repose during which the swords of the Winckelrieds,
    the Fontanas, the Halhwyls, and the Erlachs were tarnishing,
    the rust of egoism and of pride succeeded in eating away the
    tablets on which was engraven the loyal union of the ancient
    Swiss; and like a corpse the old confederation was rotting
    away. In vain degenerate sons decorated pompously the corpse of
    the achievements of their ancestors, that they might conceal
    the fact that the spirit which animated it aforetime had left
    it.--ZSCHOKKE.[b]


THE CONSPIRACY OF HENTZI; THE INSURRECTION AT FRIBOURG

The outward peace enjoyed by the confederacy during the eighteenth
century (the last of its existence in its primitive form) was contrasted
by incessant inward disturbances. The first of these which claims our
attention is the conspiracy of Hentzi at Bern. Here, as in most towns of
the confederacy, a more and more formal and regular aristocracy had grown
up by degrees in the course of centuries. From time immemorial the powers
of government had been held by the avoyer and council. For the protection
of the burghers against the encroachments of the council, and of that
body against the influence of the multitude, an assembly of two hundred
of the most respectable burghers was formed, the members of which were
annually elected.

The most important acts, which imposed duties on every burgher, not only
for himself but for his posterity, were often brought before the whole
body of citizens, and even country people; the more so as at that time
a few villages constituted the whole domain of Bern. The continual
aggrandisement of the state rendered obsolete the fundamental laws of
its constitution, which became imperceptibly modified in proportion as
political emergencies appeared to require alterations. When the power
of Bern was doubled by the conquest of the Vaud, the assembly of the
burghers ceased to be thought of. The dignities of the state became
hereditary in those families which had once obtained a seat in the
great council. It is true that the other burghers remained eligible to
public functions; but it was rarely indeed, and generally by means of
intermarriages, that a new family raised itself to the rank of the rulers
_de facto_.

[Sidenote: [1743-1749 A.D.]]

The administration of these ruling families was, in general, not devoid
of wisdom and equity; and, in fact, the principal subject of complaint
was that participation in state affairs had ceased to be open to all. It
was, however, precisely this system of aristocratic exclusion which was
felt so insupportably by many of those who were subjected to it, that so
early as 1710 attempts were made to break it up. These were renewed with
increased vigour, in 1743, by six and twenty burghers, who combined to
petition the council for the revival of a greater equality of rights in
favour of the general body of citizens. These adventurous men incurred
the censure of the authorities, and were placed under arrest in their
houses or banished.

Amongst the exiles was Samuel Hentzi, a man of no ordinary talent and
spirit. He had fixed on Neuchâtel as the place of his banishment; the
term of which was shortened by the favour of the authorities. On his
return, the embarrassed state in which he found his domestic economy,
and the ill success of his efforts to obtain a lucrative office, may
have mingled with other motives in inducing him to take the lead in a
desperate undertaking of a little band of malcontents, who, without
money, arms, or even unity of purpose, dreamed of overturning a
government strong in its own resources, and sure of support from the
whole Helvetic body, and of instituting equality of rights among all
burghers, and appointment to all offices by lot. Yet, with all their
root and branch work, the conspirators had no idea of remedying the
real defects of the state, of satisfying the prevalent and increasing
discontents of the Vaud, or of procuring an extension of political
rights to the whole people: for, in the plan of a constitution annexed
to their mediated manifesto, exclusive regard was paid to the burghers
at Bern; and the rest of the people would hardly have been bettered by
their accession to the dignities which had hitherto been engrossed by the
ruling families. The 13th of July, 1749, was fixed for the execution of
the plans of the conspirators; but many of their own number had opened
their eyes by this time to the utter impossibility of success, produced
by the disunion and imprudence of their colleagues--to the passion
and cupidity of some, and the atrocious hopes of murder and plunder
entertained by others.

No man felt more sensibly the criminal views of his party than the only
man of ability and public spirit among them, Hentzi. He would not betray
those with whom he had long pursued the same object; but he made an
attempt to save himself by flight from further participation in their
plans and foreseen destiny. It was too late: a betrayer had already
done his work. Hentzi and other leaders of the party were taken and
beheaded during the first exasperation of the government. Sentence of
death was also pronounced upon some who had made their escape; others
were imprisoned or banished, but soon afterwards pardoned. On embarking
with her two sons to quit the Helvetic territory, the wife of Hentzi
exclaimed, “I would rather see these children sink in the Rhine-stream
than they should not one day learn to avenge the murder of their
father.” However, when the sons came to manhood, they displayed more
magnanimity than their mother; and one of them, who rose to distinction
in the service of the Netherlands, requited with good offices to the
burghers of his native town the unmerited misfortunes which they had
brought upon his family.

In Fribourg--where, in olden times, equality of rights for all burghers
had been settled as a principle--a no less close aristocracy had formed
itself than in Bern, since the middle of the seventeenth century. A few
houses, under the denomination of secret families, had contrived to
exclude, not only the country people, but a large proportion likewise
of the town burghers, from all participation in public affairs; and, in
1684, admission into the number of these secret families was rendered
wholly impossible. From thenceforwards, constantly increasing discontent
displayed itself both in town and country. Several very moderate
proposals for alleviating the pressure of this oligarchy were rejected
with such haughtiness by the government, that disaffection swelled into
revolt.

[Sidenote: [1781 A.D.]]

In 1781 Peter Nicholas Chenaux of la Tour de Trême, John Peter Raccaud,
and an advocate of Gruyères of the name of Castellaz, formed a league for
the achievement of a higher degree of freedom. First they endeavoured
to work upon the people by fair promises. Then Chenaux, at the head of
a select band of fifty or sixty, undertook to terrify the government
into a compromise. But the gates being closed on the party, and the
walls manned with armed burghers, this undertaking ended in open revolt.
The toll of alarm-bells summoned up the country people from every hill
and valley in the canton to assist in the coercion of the domineering
capital. A body of nearly three thousand men encamped before the walls
of Fribourg, and further aid was hourly expected. The terrified burghers
instantly called for the armed intervention of Bern, and the latter
town detached a part of its guard without delay. Three hundred dragoons
marched upon Fribourg, and were to be followed by fourteen hundred foot.
The burghers of Fribourg now thought themselves strong enough to meet
force with force. The garrison made a sally from the town, and on the
first sight of the Bernese flag, not to mention the heavy artillery,
the malcontents solicited an armistice. The surrender of their arms and
of the ringleaders was demanded as preliminary to all negotiation. The
people refused the latter of these conditions, but fled panic-struck on
the first attack, without making any resistance.

The whole affair would have ended without bloodshed, had not the leader
Chenaux been murdered in his flight by Henry Rosier, himself one of the
popular party. The two remaining heads of the insurgents got clear off:
Chenaux’s corpse was delivered to the public executioner, and his head
fixed on a spear above the Romont gate. Sentence of death was passed on
Castellaz and Raccaud, the two fugitives. Several others were visited
with less degrees of punishment: new reinforcements from Bern, Solothurn,
and Lucerne secured the town from any recurrence of tumult, and their
ambassadors strove to promote the restoration of tranquillity. It was
ordered to be proclaimed, from all the pulpits, that the council was
well disposed to protect the old and well attested rights of its loving
subjects, as well as to hear, with its never-failing graciousness, every
suitable and respectful representation. Three days were allotted to
each commune to lay their complaints and wishes before the government,
through delegates. But when months elapsed without the popular grievances
having obtained a hearing, the loss of Chenaux began to be appreciated.
Multitudes assembled round his tomb weeping and praying: pilgrimages,
as if to the tomb of a saint, were made thither with banners, and with
crucifixes. Vainly were these demonstrations of feeling stigmatised,
by the government as crime against the state, by the bishop as impious
profanations. They were neither to be checked by posting sentinels, nor
fulminating excommunications. They were the last sad consolation of the
people--the last substitute for hopes that were already given up.


DISORDERS AT GENEVA (1707-1782 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1707-1714 A.D.]]

Shortly after the establishment of Genevan independence, it had been
decreed by the general assembly, for the better suppression of hostile
attempts against their hard-won freedom, that whoever should propose
a change in the government of Geneva should be considered to deserve
capital punishment. This did not, however, hinder alterations being made,
at different times, in various parts of the constitution. So early as
the middle of the sixteenth century, the laws were revised and improved.
The advantageous situation of the town and the long duration of peace
promoted the increase of wealth in Geneva, and the rise of many families
to opulence. These families aimed at separating themselves from their
fellow citizens, even in their places of habitation, by settling in the
upper part of the town, near the council-house, while the other burghers
inhabited the lower town. The principal families already regarded
themselves as a standing patriciate; and even the name of patrician came
into use in the acts of council.

The year 1707 witnessed an effort of the inferior burghers to wrest from
the principal families a part of their usurped power, and to introduce
amendments in the constitution. In this emergency, the council invoked
the mediation of Bern and Zurich, received a confederate garrison, and
maintained itself by force of arms and by execution of its principal
antagonists. A renewal of the disturbances which had been quelled by
such violent measures, was produced, in 1714, by the imposition of
an arbitrary tax by the council for the enlargement and completion
of the fortifications of the town. This stretch of power occasioned
great discontent among the burghers; bitter attacks and censures on
the government appeared in print; and the more strictly these were
prohibited, they obtained the more eager perusal and credence.

One of the arch-promoters of the rising storm was Michael Ducrest, a
Genevan burgher and noble, an officer in the army, and a member of the
great council. This man opposed himself with extraordinary vehemence to
the building of the new fortifications, and heaped offensive charges
on the partisans of the measure. The government condemned him to
recant, and, on his evading compliance by flight, a penal sentence was
pronounced against him. New attempts which he made to excite disturbance
were followed by a sentence of perpetual imprisonment. This sentence
could not be put in execution, as Ducrest had taken refuge under a
foreign jurisdiction, where he set at defiance the council of Geneva,
and provoked that body to such a degree by his writings and intrigues
against them, that sentences more and more severe were heaped upon his
head, until at length the most offensive of his writings was torn by
the hangman, and his effigy was suspended from the gallows. His person,
however, enjoyed impunity till 1744, when he was taken into custody in
the territory of Bern. The government of Geneva did not thirst for his
blood, and was content with his perpetual imprisonment. Even in this
situation he contrived to mix in Hentzi’s conspiracy, was confined in the
castle of Aarburg, and closed, in extreme old age, as a state prisoner,
a life which he had spent in incessant labours in the cause of democracy.

[Sidenote: [1734-1738 A.D.]]

Meanwhile Geneva continued to be agitated by party manœuvres and popular
discontents. In the year 1734 a body of eight hundred burghers addressed
themselves to the heads of the government, desiring the curtailment
of the projected fortifications, and the repeal of the tax levied for
that object. The council only replied by preparations for defence:
firearms were transported to the council hall; barricades erected in
the approaches thither as well as in those to the upper town, where the
principal class of burghers lived, and the garrison kept in readiness to
act on the first signal. All this apparatus was regarded with mistrust by
the burghers, who were still farther provoked by reports of the approach
of Bernese troops, and by the removal of a part of the town artillery to
the upper regions, while two and twenty other pieces were spiked. The
multitude made themselves masters of the city guard, pointed field-pieces
on the road by which the troops from Bern were expected, and tumultuously
demanded the convocation of the burgher assembly, the sovereign authority
of Geneva. The council contrived to win over the members of this body so
far that they voted unanimously the completion of the fortifications and
the continuance of the tax for ten years. The declaration of an amnesty
and improvement of the criminal and judicial administration formed the
rest of their business. The burghers laid down their arms and returned to
their ordinary vocations; so that an embassy which arrived from Zurich
and Bern found Geneva in a state of apparent tranquillity.

Permanent ill will was fostered only against the syndic Trembley,
commander of the garrison and conductor of the defensive preparations
of the council. Whatever this person had done by the instructions of
the council was laid to his individual account, and added to the mass
of dark imputations which were heaped on him, as the head of an already
obnoxious family. He plumed himself on the favour of the confederate
ambassadors, and forfeited thus the last chance of retrieving himself in
the public opinion. The remembrance of the armed intervention of Zurich
and Bern, in 1707, was too recent to admit of their ambassadors doing
any good to Trembley’s cause through the medium of pacific intercession.
The departure of these embassies removed the only screen of the syndic:
he demanded his dismission, which was refused him, in order to deprive
him of his functions more ignominiously. No resistance or artifice of
a powerful connection could save him: the tumults were renewed with
increased fury; and the question soon ceased to regard the person or
party of Trembley, and became that of the triumph of the aristocratic or
democratic principle at Geneva. In 1737, the council ventured several
arrests, and the consequence was that the whole body of burghers rushed
to arms, and the council was defeated, not without bloodshed. A garrison
from Bern and Zurich was thrown into the town: the ambassadors of these
cantons, in concert with the French ambassadors, undertook the office
of mediators, and in 1738 framed a constitution which set limits to the
assumptions of the council and the principal families, and was gratefully
and all but unanimously accepted as a fundamental law by the burghers.

[Sidenote: [1762-1768 A.D.]]

After four and twenty years of repose and prosperity, occasion was given
to new political movements at Geneva by a subject of a nature purely
speculative. It pleased more than one government about this time to apply
the doom of fire, which had been visited by inquisitors on the ill fated
victims of their zealotry, to certain of the more remarkable works of
the human intellect--a proceeding highly calculated to draw the eyes of
the reading public on productions which seemed worthy of such signal
condemnation. On the first appearance of that work of Rousseau which
opened views so novel and so striking on the moral and still more on the
physical education of man, the parliament of Paris had the work burned
by the hangman, and sentenced Rousseau to imprisonment, which he only
escaped by flight. Both of these decisions were immediately repeated by
the council of Geneva [1762], which improved on them by launching a like
condemnatory sentence against the _Contrat Social_ of the same author. It
was in vain that Rousseau’s connections demanded a copy of the sentence
against him: their reiterated demands, though supported by a large body
of burghers, were rejected by the council. The popular party, which
vindicated the right of the burgher assembly to bring up representations
or remonstrances against the council on any subject under discussion,
distinguished themselves by the name of representatives. Their claims
were met by asserting a _droit négatif_, or right of rejection, on the
strength of which the council pretended that nothing that should not have
been previously consented to by themselves could come before the general
assembly. The partisans of the council were called negatives.

[Illustration: JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU

(1712-1778)]

The tranquillity of Geneva was once more disturbed to such a degree by
passionate discourses, party writings, and manœuvres that the ambassadors
of Zurich, Bern, and France again interfered, and pronounced themselves
in favour of the council. The representatives rejected their decision,
the ambassadors left Geneva, French troops advanced on the town, and all
trade and intercourse were suspended. But the French ministry speedily
became lukewarm in the cause of the negatives. The latter, when they
found themselves abandoned by all foreign aid, apprehending what might
ensue, patched up a peace with the representatives. By a compact closed
in March, 1768, the burghers acquired valuable rights, and even a third
party, that of the so-called _natifs_ or _habitans_ (old inhabitants,
excluded by birth from taking part in public affairs), obtained extended
franchises, and was flattered with a prospect of participation in all the
rights of citizenship.

But on recovery from the first panic, reciprocal hatred soon revived. The
negatives were vexed at having made such important sacrifices, and aimed
at resuming all their former ascendency. Moreover they found a favourable
hearing in the French court, which had long viewed with an evil eye
the trade and wealth of Geneva, desired to raise the neighbouring
Versoix to a commercial town, and hoped, by encouraging tumult and
disorder at Geneva, either to annihilate its industry and opulence, or
ultimately to bring it under the sovereignty of France. French emissaries
therefore aided the negatives in spiriting the natifs up against the
representatives, by promising to confer on them the franchises withheld
by the latter. But the representatives flew to arms, took possession
of the gates, and speedily succeeded in disarming the unpractised and
undisciplined mob of natifs. Well aware by what manœuvres the natifs had
been led to revolt, they prudently abstained from taking any vindictive
measures against them; but, on the contrary, imparted to them, in 1781,
that equality of rights which had been promised by the negatives, and
endeavoured thus to win them over permanently to the common cause.

[Sidenote: [1782 A.D.]]

The council, on the other hand, impelled by French influence, declared
the newly conferred rights illegally extorted, and invoked the mediation
of Bern and Zurich. But, betwixt representative stubbornness and
negative assumption, the ambassadors of these towns could exert but
limited influence. They essayed to put an end to disputes by amicable
arrangements, but were baffled by the intrigues of the French court,
which was resolved to recognise no democratical system on its frontiers,
and soon proceeded to open force in support of its secret policy. The
first act of aggression was to garrison Versoix; a measure which gave
just offence to Zurich and Bern, who thereupon renounced all adhesion to
the mediation of 1738, and left the Genevans to their own discretion.
France also declared she would mix no more in the affairs of Geneva; the
government was overthrown and a new constitution established.

Zurich and Bern now declared formally and coldly that they could not
acknowledge a government erected by revolt. Still more indignation was
exhibited by France and Savoy, who entered into a league for the coercion
of the town. Bern, too, joined this league in 1782, that the destiny of
Geneva, that _point d’appui_ of her own dominion, might not be trusted
altogether to the caprices of foreign powers. On the appearance of the
allied troops before the gates of Geneva, the burghers, unaware of the
bad state of their defences, swore to bury themselves in the ruins of
their native town rather than yield. But when the cannon of the besiegers
was advanced up to their walls, and the alternative of desperate
resistance or surrender was offered, the disunited city opened her gates
without stroke of sword, after the principal heads of the representative
party had taken to flight.

Mortal dread accompanied the victorious troops as they entered Geneva.
Many had reason to tremble for their lives, their liberty, and
possessions. No punishments, however, were inflicted, excepting only
the banishment of the principal popular leaders; but the rights of the
burghers were almost entirely annihilated by the arbitrary arrangements
of the victors; the government was invested by them with almost unlimited
power, and proceeded under their auspices to prohibit all secret
societies, military exercises, books and pamphlets on recent events, and
to reinforce the garrison by twelve hundred men under foreign leaders.
Thus the town was reduced to utter subjection, and depopulated by exile
and emigration. From thenceforwards commerce and enterprise fell into
decay; and for seven long years a forced, unnatural calm dwelt in Geneva.

During these years the government was conducted with much mildness, the
administration of justice was impartial, that of the public revenues
incorrupt, art and industry were encouraged to the utmost. But nothing
could win the lost hearts of the people back to the government. The
iniquity of the so-called _règlement_ of 1782, the destruction of their
franchises, and the disarming of their persons, had wounded irrecoverably
the feelings of the burghers. The malcontents increased daily in number;
and even many former negatives now disowned their party, which had gone
greater lengths than they had ever wished or expected. At length, on
the death of Vergennes, the French minister, and arch enemy of Genevan
independence, the spirit of freedom awoke with all its ancient strength
in Geneva, and the burghers arose to break their slavish fetters. But the
recital of the subsequent occurrences must be postponed until we come to
notice the train of events fired by the French Revolution.


TUMULTS IN NEUCHÂTEL

[Sidenote: [1748-1767 A.D.]]

The little principality of Neuchâtel, the succession of which had
descended in the same line since the era of the second Burgundian
monarchy, came, in 1707, into the hands of the king of Prussia, as next
heir to the ancient house of Châlons. In 1748, Frederick II displayed
that love of economy which distinguished all his measures, by farming out
certain parts of the public revenue arising from tithes, ground rents,
and the crown lands; from the former administration of which many of
the inhabitants had enjoyed considerable profits. The loss of these, of
course, was felt as a grievance by the losers; but what was viewed with
more concern by the mass of the inhabitants was the prospect of still
further innovations. Accordingly five communes of the Val de Travers
transmitted their remonstrances through a delegate to Berlin; and their
example was soon afterwards followed throughout the principality.

The arrival of two commissaries, despatched by the king to Neuchâtel,
was viewed with discontent as an encroachment on its immunities.
Shortly after their coming, an attempt was made to put in execution the
proposed financial system, of which the only result was to provoke a
tumultuous popular movement. On the 7th of January, 1767, the burgher
assembly of Neuchâtel passed a resolution of exclusion from the rights
of citizenship, against all who should farm or guarantee the farming
of the revenues. On this the royal commissary, Von Derschau, brought a
suit before the council of Bern, against the town of Neuchâtel; and the
advocate-general, Gaudot, who had formerly been a popular favourite, much
to the surprise of his fellow-citizens, seceded to the royal side, and
thenceforwards gave his active assistance to the commissary.

The cause was decided at Bern (with some limitations) in the royal
favour. With regard to the resolutions of the Neuchâtel burghers, already
referred to, it was decreed that they should be cancelled in the presence
of the burgher assembly, and a public apology made to the vice-governor.
The costs of the whole process to be paid by the town. Gaudot, who had
attacked the civic immunities both by word and writing, naturally became
an object of popular indignation. By way of compensation, however, he
received a lucrative government office, along with the functions of
procurator-general, from which another man had been removed who possessed
the popular favour. He returned to Neuchâtel from Bern with the royal
plenipotentiaries. These and the vice-governor advised him to take up his
residence in the castle; but, in spite of their recommendations, Gaudot
thought fit to repair to his own residence. The same evening, clamour
and disturbance took place around the house, which the magistrates were
forced to protect by military force.

The next morning the mob returned in increased numbers, and was still
further exasperated by missiles being thrown down upon them. A carriage,
escorted by servants in the royal livery, which had been sent by the
king’s commissary for Gaudot, was knocked to pieces by the infuriated
multitude. Gaudot and his nephew now imprudently fired from the windows,
and their shots took effect, fatally for themselves. The exasperated
populace forced its way into the house; Gaudot was killed by three shots,
and the mob dispersed after the deed, with cries of “Long live the
king.” The chief actors in this tragedy escaped, and could be executed
only in effigy. The whole affair was ultimately compromised by the
benevolent moderation of the great Frederick; and terms of pacification
were accepted by the communes, which provided alike against arbitrary
government and popular turbulence.

On this occasion, Frederick displayed more generosity than would have
been shown by any cantonal government; and his conduct seemed to justify
the general reflection, which must often occur to the student of Swiss
history that when administrative abuses are introduced into a monarchy,
it only requires a well-disposed and enlightened prince to crush the
gang of official oppressors and extortioners; because such a prince is
powerfully backed in such measures by the public opinion. Whereas, when
the majority of the ruling class in misnamed republics is corrupted so
far as to speculate on the profits of malversation, it generally takes
care to recruit its ranks with new accomplices; or, at all events,
only to promote to public offices such men as will at least shut their
eyes to public abuses. The magnanimity of Frederick was but ill repaid
to his successor by the tumults which ensued in Neuchâtel on the
commencement of the French Revolution; and we have lately seen the same
misunderstandings, as in the last century, arise between the now canton
of Neuchâtel and its Prussian sovereign.


ARISTOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY

The democratical cantons, where the assembled population exercised
the supreme power in their _landsgemeinde_, held the lowest station,
in almost every respect, amongst the confederates. Narrowness of
mind and ignorant hatred of all innovation withstood every proposal
of improvement; while passion and prejudice, aided by the artifices
of demagogues, often occasioned acts of crying injustice. Judicial
proceedings were in the highest degree arbitrary; confession of crimes
was extracted by torture, which, indeed, was often employed when nothing
more remained to confess. Capital punishment, even for minor offences,
was by no means rare. Public offices, particularly that of bailiff or
land-vogt, were commonly conferred not on the worthiest but on the
highest bidder; and the proceeds of this ignominious traffic went to the
public treasury. Was it to be wondered at if these functionaries in their
turn set justice up to auction in their bailiwicks, and endeavoured to
recover their advances to the government by every sort of oppression of
its subjects?

[Sidenote: [1780 A.D.]]

Mental cultivation was extremely neglected in these cantons, scientific
establishments were rare, and those for education were, for the most
part, in the hands of the capuchins; whose _esprit de corps_ was at
least on one occasion beneficial, by preventing the admission of the
jesuits into the canton of Schwytz in 1758. Elsewhere, however, similar
influences produced worse effects. In Glarus, so late as 1780, an
unfortunate servant girl was executed as a witch, on the charge of having
lamed the leg of a child by magic, and having caused it to vomit pins.
Credulous souls were even found to believe the affirmation that the girl
had administered pin-seed through the medium of a magical cake, which had
afterwards borne its fruit within the body of the child. The political
relations of these cantons, in the period now before us, were of little
importance.

The constitutions of the aristocratical cantons had all of them this
circumstance in common, that not only the capital towns assumed the
rule of the whole canton, but the burghers of those towns themselves
were divided into ruling and non-ruling families, of which the former
monopolised admission to all places of honour. But the governments of
these cantons deserve to be treated of more at length.

Bern, which, in the first period after its foundation, had no domains
of any importance outside its walls, possessed in that immediately
preceding the French revolution a territory containing more than 400,000,
inhabitants. This considerable tract of land was administered by 250
ruling families, of which, however, only about sixty were in actual
possession of the government; and these again were divided into so-called
great and small families, and did not easily suffer others to rise to
an equality with them. The sovereign power resided in 299 persons, of
whom the great council was composed. A little council or senate of
five-and-twenty formed the executive. The rural districts and the Pays
de Vaud were governed by land-vogts or bailiffs. It was chiefly there
that discontent prevailed against the Bernese government. The nobles of
the Pays de Vaud were rendered wholly insensible to the real and solid
advantages secured to them by that government, by resentment of their
exclusion from all public employments. The peasants of that district, for
the most part subjects or bondsmen of the nobles, sighed under the weight
of feudal oppression and its accustomed offspring, poverty, neglected
culture, mental and moral abortion.


_Davel_

A singular attempt at revolt was made in 1723 by Major Daniel Abraham
Davel, a well-intentioned man, of excellent character, but a decided
political and religious enthusiast, possessed with the idea that he was
called by inspiration to emancipate the Vaud from Bern. He assembled
the regiment of militia which he commanded, under the pretext of a
review, and with these troops, who were altogether ignorant of his real
design, and unprovided with stores or ammunition, he surprised the town
of Lausanne at a point of time when all the Bernese land-vogts had gone
to Bern for the annual installation. Davel offered his aid for the
restoration of independence to the hastily assembled town council. He
found, however, no kindred spirit in that body; and the cautious citizens
put him off with fair words till a force was under arms sufficient to
crush him. Meanwhile his troops had discovered the real object of their
commander, and shrank from him in surprise and consternation. He himself
was arrested, cruelly tortured for the discovery of accomplices, of whom
he had none, and lastly beheaded.

A certain contempt of scholastic acquirements seemed the prevailing
tone at Bern; and school education naturally came to deserve the low
esteem which it met with. Accordingly those patrician youths who did
not serve in the army remained for the most part unemployed until they
obtained places under government. The establishment of what was called
the “exterior state” afforded but a superficial substitute for more solid
attainments, and initiated youth only too early in the petty intrigues
and jealousies of faction. This institution, which was also known by
the name of the “shadow state,” was intended to give the youth of the
ruling families opportunities for acquainting themselves with the forms
at least of public business, and of acquiring an unembarrassed address,
so important for republicans. It parodised the dignities and offices of
the state, the election of avoyers, councillors, and senators, had its
secretaries and functionaries of all ranks, and distributed by lot 120
vogtships, which for the most part took their names from ruined castles.

Without any sufficient evidence, some would refer to the era of the
Burgundian war the origin of this institution, which received the
sanction of government in 1687, and for which a council-house, far more
splendid than that which belonged to the actual government, was built in
1729. The seal of this “exterior state” bore an ape astride on a lobster,
and looking at himself in a mirror. These and similar traits of humour
seem to owe their descent to an era exceedingly remote from the measured
formality of later times.

The government of Lucerne, which with Solothurn and Fribourg formed the
remaining pure Swiss aristocracies, consisted of a little council of
six-and-thirty members, which, reinforced by sixty-four others, held
the sovereign authority. With regard to intellectual cultivation, the
most contradictory features were observable at Lucerne. On the one hand,
learning, enlightenment, and patriotism were hereditary distinctions
of some families; while, on the other hand, the mass was imbued with
ignorant fanaticism. On the one hand, the encroachments of the papacy
were resisted with inflexible firmness; while, on the other hand, the
clergy kept possession of a highly mischievous influence in the state.
On the one hand, a series of saints’ days and holidays was abolished, as
being dedicated to dissoluteness more than devotion; while, on the other
hand, we are horror-struck by the burning of a so-called heretic. In
1747, a court, consisting of four clergymen, sentenced Jacob Schmidli, a
man of blameless life, to be strangled, and then burned with his books
and writings, because he had not only read the Bible for his private
edification, but had explained and recommended it to others as the sole
true basis of religion. His wife, his six children, and seventy-one other
persons were banished, his house was burned to the ground by the hands
of the public executioner, and a monument raised on its former site, to
perpetuate the ignomy (query: of the victim or of his judges?).

The appearance of two pamphlets in 1769, on the question “whether removal
or restriction of the monastic orders might not be found beneficial to
the Catholic cantons?” excited terrible uproar at Lucerne, where certain
classes were constantly scenting danger to church or state from some
quarter. The town and county clergy, and the bigots in the council, were
rejoiced to get so good an opportunity to persecute the holders of free
principles, and raised a deplorable howl, as if the canton were on the
verge of destruction. The whole population was plunged in consternation
and astonishment, by thundering sermons and rigorous prohibitions of
the obnoxious work. Free-thinkers were fulminated against by name from
the pulpits; and Schinznach, which had witnessed the formation of the
Helvetic society, was denounced as the focus and headquarters of heresy.

This society, which aimed at the diffusion of useful knowledge, public
spirit, and union throughout the Helvetic body, without reference to
varieties of religion, rank, or political system, was founded by a knot
of patriotic and instructed men, in the pious hope of arresting the
decline of the confederation. At its commencement it consisted of no more
than nine members, but added to its numbers with astonishing rapidity.
The society was soon viewed with an evil eye by the cantonal governments,
which dreaded all independence of feeling and action in the people.
At Bern, political dangers were anticipated from it, as symptoms of
refractoriness were exhibited shortly after its formation by the nobles
in the Vaud; while at Lucerne it was regarded as a conspiracy for shaking
off the Catholic religion, and assisting the supposed ambition of Bern to
gain ascendency over the whole confederation.

The aristo-democratical governments next come under our notice, and
in these, as in most of the purely aristocratical, the metropolis had
obtained unlimited power over the whole canton. In these, however,
particular families did not engross the sovereign power; the collective
body of citizens had maintained themselves by means of the regulations
of their guilds in the possession of considerable influence over the
public affairs. Accordingly the magistracy favoured the monopolies
which enriched the metropolitan traders, and imposed restraints on the
industry and invention of the surrounding country. Thence the subjects
of these towns were much more harshly administered than those of the
aristocratical cantons. Their ancient charters fell into oblivion, and
were withdrawn as far as possible from public inspection; they were not
only excluded from civil and military, but even from ecclesiastical
functions; and the exercise of many branches of industry, and the sale
of their productions in the towns, was wholly cut off by corporation
privileges. Moreover, since the commencement of the century of which we
are treating, no mode of acquiring the rights of burghers remained open;
they were only conferred on extremely rare occasions to reward eminent
merit; or when the times became troublesome to conciliate influential
burghers. Hence that discontent and disaffection which broke out at the
close of the century found a principal focus in the heart of the mixed
aristocracies.

In the larger cantons the public administration was for the most
part incorrupt; and that of justice was liable on the whole to fewer
complaints than in many other European countries. The pay of public
servants, with few exceptions, was extremely moderate. Men who had
devoted their whole lives to public affairs, and who had filled the
highest offices in the state, lost more than they gained by the bounty
of their country. At Zurich, the expenses of the government were wholly
defrayed without the imposition of taxes, properly so called, from
the revenues and interests of the national lands and capital, from
ground-rents, tithes, the salt monopoly, and the produce of the premium
paid by the several guilds of traders in return for their exclusive
privileges. The same description is applicable to the government of Bern,
excepting that here the course of justice was tedious and expensive. The
superior financial resources of the latter canton enabled her to execute
more for public ends than Zurich. Bern invested considerable sums in
foreign securities, particularly in the English funds; and, besides,
amassed a treasure amounting to some millions of dollars, which became,
as we shall presently see, and as Mably had predicted, the booty of
rapacious and powerful neighbours.

Very different was the condition of the free or common bailiwicks,
particularly those of the democratical cantons; here most of the
land-vogts sought by every species of extortion to indemnify themselves
for the sums for which they had in fact bought their places from the
general assemblies of their respective cantons. Many made an open
traffic of justice; took presents from both parties; helped delinquents
to evade deserved punishment who could pay for exemption, and exacted
contributions from the wealthier class whenever and wherever they could.
Even farther than in the German domains of Switzerland were abuses of
this kind carried in the Italian bailiwicks, and most of all in those
of the Grisons. The inevitable tendency of such treatment was to debase
the popular character in those districts, and its effects have left
unequivocal traces even to this day.

In those towns of which the constitution was grounded on corporate
bodies, the privileges of the burghers and their guilds received
progressive extensions. Propositions were made which would hardly have
been conceivable in monarchical states, and could only, in fact, take
place where particular classes had to decide upon the destiny of the
rest of their fellow-countrymen. In Bâle it was several times proposed,
under the pretext of protection to agriculture, that the exercise of
certain manufactures should be prohibited altogether in the rural part of
the canton.[c]


FEDERAL RELATIONS OF THE SWISS STATES

The federal bond which united the various cantons and their allies
was very loose, and far different from that which fastened together
the united provinces of Holland, or even from the federal compact
of the United States of North America. There was not in Switzerland
any permanent sovereign body, no standing federal magistrate equally
acknowledged by all, no central government having its own establishment,
its own treasury, its own servants, civil and military. The general
diets could not decide upon any important question, unless it had been
previously debated and decided on in the councils of each of the cantons,
who were applied to by their own deputies for fresh instructions at every
new case which was brought before the diet. The cantons were not even
each allied to all. The eight older cantons had among them a federal
compact for their common defence, and even of these eight the five first
only, _viz._ Zurich, Schwyz, Uri, Unterwalden, and Lucerne, were bound
to enter into no other alliance without each other’s consent; while the
other three, Glarus, Zug, and Bern, were at liberty to form alliances
with other states or foreign princes, provided such alliances contained
nothing prejudicial to the federal bond. The eight cantons were also
bound, by the convention of Stanz, to assist one another in supporting
the form of government established in each of them.

The five junior cantons, _viz._ Fribourg, Solothurn, Bâle, Schaffhausen,
and Appenzell, had no federal bond with the whole of the rest, nor among
themselves, but every one of them was allied to some one or more of the
others. The three forest cantons alone were allied to every one of the
other cantons. By these means, however, the guarantee of common defence
was secured to each; for, as any canton attacked had the right of calling
some other cantons to its assistance, and as these were entitled to
call others, all would be brought in to take a part, in virtue of their
particular bonds.

The general diets of the confederation were either ordinary or
extraordinary. The ordinary diets met once a year at Frauenfeld in
Thurgau, instead of Baden, where, until the treaty of Aarau in 1712, they
had been accustomed to meet. The deputy from Zurich presided: he brought
forward the matters to be discussed, collected the votes, framed the
resolutions, etc. Each canton or associate had one vote and questions
were decided by a simple majority. The sittings were held with closed
doors, and at the end of the session the deputy of Zurich drew up a
statement of the decisions of the diet, of which he sent a copy round to
each canton. The principal business of the diet was to hear appeals from
the common bailiwicks, and to inspect the accounts and inquire into the
conduct of the bailiffs.

Extraordinary diets were assembled at the request of any particular
canton, or of any of the foreign ministers in case of urgent business.
In such a case the canton of Zurich summoned the other cantons to send
their deputies to Frauenfeld, or any other place fixed upon, acquainting
them at the same time with the nature of the subjects which were to be
discussed, in order that the cantonal governments might give instructions
to their deputies accordingly. The foreign minister, at whose request an
extraordinary diet was convoked, was bound to pay the expenses of the
deputies who were thus called from their homes at an unexpected season.

The partial diets were held by the Protestant cantons at Aarau, and by
the Catholic ones at Lucerne. There was no fixed time for their meeting,
but they were summoned as the occasion required it.

A regulation, called the “defensionale,” was, as we have seen, agreed
upon at a general diet held at Baden in 1668, for providing against
sudden emergencies, such as an attack from foreign powers, when the
proceedings of the diet would have proved too slow for the common
safety. In such a case deputies were to be named by all the members of
the Helvetic body, and invested with full powers to direct the military
force of the nation, which was to be raised by contingents from the
militia of each state. This body consisted of 9600 men for the thirteen
cantons, 1400 for the associates, and 2400 for the subject bailiwicks--in
all 13,400 men; which number, however, might be doubled and trebled if
required.

The militia of each canton consisted of all the males from sixteen to
sixty years of age, and these received military instruction at certain
epochs. Only one-third of the whole, however, consisting of the youngest
and strongest, were enrolled into regiments, the other two-thirds
supplying them with recruits if necessary. The regiments were divided
into fusileers and electionaries, the fusileers being all young unmarried
men, who were considered as always ready to march at a moment’s notice;
the electionaries were composed of the married men, of an age and size
proper for service, and these were called out after the fusileers. When
in active service they received regular pay; but every man was bound to
provide his own uniform, arms, and accoutrements.

The Swiss, it is well known, furnished troops to several European powers,
according to certain treaties or capitulations, as they were called,
agreed upon between those powers and the various cantons. The chief power
having Swiss troops in its service was France, who had retained them ever
since the treaty made between the Swiss and Louis XI. Under Louis XIV the
number of Swiss troops in the French service amounted to 28,000 men; but,
in 1790, at the beginning of the French Revolution, there were not more
than 15,000, who were divided into twelve regiments. Six Swiss regiments
were in the service of Holland, four were serving in Piedmont, four at
Naples, and four in Spain: the pope had also a small body guard of Swiss.
There has been considerable misconception abroad upon this subject; the
cantons have been represented as selling their countrymen as if they
were cattle, while the truth is that the men were not sold, but enlisted
of their own accord for a certain period of time, receiving the bounty
money.[d]

Agriculture was advanced by the cultivation of clover and of other
artificial grasses, and by the consequent increase of pasturage and
manure. Many districts which had formerly been regarded as unfruitful
were thus rendered remarkable for fertility. The processes of manuring,
and many other processes in Swiss cultivation, became a model for foreign
agriculturists. Arts and manufactures were extended more and more widely.
In the canton of Bern, in the Thurgau, and elsewhere, industry was
employed on native materials in the linen manufacture; in Zurich, St.
Gall, and Appenzell, in working up imported wool in spinning, weaving,
and cotton printing. Silk manufactures occupied Zurich and Bâle, and
the latter town enriched itself by its riband manufacture. Trade in
all its branches throve at Geneva; where a wholesale watch manufacture
was conducted, and from whence watchmaking was soon spread through
the district of Neuchâtel, where it suggested many other mechanical
processes.

Intellectual culture and social refinements marched abreast with
commercial wealth. Not only the towns were embellished with architectural
structures, but in the Emmenthal, and around the lakes of Zurich and
Geneva, arose new and splendid edifices which bespoke increasing
opulence. In Neuchâtel, which a century before had been inhabited by
shepherds, the villages assumed the appearance of towns; and the wealthy
marts of England or the Netherlands were recalled to the mind of the
traveller by the principal street of Winterthur. Intercourse with other
states in trade or in foreign services naturalised new wants and desires,
yet many still adhered to the old usages and manners. In whole districts,
especially in the democratic cantons, public opinion imperiously
set limits to the advance of luxury. In other places sumptuary laws
maintained a struggle with the various arts of invention; and a wholesome
state of simplicity was preserved in Zurich, St. Gall, and Bâle, in which
celibacy became a rarity.[c]

Although in political matters dissentions prevailed, yet in intellectual
and scientific life a sense of the unity of the fatherland was beginning
to arise, notably in the reformed towns, where intellectual life had
made great strides since the success of the war of Toggenburg. Men
began to study their own position, learnt to know the individuality of
Switzerland, and drew thence the hope of a brighter future. The pioneers
of the movement were Scheuchzer of Zurich, and Haller of Bern. J. J.
Scheuchzer (1672-1733), physician and naturalist, made himself famous by
various journeys into the Swiss Alps, wrote the first natural history
of Switzerland, and also completed a large map of Switzerland, by which
labours he put new life into patriotism.

Albrecht von Haller (_ob._ 1777), the great poet and naturalist, by
unrivalled industry acquired an extensive and learned education; he also
possessed a strong poetic vein, and a warm and patriotic heart. Among
his poems which appeared in 1732, _Die Alpen_ (_The Alps_) made a great
impression by its poetic depth and the novelty of its ideas. Full of
indignation at the depravity of the time, and yearning for natural and
unspoiled conditions, he there depicts with vigorous touches the life
of nature and of men in the Alps, the simple, beautiful customs of the
Alpine folk, with a patriotic warmth and enthusiasm before unknown. In
another poem, _Der Mann der Welt_ (_The Man of the World_), he laments
the degeneration of his fatherland; in a third, _Die verdorbenen Sitten_
(_Demoralisation_), in contradistinction to the good old times, he
apostrophises the decay of his own day, exclaiming--“O Helvetia, once
the land of heroes, how is it possible that the men whom we now behold
could have descended from thy former inhabitants?” By his poems and his
researches in natural science Haller became so famous in other lands that
he received a number of honourable calls; yet he declined them all: he
wanted to devote his powers to his beloved country, and from 1753 until
his end he served her as a government official with affectionate devotion
and self-sacrifice.[e]

[Illustration: J. C. LAVATER

(1741-1801)]

Eloquence and daring imagination conferred European celebrity on Lavater.
Rousseau promulgated truths in education and in politics which will not
be lost for future generations, whatever alloy of paradox or perverse
misapplication they might suffer from himself or his followers. The
bitterness of religious and political dissension which had long prevailed
in so many odious forms began to decline, and the personal worth of men
began to be estimated by less absurd criteria than their speculative
opinions. Old prejudices vanished, or at all events were mitigated, and
even if the recognition of principles more enlightened was with many a
matter of fashion and imitation, still those may be deemed fortunate
whose existence falls on a period in which truth and liberal sentiments
find favour and adoption.

On the whole, the century was not worse than those which had preceded it.
Even if the forms of government favoured many abuses, a more extended
spirit of activity prevailed amongst the people than in previous
generations; and though it is true that no extraordinarily great actions
were performed, it is also true that no great occasion called for their
performance. It cannot be denied that too much jealousy prevailed between
the cantons, and that more reliance was often placed on strangers than
on fellow confederates. But Germany, which united might have given law
to Europe, had been even more distracted by like errors, reduced to
a mere battle-field for foreigners, and robbed of its most valuable
dependencies.[c]

Seldom during the eighteenth century did the confederates act together.
Only once did the confederation appear as a unit toward the outside.
That was in 1777, when an alliance was concluded with France which well
expressed the subserviency of the Swiss at this period to that country.
The members of the diet convened at Solothurn went through a humiliating
ceremony. They appeared in a body at the ambassador’s hotel, followed
him to church and thence to the place of the deliberations. By this
treaty the Helvetic body was bound to render a levy of six thousand men
to France in case her territory was invaded, and in return the king of
France promised the Swiss help in danger and to maintain the privileges
accorded them by his predecessors.[a][f]


SWITZERLAND FEELS THE SHOCK OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

[Sidenote: [1789-1794 A.D.]]

The Swiss government, as well as that large portion of their subjects who
were contented with their condition, and desired no alteration in it,
were startled out of a state of perfect tranquillity by the first shock
of the French revolution. The shifting of the whole political scenery of
Europe surrounded them with entirely new embarrassments. They resembled
steersmen tolerably capable of guiding their bark safely through the
tempests of their native lakes; but who found themselves now on unknown
seas without chart or compass. The situation of the Swiss regiments
engaged in the French service afforded the first reason for disquietude;
the next was the apprehension of infection from the principles
predominant in France. Alarming political movements soon began in the
interior; and the solution of the problems which were set before Swiss
politicians by the progress of events in the neighbouring countries was
the more difficult the more various were the views, wants, and relations
of the cantons, and the lands which were subject to them.

It was in the latter districts, as might have been expected, that the
new ideas gained the greatest currency, and that the first attempts
were made for their realisation. Educated and thinking men in the
subject towns and territories brooded resentfully on their exclusion
from all public posts and dignities. In those cantons where trade and
manufactures were most cultivated, it was regarded as an intolerable
hardship by the enterprising and wealthy rural proprietor, that he was
hindered by oppressive regulations from purchasing the requisite raw
materials, or from disposing of the products of his industry in any
quarter except to a wholesale dealer of the capital. Similar resentments
were excited by corporate privileges. Nevertheless, in the German regions
of Switzerland, a longer time elapsed before the new modes of thinking,
and the comparisons which they suggested, set the public mind in motion.
This took place much sooner in the west, where the French language and
neighbourhood made communication easier; above all, in Geneva, where
nothing but an auspicious hour was waited for to burst asunder a yoke
imposed by foreigners.

A rise in the price of bread, which was imputed to the government,
gave occasion to the long prepared explosion. On the 26th of February,
1789, the burghers assailed the garrison with everything which could
be turned into a weapon of offence. Fire-engines with boiling water
supplied the place of artillery: the garrison was put to the rout, and
the power of the government overturned the more easily, as its foreign
props had now ceased to support it. The ruling class was compelled to
throw itself wholly on the citizens, to restore the ancient liberties
of the town, and to recall the banished heads of the representatives.
But the hour was come for the ruin of Genevan independence. The country
people and habitans of the town now demanded an equality of rights
with the burghers, on the model of republican France; and the latter
power was induced to second their wishes, by the suggestions of the
ex-representative Clavière. The malcontents were kept for a while in
check by troops from Bern and Zurich; but, on the withdrawal of these
in 1792, the country people, habitans and natifs, flew to arms, made
themselves masters of the town, deposed the government, and established,
on the model of France, a national convention, with committees of general
safety and of public welfare.

A show of moderation and tranquillity lasted some time longer; but
distrust and exasperation received continual new aliment, and the
disinterested friends of peace could hardly prevent some furious
outbreak. Many votes were gained to a proposed new constitution, by the
hope of securing order and repose; and in the beginning of 1794 it was
adopted by a large majority. In April, syndics and council were again
installed in their former functions, and the event was announced to
Zurich and Bern with expressions of hope and confidence. Bern, however,
could not resolve, on the instant, to give the name of confederates to
these newly re-established authorities; and what had been done had no
effect in mitigating the violence of those who put themselves forwards
as the organs of the multitude, which they first set in motion for their
own purposes, and then were forced, in turn, to flatter its passions, in
order to continue popular favourites. Meanwhile, the price of necessaries
rose, while trade and industry stagnated; and the repeated demands for
so-styled free-will offerings to the public were answered by supplies
more and more sparing.

In order to crush, at a stroke, all resistance, and to furnish themselves
with the necessary stores and ammunition, the party of terrorists made a
nocturnal seizure of the arsenal in July, 1794, occupied all the posts
in warlike array; and filled the prisons of the town, and even the
corn-magazine, with nearly six hundred men, whom they chose to designate
as aristocrats; and amongst whom were a number of the most respectable
members of the magistracy, merchants, and men of letters. Of eight
of the prisoners first examined, a revolutionary tribunal contented
itself with sentencing one to death; but the clamour and threats of the
multitude worked on these unsteady judges to retract their verdict, and
extend the same condemnation to all the others. The doom of four of
these was commuted for banishment by the general assembly; but a band of
wretches again collected, stormed the prisons, and the bloody tribunal
now sentenced their victims to be shot; and afterwards endeavoured to
excuse itself on the plea that this had only been done to prevent worse
atrocities. More executions followed, which included several persons who
had actively promoted revolution. Numbers were banished, in order to
secure the ruling party a majority in the general assembly. The large
sums required by a revolutionary government for the payment of public
officers, and the armed force of the populace, were defrayed by imposing
heavy contributions on the possessors of property; indifferentists being
made to pay double, aristocrats a treble amount.

[Sidenote: [1796 A.D.]]

Party spirit, however, cooled by degrees; approximations and concessions
took place between all classes of citizens, who felt, in common, the
general ruin of public and private happiness; and the disappointment of
all the hopes which had formerly found indulgence. In 1796, a return to
the old constitution was agreed upon, on condition of equality of rights
being conceded to the old and new burghers, and the town and country
inhabitants. The exiles returned home, and all rejoiced that they could
again breathe freely. For two years more, the little republic dragged on
an infirm existence; till it was finally united with France in 1798, and
forced to partake, for fifteen years, the destinies of that country.

Of the men who had at different times been banished for political
offences from Switzerland, many had taken refuge in the French
metropolis, and endeavoured to persuade the republican statesmen that
their enemies were equally those of France. [Notable among them was La
Harpe of Vaud, who published a treatise on the situation of the Pays
de Vaud and demanded its restoration from Bern.] Their representations
found the easier audience, as Switzerland was already regarded with
greedy eyes by their hearers. “At an early period of the Revolution,”
observes an English writer,[i] “the views of France were directed towards
Switzerland, as well from its importance as a barrier on her eastern
frontier, as from its central position between the German Empire and
Italy. The reduction, therefore, of Switzerland, was a favourite object
of the republican rulers, and was only suspended by the dread of adding
its people to the host of enemies who menaced France on all sides; they
accordingly temporised under the mask of friendship, and succeeded in
preserving the neutrality of the Helvetic confederacy, by fomenting the
national antipathy to the house of Austria. Yet even during this specious
display of friendship, their agents industriously spread disaffection,
and prepared the mine which was ready to explode on the first favourable
opportunity: such an opportunity presented itself at the conclusion of
the treaty of Campo Formio, which left the Swiss without an ally on the
Continent. At this period the French Republic had acquired a colossal
strength. The king of Sardinia, deprived of half his territory, was the
vassal of France; the pope, and the king of Naples, owed the possession
of a precarious sceptre to the forbearance of the directory; Prussia
pertinaciously maintained her close connection with the new republic;
and Austria, vanquished by the genius of Bonaparte, had concluded a
dishonourable peace.

“But the French rulers were not content with planting the tricoloured
flag on the summit of Mont Blanc, on the left bank of the Rhine, and
at the mouth of the Scheldt, and with establishing the limits of
their empire by the natural boundaries of the Pyrenees, the Alps, the
Mediterranean and the ocean. With a view to secure their territories
against the future aggressions of the continental powers, they purposed
to form a series of dependent republics along the line of their
frontiers, as a kind of outwork, to remove the point of attack. At the
extremities of this line they had already established the Ligurian and
Batavian republics; the Cisalpine soon followed. A connecting link of
this chain was Switzerland, which covered the most vulnerable parts
of the French territory; and, from its natural strength and central
position, formed the citadel of Europe.”

Besides these motives, acknowledged by the French themselves, their
rapacity was stimulated by the treasures known to exist at Bern and
elsewhere, the amount of which, as usual, was enormously exaggerated.
What was required, in short, was not a motive but a pretext for
intermeddling with the internal regulations of the Helvetic body. That
body had with the utmost caution avoided giving offence; had recognised
every successive form of government in France; and had turned out of
their territories the unfortunate French _émigrés_ who had fled thither
for refuge from the rage of their own countrymen.

The triumphs of Napoleon in Italy were concluded by the construction of
the Cisalpine Republic. The Swiss subjects of the Valteline, Chiavenna,
and Bormio, were tempted to desire participation in the freedom thus
established on their borders; and Napoleon offered the Grisons the
alternative of conceding equal rights to these districts, or of seeing
them included in the new Cisalpine state. Parties ran so high on this
proposal, that no friendly understanding was possible; and when the term
allowed for reply elapsed without any being given, Napoleon put his
threat into effect, and confiscated all property belonging to the Grisons
contained in the above-mentioned districts.

Such was the first encroachment on the ancient limits of Switzerland:
shortly afterwards the bishopric of Bâle was annexed to France. Great
consternation was caused by these proceedings in the confederation;
but still more serious evils were at hand. In the canton of Bâle the
peasantry murmured loudly against the town: in the Aargau several towns
advanced tumultuous claims against Bern, for the recovery of their old
and chartered rights; and the Pays de Vaud reclaimed its freedom with
more impatience than ever. It was said besides, that a French army was
already marching on Switzerland; ostensibly to support the claims of the
malcontents, but really to make themselves masters of the land for their
own purposes. Bern and Fribourg hastily levied forces for the coercion of
their turbulent dependencies; and a diet of the confederacy was summoned
at Aarau. Much was said and nothing done at this meeting, as the cantonal
governments neither trusted each other nor their subjects. The members of
the diet renewed the original league of the cantons, as if urged by the
presentiment of its coming dissolution. The oath had hardly been taken,
when a messenger from Bâle brought the intelligence that the mansions of
the land-vogts were in flames; that a large body of peasantry had entered
the town, and that all the subject districts had declared themselves free.

The spectacle of feebleness and fear in the authorities, combined with
dogged resistance to the wishes of the people, of course diffused,
instead of quelling, the spirit of revolt. As in the thirteenth and
succeeding century, the prerogatives of the nobles had been forced to
yield to the claims of a class of burghers and of shepherds, so soon as
the example of the Lombard towns, and the growth of public prosperity,
had excited independence of feeling; so likewise, in the times of which
we are treating, it had ceased to be within the power of a privileged
class to contend with success against the claims of the so-called third
order, encouraged as it was by the example of France. Some districts,
indeed, took no part in the prevalent agitations, and pertinaciously
adhered to the accustomed order of things; others, more distinguished for
enlightenment and enterprise, demanded an equality of rights in town and
country; others, again, required the restoration of ancient franchises:
some regarded nothing as attainable but by French interference; while
nobler minds retained an insurmountable abhorrence for the agency of
strangers in the internal affairs of their country.

[Sidenote: [1797-1798 A.D.]]

It became more and more evident that the policy of the French directory
led them to foment intestine discord in Switzerland. For several years
past it had been observed, that foreign emissaries set themselves to
work upon the public opinion. A person of the name of Mengaud made his
appearance at Bâle, under the unusual and equivocal title of commissary,
and set his seal on the papers of the French embassy: this individual
not only made no secret of his intelligence with the malcontents in
Switzerland, but affected to display it ostentatiously. He went to Bern
on the 10th of October, 1797, where he demanded, in a note addressed to
the government, the dismissal of the English ambassador Wickham, who had
certainly exerted himself openly against France, but had done so as the
envoy of a power at war with that country. Bern referred the demand of
Mengaud to the then directing canton, as a matter which concerned the
whole confederacy.

Wickham relieved for the moment the embarrassment of the Helvetic
body, while he deprived the French directory of a present pretence for
violence, by taking his departure on a tour into Germany; but he left
an able diplomatist behind him in the person of his secretary Talbot.
Mengaud was received at Zurich and Bern with undisguised aversion, and
no diplomatic visits were paid him at either of these places. In the
month of November, an embassy from the latter town had been sent to
Paris; which, though admitted to an audience of the director Barras, soon
received a rude dismissal homewards.

Great were the hopes infused into the disaffected party by the promises
of Mengaud, and other subordinate agents of France; and proportional
fears were excited amongst the friends of the old system, including
the greater number of public functionaries. In order to increase their
uneasiness, Mengaud threatened the diet of the confederation in January,
1798, with the entrance of French troops into Switzerland, should Austria
be suffered to occupy the Grisons. He travelled to the place of meeting
at Aarau, with tricoloured flags flying from his carriage; and, on his
arrival there, hung out an immense banner in front of his house. The
triumphant revolutionists of Bâle had already formed a tricoloured flag
of their own, by the addition of green to their formal cantonal colours,
black and white, and their delegate at Paris, Ochs, had hastily sketched
what he called an Helvetic constitution, on the model of that of the
French Republic. This document was printed in Italian, French, and
German, and distributed by Mengaud, not in official quarters only, but
throughout the whole population of the cantons.


FRENCH TROOPS IN SWITZERLAND

In the mean time, a division of the French army, under Menard, appeared
on the western frontier; and the Pays de Vaud, protected by it, declared
its independence of Bern. The Bernese government saw the necessity of
trying the force of arms on its subjects; and the command of the forces
having been declined by councillor Erlach of Spiez, who had hitherto
been one of the strongest assertors of aristocracy, it was conferred on
Colonel Rudolf Weiss, who had, till then, sustained the character of a
champion of the opposite system; and had contributed, by a published
work,[g] to the favourable temper of the partisans of Robespierre towards
the Swiss confederation. An unusual delegation of full powers placed in
his hands the whole military government of the Vaud. The new commander
held conferences with the leaders of the malcontents; published a
treatise[h] intended to conciliate them, but intermixed conciliation with
menace. Chillon was recovered by surprise from the insurgents, and the
German troops of Bern were moved on the frontiers of the Vaud.

Meanwhile, General Menard was already on the lake of Geneva, with ten
thousand men of the conquering army of Italy; and to him the insurgent
leaders, alarmed for their own safety, addressed themselves. Menard
replied, that he was instructed to give them aid and protection; and
threatened Colonel Weiss that he would repel force with force, if the
former should persist in drawing troops around a territory already
declared independent, and in arming the communes against each other.
Without taking any measures of defence--without even attempting to
maintain himself on the high grounds--Weiss withdrew to the neighbourhood
of Yverdun. It happened, accidentally, that two French hussars were shot
on the outposts of the Bernese army, because they had not immediately
answered the challenge of the sentinels. This incident was taken up by
Menard, and afterwards by the directory, as an infringement of the law of
nations, and the commencement of hostilities.

The revolution of Bâle, and the entrance of French troops into the Pays
de Vaud, rendered it impossible for reflecting men any longer to doubt
that sweeping social changes were inevitable. Yet the Swiss democracies
would not be persuaded that anyone could shake their constitutions, or
force on them a new species of freedom. The numerous friends of things
as they were still hoped to steer themselves through the crisis without
any great sacrifices, by mere dint of tenacity and delay. Many, moreover,
flattered themselves with the notion that the plans of France were
levelled at no wider mark than the Vaud; and were prompted by a petty
feeling of jealousy towards Bern [the stronghold of the aristocracy], to
see nothing in the affair but a mortification to that envied canton.

It could hardly be conceived at Bern, that the French should have
advanced without meeting any resistance up to Yverdun, while the
headquarters of Colonel Weiss were withdrawn behind Avenche. He was
instantly dismissed from his command, which was transferred to General
Erlach of Hindelbank; but the evil effects of exorbitant discretionary
powers had been so sensibly felt, that the opposite extreme was now
adopted. Meanwhile, the leading statesmen of Bern, had, at length, became
convinced that concessions must be made to the people. Fifty-two members
were added to the great council from amongst the burghers, citizens of
the minor towns, and rural inhabitants. It was resolved to introduce,
within a year’s time, a new constitution; in which admission to every
public function should be open to all, and due proportion should be
observed in the emoluments of all public services. These resolutions were
laid before the directory, together with a demand for the withdrawal
of the French troops. The government also stooped to make a like
communication to Mengaud, to acquaint him with the actual political
system of Bern, and inform him of the wish of that canton to preserve
peace with France. Mengaud made just such an answer as ought to have
been expected from him. He demanded a prompt and complete change of the
old political system, declared that further delays could not be suffered
by the majesty of the French Republic; and designated the persevering
defenders of the existing order as a handful of inveterate tyrants.

Disregarding their own positive engagements, the French, on the 8th of
February, took possession of the town of Bienne. Yet the confederates
still hoped to conciliate France, and were encouraged in this illusion by
General Brune, who now commanded the French troops, reinforced by several
thousand men, and fixed his headquarters at Payerne. This subtle leader,
who, without having performed a lengthened public career, was, to borrow
a diplomatic expression, _rompu dans les affaires_, proposed, with artful
blandishments, and with hinted hopes of peaceful adjustment, an armistice
of fourteen days; during which the discipline and enthusiasm of the
Bernese army had time to abate, indecision and distrust to increase, and
recruits to join the French army.

Meanwhile, General Schauenburg had collected a division of troops on the
frontiers of Solothurn and Bern, equal in strength to that of Brune. The
latter announced, on the 26th of February, that he had received full
powers to treat from the executive directory. He proposed his ultimatum
to the Swiss delegates, that without farther delay they should introduce
a provisional government, take measures for the establishment of a new
constitution, with securities for freedom and equality, liberate all
prisoners for political offences, and withdraw their own troops, as well
as those of the other cantons. On the due fulfilment of these conditions,
the French troops should be drawn off likewise; and should not again
enter the Swiss territory, unless the government called for their
assistance.

On the very day when Brune had given his insolent ultimatum, Erlach
entered the great council at Bern, accompanied by eighty of his officers,
who were members, like himself, of that body. In a moment of unusual
resolution, he was invested with full powers to commence hostilities on
the close of the armistice. However, two days afterwards, the delegates
returned from Brune’s encampment at Payerne. Erlach and his brothers
in arms were no longer present in council; the rest of that body were
paralysed by the imminent and gigantic danger; and the full powers which
had just been given the general were taken away. The same evening,
Erlach received instructions _not_ to attack the French, which fired his
troops with anger and suspicion, and tended to confirm the belief in the
treachery of their leaders, already widely prevalent in the army. Brune’s
ultimatum, in all its principal features, was accepted. The delegates
of Zurich, Wyss, and Tscharner sought a conference with him, when he
renewed his former offers in cold and peremptory language; but now added
a novel stipulation to them, namely, that, even after the confederate
troops were disbanded, his should remain till the new constitution
should be established. It was affirmed, truly or otherwise, that he
granted, without difficulty, an extension of the truce for twenty-four
hours; notwithstanding which, the delegates, on their return, saw his
troops already in motion for the attack. Orders for the commencement of
hostilities had also been forwarded from the council of war at Bern to
the army, and two hours afterwards, retracted.

In obedience to the first of these contradictory instructions, the
Bernese colonel Gross had given notice to the French outposts that
the truce would come to an end at ten in the evening of the 1st of
March; but when he withdrew his former announcement on the arrival
of counter-orders, Schauenburg would admit no further parley. He had
already attacked, without warning, the old castle of Dornach, in the
neighbourhood of Bâle, which sustained a siege of twenty-four hours. The
attack of a Bernese division near Vingels was repulsed with loss, and
the French surprised the Bernese posts at Lengnau, which they carried
after an obstinate resistance. The town of Solothurn capitulated, on
Schauenburg’s appearance before it. The passage across the Aar now lay
open to the French troops. Fribourg was attacked and taken, though a
stand was made by the Bernese garrison.

Erlach was now compelled to withdraw his troops behind the Aar and the
Sense; though it was not without extreme reluctance that the men of
Bern abandoned Morat. On the 3rd of March, Brune destroyed one of the
finest monuments of Swiss courage and union, the Ossuary of Morat; and
the French, among whom were many natives of Burgundy, honoured the bones
of their ancestors with a grave, after an interval of more than three
hundred years. Now at length, Bern, Solothurn, and Fribourg proclaimed
a levy _en masse_ of the able-bodied men within their territories. The
Bernese army was in a dreadful state of confusion; particularly that
division which stood directly opposed to Brune, in which the distrust
and exasperation of the soldiers were at their highest pitch. Officers
were dismissed by their soldiers, and others put in their place. Colonels
Stettler and Ryhiner were bayonetted and shot before the very gates of
Bern; and Colonels Crusez and Goumoens fell beneath the sabre-strokes of
their own dragoons. Nevertheless, the troops were again assembled under
command of Grafenried, who was admirably supported by his officers, and
repulsed the French in every attempt to charge them at the point of the
bayonet. Eighteen cannons were taken from the enemy, and their loss in
men besides was very considerable.


_The Capitulation of Berne; the Constitution Unitaire (1798 A.D.)_

The native troops had now fully recovered spirit and confidence; but
just as Grafenried prepared to cross the Sense at Neueneck, the decisive
intelligence arrived that Bern was in the hands of the enemy! Early
on the 5th, an attack had been made by Schauenburg on Solothurn. His
force was far numerically superior to the Bernese; his horse artillery
terrified the native militia by its novelty, and his cavalry was nearly
eight-fold that of Bern in numbers. At Fraubrunnen, the French turned
the left flank of the Bernese: in the Grauholz and at Breitenfeld their
militia under Erlach offered a brave resistance, armed with scythes and
other agricultural implements. Men, women, and even children mixed,
and fell in the mortal struggle. On its unsuccessful issue, ensued the
capitulation of Bern.

All was lost: the armed bands of the peasantry dispersed in every
direction with loud accusations of treason against their officers, many
of whom were slain by their own men. Amongst these was the general
Erlach, an illustrious name in the annals of Bern. That unfortunate
commander, and the avoyer Steiger, when the fortune of the day was
decided, retreated towards the Oberland, whither they knew that arms and
money had already been despatched by the government, and where they still
hoped to offer an effective resistance. But Erlach was murdered in the
way by the enraged fugitives, who breathed nothing but revenge for their
imaginary betrayal, and it was only by chance that Steiger did not meet a
similar fate.

Even public extremity could not restore public spirit. Every little
canton treated, armed, and cared for itself exclusively, totally
regardless of the rest. Wherever the authorities had, till then,
withheld freedom from their subjects, they no longer delayed to grant it;
but bestowed emancipation with so ill a grace, as to indicate how gladly
they would have refused it, had they dared.

France now assumed a tone of direct command, and proclaimed the
dissolution of the Helvetic body, and the establishment of a
_constitution unitaire_, embracing the whole of Switzerland under one
uniform system of government. This system announced a perfect equality of
rights between the inhabitants of the towns and of the villages, assigned
the nomination of judges, magistrates, and legislators, to the people
in their primary assemblies, and entrusted to the government the choice
of executive functionaries. The founders of this new Helvetic republic
next proceeded to the more material objects of their mission. They levied
large contributions on the towns, appropriated the treasures amassed at
Bern, Zurich, Solothurn, and Fribourg, and carried off many members of
council and other persons, as hostages for the further payments exacted
from those places.

But the people of Uri, Nidwalden, Schwyz, and Glarus, were resolved not
to deliver up their old independence so easily, and organised a heroic,
though a useless, resistance under their brave leader Aloys Reding.
The most brilliant and the most sanguinary struggle took place at
Rothenthurm, in the neighbourhood of the battle-field of Morgarten. These
Alpine shepherds combated with a spirit and success which showed them
not unworthy of their forefathers. Thrice were the attacks of regular
troops, four times their number, repulsed, with serious loss on the
side of the enemy. But the vigour of this peasant militia was exhausted
by their very successes, and they were, finally, compelled to accept
terms from the invaders, and to bow beneath the yoke of the Helvetic
Republic. Thus ended the old Swiss confederation, after enduring for a
term of nearly five centuries. “It fell,” says an enlightened native
historian,[1] “not exactly for want of strength in the bands which held
it together; for, without any stronger bond of union the old confederates
won their freedom, crushed or repelled the force of mighty antagonists,
and rendered themselves powerful and formidable. The Swiss succumbed in
the last unfortunate struggle, because the feeling of duty, the lofty
faith in their country and its fortunes, had become chilled in the bosoms
of the many, and because the democratical cantons thought of none but
themselves.”

While the well-instructed friends of their country regretted the rude
violence with which every link in the system of society, from the Alps
to the Jura, had been totally torn away from its ancient holdings,
they could not fail to perceive the ultimate benefits educible from
the general convulsion. The former aggregation of little states had
been productive of estrangement and enmity; the cantons had been proved
powerless, even for self-defence; separately too poor for public
enterprises; collectively incapable of any combined action. But now an
opportunity seemed to be given to the Swiss people of becoming one great
family, enjoying equal rights. The mass of the people, however, was not
penetrated by such ideas, and only deplored the breach made in their old
habits and usages. They had, indeed, demanded freedom and independence,
but not this melting up into an uniform mass. They would have preferred
that every petty district, nay, every single valley, should become a free
and independent canton, ruling itself in its own assemblies, according
to its own pleasure, and only connected by federal ties with the rest of
the Swiss people. The whole subsequent march of events tended only to
increase the desire for a subdivided federative system of this kind, and
the aversion for the newly established order. The new general government,
called an executive directory, after its prototype at Paris, resided
at Aarau without inspiring either respect or confidence, dependent on
its sole protectors, the French plenipotentiaries. In the senate and
the great council, composed of delegates from all the cantons, the
conflicting opinions of parties caused an incessant wordy warfare. Out
of doors the same parties abandoned parliamentary weapons, and asserted
their discordant creeds with arms in their hands. New and old laws and
regulations were perpetually coming in collision. While the state was
often without the most indispensable means for its maintenance, and even
for the daily pay of its functionaries, the French plenipotentiaries,
leaders, and subalterns, rioted in shameless superfluities at the cost of
the country, and sent to France the surplus of their plunder.

The discontents of the people were considerably aggravated by the murmurs
and manœuvres of the ci-devant authorities; of the monks who apprehended
the abolition of all monasteries; of the priests who had suffered
diminution of the stipends, and of the traders and artisans in the towns
who no longer enjoyed the sweets of corporations and monopolies. They
trusted to the approaching renewal of war between France and Austria,
and prepared to support the emperor for the expulsion of the French.
When the whole population was summoned, in July, 1798, to take the oath
of allegiance to the newly formed constitution, disturbances and revolts
took place in many districts.[c]


FOOTNOTES

[1] Ludwig Meyer.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER VI. SWITZERLAND SINCE 1798


CHANGES OF CONSTITUTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIONS

War with France was at length renewed by the emperor of Austria, and
a division of his army entered the Grisons. A signal defeat sustained
by the French troops near Stockach, in Swabia, the victorious advance
of the Austrian army into Switzerland, and the removal of the seat of
the Helvetic government from Lucerne to Bern, seemed to inspire the
conflicting parties with renewed animation and fury. Swiss fought against
Swiss under the banners of France and Austria; tumults and revolts took
place on account of the French conscription or in favour of the Austrian
invasion; battles were fought between foreign armies in the valleys, on
the Alps, and on the banks of the lakes; and horse and man clambered
over heights which had formerly been only known to the chamois hunter.
The Grisons and the mountainous lands as far as the St. Gotthard were
alternately won and lost by French and Germans. The victorious banners of
Austria were carried on the left as far as Zurich and the St. Gotthard,
on the right up to the banks of the Rhine, supported by the Russians
under Suvarov. Switzerland had never sustained such desolating inroads
since the times of the Romans, Alamanni, and Burgundians.

Many of the old superseded members of the government now looked forward
to the speedy restoration of their authority, which they here and there
attempted to recover with the assistance of the Austrian bayonets: even
the new abbot of St. Gall resumed the exercise of his feudal rights, such
as they had existed before the recent emancipation which had been granted
to the people. The effects of this iniquitous resumption did not fail
soon to be felt by the proud prelate himself; Zurich and Schaffhausen,
too, were soon forced to acknowledge that the people did not wish to be
replaced in its state of subjection. The decisive and brilliant victory
of Massena near Zurich, and the destruction of Suvarov’s army, which had
marched over the Alps from Italy, restored the Helvetic constitution
throughout the whole country. Parties now supplanted and succeeded each
other in quick succession, so that none could remain long at the helm or
consult for the public benefit.

[Sidenote: [1801 A.D.]]

First of all, the legislative councils dissolved the executive directory,
and substituted for it an executive committee; then, in its turn, this
executive committee dissolved the councils, convoked a new legislature,
and styled itself an executive council. Twelve months afterwards a
general Helvetic diet was assembled at Bern for the formation of a new
and improved constitution: this, like the former deliberative bodies, was
arbitrarily deposed from its functions, and a newest-of-all constitution
established, in October, 1801. Alois Reding, the victor of Rothenthurm,
as the foremost Swiss landammann, was placed at the head of the senate;
but as he possessed neither the confidence of the French rulers nor that
of those who detested all recurrence to the old state of things, a new
act of arbitrary power deposed him from the presidency of the council.

These continual changes of administration were looked upon with
absolute indifference by the Swiss people, who only sighed at the total
interruption of law and order, the increase of taxes, and the lawless
acts of the French soldiery. The Valais more particularly suffered by the
military tyranny to which it was subjected. The object of France was to
separate it from Switzerland, in order to keep a route open across the
Alps into Italy.

In the same degree as popular consideration ceased to attend the
ever-changing but equally odious aspects of the new government,
individual opinions and wild fancies obtained prevalence. Mystical
views were propagated in Appenzell; and the anabaptists reared their
heads once more in Bern and Zurich. The quiet of the former town and
its neighbourhood was suddenly disturbed by a swarm of fanatics from
Amsoldingen. Two years before, a quack doctor and fanatic, by name Antony
Unternerer, had fixed his abode in that village. A certain flow of
language, combined with prepossessing manners and the profuse employment
of benedictory formulas in human diseases, as well as in those of cattle,
had gained for this fellow the confidence of the multitude. He held
meetings in which particular parts of the New Testament were interpreted
in a new and peculiar manner; and his adherents ceased their attendance
on the ordinary divine service. Unternerer addressed a summons in writing
to the supreme tribunal of Bern, to appear, with all its prisoners and
their keepers, in the cathedral church on the morning of Good Friday,
when the Saviour of the world would ascend the pulpit and hold his
judgment. He also summoned all his disciples to meet at Bern on the same
day. Many of them had already remained during several days assembled
together; and, anticipating the coming judgment, had transferred their
worldly possessions to others. Curiosity drew a multitude together
from all quarters. Unternerer himself was announced as Saviour by
his adherents; and seditious projects peeped out under the mantle of
fanaticism. However, such a wholesome effect was produced by the arrest
of the ringleader, the consignment of his most conspicuous followers to
the lunatic hospital, and the billetting of dragoons in the houses of
others, that the poor enthusiasts soon came to their senses, lamenting
the error of their ways and the transfer of their properties.


THE EVACUATION OF SWITZERLAND; THE NOMINATION OF DEPUTIES (1802-1803 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1802-1803 A.D.]]

The Peace of Amiens, betwixt France and the other belligerent powers
in consequence of which the French garrisons were drawn home out of
Switzerland, afforded opportunity to the party and provincial spirit
to show itself with new vigour. On the 12th of July Montrichard, the
French resident in Switzerland, communicated in an extra-official note
to the Helvetic landammann, Dolder, that he had received commands from
the minister of war to hold himself, with the troops under his orders,
in readiness for instant return to France. The landammann laid this note
before the then executive council, who were considerably embarrassed by
its import, and addressed themselves to Montrichard and to the Swiss
ambassador at Paris, to petition for a postponement of the measure. But
shortly afterwards, Boizot, secretary of the Helvetic embassy, arrived
from Paris with Talleyrand’s note, which fixed for the approaching 20th
of July the complete evacuation of Switzerland. It was now out of the
question for the heads of the Helvetic government to oppose themselves
to a measure invoked by the wishes of a large majority. Accordingly
the executive council did its best to assume an unconstrained and easy
attitude; and with all expedition voted its liveliest thanks to the first
consul for his purpose of withdrawing his troops from Switzerland, which
they hailed as the highest proof of his benevolence and respect for the
independence of the Helvetic nation.

The reply of the French minister was couched in terms of disinterested
delicacy, which almost seemed ironical. He talked of the French troops
as the battalions which the first consul had consented to leave in
Switzerland on the conclusion of peace. He based the proposed measure
on the confidence entertained by the first consul in the virtues of
the Helvetic people, who were now better agreed, as he said, on the
principles of political organisation, and in whose attachment the
government would find sufficient securities for the maintenance of order
and tranquillity. “The Helvetic government could regard this resolution
but as a pledge of the consul’s confidence in its friendly intentions and
policy, and of his disinclination to meddle with the internal affairs of
other nations.”

It is impossible to assign with any certainty the motives by which this
ambiguous language and conduct were dictated. The first consul may have
meant to give a popular example of moderation and respect for the faith
of treaties; or he may have designed a covert chastisement for the
feeble attempts at independence made by the Helvetic government and its
refusal of unconditional acquiescence in the projected separation of
the Valais; or he may have wished to extort an express prayer for the
stay of his troops, or to revive the struggle of parties, and compel the
Helvetic government to throw itself into the arms of France, and urge
him, as though against his will, to assume the part of arbiter and ruler;
or, finally, perhaps, the best solution of his conduct may be found by
supposing the combination of all or most of these motives.

Conformably with the system thus enforced upon them, the executive
council made known to the Swiss people the departure of the French
troops, as a gracious boon the offer of which they had eagerly accepted.
In effect, the removal of these troops was performed with such celerity
that none were left behind but the sick in the hospitals and a handful of
men here and there to guard whatever French property was not of a movable
description.

The news of the retreat of the French troops and the ill-concealed
uneasiness of the government flew through the country with wonderful
rapidity, and everywhere roused the concealed but numerous enemies of
the existing order, who had hitherto lurked inactively, as it were in
scattered cantonments. The Valais declared itself independent. Uri,
Schwyz, and Unterwalden took up arms against the Helvetic government.
The town of Zurich, likewise, threw off allegiance to it--an example
which was speedily followed by Schaffhausen and Bâle. A general levy
took place in the Aargau against Bern: the helpless Helvetic government
fled for refuge to Lausanne, while a diet was held in Schwyz for the
restoration of the old league. The feeble body of troops in the pay of
the government were driven from the interior of the country, and followed
their employers into the Vaud: everywhere the opposite factions prepared
for active hostilities; the towns planned the destruction of the general
government; the peasants armed for their freedom against the pretensions
of the towns; and the Pays de Vaud arrayed itself in defence of Helvetic
unity. Blood had already flowed, and civil war appeared inevitable, when
Napoleon turned his eyes again upon Switzerland, and commanded peace in a
tone which was not apt to meet with resistance.

“Inhabitants of Switzerland” (such were the terms of a declaration
addressed by him through General Rapp to the cantons of the Helvetic
Republic): “you have presented, during two years, a melancholy spectacle.
Sovereign power has alternately been seized by opposite factions, whose
transitory and partial sway has only served to illustrate their own
incapacity and weakness. If you are left to yourselves any longer,
you will cut one another to pieces for years, without any prospect of
coming to a rational understanding. Your intestine discord never could
be terminated without the effective interposition of France. I had
resolved not to mix in your affairs; but I cannot and will not view with
indifference those calamities to which I now perceive you exposed. I
retract my former resolution. I offer myself as your mediator, and will
exert my mediation with that energy which becomes the powerful nation in
whose name I speak. Five days after reception of the present declaration,
the senate shall assemble at Bern to nominate three deputies to be
sent to Paris, and each canton will also be admitted to send delegates
thither. All citizens who have held public employments during the last
three years may also appear at Paris to deliberate by what means may
best be effected the restoration of concord and the reconciliation of
parties. Every rational man must perceive that my purposed mediation is
a blessing conferred on Switzerland by that providence which, amidst so
many concurring causes of social dissolution, has always preserved your
national existence and independence. It would be painful to think that
destiny had singled out this epoch, which has called to life so many new
republics, as the hour of destruction to one of the oldest commonwealths
in Europe.”

The Helvetic senate instantly replied to this announcement by declaring
that it received, with lively gratitude, this new proof of the friendly
dispositions of the first consul, and would conduct itself in all points
in conformity with his wishes. In a proclamation addressed to the
Helvetic people, after some allusion to the mighty and uplifted arm of
the mediator, it recommended union, tranquillity, and calm expectation.
The cantonal diets met to elect deputies to Paris. The several communes
also were permitted to despatch delegates thither at their own expense.
The mandate of Napoleon and the presence of his soldiers induced
conflicting parties to suspend their hostilities, and tacitly, at least,
to acquiesce in his mediation, as they could come to no agreement with
each other.

[Sidenote: [1803-1813 A.D.]]

On the 10th of December, 1803, Swiss delegates were received in the
office of foreign affairs at Paris, to hear a note of Bonaparte read,
in which he addressed them as president of the French and Cisalpine
republics, and laid down the basis of his intended mediation. “A federal
constitution,” he said, “is a point of prime necessity for you. Nature
herself has adapted Switzerland for it. What you want is an equality
of rights among the cantons, a renunciation of all family privileges,
and the independent federative organisation of each canton. The central
constitution may be easily arranged afterwards. The main points for your
people are neutrality, promotion of trade, and frugal administration:
this is what I have always said to your delegates when they asked my
advice; but the very men who seemed to be the best aware of its truth
turned out to be the most obstinately wedded to their privileges. They
attached themselves, and looked for support, to the enemies of France.
The first acts of your insurgents were to appeal to the privileged
orders, annihilate equality, and insult the French people. No party
shall triumph; no counter-revolution take place. In case of violation of
neutrality, your government must decide upon making common cause with
France.”

On the 12th, Bonaparte received a select number of the Swiss deputation
to whom he further addressed himself as follows: “The only constitution
fit for Switzerland, considering its small extent and its poverty,
is such a one as shall not involve an oppressive load of taxation.
Federalism weakens larger states by splitting their forces, while
it strengthens small ones by leaving a free range to individual
energies.” He added, with an openness peculiar to great characters, and
unequivocally indicative of good will, “When I make any demand of an
individual, he does not often dare to refuse it; but if I am forced to
apply myself to a crowd of cantonal governments, each of them may declare
itself incompetent to answer. A diet is called: a few months’ time is
gained; and the storm blows over.”

Almost every word of the first consul during these negotiations has
historical value. Most of his expressions wear a character of greatness;
all of them afford a clue to the system on which he acted. One or two
passages, taken at random here and there, will suffice for a specimen:
“It is the democratic cantons which distinguish you, and draw on you the
eyes of the world. It is they which do not allow the thought of melting
you up with other states to gain any coherence or consistency. The
permission to settle wherever they please, in pursuit of their vocation,
must be extended to all natives of Switzerland. The small cantons are
said to be averse to this principle; but who on earth would ever think of
troubling them by settling amongst them? France will re-open a source of
profit in favour of these poorer cantons, by taking additional regiments
into her pay. France will do this, not because she needs additional
troops but because she feels an interest in attaching these democracies.”


THE ACT OF MEDIATION (1813 A.D.); CABALS FOLLOW NAPOLEON’S FALL

The Act of Mediation, which resulted from these conferences, restored
the old federative system; but not without introducing very considerable
improvements. The amnesty announced by it precluded all persecutions,
and the new agitations necessarily arising from them. All servitude and
all privilege were abolished; while equality of rights and freedom of
industry were established. The mischievous freedom formerly enjoyed by
the several cantons of entering into hostilities or alliances against
each other was quite put an end to. In future, they could only use their
arms against the common enemy; and the objects of the whole league could
no longer be frustrated by the humours of its individual members.

The dissolution of the Helvetic general government followed naturally
on the completion of the above-mentioned arrangements; and soon
afterwards Napoleon recalled his troops from Switzerland. The people,
in almost every part of the country, returned quietly to their usual
occupations, and tendered their allegiance to the new order of things.
In the canton of Zurich alone several communes refused the oaths;
complaining of the difficulties newly thrown in the way of the redemption
of tithes, ground-rent, and other burdens. They would listen to no
friendly representations; but committed acts of violence on unoffending
functionaries, set fire to the castle of Wadenschwyl, and finally took
to arms. The prolonged disorders of former years had accustomed them to
lawless self-defence; but the insurrection was soon suppressed by the aid
of the neighbouring cantons, combined with the well-affected part of the
Zurichers.

The ringleader John James Willi, shoemaker in the village of Horgen,
and others of his more conspicuous comrades, were punished with death.
The less distinguished rioters suffered imprisonment, and forty-two
offending communes were visited with a war-tax of above 200,000 florins.
It was well that the first flame of revolt was speedily extinguished,
before it had time to spread itself through the country. Parties remained
everywhere unreconciled; and each imagined nothing to be required
for their predominance but the fall of the new order of things. The
friends of Helvetic unity still murmured at the cantonal partition of
the country. The monasteries murmured as they felt their existence
threatened; and Pancrace, the _ci-devant_ abbot of St. Gall, openly
stigmatised the inhabitants of that district as contumacious vassals
of the empire. Many of the country people murmured, who wished for
_Landsgemeinde_, on the model of the original cantons. Many patrician and
city families murmured that their privileges were swept away, and the
peasantry no longer their subjects. The majority of the people, however,
wished for nothing but peace and quiet, and decidedly adhered to the
existing order of things, and the rights which they had acquired under
that order.

Thus the peace of the country remained for the most part undisturbed; and
a series of comparatively prosperous years followed. The energies of the
Swiss had been awakened by the years of revolution and of civil war, and
displayed themselves in a hitherto unprecedented degree. They no longer
stood apart from each other as formerly, like strangers; but had been
made better acquainted by the storms of social collision. The concerns of
each canton were now interesting to all. Journals and newspapers, which
had formerly been suppressed by timid governments, instructed the people
in useful knowledge, and drew its attention to public affairs. The Swiss
of all cantons formed societies for the furtherance of objects of common
utility, for the encouragement of various arts and sciences, and for the
maintenance of concord and patriotism. The canal of the Linth formed a
lasting monument of this newly reawakened public spirit.

Since the people had ceased to be viewed as in a state of perpetual
infancy a new impulse was given to trade and industry, which were now
no longer cramped and confined, as formerly, by corporate restrictions
and monopolies. The participation in public affairs allowed to all free
citizens enforced a mild and equitable conduct on the governments.
Schools were increased and improved throughout the country; the military
force was newly organised; and, on the whole, a greater number of
laudable objects were provided for in the space of ten years than had
been thought of in the previous century.

When the throne of Napoleon sank under the power of the allies, the
public-spirited part of the Swiss nation fondly imagined that the hour
was come in which their country’s honour and independence might be
established on a firmer footing than ever. To preserve the benefits
gained to the land by his act of mediation was the wish of a large
majority of the people. If the Swiss had sometimes felt, along with
others, the iron arm of that formidable despot (who had, however,
spared them more than any neighbouring population), yet his gift of
a constitution had become deservedly dear to them. It had dried up
innumerable sources of discord. Under it a fellow-feeling, never before
experienced, had been diffused in the same degree as individual pride
had been humbled. The cessation of a state of subjection, wherever it
had before existed, had decupled the number of confederates, and all
restraints on free communication betwixt one canton and another had been
removed.

The cantons sent their contingents for the protection of the frontiers,
voted extraordinary imposts for their maintenance, and a diet was
assembled at Zurich with unanimous instructions from its constituents.
This body declared with one voice its resolution “to observe a
conscientious and impartial neutrality with regard to all the high
belligerent powers,” expressing, at the same time, its full anticipation
that “the same would be acknowledged upon their part.” It addressed
itself as follows to the confederates: “The great and only end of all our
endeavours is to maintain this neutrality by every means in our power;
to protect our country’s freedom and independence; to preserve its soil
inviolate, and to defend its constitution.” The senate of Bern expressed
itself as follows: “Our object is to guard the pacific borders of our
country inviolate from the march of foreign armies; we are unanimously
resolved, however, at all events, to maintain tranquillity, order, and
security in our canton by all the means which stand in our power.”

Such was the general sense of the Swiss people. Not such, however,
was the sense of the great families in the once dominant towns of the
confederation. Many of these wished to see their country invaded by
foreign armies, by aid of which they hoped to restore the old league of
the thirteen cantons, with all its hated appendages of sovereignty and
servitude, which had vanished from the face of the land in 1798.

The Swiss delegates were received in a friendly manner by the emperor
of Austria and the king of Prussia; but no direct recognition of their
neutrality was vouchsafed to them. The satellites of these monarchs
gave them distinctly to understand that Switzerland was regarded and
would be treated as nothing else than as a limb of the French system.
A large Austrian force was collected on the frontiers, particularly in
the neighbourhood of Bâle; yet many still believed that a determined
vindication of neutrality would not be put down by violence. In the
meantime, the Swiss delegates were stopped at Fribourg in Brisgau
on their return homewards from Frankfort, and their letters were
intercepted. A general enervation seemed to have spread itself over the
conduct of the affairs of the confederation at this crisis. There is
no ground for supposing that the men who led their forces and presided
in their governments acted the part of secret conspirators against the
order of things which they professed to defend. But when the overwhelming
powers of the allies came pouring in upon them; when these were joined
by kings who owed their crowns to Napoleon; when even the French
ambassador dissuaded reinforcement of the frontier cordon--when, in
short, the ancient state of things renewed its sway on every side, while
a decided popular will showed itself nowhere, opposition was in a manner
overwhelmed by the force of circumstances.

A proclamation, couched in terms of mildness and of amity, was issued
by Prince Schwarzenberg, the Austrian commander-in-chief; and at the
same time Count Capo d’Istria declared, on his arrival in Zurich,
that the monarchs could not recognise a neutrality which, in the
existing situation of Switzerland, must be nothing more than nominal.
The armies of the allied powers hoped to find none but friends there.
Their majesties pledged themselves solemnly not to lay down their arms
until they should have secured the restoration to Switzerland of the
territories wrested from her by France--a pledge which we shall presently
see was adhered to but indifferently. They disclaimed all wish to meddle
with her internal constitution; but at the same time could not allow her
to remain under foreign influence. They would recognise her neutrality
from that day in which she became free and independent.

The Austrian army marched over the Rhine on the 21st of December, 1813,
through the territories of Bâle, Aargau, Solothurn, and Bern, into
France. During the first months of the following year the burdens and
even the dangers of war were felt very severely in the northern and
western parts of Switzerland, particularly in Bâle, which received
much annoyance from the obstinate defence of Hüningen, and the hostile
disposition of the commander of that place. Geneva, too, while she
welcomed in anticipation the new birth of her ancient independence, saw
herself suddenly surrounded with the actual horrors of warfare, and
threatened with a regular siege. The continual passage of large bodies
of troops brought malignant fevers and maladies in their train, and it
became more and more difficult to supply them with provisions.

On the entrance of the Austrian troops, Bern set the example of
abolishing the Act of Mediation, and reclaimed the restoration of the
predominance which she had previously enjoyed in the Helvetic body.
The example was followed first by Solothurn and Fribourg, and then by
Lucerne. In Zurich, too, the diet declared the Act of Mediation, by
virtue of which it was sitting, null and void, and drew up a plan for a
new confederation of the nineteen cantons. But this was not enough for
some of the men in power at that time, who demanded nothing short of the
restoration of the old league of the thirteen cantons, and had already
summoned the Pays de Vaud and the Aargau to return under the government
of Bern. These cantons, however, resolutely rejected the proposal.

The diet, which was again convoked at Zurich and consisted of delegates
newly elected by all the nineteen cantons, was now the only feeble bond
which kept the Helvetic body together. Interested voices were raised on
every side for annihilating or mutilating the last constructed cantons,
which for sixteen years had enjoyed the boon of freedom and independence.
Zug demanded a part of its former subject lands from the Aargau; Uri,
the Valle Levantina from the canton of Ticino; Glarus, the district of
Sargans from the canton of St. Gall; the prince abbot Pancrace, his
former domains and sovereignties in the Thurgau; Schwyz and Glarus
combined to demand compensation for their privileges over the districts
of Utznach, Gaster, Wesen, and Ersatz; Unterwalden, Uri, and Schwyz
united in a similar demand for compensation for the sovereign rights
which had formerly been possessed by them in Aargau, Thurgau, St. Gall,
and on the Ticino.

In these cabals and commotions Zurich, Bâle, and Schaffhausen displayed
the least of prejudice or passion; while the Aargau and the Vaud showed
themselves worthy of their freedom by the spirited resolution of their
people. In the lands and towns of Bâle, Solothurn, and Zurich it was
proposed to espouse the cause and rally round the standard of the Aargau.
Bern, however, avoided open hostilities, and even offered to recognise
the independence of the Vaud on certain conditions, which were rejected
by the latter. Aargau now made menacing demonstrations, and a dangerous
ferment showed itself in the Oberland. Here, as in many other places,
the jealousy and suspicion of the various parties came into play, in
proportion as discussion was broached on the limits to be assigned to
the rights of the people and their governments. News was daily received
of scattered plots and insurrections, of imprisonments and banishments,
in various places. The town of Solothurn called for the protection of
a Bernese garrison against the threatened attacks of its own people.
Swiss troops were precipitately despatched to the banks of the Ticino to
prevent the breaking out of civil war; while other troops were sent into
the canton of St. Gall to put an end to a scene of absolute confusion.

[Sidenote: [1815 A.D.]]

While Switzerland was thus given up to a state of such disquietude
that blood had already flowed in more than one district, and the gaols
of several towns were filled with prisoners, the plenipotentiaries of
the great powers were sitting in congress at Vienna, to establish the
peace of Europe on a durable foundation. The allies had already allowed
the addition to the Helvetic body of Geneva, as well as of the Valais,
and the Prussian principality of Neuchâtel. Swiss delegates made their
appearance with equal promptitude in the imperial metropolis on the
Danube, as they had done eleven years before in the capital of France.

But the politics of Europe moved no faster at Vienna than those of
Switzerland did at the diet of Zurich. No settlement of Swiss affairs
had been made, when the sudden news of Napoleon’s landing from Elba and
his triumphal march through France awakened European diplomacy once more
from its slumbers. The diet called to arms the half contingent of fifteen
thousand men for the defence of the frontiers. Two battalions of the Vaud
were detached hastily to Geneva, and the same canton received as friends
and comrades the troops of Bern, against which it had taken up arms a
month before. The most important elements of discord seemed to have
disappeared--the most inveterate enemies to be reconciled.

On the 20th of March, 1815, the definitive arrangements of the allied
powers were promulgated. The existing nineteen cantons were recognised,
and the increase of their number to two-and-twenty confirmed, by
the accession of Geneva, Neuchâtel, and the Valais. The canton of
Vaud received back the Dappenthal, which had been taken from it by
France. Bienne and the bishopric of Bâle were given to Bern by way
of compensation for its former sovereign rights over the Vaud. One
moiety of the customs received in the Vale Levantina was assigned to
Uri; the prince abbot Pancrace and his _ci-devant_ functionaries were
indemnified with 8000 florins yearly. A decision was also given on the
indemnification of those Bernese who had possessed jurisdictions in the
Pays de Vaud, and on many other points in dispute. The complaints of the
Grisons alone were disregarded--Chiavenna, the Valtellina, and Bormio,
which had now become the property of Austria, were neither restored nor
was any compensation for them given, notwithstanding the clause to the
contrary in Prince Schwarzenberg’s proclamation.

The cantons now remodelled their respective constitutions in the midst
of agitations of all kinds. Those in which the supreme power is assigned
to the _Landsgemeinde_ for the most part removed the restrictions on the
popular prerogative, which had been introduced by the Act of Mediation,
and approximated anew to pure democracy. In the city cantons the
capitals recovered, though in various modifications and proportions, a
preponderance in the system of representation. Even in these privileged
places, however, many friends of the public weal remained true to
the conviction tried and proved by past experience (and about to
receive after no long period additional confirmation from the march of
events)--that participation of the lesser towns and rural districts
in public functions was a requisite condition for the permanence of
tranquillity; and that the members introduced from these remoter parts of
the country would form vigorous roots of the slender stem of authority,
and fix them wide and deep in a republican soil.


SWITZERLAND DEVELOPS ALONG NEW LINES

[Sidenote: [1817-1823 A.D.]]

In 1817, the confederates were led by the invitation of the emperor
Alexander into a signal deviation from the policy of their forefathers.
They entered into a close alliance with Austria, Russia, and Prussia; and
allowed themselves to be mixed up with the system of the great powers, by
giving their adhesion to the Holy Alliance, unmindful of the lessons left
by the Swiss of old times.

On the conclusion of the War of Liberation from Napoleon, an opinion
which the allied powers had encouraged by their promises became prevalent
through great part of Germany--that the efforts of the people should be
requited by the grant of representative constitutions. The realisation
of this object was pursued by open and secret means, which soon aroused
attention and mistrust on the part of the governments. Investigations
were set on foot, followed up by penal inflictions; and many of the
accused parties made their escape into Switzerland. A similar course was
taken by some Italians, on the suppression of the Piedmontese revolts
and the abortive revolution of Naples. Natives of France, moreover, who
had given offence to their government, either by republican principles
or by adherence to the cause of Napoleon, in like manner sought a place
of refuge in Switzerland. These occurrences did not fail to give umbrage
to several cabinets, which was increased by the friendly welcome and
assistance afforded to the fugitives from Greece. It never seemed to
occur to foreign potentates what a blessing in the vicissitudes of
European affairs was the existence of a land to which political victims
of all parties might resort as an inviolable sanctuary.

The year 1823, that of the French invasion of Spain under Louis XVIII,
seemed an epoch of especially unfriendly dispositions in more than one
European court against Switzerland. There were personages who would
willingly have used these dispositions to effect some limitation of
Helvetic independence; but their influence was either insufficient
for that purpose in the cabinets to which they belonged, or Europe
seemed as yet not ripe for success in such an experiment. Meanwhile
the remonstrances and demands of continental powers afforded matter of
anxious consultation to the Helvetic diet; and their usual subjects
of discussion were increased by two new topics--foreign police and
surveillance of the press.

It was resolved that both these points touched the prerogatives of the
separate cantons, and therefore did not admit of decision at any general
diet. An invitation was accordingly issued to the governments of all the
cantons, exhorting them to adopt vigorous measures, in order that nothing
might find its way into newspapers and journals inconsistent with proper
respect to friendly governments. With regard to foreign police it was
proposed to take measures for preventing the entrance or residence of
such strangers as had left their country on account of crimes or efforts
at disturbance of the public repose; and for providing that no foreigners
should be admitted except such as could show certificates or passports
from their respective governments.

In many of the cantons these demands were met by a ready alacrity not
only to urge their execution in their full extent but even to improve on
them by subjecting discussion of domestic as well as of foreign affairs
to strict surveillance. On the other hand, in more enlightened parts of
the confederacy, it was thought that public discussion and the old right
of sanctuary should be guarded from every species of encroachment. The
diets continued to busy themselves with deliberations on both subjects.
Returning tranquillity diminished the uneasiness of the cabinets; and,
by consequence their inquisitive and minute attention to Switzerland.
Individuals lost the importance which had formerly been ascribed to them,
and the sojourn of strangers in Switzerland again became freer. The press
occasioned more prolonged discussions at the diets and in several of the
councils; but in the midst of these it obtained more and more freedom,
and in some districts shook off all its former restrictions.

During these years an interest in church affairs diffused itself amongst
laymen, as well as amongst theologians by profession. In the educated
classes religious indifferentism became less frequent; while the genuine
spirit of tolerance made progress. This tendency, like every other widely
extended mental movement, had its questionable as well as its pleasing
features. Shocking ebullitions of fanaticism are reported to have taken
place in Zurich, Bern, and other cantons. A footing was gained in
Fribourg and the Valais by the revived order of Jesuits; and the friends
of human improvement could not regard without anxiety their influence in
ecclesiastical matters and in education.[b]


REACTION AND REFORM; EFFECTS OF THE REVOLUTION OF JULY

The reaction making itself manifest throughout Europe in the third decade
of the nineteenth century appeared also in the individual cantons of
Switzerland and in its general government. The same disparity between
the rights of the nobility and those of the people which existed in
northern Germany was to be found here. As we have seen, the cantons for
the most part had an aristocratic government in which a few favoured
families, the patricians, had so decided a preponderance that there was
hardly a shadow of representation of the people. As at an earlier period
in other countries there had been a distinction between _Stadt_ and
_Amt_ (city and subject land), so at this time in Switzerland the same
distinction was still made between _Stadt_ and _Landschaft_ (city and
rural district). The citizens belonging to the latter were permitted to
send but a few members to the “great council” of a canton.

With such privileges in the hands of the patrician families the
administration of the state was as bad as possible. Offices were
apportioned more according to birth than merit, the finances were
not always managed in the interests of the state. The evils of the
administration of justice had become proverbial. Federal laws for the
regulation of domestic intercourse and commerce were not thought of. The
diet which met at one of the three leading places (_Vororte_)--Bern,
Zurich, and Lucerne--did not fall behind the German diet in reactionary
sentiment, adhered closely to the system of Metternich and sent its men
as mercenaries to France and Naples that it might provide appointments as
officers for the young patricians.

[Sidenote: [1830-1832 A.D.]]

The younger generation, such as was growing up at the universities and
elsewhere, would not content itself with such republics. Everywhere
the opposition of the liberals was becoming active against the rule of
the oligarchies. Since the uprisings in northern Germany, especially,
the demand for constitutional reforms became still more general.
Societies were formed and the liberal press did not tire in proclaiming
the principles of the new era; political equality, abolition of all
privileges, equal representation for all the citizens of a canton,
freedom of the press, etc. Bern, at that time the chief place (_Vorort_,
capital), whose government was the most aristocratic of all, September
22nd, 1830, sent a circular letter to the governments of the cantons
urging them to proceed against the press and to hold fast to the old
constitutions. This only fanned the flame. In the months of October and
November assemblies of the notables and of the people were held in almost
all the cantons, the principles of new constitutions were determined
upon, and in a few weeks the governments were forced to accept them.

[Illustration: PLACE DE LA PALUD, LAUSANNE]

Already before the revolution of July, in May, 1830, the
oligarchal-ultramontane government in Ticino was overthrown and a
different one erected on a democratic basis. The new constitution was
accepted by the people in March, 1831. Events took a similar course
in Zurich, where it was chiefly a matter of the relation of the rural
districts (_Landschaft_) to the too powerful city; in Aargau, St. Gall,
Lucerne, Solothurn, Fribourg--where the hierarchical aristocracy,
supported by the Jesuits and congregationalists (_Congregisten_) who
had been driven out of France, mustered out soldiers but was overthrown
together with everything belonging to it; in Vaud--where, acting with
the hot-bloodedness of Frenchmen, the people called out to the great
councillors (_Gross-räthe_) of Lausanne, “Down with the tyrants!” and
established a radical constitution; in Schaffhausen and in Bern--where
the deposed government for a time had the mad plan to maintain itself
by help of the discharged Swiss soldiers of Charles X; in Bâle--where
bloody encounters twice occurred, and where for the adjustment of the
quarrel federal troops had to take station, the great council of the city
consented rather to a separation from the rural districts than conform to
their demands. Thus there were formed here in 1832 the two half-cantons,
Bâle (city) and rural Bâle (with its government at Siestal). Similar
desires for separation also showed themselves in Schwyz and Valais, but
they were laid aside after embittered conflicts. On the other hand, the
old constitution remained in force in Uri, Unterwalden, Zug, Geneva,
Glarus, the Grisons, and Appenzell. In Neuchâtel the liberal party
would no longer recognise the king of Prussia as the sovereign, but was
suppressed in 1831 by the energy of the Prussian general Von Pfuel; and
the movement ended in a victory for the existing government.


SIEBENER KONKORDAT; DISPUTES OVER ASYLUM AND RELIGION

[Sidenote: [1832-1845 A.D.]]

The party which in 1831 had secured a more liberal form of government
in a majority of the cantons strove also to achieve reforms in the
federal constitution. At the diet of 1832 it obtained the appointment
of a commission which was to revise the federal statutes and present
its conclusions to an extraordinary session of the diet of 1833. The
liberal cantons, Bern, Aargau, Thurgau, St. Gall, Solothurn, Zurich, and
Lucerne, concluded the agreement of the Seven (_Siebener Konkordat_) for
the preservation and attainment of popular sovereignty. On the other hand
the conservative party, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Valais, Neuchâtel, and
the city of Bâle, united in the league of Sarnen (_Sarner-Bund_). In
conjunction with the neutral party these succeeded in 1833 in balking
federal revision. As a result their hopes and demands increased. Armed
bands from Schwyz and the city of Bâle, July 30th, 1833, entered Outer
Schwyz and rural Bâle to compel the submission of these seceding
districts. The consequence was that Schwyz and Bâle city were occupied
by federal troops and the league of Sarnen was declared annulled. The
separation of Bâle into two independent cantons was recognised and the
reunion of Schwyz was declared--this, however, with complete equality of
rights.

The gathering of many fugitives from Germany, Poland, and Italy, who
found an asylum in republican Switzerland but who at times abused
hospitality, brought on complications with foreign powers. The most
active among these revolutionists was Giuseppe Mazzini of Genoa, who in
spite of total lack of any promise of success was continually setting on
foot new attempts at insurrection, to keep his Italian fellow countrymen
in practice. “Young Italy” which he founded at that time caused an inroad
of about four hundred men under General Romarino into Savoy in order from
this point to revolutionise Piedmont and the rest of Italy. After the
occupation of several villages the undertaking foundered because of the
indifference of the people. From this time on Switzerland in the eyes of
the outside world appeared as the hearth of radicalism, especially as
Mazzini wished to extend his activity to the whole of Europe and for the
republicanisation of this continent founded “Young Europe.” Now it rained
diplomatic notes. The neighbouring powers complained of the abuse of the
right of asylum and held out the prospect of the most hostile measures,
if Switzerland would not expel the participants of the Italian raid
and keep a better watch over the rest. Louis Philippe went farthest in
severity toward Switzerland and even threatened her with war if she would
not expell Louis Napoleon, who had returned from America, and was living
in Arenenberg as a citizen of Thurgau. The latter left Switzerland for
England of his own accord.

Even more important were the consequences of the religious conflicts. The
calling of Doctor Strauss from Würtemberg to the University at Zurich
in 1839 roused the rural population to arms and caused the fall of the
liberal government at Zurich; this did not again secure supremacy till
1845. More significant was the question of the convents. In a conference
at Baden in 1834 seven cantons had determined upon the subjection of the
church to the authority of the state and the employment of the convents
for purposes of general usefulness. Most violent was the quarrel over
this matter in the canton Aargau, whose radical government finally, in
1841, closed all the convents, among others the wealthy one of Muri,
and took possession of the property for “purpose of instruction and
benevolence.” Among the bigoted Catholics there was great excitement over
this. It led to a victory of the ultramontane party in Lucerne and Valais
in 1844. This party called the Jesuits to Lucerne to take charge of the
instruction of youth.

[Sidenote: [1845-1847 A.D.]]

In this affair the wealthy farmer Joseph Leu and Sigwart Müller
showed themselves especially active. The Jesuits had also established
themselves in Fribourg and Schwyz. To expel them from Switzerland was
the aim of all the liberal cantons. The expedition of the free lances
(_Freischaren_) of 1845 under the leadership of Ochsenbein of Bern met
with failure. The government of Lucerne, still more embittered by the
murder of Leu, assumed a terrorising attitude, demanded the punishment
of the free lances, and restoration of the convents of the Aargau; and
when no attention was paid to these demands concluded with Schwyz, Uri,
Unterwalden, Zug, Fribourg, and Valais a separate league (_Sonderbund_)
for mutual protection against external and internal enemies. This league
within a league was not to be endured; and, since the liberal cantons
were in the majority, they decided at the diet in Bern, in July, 1847,
upon the dissolution of the Sonderbund, as being contrary to the Pact of
Federation (_Bundesvertrag_) and upon the expulsion of the Jesuits. As
the fanatics of Lucerne failed to obey the diet, orders were given for
federal action against the cantons of the Sonderbund. The federal army
was mustered in and the experienced general Dufour of Geneva was placed
at its head.[c]


THE SONDERBUND WAR (1847 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1847 A.D.]]

Europe had followed with an attentive eye the events we have just
related. Peoples were preoccupied with them, courts saw in them a source
of serious anxiety. All, taking the Vienna congress as their point of
view, desired a federative, neutral, and peaceable Switzerland. From this
point of view the cause of the Sonderbund seemed to them to have justice
on its side. But everywhere, owing to diversified interests, the language
differed. “A fine country and a good people,” said King Louis Philippe,
“but it is in a bad way. Let us keep from interfering. To hinder others
so doing is to render them a great service.” Guizot nevertheless proposed
to occupy himself in Swiss affairs in a conference to be held at Paris
or in London, but he was unsuccessful. Once Austrian troops on the one
hand, French on the other, drew near Switzerland, but they were speedily
recalled to their cantonments. Metternich would willingly have taken the
lead, had he not known that France could not leave Austria to interfere
alone. Thenceforth, of the two powers, one contented itself with secretly
aiding the Sonderbund by relays of arms and money, the other with
lavishing encouragements on the seven cantons through its ambassador.

Prussia hesitated, recommending Neuchâtel prudence. Czar Nicholas could
not understand an intervention unless the powers had sixty thousand men
behind them. Great Britain would not interfere at all. Under the ministry
of Lord Palmerston, a young statesman named Peel, son of the illustrious
minister of that name, joined the Bear Club at Bern where radicals met.
At Rome, the French ambassador, Rossi, an ancient deputy of the Geneva
diet, was charged to solicit Pius IX to recall the Jesuits from Lucerne.
It was thought both in London and Paris that the best means of restoring
peace to Switzerland was to take from the radicals their principal
grievance and their flag. The holy father contented himself with letting
the Swiss know that he would remain passive in the strife (_passive se
habere decrevit_).

Switzerland, under these circumstances, was persuaded that the moment had
come frankly to declare to Europe her intention of being sole interpreter
of her Pact of Alliance; to have done with the questions that agitated
her; and to constitute herself on the basis of an enlarged and equitable
democracy, which would soon see her the first on the road towards which
all European peoples were proceeding. She knew the states which lavished
advice on her to be torn by a revolutionary spirit and incapable of
uniting against her in a common resolution. It was under the influence of
this thought that Ochsenbein opened the confederation diet on the 5th of
July, 1847.

Although only the son of a hotel keeper, without instruction in the
classics, but gifted with prompt and pleasing intelligence, he presented
himself unembarrassed before an assembly wherein the heads of the two
parties dividing Switzerland were sitting, and at which the majority
of ministers from foreign powers assisted. Frankness characterised his
discourse. Foreseeing a European crisis--“Our modern world,” said he,
“rests on worm-eaten columns, on institutions that have for support only
the powers of habit and interests, a construction that the slightest
storm will make a ruin. Well, this storm approaches; the colossus is
quite aware of it. He sleeps a dangerous sleep.” Descending from these
heights to questions of the moment, the president of the diet proclaimed
the right of the majority, whom Switzerland had always recognised. When
this majority had been declared, he courteously invited all the cantons
to join with it. Callame, a Neuchâtel deputy, exposed in language firm
and untouched by passion the gravity of events that had given place
to a separate alliance, and demanded that they should leave those who
had concluded it the time to convince themselves that it was no longer
necessary.

In reality, the vote of the majority meant a declaration of war. The
diet adjourned so as to give the parties time either to unite or to
finish their preparations for hostilities. It reassembled on the 18th
of October. Two delegates, envoys of peace, were sent from each of the
Sonderbund cantons, but they met with scant welcome: one-half wanted war.


_Colonel Dufour is Made Commander of the Army_

On the 29th of October the deputies from the seven cantons left Bern,
and on the 4th of November it was decided that the decree ordering the
dissolution of their alliance should be executed by arms. The diet put
on foot fifty thousand men, and entrusted the command, with the rank
of general, to Colonel Dufour, of Geneva. No name in the army was more
respected, none had more weight. Dufour did not belong to either side. In
sympathy he was conservative, but was none the less a man of progress.
He had been in the wars and published writings on military science,
fruits of a long and wide experience. No chief knew as he did the canton
militia, over whose manœuvres he had for a number of years presided
in the camp at Thun, as chief instructor of the engineering corps. To
these warlike qualities he united the virtues of a man of peace. He was
occupied in the elaboration, on a plan he had conceived, of the fine
map of Switzerland which bears his name, when he was called to quit the
pursuits of the student for the field of battle. He comprehended the
danger to his country. He clearly perceived his duty, and he thought only
of accomplishing it.

In accepting the first command he made what he considered necessary
stipulations, demanding a sufficient number of troops and absolute
power. All this he obtained, though not without some resistance. He was
given 100,000 men and 260 field pieces. This army he distributed into
seven divisions. In the choice of superior officers, he exacted that he
alone should judge of their capacity without any regard to political
opinion; this was the way both to get excellent officers and to prepare
for what he considered to be his duty--the quieting of hatreds after
the struggle. In a short time there was no longer question of politics
in the army. Addressing once his heads of divisions, “I shall never
depart,” he said, “from the laws of moderation and humanity. A stranger
to political agitation and faithful to my military duties, I shall try
to establish order and discipline in the federal troops, to make public
and private property respected, to protect the Catholic religion in her
ministers, her temples, and her religious establishments--in a word,
to do everything to soften the inevitable evils of war. If violence be
used, let it not come from us. After fighting, spare the vanquished;
however strong one may be, relieve the despair of the enemy: then we can
congratulate ourselves after the fight on never having forgotten that it
was between confederates.”

These instructions being made known, the general resolved to trust
nothing to chance, and to make no offensive movement unless sure of
the superiority of his forces; this he recognised as the surest way
towards a speedy ending with the least bloodshed. Soon the confidence he
inspired began to show itself. The city of Bâle, long undecided, sent
him excellent artillery. Neuchâtel and Appenzell alone continued to take
no part in the war. The promptitude with which the army got under arms,
well ordered, well clothed, and well equipped, astonished foreigners.
The redivision of troops was necessitated by the situation. The country
occupied by the Sonderbund formed three distinct masses--Fribourg, the
original cantons, and Valais. Dufour proposed to attack them separately,
and to begin with Fribourg.


_Preparations of the Sonderbund_

The powers held exaggerated ideas of the Sonderbund forces. It could
hardly put on foot more than thirty thousand regular troops. The
_Landsturm_, it is true, meant a more considerable number of men, but
not having received sufficient organisation could not be compared to
the excellent reserves of the large cantons, and did not give the help
expected of them. Far from one another, the separatist states could
only with difficulty lend one another aid. The original cantons tried
nevertheless to keep their ways open by means of boldness in offensive
actions. Even before the diet began its campaign, the men of Uri seized
the St. Gotthard passes (November 3rd); threw themselves across the
Levantina, surprised three thousand Ticinese encamped at Airolo, and
drove them as far as the Moesa bridge. But arrived at this point, they
found themselves face to face with Grisons and Ticino militia, superior
to them in number, who stopped their progress. The expedition had no
other result than that of holding back two thousand excellent soldiers
from the places where decisive blows were to be struck. Another attempt,
made from Lucerne, to penetrate into Catholic Aargau and to free
Fribourg, by means of a diversion, had no better success.


_The Capitulations of Fribourg and Lucerne End the Sonderbund_

Without taking much account of these movements, Dufour occupied himself
only in concentrating his forces so as to surround the Sonderbund states,
on all their accessible frontiers. His provisions were assured, his
hospital organised. Immediately upon the rupture being announced, Colonel
Ochsenbein, who presided over the diet, left office to put himself
entirely at the disposition of the general-in-chief. The general placed
him at the head of the Bernese reserves, which composed his seventh
division and which he assimilated with the active troops. He stationed
them first on the Lucerne frontier, and when he arranged to draw near
Fribourg, he called Ochsenbein to advance towards that capital, in
order to make the enemy think he would attack from the eastern side.
However, twenty thousand men and fifty-four artillery pieces, under
colonels Rilliet, Burkhard, and Donatz, advanced from the north and west
by different routes, and kept their movements secret that they might
arrive on the same day at the gate of Fribourg. On the 13th the town
was surrounded. An experienced leader, Colonel Maillardoz, had raised
defences all round, and they had prepared to attack these exterior
forts when the Fribourg government, recognising the impossibility of
resistance, gave up the town, dismissed the troops, and renounced the
Sonderbund. The taking of Fribourg would not have cost the federal army a
single man if through a mistake a Vaudois troop had not rushed under fire
from the Bertigny redoubt, which resulted in seven killed and a large
number wounded.

As soon as Fribourg had capitulated the general confided to Colonel
Rilliet the care of occupying the military cantonments and watching the
entrance of Valais. He himself hastened to Aarau, to prepare for the
investment of Lucerne. Two rivers, the Emme and the Reuss, protected
this town. The bridges on these rivers had been broken or fortified.
The ground on which it was foreseen that the most serious engagements
would be delivered was the labyrinth which stretches from the Reuss to
the Lake of Zug; bristling with wooded hills, where passage had been
stopped by barricades and mines had been laid in the defiles. It was
necessary to attack these strong positions, because they served as a
link between Schwyz and Lucerne, and success on this point was decisive,
whilst elsewhere it was not so. The leader whom the five cantons had
put in charge of their militia, Ulrich de Salis-Soglio, understood
this, and went to these places. The forces he could dispose of were
some twenty thousand regulars and a similar body of the _Landsturm_.
Salis had learned warfare in fighting Napoleon. A sincere Protestant,
he had nevertheless devoted himself to a cause which had his political
sympathies, but of which he despaired.

A resolution being taken to force his entrenchments, Dufour set five
divisions of his army on the march from the various points they occupied,
giving them Lucerne as object. Ochsenbein’s reserves went down the Emme
valley, overcoming a lively resistance. The Burkhard and Donatz divisions
approached the Emme and the Reuss between the bridges of Wolhusen and
Gislikon, at the same time that colonels Ziegler and Gmur at the head of
some odd thousands of men attacked Salis in his intrenched camps. Ziegler
mastered the Gislikon bridge and the Honau defiles. Gmur, after having
received on his march the submission of Zug, scaled the heights of Meyers
Kappel. Everything made for success. Victory was hotly disputed, but the
Schwyzers were in the end thrown back towards Immensee, whence they fell
back on Art and Goldau. Troops from the other cantons turned to Lucerne.
The separation of Schwyz with its allies was accomplished. On every hand
the federal troops marched simultaneously on that capital. The gates were
opened to them by a convention, and on the 24th of November Dufour made
his entry. On the following days the Waldstätte and the Valais made their
submission. Twenty-five days after the decree of execution the task of
the army was complete--the Sonderbund no longer existed.[d]

[Sidenote: [1848-1874 A.D.]]

The diet now debated the draft constitution drawn up by Kern of Thurgau
and Druey of Vaud, which in the summer of 1848 was accepted by fifteen
and a half cantons, the minority consisting of the three forest cantons,
Valais, Zug, Ticino, and Appenzell (Tuner Rhodes), and it was proclaimed
on September 12th.

From 1848 onwards the cantons continually revised their constitutions,
always in a democratic sense, though after the Sonderbund War Schwyz and
Zug abolished their Landsgemeinde. The chief point was the introduction
of the _referendum_, by which laws made by the cantonal legislature may
(facultative referendum) or must (obligatory referendum) be submitted
to the people for their approval; and this has obtained such general
acceptance that Fribourg alone does not possess the referendum in
either of its two forms, Ticino having accepted it in its optional
form in 1883. It was therefore only natural that attempts should be
made to revise the federal constitution of 1848 in a democratic and
centralising sense, for it had been provided that the federal assembly,
on its own initiative or on the written request of fifty thousand Swiss
electors, could submit the question of revision to a popular vote. In
1866 the restriction of certain rights to Christians only was swept
away; but the attempt at final revision in 1872 was defeated by a small
majority, owing to the efforts of the anti-centralising party. Finally,
however, another draft was better liked, and on April 19th, 1874, the
new constitution was accepted by the people. This constitution is that
now in force, and is simply an improved edition of that of 1848. The
federal tribunal (now of nine members only) was fixed (by federal law)
at Lausanne, and its jurisdiction enlarged, especially in constitutional
disputes between cantons and the federal authorities, though jurisdiction
in administrative matters (_e.g._, educational, religious, election,
commercial) is given to the federal council--a division of functions
which is very anomalous, and does not work well.

[Illustration: A SWISS FINIAL]

A system of free elementary education was set up, and many regulations
were made on ecclesiastical matters. A man settling in another canton
was, after a residence of three months, only, given all cantonal and
communal rights, save a share in the common property (an arrangement
which as far as possible kept up the old principle that the “commune”
is the true unit out of which cantons and the confederation are built),
and the membership of the “commune” carries with it cantonal and federal
rights. The referendum was introduced in its “facultative” form--_i.e._,
all federal laws must be submitted to popular vote on the demand of
thirty thousand Swiss electors or of eight cantons. If the revision
of the federal constitution is demanded by one of the two houses of
the federal assembly or by fifty thousand Swiss citizens, the question
of revision must be submitted to a popular vote, as also the draft of
the revised constitution--these provisions, contained already in the
constitution of 1848, forming a species of “obligatory referendum.” It
was supposed that this plan would lead to radical and sweeping changes,
but as a matter of fact there have been (1874-1886) about one hundred
and seven federal laws and resolutions passed by the assembly, of which
nineteen were by the referendum submitted to popular vote, thirteen being
rejected, while six only were accepted--the rest becoming law, as no
referendum was demanded. There has been a very steady opposition to all
schemes aiming at increased centralisation. By the constitutions of 1848
and 1874 Switzerland has ceased to be a mere union of independent states
joined by a treaty, and has become a single state with a well-organized
central government.

[Sidenote: [1874-1887 A.D.]]

This new constitution inclined rather to the Act of Mediation than to
the system which prevailed before 1798. A status of “Swiss citizenship”
was set up, closely joined to cantonal citizenship: a man settling in
a canton not being his birthplace got cantonal citizenship after two
years, but was excluded from all local rights in the “commune” where
he might reside. A federal or central government was set up, to which
the cantons gave up a certain part of their sovereign rights, retaining
the rest. The federal legislature (or assembly) was made up of two
houses--the council of states (_Stände Rat_), composed of two deputies
from each canton, whether small or great (forty-four in all), and the
national council (_National Rat_), made up of deputies (now 145 in
number) elected for three years, in the proportion of one for every
twenty thousand souls or fraction over ten thousand, the electors being
all Swiss citizens. The federal council or executive (_Bundesrat_)
consisted of seven members elected by the federal assembly; they are
jointly responsible for all business, though for the sake of convenience
there are various departments, and their chairman is called the president
of the confederation. The federal judiciary (_Bundesgericht_) is made
up of eleven members elected by the federal assembly for three years;
its jurisdiction is chiefly confined to civil cases, in which the
confederation is a party (if a canton, the federal council may refer
the case to the federal tribunal), but takes in also great political
crimes--all constitutional questions, however, being reserved for the
federal assembly. A federal university and a polytechnic school were to
be founded; the latter only has as yet been set up (1887) and is fixed at
Zurich. All military capitulations were forbidden in the future. Every
canton must treat Swiss citizens who belong to one of the Christian
confessions like their own citizens, for the right of free settlement
is given to all such, though they acquired no rights in the “commune.”
All Christians were guaranteed the exercise of their religion, but the
Jesuits and similar religious orders were not to be received in any
canton. German, French, and Italian were recognised as national languages.

The constitution as a whole marked a great step forward; though very
many rights were still reserved to the cantons, yet there was a fully
organised central government. Almost the first act of the federal
assembly was to exercise the power given them of determining the home of
the federal authorities, and on November 28th, 1848, Bern was chosen,
though Zurich still ranks as the first canton in the confederation. By
this early settlement of disputes Switzerland was protected from the
general revolutionary movement of 1848.

The federal constitution of 1848 set up a permanent federal executive,
legislature, and tribunal, each and all quite distinct from and
independent of any cantonal government. This system was a modified
revival of the state of things that had prevailed from 1798 to 1803,
and was an imitation of the political changes that had taken place
in the cantonal constitutions after 1830. Both were victories of the
centralist or radical party, and it was therefore but natural that
this party should be called upon to undertake the federal government
under the new constitution, a supremacy that it has kept ever since. To
the centralists the council of states (two members from each canton,
however large or small) has always been a stumbling-block, and they have
mockingly nicknamed it “the fifth wheel of the coach.” In the other house
of the federal legislature, the national council (one member per twenty
thousand, or fraction of over ten thousand of the entire population), the
radicals have always since its creation in 1848 had a majority. Hence,
in the congress formed by both houses sitting together, the radicals
have had it all their own way. This is particularly important as regards
the election of the seven members of the federal executive which is made
by such a congress. Now the federal executive (federal council) is in
no sense a cabinet--_i.e._, a committee of the party in the majority in
the legislature for the time being. In the Swiss federal constitution
the cabinet has no place at all. Each member of the federal executive
is elected by a separate ballot, and holds office for the fixed term of
three years, during which he cannot be turned out of office, while as
yet but a single instance has occurred of the rejection of a federal
councillor who offered himself for re-election.

Further, none of the members of the federal executive can hold a seat
in either house of the federal legislature, though they may appear and
speak (but not vote) in either, while the federal council as such has
not necessarily any common policy, and never expresses its views on the
general situation (though it does as regards particular legislative and
administrative measures) in anything resembling the “speech from the
throne” in England. Thus it seems clear that the federal executive was
intended by the federal constitution of 1848 (and in this respect that of
1874 made no change) to be a standing committee of the legislature as a
whole, but not of a single party in the legislature, or a “cabinet,” even
though it had the majority. Yet this rule of a single political party is
just what has taken place. Between 1848 and the end of 1899, thirty-six
federal councillors were elected (twenty-three from German-speaking,
eleven from French-speaking, and two from Italian-speaking Switzerland,
the canton of Vaud heading the list with seven). Now of these thirty-six
two only were not radicals, _viz._ M. Ceresole (1870-75) of Vaud,
who was a Protestant liberal-conservative, and Herr Zemp (elected in
1891), a Romanist conservative; yet the conservative minority is a
large one, while the Romanists form about two-fifths of the population
of Switzerland. But, despite this predominance of a single party in
the federal council, no true cabinet system has come into existence in
Switzerland, as members of the council do not resign even when their
personal policy is condemned by a popular vote, so that the resignation
of Herr Welti (a member of the federal council from 1866 to 1891), in
consequence of the rejection by the people of his railway policy, caused
the greatest amazement and consternation in Switzerland.

[Sidenote: [1891-1900 A.D.]]

The chief political parties in the federal legislature are the right,
or conservatives (whether Romanists or Protestants), the centre (now
often called “liberals,” but rather answering to the whigs of English
political language), the left (or radicals), and the extreme left (or
the socialists). In the council of states there is always a federalist
majority, since in this house the smaller cantons are on an equality
with the greater ones, each indifferently having two members. But in the
national council (147 elected members) there has always been a radical
majority over all other parties, the numbers of the various parties after
the triennial elections of 1899 being roughly as follows: radicals, 86;
socialists, 9; Centre, 19; and the Right, 33. The socialists long worked
under the wing of the radicals, but now in every canton (save Geneva)
the two parties have quarrelled, the socialist vote having largely
increased. In the country the anti-radical opposition is made up of
the conservatives, who are strongest in the Romanist, and especially
the forest cantons, and of the “federalists” of French-speaking
Switzerland. There is no doubt that the people are really anti-radical,
though occasionally led away by the experiments made recently in the
domain of state socialism: they elect, indeed, a radical majority, but
very frequently reject the bills laid before them by their elected
representatives.

From 1885 onwards Switzerland had some troubles with foreign powers owing
to her defence of the right of asylum for fugitive German socialists,
despite the threats of Prince Bismarck, who maintained a secret police
in Switzerland, one member of which, Wohlgemuth, was expelled in 1889,
to the prince’s huge but useless indignation. From about 1890, as the
above troubles within and without gradually subsided, the agitation in
the country against the centralising policy of the radicals became more
and more strongly marked. By the united exertions of all the opposition
parties, and against the steady resistance of the radicals, an amendment
was introduced in 1891 into the federal constitution, by which fifty
thousand Swiss citizens can by the “initiative” compel the federal
legislature and executive to take into consideration some point in the
federal constitution which, in the opinion of the petitioners, requires
reform, and to prepare a bill dealing with it which must be submitted to
a popular vote. Great hopes and fears were entertained at the time as to
the working of this new institution, but both have been falsified, for
the initiative has as yet only succeeded in inserting (in 1893) in the
federal constitution a provision by which the Jewish method of killing
animals is forbidden. On the other hand, it has failed (in 1894) to
secure the adoption of a socialist scheme by which the state was bound to
provide work for every able-bodied man in the country, and (also in 1894)
to carry a proposal to give to the cantons a bonus of two francs per
head of the population out of the rapidly growing returns of the customs
duties.

The great rise in the productiveness of these duties has tempted the
Swiss people of late years to embark on a course of state socialism,
which may be also described as a series of measures tending to give
more and more power to the central federal government at the expense
of the cantons. So, in 1890, the principle of compulsory universal
insurance against sickness and accidents was accepted by a popular vote,
in 1891 likewise that of a state or federal bank, and in 1898 that of
the unification of the cantonal laws, civil and criminal, into a set
of federal codes. In each case the federal government and legislature
were charged with the preparation of laws carrying out in detail these
general principles. But in 1897 their proposals as to a federal bank were
rejected by the people, while at the beginning of 1900 the suspicion felt
as to the insurance proposals elaborated by the federal authorities was
so keen that a popular demand for a popular vote was signed by 115,000
Swiss citizens, the legal minimum being only 30,000: they were rejected
(20th of May, 1900) on a popular vote by a two to one majority. The
preparation of the federal codes has progressed quietly, drafts being
framed by experts and then submitted for criticism to special commissions
and public opinion. But this method, though the true one to secure the
evolving of order out of chaos, takes time.

By a popular vote in 1887 the federal authorities were given a monopoly
of alcohol, but a proposal to deal similarly with tobacco has been very
ill received (though such a monopoly would undoubtedly produce a large
amount), and would pretty certainly be refused by the people if a popular
vote were ever taken upon it. In 1895 the people declined to sanction
a state monopoly of matches, even though the unhealthy nature of the
work was strongly urged, and have also resolutely refused on several
occasions to accept any projects for the centralising of the various
branches of military administration, etc. Among other reforms which have
recently been much discussed in Switzerland are the introduction of the
obligatory referendum (which hitherto has applied only to amendments to
the federal constitution) and the initiative (now limited to piecemeal
revision of the federal constitution) to all federal laws, etc., and
the making large federal money grants to the primary schools (managed
by the several cantons). The former scheme is an attempt to restrain
important centralising measures from being presented as laws (and as
such exempt from the compulsory referendum), and not as amendments to
the federal constitution, while the proposed school grant is part of the
radical policy of buying support for unpopular measures by lavish federal
subventions, which it is hoped will outweigh the dislike of the cantons
to divest themselves of any remaining fragments of their sovereignty.[e]

[Illustration]




BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter.]

Transcriber’s Note: Chapters I-IV are not in this volume.


CHAPTER I. SWITZERLAND TO THE FOUNDING OF THE CONFEDERATION (earliest
times to 1291 A.D.)

[b] STRABO, _Geographica_.

[c] JOHN WILSON, _History of Switzerland_ (in the “Cabinet Cyclopædia”).

[d] FERDINAND KELLER, _Pfahlbauten_.

[e] FREDERIC TROYON, _Habitations lacustres_.

[f] VICTOR GROSS, _Les Proto-helvétes_.

[g] ELISÉE RECLUS, _The Lacustrian Cities of Switzerland_ (in Smithsonian
Report for 1861).

[h] G. O. MONTELIUS, _De Chronologie der Pfahlbauten in Mittheilungen der
Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien. Vol. XXX._

[i] JOHN LUBBOCK, _Prehistoric Times_.

[j] T. STUDER, _Pfahlfan Bevölkering in Zeit für Ethr. Verband_, 1885.

[k] RUDOLF VIRCHOW, in letter prefixed to V. Gross, _Les Proto-helvétes_.

[l] ROBERT MUNRO, _The Lake Dwellings of Europe_.

[m] A. VIEUSSEUX, _The History of Switzerland_.

[n] MICHAEL STETTLER, _Annales_.

[o] JOHANN VON MÜLLER, _Geschichte der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft_.

[p] ALEXANDRE DAGUET, _Histoire de la Confédération Suisse_.


CHAPTER II. THE RISE OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION (1288-1402 A.D.)

[c] E. A. FREEMAN, _The Historical Geography of Europe_.

[d] A. RILLIET, _Les Origines de la Confédération Suisse_.

[e] J. DIERAUER, _Geschichte der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft_.

[f] W. A. B. COOLIDGE, _History of Switzerland_ in _Encyclopædia
Britannica_.

[g] K. DÄNDLIKER, _Histoire du Peuple Suisse_.

[k] J. VON MÜLLER, _Geschichte der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft_.

[l] G. MEYER VON KNONAU, _Die Sage von der Befreiung der Waldstätte_, in
_Sweizer Oeffentliche Vorträge_.

[m] A. HUBER, _Die Waldstätte, Uri, Sweiz, Unterwalden, etc._

[n] R. VON RADEGG, _Capella Eremitana_.

[o] JOHN OF WINTERTHUR, _Chronikon Vitodurani_ in W. Oechsli’s _Anfänge
der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft_.

[p] W. OECHSLI, _Quellenbuch zur Schweizer Geschichte_.

[q] A. VIEUSSEUX, _The History of Switzerland_.

[r] J. WILSON, _History of Switzerland_.

[s] J. VULLIEMIN, _Histoire de la Confédération Suisse_.


CHAPTER III. THE CONFEDERATION AT THE HEIGHT OF ITS POWER (1402-1516 A.D.)

[b] W. A. B. COOLIDGE, Switzerland, in _Encyclopædia Britannica_.

[c] A. VIEUSSEUX, _The History of Switzerland_.

[d] VULLIEMIN, _Histoire de la Confédération Suisse_.

[e] A. DAUGET, _Histoire de la Confédération Suisse_.

[f] A. MORIN, _Précis de l’Histoire_.

[g] WILSON.

[h] P. VERRI, _Storia di Milano_.

[i] F. GUICCIARDIN, _Historia di Milano_.


CHAPTER IV. THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES

[b] A. VIEUSSEUX, _The History of Switzerland_.

[c] J. K. L. GIESELER, _Compendium of Ecclesiastical History_.

[d] J. WILSON, _History of Switzerland_.

[e] J. STRICKLER, _Grundniss der Schweizer-Geschichte_.

[f] MAGUENOT, _Abrége de l’Histoire de la Suisse_.

[g] DAGUET, _Histoire de la Confédération_.


CHAPTER V. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

[b] JOHANN HEINRICH DANIEL ZSCHOKKE, _Des Schweizerlandes Geschichte_.

[c] J. WILSON, _History of Switzerland_.

[d] A. VIEUSSEUX, _The History of Switzerland_.

[e] K. DÄNDLIKER, _History of Switzerland_.

[f] A. DAGUET, _Histoire de la Confédération_.

[g] R. WEISS, _Coup d’œil sur les relations politiques entre la
république Française et le corps Helvétique_ (1793).

[h] R. WEISS, _Réveillez-vous, Suisses, le danger approche_.

[i] W. COXE, _A History of the House of Austria_.


CHAPTER VI. SWITZERLAND SINCE 1798

[b] J. WILSON, _History of Switzerland_.

[c] W. MÜLLER, _Politische Geschichte der Neuersten Zeit_.

[d] VULLIEMIN, _Histoire de la Confédération Suisse_.

[e] W. A. B. COOLIDGE, article on Switzerland in _Encyclopædia
Britannica_.




A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SWISS HISTORY

BASED ON THE WORKS QUOTED, CITED, OR CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE
PRESENT WORK; WITH CRITICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES


=Adams=, F. O., and C. D. =Cunningham=, The Swiss Confederation, London,
1889.--=Ah=, J. J. von, Die Bundesbriefe der ältern Eidgenossen,
Einsiedeln, 1891.--=Alt=, F. N. de, Histoire de la Suisse, Fribourg,
1750-1755, 10 vols.

    _François Joseph Nicholas_, baron of Alt, the son of an ancient
    patrician family of Fribourg, Switzerland, was born in 1689,
    and died in 1771. His history, which was admirably planned,
    would have greater value for the general student if much of the
    extraneous matter and all the violent Catholic partisanship
    were eliminated.

=Amtliche Sammlung der Akten aus der Zeit der Helvetischen Republik=, 2
vols., translated by J. Strickler, Bern, 1886-1890, 4 vols.--=Amtliche
Sammlung der ältern eidgenössischen Abschiede= 1245-1798, 1839-1856, 8
vols. Reports of the old Federal diets, containing an enormous amount
of historical matter.--=Anshelm=, Berner-Chronik, Bern, 1825-1833, 6
vols.--=Arx=, J. von, Geschichte von St. Gallen, St. Gallen, 1810, 2
vols.--=Aubigné=, T. A. d’, Histoire Universelle 1550-1601, Geneva, 1626,
3 vols.

    _Théodore Agrippa d’Aubigné_, one of the most notable
    characters of the sixteenth century, was born at St. Maury,
    near Pons, February 8th, 1550, of an old and noble family
    which had embraced the religion of the Calvinists. The young
    d’Aubigné neglected none of the educational opportunities
    afforded him by his father, and at the age of six was already
    able to read Latin, Greek and Hebrew. At thirteen he escaped
    from the restraints of his tutor to take part in the siege
    of Orléans. After his father’s death he won reputation as
    a warrior under the prince of Condé, and later entered the
    service of the king of Navarre. In the wars of Henry IV for
    the recovery of his kingdom, d’Aubigné further distinguished
    himself; but he was finally obliged by the enmity of the
    queen-mother to retire from the court. During his exile he
    composed the history of his time, a work remarkable for its
    fearless frankness. The first two volumes were printed without
    opposition; but the third was condemned on account of its
    merciless criticisms. D’Aubigné, however, caused it to be
    printed, thereby incurring the burning of all three volumes;
    the confiscation of all his goods, and the savage persecution
    of his later years, until his death at Geneva, April 29, 1630.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Bachtold=, J., and F. =Vetter=, Bibliotek älterer Schriftwerke
der deutschen Schweiz, Frauenfeld, 1882-1884, 5 vols.--=Baker=, T.
G., The Model Republic, London, 1895.--=Baebler=, J. J., Die alten
eidgenössischen Bunde, St. Gall., 1848.--=Baumgartner=, G. J., Die
Schweiz in ihren Kämpfen und Umgestaltungen, 1830-1850, Zurich, 1853-66,
4 vols.; Erlebnisse auf dem Felde der Politik, Schaffhausen, 1844;
Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der französichen Revolution, Berlin, 1861;
Geschichte des Schweiz Freistaats und Kantons St. Gallen, Zurich, 1868,
2 vols.--=Berchtold=, J., Histoire du canton de Fribourg, Fribourg,
1841-1845.--=Berthold=, de Constance, continuator of the Chronicon de
sex ætatibus mundi.--=Blochmann=, C. J., Heinrich Pestalozzi, Leipsic,
1846.--=Bloesch=, E., Rapport sur les affaires communales Berne,
1851.--=Blumer=, J. J., Staats- und Rechtsgeschriften der Schweiz.
Demokratien, St. Gallen, 1850-59, 3 vols.; Handbuch des schweiz.
Bundesstaatsrechts, Schaffhausen, 1877-87, 13 vols.--=Bluntschli=, J. K.,
Geschichte des schweiz. Bundesrechts, Stuttgart, 1875, 2 vols.; Staats-
und Rechtsgeschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Zurich, Zurich, 1838, 2
vols.--=Bohmer=, J. F., Regesta Karolorum, Frankfort, 1833.--=Bonivard=,
F., Les Chroniques de la Genève, Geneva, 1831, 2 vols.

    _François Bonivard_, to whom we owe the vivid pictures of the
    agitations which marked the beginning of the sixteenth century,
    was born of Savoyard parents, in 1493, at Seyssel. At seventeen
    he became prior of St. Victor, a community of Benedictines near
    Geneva. Revolutionist at heart, he entered into the struggle
    against the duke of Savoy, who in 1519 imprisoned him and
    confiscated his priory. He died in 1570, aged seventy-seven
    years, after a troubled youth and a melancholy old age as
    pensioner in the city where he had once been a man of mark. He
    left behind him the invaluable chronicle of his time, written
    half in Latin, half in the quaint French of his day, in a style
    at once rude and naive, familiar and vigorous, and brimming
    with picturesque imagery and lively metaphor.

=Bonnechose=, E. de, Les Réformateurs avant la Réforme, Paris, 1860, 3rd
edition, 2 vols.--=Brandstetter=, J. L., Repertorium über die Zeit und
Sammelschriften der Jahre, 1812-1890, Bâle, 1892.--=Bulletin= official du
Directoire Helvétique, 3 vols.--=Bullinger=, H., Reformationsgeschichte,
Frauenfeld, 1838-40, 3 vols.

    _Henry Bullinger_ was born at Bremgarten in 1504 and died at
    Zurich in 1575. After a preliminary course at Emmerich, his
    father having refused him the means necessary to continue his
    education, he made money by singing in the streets and in 1520
    he recommenced his studies at Cologne, with the idea of joining
    the community of the Chartreux. But his resolution and his
    religion as well were changed by his association with Zwingli,
    whose doctrine he embraced and whose successor he became.
    In addition to his history of the Reformation and numerous
    theological writings he edited the complete works of Zwingli.

=Burckhardt=, Der Kirchenschatz des Münsters zu Basel, Bâle, 1867.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Cæsar=, J., De bello gallico.--=Casus S. Galli.= By Ekkehard IV.
Translated by G. Meyer von Knonau, Leipsic, 1878.--=Chambrier=, F. de,
Histoire de Neuchâtel et Valangin jusqu’à l’avènement de la maison de
Prusse, Neuchâtel, 1840.

    _Frédéric de Chambrier_, the real founder of the Academy of
    Neuchâtel, was a man of wide culture and varied resources.
    In his _Histoire_ he follows faithfully, century by century,
    the progress of the little but proud and independent people
    of Neuchâtel, handling his character analyses with skill and
    persisting in a style at once simple and dignified.

=Chauffour-Kestner=, Études sur les Réformateurs du XVI
Siècle.--=Cherbuliez=, A., De la Democratie en Suisse, Geneva,
1843.--=Chronique d’Edlibach.=--=Chronica de Berno.=--=Chronique
Anonyme.=--=Chronique des chanoines de Neuchâtel=, Michaud,
1839.--=Chronik des Hans Fründ=, Chur, 1875.--=Colton=, J. M., Annals
of Switzerland, New York, 1897.--=Coxe=, W., A History of the House of
Austria, London, 1807.--=Crétineau=, Joly J., Histoire du Sonderbund,
Paris, 1850, 2 vols.--=Curti=, T., Geschichte der Schweizerischen
Volksgesetzgebung, Zurich, 1885.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Daguet=, A., Biographie de Guillimann, Fribourg, 1843; Les barons de
Forell, Lausanne, 1873; Histoire de la Confédération Suisse, Geneva,
1880, 2 vols.

    _Alexander Daguet_, Swiss historian and professor was born at
    Fribourg, March 12, 1816, of a family of poor nobles. Since
    1866 he has held the chair of history and pedagogy at the
    Academy of Neuchâtel. He has edited successively numerous
    educational journals and figures among the authors of the
    publications of the Société de la Suisse romande. In his own
    country and abroad he has gained innumerable distinctions. He
    is the founder of several literary and historical societies,
    and the honored member of many more.

=Dändliker=, C., Ursachen und Vorspiel der Burgunderkriege, Zurich, 1876;
Geschichte der Schweiz, Zurich, 1884-88, 3 vols.; A short history of
Switzerland, translation by E. Salisbury, London, 1899.

    _Chas. Dändliker_, Swiss historian, was born at Staffa, May 6,
    1849. He studied at Zurich and Munich and in 1871 was called to
    the chair of history at the Pedagogical Institute, Küssnacht,
    where he is still instructor. In 1887 he was named professor
    extraordinary in Swiss history at the University of Zurich. His
    history of Switzerland has been translated into English.

=Dawson=, W. H., Social Switzerland, London, 1897.--=Der Schweizerische
Republikaner=, Zurich, Lucern, Bern, 1798-9, 3 vols.--=Dierauer=,
J., Geschichte der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, Gotha, 1887, 2
vols.--=Dottain=, E., La question suisse, éclaircissements historiques,
Paris, 1860.--=Droz=, N., Instruction civique, Geneva and Lausanne, 1885;
Die Schweiz im 19ten Jahrhundert, Lausanne, 1899.

    _Numa Droz_, minister of foreign affairs for the Swiss
    Confederation, was born January 7, 1844, of a humble family of
    watchmakers. In 1864 he turned his attention to politics and
    became editor of a radical instrument, _Le National Suisse_.
    During the elections of 1869 he obtained a high place in
    the grand council, thanks to his facile elocution and his
    ardent liberalism. He was in 1882 one of the negotiators of
    the Franco-Swiss treaty. His writings are distinguished for
    clearness of presentation, beauty of style, and substantialness
    of matter.

=Dubs=, J., Das öffentliche Recht der Eidgenossenschaft, Zurich, 1855, 2
vols.--=Dufour=, G. H., Der Sonderbundskrieg, Bâle, 1882.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Eckhardus=, Jr. (monk of St. Gall), St. Galler Kloster-Chronik,
Leipsic, 1891.--=Egli=, S. E., Die schlacht bei Kappel, Zurich,
1873.--=Elgger=, C. von, Kriegswesen und Kriegskunst der schweizerischen
Eidgenossenschaft, Lucerne, 1873.--=Escher=, H., Die Glaubensparteien
in der Eidgenossenschaft, Frauenfeld, 1882.--=Etterlin von Lucerne=,
Petermann, Kronica von der löblichen Eydtgnoschaft, Bâle, 1507.

    _Petermann Etterlin_, captain of Lucernois in the wars of
    Burgundy, was the first to give to the world a veritable Swiss
    chronicle. A good deal of fiction is mixed with his facts, but
    we glean from his writings many interesting details of the
    scenes in which he was an actor.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Fassbind=, T., Geschichte von Schwyz, Schwyz, 1832-1838, 5
vols.--=Feddersen=, Geschichte der Schweizerischen Regeneration, Zurich,
1867.--=Fetscherin=, W., Die eidgenössischen Abschiede aus den Jahren
1814 bis 1848.--=Fiala=, F., Archives pour l’histoire de la Réformation
en Suisse, 1868-69, 2 vols.--=Fleury=, J., Franc-Comtois et Suisse,
Besançon, 1869.

    _Jean Fleury_, professor of French literature at St.
    Petersburg, member of numerous societies of savants in France,
    England, and Russia, was born at Vasteville, Feb. 14, 1816. He
    has published a considerable quantity of political, literary,
    pedagogical, and other papers, besides numerous books on a
    variety of subjects.

=Forel=, F., Introduction de Regeste des documents de la Suisse romande,
Lausanne, 1862.--=Freeman=, E. A., “The Landsgemeinde of Ury and
Appenzell,” in _History of Federal government_, London, 1863.--=Froment=,
A., Acts et gestes merveilleux de la cité de Genève, 1548.

    _Froment_ was a continuator of the chronicles of Bonivard and
    of Jeanne de Jussie.

=Furrer=, P., Geschichte von Wallis, Sitten, 1850-1854, 4 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Galiffe=, J. B. G. (fils), Genève historique et archéologique,
Geneva, 1869-72, 2 vols.--=Galiffe=, J. A. (père), Notices
généalogiques.--=Gaullier=, E. H., La Suisse en 1847, Geneva,
1848.--=Gaullier=, E. H. A., and =Schaub=, C., La Suisse historique
et pittoresque, Geneva, 1855-6, 2 vols.; Les armoiries et les
couleurs de la Confédération et des cantons suisses, Geneva and
Bâle, 1879.--=Gelpke=, Kirchengeschichte der Schweiz, Bern,
1856-1861, 2 vols.--=Gingins la Sarra=, F. de, Épisodes des
Guerres de Bourgogne, Lausanne, 1850.--=Gisi=, W., Quellenbuch zur
Schweizergeschichte, Berne, 1869.--=Grandpierre=, L., Mémoires
politiques, Neuchâtel, 1877.--=Gelzer=, H., Die zwei ersten Jahrhunderte
der Schweizergeschichte, Bâle, 1840; Die zweiletzten Jahrhunderte der
Schweizergeschichte, Aarau and Thun, 1838-39.--=Gregory= of Tours,
Historia Francorum.--=Grasser=, J. J., Schweizerisch Heldenbuch, Basel
1624.--=Grote=, G., Seven letters on the recent politics of Switzerland,
London, 1847.--=Guérard=, Polyptyque d’Irminon, Paris, 1844, 2
vols.--=Guillimann de Fribourg=, F., De rebus helvetiorum, 1598.

    _François Guillimann_ (or more properly Vuillemain), a
    distinguished savant, was born at Romont, a canton of Fribourg.
    He taught at Solothurn, afterwards became professor of history
    at Fribourg and historiographer to the emperor Rudolf II. His
    death is variously placed at 1612 and 1623. Besides numerous
    poems he has left us valuable historical works.

=Gut=, Der Überfall in Nidwalden, Stanz, 1862.--=Guye=, P. H., Die
Schweiz in ihrer politischen Entwickelung als Föderativ-Staat, Bonn, 1877.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Haller=, C. L. von, Geschichte der Wirkungen und Folgen des
österreichischen Feldzugs in der Schweiz, Weimar, 1801; Histoire de la
Réforme protestante dans la Suisse occidentale, Lausanne, 1828.

    _Charles Louis von Haller_, grandson of the great Albert von
    Haller, was born at Bern in 1768 and died at Solothurn May 17,
    1854. In 1806 he was elected member of the two councils and
    was ejected from both in 1821 when it became known that he had
    embraced Catholicism. He sojourned for a time in France, but
    returned in 1830 to Solothurn, where he died at an advanced age.

=Haller=, C. L. de, Helvetischen Annalen.--=Heer=, J., Jahrbuch
des historie Vereins des Cantons Glarus; Heft, 1865.--=Hegel=,
C., Stadtchroniken, Leipsic, 1862-64, 19 vols.; Scriptores rerum
Germanicarum, Munich, 1885.

    _Charles Hegel_, an eminent German historian, son of the
    celebrated philosopher, was born at Nuremburg June 7, 1813;
    since 1856 he has been professor of history at the University
    of Erlangen.

=Heierli, J.=, Urgeschichte der Schweiz, Bern, 1901.

    _Jacque Heierli_, Swiss litterateur, was born October 11,
    1853, at Herisan (Appenzell); he devoted himself to pedagogy
    and has made the whole of the north of Europe the field of his
    researches.

=Henne=, A., Schweizerchronick, St. Gallen, 1840.--=Henne-am-Rhyn=, O.,
Geschichte von St. Gallen, 1863; Geschichte des Schweizervolkes, Leipsic,
1865, 3 vols.--=Hermann le Paralytique= (monk of Reichenau), Chronicon de
sex ætatibus mundi, Bâle, 1529.

    _Hermann of Reichenau_, surnamed the Paralytic on account of a
    contraction of the limbs, was the son of a count of Wehringen,
    born in 1013. In spite of his physical affliction he was
    possessed of unusual intelligence, and he became at an early
    age the most learned man of his day. He embraced the monastic
    life. He became abbot of Reichenau, where he died in 1054. He
    continued his chronicle up to the day of his death, after which
    it was continued by Berthold de Constance.

=Herminijard=, A. L., Correspondance des Réformateurs, Bâle, 1546;
Harlem, 1868.--=Heusler=, A., Der Bauernkrieg von 1653, in der Landschaft
Basel. (Bâle, 1864); Verfassungsgeschichte der Stadt Basel, Bâle,
1860.--=Hidber=, B., Schweizerisches Urkundenregister, Bern, 1863-1877, 2
vols.

    _Basil Hidber_, Swiss historian, born at Mels, November 23,
    1817; professor of natural history at the University of Bern.

=Hilty=, C., Vorlesungen über die Helvetik, Bern, 1878; Die Bundes
Verfassung der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, Bern, 1891.

    _Charles Hilty_, Swiss jurisconsult, born at Werdenberg,
    February 28, 1833; called in 1873 to the chair of common
    (public) and federal law in the University of Bern.

=Hisely=, J. J., Cartulaire de Hautcrest; sur l’origine et le
développment des libertés des Waldstelle, Uri, Schwyz, et Unterwalden,
Lausanne, 1839; Histoire du comte de Gruyère, Lausanne, 1855.--=Hodler=,
Geschichte des Sweizervolkes, neuere Zeit., 1865.--=Herzog=, J. A.,
Das Referendum in der Schweiz, Berlin, 1885.--=Hottinger=, J. J., Das
Wiedererwachen der wissenschaftlichen Bestrebungen in der Schweiz während
der Mediations und Restaurationsepoche; Vorlesungen über die Geschichte
des Untergangs der alten Eidgenossenschaft, Zurich, 1844; Vorlesungen
über den Untergang der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, Zurich, 1866;
Geschichte der Eidgenossen, Zurich, 1825-1827, 2 vols.

    _Johann Jacob Hottinger_, born in 1783, professor of Greek at
    Zurich, must not be confounded with Jean Jacques Hottinger,
    also a professor at Zurich, who died in 1819.

=Hug=, L., and =Stead=, P., The story of Switzerland, New York,
1890.--=Hutten=, U. von, Œuvres complètes, Berlin, 1822-1825, 5 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Imhof=, J. (Bourcard Leu), Die Jesuiten in Luzern.--=Istria=, Dora d’,
Switzerland, London, 1858, 2 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Jahn=, H. A., Chronik des Cantons Bern, Bern, 1857; Der Keltische
Alterthum der Schweiz, Bern, 1860.

    _Henry Albert Jahn_, Swiss historian and archæologist,
    professor at Bern, formerly secretary of the department of the
    interior, was born at Bern, October 9, 1811.

=Johannis=, Vitodurani, Chronicon, Zurich, 1856.--=Jovii=, P., Historiæ
sui temporis, Bâle, 1567, 2 vols.--=Jullien=, Histoire de Genève,
1865.--=Jussie=, Jeanne de, Levain de calvinisme, 1605.

    A religious abbess of the convent of St. Claire, whence she
    was driven in 1535, together with the other members of the
    community, to seek refuge at Annecy, where she later became
    abbess. She has pictured for us in all its crudity the
    conflict of popular passions in the most primitive style, and
    in language, which is in itself an index to the comedy, the
    tragedy, and the overwhelmingly gross superstition of her day
    and generation.

=Justinger=, C., Bernerchronik, Bern, 1871.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Keller=, A., Die kirchlich politischen Fragen bei der Eidg.
Bundesrevision von 1871.--=Klingenberger=, Chronik, Gotha,
1861.--=Königshofen=, J. von, Chronique helvétique.--=Königshoven=, von
Strasbourg, J. T., Chronicum latinum, Strasburg, 1678.

    _Jacques Twinger Königshoven_, better known under the name of
    Twinger, a celebrated chronicler of the 14th century, was born
    at Strasburg in 1346, of rich and influential parents. At the
    age of thirty-six he changed his condition of citizen for the
    ecclesiastical state and died in 1420, aged seventy-four years.

=Kopp=, J. E., Urkunden zur Geschichte der Eidgenössischen Bunde, 1835;
Geschichte der Eidgenössischen Bunde, Leipsic and Berlin, 1844-52, 11
vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Laharpe=, F. C., Mémoires, Bern, 1864.--=Liebenau=, T. von, Blicke
in die Geschichte Engelbergs, 1876; Die Schlacht bei Sempach, Luzern,
1886; Indicateur de l’histoire suisse, 1876; Die Böcke von Zurich.
Stanz., 1876.--=Lavater=, J. C., Letter to the French Directory, London,
1799.--=Lütolf=, Die Glaubensboten der Schweiz, Luzern, 1871.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Mallet=, J., Considérations sur la Révolution, Brussels,
1793.--=Mallet-Dupan=, J., Mémoires historiques et littéraires, Geneva,
1779-1782, 5 vols.--=Mallet=, P. H., Histoire des Suisses ou Helvétiens,
Geneva, 1803, 4 vols.

    _Paul Henri Mallet_, an eminent historian, was born at Geneva
    in 1730, of a family remarkable for the number of great men
    it has produced. He held the position of professor of history
    in several universities, and was a member of the academies of
    Upsal, Lyons, Cassel, and the Celtic Academy. He died of a
    paralytic stroke in the city of his birth, February 8, 1807.

=Marsauche=, L., La Confédération Helvétique, Neuchâtel, 1890.--=Matile=,
G. A., Monuments de l’histoire de Neuchâtel, Musée historique, 3
vols.--=May de Romainmotier=, E., Histoire militaire des Suisses, Bern,
1772, 2 vols.

    _E. M. de Romainmotier_ was born at Bern in 1734, and became
    known to the world chiefly through the military history. This,
    though a somewhat mediocre production as a literary work,
    contains important facts not to be found elsewhere.

=McCracken=, W. D., Rise of the Swiss Republic, New York,
1901.--=Mémoires et Documents= publié par la Société de la Suisse
romande, Lausanne.--=Meyer von Knonau=, Gerold, Eidg. Abschiede; St.
Gallische Geschichtsquellen, St. Gall, 1870-81, 5 vols.; Die Sage von
der Befreiung der Waldstätte, Bâle, 1873.--=Meyer=, H., Die Denare
und Bractealen in der Schweiz, Zurich, 1858-60; Geschichte der XIᵉ
und XXIᵉ Legion, Mittheilungen de Zürich, Zurich, 1853.--=Meyer=, J.,
Geschichte des schweiz. Bundesrechts, Zurich, 1849-1852, 2 vols.--=Meyer
von Knonau=, Ludwig, Handbuch der Geschichte der schweizerischen
Eidgenossenschaft, Zurich, 1843, 2 vols.

    _Louis Meyer von Knonau_ was born at Zurich September 12, 1769.
    He studied history, law, and philology at Halle, where he
    became an ardent disciple of Professor Wolf. He filled various
    diplomatic offices with firmness and intelligence, retired to
    private life in 1839, and died September 6, 1841. His history
    of the confederation is one of the most accurate and complete
    at the disposition of the student. His son, Gerold, born
    March 2, 1804, followed in his father’s footsteps and devoted
    himself to public life. The government confided to his care the
    archives of Zurich and charged him with the publication of the
    documents of the federal diet. He died November 1, 1858.

=Miles=, H., Chronik, St. Gall., 1902.--=Mohr=, T. von, Die Regesten der
Benedictiner-Abtei Einsiedeln, Chur., 1848.--=Mommsen=, T., Römische
Geschichte, Berlin, 1885, 5 vols.; Inscriptiones Confœderationes
helveticæ, Mitt. d. antiq. Ges., Zurich, vols. 10 and 15.

    _Theodor Mommsen_, an eminent historian, was born Nov. 30,
    1817, at Garding, Schleswig, of a Danish family. He was
    displaced in 1852 from the chair of law at Leipsic for
    partisanship in political events, but was immediately called to
    that of the University of Zurich. During the Franco-Prussian
    War he was among the bitterest enemies of France.

=Monnard=, C., Histoire de la Confédération suisse, Zurich, 1847-1853, 5
vols.

    _Charles Monnard_ was born in 1790, and died at Bonn in
    1865. His chief labor was the continuation of the history of
    Switzerland by J. von Müller. His classic style is apt to
    strike us of to-day as too stilted, but it is easily overlooked
    in the appreciation due to his solid merit, his simple modesty,
    his generous and liberal spirit.

=Moor=, Theodore, Historisch-chronologischer Wegweiser, Chur.,
1873; Wegweiser durch da Curratien, 1873.--=Morel=, G., Mémoires et
documents de la Soc. d’histoire de la Suisse romande; Die Registen
der Benedictiner-Abtei Einsiedeln.--=Morell=, C., Die helvetische
Gesellschaft.--=Morin=, A., Précis de l’histoire politique de la
Suisse, Geneva and Paris, 1856-75.--=Müller=, J. von, Der Geist
der Ahnen oder die Einheitsbestrebungen in der Schweiz vor der
helvetischen Revolution, Zurich, 1874; Geschichte der schweizerischen
Eidgenossenschaft, 1841-1847, 7 vols.; Indicateur d’antiquités
suisses, 1875; Schweizergeschichte, Lausanne, 1795-1801, 11 vols.; Der
Geschichten Schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft, Liepsic and Zurich,
1805-16, 5 vols.--=Müller-Friedberg=, Schweizerische Annalen, 1830, 6
vols.--=Muralt=, C., Schweizergeschichte mit durchganziger Quellenangabe,
Bern, 1885.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Nayler=, F. H., History of Helvetia, London, 1801, 2 vols.--=Nisard=,
M., Études sur la renaissance, Paris, 1855.--=Nuscheler=, A., Die
Siechenhäuser in der Schweiz, Zurich, 1866.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Ochs=, Geschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Basel, Bâle, 1796-1822,
8 vols.--=Ochsenbein=, Die Kriegsgründe und Kriegsbilder des
Burgunderkrieges, 1876.--=Oe=, Die Anfänge der schweizerischen
Eidgenossenschaft, Zurich, 1891.--=Oechsli=, W., Lehrbuch für den
Geschichtsunterricht, Zurich, 1885; Quellenbuch zur Schweizergeschichte,
Zurich, 1886; Die Anfänge der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, Zurich,
1891.

    _William Oechsli_, born October 6, 1851, at Riesbach, was
    destined by his family to the ministry; but he deserted
    theology for history, and after exhaustive study at Heidelberg,
    Berlin, and Paris, he was called in 1887 to the professorship
    of Swiss history in the Zurich Polytechnical Institute.

=Orelli=, A. von, Das Staatsrecht der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft,
Fribourg, 1885.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Pierrefleur=, P. de, Mémoires.

    _The Memoirs of Pierre de Pierrefleur_, grand banneret of Orbe,
    present an accurate picture of the progress of the Reformation.
    Modestly and without recrimination, though himself an ardent
    Catholic, he endeavours accurately to reproduce day by day
    the scenes which pass before his eyes--truth without passion,
    simplicity without grossness his chief object. Moderation
    is the keynote of this recital from the lips of the pious
    and honourable knight of Orbe. Unfortunately, the original
    chronicle having been lost, we are obliged to content ourselves
    with extracts.

=Peyssonel=, C. C. de, Discours sur l’alliance de la France avec les
Suisses et les Grisons, Paris, 1790.--=Pfyffr=, C., Sammlung kleiner
Schriften, Zurich, 1866.--=Pirkheimer=, W., Historia belli Suitensis
sive Helvetici, Tiguri, 1735.--=Planta=, P. C. von, Die Schweiz in ihrer
Entwicklung zum Einheitsstaate.--=Pupikofer=, Geschichte des Thurgavs,
Bischoffzell, 1830.--=Pury=, S. de, Chronique des chanoines de Neuchâtel,
Neuchâtel, 1839.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Rahn=, J. N., Geschichte der bildenden Künste in der Schweiz, Zurich,
1876.--=Rambert=, E., Les Alps suisses, Geneva, 1875.

    _Eugene Rambert_, born in 1830, first turned his studies in the
    direction of theology, but at twenty-four he was appointed to
    the chair of French literature at Lausanne, which he occupied
    until the Confederation called him to the Polytechnical School.
    His sojourn at Zurich lasted twenty-one years, when, in 1881,
    he returned to his own canton. He was not long, however, to
    breathe his native air, his laborious career being suddenly cut
    short in 1886. His works are numerous and varied, but all are
    remarkable for great power, authority, and calm.

=Rauchenstein=, H., Der Feldzug Cæsars gegen die Helvetier, Zurich,
1882.--=Relatio Conflictus Laupensis.=--=Reportorium= der Abschiede der
Eidgenössischen Tagsatzungen, 1803-1848, 3 vols. (Additional reports of
the old federal diets).--=Rilliet=, A., Les Origines de la Confédération
suisse, Geneva, 1868.--=Rochholz=, Eidgenössische Liederchronik, Bern,
1835.--=Rodt=, E. von, Die Feldzüge der Schweizer gegen Karl den Kühnen.
Geschichte des bernischen Kriegswesens, Schaffhausen, 1843-1844, 2
vols.--=Roget=, Amedee, Les Suisses et Genève, Geneva, 1864; Histoire
du peuple de Genève, Geneva, 1870-83, 7 vols.--=Rossel=, V., Histoire
littéraire de la Suisse romande, Bern, 1887-91, 2 vols.--=Rovéréa=, F.
de, Mémoires, Bern.--=Ruchat=, A., Histoire de la Réformation en Suisse,
Lausanne, 1727-28.

    _Abraham Ruchat_, the father of Swiss (French) history, was
    born in 1678 of a peasant family. Educated in Germany and
    Holland, he returned to Switzerland to become professor of
    history at the University of Lausanne. The _Histoire de la
    Réformation en Suisse_ was but a part of a projected general
    history of Switzerland which was never completed. Ruchat says
    of his labours: “I have been tempted nine times to give up
    the enterprise and live in peace; but the desire to serve my
    country has ever reinvested me with courage. I seek not glory,
    but truth and the public good. I have always endeavoured to
    write as though some day I were to be called to account for the
    products of my pen.”

       *       *       *       *       *

=Sarnen=, Livre blanc de Sarnen, in Les Origines de la Confédération
suisse, by A. Rilliet, Geneva, 1868.--=Schilling=, D. (the younger),
Luzerner Chronik, Luzern, 1862.--=Schreiber=, H., Loriti Glareanus,
Fribourg, 1878.--=Schuler=, M., Geschichte des Landes Glarus; Thaten
und Sitten der Eidgenossen, Zurich, 1856, 7 vols.--=Secrétan=, E.,
Galérie suisse, Biographies Nationales, Lausanne, 1874.--=Seehausen=,
R., Schweizer Politik während des dreissigjahrigen Krieges, Halle,
1882.--=Segesser=, P. von, Eidgenössische Abschiede Staats- und
Rechtsgeschichte von Luzern, Lucerne, 1839-1856, 17 vols.--=Simmler=, J.,
Vom Regiment der löblichen Eidgenossenschaft, Zurich, 1576.--=Steiger=,
R. de, Coup d’œil général sur l’histoire militaire des Suisses, Lausanne,
1869.--=Steinauer=, Geschichte des Freistaates Schwyz, Einsiedeln,
1861.--=Stettler=, M., Annales oder Beschreibung der vornehmeten
Geschichten, Bern, 1626, 2 vols.--=Studer=, H., Till-Eulenspiegel
im Lande des Tell, Zurich, 1900.--=Strickler=, J., Lehrbuch der
Schweizergeschichte, Zurich, 1874; Aktensammlung der helvetischen
Republik, Frauenfeld, 1899; Die Quellen zur Reformationsgeschichte,
1884.--=Stumpf=, J., Swiss Chronicle, Zurich, 1547.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Tageblatt der Gesetze und Dekrete der gesetzgebenden Rathe der
Helvetischen Republik=, Bern, 1800, 6 vols.--=Tillier=, J. A. von,
Geschichte der Eidgenossen während der Zeit des sogeheissenen
Fortschrifts, Bern, 1853-1855, 3 vols.; Geschichte der Eidgenossenschaft
während der sogenannten Restaurationsepoche, Zurich, 1848-1850, 3 vols.;
Geschichte der Eidgenossen während der Herrschaft der Vermittlungsakte,
Zurich, 1845-1846, 2 vols.; Geschichte des Freistaates Bern, Bern,
1838-1839, 5 vols.; Geschichte der helvetischen Republik, Bern, 1843, 3
vols.--=Tschudi=, A., Chronicon Helveticum, Basel, 1734-1736, 2 vols.

    The most complete of the early Swiss chronicles and the basis
    of Müller’s history.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Vaucher=, P., Esquisses d’histoire Suisse, Lausanne, 1882.--=Vieusseux=,
A., History of Switzerland, London, 1846.--=Vincent=, J. M., State and
Federal Government of Switzerland, Baltimore, 1891.--=Vischer=, W.,
Geschichte det Schwäbischen Städtebünde, Göttingen, 1861.--=Vita S.
Galli=, Translated by A. Potthast in Die Geschichtschreiber der deutschen
Vorzeit, Vol. 1, Berlin, 1857.--=Vögeli=, Vaterländische Geschichte,
Zurich, 1872.--=Vogelin=, A. and =Escher=, Geschichte der schweizerischen
Eidgenossenschaft, Zurich, 1854, 4 vols.--=Vulliemin=, L., Histoire de la
Confédération suisse, Lausanne, 1875-1876, 2 vols.

    _Louis Vulliemin_ was the founder of the _Société d’histoire de
    la Suisse romande_, together with Felix Chavannes the poet and
    F. de Gingins the historian. Imaginative, ardent, patriotic,
    variously gifted, Vulliemin devoted all his talent to his
    country’s use, and merits the eternal gratitude of Switzerland.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Wattenwyl=, Geschichte der Stadtund Landschaft Bern, Schaffhausen,
1867-1872, 2 vols.--=Weidmann, Father=, Geschichte der Landschaft St.
Gallen, St. Gall, 1834.--=Wild=, K., Auszüge aus handschriftlichen
chroniken und aus den Rathsprotokollen der Stadt und Republik St.
Gallen, St. Gall, 1847.--=Wilson=, J., History of Switzerland, London,
1832.--=Wintherthur=, Morf de, Dittes Pædagogium, Heft, 1878.--=Wirth=,
Statistik der Schweiz, Zurich, 1871-75, 3 vols.--=Wittekind=, (monk of
Corvey), Chronique.--=Wyss=, G. von, Geschichte der Historiographie in
der Schweiz, Zurich, 1895.--Indicateur d’histoire de Soleure, Solothurn,
1866.

    _J. G. von Wyss_, Swiss historian, born at Zurich March 31st,
    1816, is the son of the burgomaster David von Wyss. He was
    appointed president of the _Société d’histoire suisse_ in 1854,
    and is universally recognised as among the most learned of the
    historians of the century.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Zellweger=, J. K., Geschichte des Appenzellischen Volkes, Trogen,
1830; Chronologische Uebersicht der Schweizergeschichte, Zurich, 1887;
Geschichte der diplomatischen verhältnisse der Schweiz mit Frankreich,
Bern, 1848.--=Zschokke=, J. H., Histoire de la lutte des cantons
démocratiques, Geneva and Paris 1823; History of the Invasion of
Switzerland by the French, translated by J. Aiken, London, 1803.

[Illustration]




A CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF SWITZERLAND


BEFORE THE ROMAN CONQUEST

    Before 3000 B.C. (Stone Age.) The lake-dwellers, the earliest
    people of which traces remain in what is now Switzerland,
    live in primitive huts built on piles in the shallow waters
    of various lakes. They do not know the use of metal; use
    stone axe-heads, fixed in stag’s horn and wood hafts, flint
    arrow-heads, etc.

    3000-1000 B.C. (Bronze Age.) The lakemen learn to manipulate
    metal; advance in skill and mental culture; make artistically
    shaped bronze spear-heads, swords, etc.

    1000-100 B.C. (Iron Age.) The lakemen substitute iron
    for bronze and achieve greater beauty and perfection of
    workmanship. Their weapons and implements become gradually
    identical with those of historic times. In their later days
    they come into contact with Gauls and Romans.

    107 B.C. The Helvetians, one of the chief of the tribes then
    inhabiting Switzerland, led by the clan of the Tigurini and
    under command of their chief Diviko, joined the Cimbri and
    Teutones in a raid into southern Gaul. The allies defeat the
    Romans, under the consul Lucius Cassius, at Agen, and overrun
    Gaul.

    102 B.C. The barbarians are defeated by the Romans under the
    consul Marius near Aquæ Sextiæ and one clan of the Helvetians,
    that of the Toygeni, is annihilated.

    101 B.C. Another division of the invading barbarians is cut to
    pieces by the forces of Marius and his colleague Catullus, near
    Vercelli. The Helvetian clan of the Tigurini alone escapes.

    60 B.C. The Helvetians prepare for a second migration into
    Gaul. A powerful chief, Orgetorix, promises to secure free
    passage through the lands of the Allobroges and Ædui. He is
    accused of treason and dies, by suicide or murder.

    58 B.C. The Helvetians, accompanied by the Boii and neighboring
    tribes, begin the march. Julius Cæsar checks the Helvetians at
    the Rhone, and destroys the Tigurini at the Arar (Saône). At
    Bibracte Cæsar defeats the Helvetians. Their remnants return
    home.


UNDER ROMAN DOMINION

    57 B.C. Cæsar’s lieutenant, Sergius Galba, subdues the
    Helvetian Veragri and Seduni. Helvetia is made a Roman province.

    52 B.C. The Helvetians take part in the revolt of Vercingetorix.

    43 B.C. Romans settle at Noviodunum (Nyon) and in various other
    parts of Helvetia.

    27 B.C. Helvetia is made part of Belgica, one of the provinces
    of Gaul, and comes more directly under Roman control.

    15 B.C. Rhætia (the Grisons) is subjugated by armies under
    Drusus and Tiberius Nero and made a Roman province.

    A.D. 69 Aulus Cæcina lays waste Helvetia and massacres large
    numbers of the inhabitants. Claudius Corius, a Helvetian
    deputy, by his eloquence saves the people from complete
    destruction. Aventicum (Avenches) becomes a Roman city of
    importance. Roman civilisation makes much progress in Helvetia,
    especially in the western portion. Under the Romans military
    roads and fortresses are built.


FROM THE GERMAN INVASIONS THROUGH THE CARLOVINGIANS

    260 Hordes of Alamanni devastate Switzerland. They partially
    destroy Aventicum.

    300 Christianity makes some converts in Switzerland.

    305 Alamanni again overrun Switzerland.

    406 The Alamanni conquer eastern Switzerland.

    409 The Burgundians march toward the Rhine and approach
    Switzerland.

    443 The Burgundians settle in western Switzerland, receiving
    “Sabaudia” (Savoy) from the Romans.

    496 The Franks subjugate the Alamanni, acquiring eastern
    Switzerland.

    493 The Goths conquer Rhætia.

    500 King Gondebaud rules in Burgundy. His laws become part of
    Swiss institutions.

    524 The Franks, under Clodomir, capture Geneva.

    534 The Franks subjugate the Burgundians, bringing western
    Switzerland into their power.

    536 Rhætia is given up to the Franks by the Goths.

    570 The Langobardi invade southern Switzerland.

    574 The Frankish king Gontran checks the incursions of the
    Langobardi.

    610 The Culdee monks, led by Columbanus and Gallus, spread
    Christianity in Switzerland.

    687 The Carlovingians begin their rule over the Franks. They
    foster religious establishments in Switzerland.

    768 Charlemagne ascends the Frankish throne. He gives an
    impetus to religion, education, and industry in Switzerland;
    founds schools and churches and increases their wealth.

    774 The Franks gain possession of the Italian valleys of
    Switzerland till then held by the Langobardi.

    843 By the Treaty of Verdum western or Burgundian Switzerland
    falls to Lothair, eastern or German Switzerland (Alamannia)
    with Rhætia to Ludwig the German. Feudalism is becoming well
    established in Switzerland. The church owns large estates and
    the bishops are powerful. Arts and sciences progress in the
    monasteries of St. Gall, Reichenau, and Pfäffers.

    853 Ludwig the German founds the Fraumünster at Zurich.


TIME OF BURGUNDIAN AND ALAMANNIAN RULERS

    888 Rudolf I is crowned king of Upper Burgundy and begins to
    rule over western Switzerland.

    917 Count Burkhard of Rhætia is made duke of Alamannia
    (Swabia). He rules over eastern Switzerland.

    919 Burkhard I, duke of Alamannia, defeats Rudolf II of Upper
    Burgundy at Winterthur.

    920 Alamannia is formally incorporated with Germany. Eastern
    Switzerland thus becomes a part of Germany.

    922 Rudolf II of Upper Burgundy marries Burkhard’s daughter
    Bertha who brings to Burgundy the upper Aargau.

    930 Rudolf II acquires Arelat (Cisjurane Burgundy) as the
    result of a raid into Italy with Hugo of Provence. Thus
    the kingdom of Burgundy is reunited and Switzerland, as an
    important part of this kingdom, attains prominence.

    937 Rudolf II of Burgundy dies. Good Queen Bertha, his widow,
    rules beneficently as regent for her son Conrad.

    940 Conrad is placed under the guardianship of Otto I of
    Germany. Beginning of German influence in western Switzerland.

    950 Conrad defeats the Hungarians that invade Switzerland.

    962 Queen Bertha founds a religious house at Payerne.
    (Traditional.)

    990 Ekkehard II of St. Gall, the most famous man of learning of
    his time, dies.

    992 The serfs rise against the nobles of Aargau and Thurgau.

    993 Rudolf III of Burgundy. Switzerland is turned over more and
    more to the clergy and the great nobles.

    1016 Rudolf III abdicates in favor of Henry II of Germany.
    Henry is opposed by the nobles of Burgundy in several battles
    in Switzerland.

    1022 The distinguished scholar Notker III of St. Gall dies.


FROM THE UNION OF SWITZERLAND UNDER THE GERMAN EMPERORS TO THE FOUNDING
OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION

    1032 Conrad II of Germany defeats the Burgundians at Morat and
    Neuchâtel.

    1033 He is crowned king of Burgundy and thus adds western
    Switzerland to Germany.

    1038 Burgundy, Alamannia, and Rhætia fall to Henry III. All
    Switzerland is hereby reunited as part of Germany. St. Gall
    is a leader in learning. The abbeys of Zurich, Rheinau, and
    Einsiedeln and the bishoprics of Coire, Constance, and Bâle
    attain great eminence.

    1045 Henry III of Germany by assuming the crown of Lombardy
    secures possession of all the territories of Switzerland not
    already within his dominions (Italian Switzerland). He is
    frequently at Bâle and Solothurn. He holds imperial diets at
    Zurich and lavishes gifts on her religious foundations.

    1057 Rudolf of Rheinfelden begins his rule as duke of Alamannia
    and governor of Burgundy, thus controlling all Switzerland.

    1077 Rudolf is elected king by the opponents of Henry IV.
    Switzerland is drawn into the struggle between Henry IV and
    Pope Gregory VII.

    1080 Rudolf is slain and his army defeated at Mersburg. The
    Guelf-Zähringen faction wars against Frederick of Hohenstaufen
    for the possession of Alamannia. Many monasteries, castles, and
    towns are destroyed in Switzerland.

    1090 Berthold II of Zähringen inherits the possessions of the
    Rheinfeldens in Switzerland.

    1097 Berthold II surrenders his claims to the dukedom of
    Alamannia. He receives as recompense the imperial bailiwick of
    Zurich, and is made duke of that portion of Alamannia lying in
    what is now Switzerland.

    1114 The people of Schwyz resist the encroachments of the monks
    of Einsiedeln. Henry V decides in favour of Einsiedeln.

    1127 Conrad of Zähringen is created rector of Burgundy by the
    emperor Lothair. Most of the territories comprising modern
    Switzerland are now under the rule of the house of Zähringen.
    This family governs benevolently throughout the century.

    1140 Arnold of Brescia finds asylum at Zurich.

    1144 In the quarrel of Einsiedeln and Schwyz, Conrad III
    decides in favour of Einsiedeln.

    1146 Bernard of Clairvaux preaches the crusade at Zurich. Many
    Swiss join the crusade.

    1152 The Waldstätte are placed under an interdict by the bishop
    of Constance.

    1173 By inheritance of the possessions of the house of Lenzburg
    in Aargau and in the forest states the house of Hapsburg gains
    in wealth and power.

    1177 Berthold IV of Zähringen founds the free city of Fribourg.

    1186 Berthold V succeeds. He develops the policy of walling in
    strong cities to offset the power of the nobles. He fortifies
    Burgdorf, Moudon, Yuerdon, Laupen, and Schaffhausen.

    1190 Berthold V defeats the rebellious nobles at Avenches and
    in the Grindelwald.

    1191 Berthold V founds the city of Bern.

    1209 Franciscan monks begin to enter Switzerland.

    1211 Berthold V is defeated by Count Thomas of Savoy, who
    seizes Moudon.

    1215 Dominicans begin to enter Switzerland.

    1218 Berthold V dies childless. With him the house of Zähringen
    and the rectorate of Burgundy ends. Switzerland reverts to
    Germany. Bern, Solothurn, Zurich, and other towns become
    immediately dependent on the emperor, and gain in freedom.
    Many nobles become subject to the empire alone and increase in
    power. The houses of Savoy, Kyburg (inheritors of the lands of
    the Zähringens), and Habsburg become most prominent. Religious
    orders flourish.

    1231 The people of Uri obtain their first charter from King
    Henry, which nominally places them directly under the empire.

    1240 The community of Schwyz is given a charter from the empire
    by Frederick II. Savoy extends her dominion to include Vaud and
    other portions of Southern Switzerland.

    1245-1250 The people of Switzerland take sides in the struggle
    between Guelfs and Ghibellines. Risings occur in the Waldstätte
    against the house of Habsburg which has gained authority in
    middle and eastern Switzerland. The expulsion of oppressive
    bailiffs (referred to this period by modern investigators from
    its former position in 1307-08).

    1250 Lucerne enters into alliance with Schwyz and Obwalden.

    1254 The _antiqua confederatio_, the earliest league of the
    Waldstätte, is formed (uncertain date).

    1255 Pierre of Savoy is acknowledged suzerain of Bern; later of
    Morat and Bâle.

    1264 Pierre of Savoy is acknowledged suzerain of Geneva. The
    greatness of the house of Habsburg is founded through the
    inheritance of the possessions of the Kyburgs.

    1266 Zurich with the aid of Rudolf of Habsburg defeats Ulrich
    of Regensburg. Rudolf gains in influence with several Swiss
    towns.

    1267 Pierre of Savoy defeats an army sent against him by Rudolf
    of Habsburg at Löwenburg. Peace between Habsburg and Savoy.

    1273 Rudolf of Habsburg besieges Bâle. He is chosen emperor of
    Germany. Bâle submits, Rudolf inherits the possessions of his
    cousins in the Waldstätte.

    1275 Rudolf of Habsburg is consecrated emperor by Pope Gregory
    at Lausanne.

    1277 Rudolf acquires Fribourg. He now holds in Switzerland
    territories equivalent to the modern cantons of Aar, Zug,
    Thurgau, Bern, and Lucerne, the towns of Sursee, Sempach, and
    Winterthur, the convent of Säckingen, and the wardenship of the
    Waldstätte.

    1288 Rudolf twice unsuccessfully besieges Bern.

    1289 The Bernese suffer loss in an Austrian ambuscade at the
    Schosshalde and Bern is compelled to make peace.

    1291 The men of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden (the three
    Waldstätte) form the Everlasting League (_Ewige Bund_), for the
    defence of their common rights and interests. The Waldstätte
    form a temporary alliance with Zurich. In the struggle for the
    imperial throne between Adolf of Nassau and Albert, duke of
    Austria, the confederates with Zurich and Bâle side against
    Albert. War ensues. The territories of the bishop of Constance
    and the abbot of St. Gall are laid waste.

    1292 The Austrians defeat the men of Zurich before Winterthur.
    Zurich is forced to make peace with Albert and her alliance
    with the forest states is annulled.

    1294 The first Landsgemeinde of which record remains is held in
    Schwyz.

    1297 Adolf of Nassau as king of Germany confirms the charter of
    1240 to Schwyz and the same charter to Uri.

    1298 The Bernese defeat the Austrian nobles at Dornbühl.
    Albert, duke of Austria, ascends the German throne and
    strengthens the power of Austria in Switzerland.


THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

    1307 Werner Stauffacher of Schwyz, Walter Fürst of Uri, and
    Arnold of the Melchthal in Unterwalden, with thirty companions
    take an oath on the Rütli to free the country from oppressors.
    William Tell shoots the Austrian bailiff Gessler. (These events
    are now regarded as legendary.)

    1308 The expulsion of the bailiffs. (This event some historians
    now regard as merely traditional and refer it to the period
    1245-50.) King Albert is murdered. Bern concludes a league with
    Solothurn.

    1309 Henry VIII confirms the charters of Schwyz and Uri, and
    grants liberties to Unterwalden, placing all three under direct
    imperial jurisdiction. The confederates renew their alliance
    with Zurich.

    1314 The men of Schwyz capture the abbey of Einsiedeln because
    of a quarrel over pasture land. Frederick of Austria places the
    Waldstätte under the ban of the empire. The Waldstätte conclude
    alliances with Glarus, Ursern, Art, and Interlaken. Louis of
    Bavaria, rival of Frederick for the German throne, declares the
    ban removed. The confederates take his side in the struggle for
    the throne.

    1315 Duke Leopold of Austria, brother of Frederick, moves
    against the Waldstätte. The Swiss vanquish the Austrians at
    Morgarten. Leopold is slain. The three forest districts renew
    the Everlasting League of 1291.

    1316 Louis of Bavaria recognises the new league, declares the
    political rights of the house of Austria forfeit in the forest
    districts, and confirms their several charters.

    1318 Truce with Austria. The Habsburgs surrender all
    jurisdiction over the Waldstätte, but their rights merely as
    landowners are recognized. Risings against Austria in western
    Switzerland. Leopold besieges the free town of Solothurn, but
    soon withdraws. (Traditional rescue of the Austrians at the
    bridge by the men of Solothurn.)

    1323 Bern and other Burgundian towns enter into an alliance
    with the forest districts for protection against Austria and
    the aristocracy.

    1328 Lucerne revolts from Austria.

    1332 Lucerne (fourth of the “old” places) joins the league.

    1336 Civic revolution in Zurich places Rudolf Brun at the head
    of the city government and gives power to the craft-guilds.

    1339 The Bernese with men from the forest districts defeat the
    nobles at Laupen.

    1350 Massacre of Austrian conspirators at Zurich. The men of
    Zurich destroy the castle of Rapperschwyl, Zurich thereby
    incurs the enmity of Austria.

    1351 Zurich (fifth of the “old” places) for protection against
    Austria enters the league. First regulations as to the aid that
    the confederates owe to each other, first federal rights and
    establishment of the circle of confederate defence. Duke Albert
    of Austria unsuccessfully besieges Zurich.

    1352 Zug and Glarus (sixth and seventh of the “old” places)
    enter the league. The duke of Austria renews war on Zurich. By
    the terms of the peace of Brandenburg, Zug and Glarus are again
    brought into subjection to Austria.


THE CONFEDERATION OF THE EIGHT OLD PLACES

    1353 Bern (completing the eight “old” places) enters the
    league, adding greatly to its strength.

    1354 Zurich is besieged by the forces of Austria and the empire.

    1355 Peace is declared at Regensburg (Ratisbon).

    1361 Charles IV recognises the confederation of eight states
    as a lawful union for the preservation of the public peace
    (_Landfriedensverbindung_).

    1364 Zug is freed from Austrian rule by the men of Schwyz.

    1367 The Gotteshausbund (league of God’s house) is formed in
    the Engadine.

    1368 The Peace of Thorberg adjusts matters between Austria and
    the confederates. Zug rejoins the league as a permanent member.

    1370 The Parson’s Ordinance (_Pfaffenbrief_) abolishes special
    exemption of the clergy and provides for the preservation of
    peace among the confederates.

    1375 Enguerrand de Coucy to assert claims to lands in
    Aargau invades Switzerland with a horde of irregulars in
    the Guglerkrieg, or English War. De Coucy is routed in the
    Entlebuch and at Freibrunnen.

    1382 Rudolf of Kyburg, of the Habsburg line, is defeated by
    Bern and Solothurn, in the Kyburg War.

    1384 Bern and Solothurn take Thun, Burgdorf, and other places
    from Rudolf of Kyburg. The Kyburgs are forced to accept
    citizenship in Bern.

    1385 The Swiss cities join the league of the south German
    towns. The men of Lucerne demolish Rotenburg, the residence of
    the Austrian bailiff.

    1386 The forest districts come to the aid of Lucerne against
    Austria. The Swiss defeat the Austrians in spite of great odds
    in the battle of Sempach (Arnold Winkelried).

    1388 The men of Glarus aided by a few from Schwyz defeat the
    Austrians at Näfels. Glarus is delivered from Austria.

    1389 The confederates are secured in their conquests by a seven
    years’ truce with Austria. Glarus permanently rejoins the
    league.

    1393 Schöno’s attempt to deliver Zurich to Austria fails. By
    the Sempach Ordinance (_Sempacher Brief_) the confederates are
    drawn closer together by provision for an army and for the
    preservation of order.

    1394 The truce with Austria is prolonged for twenty years. The
    Swiss Confederacy is recognised and political dependence on
    Habsburg is practically at an end. The country hereafter is
    commonly known as _Die Schweiz_ (Switzerland).

    1395 Formation of the Upper (Grey) League in the western
    Grisons.


THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

    1402 Revolt of the people of Appenzell and St. Gall against the
    abbot of St. Gall.

    1403 The Appenzellers defeat the abbot’s forces at Vögelinseck.

    1405 The abbot’s troops, assisted by an Austrian army, are
    defeated in the battle of the Rheinthal or Stoss.

    1408 The Appenzellers are beaten at Bregenz.

    1411 Appenzell is placed under the protection of the Swiss
    League (save Bern).

    1412 The truce of the league with Austria is prolonged for
    fifty years. During the first half of the century the league
    increases its territory, not giving political rights, however,
    to the acquired lands.

    1414 The council of Constance is convened. Switzerland is
    visited by great numbers of ecclesiastics and great nobles.

    1415 Duke Frederick of Austria helps John XXIII escape from
    Constance. The emperor Sigismund places Frederick under the
    ban. By Sigismund’s order the confederates conquer the Austrian
    Aargau. Bern receives the lion’s share. The first common
    bailiwicks (_Freie Amter_) are established. Uprising of the
    Valais against the baron von Raron, a despotic ruler.

    1416 Lucerne, Uri, and Unterwalden form an alliance with Upper
    Valais.

    1417 Uri and Upper Valais take the Val d’Ossola from Savoy.

    1422 The attempts of Uri and the confederates to acquire
    territory to the south of the Alps receive a check in their
    defeat by the Milanese at Arbedo.

    1424 The Grey League is formally renewed.

    1436 The league of the Ten Jurisdictions is formed in the
    eastern Grisons. Conflicting claims over the territories left
    by Frederick, count of Toggenburg, cause dissension between
    Zurich and Schwyz. The other confederates take sides with
    Schwyz.

    1440 The men of Zurich invade Schwyz but are compelled to
    retreat. Felix Hämmerlin, humanist, furthers the new learning
    at Zurich.

    1442 Zurich allies itself with Austria and resists federal
    jurisdiction. Civil war (the Old Zurich War) breaks out.

    1443 The Zurich troops are defeated at Sankt Jacob on the Sihl.
    Stüssi, the burgomaster of Zurich is slain.

    1444 Zurich is besieged by the confederates. Charles VII of
    France sends to her aid wild bands of the Armagnacs under
    command of the dauphin Louis. They slaughter the confederates,
    who make a heroic defence at Sankt Jacob on the Birs before
    Bâle.

    1450 Peace is concluded. Zurich is forced to renounce her
    alliance with Austria.

    1452 The Swiss League concludes treaty of friendship with
    France. A new class of allies, the associate districts
    (_Zugwandte Orte_), begins to gather round the league.

    1458 The league forms an alliance with Rapperschwyl. Sigismund,
    duke of Austria, irritated by its loss declares war.

    1460 The confederates overrun the Austrian Thurgau. This
    results in the second accession of common bailiwicks. The art
    of printing is established at Bâle. Founding of the University
    of Bâle. Material and artistic culture flourishes.

    1461 Sigismund gives up Thurgau which comes under the
    protection of the confederates.

    1463 The confederates renew the French treaty with Louis XI.

    1467 Zurich purchases Winterthur from Sigismund. The league
    makes a treaty of friendship with Philip the Good, duke of
    Burgundy.

    1468 The Swiss lay siege to Waldshut. Sigismund buys them off.

    1469 Sigismund obtains the protection and financial aid of
    Charles the Bold of Burgundy. He gives as security Alsace, the
    Waldshut, and the Black Forest. The alliance of Charles with
    Sigismund violates the treaty of 1467 and incenses the Swiss.
    Charles the Bold commits the mortgaged lands to Peter von
    Hagenbach, as vogt. His severity is complained of by the Swiss.

    1470 Louis XI of France makes a treaty with the Swiss to secure
    their neutrality.

    1471 The three leagues of the Grisons confirm an earlier
    alliance.

    1473 Sigismund becomes the ally of Louis, who aims to reconcile
    Sigismund and the Swiss and turn them against Charles the Bold.

    1474 The confederates attempt in vain to get redress from
    Charles the Bold for the wrongs done by Hagenbach to their
    friends in Alsace. As the result of the efforts of Louis
    XI, the Everlasting Compact (_Ewige Richtung_) is signed at
    Constance. By it Sigismund renounces all Austrian claims on the
    lands of the confederates and they agree to support him. The
    freedom of the Swiss Confederation from the Habsburgs is now
    formally established. The Swiss and Sigismund join a league of
    the Alsatian and Rhine cities. Hagenbach is put to death with
    the connivance of Bern. The confederates at the instance of
    Sigismund declare war against Charles. Bern takes the lead in
    westward aggression. Héricourt is taken by the confederates.

    1475 Further successes of the Swiss. Bern captures sixty towns
    in Vaud, fighting against Savoy, which has joined Charles the
    Bold. Bern and Upper Valais form an alliance and the latter
    prevents the passage of the Milanese troops of Savoy. The
    emperor and Louis desert the confederates.

    1476 Charles the Bold captures Granson and has the garrison
    executed by two of their own comrades. The Swiss gain a
    glorious victory in the battle of Granson and retake the
    town. Rich spoils and revenge. Charles besieges Morat. In the
    battle of Morat the Swiss decisively defeat the Burgundians.
    By intervention of Louis XI an arrangement is made with Savoy
    by which for the first time French-speaking districts become
    connected with the confederation. Savoy loses Fribourg,
    Granson, Morat, Orbe, Echallens, and Aigle. Bern profits most.

    1477 The Swiss and the troops of René, duke of Lorraine, defeat
    Charles the Bold at the battle of Nancy. The foundation of
    Swiss nationality is firmly laid by these victories, and the
    fame of Swiss arms is world-wide; but internal jealousies
    arise. Riots in various states. The band of the Mad Life.
    Zurich, Bern, Lucerne, Fribourg, and Solothurn form a separate
    league and a perpetual treaty (_Burgrecht_).

    1478 The men of Zurich, Lucerne, Uri, and Schwyz defeat the
    Milanese at the battle of Giornico. Switzerland expands toward
    the south.

    1480 Fribourg and Solothurn seek admission to the league. This
    demand is opposed by the rural members and supported by the
    towns belonging to the separate league of the Burgrecht.

    1481 The Compact of Stanz (_Stanzer Verkomnis_) prevents
    disruption. Nicholas von der Fluhe aids to an understanding.
    Fribourg and Solothurn (the ninth and tenth members) are
    admitted to the confederation. The separate league of the towns
    is dissolved. Dangerous societies are forbidden. The compact
    concentrates the government of the confederation.

    1489 Hans Waldmann, burgomaster of Zurich, attempts to
    subordinate the peasants. He is overthrown and executed.

    1490 Insurrection against the federal government in St. Gall is
    put down.

    1496 The Swiss refuse to obey the imperial chamber, objecting
    to taxation without representation. They refuse to join the
    Swabian League.

    1497 The confederates conclude a perpetual league with the Grey
    League of the Grisons.

    1498 The confederates conclude a perpetual league with the
    League of God’s House (_Gotteshausbund_) of the Grisons.

    1499 The Swiss go to the support of their allies in the
    Grisons against the emperor Maximilian and the Swabian
    League. Successes of the Swiss at Triesen, at Bruderholz
    near Bâle, at Calven, at Schwaderloo, and at Frastenz. The
    Swiss Confederation by the peace of Bâle secures freedom from
    German imperial regulations and rises to the rank of an allied
    state of the empire, having practical independence. The Swiss
    establish their rights in the Thurgau. The league of Ten
    Jurisdictions in the Grisons confirms an alliance with the
    Swiss League.

    1500 Swiss mercenaries engaged by Louis Sforza surrender Novara
    to the French rather than fight the Swiss in the French army of
    Louis XII. By the help of the Swiss Milan becomes a property of
    France. The practice of Swiss serving in foreign armies has now
    become frequent.


THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

    1501 Bâle and Schaffhausen (the eleventh and twelfth members)
    are admitted to the confederation.

    1510 Schinner, bishop of Sitten, induces Swiss troops to aid in
    the expulsion of the French from Italy.

    1512 The Swiss conquer Milan and drive the French out of Italy;
    declare Maximilian duke of Milan. In return the confederates
    receive Ticino and the Grisons leagues get the Valtellina,
    Cleves, and Bormio.


THE CONFEDERATION OF THIRTEEN STATES

    1513 Appenzell is admitted to the confederation, thus
    completing the confederation of Thirteen States. The Swiss
    defeat the French at Novara.

    1515 Francis I defeats the Swiss at Marignano, breaking the
    Swiss power in northern Italy.

    1516 The Swiss League concludes a treaty of Perpetual Peace
    with France. Hans Holbein at Bâle wins great reputation as a
    painter. His work marks the further advance of humanism in
    Switzerland.

    1519 Ulrich (Huldreich) Zwingli preaches the Reformation at
    Zurich.

    1521 Twelve states of the confederation (Zurich being
    restrained by Zwingli) conclude an alliance with France.

    1522 The diet at Lucerne forbids the clergy to preach
    unauthorised doctrines.

    1523 Zwingli’s teaching is sanctioned by the council at two
    “disputations” at Zurich. Zurich pushes forward the work of the
    Reformation, but is not supported by the other confederates.
    The first ecclesiastics are publicly married.

    1524 Under Zwingli’s leadership Zurich dissolves the
    monasteries. The forest states prevail on the diet at Lucerne
    to pronounce for the old faith. Religious riots occur in
    the Thurgau. The monastery of Ittingen is burned down. The
    Reformation progresses in eastern Switzerland.

    1525 The mass is discontinued at Zurich. The temporal rights of
    the Grossmünster are turned over to the state. The Carolinum,
    a school for humanists, founded by Zwingli and Zurich, is made
    a nursery of culture. Lausanne concludes an alliance with
    Fribourg and Bern. The disorders caused by the anabaptists are
    checked. The Swiss mercenaries are defeated with the French at
    Pavia.

    1526 The disputation at Baden, Eck, and Faber, representing
    the Catholics, decides in favor of the old faith. Several
    executions follow. Geneva forms alliances with Bern and
    Fribourg.

    1527 Evangelical coburghership of Zurich and Constance
    (_Evangelisches Burgrecht_). Execution of Max Wehrli, the
    Catholic bailiff in the Thurgau. Troubles in Toggenburg and St.
    Gall widen the breach between Catholics and Evangelicals.

    1528 Bern joins Zurich and Constance in favour of religious
    freedom and is followed by Bâle, Schaffhausen, St. Gall and
    Mülhausen. The confederation is in danger of breaking up.

    1529 Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, and Zug form the
    Christian Alliance (_Christliche Vereinigung_), and ally
    themselves with Austria. First war of Kappel. The Austrian
    alliance is annulled and religious parity for each member of
    the confederation is declared by the first Peace of Kappel.

    1530 Genoa with confederate aid secures freedom from Savoy.

    1531 Second war of Kappel. The Catholic members of the
    confederation advance on Zurich. Near Kappel the men of Zurich
    are defeated and Zwingli is slain. Second Peace of Kappel. The
    Reformation in Switzerland is considerably checked. Catholic
    reaction. The league is now completely split into Catholics and
    evangelicals.

    1532 William Farel begins to preach the Reformation in Geneva.

    1535 The Reformation is successfully planted in Geneva by Farel.

    1536 Bern conquers Vaud and Lausanne and takes them from Savoy.
    Calvin comes to Geneva. The first Helvetic confession is
    published.

    1538 By influence of the papal party Calvin is exiled from
    Geneva.

    1541 Calvin returns to Geneva and there establishes a theoretic
    government, the _consistorium_. He enters upon a harsh rule,
    imprisoning and executing his opponents.

    1548 Constance is captured by the Austrians in the war of
    Smalkalden and is cut off from the Swiss Confederation.

    1549 Calvin’s theological disputes with the Zurich reformers
    are partly settled by the Compromise of Zurich (_Consensus
    Tigurinus_).

    1553 Michael Servetus is burned at the stake at Geneva at the
    instance of Calvin.

    1555 Calvin expels from Geneva many who uphold municipal
    liberty and replaces them by foreigners. The city gains the
    name of the “Protestant Rome.” Evangelicals driven out of
    Locarno take refuge in Zurich.

    1559 Calvin founds the University of Geneva.

    1564 Calvin dies. Théodore de Beze succeeds him as head of the
    church. Emanuel Philibert, duke of Savoy, supported by the
    Catholic members of the league, demands back the districts
    seized by Bern in 1536. The Treaty of Lausanne restores
    several of them. The counter-Reformation (Catholic reaction)
    makes itself strongly felt in Switzerland. It is furthered by
    Carlo Borromeo, archbishop of Milan, and at Lucerne by Ludwig
    Pfyffer, the “Swiss king.”

    1565 The Catholic states of Switzerland ally themselves with
    Pope Pius IV.

    1566 The second Helvetic Confession is published as a basis for
    union between the Calvinists and the Zurich reformers.

    1574 The Catholic reaction advances by the establishment of the
    Jesuits at Lucerne.

    1580 A papal nuncio comes to Lucerne. Borromeo founds at Milan
    the “Collegium Helveticum” for the education of Swiss priests.

    1581 The Capuchins become active in Switzerland for the
    Catholic reaction.

    1582 The Protestants object to the introduction of the
    Gregorian calendar.

    1586 The Golden or Borromean League for support of Catholicism
    is formed by the seven Catholic members of the confederation
    (Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Lucerne, Zug, Freiburg, Solothurn).

    1588 The reformed states form a separate league with Strasburg.

    1597 Appenzell is divided into two parts, “Inner Rhodes,”
    Catholic, and “Outer Rhodes,” Protestant.


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

    1602 The Duke of Savoy attempts to get hold of Geneva (the
    “Escalade”).

    1620 Massacre of Protestants in the Valtellina. The valley
    is won for the Catholics. The Swiss Confederation remains
    nominally neutral in the Thirty Years’ War, but various members
    become involved from time to time.

    1622 The Austrians conquer the Prätigau.

    1624 French troops take the Valtellina.

    1629 The Valtellina is taken by the imperial troops.

    1632 The Baden Compromise adjusts the religious status of the
    “common bailiwicks.”

    1635 The French once more capture the Valtellina.

    1637 George Jenatsch with help of the Spaniards drives the
    French out of the Valtellina.

    1639 The independence of the Grisons is established.

    1648 By the Treaty of Westphalia the Swiss Confederation is
    formally separated from Germany and recognized as independent.
    Religious divisions continue to cripple the energy of the
    confederation. Poverty, a result of the Thirty Years’ War,
    causes discontent.

    1653 The Peasants’ War breaks out in Bern, Solothurn, Lucerne,
    and Bâle because of the oppression of the governing class.
    The peasants form a league of Sumiswald. They are defeated at
    Wohlenschwyl.

    1654 The Protestant Swiss intercede for the Waldenses. They
    win the friendship of Oliver Cromwell, who pays great honor to
    their envoys.

    1655 Protestant fugitives from Schwyz find refuge in Zurich.

    1656 The first Villmergen War results. Christopher Pfyffer
    of Lucerne with a body of Catholics defeats the Protestants
    at Villmergen. A treaty is concluded which provides for the
    individual sovereignty of each member of the confederation in
    religious matters.

    1663 The confederation makes a treaty with Louis XIV of France,
    by which Protestant Swiss mercenaries are taken into the king’s
    pay.

    1668 As the result of encroachments by Louis in the
    Franche-Comté the confederates provide for joint action against
    outside enemies by putting into execution the agreement known
    as the Defensionale. French Protestant refugees find shelter in
    Switzerland.


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

    1707 Pierre Fatio at the head of a committee of the council at
    Geneva demands a more liberal government.

    1712 The abbot of St. Gall by his oppressions rouses the people
    of Toggenburg to insurrection. The second Villmergen War (or
    war of Toggenburg) between Catholics and Protestants from these
    troubles. The Catholics are defeated at Villmergen. The Treaty
    of Aarau assures the “common bailiwicks” religious liberty and
    gives advantages to the Protestants.

    1715 The Catholic members of the confederation by the Truckli
    Bund agree to put France in the position of guarantor of the
    confederation. A period of decline. The confederation has
    little unity. Unsatisfactory relations of the classes.

    1723 The conspiracy of Davel to free Vaud from the oppression
    of Bern is crushed.

    1729 The “_Harten_” (hard ones) opponents of the government,
    and the “_Linden_” (soft ones) at Zug struggle for supremacy.

    1732 The “Harten” gain a victory over the “Linden” in the Outer
    Rhodes of Appenzell.

    1737 The democrats win a victory for liberal government in
    Geneva.

    1744 Demands for a more liberal government are made in Bern.

    1749 Hentzi’s conspiracy attempts in vain to overthrow the
    oligarchy at Bern.

    1748 Discontents of the common people cause disorder in
    Neuchâtel.

    1755 Popular uprisings in the Leventina are crushed by the
    government of Uri.

    1762 The Helvetic Society is founded and fosters aspirations
    for liberty. Rousseau, then a citizen of Geneva, publishes the
    _Contrat Social_. These books are publicly burned by order of
    the city government. The popular party wins in the Outer Rhodes
    of Appenzell.

    1764 The “Harten” are victorious in Zug.

    1768 Armed intervention of France, Zurich, and Bern in Geneva
    to suppress popular revolts of the “natives.” Disorders occur
    in the patriciate of Lucerne.

    1770 The “natives” rise in revolt in Geneva.

    1777 All of the thirteen states of the confederation join in
    making a new alliance with France. Political disturbances occur
    in Zurich.

    1780 The meetings of the Helvetic Society are forbidden.

    1781 Anarchy in Geneva. Pastor Waser is executed at Zurich for
    opposition to the city government. France, Bern, and Sardinia
    intervene. Emigration from Geneva. Insurrection at Fribourg
    under Chenaux.

    1784 Joseph Suter, a popular leader in the Inner Rhodes of
    Appenzell, is executed.

    1789 The French Revolution begins to find sympathizers in
    Switzerland.

    1790 Exiles from Vaud and Fribourg organise the Helvetic Club
    at Paris to spread the new ideas in Switzerland. The club stirs
    up risings in the western part of the confederation. Lower
    Valais rises against the oppressive rule of the upper districts.

    1792 Porrentruy defies the prince-bishop of Bâle; with the
    help of the French drives out the imperial troops; forms
    the Rauracian Republic. This afterward becomes the French
    department of Mont Terrible. Geneva is saved from France by a
    force from Zurich and Bern. Massacre of the Swiss guards at the
    Tuileries by the Paris mob. The diet of Aarau orders the recall
    of the Swiss regiments.

    1793 A reign of terror begins in Geneva because of uprising of
    the “natives.”

    1794 The revolutionary party assumes control in Geneva. Arrests
    and murders. Demands for greater freedom are made at Stäfa in
    the territory of Zurich.

    1795 A reaction sets in in Geneva. The insurrection at Stäfa is
    suppressed.

    1797 Bonaparte incorporates the Italian bailiwicks of the
    Valtellina with the Cisalpine Republic. La Harpe calls on
    the Directory to protect the liberties of Vaud against the
    oppression of Bern.


THE HELVETIC REPUBLIC

    1798 French troops in response occupy Mülhausen, Bienne, and
    part of the lands of the prince-bishop of Bâle. Insurgents
    open the prison of Chillon. Another French army enters Vaud
    and the Lemanic Republic is proclaimed there. The French
    occupy Fribourg and Solothurn; defeat the Bernese after
    fierce fighting at Neueneck; take Bern, the stronghold of the
    aristocratic party, and pillage the treasury. The Revolution
    triumphs over the Confederation. By order of the Directory,
    the Helvetic Republic, one and indivisible, is proclaimed.
    Peter Ochs of Bâle supplies a constitution. Ten of the thirteen
    members of the old confederation accept the new government.
    Twenty-three “cantons,” or administrative districts, are
    created. The forest districts rebel. Their resistance, headed
    by Alois Reding, of Schwyz, is put down after desperate
    conflicts at Schindellegi, Morgarten, and at Rothenthurm.
    An insurrection of the mountaineers of Upper Valais against
    the French is bloodily repressed. The French put down an
    insurrection in Nidwald with great bloodshed. (The days of
    terror of Nidwald end.)

    1799 Zurich, the forest cantons, and Rhætia become the scene of
    the struggle of the Austrian and Russians against the French in
    the wars of the Coalition.


THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

    1802 Strife between the centralists and the federalists.
    Bonaparte withdraws the French troops. The Helvetian government
    is driven from Bern. Bonaparte convenes Swiss statesmen at
    Paris in the _consulta_, and acts as mediator. The Frickthal,
    the last Austrian possession in Switzerland, is given to the
    Helvetic Republic by Bonaparte.


THE CONFEDERATION OF NINETEEN CANTONS

    1803 Napoleon’s Act of Mediation is made the constitution of
    “Switzerland.” This name for the first time is used as the
    official name of the country. The thirteen members of the old
    confederation are set up again and six new cantons are added.
    There are to be no more privileged classes or subject lands.
    Switzerland enjoys ten years of peace and prosperity.

    1804 Insurrection breaks out at Horgen in the canton Zurich.

    1806 Neuchâtel is given to Marshal Berthier.

    1810 Valais, which has been a separate republic, is made into
    the French department of the Simplon. The Swiss Society of the
    Public Good is founded. Pestalozzi and Fellenberg work out an
    educational system.

    1813 Austrian and Russian troops, supported by the reactionary
    party, enter Switzerland; the diet abolishes the constitution
    of 1803.

    1814 “The long diet” at Zurich attempts to adjust party
    differences. Bern heads a party anxious to restore the old
    order. Zurich and the majority stand out for the nineteen
    cantons of Napoleon. The allies enter Switzerland.


THE LEAGUE OF TWENTY-TWO STATES

    1815 The Swiss diet accepts the decisions of the congress of
    Vienna and a new constitution, the Federal Pact, is adopted.
    The league of States (_Staatenbund_) is made to include
    twenty-two members. The sovereign rights of each canton are
    recognised. The federal diet exercises supreme sovereignty only
    in purely national concerns. The great powers at the congress
    of Vienna guarantee the neutrality of Switzerland. Switzerland
    is freed from subserviency to France. New aristocracies make
    themselves felt.

    1817 Switzerland becomes a party to the Holy Alliance.

    1819 The Helvetic Society again takes up political reforms.

    1823 Freedom of the press is restricted under influence of the
    great powers. Intellectual reaction and ultra-montanism become
    noticeable and cause dissensions.

    1830 The July revolution in Paris finds an echo in Switzerland.
    Twelve cantons reform their constitutions in a democratic
    sense. Popular demonstrations at the assembly of Uster.

    1831 The aristocracy of Bern submits to liberal reforms.

    1832 The cantons Zurich, Bern, Lucerne, Solothurn, St. Gall,
    Aargau, and Thurgau agree to united action looking toward
    reform (_Siebener Concordat_). They are opposed by the
    reactionary cantons, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Valais, and
    Neuchâtel which form the league of Sarnen (Sarner Bund).

    1833 Bâle is divided into a rural (Baselland) and an urban
    (Baselstadt) half-canton because of the desire of the rural
    population for proportional representation in the Diet.

    1834 Political refugees to Switzerland increase to such an
    extent that measures are taken by the diet to prevent abuse of
    the privilege of asylum.

    1835 Religious tumults in Aargau.

    1836 Difficulties with France over tariff regulations.
    Religious tumults in the Bernese Jura.

    1838 The Society of the Grütli is founded at Geneva.

    1839 Reaction in Zurich against radicals and freethinkers.
    (Strauss’ _Life of Jesus_).

    1840 Clericals revolt against the radicals in Aargau.

    1841 They are put down. Eight monasteries in Aargau are
    suppressed. The quarrel provokes disputes in the diet.

    1843 The diet effects a compromise in the religious quarrel
    in Aargau by which four instead of eight of the monasteries
    are suppressed. The seven Catholic cantons, Uri, Schwyz,
    Unterwalden, Lucerne, Zug, Fribourg, and Valais hereupon form a
    separate league, the Sonderbund.

    1844 The Sonderbund declares for the reopening of all the
    monasteries in Aargau. The clericals in Lucerne, the Vorort,
    give high posts to Jesuits. Parties of free-lances attempt to
    capture the city.

    1845 The attack on Lucerne is renewed but is unsuccessful. The
    radicals gain control in Zurich.

    1846 The radicals become the majority in Bern and Geneva.

    1847 The radicals get a majority in St. Gall. The diet in which
    the radicals are now in the majority declares the Sonderbund
    contrary to the Federal Pact. The diet resolves to revise the
    pact and asks the cantons to expel the Jesuits. The attempt to
    enforce the decree leads to the Sonderbund War. This is quickly
    ended by the defeat of the rebellious Catholic cantons at
    Gislikon, largely because of the good generalship of Dufour.


SWITZERLAND AS A FEDERAL STATE

    1848 A new constitution is accepted by the majority of the
    cantons. Switzerland becomes a federal state (_Bundesstaat_).
    A central government is organised consisting of a council of
    states (_Ständerath_), a national council (_National Rath_) and
    a federal council or executive (_Bundesrath_). German, French,
    and Italian are recognised as national languages. Bern is
    chosen the national capital.

    1855 The federal polytechnic school is opened at Zurich.
    Improvements in the educational system are introduced.

    1856 A royalist conspiracy in Neuchâtel is put down and causes
    a dispute between Switzerland and the king of Prussia, the
    overlord of Neuchâtel.

    1857 Neuchâtel is definitely ceded to Switzerland.

    1859 Switzerland posts troops on the Italian frontier to
    preserve neutrality in the Italian War and puts an end to
    foreign enlistments.

    1860 The Swiss government protests against the cession of Nice
    and Savoy to France.

    1861 French troops occupy the Valée de Dappes.

    1862 The question of the frontiers in the Valée de Dappes is
    arranged with France by mutual cession of territory.

    1864 The convention of Geneva introduces humanitarian reforms
    in warfare. Election riots at Geneva lead to bloodshed.

    1865 International social science congress meets at Bern.

    1866 Restrictions on religious liberty of Jesuits, etc., are
    removed. An attempt is made to revise the constitution in a
    democratic sense but fails.

    1867 An international congress of workmen is held at Lausanne.

    1869 The construction of the St. Gotthard tunnel is decided
    upon.

    1871 Switzerland shelters French refugees of the Franco-German
    War though insisting on the maintenance of neutrality. The
    growth in power of the “old Catholics” causes disturbances in
    western Switzerland (the struggle against Ultramontanism). The
    Alabama Arbitration Commission meets in Geneva.

    1872 An attempt at revision of the constitution is defeated by
    a small majority.

    1873 Abbé Mermillod, appointed by the pope “apostolic vicar” of
    Geneva, is banished from Switzerland. The see of Bishop Lachat
    of Bâle is suppressed by several cantons because he upholds the
    doctrine of papal infallibility.


SWITZERLAND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF 1874

    1874 A new constitution, a revision of that of 1848, is
    accepted by the people. The referendum hereby becomes a part
    of the machinery of the federal government as it had already
    been part of that of most of the cantons. The new constitution
    increases centralisation in the government. The international
    postal congress meets at Bern and lays the foundation for the
    international postal union.

    1876 Religious and political differences cause an armed
    encounter in Ticino.

    1877 A law regulating the working hours in factories is passed,
    marking an advance in labour legislation.

    1878 James Fazy, noted statesman, dies.

    1879 Legislation puts an end to dissensions over the
    financeering of the St. Gotthard railway.

    1882 The St. Gotthard railway is opened.

    1883 Mermillod is appointed bishop of Lausanne.

    1884 Bishop Lachat is made apostolic vicar of Ticino. An
    international conference is held at Bern to secure the
    protection of copyright.

    1887 Alcohol is made a state monopoly.

    1888 The creation of a see at Lugano excites the opposition of
    the radicals. An important law for the protection of patents is
    passed.

    1889 Bismarck’s spy Wohlgemuth is expelled. Germany protests.
    Difficulties arising out of the Swiss custom of granting
    political asylum are settled.

    1890 Religious riot at Ticino. The principal compulsory
    insurance against sickness and accident is accepted by popular
    vote.

    1891 The federal constitution is amended so that fifty thousand
    citizens by the “initiative” can compel the federal authorities
    to prepare and submit to the people any reform in the
    constitution demanded by the petitioners. The establishment of
    a state or federal bank is approved by the people. The purchase
    of the Central Railway by the confederation is rejected by
    popular vote.

    1893 The killing of animals in Jewish fashion is prohibited by
    exercise of the initiative.

    1894 An attempt by the initiative to secure the adoption for
    the government of a socialist scheme to provide employment
    fails.

    1896 A National exhibition is held at Geneva. Labour riots
    directed against the employment of Italians cause many of these
    to leave Zurich. The eighteenth international congress on
    copyright meets at Bern and takes steps for copyright reform in
    Germany and Great Britain.

    1897 The national council adopts a bill authorising the
    confederation to purchase the five principal railroads when
    the terms of the concessions expire. The proposals of the
    government as to a federal bank are rejected by the people.
    An international congress for the protection of labor is held
    at Zurich. It votes in favor of the prohibition of Sunday
    labor, except under special conditions for the restriction of
    unhealthful trades and night-work, for the betterment of the
    conditions of employment for women and for a working day of
    eight hours by legal enactment.

    1898 The government authorises the construction of the Simplon
    tunnel. The people vote for the unification of the cantonal
    laws civil and criminal into a set of federal codes. The
    principle of the purchase by the confederation of the principal
    railroads is approved by popular vote. The empress Elizabeth
    of Austria is assassinated by an Italian anarchist in Geneva.
    Expulsion of anarchists follows.

    1899 The scheme for the establishment of the “double
    initiative” is launched. The law for the compulsory insurance
    of working men against sickness and accident is passed by the
    legislature.

    1900 This proposal, however, is rejected by the people by a
    large majority. The proposals for proportional representation
    in the national council and for the election of the federal
    council by the people (the “double initiative”) are rejected by
    popular vote.


THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

    1901 On representation of the Turkish government the federal
    council suppresses publications of the party of Young Turkey
    criticising the sultan for the Armenian massacres. Public
    opinion condemning the action of the council as a violation
    of the right of asylum finds expression in many places.
    Anti-Russian demonstrations are made at Geneva and Bern by
    socialists. The socialist movement gains in strength.

    1902 Difficulties with Italy over the publication in an
    anarchist organ at Geneva of an article reflecting on the
    murdered king Humbert causes the temporary withdrawal of the
    diplomatic representatives of the two countries. A general
    strike in Geneva leads to disturbances which are put down by
    troops. The federal council issues a decree suppressing such
    religious congregations or orders as have not been authorised
    by law. The radical democratic majority in the national council
    is considerably strengthened.

    1903 A new protective tariff is adopted by popular vote. The
    Zionist congress at Bâle votes to investigate Great Britain’s
    offer of land in East Africa for Jewish colonisation.

[Illustration]




                                 PART XXI

                          THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA

               BASED CHIEFLY UPON THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES

    R. BELL, R. N. BESTUZHEV-RIUMIN, V. A. BILBASOV, A. BRÜCKNER, A.
      DE HAXTHAUSEN, E. HERMANN, N. M. KARAMZIN, W. K. KELLY, N. I.
    KOSTOMAROV, M. KOVALEVSKI, A. LEROY-BEAULIEU, P. MÉRIMÉE, NESTOR,
    A. RAMBAUD, T. SCHIEMANN, J. H. SCHNITZLER, A. A. SCHUMAKR, N. K.
     SHILDER, G. M. SOLOVIEV, P. STRAHL, N. TURGENIEV, D. M. WALLACE

                         TOGETHER WITH A STUDY OF
                  THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA

                                    BY
                               S. RAPPOPORT

                      WITH ADDITIONAL CITATIONS FROM

 ALEXANDER II, A. ALISON, R. N. BAIN, T. VON BERNHARDI, A. J. BEVERIDGE,
      CATHERINE II, A. P. DE CUSTINE, T. DELORD, J. ECKHARDT, A. DE
    FERRAND, I. GOLIKOV, P. DE LA GORCE, R. GOSSIP, A. N. KUROPATKIN,
        LEO, M. LÉVESQUE, C. A. DE LOUVILLE, H. MARTIN, MAURICIUS,
   A. MIKHAILOVSKI-DANILEVSKI, H. NORMAN, PROCOPIUS, C. C. DE RULHIÈRE,
         F. SCHLOSSER, P. DE SÉGUR, P. SHCHEBALSKI, F. H. SKRINE,
                       STORCK, H. TYRRELL, VOLTAIRE

                             COPYRIGHT, 1904,
                         BY HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS.

                          _All rights reserved_




RUSSIA




INTRODUCTION

THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA

WRITTEN SPECIALLY FOR THE PRESENT WORK

BY DR. A. S. RAPPOPORT

School of Oriental Languages, Paris


“Russia evolves very slowly, like an empire that is not of yesterday and
that has ample time before it,” is one of Nietzsche’s remarks before his
reason had hopelessly gone adrift in the vast ocean of insanity. This
remark of the German poet-philosopher is true enough. What Nietzsche,
however, did not know or did not say is that one can hardly speak of any
evolution, as far as general civilisation, intellectual culture, and
development are concerned, of Russia as a whole. Only a small minority,
the so-called _intelligentia_, has evolved intellectually, not Russia
itself. Here lies the fundamental difference between Russia and the rest
of Europe.

There is a vast gulf, ever broadening, between the Russian intelligentia
and the _muyiks_. Thought and culture, nay even civilisation, seem to
be limited to a select few. The bulk of the people has not only failed
to advance from a state in which it was surprised by Jenghiz Khan, but
it has actually retrograded to a more savage condition. Revolutions
have passed over their heads without in the least affecting them. “The
Russian masses,” says Leroy-Beaulieu (_The Empire of the Czars_), “have
not felt the breath of either the Renaissance, or the Reformation, or
the Revolution. All that has been done in Europe or America for the last
four centuries, since the time of Columbus and Luther, Washington and
Mirabeau, is, as far as Russia is concerned, non-existent.”

The people never think, or at least have not yet left that crude state
of barbarism which precedes the dawn of civilisation; the first rays
of thought have scarcely tinted with orient hues the dark horizon
of ignorance and superstition of the Russian population; the great
events have failed to stir its mental inertia. I am, however, far from
maintaining that the fault lies with the nature and national character
of the people. The rich nature, the subtle spirit of the Slav, his
power of adaptation and imitation make him not only accessible to
western civilisation and culture but also capable of producing something
which bears the impress of the peculiarity of the Slavonic genius. The
intelligentia is now giving ample proof corroborating this statement.
The Russian intelligentia has passed the phases of growing and changing
and doubting and has reached a condition of maturity, asserting its
manhood and right. Before examining the intellectual development of the
Russian intelligentia and the point it has reached, as compared with
western Europe, we must try to find out the causes that first produced
that gulf between the few and the many, and the circumstances that were
instrumental in widening it.

It is a mistake to imagine that the very first foundations of Russian
intellectual development were laid by Peter the Great and that Russia,
although behind western Europe in culture and civilisation, is still in
her youthful vigour and freshness and will soon overtake the old world.
There was a time, at the beginning of the eleventh century, when the
Slavonic countries under the rule of the Norman conquerors were on the
same level of civilisation as western Europe. The foundations were laid
before the Norman invasion and very frequent were the relations between
this people in the east and those in the north of Europe. Long before the
ninth century, Kiev was known to the inhabitants of Scandinavia. Many
a jarl sought refuge there and many a merchant ship found its way to
the shores of Russia. On the road along which the commercial connection
between the East Sea and Byzantium developed were situated the towns of
Smolensk, Tchernigov, Pereiaslavl (cf. V. der Brüggen, _Wie Russland
Europaisch Wurde_, p. 22). When the Norman princes, the warags as they
were called by the Slavonic nations, conquered these towns and subdued
one tribe after the other, the already existing civilisation developed
rapidly under the protection of the new rulers. Forth from Byzantium
and Greece, from Italy, Poland, and Germany, with which countries the
descendants of Rurik kept up a connection, western influence came to
the north. Learned monks came from Byzantium, architects, artisans,
and merchants from Greece, Italy and Germany, and were instrumental in
spreading the languages, customs and ideas of the west. Not only did the
_kniazi_ (princes) of Kiev build churches and edifices after the model
of Greek and Italian art, but they established schools to which Vladimir
compelled his nobles and boyars to send their children. The commercial
relations with the west and the south were very vivid and frequent, and
on the market places of Kiev and Novgorod a motley crowd of Normans and
Slavs, Hungarians, Greeks, Venetians, Germans, Arabs, and Jews were to be
seen.

The intellectual culture of the time had not yet, one must admit,
penetrated the masses of the Slavonic tribes. Yet the Normans, as the
propagators of culture, speedily and easily merged into one with the
conquered tribes, much easier perhaps than the Normans who came with
William the Conqueror amalgamated with Britons and Saxons in England.
Had the Tatar invasion not taken place, it is highly probable that the
intellectual development of Russia would have followed the same lines
as that of western Europe. The commercial and intellectual relations
with the rest of Europe, so eagerly sought after and cultivated by the
Norman princes, would have continued and brought the Slav countries in
increasingly closer contact with the west and under the influence of
all the currents that were destined to traverse Europe later on. The
Renaissance and the revival of learning which shed their light upon the
dark mediæval age (and only a few rays of which found their way to Russia
by way of Poland at a much later period) would have made themselves felt
in Russia. This was, however, not to happen. The Mongolian invasion had
actually cut off Russia from Europe, and brought it under the Tatar
influence. The Norman civilisation, which was in a nascent state, was
crushed; the threads connecting Russia with Europe were cut off. The wave
of Mongolian invasion had inundated the flat land situated between Europe
and Asia, carried away and destroyed every vestige of western influence.
Kiev, Moscow, Tver, Riazan, Tchernigov, and Smolensk were conquered by
the hordes of the Great Khan, who from his seat somewhere in the heart of
China or in the centre of Asia sent down his generals and tax collectors.

Hundreds of thousands of Mongols came to Russia, mixed with the Slavs,
and influenced habits, customs, civilisation, social life, administration
and even language. The influence was a very far-reaching and deep one;
Mongolism has penetrated Russian life to a much higher degree than a
Russian would care to admit or western Europeans have realised. Greater
and greater became the gulf between the Russian and the Romance and
Teutonic worlds. But that gulf might have been bridged over and Russia
might have been saved, when the dawn of better and happier days broke in,
by another power: the influence of the church. Here again, however, owing
to circumstances, this in many respects civilising agent was powerless.

In spite of all the reproaches hurled at the church, it must be admitted
that it had all the education in its hands. In Russia, however, the
case was different. From the very beginning, ever since Christianity
was introduced, ever since Vladimir had accepted baptism in Kiev, the
Russian people as Christians were divided into two distinct groups.
Whilst the enthusiastic adherents of the new religion endeavoured to
introduce the piety of Byzantium, the mass of the people, although
nominally Christian, remained heathen in reality and has remained so up
to the present. This was due to two reasons. Vladimir had accepted the
Greek form of worship with its asceticism. Asceticism and monasticism, a
retirement from the world, became the Christian ideal. This ideal was too
high, too unattainable and too foreign for reality and for daily life,
whilst on the other hand the perfect Christians considered the life of
the world as sinful and dangerous. Thus the clergy sought retirement in
cloisters and monasteries and the mass, whilst accepting the ceremonies
of Byzantium, had learned nothing of its ethical teachings. The gulf thus
arising between clergy and people was also due to another reason. The
first members of the clergy were Greeks, monks coming from Byzantium,
who spoke a language incomprehensible to the Slavs. The Russian bishops,
who gradually took the place of the learned eastern monks, and who could
communicate with the people, were still too ignorant themselves. And
then suddenly the Tatar invasion came. Connection with Byzantium was cut
off. The influx of the Greek clergy and Byzantine learning had ceased
too early, before the Russians had had time to acquire some amount of
knowledge to replace it. Thus whilst the intellectual development of the
mass took place very slowly, the intellectual level of the clergy sank
rapidly. The consequence was that when the Russian clergy met the people
they were both on the same intellectual level, the priests had nothing
to teach and had no prestige. This also explains, psychologically, the
origin of so many religious sects in Russia. Having no respect and no
admiration for the ignorant priest, addicted to drink, the peasant goes
his own way when he suddenly feels a craving for religious ideals.

Thus the Mongolian invasion had cut off Russia from Europe and whilst
the latter was passing through the phases of transition, approaching
slowly but gradually the times of light and learning, Russia stood still.
The Europe of the Renaissance was not a _creatio ex nihilo_. It was the
result of a slow process of development. The barbarians who had built
their realms on the ruins of the ancient worlds, Hellas and Rome, had
taken over the classical heritage left to them after the disappearance
of the Roman Empire. Rude and barbarous, however, these new conquerors
had no understanding for the value of the heritage and destroyed many
of its richest treasures. Worlds of intellectual culture were lost. But
slowly the age of understanding dawned and the former barbarians brought
forth many of the treasures which they had relegated to the lumber-room,
added many of their own, and blended them into one whole. The result
was the Græco-Roman, Romance, and Teutonic civilisation. Crusades,
Arabian civilisation passing by way of Spain, scholasticism, Reformation,
Renaissance, revival of learning, the discovery of new worlds, the spread
of commerce, scientific inventions and discoveries, stimulating the
desire for learning and creating impulses in every new direction--all
these new and stirring events were so many phases through which European
society and European life passed before they reached the state of modern
development. Many were the streams and cross-currents that traversed
Europe separately before they united and continued the more rapid advance
of a new life and civilisation. All this was lacking in Russia. Russia
missed during its Mongolian period, the time of general transition. None
of the forces which, although invisibly, were steadily furrowing the
European soil and preparing it for the influx of fresh air and new light,
were at work in Russia. The phase of transition had not yet commenced.
That period of constant change, of mingled decadence and spiritual
growth, that ceaseless blending of the old and the new, unnoticed at
the time but clearly distinguished from the distance of later ages,
was lacking in Russia. There was no pope, no powerful church, and
consequently no Reformation and no spirit of individualism--no feudalism,
no knights, no Crusades and no acquaintance with foreign lands, no spread
of commerce, and no widening of the mental horizon of the people. There
were no learned monks copying Greek and Latin manuscripts, paving the way
for scholasticism and modern thought. There was even no language in which
the treasures of the ancient world could be communicated to the Slavs.
Few people could write, few even count properly.

There were no schools and the attempts to establish some such
institutions during the seventeenth century failed. A school was founded
at Moscow under Alexis, but here only a foreign language or two were
taught. Its aim was to train translators for the government. There was no
art, nor technical science. There were no medical men. The two or three
foreign practitioners were considered as sorcerers.

Towards the end of the seventeenth century therefore Russia had
absolutely no culture of her own. All that the Normans had established
had been wiped out. The Byzantine influence had no effect. And when
after a struggle extending over three centuries the czardom of Moscow
had thrown off the shackles of the Great Khan, liberated itself from
thraldom and laid the foundations of the great empire of Russia, it had
only established, on the ruins of the old Mongolian, a new state which
was Mongolian and Tatar in its essence and spirit, in its customs and
institutions, and had little or nothing in common with the rest of Europe.

Moscow was the inheritor of Mongolism, the Czar was spiritually, and
even physically, a descendant of Mongol princes. Ivan IV married a
Mongolian princess, his son married a sister of the Mongol Godunov. They
had actually taken over the inheritance of the khans of Kiptchak. It was
in this barren soil that Peter sowed the seed of European culture. What
happened?

Peter was undoubtedly great and deserves this title. He was one of the
great makers of history. But though great in his plans, great in what
he wished to accomplish, he was not great in what he really attained.
He only saw the superficiality of European civilisation. He introduced
it like some foreign product, like some fashionable article, like
some exotic plant, without first asking whether the national soil was
propitious for its cultivation. He, at the utmost, created a hot-house
atmosphere where his plants could vegetate, and they remained what they
originally were: exotic. He failed to see that civilisation is the
product of a long process of evolution, the natural product of the social
and national conditions, drawing its life and sap from the inner forces
of the people. Instead of making use of these inner forces of his people,
he endeavoured to introduce civilisation by his power of will. He only
had an eye for the effects but not for the causes that were working as
the hidden springs.

In France, in England, in Germany, in all western Europe, civilisation,
the moral and intellectual evolution, was a natural phenomenon, the
effect of previous causes. In Russia, civilisation was the outcome of a
sudden revolution, the slavish, reluctant and half-hearted compliance
with the commands of an individual will. The former was natural, the
latter artificial. An evolution is a slow change, an unconscious and
imperceptible process, finding a state prepared for innovation, a soil,
furrowed and fertile, ready to receive the seed and to bring forth fruit.
A revolution, on the other hand, is a radical, sudden change which seldom
succeeds and, in most cases, calls forth reactions. In Western Europe
there was, as we have see above, a time of transition from the barbarous
to the civilised state. The morning of the Renaissance had dawned upon
mediæval Europe and tinted with orient colours the sombre sky. The
first rays appeared on the horizon of the Italian poets, dissipating
the darkness here and there. The sun gradually rose higher and higher,
penetrated the houses of the people and woke them (who had been lulled to
sleep by the mysterious whisperings of superstition) from their prolonged
slumbers. They awoke, opened their windows and allowed the light of the
morning to penetrate into their dark abodes. Not so in Russia. There
the people were suddenly awakened, dragged out from the utter darkness,
without any transition, into the broad midday of an artificial light.
They opened their eyes, but the light was too strong, too glaring; so
they shut them again. Peter wanted to jump over three centuries and
catch up with Europe. He established a fleet without Russian sailors,
an administration with foreign administrators, an academy of science
in a land without elementary schools. He began a race with Europe but
his people could not follow him. He borrowed everything from Europe
and instead of giving his people a chance to develop naturally and
freely, he crushed the spirit of independence and introduced a knout
civilisation. Everything had to be done by order. He forced his people
to swallow Europeanism. The bulk of his subjects, however, could not
digest it. The consequence was that they could not follow the few, and
remained far behind them. The gulf therefore between the few, who form
the present intelligentia, and the great mass--a gulf which was but
narrow towards the end of the sixteenth century when by way of Poland and
Livonia a glimpse of the western sun penetrated into Russia--suddenly
widened considerably. Thus the origin of the striking phenomenon which
Russia offers in her intellectually high developed intelligentia and her
uneducated, ignorant masses is to be sought in Russia’s past, in the
absence of a period of transition, and in Peter’s misunderstanding the
process of European civilisation, in his admiration for the effects, but
utter ignorance of the causes that brought about these effects.

There is, however, yet another factor--a factor which, whilst accounting
for the existence of an intelligentia, or a coterie of intellectuals,
and of an utterly ignorant mass, will also throw some light upon the
intellectual development of this very intelligentia and explain the
reasons which compelled it to choose certain channels by which it
sends forth the currents of its thoughts. This factor is the despotic
government of the czars. If Russia’s unhappy past and Peter’s good
intentions but great blunders produced the present state of intellectual
development in that country, the government of the Reformer’s successors
has done its very best to preserve this condition.

The continuous policy of the Russian government to civilise by means of
the knout has on the one hand brought about the result that not Russia
but only a few Russians evolved intellectually and, on the other, it has
given a certain direction to the thought and intellectual productions of
these few. Even during the reign of Peter I or Catherine II, when the
spirit of civilisation began to move its wings, independent thought has
had to sustain a fierce struggle against authority. In the most civilised
countries of western Europe ever and anon a cross-current of reaction
traverses the stream of intellectual evolution: narrow-minded zealots,
hypocritical bigots, false patriots, literary Gibeonites, gossiping
old women arrayed in the mantles of philosophers, do their best to put
fetters on the independent thought of man, to nip the free and natural
intellectual development in the very bud by forcing it under the iron
grip of tradition and authority. These reactionary tendencies of the
lovers of darkness are only exceptions, and will lead thought for a while
into a side channel, but cannot stop the triumphant march onwards. Not so
in Russia.

In the empire of the czar thought is almost a crime and every means is
employed to keep it within the boundaries prescribed by the governing
power. To overstep these boundaries, to develop itself freely, and I
might say naturally, is to declare war against authority, to revolt. The
history of evolution of thought in Russia is therefore almost identical
with the revolutionary movement. If whilst working on the construction
of the temple with the right hand, the left has to wield the sword
against a sudden attack of the enemy, the edifice can rise only very
slowly. Renan says (in his _Future of Science_) that the great creations
of thought appear in troublous times and that neither material ease
nor even liberty contributes much to the originality and the energy of
intellectual development. On the contrary the work of mind would only be
seriously threatened if humanity came to be too much at its ease. Thank
God! exclaims the Breton philosopher, that day is still far distant.
The customary state of Athens, he continues, was one of terror; the
security of the individual was threatened at every moment, to-day an
exile, to-morrow he was sold as a slave. And yet in such a state Phidias
produced the Propylæa statues, Plato his dialogues and Aristophanes his
satires. Dante would never have composed his cantos in an atmosphere of
studious ease. The sacking of Rome did not disturb the brush of Michael
Angelo. In a word, the most beautiful things are born amid tears and it
is in the midst of struggle, in the atmosphere of sorrow and suffering
that humanity develops itself, that the human mind displays the most
energy and activity in all directions. Renan was an individualist,
and aristocratic in his teachings, and seems only to have in view
the individual, nay the genius. Suffering and oppression, physical,
intellectual and moral, are schools where the strong gather more strength
and come forth triumphant, but where the weaker are destroyed. What is
true for the _élite_, for the very limited number of the chosen few, does
not hold good for humanity at large, which is not strong enough to think
when it is hungry, to fight against opposing forces and to hurl down the
barriers erected against the advance of thought. Few indeed are those who
can carry on the struggle to a successful issue. The Russian government,
with its Mongolian traditions of autocracy, threw the great nation, which
remained behind Peter’s forward march, back into complete indifference
and apathy, into a state of submissive contentment, where, like a child,
it kisses the rod that punishes it, sometimes cries like a child, and is
lulled to sleep by the whisperings of mystic superstition and the vapours
of _vodki_.

Has not the populace a terrifying example in the martyrs of Russian
thought? A terrible destiny awaits him who dares to step beyond the line
traced by the hand of the government, who ventures to look over the
wall erected by imperial ukase. “The history of Russian thinkers,” says
Alexander Herzen (_Russland’s Sociale Zustände_, page 136), “is a long
list of martyrs and a register of convicts.” Those whom the hand of the
imperial government has spared died in the prime of youth, before they
had time to develop, like blossoms hurrying to quit life before they
could bear fruit. A Pushkin and a Lermontov fell in the prime of youth,
one thirty-eight and the other twenty-seven years old, victims of the
unnatural state of society. Russia’s Beaumarchais, Griboiedov, found a
premature end in Persia in his thirty-fifth year; Kolzov, the Russian
Burns, Bielinski, the Russian Lessing, died in misery, the latter at the
age of thirty-eight. Czerncevski was torn from his literary activity
and sent to Siberia. Dobrolubov sang his swan-song in his twenty-fifth
year. Chaadaev, the friend of Schelling, was declared mad by order of the
government. If such measures have kept the people in a state of ignorance
and still lowered the already low level of civilisation, the autocratic
rule has further, as it was unable to crush it, caused the intelligentia
to turn its thoughts into a certain direction.

If we follow the development of the Russian intelligentia we notice at
once that all the currents of its intellectual life are, at the present
time at least, converging into one centre, swelling the stream, that
is already running high, to a vast and mighty ocean, which is sending
its waters, through many channels, all over Europe. This centre is
literature. Since the foundation of the Academy of Science by Peter
the Great Russian achievements in the domains of science, technical
education, art, sculpture, music, painting, history and philosophy have
been very small.

In science and art the Russians have produced nothing of importance,
nothing original. Mendeleev, Lobatshevski, Pirogov, Botkin, Soloviev are
a few scientific names of some eminence but they are few as compared
with Europe and America. Many others, who are known to the western world
as Russians, are in reality Germans or Armenians. The great historian,
Karamzin, was of Tatar extraction. In the domain of art Vereshchagin is a
Russian but Ainasowski is an Armenian, Brulov a Prussian and Antokolski a
Jew (cf. Brüggen, _Das heutige Russland_, p. 182).

Russia has had no Spinoza and no Kant, no Newton and no Spencer. Since
the foundation of the University of Moscow in 1755, some semblance
of Russian philosophy has appeared but a Soloviev and a Grote, a
Troitski and a Preobrajenski have only introduced the philosophy of
Germany, France, and England into Russia, but not worked out their own
philosophical systems. Thus, whilst Russian scientists, technicians,
artists and even musicians have to go abroad to complete their education,
Russian philosophers borrow from Hegel or Descartes, from Locke or Comte.
This is, however, not the case with Russian literature. Russia has
quickened her development in the realm of literature. Her decades were
centuries. Rapidly she has lived through phases of growth and evolution,
of achievement and reflection which have filled long periods in other
people’s lives. The peaks of Russian creative power in this domain, the
productions of Pushkin and Turgeniev, of Lermontov, Dostoievski and
Tolstoi proudly face the heights of literary western Europe.

Whilst, however, the Russian genius of the intelligentia centred its
force in literature, this literature bears the unmistakable trait, that
distinguishes it from European literature, of having a tendency to teach
and of taking a moral aspect. Russian literature on the whole has not
entered the sphere of artistic interest, it has always been a pulpit
whence the word of instruction came forth. With very few exceptions, like
Merejkovski and Andreiev, the Russian author is not practising art for
art’s sake (_l’art pour l’art_) but is pursuing a goal, is accomplishing
a task.

The Russian literature is a long cry of revolt, a continuous sigh or an
admonition. Taine says, somewhere, when speaking of Stendhal and Balzac:
“They love art more than men--they are not writing out of sympathy for
the poor, but out of love for the beautiful.” This is just what the
Russian modern author is not doing. The intellectual and instructive
moments predominate over the emotional and artistic.

This state of the intellectual development is explained by what has been
stated above. It is due to the sudden introduction of western ceremonies
and superficial civilisation, followed by a powerful foreign influence on
the one hand, and the general social and political state of the country.
When Peter had suddenly launched Russia--which was floating like some big
hulk between Asia and Europe--towards the west, the few who helped him in
this endeavour came under the complete influence of western thought and
manners. St. Petersburg soon became a Versailles in miniature. Voltaire,
Diderot, and the encyclopædists governed and shaped Russian thought and
Russian society. But not only France--Germany too, and England, Byron
and his individualism, had gained great sway in Russia. The independence
of Russian thought and its intellectual development only dates from
about 1840. When it awoke at that time, when it became conscious of
itself, it felt that it had a great work, a great mission to fulfil.
Surrounded on one side by a people that was ignorant, ready to sink lower
and lower; opposed, on the other, by a government that did its best to
check individualism and independence in every possible way--the Russian
intelligentia felt its great responsibility.

Surrounded by a population whose mental development was on a very low
level, the atmosphere was and still is not propitious for the cultivation
of art or science, whilst the Russian author had no time simply to admire
the beautiful in nature but was compelled to look round and try what good
he could do. Thus Russian genius concentrated itself in literature as the
best vehicle to expose the state of Russian society. The Russian writer
became an apostle. He is not anxious to be artistic, to shape his style
and to be fascinating, but to give as true a picture of Russian life as
he possibly can, to show the evil and to suggest the remedy.

Such, in broad lines, is the present state which the few, whom we
termed the Russian intelligentia, have reached in their intellectual
development. In a moment of strength the Russian genius has attained
itself, with self-asserting individuality. Its task is great, its
obstacles are manifold, but it fights valiantly and moves on steadily.
This only applies to the few. When the day of political freedom will dawn
for Russia, then and then only the great evolution and the intellectual
development of Russia itself, of the Russian people as a whole, will
begin. On the day when civil and religious despotism, that everywhere
crushes individuality, will cease, then the genius of the Russian people
will spread its pinions, and the masses will awake from their inertia to
new life, like the gradual unfolding of spring into summer.




[Illustration]




CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE AND EARLY HISTORY


EXTENT, CONFIGURATION, AND CLIMATE

[Sidenote: [To 1054 A.D.]]

To arrive at a just appreciation of Russia’s genius we must have a
knowledge of the soil that nourishes her, the peoples that inhabit her,
and the history through which she has passed. Let us begin with nature,
soil, and climate.

The first fact that strikes us in regard to the Russian empire is its
vastness.[2] Its colossal dimensions are so out of proportion to the
smallness of the greatest among European states, that, to bring them
within the sphere of human imagination, Alexander von Humboldt, one of
the greatest scientists of his century, makes the statement that the
portion of the globe under Russia’s dominion is greater than the entire
surface of the moon at its full.

The territories of that vast empire acknowledge no limits; its vast
plains stretch toward the heart of the old continent, as far as the huge
peaks of central Asia; they are stopped between the Black and the Caspian
seas by the great wall of the Caucasus, whose foot is planted below the
sea-level, and the height of whose summits exceeds by eight hundred feet
that of Mont Blanc.

In lakes Ladoga and Onega, in the northwest, Russia possesses the
greatest lakes in Europe; in Lake Baikal, in Siberia, the greatest in
Asia; in the Caspian and Aral seas, the greatest in the world. Her rivers
equal her plains in proportion: the Obi, the Yenisei, the Amur, in Asia;
the Dnieper, the Don, the Volga, in Europe. The central artery of Russia
is the Volga--a river that, in its winding course of nearly twenty-four
hundred miles, is not altogether European. Nine tenths of the Russian
territory are as yet nearly empty of inhabitants, and nevertheless the
population, according to the census of 1897, taken over all the empire
except Finland, numbered 129,000,000; and the annual increase is very
nearly two million.

Europe is distinguished from other regions of the globe by two
characteristics which make her the home of civilisation: her land is
cut into by the seas--“cut into bits,” as Montesquieu says; she is,
according to Humboldt, “an articulated peninsula”; her other distinctive
advantage is a temperate climate which, in great measure the result of
her configuration, is duplicated nowhere under the same latitude. Russia
alone, adhering solidly to Asia by her longest dimension, bordered on
the north and northwest by icy seas which permit to the borders few of
the advantages of a littoral, is one of the most compact and eminently
continental countries of the globe.

She is deprived of the even, temperate climate due to Europe’s
articulated structure, and has a continental climate--nearly equally
extreme in the rigour of its winters and the torrid heat of its summers.
Hence the mean temperature varies.

The isothermal lines extend in summer toward the pole; in winter they
sink southward: so that the greater part of Russia is included in January
in the rigid, in July in the torrid zone. Her very vastness condemns her
to extremes. The bordering seas are too distant or too small to serve
her as reservoirs of warmth or basins of coolness. Nowhere else in the
Occident are to be found winters so long and severe, summers so burning.
Russia is a stranger to the great influences that moderate the climate
of the rest of Europe--the gulf stream and the winds of the Sahara. The
long Scandinavian peninsula, stretching between Russia and the Atlantic,
deflects from her coasts the great warm current flowing from the New
World to the Old. In place of the gulf stream and the African deserts
it is the polar snows of Europe, and Siberia, the frozen north of Asia,
that hold the predominating influence over Russia. The Ural range, by its
insignificant elevation and its perpendicularity to the equator, is but
an inconsiderable barrier to these influences. In vain does Russia extend
south into the latitude of Pau and Nice; nowhere this side the Caucasus
will she find a rampart against the winds of the north. The conformation
of the soil, low and flat, leaves her open to all the atmospheric
currents--from the parching breath of the central Asian deserts to the
winds of the polar region.

This lack of mountains and inland seas deprives Russia of the necessary
humidity brought to the rest of Europe by the Atlantic and laid up for
it in the storehouses of the Alps. The ocean breezes reach her only when
empty of refreshing vapours; those of Asia are wrung dry long before they
touch her confines. The further the continent stretches, the greater its
poverty of rain. At Kazan the rainfall is but half that of Paris. Hence
the lack, over an enormous southern region, of the two principal elements
of fertility--warmth and moisture; hence in part those wide, woodless,
arid, un-European steppes in the southeast of the empire.


THE SIMILARITY OF EUROPEAN AND ASIATIC RUSSIA

One whole formed of two analogous halves, Russia is in nowise a child
of Europe; but that is not to say that she is Asiatic--that we can
shelve her among the dormant and stationary peoples of the far East.
Far from it: Russia is no more Asiatic than she is European. But in all
physical essentials of structure, climate, and moisture, she is opposed
to historical, occidental Europe; in all these she is in direct relation
with the bordering countries of Asia. Europe proper naturally begins at
the narrowing of the continent between the Baltic and the Black seas.

In the southeast there is no natural barrier between Russia and Asia;
therefore the geographers have in turn taken the Don, the Volga, the
Ural, or again the depression of the Obi, as boundaries. Desert steppes
stretch from the centre of the old continent into Russia by the door left
open between the Ural chain and the Caspian. From the lower course of the
Don to the Aral Sea, all these low steppes on both banks of the Volga and
the Ural rivers form the bed of an old, dried-up sea, whose borders we
can still trace, and whose remnants constitute the great salt lakes known
as the Caspian and the Aral seas. By a hydrographical accident which has
had an enormous influence upon the character and destinies of the people,
it is into one of these closed Asiatic seas that the Volga, the great
artery of Russia, empties, after turning its back upon Europe almost from
its very source.

To the north of the Caspian steppes, from latitude 52° to the
uninhabitable polar regions, the longest meridional chain of mountains
of the old continent forms a wall between Russia and Asia. The Russians
in olden days called it the “belt of stone,” or “belt of the world”;
but, despite the name, the Ural indicates the end of Asia on the one
side, only to mark its recommencement, almost unaltered, on the European
slope. Descending gradually by terraces on the European side, the Ural is
less a chain than a plateau crowned with a line of slight elevations. It
presents principally low ridges covered with forests, like those of the
Vosges and the Jura. So greatly depressed is the centre that along the
principal passes between Russia and Siberia (from Perm to Iekaterinburg,
for example) the eye looks in vain for the summits; in constructing a
railroad through the pass the engineers had no long tunnels to build, no
great difficulties to surmount. At this high altitude, where the plains
are snow-bound during six or seven months, no peak attains the limit of
eternal snows, no valley enbosoms a glacier.

In reality the Ural separates neither the climates, nor the fauna
and flora. Extending almost perpendicularly from north to south, the
polar winds blow almost equally unhindered along both sides; on both,
the vegetation is the same. It is not till the heart of Siberia is
reached--the upper Yenisei and Lake Baikal--that one finds a different
soil, a new flora and fauna. The upheaval of the Ural failed to wipe out
the resemblance and the unity of the two regions it divides. Instead of
a wall between the Russias, it is merely a storehouse of mineral wealth.
In the rocks, of eruptive or metamorphic origin, are veins of metals not
found in the regular strata of the great plains. It no more separates one
from the other than does the river of the same name; and when one day
Siberia shall boast a denser population, the Ural will be regarded as the
axis, the backbone of the two great halves of the empire.


THE DUALISM OF NORTH AND SOUTH

Unity in immensity is Russia’s chief characteristic. From the huge wall
of the Caucasus to the Baltic this empire, in itself greater than all the
rest of Europe, in its numerous provinces presents perhaps less variety
of climate than west European countries whose area is ten or twelve times
less. This is on account of the flat uniformity. And yet, underlying this
homogeneity of climate and configuration, nature has marked with special
characteristics and a distinct individuality a number of regions which,
divided into two groups, embrace all European Russia. Equally flat, with
a climate nearly equally extreme, these two great zones, notwithstanding
their similarity, present a remarkable contrast in soil, vegetation,
moisture, and most other physical and economic conditions. One is the
forest region, the other the woodless zone of the steppes; they divide
the empire into almost equal halves.

From the opposition, from the natural dualism of the steppe and the
forest, has sprung the historical antagonism and the now-ended strife
between the two halves of Russia--the struggle between the sedentary
north and the nomad south; between the Russian and the Tatar; between
the Muscovite state laid in the forest region, and the free Cossacks,
children of the steppes. The forest region, though ceaselessly diminished
by cutting, still remains the more extensive. Occupying the entire north
and centre, it grows wider from east to west, from Kazan to Kiev.

Beyond the polar circle no tree can withstand the intensity and
permanence of the frost. On both sides of the Ural, in the neighbourhood
of Siberia, stretch vast boggy plains (_toundras_), perpetually
frost-bound, and clothed with moss. In these latitudes no cultivation is
possible, no pasturage but lichens is to be obtained, no animal but the
reindeer can exist. Hunting and fishing are the sole occupations of the
few inhabitants who make their dwelling in these lands of ice.

The soil of the wooded plains, at least in the northwest, from the
White Sea to the Niemen and the Dnieper, is low, swampy, and peaty,
intersected by arid sandy hills. The Valdai Hills, the highest plateau,
scarcely attain the height of one thousand feet. This region is rich in
springs and is the source of all the great rivers. The flatness of the
land prevents the rivers from assuming a distinctly marked course, and
as no ridge intervenes, their waters at the thaw run together and form
enormous swamps; or, travelling slowly down undefined slopes, form at the
bottom vast lakes like the Ladoga, a veritable inland sea, or strings of
wretched little pools, like the eleven hundred lakes in the government of
Archangel.

The population, though scattered over wide expanses and averaging less
than fifteen to the square mile, fails to wring from the unfriendly soil
a sufficient nourishment. Wheat will not thrive; barley, rye, and flax
alone flourish. A multitude of small industries eke out the livelihood
for which agriculture is insufficient.

The augmentation of the scattered population is scarcely perceptible
having, so to speak, reached the point of saturation. Russia can hope for
an increase of wealth and population in this desolate northland only upon
the introduction into it of industrial pursuits, as in the case of Moscow
and the Ural regions.

Russian civilisation finds a great, though by no means insurmountable
obstacle in the extremes of temperature. It must be remembered that
Europe enjoys a temperate climate unparalleled in her fairest colonies,
while other continents, for analagous reasons, labour under much the
same disadvantages as Russia. The climate of the northern portion of the
United States greatly resembles that of south Russia, while New York,
Pennsylvania, and the New England states pass through the same extremes
of temperature as the steppes of the Black Sea.


THE SOIL OF THE BLACK LANDS AND THE STEPPES

The Black Lands, one of the largest and most fertile agricultural tracts
in the world, occupy the upper part of the woodless zone at its juncture
with the forest and lake district. Obtaining moisture and shelter
from the latter, the Black Lands enjoy much more favourable climatic
conditions than the steppes of the extreme south. They derive their
name (_tchernoziom_) from a stratum of black humus, of an average depth
of from one and a half to five feet, consisting partly of loam, partly
of oily clay mixed with organic substances. It dries rapidly and is
thereupon reduced to a fine dust; but it absorbs moisture with equal
promptitude, and after a rain takes on the appearance of a coal-black
paste. The formation of this wonderfully fertile layer is attributed to
the slow decomposition of the steppe grasses, accumulated during many
centuries.

The _tchernoziom_ circles like a belt across European Russia, from
Podolia and Kiev on the southwest beyond Kazan in the northeast; after
the interruption of the Ural ridge it reappears in Siberia in the
southern part of Tobolsk. The trees disappear altogether as we advance
southwards, till not even a bush is to be seen. Nothing is visible to
the eye but hundreds of miles of fertile black soil, a limitless field
stretching beyond the horizon. As a consequence of its fertility this
portion of Russia is most populous; the population increases steadily, as
railways are constructed and as agriculture gains upon the surrounding
steppes.

Between the Black Lands and the southern seas lie the steppes proper
wherein the dead level of the country, the absence of all arboreal
vegetation, and the summer droughts attain their maximum. These great
plains, covering over half a million miles of Europe, include many
different qualities of soil, destined to as many different ends.

The sandy, stony, saline steppes will forever be unfit for cultivation.
The fertile steppes which occupy the greater part of the space between
the Black Lands and the Black Sea and the sea of Azov consist of a
layer of black vegetable mould ready for cultivation and teeming with
fertility. The grass, growing five or six feet high, in rainy seasons
even higher, accounts in some measure for the absence of woods: its rapid
luxuriant growth would smother young trees.

The virgin steppe with its rank vegetation--the steppe of history and
poetry--diminishes day by day, and will soon disappear before the
agricultural invasion. The legendary Ukraine has almost lost its wild
beauty; Gogol’s steppe, like Cooper’s prairie, will soon be but a
memory--lost in the black belt. The long delay in opening up these grassy
plains is due as well to the lack of water and wood as to the lack of
workers. The lack of water is difficult to remedy, hence the plains
are bound to experience alternately good and bad years; hence, also,
the frequent famines in lands which otherwise might be regarded as the
storehouse of the empire.

Perhaps an even greater drawback is the lack of trees; thereby the
population is deprived both of fuel and of materials for building. Stalks
of the tall steppe-grasses and the dung of the flocks, which otherwise
would go to the soil, supply it with a fuel that would not suffice for a
dense population. The introduction of railroads and the opening of coal
mines will, however, remedy little by little these evils, by supplying
fuel and restoring the manure to the soil. The proximity to the estuaries
of the great rivers and to the Black Sea renders the position of these
steppes especially favourable to trade with Europe.

The Ural-Caspian depression is as truly a desert as the Sahara. It
contains but few oases. These saline steppes sink in part below the sea
level, like the Caspian itself, whose ancient basin they formed, and
which now, narrowed and sunk, lies about eighty-five feet below the Black
Sea’s surface. This region is of all European Russia the barest, the
driest, and the most exposed to extreme seasons. It is decidedly Asiatic
in soil, climate, flora, fauna, and inhabitants. This barren steppeland,
covering three hundred thousand square miles, has less than a million
and a half inhabitants. It is good for nothing but pasturage; and is
therefore overrun with nomad Asiatic tribes.

We cannot consider as Russian in character the Caucasus and the southern
coast of the Crimea; these present an entirely different aspect, and
are as varied as the real Russia is monotonous. In the valleys of the
Caucasus appear again forests--absent from the centre of the empire
southwards--dense and vigorous, not thin and scattered and monotonous as
in the north. Here fruit-trees thrive, and all varieties of plant life
for which Russia seeks in vain over her wide plains, from the shores of
the ice-bound north to the Black Sea--the vine, which on the banks of the
Don finds but a precarious existence; the mulberry-tree; the olive. Few
are the fruits that cannot prosper in the hanging gardens of the Crimea
suspended above the sea, or in Transcaucasia where, not content with
having introduced successfully the cultivation of cotton and the sugar
cane, the Russian merchants are anxious to establish tea plantations.


DIVERSITY OF RACES

The number of diverse races is accounted for by the configuration of
Russia. Lacking defined boundaries to east and west, Russia has been
open always to invasion--she has been the great highway of emigration
from Asia into Europe. The strata of human alluvions have nowhere been
more numerous, more mingled, more broken or inharmonious than on this
flat bed, where each wave, pushed by the one behind it, encountered no
obstacle other than the wave which had preceded. Even since historical
times it is difficult to enumerate the peoples who have followed one
another upon Russian soil--who have there formed empires more or less
durable: Scythian, Sarmatian, Goth, Avar, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Chazar,
Petcheneg, Lithuanian, Mongol, Tatar; without counting the previous
migrations of the Celts and Teutones, or of peoples whose very names
have perished, but among whom even the most obscure have left upon the
population some impression whose origin to-day it is impossible to trace.

[Illustration: COSTUME WORN BY COSSACK OF THE UKRAINE]

While the configuration of Russia has left her open to every invader,
the structure of her soil forbade the development of the invaders into
organised nations independent of one another. Instead of being the
consequence of slow development by physical causes, this multiplicity
of races and tribes is an historical heritage. Without considering the
glacial regions of the north, uninhabitable save for hunters and fishers,
or the sandy and saline steppes of the southeast, where wander only
pastoral nomads, this complexity of races and tribes, far from being a
result of adaptation to the soil--far from being in harmony with physical
conditions, is directly opposed to them. Far from having a tendency to
race diversion, the natural conditions made for unity and harmony. The
absence of boundaries made it impossible for the different tribes to
isolate themselves.

In the immense quadrilateral comprised between the glacial ocean and
the Black Sea, between the Baltic and the Ural, there is not a single
mountain--not a single dividing line. Over this even surface the
different tribes have been obliged to scatter at random--just as the
waters have flowed together, having no ridge to separate them, no banks
to contain them. Thus, while custom, religion, and language prevented
their mingling, they were yet obliged to live side by side: to invade
one another, to mingle one with another without loss of individuality,
as the rivers which flow together without confounding their waters.
Exhausted in the effort to spread over too large expanses, or broken up
into fragments, all these races have the more easily submitted to the
domination of one rule; and under this domination they have been the
more rapidly unified and mingled. From this fusion, begun centuries ago
under the Christian empire and the Muscovite sovereignty, have sprung the
Russian people--that mass of about 129,000,000 souls, which, compared
with other peoples, resembles the sea devouring its own shores, a sea
dotted with islands which it swallows one by one.

Out of the seeming chaos of Russian ethnology emerge definitely three
principal elements--Finn, Tatar, and Slav, which last has to-day to a
great extent absorbed the other two. Not counting the three millions
of Jews in the west, the seven or eight hundred thousand Rumanians in
Bessarabia, the eight or nine hundred thousand Germans of the Baltic
provinces and the southern colonies; without counting the Kalmucks of the
steppe of the lower Volga, the Circassians, the Armenians, the Georgians,
and the whole babel of the Caucasus--all the races and tribes which
have invaded Russia in the past and all which inhabit her to-day can be
traced to one of these three races. As far back as history goes, are to
be found upon Russian soil, under one name or another, representatives of
all these three groups; and their fusion is not yet so complete that we
cannot trace their origin, their distinctive characteristics, or their
respective original dominions.

The Finnish tribe seems in olden times to have occupied the most
extensive territory in what is to-day called Russia. It is manifestly
foreign to Aryan or European stock, whence, with the Celts and Latins,
Germans and Slavs, most of the European peoples have sprung. Ethnological
classifications usually place the Finns in a more or less comprehensive
group known variously as Turanian, Mongolian, and Mongoloid.

The Mongols, properly so called, with the Tatars are usually arranged
beside the Finns in the Ural-Altaic group; which, on the other hand,
rejects the Chinese and other great nations of oriental Asia. This
classification appears to be the most reasonable; but it must be
noticed that this Ural-Altaic group is far from presenting the same
homogeneousness as the Aryan or Semitic group. The relationship between
the numerous branches is far less fundamental than between Latin and
German; it is probably far more remote than that between the Brahman or
Gheber of India and the Celt of Scotland or Brittany; at bottom it is
perhaps less close than between the Indo-European and the Semite.


_The Finns_

The Finnish race, which outside of Hungary is almost entirely comprised
within European Russia, numbers five or six millions, divided into a
dozen different tribes. To the Hungarian family in the north belongs
the only Finnish people which ever played an important rôle in Europe,
or arrived at a high state of civilisation--the Magyars of Hungary. In
the northwest we find the Finns properly so called; they are subdivided
into two or three tribes, the Suomi, as they designate themselves,
constituting the only tribe in the whole empire that possesses a national
spirit, a love of country, a history, and a literature; also the only one
that has escaped the slow absorption by which their kindred have been
swallowed up. They form five-sixths of the population of the grand duchy
of Finland--a population almost wholly rural. A Swedish element mingled
with German and Russian is predominant in the cities.

[Illustration: A TATAR

(Russian)]

St. Petersburg is, truth to tell, built in the midst of Finnish
territory; the immediate surroundings are russified, and that quite
recently: even half a century ago Russian was not understood in the
hamlets lying at the very gates of the capital. To this Finnish branch
belong the Livs, a tribe nearly extinct, which has given its name at
Livonia; also the Lapps--the last, physically the ugliest, morally the
least developed, of all the branches of this tribe.

The race is almost infinitely subdivided; its members profess all the
religions from Shamanism to Mohammedanism, from Greek orthodoxy to
Lutheranism. They are nomadic, like the Lapp; pastoral, like the Bashkir;
sedentary and agricultural like the Esth and the Finn. They have adopted
the customs and spoken the language of each and all, have been ruled
by peoples of different origins, have been russified after having been
partially tatarised--all these influences contributing to break up
the race into insignificant fragments. As numerous as their Hungarian
kindred, the Finns of the Russian Empire are far from being able to claim
an equal political significance.

Is it true that the alliance with the Finns is for Russia an irremediable
cause of inferiority? It is doubtful. In their isolation and disruption,
hampered by the thankless soil upon which they dwell, the Finns have
been unable to achieve an original development; as compensation, they
have everywhere manifested a singular facility of assimilation with
more developed races with which they have come in contact; they allowed
themselves easily to be overwhelmed by a civilisation which they
themselves were unable to originate: if they possessed no blood-ties with
Europe, they placed no obstacles in the way of annexation by her. Their
religion is the best proof. The majority have long been Christians; and
it is principally Christianity which has led the way to their fusion
with the Slavs and their assimilation into civilised Europe. From
Hungary to the Baltic and the Volga, they have accepted with docility
the three principal historical forms of Christianity; the most modern,
Protestantism, has thriven better among the Finnish and Esthonic tribes
than among the Celtic, Iberian, and Latin peoples.

If we seek in language an unmistakable sign of race and intelligence,
it must be admitted that certain Finns--the Suomi of Finland like the
Magyars of Hungary--have brought their agglutinated languages to a
perfection which for power, harmony, and wealth of expression well bears
comparison with our most complex flexional languages. If it is true that
the Finns are related to the Mongols, they have certainly the virtues of
that race, which holds its own so well in its struggle with Europe: they
possess the same stability, patience, and perseverance; hence perhaps the
fact that to every country and every state which has felt their influence
the Finns have communicated a singular power of resistance, a remarkable
vitality.


ETHNOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIONS

The Finn has become Christian; the Turk or Tatar, Moslem; the Mongol,
Buddhist: to this ethnological distribution of religion there are few
exceptions. Hereto are attributable the causes of the widely different
destinies of these three groups--particularly the neighbouring Finns
and Tatars. It is religion which has prepared the one for its European
existence; it is religion which has made that existence impossible
for the other. Islam has given the Tatar a higher and more precocious
civilisation; it has inspired him to build flourishing cities like the
ancient Sarai and Kazan, and to found powerful states in Europe and Asia;
it has achieved for him a brilliant past, while exposing him to a future
full of difficulties: while saving him from absorption into Europe, it
has left him completely outside the gate of modern civilisation.

It is the Tatars who have given to the Russians the name of Mongols, to
which the Tatars themselves have but a questionable right. In any case
the title is not applicable to the true Russians, who have at most but a
drop or two of Mongol blood in their veins, and less of Tatar than the
Spaniards have of Moorish or Arab.

At the same time with the process of absorption and assimilation of the
Finnish element, another process has for centuries been going on--an
inverse process of secretion and elimination of the Tatar and Moslem
elements which Russia found herself unable to assimilate. After their
submission a great number of Tatars left Russia, being unwilling to
become the subjects of the infidels whose masters they had been. Before
the progress of Christianity they spontaneously retreated to the lands
still dominated by the law of the prophet. After the destruction of the
Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan, they tended to concentrate in the Crimea
and the neighbouring straits--in what up to the eighteenth century was
known as Little Tartary; after the conquest of the Crimea by Catherine
II they took their way still farther toward the empire of their Turkish
brethren. Even in our own time, after the war of Sebastopol and after the
conquest of the Caucasus, the emigration of the Tatars and the Nogaians
began again on an enormous scale, together with that of the Circassians.
In the Crimea the Tatar population, already diminished by one-half in the
time of Catherine II, is to-day scarcely one-fifth of what it was at the
time of the annexation to Russia. The introduction of obligatory military
service in the year 1874 drove them out in large numbers. By defeat and
voluntary exile have the Tatars been reduced to insignificant groups in
a country where, formerly, they reigned for centuries--in some parts of
which even they were the sole inhabitants.[b]


THE SLAVS

As to the Slavs, who form the nucleus of the Russian population, it
is now generally recognised that they migrated to Russia from the
neighbourhood of the Carpathian Mountains. The Byzantine annalists of
the sixth and the beginning of the seventh centuries, speaking of the
Slavs, whom they called Sklaboi, a name appearing as early as the end of
the fifth century, distinguish two branches of them: the Ants, living
from the Danube to the mouth of the Dnieper; and the Slavs, properly
so named, living northeast of the Danube and as far to the east as the
source of the Vistula, and on the right bank of the Dniester. In this,
their statement agrees with that of Jornandes,[l] the historian of the
Goths. Some Russian scholars suppose that before coming to the Danube
the Slavs lived near the Carpathians, whence they invaded the Byzantine
empire. These encroachments, beginning as far back as the third century,
resulted in the penetration of the Slavs into southern Austria and the
Balkan peninsula. Byzantine annalists of the sixth and seventh centuries,
Procopius and the emperor Maurice, who had to fight the Slavs in person,
speak of them as being ever on the move: “They live in woods and on
the banks of rivers, in small hamlets, and are always ready to change
their abode.” At the same time these Byzantine annalists describe this
people as exceedingly fond of liberty. “From the remotest period,”
says Procopius,[d] “the Slavs were known to live as democracies; they
discussed their wants in popular assemblies or folkmotes.” “The Slavs
are fond of liberty,” writes the emperor Maurice[e]; “they cannot bear
unlimited rulers, and are not easily brought to submission.” The same
language is used also by the emperor Leo.[f] “The Slavs,” says he, “are
a free people, strongly opposed to any subjection.” If the Byzantine
historians do not speak of the invasion of the Slavs into the limits of
the empire during the second part of the seventh century, it is because
their migration took at this time another direction: from the Carpathians
they moved toward the Vistula and the Dnieper.

[Illustration: A FINNISH COSTUME]

During the ninth century, the time of the founding of the first
principalities, the Dnieper, with its numerous affluents on both sides,
formed the limit of the Slavonic settlements to the east. This barrier
was broken only by the Viatitchi, stretching as far to the northeast as
the source of the Oka. On the north the Slavs reached the great Valdai
plateau from which Russia’s largest rivers descend, and the southern part
of the great lake region, that of Ilmen.[c]

There is no indication that the race is deficient in genius. It was
the Slavs who opened the way to the west by two great movements which
inaugurated the modern era--the Renaissance and the Reformation; by
the discovery of the laws that govern the universe, and the plea for
liberty of thought. The Pole Copernicus was the herald of Galileo; the
Czech, John Huss, the precursor of Luther. Poland and Bohemia, the two
Slav peoples most nearly connected with the west by neighbourhood and
religion, can cite a long list of men distinguished in letters, science,
politics, and war. Ragusa alone could furnish an entire gallery of men
talented along all lines. There where remoteness from the west and
foreign oppression have made study impossible and prevented single names
from becoming widely known, the people have manifested their genius in
songs which lack none of the qualities inherent in the most splendid
poetry of the west. In that popular impersonal literature which we admire
so frankly in the _romanceros_ of Spain, the ballads of Scotland and
Germany, the Slav, far from yielding the palm to the Latin or the Teuton,
perhaps excels both. Nothing more truly poetical exists than the _pesmes_
of Servia or the _doumas_ of Little Russia; for, by a sort of natural
compensation, it is among the Slavs least initiated into western culture
that popular poetry has flowered most freely.

[Illustration: A WOMAN OF YAKUTSK]

In temperament and character the Slavs present an ensemble of defects
and qualities which unite them more nearly with the Latins and Celts
than with their neighbours the Germans. They are characterised by a
vivacity, a warmth, a mobility, a petulance, an exuberance not always
found to the same degree among even the peoples of the south. Among the
Slavs of purer blood these characteristics have marked their political
life with a mobile, inconstant, and anarchical spirit which has rendered
extremely difficult their national existence and which, taken with
their geographical position, has been the great obstacle in the way of
their civilisation. The distinguishing faculty of the race is a certain
flexibility and elasticity of temperament and character which render it
adaptable to the reception and the reproduction of all sorts of diverse
ideas; the imitative faculty of the Slavs is well known. This gift is
everywhere distributed among them; this Slav malleability, peculiar
alike to Pole and Russian, is perhaps fundamentally but a result of
their historical progress and of their geographical position. But lately
entered in at the gate of civilisation, and during long years inferior to
the neighbouring races, they have always gone to school to the others;
instead of living by their own invention, they have lived by borrowing,
and the imitative spirit has become their ruling faculty, having been for
them the most useful as well as the most widely exercised.

In the west the Slavs fell under the influence of Rome; in the east,
under that of Byzantium: hence the antagonism which during long centuries
has set strife in the midst of the two chief Slavonic nations. United
by their common origin and the affinity of their languages, they are,
however, separated by the very elements of civilisation--religion,
writing, and calendar; therein lies the secret of the moral and material
strife between Russia and Poland--a strife which, after having nearly
annihilated the one, actually cost the other its life; as though from the
Carpathian to the Ural, on those vast even plains, there was not room at
one time for two separate states.

In the northwest, on the banks of the Niemen and Dvina, appears a strange
group, incontestably of Indo-European origin yet isolated amidst the
peoples of Europe; harking back to the Slavs, yet forming a parallel
branch rather than offshoot--the Letto-Lithuanian group. Shut away
in the north by marshy forests, restricted by powerful neighbours,
the Lithuanian group long remained closed to all outer influences,
whether of East or West. Last of all the peoples of Europe to accept
Christianity, its language even to-day is the nearest of European tongues
to the Sanskrit. The bone of contention among the Germans, the Poles,
and the Russians, who each in turn obtained a footing among them and
left an influence on their religion, they found themselves divided into
Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox.

Mixed with Poles and Russians, menaced on both sides with complete
absorption, the Lithuanians and the Samogitians, their brothers by race
and language, still number in ancient Lithuania nearly two million souls,
Catholics for the most part; they formed the majority of the population
of Vilna and Kovno. In Prussia some two hundred thousand Lithuanians
constitute the representatives of the ancient population of oriental
Prussia, whose name is derived from a people of that race which kept its
language intact up to the seventeenth century.

The second existing group of this family, the Letts, crossed probably
with Finns, number more than a million souls; they inhabit chiefly
Courland, Vitetesk and Livonia; but, converted, subjected, and made
slaves of by the Teutonic knights, they still live under the dominion of
the German barons of the Baltic provinces, with whom they have nothing in
common but their religion--Lutheranism. Like the Finnish tribes outside
of Finland, the Letts and Lithuanians, scanty in number and widely
scattered, are incapable of forming by themselves a nation or a state.
Out of this intermixture of races by the assimilation of the ruder by
the more civilised, was formed a new people--a homogeneous nation. In
fact, contrary to popular prejudice there is in Russia something more
than an intermixture of diverse races--there is what we to-day call a
“nationality”--as united, as compact, and as self-conscious as any nation
in the world. Russia, notwithstanding all her various races, is yet no
incoherent mass, no political conglomeration or mosaic of peoples. She
resembles France in her national unity rather than Turkey or Austria.

If Russia must be compared to a mosaic, let it be to one of those ancient
pavements whose scheme is a single substance of solid color edged with
a border of diverse forms and shades--most of Russia’s original alien
populations being relegated to her borders and forming around her a sort
of belt of uneven width.

It is in the centre of Russia that is found that uniformity of much more
marked among the Russians than among all other peoples of Europe; from
one end of the empire to the other the language presents fewer dialects
and less localisms than most of our western languages. The cities all
look alike; the peasants have the same customs, the same manner of life.
The nation resembles the country, having the same unity, almost the same
monotony as the plains which it peoples.


_The Great Russians and the Little Russians_

There are, however, two principal types, almost two peoples, speaking
two dialects and wholly separated from each other: the Great Russians
and the Little Russians. In their qualities and in their defects they
represent in Russia the eternal contrast of north and south. Their
history is no less diversified than their nature; the first have their
centre at Moscow, the second at Kiev. Stretching, the one to the
northeast, the other to the southwest, these two unequal halves of the
nation do not precisely correspond to the two great physical zones of
Russia. This is due partly to nature, partly to history, which has
hindered the development of the one and fostered that of the other. The
southern steppes, open to every invasion, long arrested the expansion
of the Little Russians, who for centuries were shut up in the basins of
the Dnieper, the Bug, and the Dniester; while the Great Russians spread
freely in the north and east and established themselves in the enormous
basin of the Volga; masters of nearly all the forest regions and of the
great Ural Lake, they took possession of the Black Belt and the steppes
along the Volga and the Don.

The White Russian inhabits Mohilev, Vitebsk, Grodno, Minsk--a region
possessing some of the finest forests in Russia, but whose soil is marshy
and unwholesome. United politically with the Little Russian, the two have
been classed under the name Western Russians. Subjected at an early date
by Lithuania, whose dialect became its official language, White Russia
was with the greater part of Little Russia united to Poland, and was for
centuries the object of strife between that nation and the Muscovite
czars, from the effects of which strife she still bleeds. Of the three
Russian tribes this is perhaps the purest in blood; but thanks to the
sterility of the soil and the remoteness of the sea, she has remained the
poorest and least advanced in civilisation.

The Great Russians are the most vigorous and expansive element of the
Russian nation, albeit the most mixed. Finnish blood has left its traces
in their physique; Tatar dominion in their character. Before the advent
of the Romanovs they formed alone the Muscovite Empire, and their czars
took the title “Sovereign of all the Russias” long before Alexis,
father of Peter the Great, justified this title by the annexation of
the Ukraine. Hence Great Russia, under the name Muscovite, has been
considered by certain foreigners the true, the only Russia. This is
an error; since the Great Russian, the product of the colonisation of
central Russia by the western Russians before the invasion of the Tatars
antidates the state and even the village of Moscow. If, therefrom has
emerged the Muscovite autocracy, it is impossible to cut the ties that
bind it to the great Slav republic of the world whose name is still the
active symbol of liberty--Novgorod.

Least Slav of all the peoples that pretend to the name, the Great
Russian has been the coloniser of the race. His whole history has been
one long struggle against Asia; his conquests have contributed to the
aggrandisement of Europe. Long the vassal of the Tatar khans, he never
forgot under Asiatic domination his European origin; and in the farthest
limits of Muscovy the very name Asiatic is an insult to the peasant.

Conqueror over Asia, influenced morally and physically by all the
populations assimilated or subjugated by him in his march from
the Dnieper to the Ural, the Great Russian lost something of his
independence, his pride, his individuality; but he gained in stability
and solidity.

In spite of the obvious evidences of his mixed blood, the Great
Russian is in perfect harmony with the Caucasian race by the exterior
characteristics which distinguish it--his stature, his complexion, the
colour of his hair and eyes. He is apt to be tall, his skin is white,
his eyes are very often blue; his hair is usually blond, light chestnut,
or red. The long heavy beard so dear to the heart of the moujik and which
all the persecutions of Peter the Great failed to induce him to dispense
with, is in itself a mark of race, as nothing could be smoother than the
chin of the Mongol, the Chinese, or the Japanese.

The Little Russians dwelling in the south have brown or dark chestnut
hair, and are of purer race, dwelling nearer to the Occident; they pride
themselves upon their comparatively unmixed blood, their more temperate
climate, their less dreary land; they are a more imaginative, more
dreamy, more poetic people than their neighbours of the north. It is in
Little Russia that the Zaparogians belong, the most celebrated of those
Cossack tribes which in the Ukraine or the southern steppes played so
important a rôle between the Poles, the Tatars, and the Turks, and whose
name will ever remain in Russia the synonym of freedom and independence.
Even to-day the Zaparogian, with his liberal or democratic tradition,
remains the more or less conscious and avowed ideal of the majority of
the Little Russians. Another reason, in the history of the Ukraine, which
makes for democratic instincts in the Little Russians is the foreign
origin and denaturalisation of a great part of the higher classes among
the Poles and Great Russians. From this double motive the Little Russian
is perhaps more susceptible to political aspirations, more accessible to
revolutionary seduction than his brother of Great Russia.

Of the Cossacks of to-day only those of the Black Sea transplanted to the
Kuban between the sea of Azov and the Caucasus are Little Russians; the
Cossacks of the Don and the Ural are Great Russians.[b]


SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORGANISATION

It is extremely difficult to draw an approximately correct picture of the
life of the Russian Slavs even in its barest outlines. Among the widely
scattered tribes there was hardly more than one element tending towards
union--that of language. Frequent contact with the populations living on
their borders and wedged in between them, must of itself have produced
considerable modifications in their mode of life.

The entire social organisation of the early Slavs, like that of all
other Aryan and non-Aryan peoples, was based upon kinship or descent
from a common ancestor.[a] Even in the Varangian period we can discover
traces of this primeval organisation in clans among a few tribes. In
time of peace these clans were in the habit of meeting together in order
to discuss common affairs. The chronicler[h] uses the expression “came
together” when he wants to speak of decisions taken in common. This
practice seems to have been known to all Slavonic peoples. Among the
Russian Slavs these folkmotes were known under the name of _vetché_,
and they remained to the end of their existence a necessary part of the
political institutions, not only in the northern city republics, Novgorod
and Pskov, but also in nearly all the principalities of Russia, with the
exception of one of the latest founded, Moscow.

Among these tribes we also find native princes or clan chieftains
(_kniaz_), and it is also certain that as early as the ninth century
there were among the Russian Slavs private owners of tracts of land who
occupied an advantageous position as compared with the great bulk of the
members of the community, and from whom the latter nobles (_boyars_) were
descended. But on the whole the village community formed the nucleus
of the entire political and economic organisation of the eastern or
Russian Slavs. It was a world complete in itself, self-sufficient and
independent both economically and juridically. The community was the
possessor of the soil, which was periodically redistributed among its
component members; the separate patriarchal families, and the assembly
of the heads of the families was the body that judged and decided all
things pertaining to the community. It is thus that we are to understand
the apparently contradictory reports of the Byzantine writers, who say,
on the one hand, that the Slavs know of no government and do not obey any
individual, and on the other hand speak of a popular government that has
existed from ancient times, that discusses all things in common, and that
has many petty princes at its head.

It is self-evident that a government adapted to the requirements of
a village community must assume a different character as soon as the
settlement gains in extent and assumes the character of a city. And
cities grew up quite early in northern and southwestern Russia. Toward
the end of the ninth century Kiev had a wide fame as a large and populous
city. Constantine Porphyrogenitus also knows of Novgorod, Smolensk,
Linbetch, Tchernigov, Vishgorod, and Vititchev; in the time of Igor more
than twenty cities can be named. The question as to the origin of Russian
cities has called forth much debate and an extensive literature.

The chief difficulty lies in a proper understanding of the so-called
Bavarian geographer, a writer of the ninth or tenth century, who counts,
in his description of the northern Slavs, some twenty peoples with more
than 3,760 cities. These latter he calls now _civitates_, now _urbes_,
without indicating that there is any distinction of meaning to be
attached to these terms, so that we are left to conclude that both names
denote settlements. The present consensus of opinion as to those old
Russian cities is as follows:

The old word _grad_, (now _gorod_, city) denoted any space surrounded by
a palisade or earthworks. Thus there were wooden and earthen cities built
for protection in time of war, and every community had its city. But in
the regions that offered a natural protection by their inaccessible and
swampy character the need for these cities was not so urgent, so that the
wooded and marshy north had fewer cities than the open south. Numerous
remains of these ancient earth piles enable us to recognise the position
and wide extension of these old Slavonic settlements. Sometimes they are
circular in form, others consist of a double angular trench with outlying
earthworks. These are to be distinguished from the wooden cities, which
were originally built for trading purposes, and only later were fenced
in and enclosed, so that they could also serve for protective purposes.
They were built in favourable situations, adjacent to some trade route.
The more complex social relations that grew up in them demanded a more
thorough organisation of social and political life, for which the village
community did indeed furnish the basis, but which, in the long run, was
found to be inadequate. The questions of general interest to the city
were settled in the first place by the vetché, which greatly resembled
the village gathering of the family elders.

But the need of a power which should decide all questions that might
arise while the vetché was in abeyance, was more pressing in the cities,
and favoured the development of the power--originally very limited,--of
the _kniazes_ or princes, who were elective and whose dignity was neither
hereditary nor lifelong. The prince did not even have a permanent
military following: his dignity was of a purely personal nature. It
is certain that not he but the vetché had the power to make laws. Our
information concerning the political organisation of the earliest
period of Russian history is very scanty, and we know more of what it
lacked than of what it possessed. What strikes us most is the absence
of a military organisation. In times of danger, those who could defend
themselves took up arms, the remainder fled to places of safety.

Nor can we discern with certainty any social differentiation into
classes. On the other hand we know that a thriving trade was being
carried on in the ninth century along the route which led from the gulf
of Finland through Lake Ilmen to the Dvina and down the Dnieper to the
Black Sea and thence to Greece. The oldest wooden cities lay along the
famous route of the Varangians to the Greek Empire, along which amidst
many dangers, the raw products of the north were exchanged for the
finished commodities of the south. It is owing to these dangers that
the trader had also to be a warrior, and it is into those ancient trade
relations--peaceful intercourse enforced by warlike means--that we are to
look for the most important arms of the old Russian state. Who discovered
this trade route? We see no compelling reason to deny the honour to the
Slavs, although it is established beyond doubt that even before the
middle of the ninth century the Northmen reached Byzantium along this
route. On the other hand, the marauding and trading expeditions which
were carried on by Russians in the tenth century and earlier to the sea
of Azov, the Caspian, and further still to the Caucasus and the shores of
Persia, emanated from Scandinavians, and not from Slavs.


RELIGION

[Illustration: NATIVE OF YAKUTSK]

The religious conceptions of the Russian Slavs were but little developed.
All other Aryan peoples, including the western Slavs, excel them in
this respect. There was neither a distinct priestly class, nor were
there images of the gods, nor were there distinct types of gods. The
Arabian travellers almost unanimously ascribe sun worship to the eastern
Slavs, and Byzantine writers before the ninth century tell of a belief
in a supreme being who rules the universe. It is now generally accepted
that this supreme god was called Svarog and was a personification of
heaven and light, while sun and fire were regarded as his children.
Perun, the thunder god, and Veles, god of herds, both mentioned by the
oldest chronicler, must be brought in relation to the sun. But it is
highly probable that these two gods were taken over by the Slavs from
their Varangian rulers. Water also was regarded as sacred, and, like
the forest, it was filled with animate beings which must be propitiated
with sacrifices, since they had relations to human beings. Water, fire,
and earth were related to death. The _russalki_, shades of the dead,
swam about in the water, and the bodies of the dead were given up to the
flames in order to make easier their passage to the realm of the dead
(_rai_). The slaves, as well as the wife and the domestic animals were
burned on the funeral pyre, and cremation was preceded by a feast and
games in honour of the dead. But burial also was common.[g]

[Sidenote: [862 A.D.]]

We find the Russian Slavs about the middle of the ninth century split
up into numerous tribes, settled on the soil and engaged chiefly in
hunting and agriculture. A continental people, everywhere confining
itself to the inland country, leaving the sea-borders to non-Slavonic
tribes. Politically they were in the midst of the transition from
the clan organisation to the village community, without any central
authority, without any military organisation, and but little able to
resist the inroads from north, south, and east, of populations who lived
by plunder.[a] The primitive condition of their political organisation,
their extreme subdivision into tribes and cantons, the endless warfare of
canton with canton, delivered them up defenceless to every invader. While
the Slavs of the south paid tribute to the Chazars, the Slavs of Ilmen,
exhausted by internecine conflicts, decided to call in the Varangians.
“Let us seek,” they said, “a prince who will govern us and reason with us
justly. Then,” continues Nestor,[h] “the Tchud, the Slavs (of Novgorod),
the Krivitchi, and other confederate tribes said to the Varangian
princes: ‘Our land is great and has everything in abundance, but it lacks
order and justice; come and take possession and rule over us.’”


THE VARANGIAN PERIOD (862-1054 A.D.)

To the elements that have obtained a permanent foothold on the soil of
modern Russia and affected the Slavs in a greater or less degree, a new
one must now be added in the Varango-Russians. The brave inhabitants of
Sweden and Norway, who were known in western Europe under the name if
Northman or Normans, directed their first warlike expeditions against
their Slavonian and Finnish neighbours. The flotillas of the vikings
were directed to the shores of the Baltic, and _austrvegr_--the eastern
route--was the name they gave to the journey into the country of the
Finns and Slavs on the gulf of Finland and further inland. _Gardar_
was the name they gave to the Slavo-Finnish settlements, _Holmgardar_
was their name for Novgorod, _Kaenungardar_ for Kiev. _Mikligardar_,
for Constantinople, shows that the Normans first learned to know that
city through the eastern Slavs. The Slavs, on the other hand, called
those Scandinavians by a name given to them by the Finns--Rus. The
Scandinavians who sent their surplus of fighting men to Russia and were
destined to found the Russian state, lived--as we learn from the form
of the names that have come down to us--in Upland, Södermanland, and
Östergötland, that is, on the east coast of Sweden north of Lake Mälar.
In these lands and throughout the Scandinavian north, men who were bound
to military chiefs by a vow of fidelity were called _vaeringr_ (pl.
_vaeringjar_, O. Sw. Warung), a name changed by the eastern Slavs into
_variag_. It was these Russo-Varangians who founded the state of Old
Russia.[g]

At the call of the Slavs of Novgorod and their allies, three Varangian
brothers, Rurik, Sineus, and Truvor (Scand. Hrurekr, Sikniutr,
Thorwardr), gathered together their kindred and armed followers, or
_drujina_, and established themselves on the northern frontiers of the
Slavs: Sineus to the northeast, on the White Lake; Rurik, the eldest, in
the centre, on Lake Ladoga near the Volkhov River, where he founded the
city of Ladoga; and Truvor to the northwest, at Izborsk, near Lake Pskov.
The year 862 is usually assigned as the date in which the Varangians
settled in Russia, and it is the official year for the founding of the
Russian empire; but it is more probable that they had come before that
date.

[Sidenote: [865-907 A.D.]]

Shortly after their settlement the two younger brothers died and Rurik
became sole chief of all the Varangian bands in northern Russia and
assumed the title of grand-prince. He now became so powerful that he
was able to subject Novgorod, which he made the capital of an empire
stretching from the lakes in the north to the sources of the Dnieper in
the south.[a] The country drained by that river was also occupied by
Varangians, but independently of Rurik. Two chiefs by the name of Askold
and Dir (Scand. Höskaldr and Dyri) wrested Kiev from the Chazars and
ruled over the Polians, the most civilized tribe of the eastern Slavs. In
865 they led against Byzantium an expedition which consisted of at least
two hundred ships, and according to Venetian accounts of three hundred
and sixty ships, to which would correspond an army of about fourteen
thousand warriors. A tempest arose and destroyed the fleet in the sea of
Marmora. The barbarians attributed their disaster to the wonder-working
virgin, and it is reported that Askold embraced Christianity. This
expedition has a two-fold importance: (1) it gives us the _first_ certain
date in Russian history; and (2) it introduced the seeds of Christianity
into Russia. In the following year, 866, the patriarch Photius
established a bishopric at Kiev.

After the death of his brothers Rurik reigned till his death in 879, when
he was succeeded, not by his son Igor (Scand. Ingvarr), but by the eldest
member of his family Oleg (Scand. Helge). In 882 he set out from Novgorod
with an army composed of Varangians and the subject Slavo-Finnish
tribes--Tchuds, Merians, Vesians, Ilmen Slavs, and Krivitchi--sailed down
the upper Dnieper, took Smolensk, freed the Radimichi and the Severians
from the yoke of the Chazars and incorporated them in his empire, and
finally reached Kiev. Askold and Dir were then got rid of by an act of
treachery, and Kiev was made the capital of an empire embracing nearly
all the eastern Slavs.


_The Treaty with Constantinople_

But Kiev was only one of the stages in the southward progress of
the Varangians. The great city of the east, Constantinople, was the
glittering prize that dazzled their eyes and was ever regarded as the
goal of their ambition. Accordingly, in 907, Oleg sailed with a fleet
of two thousand boats and eighty thousand men, and reached the gates of
Constantinople. The frightened emperor was obliged to pay a large ransom
for the city and to agree to a treaty of free commercial intercourse
between the Russians and the Greeks. A particular district in the suburbs
of the city was assigned as the place of residence for Russian traders,
but the city itself could be visited by no more than fifty Russians
simultaneously, who were to be unarmed and accompanied by an imperial
officer.[g][a]

Oleg’s Varangian guard, who seem to have been also his council, were
parties with him to this treaty, for their assent appears to have been
requisite to give validity to an agreement affecting the amount of their
gains as conquerors. These warriors swore to the treaty by their gods
Perun and Volos, and by their arms, placed before them on the ground:
their shields, their rings, their naked swords, the things they loved and
honoured most. The gorged barbarian then departed with his rich booty
to Kiev, to enjoy there an uncontested authority, and the title of Wise
Man or Magician, unanimously conferred upon him by the admiration of his
Slavonic subjects.


_The First Written Document of Russian History (911 A.D.)_

[Sidenote: [911-913 A.D.]]

Three years after this event, in 911, Oleg sent ambassadors to
Constantinople to renew the treaty of alliance and commerce between the
two empires. This treaty, preserved in the old chronicle of Nestor, is
the first written monument of Russian history, for all previous treaties
were verbal. It is of value, as presenting to us some customs of the
times in which it was negotiated.

Here follow some of the articles that were signed by the sovereigns of
Constantinople and of Kiev respectively:

II. “If a Greek commit any outrage on a Russian, or a Russian on a Greek,
and it be not sufficiently proved, the oath of the accuser shall be
taken, and justice be done.

III. “If a Russian kill a Christian, or a Christian kill a Russian,
the assassin shall be put to death on the very spot where the crime
was committed. If the murderer take to flight and be domiciliated, the
portion of his fortune, which belongs to him according to law, shall be
adjudged to the next of kin to the deceased; and the wife of the murderer
shall obtain the other portion of the estate which, by law, should belong
to him.

IV. “He who strikes another with a sword, or with any other weapon, shall
pay three litres of gold, according to the Russian law. If he have not
that sum, and he affirms it upon oath, he shall give the party injured
all he has, to the garment he has on.

V. “If a Russian commit a theft on a Greek, or a Greek on a Russian, and
he be taken in the act and killed by the proprietor, no pursuit shall be
had for avenging his death. But if the proprietor can seize him, bind
him, and bring him to the judge, he shall take back the things stolen,
and the thief shall pay him the triple of their value.

X. “If a Russian in the service of the emperor, or travelling in the
dominions of that prince, shall happen to die without having disposed of
his goods, and has none of his near relations about him, his property
shall be sent to Russia to his heirs; and, if he have bequeathed them by
testament, they shall be in like manner remitted to the legatee.”

The names of Oleg’s ambassadors who negotiated this treaty of peace,
show that all of them were Northmen. From this we may conclude that
the government of the country was as yet wholly in the hands of the
conquerors.


THE REIGN OF IGOR

Igor, the son of Rurik, who was married to a Scandinavian princess named
Olga (Helga), was nearly forty years of age when he succeeded Oleg in
913. He ascended the throne under trying circumstance, for the death
of the victor revived the courage of the vanquished and the Drevlians
raised the standard of revolt against Kiev; but Igor soon quelled them,
and punished them by augmenting their tribute. The Uglitches, who dwelt
on the southern side of the Dnieper, contended longer for their liberty
against the voyevod Sveneld, whom Igor had despatched against them. One
of their principal towns held out a siege of three years. At last they
too were subdued and made tributary.

Meanwhile new enemies, formidable from their numbers and their thirst
for pillage, showed themselves on the frontiers of Russia: these were
the Petchenegs, famous in the Russian, Byzantine, and Hungarian annals,
from the tenth to the twelfth century. They were a nomad people, of
the Turcoman stock, whose only wealth consisted in their lances, bows
and arrows, their flocks and herds, and their swift horses, which they
managed with astonishing address. The only objects of their desires were
fat pastures for their cattle, and rich neighbours to plunder. Having
come from the east they established themselves along the northern shores
of the Black Sea. Thenceforth occupying the ground between the Greek and
the Russian empires, subsidised by the one for its defence, and courted
by the other from commercial motives--for the cataracts of the Dnieper
and the mouths of the Danube were in the hands of those marauders--the
Petchenegs were enabled for more than two hundred years to indulge their
ruling propensity at the expense of their neighbours. Having concluded a
treaty with Igor, they remained for five years without molesting Russia;
at least Nestor does not speak of any war with them until 920, nor had
tradition afforded him any clue to the result of that campaign.

[Sidenote: [920-944 A.D.]]

The reign of Igor was hardly distinguished by any important event until
the year 941, when, in imitation of his guardian, he engaged in an
expedition against Constantinople. If the chroniclers do not exaggerate,
Igor entered the Black Sea with ten thousand barks, each carrying forty
men. The imperial troops being at a distance, he had time to overrun
and ravage Paphlagonia, Pontus, and Bithynia. Nestor speaks with deep
abhorrence of the ferocity displayed by the Russians on this occasion;
nothing to which they could apply fire or sword escaped their wanton
lust of destruction, and their prisoners were invariably massacred in
the most atrocious manner--crucified, impaled, cut to pieces, buried
alive, or tied to stakes to serve as butts for the archers. At last the
Greek fleet encountered the Russian as it rode at anchor near Pharos,
prepared for battle and confident of victory. But the terrible Greek fire
launched against the invaders struck them with such dismay that they fled
in disorder to the coasts of Asia Minor. Descending there to pillage,
they were again routed by the land forces, and escaped by night in their
barks, to lose many of them in another severe naval defeat. By the
confession of the Russian chronicles, Igor scarcely took back with him a
third part of his army.

Instead of being discouraged by these disasters, Igor prepared to revenge
them. In 944 he collected new forces [which included a large number of
Scandinavians collected for this special purpose by Igor’s recruiting
agents], took the Petchenegs into his pay, exacting hostages for their
fidelity, and again set out for Greece. But scarcely had he reached the
mouths of the Danube when he was met by ambassadors from the emperor
Romanus, with an offer to pay him the same tribute as had been exacted
by Oleg. Igor halted and communicated this offer to his chief men, whose
opinions on the matter are thus reported by Nestor: “If Cæsar makes
such proposals,” said they, “is it not better to get gold, silver, and
precious stuffs, without fighting? Can we tell who will be the victor,
and who the vanquished? And can we guess what may befall us at sea? It is
not solid ground that is under our feet, but the depths of the waters,
where all men run the same risks.”

In accordance with these views Igor granted peace to the empire on the
proposed conditions, and the following year he concluded with the emperor
a treaty, which was in part a renewal of that made by Oleg.[3] Of the
fifty names attached on the part of Russia to this second treaty, three
are Slavonic, the rest Norman.

[Sidenote: [948 A.D.]]

Igor, being now advanced in years, was naturally desirous of repose, but
the insatiable cupidity of his comrades in arms forced him to go to war.
From the complaints of his warriors it appears that the Russian, like
the German princes, furnished their faithful band with clothing, arms,
horses, and provisions. “We are naked,” Igor’s companions and guards said
to him, “while the companions of Sveneld have beautiful arms and fine
clothing. Come with us and levy contributions, that we may be in plenty
with thee.” It was customary with the grand prince to leave Kiev every
year, in November, with an army, and not to return until April, after
having visited his cities and received their tributes. When the prince’s
magazine was empty, and the annual contributions were not sufficient,
it became necessary to find new enemies to subject to exactions, or to
treat as enemies the tribes that had submitted. To the latter expedient
Igor now resorted against the Drevlians. Marching into their country
he surcharged them with onerous tributes, besides suffering his guards
to plunder them with impunity. His easy success in this rapacious
foray tempted him to his destruction. After quitting the country of
his oppressed tributaries, the thought struck him that more might yet
be squeezed out of them. With this view he sent on his army to Kiev,
probably because he did not wish to let his voyevods or lieutenants share
the fruit of his contemplated extortions, and went back with a small
force among the Drevlians, who, driven to extremity, massacred him and
the whole of his guard near their town of Iskorost.[i]


THE REGENCY OF OLGA

Olga, Igor’s widow, assumed the regency in the name of her son
Sviatoslav, then of tender age. Her first care was to revenge herself
upon the Drevlians. In Nestor’s narrative it is impossible to separate
the historical part from the epic. The Russian chronicler recounts in
detail how the Drevlians sent two deputations to Olga to appease her
and to offer her the hand of their prince; how she caused their death
by treachery, some being buried alive, while others were stifled in a
bath-house; how she besieged their city of Iskorost and offered to grant
them peace on payment of a tribute of three pigeons and three sparrows
for each house; how she attached lighted tow to the birds and then sent
them off to the wooden city, where the barns and the thatched roofs
were immediately set on fire; how, finally, she massacred part of the
inhabitants of Iskorost and reduced the rest to slavery.

But it was this vindictive barbarian woman that was the first of the
ruling house of Rurik to adopt Christianity.[d] We have seen before how
Christianity was planted in Kiev under the protection of Askold and
Dir, and how the converts to the new religion were specially referred
to in the commercial treaty between Oleg and the Byzantine emperor.
There existed a Christian community at Kiev but it was to Constantinople
that Olga went to be baptised in the presence of the patriarch and the
emperor. She assumed the Christian name of Helena, and after her death
she was canonised in the Russian church. On her return she tried also
to convert her son Sviatoslav, who had by this time become the reigning
prince, but all her efforts were unavailing. He dreaded the ridicule of
the fierce warriors whom he had gathered about himself. And no doubt the
religion of Christ was little in consonance with the martial character of
this true son of the vikings. The chronicle of Nestor gives the following
embellished account of Olga’s conversion:[a]


_Nestor Tells of the Baptism of Olga_

In the year 948 Olga went to the Greeks and came to Tsargorod
(Constantinople). At that time the emperor was Zimischius,[4] and Olga
came to him, and seeing that she was of beautiful visage and prudent
mind, the emperor admired her intelligence as he conversed with her
and said to her: “Thou art worthy to reign with us in this city.” When
she heard these words she said to the emperor: “I am a heathen, if
you wish me to be baptised, baptise me yourself; otherwise I will not
be baptised.” So the emperor and patriarch baptised her. When she was
enlightened she rejoiced in body and soul, and the patriarch instructed
her in the faith and said to her: “Blessed art thou among Russian women,
for thou hast loved light and cast away darkness; the sons of Russia
shall bless thee unto the last generation of thy descendants.” And at
her baptism she was given the name of Helena, who was in ancient times
empress and mother of Constantine the Great. And the patriarch blessed
Olga and let her go.

After the baptism the emperor sent for her and said to her: “I will take
thee for my wife.”

She answered: “How canst thou wish to take me for thy wife when thou
thyself hast baptised me and called me daughter? for with the Christians
this is unlawful and thou thyself knowest it.”

And the emperor said: “Thou hast deceived me, Olga,” and he gave her
many presents of gold and silver, and silk and vases and let her depart,
calling her daughter.

[Illustration: OLGA]

She returned to her home, going first to the patriarch to ask his
blessing on her house and saying unto him: “My people are heathen and my
son, too; may God preserve me from harm!”

And the patriarch said: “My faithful daughter, thou hast been baptised
in Christ, thou hast put on Christ, Christ shall preserve thee as he
preserved Enoch in the first ages, and Noah in the Ark, as he preserved
Abraham from Abimelech, Lot from the Sodomites, Moses from Pharaoh, David
from Saul, the three young men from the fiery furnace, and Daniel from
the lions; thus shall he preserve thee from the enemy and his snares!”
Thus the patriarch blessed her and she returned in peace to her own land
and came to Kiev.

Olga lived with her son Sviatoslav and she repeatedly tried to induce
him to be baptised, but he would not listen to her, for if any one
then wished to be baptised it was not forbidden, but people mocked at
him. And Olga often said, “My son, I have learned wisdom and rejoice;
if thou knewest it, thou too wouldst rejoice.” But he paid no heed to
her, saying: “How should I alone adopt a strange faith, my droujina
(followers, men-at-arms) would mock at me.” She said: “If thou art
baptised, all will do likewise,” but he would not listen to his mother
and persisted in the heathen customs, not knowing that who does not
hearken to his mother shall fall into misfortune, for it is written, he
that does not hearken to his father or mother, let him die the death.[5]
And he was angered against his mother. However, Olga loved her son
Sviatoslav, and said: “God’s will be done! If God wills to have mercy on
my race and on the Russian land, he will put into their hearts to turn to
God, even as He did unto me.” And having thus said, she prayed for her
son and for the people night and day, and she brought up her son until he
was grown to be a man.


SVIATOSLAV; THE VICTORY OF NORTH OVER SOUTH

[Sidenote: [964-971 A.D.]]

Sviatoslav assumed the reins of government in 964, and he ruled only
till 972, but this short period was filled with warlike expeditions. He
crushed the power of the Volga Bulgarians and of the Chazars, and he
incorporated the Viatitchi in the empire--thus destroying the danger ever
menacing from the east, and uniting all the Slavs under one dominion. In
968 he marched--at the instigation of the Greek emperor, who furnished
him the means--with an army of sixty thousand men against the Bulgarians
of the Danube, conquered Pereiaslavl (the location of which is unknown)
and Durostorus (the modern Silistria), and began to form the project of
erecting for himself a new empire on the ruins of the Bulgarian power,
when tidings reached him of a raid of the Petchenegs against Kiev and
of the imminent danger to his mother and children who were beleaguered
in that town. Leaving garrisons in the conquered towns he hurried back
by forced marches and drove the Petchenegs back into the steppe. He
divided his Russian dominions among his three young sons, giving Kiev to
Iaropolk, the land of the Drevlians to Oleg, and Novgorod to Vladimir;
while he himself went back to Bulgaria, for “Pereiaslavl is dear to him,
where all good things meet, fine stuffs, wine, fruits, and gold from
Greece, silver and horses from Bohemia and Hungary, furs, wax, honey, and
slaves from Russia.”

In 970 he conquered Bulgaria and crossed the Balkans with an army of
thirty thousand men. Defeated before Arcadipole (the present Lüle
Burpas), his barbarian followers gave way to their plundering instincts,
ravaged Macedonia, and scattered in all directions, while the emperor
John Tzimiskes was making extensive preparations for their annihilation.
Thus the year 971 was spent. In March of the next year the Russian
garrison was almost annihilated at Pereiaslavl, which the Greeks took
by storm, and only a small remnant reached Sviatoslav. In this hour of
need Sviatoslav exhibited a tremendous energy. By recalling his roving
bands he soon found himself at the head of sixty thousand men, and a
pitched battle was fought. Twelve times the victory wavered from one
side to the other, but finally their lack of cavalry and their inferior
armament decided the day against the Russians, and they were forced back
upon Drster. For three months they held the town against a regular siege,
until, reduced in numbers by hunger and numerous sorties, Sviatoslav
decided on a last desperate effort to break through the Greek lines.
The battle is described in great detail by the Byzantine historians, in
whom Sviatoslav’s bravery excited admiration. Fifteen thousand Russians
were left on the field, the survivors were forced back into Durostorus.
Surrounded on all sides, Sviatoslav sued for peace, and Tzimiskes
granted an honourable retreat to a foe so gallant and withal dangerous.
He renewed with him the old treaties, undertook to supply his army with
provisions on its retreat, and also to induce the Petchenegs to grant a
free passage into Russia. But at the rapids of the Dnieper these sons of
the steppe surprised Sviatoslav and killed him, and only a small remnant
of his force, led by the voyevod Svenedl, reached Kiev.[g][a]

[Illustration: VLADIMIR I

(Died 1015)]

Sviatoslav’s overthrow was, after all, a fortunate event for the Russian
empire. Kiev was already a sufficiently eccentric capital; had Sviatoslav
established the seat of government on the Danube, his successor would
have gone still further; and Rurik, instead of being the founder of a
mighty empire, would have been nothing more than the principal leader of
one of those vast but transient irruptions of the northern barbarians,
which often ravaged the world without leaving behind any permanent trace
of their passage. But in the Greek emperor Tzimiskes, Sviatoslav met
with a hero as pertinacious as himself, and with far more talent, and
the Russians, driven back within the limits of Russia, were compelled to
establish themselves there.[i]

[Sidenote: [977 A.D.]]

Sviatoslav’s death seems to have left no perceptible influence on the
destinies of Russia, for his three young sons were in the undisputed
possession of authority while he and his warriors were fighting for a
new empire in the Balkan peninsula. But his division of Russia among
his sons, as if it were his private estate, soon showed its mischievous
effects. In 977 civil war broke out between Iaropolk, who was at Kiev,
and Oleg, who was in the Drevlian country. The latter was defeated in
battle, and in his flight met death by the breaking down of a bridge
thronged with fugitives. His territory was thereupon annexed by Iaropolk
to his own dominions.

Vladimir, prince of Novgorod, the youngest of the three brothers, now
became alarmed for his own safety and fled across the sea to seek
refuge among the Scandinavian Varangians. After two years he returned
with a numerous force of Norse adventurers, expelled from Novgorod the
voyevods whom Iaropolk had installed there during his absence, and led
his army against Kiev. On his march he conquered Polotsk on the Dvina,
an independent Varangian principality, killing its prince by the name of
Rogvolod (Scand. Rangvaldr) and forcing his daughter Rogneda to marry
him. Iaropolk, betrayed by his chief men, surrendered Kiev without
offering any resistance and finally delivered his own person into the
hands of Vladimir, by whose order he was put to death. Vladimir now
became sole ruler of Russia.

The victory of Vladimir over Iaropolk was achieved with the aid of
Northmen and Novgorodians. It was, therefore, a victory of the Russian
north over the Russian south, of Novgorod, where paganism was still
unshaken, over Kiev, which was permeated with Christian elements.
Vladimir was brought up in Novgorod, and during his two years’ stay in
Sweden he must have become still more strongly impregnated with heathen
ideas. Accordingly we find that no sooner was he firmly seated on his
throne at Kiev than he tried to restore the heathen worship to more than
its pristine strength among the Russian Slavs. Statues of the gods were
erected: Perun, Dashbog, Stribog, Simargla, Mokosh--all of them, with
the exception of Perun, known to us hardly more than by name. Human
sacrifices were introduced, and two Christians, a father and his son, who
resisted this blood-tax, were killed by a fanatical mob--the first and
only Christian martyrs on Russian soil. One is tempted to assume that
the Russian Slavs had originally no representations of the gods, and
that it was their Norse princes who introduced them--at any rate there
is no mention of images before the arrival of the latter; while the mode
of worship introduced by Vladimir bears a bloody character, quite alien
to the eastern Slavs. It is evident that he is making a last effort to
impart to the colourless paganism of his subjects a systematic character
which would enable it to resist the growing new religion.

But the circumstances of this prince soon underwent a change. His Norse
auxiliaries, whose rapacity he could not satisfy, he was soon obliged to
dismiss. According to northern sagas he was even involved in a war with
Sweden, the stronghold of heathenism. His new capital was in constant
commercial intercourse with Byzantium, and the reports that reached him
of its gorgeous worship made a deep impression on the imagination of the
barbarian. But if he was to accept the religion of the Cæsars, he was
determined to do it not as a suppliant, but as a conqueror.[g][a] In what
follows we give in full the circumstantial account of Nestor.


NESTOR’S ACCOUNT OF VLADIMIR’S CONVERSION

[Sidenote: [987 A.D.]]

In the year 987, Vladimir called together his boyars and the elders of
the town, and said to them: “Behold, the Bulgarians have come to me
saying: Receive our law; then came Germans and they praised their laws;
after them came the Jews, and finally came the Greeks, blaming all other
laws, but praising their own, and they spoke at great length, from the
creation of the world, of the history of the whole world; they speak
cunningly, and it is wonderful and pleasing to hear them; they say that
there is another world, and that whosoever receives their faith, even
though he die shall live to all eternity; but if he receive another law
he shall burn in another world amidst flames. What think ye of it, and
what will you answer?”

And the boyars and elders answered, “Thou knowest, prince, that nobody
finds fault with his own, but on the contrary praises it; if thou
desirest to test this matter deeply, send some of thy men to study their
various faiths and see how each one serves God.” And the speech pleased
the prince and all the people; ten wise and good men were chosen and
were told to go first to the Bulgarians and study their faith. So they
went, and coming saw infamous doings, and how the people worshipped in
their mosques, and they returned to their own country. And Vladimir said
to them: “Go now to the Germans, and observe in the same manner, and
afterwards go to the Greeks.” They came to the Germans, and after having
watched their church services, they went on to Tsargorad (Constantinople)
and came to the emperor; the emperor asked them what brought them there,
and they told him all that had happened. When he had heard it, he was
glad and did them great honour from that day. The next day he sent to the
patriarch saying: “There have come certain Russians to study our faith,
prepare the church and thy clergy, and array thyself in thy episcopal
robes that they may see the glory of our God.” When the patriarch heard
this, he called together his clergy and they celebrated the service as
for a great festival, and they burned incense and the choirs sang. And
the emperor went with the Russians into the church and they were placed
in a spacious part so that they might see the beauty of the church and
hear the singing; then they explained to them the archiepiscopal service,
the ministry of the deacons and the divine office. They were filled with
wonderment and greatly admired and praised the service. And the emperors
Basil and Constantine called them and said, “Return now to your country.”
And they bade them farewell, giving them great gifts and showing them
honour.

When they returned to their own country, the prince assembled the boyars
and elders and said to them: “These are the men whom we have sent; they
have returned, let us listen to what they have seen.” And he said: “Speak
before the droujina.” And they said: “First we went to the Bulgarians
and we observed how they worship in their temples, they stand without
girdles, they sit down and look about them as though they were possessed
by the demon, and there is no gladness amongst them, but only sorrow and
a great stench; their religion is not a good one. We then went to the
Germans, and we saw many services celebrated in their temples, but we
saw no beauty there. Then we came to the Greeks, and they took us where
they worship their God, and we no longer knew whether we were in heaven
or on earth, for there is nothing like it on earth, nor such beauty, and
we know not how to tell of it; we only know that it is there, that God
dwells among men, and their service surpasses that of any other land.
We can never forget its beauty, for as every man when he has tasted
sweetness cannot afterwards endure bitterness, so can we no longer dwell
here.” The boyars answered: “If the Greek religion were evil, then thy
grandmother Olga, who was wiser than all men, would not have adopted it.”
And Vladimir replied: “Where then shall we be baptised?” They answered:
“Where thou wilt.” And the year passed by.

[Sidenote: [988 A.D.]]

In the year 988 Vladimir marched with his troops against Kherson, a Greek
town, and the inhabitants shut themselves up in the town. So Vladimir
established himself on the other side of the town, in the bay, at an
arrow’s throw from the town. And the people of Kherson fought hard
against him, but he blockaded the town and they were exhausted, and
Vladimir said to them: “If you do not surrender I will stay three years
if necessary.” But they would not listen to him.

Then Vladimir ranged his men in battle array and commanded them to build
a trench towards the town. And a man of Kherson, by name Anastasius,
threw out an arrow, on which he had inscribed: “To the east of thee lie
springs, the waters of which come into the town through pipes; dig there
and thou shalt intercept the water.” When Vladimir heard this he looked
up to heaven and said: “If this comes to pass I will be baptised.” He
commanded his soldiers to dig above the pipes, and he cut off the water,
and the people, exhausted by thirst, surrendered.

So Vladimir with his droujina entered into the town. And he sent
messengers to Basil and Constantine, saying: “Behold I have conquered
your famous town. I have heard that you have a maiden sister; if you
will not give her to me, I will do with your capital even as I have done
with this town.” The emperors were grieved when this message was brought
to them and sent back the following answer: “It is not meet to give a
Christian maiden in marriage to a heathen. If thou art baptised thou
shalt receive what thou askest, and the kingdom of heaven besides, and
thou shalt be of the same faith as we, but if thou wilt not be baptised
we cannot give thee our sister.”

When he heard this, Vladimir said to the emperor’s messengers, “Tell
your emperor thus: I will be baptised, for I have already inquired into
your religion, and your faith and rites please me well as they have been
described to me by the men whom we have sent.” And when the emperors
heard these words they rejoiced and persuaded their sister, who was
named Anna, and sent to Vladimir saying: “Be baptised and we will send
thee our sister.” Vladimir answered: “Let them come with your sister to
baptise me.” When the emperors heard this they sent their sister with
some dignitaries and priests; and she did not want to go and said: “I am
going like a slave to the heathen, it would be better for me to die.” But
her brothers persuaded her saying: “It is through thee that God shall
turn the hearts of the Russian people to repentance, and thou shalt save
the land of Greece from a cruel war; seest thou not how much harm the
Russians have already done to the Greeks? And now if thou goest not they
will do more harm.” And they persuaded her with difficulty. So she took
ship, kissed her parents, and weeping went across the sea to Kherson.

When she arrived, the people of Kherson came out to greet her, led her
into the town, and took her to the palace. By the will of God Vladimir’s
eyes were then sore and he could not see anything, he was greatly
troubled. And the czarina[6] went unto him saying: “If thou desirest to
be delivered from this malady, be baptised as quickly as possible, or
otherwise thou wilt not be cured.” When Vladimir heard this he said: “If
this is accomplished, truly the God of the Christians is great:” and he
was baptised. The bishop of Kherson after having announced it to the
people, baptised Vladimir together with the czarina’s priests, and as
soon as he laid his hands on him, he saw. When Vladimir perceived how
quickly he was healed, he glorified God, saying: “Now only do I know
the true God.” And when his droujina saw it, many were also baptised.
Vladimir was baptised in the church of St. Basil, which is in Kherson in
the midst of the town, where the people hold their market.

After the baptism Vladimir was wedded to the czarina. And when he had
been baptised the priests expounded to him the Christian faith. After
this Vladimir with the czarina and Anastasius and the priests of Kherson
took the relics of St. Clement and St. Theba, his disciple, as well as
the sacred vessels and relics, and he built a church on an eminence in
the middle of the town, which had been raised with the earth taken from
the trench, and this church still exists. As a wedding present to the
czarina he gave back Kherson to the Greeks, and himself returned to Kiev.
When he came there he commanded all the idols to be overthrown, some to
be chopped in pieces, others cast into the flames. Then Vladimir had the
following proclamation made throughout the town. “Whosoever to-morrow,
rich or poor, mendicant or artisan, does not come to the river to be
baptised, will be as an alien to me.” When the people heard these words,
they came joyfully saying: “If this faith were not good, the prince and
the boyars would not have adopted it.” The next day Vladimir came with
the czarina’s priests and those of Kherson to the banks of the Dnieper,
and an innumerable multitude of people were assembled and they went
into the water, some up to their necks, others to their breasts; the
younger ones stood on the banks, men held their children in their arms,
the adults were quite in the water, and the priests stood repeating
the prayers. And there was joy in heaven and on earth to see so many
souls saved. When they were baptised the people returned to their homes
and Vladimir rejoiced that he and his people knew God. He ordered that
churches and priests should be established in all the towns, and that the
people should be baptised throughout all the towns and villages; then
he sent for the children of the chief families and had them instructed
in book learning. Thus was Vladimir enlightened with his sons and his
people, for he had twelve sons. And he henceforth lived in the Christian
faith.[h]


_The Death of Vladimir the Christian_

The chronicler then goes on to describe the changes wrought in Vladimir’s
character by his conversion: how this prince, who had hitherto been an
oriental voluptuary and maintained in several places numerous harems
with hundreds of wives, suddenly changed into the faithful husband of
his Christian wife; and how he who had murdered his brother (whose wife
he appropriated) and the father and brother of another of his wives, now
became fearful of punishing offenders and criminals lest he commit a sin,
so that it became the duty of his priests to admonish him to enforce
justice and punish the guilty. All this, whether true or false, shows
in what deep veneration the founder of Russian Christianity was held by
subsequent generations.

On the other hand, his acceptance of Christianity does not seem to
have diminished his love of war, which in those days, surrounded as
the agricultural Russians were by semi-nomadic and marauding tribes,
was indeed a social necessity. Throughout his reign he was engaged in
suppressing revolts, reconquering territory lost during the reign of the
weak Iaropolk--Galicia or Red Russia had then been lost to Poland--and
punishing Lithuanians, Volga Bulgarians, and Petchenegs. To secure the
southern frontier against these last, he erected a line of fortifications
at strategical points and transplanted a large number of colonists from
the north to the borders of the steppe.[a]

[Sidenote: [1015 A.D.]]

Vladimir died in 1015, leaving a large number of heirs by his numerous
wives. From the division that he made among them of his states we
learn what was the extent of Russia at that epoch. To Iaroslav he gave
Novgorod; to Iziaslav, Polotsk; to Boris, Rostov; to Gleb, Murom--these
last two principalities being in the Finn country; to Sviatoslav, the
country of the Drevlians; to Vsevolod, Vladimir in Volhynia; to Mstislav,
Tmoutarakan[7]; to his nephew Sviatopolk, the son of his brother and
victim Iaropolk, the principality of Tourov, in the country of Minsk,
founded by a Varangian named Tour, who, like Askold and Rogvolod, was not
of the blood of princes.[j]

This division of the territories of the state among the heirs of the
prince was in entire accord with the ideas of the Norse conquerors, who
regarded their conquests as their private property. It was, moreover,
dictated by the economic conditions of the time. Money being but rarely
employed and all payments being made in service and in kind, it was
indispensable, in making provision for the members of the ruling house,
to supply them with territories and subjects. The immense extent of
Russia, the lack of adequate means of communication, and its subdivision
among a large number of tribes without any national cohesion, were
further reasons for the introduction of this system of government.[a]


SVIATOPOLK IS SUCCEEDED BY IAROSLAV (1019 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1019 A.D.]]

Sviatopolk, who claimed a divided parentage between Vladimir and
Iaropolk--being the son of the widow of the latter, who on the murder
of her husband was forced to live with the former, she being already
pregnant--was at Kiev when the news of Vladimir’s death arrived. He had
long indulged in a project for seizing the throne, which was favoured in
its formation by the increasing imbecility of his father, whose death
now ripened it into action. His ambitious schemes embraced a plan for
securing the sole monarchy, by obtaining the grand princedom first, and
then by artifice or treachery to put his brothers out of the way, so that
he might thus reorganise under the one head the divided and independent
governments. The moment had now arrived when this violent scheme was
to be put into execution. His brother Boris, who was employed with the
army against the Petchenegs, was the first object of his hate and fear,
because his good qualities had so strongly recommended him, that he
was the most popular of the brothers, and the most likely to gain the
ascendency through the will of the people. There was but one sure method
to get rid of this formidable rival, and Sviatopolk did not hesitate to
adopt it. When the intelligence of his father’s decease reached Boris,
he declared that the throne devolved properly upon the elder brother,
and rejected the unanimous offer of the soldiery to assist in placing
him upon it. This noble insensibility to the general wish alienated his
troops, and exposed him to the designs of his treacherous rival. The
assassins who were commissioned to despatch him found easy access to his
tent, and having first slain a faithful Russian who threw himself before
the person of his master, they soon effected their horrible purpose.

Two other brothers met a similar fate. Gleb was informed by letter that
his father was ill, and desired his return. On his way he was so injured
by a fall from his horse as to be forced to continue his journey in a
litter. In this state he learned that Sviatopolk had issued orders for
his murder, which, tempted probably by the reward, were carried into
effect by his own cook, who stabbed him with a knife in the breast.
Both Gleb and Boris were afterwards sainted, which appears to have been
the last compliment paid by the Russians to their ill-used princes.
These villainies alarmed a third brother, who fled to Hungary; but the
emissaries of the triumphant assassin seized him in his flight, brought
him back to the capital, and put him to death.

The way to the throne was now tolerably well cleared. Sviatopolk I found
no further difficulty in assuming the government of Kiev, and calling in
such of the tributary provinces as his recent excesses either terrified
into submission or reduced within his control. But the most powerful
opponent yet remained to be subjugated.

Iaroslav, prince of Novgorod, alarmed and outraged by the cruelties of
his brother, and apprehending that, unless they were speedily arrested,
they would spread into his own principality, determined to advance upon
Kiev and make war on the usurping fratricide. The Novgorodians, to
whom he was greatly endeared by the wisdom and mildness of his sway,
entered so warmly into the expedition, that the tyrant was driven out of
Kiev without much cost of blood, and obliged to flee for refuge to his
father-in-law, the duke of Poland. At that period Poland was resting from
the ruinous effects of a disastrous and straggling campaign in Germany
which had considerably reduced her power, and curtailed her means of
satisfying the ambition of her restless ruler. The representations of
Sviatopolk rekindled the ardour of the Poles, who, animated as much by
the desire of recovering those provinces which Vladimir had formerly
wrested from Miecelsas, as by the prospect of ulterior aggrandisement,
readily fell into the proposals of the exiled prince to make an attempt
for his restoration to the throne. Boleslav at the head of a powerful
force, advanced into Russia. Iaroslav, however, apprised of the movements
of the enemy, met them on the banks of the Bug, prepared for battle. The
army of Boleslav lay at the opposite side. For some time the invader
hesitated to ford the river under the fire of the Russian soldiers; and
might, probably, have returned as he came, had not a petty occurrence
excited his impetuosity, and urged him forward. A Russian soldier one
day, while both armies lay inactive within sight of each other, stood
upon the bank of the river, and with gesticulations and bold language
mimicked the corpulent size and gait of the Polish duke. This insult
roused the spirit of Boleslav, who, plunging into the water, and calling
on his men to follow, landed in the face of the Russians at the head
of his intrepid troops. A long and well-contested action took place,
and tardily closed in favour of the Poles, who, flushed with victory,
pursued the fugitives to the walls of the capital. Sviatopolk was now
reinstated in his throne, and Iaroslav, disheartened by defeat, made his
way to Novgorod, where, doubtful even of the fidelity of his own people,
he prepared to cross the Baltic in order to get beyond the reach of his
brother. The Novgorodians, however, were faithful, and proved their
attachment to his person by taking down the rigging of the vessels which
had been got in readiness for his departure, and by levying contributions
amongst themselves for the purpose of enabling him to procure auxiliary
troops to assist in the recovery of the grand principality.

[Illustration: IAROSLAV I

(Died 1054)]

In the meantime, Sviatopolk was unconsciously facilitating his own
downfall. After the Poles had helped him to re-establish himself, he
began to feel the oppressive superiority of their presence, and plotted
a base design to remove them. He instigated the inhabitants and the
soldiery to conspire against the strangers, and massacre them in the
midst of their security. Boleslav discovered the plot before it had time
to be carried into execution; and, disgusted at a design so cruel and
treacherous, he resolved to take ample revenge. The capital was plundered
of its accumulated wealth by the incensed Poles, who, but for the
moderation of their leader, would have burned it to ashes; and, loaded
with treasures, they returned towards the Russian frontiers. Sviatopolk
was artful enough to turn the whole transaction to the discredit of his
ally, and thus to rouse the courage of his followers, who were easily
persuaded to take the field against Boleslav. The belligerents met on
the banks of the Bug before the Poles had passed the boundaries. The
battle that ensued terminated in the discomfiture of Sviatopolk, who
now returned with broken fortunes to the capital which he had so lately
entered with acclamations of triumph. This was the opportunity for
Iaroslav to appear with his followers. The usurper’s troops were so
reduced by his late disasters, that he was forced to seek assistance
from the Petchenegs, the hereditary enemies of the country; and they,
tempted by hopes of booty, flocked to his standard to resist the approach
of Iaroslav. The armies met on a plain near the place where Boris had
been assassinated by the command of the fratricide. The coincidence
was fortunate, for Iaroslav, taking a prudent advantage of the
circumstance, employed all his eloquence in describing to his soldiers
the righteousness of the cause in which they were engaged against a
second Cain, the shedder of a brother’s blood. His oration, concluding
with a fervent prayer to the Almighty to nerve his arm, and direct his
sword, so that he might be made the instrument of reparation in so just
a fight, wrought powerfully upon the assembled army, and excited them to
an unexampled display of bravery. The advantage of numbers was on the
opposite side; but such was the courage exhibited by the Novgorodians,
that after a desperate battle, which lasted throughout the whole day,
they succeeded in putting the enemy completely to flight. Sviatopolk took
to horse and fled, but died in a wretched condition on the road.

The zeal and bravery of the Novgorodians were not forgotten by Iaroslav
when he ascended the throne and concentrated the sole dominion in
himself. His first attention was directed to the revision of the
ill-constructed laws of their city, and to the grant of certain
franchises, which had the effect of procuring unanimity amongst the
inhabitants, and of establishing the peaceful arts and commercial
interests of the place upon a sure and solid foundation. He at once
evinced a capacity for legislation beyond the abilities of his most
distinguished predecessors, and set about the labours of improvement in
so vigorous a temper, and with so much aptitude for his objects, that the
happiest results sprang up under his administration in all parts of the
empire.

But it was not in the destiny of the age in which he lived to permit
such extensive benefits to progress without interruption. His brother
Mstislav, the seventh son of Vladimir, a warrior distinguished in his
wars against the Kossoges, discontented with the enlarged authority
that the grand princedom vested in the hands of Iaroslav, transmitted
to him a petition praying of him to cede to him a part of the fraternal
appanage which he governed. Iaroslav partially assented to the request,
by granting to his brother the small territory of Murom. This grant was
insufficient to satisfy Mstislav, who immediately equipped an army and
proceeded to wage an offensive war against the monarch. In this war the
invader was successful, but he was not ungenerous in his triumph; for
when he had vanquished the grand prince, he restored to him so large a
portion of his possessions that the empire became equally divided between
them. In this league of amity the brothers continued to govern for seven
years, during the remainder of the life of Mstislav; and at his death
the colossal empire, with all its appanages, reverted to the hands of
Iaroslav.

It is in this part of his reign, and in this memorable period in the
annals of the nation, that we find the first development of justice in
Russian legislation, and the first application of philosophy to the
management of public affairs. Although Iaroslav’s career commenced with
war, and although he extended his arms into Finland, Livonia, Lithuania,
and Bulgaria, and even penetrated into Byzantium, yet it was not by
war that the glory of his name or the ability of his rule was to be
accomplished. His wars could hardly claim the merits of conquests; and
in some instances they terminated in such vague conclusions, that they
resembled drawn battles on which much treasure had been lavished in vain.
In Greece he was routed. He was driven before the soldiers of Sviatopolk,
and forced to surrender at his own gates to the victorious Mstislav.
His utmost successes amounted to preservation against aggression; and
so indifferent was he to the barbarian mode of elevating the empire by
wanton and hazardous expeditions into the neighbouring countries, that
on most of those occasions he entrusted the command of his army to his
lieutenants. It is necessary to explain that part of his character, in
order that the loftiness of his nature may be the more clearly understood.

At this period the Russian Empire comprehended those enormous tracts that
lie between the Volga and the lower Danube, and stretch from the Black
Sea to the Baltic. This accumulation of territory was not the work of
a progressive political system; it was not accomplished by the growth
of a powerful government or by the persevering pursuit of co-operating
interests, and the increasing circles of acquisition were in a constant
state of dismemberment, separation, and recall. The surface of the
land from the days of Rurik was overrun by revolutions. The marauder,
legalised by his tribe, haunted the forest and devastated the populous
places, carrying away with him plunder, or usurping authority wherever
he remained. The feudal system, introduced by the Scandinavians as a
provision for troublesome leaders, was carried to excess. The nominal
head was disavowed and resisted at will; and the subordinate governments
made war upon each other, or joined in schemes of rapine, with impunity.
The maintenance of each fief seemed to depend upon civil war; and the
office of the grand prince was not so much to govern the dominions he
possessed, as to keep, if he could, the dominion he was called upon to
govern.

Russia, combining these gigantic outlines of territory, was now, for
the second time, united under one head; but, for the first time, under
a head that could discern her necessities, and provide for them. Her
civilisation was in progress, but it wanted the impetus of knowledge, and
the control of law. The reign of the sword had done its work: what was
required was the reign of justice and wisdom to improve and consolidate
the triumphs and acquisitions of the barbarian era. In Iaroslav, Russia
found a prince whose genius was adapted to her critical circumstances. He
effectually raised her from obscurity, and placed her for a time amongst
the family of European states. He made her church independent, increased
the privileges of the people, facilitated the means of instruction, and
elevated her national dignity by contracting domestic alliances with
the most powerful countries. His sister was queen of Poland; his three
daughters-in-law were Greek, German, and English princesses; and the
queens of Norway, Hungary, and France were his daughters. But these were
the least memorable evidences of his greatness. He gave Russia a code of
laws, which was more valuable to her than the highest connections, or the
most ambitious accessions of dominion.


IAROSLAV’S CODE OF LAWS

This code must be judged in reference to the times in which it was
enacted and in comparison with the formless mass of confused precedents
it superseded. The existence of commercial cities in Russia so far back
as the invasion of Rurik, may be accepted as presumptive proof that there
were not wanting some regulations to render individuals amenable to the
common good. But these were merely the rude precepts of the hunting and
agricultural nations matured into a stronger form, and adapted to the
wants of the commercial community. When the Scandinavians subjugated
the aborigines, the languages, customs, and laws of both fell into
still greater confusion by admixture. When each was imperfect, it was
unlikely that a forcible intermixture would have improved either, or led
to the harmonious union of both. It is to be observed, too, that none
of the nations that made up the population possessed written laws; so
that whatever notions of legislation they entertained, were constantly
liable to the fluctuations of capricious opinion, and were always subject
to the interpretation of the strong over the weak. Where there were
no records there was but little responsibility, and even that little
was diminished by the character of the rulers and the lawlessness of
the ruled. The exclusive attention of the princes being of necessity
confined to the most effectual methods of preserving their sovereignties,
of enlarging their domains, and of exacting tributes, it was natural
that the unsystematic and crude usages that prevailed should fall into
further contempt, and, instead of acquiring shape and consistency from
experience, become still more oppressive, dark, and indecisive.

It was this matter of incongruities that Iaroslav cast out; supplying
its place with a series of written laws, in which some sacrifices were
made to popular customs, but which, on the whole, was an extraordinary
boon to a people that, like mariners at sea without a compass, were
tossed about in a tumult of uncertainty and perplexity. Had Iaroslav been
a mere soldier, like the majority of his predecessors, he would have
employed his talents in the field, and directed the enormous physical
means at his command to the purposes of a wild and desolating ambition.
But his policy was in advance of the heathen age: it restrained boundless
licentiousness, created immunities, protected life and property, bestowed
rewards, enacted punishments, established safeguards and facilities for
trade, and expounded and confirmed those distinctions of ranks in which
a community on a large scale recognises the elements of its permanency.
He had the magnanimity to forego vulgar conquests for the higher conquest
of prejudices and ancient habits. The people, probably fatigued with
the restlessness of their mode of life, and yearning after repose and
settlement, rendered now more necessary by the rapid increase of their
numbers, received his laws with gratitude.

A short outline of the leading provisions of these laws will form a
curious and valuable commentary upon the character of the grand prince,
and the actual state of the people at this period (1018). The first
article of the code empowers the friends of a murdered man to take
satisfaction upon the murderer; constituting the law as the public
avenger only in cases where there are no friends to take their vengeance
in kind. In the event of there being no relatives to take the revenge
into their own hands, the law goes on to enact that the assassin shall
pay into the public treasury a certain fine, according to the rank of
his victim. Thus, for the murder of a boyar, or thane of the prince, the
mulct was fixed at the highest penalty of eighty grivnas;[8] for a page
of the prince, his cook, or other domestics, for a merchant, for the
sword-bearer of a boyar, and for every free Russian, without distinction
of origin, forty grivnas; for a woman, half the usual fine: no fine for
killing a slave; but if killed without sufficient cause, the value to be
paid to the master: for a serf belonging to a boyar or free Russian, five
grivnas to the owner; for the superintendent of a village, an artisan,
schoolmaster, or nurse, twelve grivnas; for a female servant, six grivnas
to the master, and twelve to the state.

From these penalties a correct estimate may be formed of the principles
upon which the social fabric was erected. In all these provisions the
rich were favoured above the poor, the strong above the weak. The life
of a woman, because her utility in a barbarous community was rated
according to its menial value, was fixed at half the worth of a man’s,
to be proportioned according to her station. The murder of a slave was
not visited with any penalty whatever; the exception constituting, in
fact, the privilege to kill a slave at pleasure. Slavery was carried to
extremity in Russia. Prisoners of war and their posterity were condemned
to perpetual slavery; the poverty of the soil, and the oppression of its
lords, forced many to sell their freedom for limited periods; insolvent
debtors became slaves by law; and all freemen who married slaves
unconditionally, participated in their servitude.

Yet, degrading as these institutions must be considered, it appears
that the rights of the person were scrupulously maintained. Thus this
code enumerates penalties for striking a blow, describes the different
degrees of the offence, and regulates the responsibility accordingly. The
distinctions drawn between the different modes of striking are singular,
and help to show that, ill as the Russians could appreciate public
liberty, they had a jealous sense of that individual respect which, in
modern Europe, is called the point of honour. The penalty for striking
a blow with the scabbard or handle of a sword, with the fist, a stick,
cup, or goblet, was twelve grivnas--equal to the fine for murdering an
artisan or a schoolmaster. If the blow was struck with a club, which, we
presume, was considered a plebeian weapon, the penalty was only three
grivnas. But the most characteristic penalty was that of twelve grivnas
for pulling a man by the beard, or knocking out a tooth. The origin of
this law may be easily traced to the Goths and Germans, who were rigid
in the preservation of their hair, to which they attached extraordinary
importance. In the same spirit was the enactment that prohibited the
making use of a horse without the permission of the owner, and that
visited with imprisonment for life the crime of horse-stealing. This
legal protection of the horse is still preserved in the Saxon laws.

The prevailing tendency of the code was to secure to each man his lawful
property, and to arm him with the means of protection. Yet it must be
remarked as a strange inconsistency, in the midst of this anxiety to
erect safeguards around property, that fraudulent debtors were granted
a direct escape from liability to consequences. It was enacted, that if
one man lent money to another, and the latter denied the loan, the ordeal
should not apply; the oath of the defendant being deemed a sufficient
release from the debt. This law was the more unaccountable in a country
where the legal interest of money was forty per cent.,--a circumstance
calculated to increase the motives to dishonesty.

Another enactment makes a distinction between the Varangians and
Slavs, which illustrates the fact that the latter had always been more
advanced in civilisation than the former. By this enactment, a Koblegian
or a Varangian was compelled to take an oath where such a test was
required, but a Slavonian was exempted. It would therefore appear, if
the conclusion may be safely ventured upon, that judicial combats,
which formed the final appeal when a defendant in a cause acquitted
himself in the first instance by a solemn oath, were not adopted amongst
the Slavs, who were satisfied with a public examination of facts,
and an adjudication, without the sacred or the physical test. It is
sufficient, however, for the great uses of historical inquiry, to know
that a difference so remarkable between two branches of the people was
recognised and confirmed by law.

One of the most important declarations of the code was that which
divided the population into three classes--the nobles, the freemen, and
the slaves. Of these three, the slaves alone were left unprotected.
The freemen, who were fenced in from the encroachments of the nobles,
were composed of the citizens, the farmers, the landholders, and hired
servants. They were sub-classified into centuries, each of which elected
a head, who filled an office equivalent to that of a tribune. The civil
magistracy, thus created, had a separate guard of their own, and were
placed, in virtue of their office, on an equality with the boyars. The
city of Novgorod, which maintained, under a nominal princedom, the
spirit of a republic, exhibited these municipal franchises in a more
complete form than any of the Russian cities; all of which, however,
possessed similar privileges, more or less modified according to their
relative importance, or the circumstances under which their charters
were granted. The chief of the Novgorodian republic was a prince of the
blood; the title of his office was that of Namestnick. He took no share
in the deliberations of the people, nor does it appear that he even
possessed a veto upon their decisions. His oath of instalment bound him
as the slave rather than the governor of the city; for it pledged him to
govern agreeably to the constitution as he found it; to appoint none but
Novgorodian magistrates in the provinces, and even these to be previously
approved of by the Posadnick or mayor; to respect strictly the exclusive
rights possessed by the citizens sitting in judgment on their own order,
of imposing their own taxes, and of carrying on commerce at their own
discretion; to interdict his boyars from acquiring landed property within
the villages dependent on Novgorod, and to oblige them to travel at their
private cost; to discourage immigration; and never to cause a Novgorodian
to be arrested for debt. A princedom, accepted on such restrictive
conditions, was but the shadow of a sceptre, as the municipal union of
the legislative and judicial abundantly proved. The first officer was
the Posadnick, or mayor, chosen by election for a limited time; the
next was the Tisiatski, or tribune, who was a popular check upon the
prince and mayor; and the rest of the functionaries consisted of the
senate, the city assembly, and the boyars, all of whom were elective.
By the electoral system, the people preserved a constant guard over the
fidelity of their representatives in the senate, and their officers of
justice; so that, while the three grades propounded by law were kept
widely apart, and socially distinguished, the prerogatives of each were
rigidly protected against innovation from the other two. All that this
little republic required to render its security perfect, was liberty.
It was based upon a system of slavery, and sustained its dominion more
by fear than righteousness. Nor was it independent of control, although
all its domestic concerns were uninterruptedly transacted within its
own confines. It was an appanage of the grand princedom; but on account
of its fortunate geographical position on the northern and northwestern
frontiers, which were distant from the capital--a circumstance that
delegated to Novgorod the defence of those remote boundaries--it acquired
a degree of political importance that preserved it for four centuries
against the cupidity of the succession of despots that occupied the
throne. The removal of the seat of empire from Kiev to Vladimir, and
finally to Moscow, by drawing the centre nearer to Novgorod, diminished
its power by degrees, and finally absorbed it altogether.

One of the enactments of the code of Iaroslav will show what advances had
been made towards the segregation of the people into different orders,
and how much the government partook, or was likely to partake, of a mixed
form, in which a monarchical, an hereditary, and a representative estate
were combined. It made the prince the heir-at-law of every freeman who
died without male issue, with the exception of the boyars and officers
of the royal guard. By this regulation the prerogative of the crown
was rendered paramount, while the hereditary rights of property were
preserved unconditionally to the families of the nobles alone. A class of
rich patricians was thus formed and protected, to represent, by virtue of
birth, the interests of property; while commerce and popular privileges
were fully represented in the assembly of the elected senators. The
checks and balances of this system were pretty equal; so that, if the
constitution of which these outlines were the elements, had been allowed
to accumulate strength and to become consolidated by time, it would
at last have resolved itself into a liberal and powerful form; the
semi-savage usages with which it was encrusted would have dropped away,
and wiser institutions have grown up in their stead.

So clearly were the popular benefits of the laws defined, that the code
regulated the maximum demand which the proprietor of the soil might
exact from his tenant; and it neither enforced taxation, nor recognised
corporal punishment, nor in the composition of a pecuniary mulct admitted
any distinction between the Varangians and the Slavs, who formed the
aristocracy and the democracy. The prince neither possessed revenue
nor levied taxes. He subsisted on the fines he imposed for infractions
of law, on the tributes he received from his estates, on the voluntary
offerings of the people, and the produce of such property as had fallen
to the private title of the sovereignty. Even the tribute was not
compulsory; it was rather a right derived from prescription. The only
dependence of the lords of fiefs was in that they were compelled to
render military service when required to the grand prince; and it was
expected that they should come numerously attended, well armed, and
provisioned. The tribute was the mark of conquest, and was not considered
to imply taxation.

But while the monarchical principle was thus kept within proscribed
limits, the power of the democracy was not sufficiently curbed: over both
there was a check, but the hands of the prince were bound too tightly.
His dominion was despotic, because he was surrounded by men devoted to
his will; but the dominion of the people was boundless, because opinion
was only in its rickety infancy, and the resistance to the offending
prince lay in the demonstration of physical superiority instead of moral
combination. They never hesitated to avail themselves of their numerical
advantage. They even carried it to extravagance and licentiousness;
and so much did they exult in their strength, that they regulated the
hours at which the sovereign was permitted to enjoy relaxation, punished
the obnoxious heads of the church by summary ejectment, and in several
instances, taking the charter of law into their own keeping, deposed
their princes. The checks, therefore, established in Iaroslav’s wise
convention between the government and the constituency were overborne by
the rudeness of the times.

That the period had arrived when laws were necessary to the settlement
of the empire, was sufficiently testified by the circumstances,
external and domestic, in which the people were placed. The adoption
of Christianity had partially appeased the old passion for aggression
against Constantinople, which, having now become the metropolis of their
religion, was regarded with some degree of veneration by the Russians.
A war of plundering Byzantium, therefore, could not be entertained with
any prospect of success. The extension of the empire under Vladimir left
little to be coveted beyond the frontiers, which spread to the east,
north and south as far as even the wild grasp of the lawless tribes of
the forests could embrace. To the west, the Russians had ceased to look
for prey, since Boleslav, by his easy conquest of Kiev, had demonstrated
the strength of Poland. Having acquired as much as they could, and
having next, in the absence of warlike expeditions abroad, occupied
themselves with ruthless feuds at home, they came at length to consider
the necessity of consulting the security of possessions acquired at so
much cost, and so often risked by civil broils. This was the time for
a code of laws. But unfortunately there still existed too many remains
of the barbarian era, to render the introduction of legal restraints
a matter easy of accomplishment. The jealousy of Greek superiority
survived the admission of the Greek religion. The longing after power
still inspired the petty chiefs; and hopeless dreams of larger dominion
wherewith to bribe the discontented, and provide for the hirelings of the
state, still troubled the repose of the sovereign. The throne stood in a
plain surrounded by forests, from whence issued, as the rage propelled
them, hordes of newly reclaimed savages, pressing extraordinary demands,
or threatening with ferocious violence the dawning institutions of
civilisation. In such a position, it was not only impossible to advance
steadily, but to maintain the ground already gained.


_Iaroslav Dies (1054 A.D.)_

[Sidenote: [1054 A.D.]]

Could the character of Iaroslav, the legislator, have been transmitted
through his successors, the good of which he laid the seeds, might have
been finally cultivated to maturity. But his wisdom and his virtues died
with him. Nor, elevated as he was in moral dignity above the spirit of
his countrymen, can it be said that he was free from weaknesses that
marred much of the utility of his best measures. One of his earliest
errors was the resignation of Novgorod to his son Vladimir, who had
no sooner ascended the throne of the republican city, than, under the
pretext of seeking satisfaction for the death of a Russian who had been
killed in Greece, he carried arms into the Byzantine empire. The folly of
this wild attempt was abundantly punished in the sequel; fifteen thousand
men were sacrificed on the Grecian plains, and their chief hunted back
disgracefully to his own territories. Yet this issue of one family grant
did not awaken Iaroslav to the danger of partitioning the empire. Before
his death he divided the whole of Russia amongst his sons, making,
however, the younger sons subordinate to the eldest, as grand prince
of Kiev, and empowering the latter to reduce the others to obedience
by force of arms whenever they exhibited a disposition to dispute his
authority.

This settlement, enforced with parting admonitions on his death-bed, was
considered by Iaroslav to present a sufficient security against civil
commotion and disputes about the succession. But he did not calculate
upon the ungovernable lust for power, the jealousy of younger brothers,
and the passion for aggrandisement. His injunctions were uttered in the
amiable confidence of Christianity; they were violated with the indecent
impetuosity of the barbarian nature.

With the death of Iaroslav, and the division of the empire, a new period
of darkness and misrule began. The character of the legislator, which
influenced his own time, was speedily absorbed in the general confusion.
Iaroslav’s name was held in reverence, but the memory of his excellence
did not awe the multitudes that, upon his decease, sprang from their
retirement to revive the disastrous glories of domestic warfare. Much
as he had done for the extension of Christianity, he had failed in
establishing it in the hearts of the people. He was an able theologian,
and well acquainted with the church ordinances, agenda, and other books
of the Greek religion, many of which he caused to be translated into
the Russian language, and distributed in copies over the country. So
strong an interest did he take in the cultivation of the doctrines of the
church, that he established a metropolitan at Kiev, in order to relieve
the Russian people and their priests from the inconveniences of attending
the residence of the ecclesiastical head at Constantinople, and also with
a desire to provide for the more prompt and certain dissemination of the
principles of faith. But the value of all these exertions expired with
their author. He did much to raise the fame and consolidate the resources
of the empire; but the last act of his political career, by which he cut
away the cord that bound the rods, had the effect of neutralising all the
benefits he meditated to accomplish, as well as those that he actually
effected, for his country. His reign was followed by a period of savage
anarchy that might be said to have resolved the half-civilised world into
its original elements.[k]


FOOTNOTES

[2] According to recent computations the Russian Empire covers an area of
8,660,000 square miles--about one sixth of the land surface of the globe.

[3] [This treaty was not so favourable to the Russians as the one
concluded with Oleg--a result, evidently, of the former defeat. Another
point of importance is that it makes mention of Russian Christians, to
whom there is no allusion in the treaty of 911. From this we may conclude
that Christianity had spread largely during this interval.[g]]

[4] [According to another Ms., Constantine, son of Lev.]

[5] _Ex. XXI, 17._

[6] [In the original Nestor always calls thus the sister of the emperors.]

[7] [An antiquarian inquiry instituted by Catherine in 1794 resulted in
proving that Tmoutarakan was situated on the isle of Taman, forming a key
to the confluence of the sea of Azov with the Black Sea.[k]]

[8] A copper coin, of the value, as near as we can ascertain, of about
4½_d._ of English money.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER II. THE PERIOD OF THE PRINCIPALITIES


THE CHARACTER OF THE PRINCIPALITIES

[Sidenote: [1054-1224 A.D.]]

The period extending from the year of Iaroslav’s death (1054) to the
year of the appearance of the Tatars (1224) is one of the most troublous
and confused epochs in the history of Russia. As the Scandinavian custom
of partition continued to prevail over the Byzantine idea of political
unity, the national territory was constantly divided.

The princely anarchy of oriental Europe finds a parallel in the feudal
anarchy of the Occident. Pogodine enumerates for this period sixty-four
principalities which enjoyed a more or less protracted existence; two
hundred and ninety-three princes who during these two centuries contended
over Kiev and other Russian domains; eighty-three civil wars in which the
entire country was concerned. Foreign wars helped to augment the enormous
mass of historical facts. The chronicles mention against the Polovtsi
alone eighteen campaigns, while these barbarians invaded Christian
territory forty-six times.

The ancient names of the Slav tribes have entirely disappeared, or are
preserved only in the names of towns--as, for instance, that of the
Polotchanes in Polotsk; that of the Severians in Novgorod-Seversk. The
elements in the composition of Russia were thus rather principalities
than peoples. No more is said of the Krivitchi or of the Drevlians;
we hear only of Smolensk or of Volhinia. These little states were
dismembered at each new division among the children of a prince; they
were then reconstituted, to be again divided into appanages. In spite of
all these vicissitudes, however, some among them had an uninterrupted
existence due to certain topographical and ethnographical conditions.
Setting aside the distant principality of Tmoutorakan, established
almost at the foot of the Caucasus in the midst of Turkish and Circassian
tribes and counting eight different princes, the following are, from the
eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, the principal divisions of Russia:

(1) The principality of Smolensk, which occupied the important territory
which is in a manner the central point of the orographic system of
Russia; it comprises the old forest of Okov, where the three greatest
rivers of Russia, the Volga, the Dnieper, and the Dvina, have their rise.
Hence the political importance of Smolensk, which is attested by the many
wars undertaken against her; hence also her commercial prosperity. It is
noticeable that all her towns were built on some one of the three rivers;
all the commerce of ancient Russia thus passed through her bounds.
Besides Smolensk it is necessary to cite Mozhaisk, Viasma, and Toropets,
the capital of a secondary principality, the domain of two famous
princes--Mstislav the Brave and Mstislav the Bold.

(2) The principality of Kiev, which was _Rus_--Russia in the strict sense
of the term. Its situation on the Dnieper, the proximity of Greece, the
fertility of its Black Lands, long assured to this state the supremacy
over all other Russian principalities. To the south it was bordered by
the Nomad tribes of the steppe. Against the inroads of these tribes
the princes of Kiev were obliged to construct frontier fortresses;
though frequently they ceded them lands and took them into their pay,
constituting them into veritable military colonies. The principality of
Pereiaslavl was a dependency of Kiev; Vishgorod, Bielgorod, Tripoli, and
Torlshok were at different times constituted into appanages for princes
of the same family.

[Illustration: LAPLANDER]

(3) The two principalities of Tcheringov with Starodub and Lubetz and of
Novgorod-Seversk with Putivl, Kursk and Briansk, which extended along
the tributaries flowing into the Dnieper from the left--the Soj and the
Desna swelled by the Seim. Tcheringov, extending towards the upper Oka,
had thus one foot in the basin of the Volga; its princes, the Olgovitchi,
were the most redoubtable rivals of those of Kiev. As for the princes of
Seversk, they were ceaselessly occupied with wars against their dangerous
rivals on the south, the Polovtsi. It is the exploits of a prince of
Seversk against these barbarians which form the subject of a _chanson de
geste_--The _Song of Igor_.

(4) The duplex principality of Riazan and Murom, another state whose
existence was maintained at the expense of ceaseless war against the
nomads. The principal towns were Riazan, Murom, Pereiaslavl-Riazanski,
on the Oka; Kolomna, at the junction of the Moskva with the Oka; and
Pronsk, on the Pronia. The upper Don bounded it on the west. This
principality was established in the midst of Finnish tribes--the
Muromians and the Meshtseraks. The warlike character and the rude and
coarse habits attributed to the people of the principality doubtless
resulted not less from the assimilation of the aborigines by the Russian
race than from the continuous brutal strife of the inhabitants with the
nomads.

(5) The principalities of Suzdal--with their metropolitan towns of Tver,
Suzdal, Rostov, Iuriev-Polski, and Vladimir on the Kliasma; of Iaroslavl
and Pereiaslavl-Zaliesski--which were established on the Volga and the
Oka, in the densest of the northern forests, surrounded by Finnish
tribes--Mouromians, Merians, Vesses, and Tcherimisses. Though situated at
the extreme limit of the Russian world, these principalities nevertheless
exercised great influence over it. We shall see their princes now
reducing Novgorod and the Russia of the lakes to a certain political
dependence, the consequence of a double economical dependence; then
victoriously intervening in the quarrels of the Russia of the Dnieper.
The Suzdalians were of the same character as the Riazanians--rude and
warlike. The characteristics of a new nationality were already noticeable
among these two peoples. That which differentiated them from the Kievans
and the Novgorod-Severskans, who, like themselves, were occupied in the
great struggle against the barbarians, was that the Russians of the
Dnieper, sometimes mingling their blood with that of their enemies,
became fused with Turkish tribes, nomadic and essentially mobile, while
the Russians of the Oka and the Volga united with Finnish tribes,
agricultural and essentially sedentary. This difference between the two
foreign elements which entered into the blood of the Slavs, without
doubt contributed to that marked difference in character between the two
branches of the Russian race. During the period from the eleventh to the
thirteenth centuries, as colonization advanced, from the basin of the
Dnieper to the basin of the Volga, the divisions of Little Russia and
Great Russia were formed.

(6) The principalities of Kiev, Tchernigov, Novgorod-Seversk, Riazan,
Murom, and Suzdal, which formed the marches of Russia on the borders of
the steppe with its devastating hordes--constituting its frontier states.
On the confines of the northwest, opposite the Lithuanians, the Letts
and the Tchuds, the same rôle devolved on the principality of Polotsk,
occupying the basin of the Dvina, and on the republican principalities
of Novgorod and Pskov on the lakes of Ilmen and Petpus. The principality
of Minsk was attached to that of Polotsk. It was situated in the basin
of the Dnieper and, owing to that circumstance, its possession was
frequently disputed by the grand princes of Kiev. The towns of Torzhok,
Volok-Lamski, Izborsk, and Veliki Luki belonged to Novgorod; at times
they were the capitals of individual states.

Southwestern Russia comprehended (1) in the fan-shaped territory formed
by the Pripet and its tributaries--Volhinia, with Vladimir in Volhinia,
Lutsk, Turov, Brest, and even Lublin, which is unquestionably Polish;
(2) in the basins of the San, the Dniester, and the Pripet--Galicia
proper, or Red Russia, whose ancient inhabitants, the white Croats,
seem to have originated in the Danubian Slavs. Its principal towns were
Galitch, founded by Vladimirko about 1444; Peremishl; Terebovlia, and
Svenigorodka. The near neighbourhood of Hungary and Poland contributed
to these two principalities distinctive characteristics, as well as a
more advanced civilisation. In the epic songs Galicia, the land of the
hero Dvorik Stepanovitch, is a country of fabulous wealth. _The Narrative
of the Expedition of Igor_ gives an exalted idea of the power of its
princes: “Iaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia,” cries the poet addressing one
of them, “high art thou seated upon thy golden throne! With thy iron
regiments thou guardest the Carpathian mountains, thou shuttest the gates
of the Danube, thou barrest the way to the king of Hungary; at will thou
openest the gates of Kiev, and thine arrows reach far into the distance.”


THE UNITY OF THE PRINCIPALITIES

The disposition of these fifteen or sixteen principalities confirms
what has been previously stated concerning the essential unity of the
configuration of the Russian soil. None of the river-basins forms a
closed or isolated region; no line of heights establishes between them
barriers or political frontiers. The greater number of the Russian
principalities belonged to the basin of the Dnieper, but pushed their
limits everywhere beyond. Kiev, with Pereiaslavl, is the only one
strictly confined within it; but Volhinia puts the basin of the Dnieper
in communication with those of the Bug in the south and of the Vistula;
Polotsk connects it with the basins of the Niemen and the Dvina,
Novgorod-Seversk with that of the Don, Tchernigov and Smolensk with that
of the Volga. Between these principalities, water-courses everywhere
establish communications. Russia, though divided into appanages, was
already making toward a great united empire. The lack of cohesion among
nearly all the states and their frequent dismemberments prevented their
becoming actual nationalities. The principalities of Smolensk, of
Tchernigov, of Riazan never possessed that definite historical existence
so characteristic of the duchy of Brittany or the county of Toulouse in
France, the duchies of Saxony, Swabia, or Bavaria in Germany.

The interests of the princes and their ambition to provide an appanage
for each of their children, necessitated at the death of every sovereign
a fresh distribution of Russian territory. Yet a certain cohesion was
evident in the midst of these vicissitudes. There was visible a unity
of race and language, the more marked, notwithstanding differences of
dialect, in that the Russian Slavs, excepting in the southwest, were
surrounded everywhere by entirely dissimilar peoples--Lithuanians,
Tchuds, Finns, Turks, and Magyars. There was also unity of religion;
the Russians were differentiated from nearly all their neighbours in
that, in contradistinction to the Slavs of the west, the Poles, Czechs,
and Moravians, they represented a distinct form of Christianity,
acknowledging no tie with Rome and rejecting Latin as the church language.

There was also a unity of historical development, since hitherto the
Russian Slavs had all followed the same destiny, had equally accepted
Greek civilisation, submitted to Varangian conquest, and pursued in
common certain great enterprises, such as the expeditions against
Byzantium and the wars with the nomads. There was finally political
unity, as among all--in Galicia as in Novgorod, by the Dnieper as in
the forests of Suzdal--the same family sat upon all the thrones. All
the Russian princes were descended from Rurik, from St. Vladimir, and
from Iaroslav the Great. The civil wars which desolated the country
affirmed anew this unity. No state in Russia could regard the rest as
outsiders, when the princes of Tchernigov and Suzdal were seen to take
up arms solely to decide which among them was the eldest--which held the
right to the title of grand prince and to the throne of Kiev. There were
descendants of Rurik who governed successively the most distant states
in Russia, and who, having reigned at Tmoutarakan on the straits of
Ienikale, at Novgorod the Great, at Toropetz in the country of Smolensk,
finished by obtaining recognition of their right to reign over Kiev.[b]


THE THEORY OF SUCCESSION

[Illustration: A KORIAK]

If the question be asked why the Russian state continued undivided
throughout the two hundred years of the Varangian period, our answer is
that it was due solely to the fact that during the greater part of this
period the grand princes left one son and heir. Whenever the case was
otherwise, as after the death of Sviatoslav and Vladimir, the brothers
straightway entered upon a struggle for mastery that did not terminate
until all but one were destroyed. That one then became undisputed master,
for no one dared dispute the possession of power with the descendants of
Rurik.

The theory of succession in the Rurik family was as follows: the grand
prince of Kiev was lord paramount of Russia. He disposed of all vacant
principalities, and was supreme judge and general; but each of his
brothers had, according to his seniority, the right of succession to
the throne. The death of every elder brother brought the younger ones
a step nearer to that goal. The order of advance was from Smolensk to
Pereiaslavl, from Pereiaslavl to Tchernigov, from Tchernigov to Kiev.
But none could attain to the highest dignity, save him whose father had
held it before him. Sons of a father who had died before reaching the
goal were excluded from Kiev and were confined to the possessions in
their hands at the time of their father’s death. The technical Russian
term for those members of the Rurik family who were excluded from the
highest dignity was Isgoi, and the attempts of the Isgoi to break through
the law of exclusion have had no small share in the bloody and desolate
history of Russia during the period upon which we now enter. But another
factor contributed to the same end. The power of the grand prince was
not so predominant as to enable him to enforce his will and put down
disobedience. His position was based on the idea of patriarchal power,
and was respected by the princes only when it was to their advantage. To
maintain himself he had to resort to the expedient of making coalitions
with some of the princes against the others, and the sword was the final
arbiter between the grand prince and his nominal vassals.[c] Accordingly
the whole of Russia was always divided in its support of the claims of
this or that candidate. The civil wars which ensued were after all but
family quarrels.[a]


CIVIL WARS

[Sidenote: [1055-1069 A.D.]]

Iaroslav left five sons. To Iziaslav, the oldest, he gave Kiev; to
Sviatoslav, Tchernigov; to Vsevolod, Pereiaslavl; to Viatcheslav,
Smolensk; and to Igor, Vladimir in Volhinia. The order in which they are
given here represents the order of their respective dignities and their
position in the line of succession. Two of the brothers did not long
survive their father. In 1056 Viatcheslav died, and Igor, in accordance
with the law of succession, moved to Smolensk, where he too died in 1060.

About this time a new wave of migration set in from Asia towards the
south-Russian steppe--the Turkish tribe of the Polovtsi. In 1055 Vsevolod
of Pereiaslavl concluded peace with them by bribing them to retire
into the steppe. In 1061 he suffered a defeat at their hands, but they
did not follow up their success and again retired into the steppe. The
civil wars, however, which soon broke out, were to bring them back as an
ever-menacing plague to the Russian population.

[Illustration: SVIATOSLAV]

Among the minor princes, who were excluded from the succession, was
Vseslav of Polotsk, a descendant of St. Vladimir. He had helped his
uncles in a war against the Torks, a tribe kindred to the Polovtsi, and
expected a reward in an accession of territory. Being disappointed,
he determined to help himself. First he ravaged the territory of
Pskov, but being unable to take that city, he invaded the territory of
Novgorod, and it seems that for a while he was master of the city. His
bold procedure compelled his uncles Iziaslav, Sviatoslav, and Vsevolod
to unite against him; but, though beaten by their superior forces, he
could not be expelled from the north. The uncles thereupon resorted to
treachery. They proposed to him a friendly meeting under a guarantee of
his personal security and liberty, which they confirmed by an oath upon
the cross. But when he had reached the vicinity of Smolensk, beyond the
Dnieper, he was surprised, captured, and brought to Kiev, where he was
imprisoned. At this juncture the Polovtsi made another of their raids
and defeated the united forces of the brothers, so that Sviatoslav was
obliged to take refuge at Tchernigov, while Iziaslav and Vsevolod fled
to Kiev. There they intended to await the nomad hordes behind the walls
of the cities, sacrificing the open country to the invaders. But the
citizens of Kiev thought differently. At a stormy meeting of the _vetché_
it was decided to take up arms, and when Iziaslav refused to lead them
against the enemy they liberated Vseslav from his confinement and made
him their prince (1068). Iziaslav was obliged to flee to Poland, where
he found a champion in Boleslav the Bold. Menaced in front by the Poles,
and suspicious of his uncles in his rear, Vseslav thought himself obliged
to flee to Polotsk, leaving the Kievans to the vengeance of Iziaslav
(1069). The events of two generations previous, when Boleslav the
Brave captured Kiev for Sviatopolk, were now to be repeated. The Poles
demeaned themselves as masters and committed many excesses. The Kievans
bore it for a year; then exasperated, fell upon the Poles, who were
scattered in their various quarters, and compelled Boleslav to evacuate
the city. After protracted fighting and negotiations, Polotsk was finally
restored to Vseslav, and the old order seemed re-established, when the
two brothers of Iziaslav became suspicious of his designs and suddenly
appeared before Kiev. Iziaslav now fled for the second time, Sviatoslav
became grand prince, while Vsevolod advanced to the principality of
Tchernigov.

[Sidenote: [1075-1078 A.D.]]

Iziaslav left nothing unattempted to regain his position. He had escaped
with his treasure into Poland, but Boleslav was unwilling to renew his
former adventure. The German king Henry IV, whom Iziaslav met at Mainz
in January, 1075, was more favourably disposed and sent an embassy to
Sviatoslav; but it accomplished nothing. Iziaslav also entered into
negotiations with pope Gregory VII, to whom he sent his son Iaropolk. The
pope hoped to be able to annex Russia to the western church, and even
went so far as to grant it to Iaropolk as a fief from the holy see.

But meanwhile Sviatoslav died (1076) and Vsevolod, a man whose mild
character did not exclude the possibility of a peaceful settlement,
became grand prince. Boleslav now lent troops to Iziaslav (1077), and
though Vsevolod marched against him with an army of his own, yet they
soon came to terms. Iziaslav was to be reinstated grand prince for the
third time, while Vsevolod was to retire to Tchernigov, in return for
which he was secured in the succession. Thus Iaropolk’s plans came to
naught, and with them the hope of a reunited church.

However, Vseslav of Polotsk did not yet give up his ambitious designs.
Foiled in his attempt on the throne of Kiev, he tried to create an empire
for himself in the Russian north, and it required three campaigns of
the south-Russian princes to annul his plans. It was during these wars
that Vladimir Monomakh, son of Vsevolod and son-in-law of King Harold of
England, first distinguished himself, though not in a glorious manner.
He was the first Russian prince to engage in a domestic quarrel the
Polovtsi, with whose aid he ravaged the city and principality of Polotsk.
Vseslav died in 1101 as prince of Polotsk, and his memory lived long
after him in the traditions of the people, by whom he was regarded as a
sorcerer. The _Song of Igor_ tells how he accomplished in one night a
march from Kiev to Tmoutorakan, and how he could hear at Kiev the ringing
of the church bells at Polotsk.

Russian dynastic conditions had now been restored to the legal order,
and there seemed nothing left to disturb the tranquillity. But the
cupidity of the grand prince soon brought on new dissensions among the
members of the house of Rurik. Viatcheslav and Igor died at an early age,
leaving minor sons whom their uncle refused to provide with appanages.
They therefore tried to gain their right by force. Boris, a son of
Viatcheslav, temporarily got hold of Tchernigov, but being unable to
maintain himself in that city he fled to Tmoutorakan, the last refuge
of all the discontented. There he was soon joined by his brother Gleb,
who was expelled by Iziaslav from Novgorod, and by another brother from
Volhinian Vladimir, both of whose appanages were divided among the sons
of Iziaslav and Vsevolod. In the civil war which followed, the nephews at
first had the advantage and captured Tchernigov; but they were defeated
in a decisive battle fought near that city on the third of October, 1078.
Both the grand prince Iziaslav and Boris fell, and Oleg was obliged to
flee once more to Tmoutorakan.


_Vsevolod_

[Sidenote: [1078-1093 A.D.]]

Iziaslav was succeeded by Vsevolod, whose reign (1078-1093) was even more
unfortunate than his brother’s had been. He too favoured his own sons and
those of Iziaslav at the expense of his other nephews and in consequence
the sons of Sviatoslav and Igor and of his nephew Rostislav waged against
him unremitting warfare with the aid of the Polovtsi and Chazars, who
wasted the country. Vsevolod’s attempt in 1084 to conquer Tmoutorakan,
the breeding-place of revolts, failed miserably. Finally even Iaropolk,
the son of Iziaslav, who had received so many favours from his uncle,
revolted against him and was assassinated during the war. In those days
of turmoil and confusion, even old Vseslav ventured forth once more from
Polotsk and plundered Smolensk. The grand prince was ill most of the
time at Kiev and the conduct of his affairs lay in the hands of his son
Vladimir Monomakh.


_Sviatopolk_

Vsevolod died April 13th, 1093, leaving two sons, Vladimir Monomakh, who
held Tchernigov, and Rostislav, who held Pereiaslavl. He was succeeded by
Sviatopolk, the second son of Iziaslav, who was the rightful successor
after the death of his brother Iaropolk, who, it will be remembered,
was assassinated. Monomakh could easily have made himself grand prince,
for he was the most popular of the princes and gained great fame in his
campaigns against the Polovtsi, whom he defeated twelve times during the
reign of his father; but he was anxious to avoid violating the law of
succession and thus inviting civil war.

[Illustration: SVIATOPOLK]

Sviatopolk’s reign began with a violation of the law of nations by
imprisoning ambassadors of the Polovtsi, who had come to negotiate a
treaty with him. In retaliation the nomads invaded the country, and with
so great a force that Vladimir and Rostislav, who had come to the aid
of the grand prince, advised him to purchase peace from the enemy. He
paid no heed to them, but the event soon justified the prudence of their
counsel. In the battle of Tripole, fought on May 23rd, 1093, the Russians
sustained a disastrous defeat. Rostislav was drowned, while Sviatopolk
and Vladimir saved themselves by flight. The next year’s campaign against
the Polovtsi was equally disastrous, and Sviatopolk returned to Kiev
with but two companions. Tortchesk was compelled to capitulate, and the
nomads returned to the steppe rich with booty and prisoners. Sviatopolk
now bought peace and took to wife a daughter of the Polovtsian khan.
They returned, however, the same year under the leadership of Oleg, son
of Sviatoslav, who had stayed till now in Tmoutorakan and thought the
moment opportune for enforcing his undoubted rights upon Tchernigov,
which had been the original seat of his father as the second son of
Iaroslav, and which was held by Monomakh, who was the son of Iaroslav’s
third son.

Oleg, was therefore, no Isgoi and would not be treated as such. When he
appeared before Tchernigov, Monomakh had only a small band with him, and
after a siege of eight days was compelled to evacuate the city and retire
to Pereiaslavl, where he had to defend himself during the next three
years against continual irruptions of the Polovtsi. The refusal of Oleg
to join in a combined campaign of the princes against the Polovtsi, and
the sudden capture of Smolensk by his brother David, gave the occasion
for a general war that lasted two years and covered the whole territory
of Russia, from Novgorod to Murom and thence to the steppe, and in
course of which one son of Monomakh fell in battle, while two other sons
suffered a decisive reverse at the hands of Oleg. Finally, a congress
of princes was held at Lubetz, in the territory of Tchernigov, for the
settlement of all existing disputes. The result of its deliberations was
that the grand prince was to retain Kiev and Turov, while to Vladimir
were assigned Pereiaslavl, Smolensk, and Rostov; Novgorod to his son
Mstislav, and Tchernigov with all its dependencies to the sons of
Sviatoslav--Oleg, David, and Iaroslav. The latter thus gained possession
of the greater part of Russia. There still remained to be satisfied the
three Isgoi, Volodar, and Vassilko, sons of Rostislav, and David, son of
Igor. Of the former two, Volodar received Peremishl, Vassilko received
Terebovl, while Vladimir in Volhinia was given to David. Polotsk remained
in the hands of Vseslav.

[Sidenote: [1097-1110 A.D.]]

The congress of Lubetz (1097) brought a respite to the sorely tried
Russian north, but the south was soon subjected to new calamities.
Vassilko, son of Rostislav, was revolving in his mind extensive plans of
conquest in Poland, among the Danubian Bulgarians, and finally against
the Polovtsi. He had begun making extensive preparations, and had taken
into his pay several nomad hordes. David of Volhinia, who was ignorant
of Vassilko’s plans, became alarmed at these warlike preparations, began
to suspect a conspiracy between Monomakh and Vassilko, and succeeded
in inoculating the grand prince with his own alarms and suspicions.
Vassilko was allured to Kiev to attend a religious festival, and there
he was captured, thrown into chains, dragged to Bielgorod, and blinded
in an unspeakably cruel manner. The horror of the bloody deed resounded
throughout Russia. Monomakh united his forces with those of his old
enemies, the sons of Sviatoslav, and marched upon Kiev. The grand prince
tried to clear himself of blame and throw the guilt upon David, and peace
was arranged through the mediation of the metropolitan of Kiev and of
Monomakh’s mother.

The grand prince took upon himself the obligation to revenge the outrage
on Vassilko, who was surrendered to Volodar; and David was obliged to
flee to Poland (1099). The grand prince annexed David’s territory, and
then turned, most unjustifiably, against the sons of Rostislav. Defeated
by Volodar, he formed an alliance with Koloman, king of Hungary. The
alliances now assumed a most unexpected and distorted character. David
united with the Rostislavitchi and with Buiak, khan of the Polovtsi;
and at Peremishl defeated the grand prince and his allies. The war,
the horrors of which were increased by repeated raids of the Polovtsi,
seemed to draw out without end or aim, when finally Monomakh convoked a
second congress of the princes, which met in August, 1100, at Uvetitchi,
on Kievan territory. The result of its deliberations was that only a
few towns of Volhinia were left to David, the greater part of the
principality being transferred to Iaroslav, son of Sviatopolk; while the
Rostislavitchi were to remain in the undiminished possession of their
territories.

[Sidenote: [1111-1116 A.D.]]

Thus order was restored for some time, but the direction of affairs
really passed out of the hands of the grand prince into those of
Monomakh. Under his leadership the Russian princes were now united
against the Polovtsi, and there ensued a series of campaigns of which no
clear account has come down to us. The Russians generally had the upper
hand, but for a long time the balance wavered, and the enemy seemed so
dangerous to the princes that, following the example of Sviatopolk, they
entered into matrimonial alliances with him. Thus Monomakh, as well as
the two sons of Sviatoslav, David and Oleg, took Polovtsian wives for
their sons. But the year 1111 witnessed a decisive campaign, in which
Monomakh is again seen at the head of the Russian princes. After crossing
the Dnieper and the Vorskla, the Russians pressed on into the enemy’s
country as far as the Don. Two Polovtsian cities were taken, and one was
reduced to ashes; the Don was crossed, and on March 24th and 26th a great
battle was fought. The Russians were on the Sula, the last tributary of
the Don before reaching the sea of Azov, in a most unfavourable position
and surrounded from all sides by the Polovtsi. But the scales were turned
when the drujinas of David and Monomakh, which had been kept all the time
in the rear, made a terrific onset on the exhausted enemy, who fled in
panic. According to tradition, angels preceded the Russians and smote the
Polovtsi with blindness.


_Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125 A.D.)_

After a reign filled with civil war and misfortune Sviatopolk died (April
16th, 1113), and all eyes turned toward Monomakh. Legally, however, the
throne belonged to his cousin Oleg, son of Sviatoslav, and Monomakh
seemed at first resolved to recognise his superior right. But the Kievans
were determined to accept no one but Monomakh, and an uprising of
theirs, which was directed primarily against the Jews, whom Sviatopolk
had employed for fiscal purposes, but which threatened to assume larger
dimensions, induced him to yield to the universal demand. Thus the
race of Sviatoslav--otherwise called the Olgovitchi--was excluded, and
Monomakh succeeded in bringing a large part of Russia under his house.
During his reign he continued the wars against the Polovtsi, as well
as against the Finns in the north and east, and the Poles in the west.
The steppe was cleared so thoroughly that tradition, with its customary
exaggeration, says that he forced the Polovtsi back into the Caucasus.

His relations with the Byzantine Empire have not yet been sufficiently
cleared up. He himself was the son of a Byzantine princess, and his
daughter Maria was married to Leo, son of the unfortunate emperor
Romanus Diogenes, who was blinded in 1071 and banished to an island.
Leo then made an attempt at revolt against Alexius Comnenus, but was
poisoned in 1116. Vladimir now espoused the cause of Leo’s son Basil
and sent an army to the Danube, which returned without accomplishing
its purpose. According to a later tradition, which arose under the
influence of Moscow, the emperor Alexius Comnenus, in order to put an
end to the devastation of Thrace by the Russian troops, sent to Vladimir
a diadem and other imperial insignia through Neophyte, metropolitan of
Ephesus, who put the diadem on Vladimir’s head and called him czar. But
contemporary accounts tell us nothing of all this, and it is inherently
improbable that Byzantium would bestow upon the Russian grand prince,
who was no longer formidable, a title whose exclusive possession it so
jealously guarded. On the other hand, it is known that in 1122, or six
years after the supposed campaign to Thrace, a granddaughter of Monomakh
was married to a prince of the house of Romanus.

[Sidenote: [1122-1125 A.D.]]

But the greater portion of Monomakh’s military activity fell into the
reigns of his two predecessors. He was in his sixty-first year when he
became grand-prince, and he naturally avoided all fighting as far as
it could be avoided, employing force only when requisite to maintain
his position as overlord of Russia. As far as circumstances permitted,
he was a prince of peace, and a number of most important legislative
measures are attributed to him, especially the laws relating to usury
and to the half-free (_zakupi_). Russia had suffered very severely from
the civil wars and the raids of the Polovtsi, and men of small property
were reduced to extreme poverty. Being unable to maintain themselves on
their wasted lands, they went to live in large numbers on the estates of
the rich, who sought to reduce them to absolute slavery, or else they
borrowed money at usurious rates and soon sank into a servile condition.
To remedy this ruinous state of affairs, Monomakh reduced the rate of
interest from 120 per cent. to 20 per cent., and decreed that one who had
paid one year’s interest according to the old rate, was thereby absolved
from his debt. He also ordered the expulsion of the Jews from the whole
of Russia.[9] But the problem of the _zakupi_ could not be solved in this
summary fashion. According to the regulations adopted they were to be
regarded as free men who had become bound to the soil by contract, but
who retained the right to acquire property and were not subject to the
master’s jurisdiction. A half-free man loses his freedom only when he
attempts to escape from his master. It was also fixed what payments and
services he was to render, and it was made impossible for the lord to
reduce him to a condition of unrestricted serfdom.

Monomakh died in 1125, at the ripe age of seventy-three. He has left us a
curious paper of instructions to his sons, which dates from 1117, and in
which he gives them much sound advice, enforced by examples from his own
life.[c]


_The “Instruction” of Vladimir Monomakh_

The grand prince begins by saying that his grandfather Iaroslav gave
him the Russian name of Vladimir and the Christian name of Vasili, and
his father and mother that of Monomakh; either because Vladimir was
really through his mother the grandson of the Greek emperor Constantine
Monomachus, or because even in his tenderest youth he displayed
remarkable warlike valour. “As I draw near to the grave,” writes he, “I
give thanks to the Most High for the increase of my days. His hand has
led me to a venerable age. And you, my beloved children and whosoever
reads this writing, observe the rules set forth in it. When your heart
does not approve them, do not condemn my intentions, but only say: The
old man’s mind was already weakened.” Having described in their chief
features, and for the greater part in the words of the Psalmist, the
beauty of the works and the goodness of the Creator, Vladimir continues:

“O my children! give praise to God and love also mankind. Neither
fasting, nor solitude, nor monastic life shall save you, but good deeds.
Forget not the poor, feed them; and remember that every possession is
God’s, and only confided to you for a time. Do not hide your riches in
the bowels of the earth: this is against the law of Christianity. Be
fathers to orphans; judge the widows yourselves: do not let the strong
destroy the weak. Do not slay either the righteous or the guilty: the
life and soul of the Christian are sacred. Do not call upon the name of
God in vain; ratify your oath by kissing the cross, and do not transgress
it. My brothers said to me: Let us drive out the sons of Rostislav
and take their possessions, otherwise thou art no ally of ours! But
I answered: I cannot forget that I kissed the cross. I turned to the
Psalter and read with compunction: ‘Why art thou so vexed, O my soul? O
put thy trust in God, for I will yet thank him. Fret not thyself because
of the ungodly: neither be thou envious against the evil doers.’ Do not
forsake the sick and do not fear to look upon the dead: for we shall
all die; receive the blessing of the clergy lovingly; do not withdraw
yourselves from them; do good unto them, for they shall pray to the Most
High for you.

“Do not have any pride either in your mind or heart, and think: we are
but mortal; to-day we live, to-morrow we are in the grave. Fear every
lie, drunkenness and fornication, equally pernicious for the body and
the soul. Esteem old people as fathers, love the young as brothers. In
your household see carefully to everything yourselves, do not depend
either on your pages or bailiffs, that your guests may not blame either
your house or your dinner. Be active in war, serve as an example to
your captains--it is no time then to think of feasting and luxury. When
you have set the night watch, take your rest. Man perishes suddenly,
therefore do not lay aside your arms where you may meet danger; and
get to horse early. When you travel in your dominions, do not let the
princely pages be a cause of offence to the inhabitants, but wherever you
stop give your host food and drink. Above all, respect your guests and do
them honour, both the distinguished and the supplicants, both merchant
and ambassador; if you cannot give them presents, at any rate regale
them with food and drink, for guests spread good and evil reports of us
in foreign lands. Greet every man when he passes by. Love your wives,
but do not let them have an authority over you. Everything good that you
learn, you must remember; what you do not know, learn. My father, sitting
at home, spoke five languages, for which those of other lands praised
him. Idleness is the mother of vices; beware of it. A man should ever be
occupied; when you are on the road, on horseback, without occupation,
instead of indulging in idle thoughts repeat prayers by heart--or the
shortest, but best prayer of all, ‘Lord have mercy!’ Never sleep without
bowing yourself down to the earth; and if you feel unwell, bow down to
the earth three times. Let not the sun find you in your bed! Go early
to church to render morning praise to God: so did my father; so did all
good men. When the sun shone on them, they praised God joyfully and said:
‘Lighten mine eyes, Christ God, and give me Thy beauteous light.’ Then
take counsel with the droujina, or judge the people, or go to the chase;
and at midday sleep, for God has ordained that not only man but also the
beasts and birds should rest at midday.

“Thus lived your father. I myself did all that could be ordered to a
page; at the chase and at war, day and night, in the heat of summer and
the cold of winter I knew no rest. I did not put my trust in burgomasters
or heralds, I did not let the strong give offence to the poor and widows,
I myself supervised the church and the divine service, the domestic
organisation, the stables, the chase, the hawks and the falcons.”
Enumerating his military exploits, Vladimir thus writes: “My campaigns
were in all eighty-three; the other smaller ones I do not remember. I
concluded nineteen treaties of peace with the Polovtsi, took prisoners
more than a hundred of their chief princes and let them go free, and I
had more than two hundred put to death and drowned in the rivers. Who has
travelled faster than I? Starting early from Tchernigov, I was at Kiev
with my parents before vespers. We loved the chase, and often trapped and
caught beasts with your grandfather. How many times have I fallen from my
horse! Twice I broke my head, injured my arms and legs, without caring
for my life in youth or sparing my head. But the Lord preserved me. And
you, my children, fear neither death nor combats, nor wild beasts, but
show yourselves men in every circumstance sent from God. If providence
decrees that a man shall die, neither his father nor his brothers can
save him. God’s protection is man’s hope.”

If it had not been for this wisely written testament, we should not have
known all the beauty of Vladimir’s soul; he did not lay waste other
states, but was the glory, the defender, the consolation of his own, and
none of the Russian princes has a greater right to the love of posterity,
for he served his country jealously and virtuously. If once in his life
Monomakh did not hesitate to infringe the law of nations and perfidiously
slay the Polovtsian princes, we can but apply to him the words of Cicero,
“The age excuses the man.” Regarding the Polovtsi as the enemies of
Christianity (they had burned the churches), the Russians thought that
the destruction of them--no matter in what manner--was a work pleasing to
God.[d]


_The Fall of Kiev and the Rise of Suzdal_

[Sidenote: [1132 A.D.]]

In the forty-four years that followed the death of Vladimir Monomakh, the
over-lordship passed eighteen times from one hand to another, the average
duration of governments being only two years and a half, and the dignity
attaching to the grand princedom declined in rapid progression until it
sank to a complete nullity. With this constant change of rulers, the
devastation and barbarisation of south Russia proceeded apace, so that it
soon ceased to be the centre of political life. A rapid review of these
evil years will suffice for an understanding of the causes that brought
about this retrogression.

We have seen that Vladimir Monomakh reached the throne of the grand
princedom in violation of the superior right of the Olgovitchi. He
succeeded in bringing the greater part of Russia under his sons.
Mstislav, the eldest, held Kiev and southern Russia, while his sons were
in Novgorod, Kursk and Smolensk; Iaropolk held Pereiaslavl; Viatcheslav,
Tourov; Iuri, Suzdal; and Andrew, Vladimir in Volhinia. On the other
hand, the princes of Polotsk were independent; the descendants of
Rostislav ruled in Red Russia or Galicia; and the descendants of Oleg,
in Tchernigov, Murom, Riazan, erstwhile the land of the Viatitchi and
Radimitchi, and in the extreme southeast, Tmoutorakan. With union among
the descendants of Monomakh and with strong grand princes at Kiev, south
Russia might have been able to maintain its ascendancy notwithstanding
its unfavourable proximity to the steppe; but these conditions did not
exist. Monomakh’s first successor, Mstislav, did, indeed, maintain his
position, and even annexed Polotsk, whose princes fled to Greece. But he
soon died (1132), and his successor, the brave but wavering Iaropolk,
sowed the seeds of discord in his family by bestowing Pereiaslavl upon
the eldest son of Mstislav and naming him his successor. Therewith
he offended his own younger brothers, one of whom, Iuri Dolgoruki
(Longhand), sought to maintain his right by force. The prince of
Pereiaslavl found support among the Olgovitchi, who were delighted at
the sight of quarrels among the descendants of Monomakh. One of the
Olgovitchi, Vsevolod by name, raised himself to the grand princedom by
utilising these quarrels (1139-1146). But immediately after his death
his brother was overthrown, and Iziaslav, son of Mstislav, became grand
prince (1146-1154). Twice he was expelled by Iuri Dolgoruki, and only
maintained himself by making one of his uncles the nominal ruler.

[Sidenote: [1146-1157 A.D.]]

[Illustration: A MORDIRNE WOMAN (ERGIAN TRIBE)]

After his death the turbulence and confusion increased still further. His
brother Rostislav of Smolensk was expelled after one week’s reign by the
prince of Tchernigov, who was expelled in his turn by Iuri Dolgoruki.
The latter might have shared the same fate, for a confederation of the
princes of Smolensk, Tchernigov, and Volhinia had already been formed
against him, but for his timely death (1157). One of the confederates
ruled for eight months, and then he had to make room for his successor,
who ruled four months. In the eighty-three years that elapsed between
the death of Iuri and the capture of Kiev by the Mongols, the government
changed hands thirty times. How much the importance of Kiev and the
dignity of the grand princedom had declined at this period, we can
estimate from the refusal of Andrew of Suzdal, son of Iuri Dolgoruki,
to take the throne, though he came next in the line of succession.
He rightly comprehended that the future belonged to the Russian
north, rather than to the south, and it was his constant endeavour to
consolidate his power in that quarter; and when one of those powerless
grand princes, Mstislav Iziaslavitch, attempted to strengthen himself by
forming an alliance with Novgorod, Andrew brought about a combination of
eleven princes against him. After a three days’ siege Kiev was taken by
assault and plundered for two days (March, 1169), and Andrew’s brother
Gleb was then installed as grand prince of Kiev. The decay of the south
is attributable chiefly to the following causes:

(1) Its geographical position exposed it to the constant inroads of
the nomads of the steppe. This evil, it is true, existed from remotest
times, but its seriousness was increased by the action of the Russian
princes themselves, who employed the nomads in their civil wars. Many of
these nomads, Torks, Berendians, and Petchenegs, settled on the Ros and
Dnieper, meddled in Russian affairs, and contributed to the barbarising
of the country. (2) Every new grand-prince brought with him into Kiev
a new following from his own principality. These foreign elements
contributed ever anew to the unsettling of existing conditions, and
prevented the growth of a landed aristocracy that had its roots in the
soil, and of a burgher class. The establishment of a political tradition
thus became impossible. (3) The trade with Greece had greatly declined
owing to the increasing dangers of the journey to the sea, and more than
once the princes were obliged to defend caravans to and from Byzantium
with their entire army.

[Sidenote: [1157-1175 A.D.]]

But while the south was decaying, a new centre was forming in the
north that was destined to gather around itself the whole of Russia,
the principality of Suzdal-Rostov. The city of Rostov, situated in the
country of the Finnish Merians, was one of the oldest in Russia, and it
is reported that Rurik had bestowed it on one of his warriors. Suzdal
also arose at an early date, at the latest toward the end of the ninth
century. The early history of the region is not known to us, but we know
that Iaroslav founded the city of Iaroslavl, that it was temporarily
united to Novgorod, and that after the death of Sviatoslav II (1076)
it was merged in the principality of Pereiaslavl. Vladimir Monomakh
founded Vladimir on the Kliasma, a tributary of the Oka, and built a
church at Rostov. The congress of Lubetz assigned the entire territory to
Monomakh’s sons, and Iuri Dolgoruki became the first independent prince
of Rostov. Although this prince always looked to the south, yet the
colonisation of the north made rapid progress during his reign. We know
that three cities were founded by him, and the chronicle also attributes
to him the foundation of Moscow in 1147. Suzdal was his capital. When he
became grand-prince of Kiev he bestowed this whole country upon his son
Vassilko, while he gave Vishgorod, to the north of Kiev, to his eldest
son Andrew.

But the latter had no liking for the south, and fled from Vishgorod with
a miracle-working image of the Virgin, which he deposited in a church
that he built at a place where he had a vision and which he called
Bogolubovo (God’s love). After the death of his father, in 1157, Rostov
and Suzdal refused to obey his younger brothers and called in Andrew,
who was also joined by those of his father’s followers who had fled
from Kiev. But it is most characteristic of the man and his far-sighted
policy that he made no claims to the throne of Kiev, nor did he establish
himself at Rostov or Suzdal but stayed at Vladimir, where there were no
old families nor refractory citizens to deal with. His brothers, his
nephews, the boyars of his father, he expelled from his dominions and
made himself sole ruler. In 1169 he gave Kiev to his brother Gleb, but he
took to himself the title of grand prince. To become the virtual master
of the whole of Russia he only needed to subject Novgorod, and though the
combination of princes that he formed against it was routed before its
gates, yet he ultimately succeeded, by cutting off its supply of corn, in
compelling it to acquiesce in his supremacy and to accept the prince that
he chose for it.

This first would-be autocrat of Russia also comprehended the importance
of making the clergy subservient to his will. He tried to make his
capital Vladimir independent of Kiev in church affairs by establishing
in it a metropolitan, and though he failed in his object, owing to the
determined refusal of the patriarch of Constantinople, yet he succeeded
in obtaining the important concession that in future the Russian
metropolitan was to be appointed only with the assent of the grand prince.

[Sidenote: [1205-1221 A.D.]]

His despotic and cruel rule finally made him hated by his nobles, and he
was assassinated on June 29th, 1175, at Bogolubovo. After a period of
confusion his second brother, Vsevolod, became grand prince. During this
reign the influence of Suzdal was still further increased, and the entire
north, and even the Olgovitchi of Tchernigov, recognised his supremacy.
In the west and south, however, Roman Mstislavitch of Volhinia, who
conquered Galicia and ruled temporarily at Kiev, offered a successful
resistance. But after the death of the latter in battle with the Poles
in 1205, Vsevolod conquered Riazan, and even deprived the Olgovitchi
of Tchernigov, giving them Kiev in exchange. This prince, like his
predecessor, attained his object by diplomacy rather than by the sword,
and at his death in 1212 he was the most powerful prince in Russia.

His death was followed by a civil war between his two sons Constantine
and Iuri. The latter, though the younger, was nominated by Vsevolod
as his successor, but in 1217 he was beaten by Constantine and his
allies--Novgorod amongst them--and compelled to resign the throne.
But Constantine died in 1218 and Iuri reigned undisturbed till 1237.
He fought with success against the Volga Bulgarians, and founded
Nijni-Novgorod (1221). But his power never became as great as had been
that of his father, and he exerted no influence in southern Russia, which
was devastated by Petchenegs from the steppe and by Poles and Hungarians
from the west. All south Russia now lay exhausted before the impending
irruption of the Tatars.[c]


FOOTNOTES

[9] [They were during the Middle Ages the representatives of the
money-power throughout Europe--a foreign element in the “natural economy”
of that time. Hence the universal hatred against them.]

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER III. THE TIME OF TATAR DOMINATION


[Sidenote: [1235-1462 A.D.]]

In the thirteenth century the steppes of central Asia sent forth a
new conquering horde, constituting the last wave of that migration of
peoples which had commenced in remote antiquity.[10] This Mongol-Tatar
horde dominated Russia for 240 years and left enduring traces of its
domination. It definitively broke the bond between western and eastern
Russia, and thus contributed to the formation of the principality of
Lithuania in the west; while in the east it promoted the rise of the
principality of Moscow, which finally absorbed all the other Russian
principalities, threw off their Tatar yoke, recoiled in its turn upon
the steppe, and finally, by turning Russia into an empire, made forever
impossible another invasion from the steppe.

The cradle of the Mongolian race was in all probability the country
lying at the foot of the Altai Mountains. At the time of the appearance
of Jenghiz Khan the Mongols were divided into numerous tribes, which
were governed by their elders and lived in mutual enmity. An unpleasing
description of the exterior and life of the Mongols is given by a Chinese
writer, a contemporary of Jenghiz Khan, and also by Mussulman writers:

“Their faces are wide, flat, and square, with prominent cheek-bones,
their eyes have no upper lashes, their beard and moustaches are of scanty
growth, their general appearance is repulsive. But the present Tatar
sovereign, Temuchin (Jenghiz Khan) is of enormous stature, with broad
forehead and long beard, and distinguished for his valour. They reckon
the year according to the growth of grass. When one of them is asked
for his age, he replies--so many grasses. When asked for the number of
the month, they laugh and reply that they do not know. The Tatars are
born in the saddle and grow up on horseback. They learn to fight almost
by instinct, for they hunt the whole year round. They have no infantry,
but only cavalry, of which they can raise several hundred thousand. They
hardly ever resort to writing, but all, from the commander-in-chief to
the commander of ten, give their orders in person. When they want to take
a big town, they first attack the small places in the vicinity, take all
the inhabitants prisoners, and drive them forward to the attack. For this
purpose a command is issued that every man on horseback should capture
ten prisoners, and when this number is completed they are compelled to
collect a certain amount of grass or wood, earth or stones. The Tatars
urge them on night and day, killing those who become exhausted. Having
reached the town, they are compelled to dig trenches or fill up fosses.
In a siege the Tatars reck not of the loss of tens of thousands: hence
they are invariably successful. When they capture a city they kill
all without sparing either young or old, the beautiful or the ugly,
rich or poor, those who submit or those who resist. No person, however
distinguished, escapes this unrevokable penalty of death. The spoil is
divided in proportionate shares among high and low. This people have no
need of baggage or provision wagons; their herds of sheep, cows, horses,
and other animals follow them on their marches, and they eat meat and
nothing else. Their horses do not know barley, but they tear up the
ground with their hoofs and live on the roots. As to their faith, the
Tatars worship the sun at the time of its rising. They do not regard
anything as forbidden, and eat all animals, even dogs and pigs. Marriage
is unknown to them, but many men come to a woman, and when a child is
born it does not know its father.”

Similar descriptions are met with in the narratives of Europeans who knew
the Mongols in the days of their power.


JENGHIZ KHAN; THE TATAR INVASION

It was among this rude nomad people that Jenghiz Khan was born in 1162.
The son of the chief of a tribe dwelling at the mouths of the Onon and
the Ingoda, affluents of the Amur, Jenghiz was far removed from the
focus of central Asian political life, and his power was originally very
small. The first forty years of his life were spent in struggles with
the surrounding peoples; it is even said that for ten years he was in
captivity with the Nyûché, or Chûrché (the Manchurian rulers of northern
China known under the name of the dynasty of Kin), during which time
he became acquainted with Chinese customs and manners, and also with
the weakness of the rulers of China. Having conquered various Mongolian
tribes, he proclaimed himself emperor at a general assembly of the
princes, which was held at the sources of the river Onon (1206).

“By thus taking the imperial title,” says V. P. Vasiliev, “he gave
perfect expression to the purely Chinese conception that, as there is
only one sun in the heavens, so there must be only one emperor on earth;
and all others bearing this title, all states having any pretensions
to independent existence thereby offend the will of heaven and invite
chastisement.” His successes in Mongolia are explained by his surpassing
military talent, the system of purely military organisation adopted by
him, and by the fact that he gave places in his service to all those
who were gifted, of whatever race they might be.[11] Jenghiz Khan’s
conquests advanced rapidly; in 1206 he devastated the kingdom of Tangut
(in southern Mongolia) and in 1210 he commenced a war with the Nyûché,
ruling in northern China. The war dragged on, and meanwhile the shah of
Khuarezm (Bokhara) gave offence to Jenghiz Khan by slaying the Mongolian
ambassadors. Leaving his captains in China, the Mongolian khan marched
to Bokhara (1219), whence, partly in pursuit of the shah and partly led
on by the passion for pillage, the Mongolian troops directed their way
to the west, doubled the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, crossed the
Caucasus, and penetrated into the steppes of the Polovtsi.

[Sidenote: [1223-1228 A.D.]]

The leaders of these troops were Chépé and Subutai Bahadar. The Polovtsi
applied for help to the Russian prince Mstislav Mstislavitch, and he
called together the princes of southern Russia, amongst whom the most
important were Mstislav Romanovitch of Kiev and Mstislav Sviatoslavitch
of Tchernigov. The armies of the princes moved to the help of the
Polovtsi, and although the Tatars sent ambassadors saying, “God has
permitted us to come on our steeds with our slaves against the accursed
Polovtsi; come and make peace with us, for we have no quarrel with you,”
the princes decided upon a battle which took place by the river Kalka in
the government of Iekaterinoslav. The Russian princes, who did not act in
unison, were beaten (1223), and many were killed, amongst others Mstislav
of Kiev. The Tatars did not penetrate far into Russia, but turned back
and were soon forgotten.[12] Meanwhile the Tatar captains returned to
Jenghiz Khan, who, having definitively subdued Tangut and northern
China, died in 1227. He had during his lifetime divided his possessions
amongst his four sons: to the descendants of Juji (then already dead) was
allotted Kiptchak (that is the steppe extending from central Asia into
southern Russia); to Jagatai, Turkestan; to Okkodai (Ogdai) China; to
Tuli, the nomad camps adjoining the share of Okkodai. Over these princes
was to be exalted the great khan, chosen in a solemn assembly of all the
princes. In 1228 Okkodai was proclaimed great khan.

[Sidenote: [1237-1241 A.D.]]

At first the question of succession, then the final consolidation of the
empire in northern China, and then again the commencement of the war with
the south kept the princes around the great khan, and it was only in 1235
that Okkodai sent his nephew Batu, son of Juji, together with Manku, son
of Tuli, and his own son Kuiuk, to conquer the western lands; to their
number was added Sabutai, famous for his Kiptchak campaign. First of all
they conquered the Bulgarians on the Volga, and then came to the land of
Riazan. Here they exacted from the princes a tribute of a tenth of all
their possessions both in lands and in men; the courageous resistance
of the Riazan princes proved unsuccessful, chiefly because the princes
of northern Russia did not unite, but decided on defending themselves
separately. After the devastation of Riazan and the slaughter of her
princes (1237), followed that of Suzdal. Having taken Moscow, the Tatars
marched to Vladimir, where they slew the family of the grand prince,
while he himself was defeated and killed on the banks of the Sit (1238).
Thence they were apparently going to Novgorod, but returned--probably to
avoid the marshes. On their way back, Kozelsk detained them for a long
time, but it was finally taken and pillaged.

The tactics of the Tatars in this war consisted in first encompassing
each region as hunters do, and then joining forces at one centre, thus
devastating all. In the years 1239-1240 the Tatars ravaged southern
Russia, and in 1240 they took and laid waste Kiev. All Europe trembled
at the horrors of the Tatar invasion; the emperor Frederick II called
for a general arming, but his calls were in vain. Meanwhile the Tatars
advanced to Hungary (1241) and Poland, and defeated the Polish princes
at Liegnitz in Silesia; and it was only the courageous defence of
Olmütz in Moravia, by the Czech voyevod Iaroslav, and the gathering of
armies under the command of the Czech king and the dukes of Austria and
Carinthia, that finally caused the Tatars to turn back. They then founded
their chief dwelling place on the Volga, where near the present town of
Tsareva (government of Astrakhan) they established a wintering place
for the horde--Sarai. There the Russian princes began to arrive with
tribute. At first, however, they were obliged to go to the great khan in
Mongolia; for the first khans, Okkodai, Kuiuk, and Mangku, were lawfully
chosen by the princes, and maintained their authority over all the
empire of Jenghiz Khan; and it was only from the time of Kublai (1260),
who arbitrarily took possession of the throne and removed the seat of
government to China, that the bond was definitively severed.


INFLUENCES OF TATAR DOMINATION

The domination of the Tatars over Russia is regarded by historians from
various points of view: some (such as Karamzin and especially N. I.
Kostomarov) ascribe a decided influence to the Tatars in the development
of Russian life. S. M. Soloviov, on the contrary, is of the opinion that
the influence of the Tatars was not greater than that of the Polovtsi.
Both these opinions are extreme: it is senseless to deny the influence
of the Tatars, for the reason that Russia was long associated with
them, and that, since in her intercourse with the east, Moscow employed
Tatar services, much that was eastern entered into the administration,
notably the financial system; traces of eastern custom may also be
found in the military organisation. These are direct consequences; the
indirect ones are hardly less important, because a considerable share in
the interruption of civilisation and the roughening of the manners and
customs of the people may be ascribed to the separation of eastern Russia
from western. On the other hand, it is impossible to regard the corporal
punishments as entirely Tatar, for they were known in Byzantium, and came
to Russia in the manuals of church statutes; they were known also in the
west, and are to be met with in places which were but little under Tatar
domination, such as Pskov. The opinion that the autocratic power had its
origin in the domination of the Tatars must, it would seem, be entirely
rejected, especially when we call to mind the constant preaching of the
clergy, and the fact that John the Terrible directly appeals to the
authority of the Bible and the example of the Roman emperors.

Civilisation and letters were almost unknown to the Tatars. The writers
in their chanceries were for the greater part taken from the nations they
had conquered, as were also the artists who embellished the wintering
places of their khans. Much luxury was to be met with amongst them,
but neither elegance nor cleanliness: in this respect they kept to the
very end the customs of the Mongolian steppes. Also in moral respects
they showed themselves dwellers of the steppes even to the end of their
career in history. Cruel and coarse though they were, they possessed,
however, some good qualities. They were temperate in their lives, and
their cupidity was not so great as that of other Asiatic nations; they
were far less given to deceit in trade--in general, with them, violence
predominated over deceit.[b]

Throughout all of their conquests in Russia, they obviously acted upon
a principle which was well calculated to facilitate their own complete
ascendency. At first they destroyed the walled places that stood in
the way of their projects, and afforded a means of defence to the
people; they destroyed the population wherever they went, in order that
the remnant which survived should feel the more surely the weight of
their power; and, at length, as their advance became the more safe and
certain, they relaxed slightly in their cruelties, enrolling under their
standard the slaves they captured, thus turning their conquests into
armaments. But the climate of Russia rendered it an unsuitable place
for their location. As they could not remain upon the soil which they
had vanquished, they established themselves on the frontiers to watch
over their new possessions, leaving nominal Russian princes to fight for
them against the invading tribes that continually rushed in. Those very
invasions served also to strengthen the Tatar yoke, by weakening the
resisting power of the natives.[d]

In conquering Russia they had no wish to take possession of the soil, or
to take into their own hands the local administration. What they wanted
was not land, of which they had enough and to spare, but movable property
which they might enjoy without giving up their pastoral, nomadic life.
They applied, therefore, to Russia the same method of extracting supplies
as they had used in other countries. As soon as their authority had been
formally acknowledged they sent officials into the country to number the
inhabitants and to collect an amount of tribute proportionate to the
population. This was a severe burden for the people, not only on account
of the sum demanded, but also on account of the manner in which it was
raised. The exactions and cruelty of the tax-gatherers led to local
insurrections, and the insurrectionists were of course always severely
punished. But there was never any general military occupation nor any
wholesale confiscations of land, and the existing political organisation
was left undisturbed. The modern method of dealing with annexed provinces
was wholly unknown to the Tatars. The khans never for a moment dreamed
of attempting to Tatarise their Russian subjects. They demanded simply
an oath of allegiance from the princes, and a certain sum of tribute
from the people. The vanquished were allowed to retain their land, their
religion, their language, their courts of justice, and all their other
institutions.

[Illustration: A FEMALE SAMOYED]

The nature of the Tatar domination is well illustrated by the policy
which the conquerors adopted towards the Russian church. For more than
half a century after the conquest the religion of the Tatars was a
mixture of Buddhism and paganism, with traces of sabaism or fire-worship.
During this period Christianity was more than simply tolerated. The grand
khan Kuiuk caused a Christian chapel to be erected near his domicile,
and one of his successors, Khubilai, was in the habit of publicly taking
part in the Easter festivals. In 1261 the khan of the Golden Horde
allowed the Russians to found a bishopric in his capital, and several
members of his family adopted Christianity. One of them even founded a
monastery, and became a saint of the Russian church! The orthodox clergy
were exempted from the poll tax, and in the charters granted to them it
was expressly declared that if anyone committed blasphemy against the
faith of the Russians he should be put to death. Some time afterwards
the Golden Horde was converted to Islam, but the khans did not on that
account change their policy. They continued to favour the clergy, and
their protection was long remembered. Many generations later, when the
property of the church was threatened by the autocratic power, refractory
ecclesiastics contrasted the policy of the orthodox sovereign with that
of the “godless Tatars,” much to the advantage of the latter.

At first there was and could be very little mutual confidence between
the conquerors and the conquered. The princes anxiously looked for an
opportunity of throwing off the galling yoke, and the people chafed under
the exactions and cruelty of the tribute collectors, whilst the khans
took precautions to prevent insurrection, and threatened to devastate
the country if their authority was not respected. But in the course of
time this mutual distrust and hostility greatly lessened. The princes
gradually perceived that all attempts at resistance would be fruitless,
and became reconciled to their new position. Instead of seeking to throw
off the khan’s authority, they sought to gain his favour, in the hope
of thereby forwarding their personal interests. For this purpose they
paid frequent visits to the Tatar chief, made rich presents to his wives
and courtiers, received from him charters confirming their authority,
and sometimes even married members of his family. Some of them used the
favour thus acquired for extending their possessions at the expense of
neighbouring princes of their own race, and did not hesitate to call
in Tatar hordes to their assistance. The khans, in their turn, placed
greater confidence in their vassals, entrusted them with the task of
collecting the tribute, recalled their own officials who were a constant
eyesore to the people, and abstained from all interference in the
internal affairs of the principalities so long as tribute was regularly
paid. The princes acted, in short, as the khan’s lieutenants, and became
to a certain extent Tartarised. Some of them carried this policy so far
that they were reproached by the people with “loving beyond measure the
Tatars and their language, and giving them too freely land, and gold, and
goods of every kind.”[c]


ALEXANDER NEVSKI

[Sidenote: [1245 A.D.]]

The recognition of Tatar sovereignty was complete in the homage and
tribute they demanded and received. Every prince was forced to solicit
his investiture from the khan of Kiptchak; and even when Iaroslav was
established as grand prince over the rest, Batu cunningly allowed several
rivals to put in their claims to that authority, and obliged them to wait
so long for his decision that the order of succession remained unsettled.
This state of suspense in which the feudal lords were kept, and a series
of famines which followed the destructive march of the Tatars, plunged
the country into a condition of abject wretchedness.

During this period of indecision on the one hand, and forlorn imbecility
on the other, the Lithuanians succeeded in appropriating to themselves
some portions of the northwestern division of Russia; and the Swedes, and
Danes, and Livonian knights of the sword proceeded to make demonstrations
of a descent upon Novgorod. Alexander, however, who had succeeded his
father in that principality, finding that the grand prince was unable to
render him any assistance towards the defence of the city, anticipated
the advance of the intruders, and giving them battle on the banks of the
Neva gained a decisive victory. He immediately built strong forts on the
spot to repel any future attempts, and returned in triumph to Novgorod.
So signal was the overthrow of the enemy that Alexander was honoured by
the surname of Nevski, in commemoration of the achievement.

Flushed with a triumph as unexpected as it was important, Alexander
Nevski desired to enlarge the bounds of his power at home. The army
was warmly attached to him, for his personal intrepidity was no less
remarkable than his sagacity--qualities which were rarely so strongly
developed in so young a man. The Novgorodians, however, always jealous
of their municipal privileges, and suspicious of the motives of their
rulers, resisted the extension of Alexander’s power, and, apprehensive
that he would abuse his advantages, they remonstrated against his
proceedings, and at last broke out into open rebellion. The proud spirit
of the young prince was justly offended at the impetuous revolt of his
subjects, and he retired at once from the city, going over to his father
at Vladimir, to request the aid of a sufficient force to restore order.
But Iaroslav, in the conviction of his own inadequacy, was unwilling
to interfere with the wishes of the Novgorodians; and, conferring upon
Alexander the inferior principality of Pereiaslavl, he sent another of
his sons, at the request of the people, to reign over the disaffected
province.

The Novgorodians, however, speedily discovered their error. The Danes,
induced to speculate upon the absence of Alexander, a second time
appeared within the boundary, and the new prince, an inexperienced young
man, made choice of such measures as clearly proved him to be unfit for
his office. The people became dissatisfied, and, being now convinced that
Alexander was the only man who could relieve them in their difficulty,
petitioned him to return; but he indignantly rejected the request.
A second embassy, headed by the archbishop, was more fortunate, and
Alexander Nevski once more placed himself at the head of the army, and
obtained a second victory over the invaders. Resolved to profit by the
obligations under which he laid his subjects by resuming, at their own
instance, the reins of government, and by freeing them from the presence
of a dangerous foe, he now pushed on to Livonia, and routed the combined
forces of a triple alliance of Germans, Danes, and Tchuds, on the borders
of Lake Peipus. This exploit, which the youthful hero achieved in the
year 1245, not only obtained him the love and admiration of his own
subjects, but speedily spread his name through every part of the empire,
until it finally reached the court of the Golden Horde, where it elicited
an unusual degree of curiosity and applause.

In the person of the prince of Novgorod, a new dawn of hope broke over
Russia, and nothing but the disheartening feuds of the chiefs checked
the growth of that incipient desire for liberty which the influence of
his successes was calculated to create. Alexander was adapted to the
occasion; and if the disunited sovereigns could now have consented to
forego their low animosities, and to merge their personal differences in
the common cause, Alexander was the instrument of all others the most fit
to undertake the conduct of so gallant an enterprise. But it required an
extraordinary combination of circumstances to awaken the Russian princes
to a full sense of their degradation, and to inspire them with resolution
to set about the rescue of their country from the chains of the spoiler.
Alexander’s example was useless. He could do no more than demonstrate the
possibility of improvement within the reach of his own domain; but for
all purposes of a national and extensive character, his exertions failed
to procure any favourable results.

[Sidenote: [1252 A.D.]]

On the death of the grand prince Iaroslav, whose reign appears to have
passed unmarked by any events of importance, the khan invited or rather
summoned Alexander to the horde. A number of competitors or claimants
for the grand princedom had already brought forward their petitions:
some were lingering in person at the court; others were represented
by ambassadors bearing rich tributes; and all were in a state of
considerable anxiety pending the decision of the Tatar. Alexander
alone was silent. The fame of his deeds had preceded him. He did not
come to supplicate for an honour to which he felt that he possessed
an unexceptionable claim, but he attended as a point of duty, without
reference to a nomination that could hardly increase his popularity.
His independent bearing, his manly figure, and the general candour
and fearlessness of his manners gained him at once the confidence
and admiration of the khan, who did not hesitate to assure him that,
although he had heard much in his favour, report had fallen short of his
distinguished merits.

Auspicious, however, as this reception was, it did not terminate in
Alexander’s appointment to the suspended sceptre of Vladimir. The
policy of the Tatar was to keep the order of succession in periodical
uncertainty, so that the Russians might the more distinctly see how much
the destinies of the country depended on his supreme will. It was not
until Alexander paid a second visit to the horde, in 1252, that he was
raised to the dignity of grand prince. It was accorded to him in a very
gracious spirit, and he entered upon his new office with more earnest
zeal than had for a long time before been displayed by his predecessors.

The first act of the grand prince was an expedition against Sweden,
undertaken with two objects: (1) to crush a formidable foe that
occasionally harassed the frontier districts; and (2) to give employment
and opportunity for pillage to his numerous army, which he had already
taught to calculate upon the rewards of spoliation. The expedition
terminated in victory. The triumphant army laid a part of the Swedish
territory under contribution, succeeded in capturing a number of
prisoners, and returned home laden with spoils.

These successes and the skilful policy of the grand prince made the
most favourable impression on the mind of the khan, who now, whenever
dissensions arose amongst the princes, either referred the adjustment
of their differences to Alexander, or confiscated their dominions and
annexed them to the grand princedom. Two instances of the latter
description may be recorded as evidences of the cunning displayed by
the Tatar in the protection of the Greek religion. While Alexander was
at the height of his prosperity, the prince of Kiev, affected by some
sudden admiration of the Roman Catholic ritual, signified his submission
to the pope, acknowledging his holiness’s supremacy over the churches of
his principality. Another prince, his brother-in-law, adopted a similar
measure, which was equally offensive to Tatars and Russians. The khan,
irritated by proceedings so directly at variance with his will, deprived
them of their authority, and transferred their territories to the grand
prince, who, according to some writers, was even assisted by the Tatars
in seizing upon them.

The tribute which had been originally imposed upon the Russians by
their conquerors had always been levied by the princes, the khan being
satisfied to receive it at their hands. As the power of Alexander
increased, the khan gradually recalled this system of delegation,
and adopted a more strict and jealous mode of collection. The first
contribution was raised upon the princes, as tribute money, and they
were left to procure it amongst their subjects as well as they could.
But it now assumed the shape of a tax on persons and property. In order
to ensure the regularity of its payment, and protect the khan against
evasions, Tatar officers were appointed in every district to attend
exclusively to the rigid collection of the revenue. From this tax,
which was imposed without distinction upon every Russian, and rated
according to his means, the clergy alone were exempt: and even they, in
one instance, were attempted to be taxed in later times; but the khan
who sought to enforce it was obliged to yield to the double argument of
long-established usage and weighty presents from the wealthy monks.

The new burthen lay heavily upon the people, and the mode in which
it was enforced through foreign collectors, of the nation of their
oppressors enhanced its mortifications. Universal discontent followed
the tax-gatherers. They were treated with unreserved displeasure. It was
with great difficulty they could carry into effect the objects of their
unpopular mission, and in some places, particularly the cities where the
population was more compact, and the communication of opinion more rapid
and complete, they were received with execration. This resistance on
the one hand no doubt produced increased severity on the other; and as
the levy advanced, the people became less cautious in the exhibition of
their feelings, and the collectors more rigorous and despotic. Novgorod,
which had always been the rallying point for the assertion of freedom in
Russia, took the lead in this revolt against the khan’s authority. The
Novgorodians, to a man, refused to pay the tax, and even threatened to
wreak their vengeance upon the officers who were appointed to collect it.
The prince of Novgorod, one of Alexander’s sons, urged to extremities by
his republican advisers, sanctioned these declarations of independence,
and openly signified his determination to prevent the exactions of so
ignominious a tribute within the districts dependent upon his rule.
Alexander, perceiving, in this dangerous obstinacy of his son, the source
of serious calamity to the empire at large, and knowing well that neither
the Novgorodians, nor any other fraction of the Russian people, were
in a condition to resist the powerful armies of the khan, should he be
provoked to compel compliance at the point of the sword, undertook in
person to appease the growing tumult, and presenting himself in the city,
rebuked the inhabitants for having perilled the safety of the country by
their contumacy, severely punished rash advisers of his son, and finally
arranged the payment of the tax to the satisfaction of the Tatar offices.
Still the Novgorodians were not content. They remonstrated against the
unequal pressure of the tax, setting forth that it fell more grievously
upon the poor than upon the rich, and that if they were obliged to submit
to such a penalty, it should at all events be adjusted proportionately to
the means of individuals. Even this difficulty Alexander was enabled to
meet by assuming the responsibility of the payment himself, a vexatious
and ungrateful duty, which, however, he willingly accepted, as it
afforded him the means of quelling discontents that might have otherwise
terminated in a sanguinary convulsion.[d]


_Death of Alexander Nevski; Appreciation of His Character_

[Sidenote: [1263 A.D.]]

In 1262, disturbances arose in the country of Rostov, where the people
became exasperated at the violence of the Tatar collectors of tribute;
a council was called together and the collectors were driven out of
Rostov, Vladimir, Suzdal, Pereiaslavl, and Iaroslavl; in the last
mentioned town the enraged inhabitants killed the collector Izosim, who
had embraced Mohammedanism to become a Tatar tax-gatherer, and persecuted
his former fellow-citizens worse than the Tatars themselves. Naturally
such an occurrence could not be calmly passed over by the horde, and
Tatar regiments were already sent to take the Christians into captivity.
In order to avert this calamity from the people, Alexander repaired a
fourth time to the horde; he was evidently successful, possibly because
of the Persian War which was then greatly occupying the khan Bergé.
But it was his last work; he left the horde, where he had passed the
whole winter, a sick man, and died on the way back to Vladimir on the
14th of November, 1263; “having laboured greatly for the Russian land,
for Novgorod and Pskov, for all the grand princedom, and having given
his life for the orthodox faith.” By preserving Russia from calamities
on the east, and by his famous exploits for faith and country in the
west, Alexander gained for himself a glorious memory throughout Russia
and became the most conspicuous historical personage in Russian history
from Monomakh to Donskoi. A token of this remembrance and fame is to be
found in the special narrative of his exploits that has come down to
us. “The grand prince Alexander Iaroslavitch,” says the author of the
narrative, “conquered everywhere, but himself was nowhere conquered;”
there came to Novgorod from the western countries a famous knight, who
saw Alexander, and when he returned to his own land he said: “I have
gone through many countries and nations, but nowhere have I seen such a
one, no such king among kings and no such prince among princes;” and a
similar honourable mention was made of him by the khan. When, after the
death of his father, Alexander came to Vladimir, his coming was terrible,
and the news of it flew even to the mouth of the Volga, and the Moabite
women began to frighten their children by saying: “Be quiet, the grand
duke Alexander is coming!” It happened once that ambassadors were sent
to him from great Rome by the pope, who had commanded them to speak to
Alexander as follows: “We have heard of thee, O Prince, that thou art
honourable and wonderful, and that thy country is great, therefore have
we sent unto thee two of the wisest of our twelve cardinals, that thou
mayest hearken to their teaching.” Alexander, having taken counsel with
his wise men, wrote down and described to the pope all that had taken
place from the creation of the world to the seventh œcumenical council,
and added: “All this is well known unto us, but we cannot accept your
teachings.” Following in the footsteps of his father, Alexander gave much
gold and silver to the horde to ransom prisoners. The metropolitan Cyril
was in Vladimir when he heard of the death of Alexander, which he thus
announced to the people: “My beloved children! learn that the sun of the
land of Russia has set;” and all the people cried out in reply: “Then we
perish!”[e]

“It was as vassal and agent of the khan,” says Brueckner, “that Alexander
broke the resistance of Novgorod and compelled it to pay tribute. On
the one hand representing the interests of the khan and repressing the
revolts of the Russians, on the other hand mollifying the anger of the
khan and acting like a shrewd diplomat, Alexander represents a curious
combination of egotism and patriotism. We are not in the possession
of sufficient evidence to form a just estimate of the measure of his
services or of his opportunistic policy, but he is certainly a most
interesting character in that unfortunate and disgraceful period of
Russian history.”[i]


_The Grand Princedom_

With the death of Alexander commenced afresh the hurtful contests of the
princes for the grand princedom. The division of interests which had
gradually grown up amongst the Tatars, greatly increased the internal
disorders of Russia. Nogay, the Tatar chieftain, who had thrown off the
rule of the khan of Kiptchak, asserted his sovereignty in the southern
provinces, and contended against his rival of the horde, for the right
of tribute in many districts which had hitherto acknowledged implicitly
the government of the first conqueror. This strife between the ruling
powers produced much treachery amongst the Russian princes, who generally
allied themselves to the chief who happened at the moment to obtain
the ascendency, and who thus played a false game to assist them in
the accomplishment of their own individual objects. In this way they
wasted their strength; for whenever a prince profited by the sale of his
allegiance, he paid so dearly for the assistance which procured him the
end he had in view, that the gain in such a case was usually discovered
to be a severe loss. The grand princedom was the prize for which they all
struggled; and in the contentions which marked the struggle, almost every
inferior principality became more enfeebled than before.

Alexander Nevski was one of the few great men whose names stand apart
from the tumultuous throng that crowd the early pages of Russian history.
He was a wise statesman, and a brave soldier. His victories over the
enemies of his country were not less remarkable for completeness and
brilliancy, than his measures of domestic improvement were distinguished
by prudence and foresight. The Danes, the Swedes, the Lithuanians,
and the Teutonic knights severally gave way before him: he enlarged
the bounds of his territory, inspired his army with a fresh spirit of
activity, rebuilt several Russian cities that had been destroyed during
the Tatar invasions, and founded others in well-chosen situations.
Russia, under his sway, might have redeemed her fallen fortunes; but
the unnatural hostility of the feudal princes to the grand princedom,
their hatred to any chief whose virtues elevated him above them, and
their ruinous conflicts amongst themselves upon insignificant grounds
of quarrel, paralysed the efforts of Alexander, and deprived him
of the power of rendering that service to his country which he was
eminently qualified to confer. His fame was so universal, that his
death gave opportunity to the display of a fresh burst of superstitious
feelings. His approaching decease was said to have been notified to
the metropolitan by a voice from heaven; and as the body lay in the
coffin, the dead man was said to have opened one of his hands, as the
prayer of absolution was spoken by the officiating clergyman. These
miracles obtained Alexander a niche amongst the Russian saints; and,
less in honour of his real merits than his attributed powers, he was
duly canonised after death. Some centuries subsequently, a monastery
was raised to his memory by Peter I, and his relics were removed to
St. Petersburg with extraordinary ceremonies of devotion. An order of
knighthood was afterwards instituted in his name, which ranks amongst its
members some of the monarchs of Europe. These facts connected with the
reputation of Alexander Nevski in Russia are memorable, as proofs of the
veneration in which he was held.[d]

The khans committed a serious fault in preserving a grand prince; it
was a still more striking one, and a consequence of the first, to place
in his hands a sovereignty disproportioned to those by which he was
surrounded, to select him for too long a time from the same branch, and
to give him armies to establish himself, and the means of seducing even
themselves by the most costly presents. The consequence of this was, that
the appanaged princes dared not enter so readily into a contest with the
grand princes, who were already more powerful than themselves, and were
so formidably supported. Not daring to contend with them, they turned
their arms against each other, and thus enhanced by their own weakness
the strength of the grand princes.

Nevertheless, till 1324, that is, for a century posterior to the Tatar
invasion, the power of the grand princes was doubtful; but then, amidst
the crowd of pretenders to the grand princedom, two rival branches made
themselves conspicuous, and the other princes of the blood resigned to
them an arena, in which the scantiness of their own resources no longer
permitted them to appear. One of these branches was that of the princes
of Tver; the other that of the princes of Moscow.[g]


THE GROWING ASCENDENCY OF MOSCOW

[Sidenote: [1303-1313 A.D.]]

[Illustration: MUSCOVITE WOMAN]

Moscow becomes a princely appanage at a rather late date, although it is
mentioned in the chronicle as early as 1147. The place is also called
Kutchkovo. With this appellation there is connected a tradition, which
seems quite trustworthy, that Moscow had belonged to a certain Kutchka,
and the chronicle also speaks of the Kutchkas as relatives of the wife of
Andrew Bogoliubski and of his murderers. It seems that the first prince
of Moscow was Michael Iaroslavitch, who died in 1248. Other princes are
mentioned as having been at Moscow before that time, but it is difficult
to decide whether they resided there temporarily or permanently. The
true line of Moscow princes begins with Daniel Alexandrovitch [a son of
Alexander Nevski], who died in 1303 and was succeeded by his son Iuri,
the famous rival of the Tver princes.[b]

Iuri married, in 1313, the sister of Usbek Khan. It was then that, after
having excited the hatred of the Novgorodians, in persisting to subdue
them by means of the Tatars, Michael of Tver drew down upon his head all
the wrath of Usbek, by defeating Iuri, and taking prisoners his wife, who
was the khan’s sister, and Kavadgi, a Tatar general, who came to put the
prince of Moscow in possession of the grand princedom.

For Usbek, after having preferred and supported the rights of Michael of
Tver to the grand principality, had changed his mind in favour of Iuri of
Moscow, who had become his brother-in-law. The enmity of Usbek, however,
remained suspended, until his sister, the wife of Iuri, and the prisoner
of Michael, expired at Tver. Iuri then hastened to the horde, and accused
Michael of having poisoned the princess. The offended pride of Usbek lent
itself to this base calumny; he entrusted the investigation of the affair
to Kavadgi; appeared to the summons; the vanquished passed sentence on
his vanquisher, whom he caused to be put to death; and the infamous Iuri
of Moscow was appointed grand prince in the place of his murdered rival
(1320). His triumph was short: being accused of withholding the tribute
due to the khan, he journeyed to the horde, and was assassinated by the
son of his victim, who was himself immediately executed by Usbek. This
vengeance restored the grand principality to the branch of Tver, in the
person of Prince Alexander Michael’s second son. It remained in it for
three years; but then, in 1328, this madman caused all the Tatars at Tver
to be massacred. To the brother of Iuri, Ivan I, surnamed Kalita,[13]
prince of Moscow, Usbek immediately gave Vladimir and Novgorod, the
double possession of which always distinguished the grand princedom.
This concession formed, in the hands of Ivan, a mass, the connection of
which Tver, weakened as it was, did but little diminish. Consequently,
with this power, and the troops that Usbek added to it, Ivan speedily
compelled all the Russian princes to combine, under his orders, against
the prince of Tver; who, after having undergone various misfortunes, was
executed with his son at the horde.

Here begin the two hundred and seventy years of the reign of the branch
of Moscow. This first union of the Russians, under Ivan I, denominated
Kalita, constitutes an epoch; it exhibits the ascendancy of this second
grand prince of Moscow over his subjects; an ascendancy the increase
of which we shall witness under his successors; and for which, at
the outset, this branch of the Ruriks was indebted to the support
they received from the Tatars. For as a word from the khan decided
the possession of the throne, that one of the two rival branches of
Moscow and Tver was sure to triumph which displayed the most shrewd and
consistent policy towards the horde. It was not that of the princes of
Tver which thus acted. On the contrary they sometimes solicited the
protection of the khans, and sometimes fought against them; we have even
seen one of them ordering the massacre of the Tatars in his principality.

The princes of Moscow pursued a different system; they no doubt,
detested the yoke of the khans as much as their rivals did; but they
were aware that, before they could cope with the Tatars, the Russians
must be united, and that is was impossible to subject and unite the
latter without the assistance of the former. They therefore espoused the
daughters of the khans, manifested the utmost submission to the horde,
and appeared to be wholly devoted to its interests.

Now this policy, which, at the commencement of the Mongol invasion
acquired for Alexander Nevski the empire of all Russia, gave it,
seventy-four years later, still more completely to Ivan I: for the sway
of the Tatars was then more recognised; the Russians were more docile to
their yoke; and the cities, which composed the grand principality were
more powerful in themselves, and also by comparison with the rest of
Russia, which became daily more and more exhausted. The wealth of Ivan I
was another cause of the extension of his power.

[Sidenote: [1323 A.D.]]

The complaints of the prince of Tver, in 1323, prove that Iuri I,
grand prince of Moscow, when he undertook to execute the vengeance of
his brother-in-law Usbek, against Tver, was also entrusted with the
collecting of the tributes; which, however, he retained, instead of
sending them to the horde. Ivan Kalita, his brother and successor,
profited by this example. Thus it was, that by making themselves
lieutenants of the khan, the Muscovite grand princes first became the
collectors, and finally the possessors, of the taxes throughout the whole
of Russia; and thus they succeeded to all the rights of conquest enjoyed
by the Tatars, and to their despotism.

There can be no doubt that one of the most copious sources of power to
those sovereigns was the periodical census and the perpetual imposts,
so alien to feudalism, and especially to a feudalism of princes:
these imposts and censuses nothing but the Tatar conquest could have
established, and they were inherited by the grand princes. Already, in
the first half of the fourteenth century, these taxes had rendered Ivan
Kalita rich enough to purchase entire domains and appanages,[14] the
protection of Usbek Khan, and the preference of the primate, who removed
his residence from Vladimir to Moscow, by which means the latter city
became the capital of the empire.

It was by virtue of his authority as collector for the Tatars that Ivan
Kalita practised extortion upon his subjects. We see him requiring a
double tribute from the Novgorodians, under pretext that such was the
will of the khan. Armed against the Russians with the dread inspired by
the Tatar name, and against the Tatars with the money of the Russians;
intoxicating the khan and his courtiers with gold and adulation in his
frequent journeys to the horde; he was enabled, as lord paramount, to
bring about the first union of all the appanaged princes against his
competitor, the prince of Tver, whom he drove from Pskov and from Russia,
being aided by the primate with the thunder of the church, then heard in
the empire for the first time. The nobility imitated the clergy. Impelled
either by fear, or cupidity, several boyars of other princes rallied
round this grand prince, preferring the fiefs of so rich and so potent a
lord paramount to those of the petty princes whom they abandoned.

Ivan Kalita pushed forward with horrible vigour in his ambitious career.
“Woe, woe to the princes of Rostov!” exclaims Nicon, “because their power
was destroyed, and everything was concentrated in Moscow.” In fact, from
the Kremlin, which he fortified, Ivan proclaimed himself the arbiter of
his kinsfolk; he reigned in their principalities by the medium of his
boyars; he arrogated to himself the right of being the sole distributor
of fiefs, judge, and legislator; and if the princes resisted, and
dared to wage against him a war of the public good,[15] he hurried to
the horde, with purse in hand, and denunciation on his lips; and the
short-sighted Usbek, deceived by this ambitious monitor, was impolitic
enough to disembarrass him of the most dangerous of his competitors, whom
he consigned to frightful torments. The prince of Tver and his son were
the most remarkable victims of this atrocious policy.

Meanwhile, Lithuania, which, from the period of the first overwhelming
of Russia by the Tatars, had emancipated itself from its yoke, had now
become a conquering state. About 1320, Gedimin, its leader, seized on
the Russian appanages of the south and west, which had long ceased to
be dependent upon the grand principality of Vladimir. Kiev, Galitch,
Volhinia, became sometimes Lithuanian, sometimes Polish or Hungarian:
driven to despair, their inhabitants emigrated; they formed the two
military republics of the Zaparogians and Cossacks of Don. Rallying
around them the unfortunate of all countries, they were destined to
become one day strong enough to make head against the Turks and Tatars,
between whom they were situated; and thus to embarrass the communication
between those two peoples, whom a common religion, origin, and interest
conspired to unite.

The grand principality was, on the other hand, repeopled by unfortunate
fugitives from the southern Russian provinces, who sought refuge at
Moscow. The empire, it is true, lost in extension; but it was thus
rendered more proportionate to the revived power of its grand prince, who
had also fewer competitors in it: those who remained could not, in point
of resources, be compared with the grand principality. After all, it was
much better that the latter should one day have to recover some provinces
from a foreign foe, than from its domestic enemies: it was suffering an
external evil instead of an internal one, which is the worst of all.

Thus, the macchiavellism of Ivan prospered. It is true that, by the
confidence with which he inspired the horde, and the terrible war which
he waged against his kinsmen, he restored to Russia a tranquillity to
which she had long been a stranger. A dawning of order and justice
reappeared under a sceptre acquired and preserved by such horrible acts
of injustice; the depredations to which Russia had been a prey were
repressed; commerce again flourished; great marts and new fairs were
established, in which were displayed the productions of the East, of
Greece, and of Italy; and the treasury of the prince was swelled still
further by the profit arising from the customs.[16]

Such were the rapid effects of the first steps which Ivan took to execute
the system of concentration of power; this great political impulse was so
vigorously given, that it was perpetuated in his son Simeon the Proud,
to whom Ivan left wherewithal to purchase the grand princedom from the
horde, and in whom he revived the direct succession. Accordingly, Simeon
effected, against Novgorod, a second union of all the Russian princes.
It is to be remarked, that he was obliged to cede one half of the taxes
to his brothers; but, at the same time, he reserved to himself the whole
authority, which soon gives to its possessor the mastery of the revenue.

[Sidenote: [1353 A.D.]]

Simeon having died without children, in 1353, after a reign of twelve
years, Ivan II, his brother, purchased the sovereignty with the wealth
of Kalita. After the six years’ reign of Ivan II, this system and this
order of succession were, indeed, transiently interrupted in the person
of a prince, alien to the branch of Moscow; but we shall soon see the
great Dmitri Donskoi establish them as fixed principles; that prince
did not neglect to increase the wealth[17] of his grandfather Ivan. The
people had given to Ivan the surname of The Purse; as much, perhaps, with
allusion to his treasures, as to the purse, filled with alms for the
poor, which is said to have been always carried before him. At a later
period, the constantly progressive riches of the grand princes of Moscow
enabled them to enfeoff directly from the crown lands three hundred
thousand boyar followers; and next, to keep up a body of regular troops,
sufficiently strong to reduce their enemies and their subjects.[18]

[Sidenote: [1359 A.D.]]

This system of concentration of power which Ivan Kalita commenced, by
means of his wealth, by the union of the sceptre with the tiara, and
by restoring the direct order of succession; his horrible but skilful
macchiavellism against the princes holding appanages; finally, the fifty
years’ repose which, thanks to his policy, and to their dissensions,
the Tatars permitted Russia to enjoy; these are the circumstances which
entitle Ivan to be considered as standing next after Alexander Nevski
among the most remarkable grand princes of the third period. It was he
who had the sagacity on this stubborn soil to open and to trace so deeply
the path which led to monarchical unity, and to point out its direction
so clearly to his successors that they had nothing to do but to persevere
in it, as the only safe road which it was then possible for Russia to
follow.

This concentration of power brought about great changes from 1320 to
1329; as, at that epoch, all the Russian princes in concert solicited
from the horde the recall of the Tatar governors. It was then that,
more firmly fixed, the throne of the grand princes became the rallying
point of the Russians: along with the consciousness of their strength,
it inspired them with a public spirit, which emboldened them. This good
understanding was, in reality, an effect of the ascendency which a direct
and sustained succession, in a single branch of the Ruriks, had already
given to it over all the others.


_The Principle of Direct Succession_

In fact, sometimes natural justice, sometimes oriental negligence and
cupidity, often the fear of being disobeyed, and lastly, and especially,
the power and riches of the princes of Moscow--whose presents always
surpassed those of the other princes--all these motives had induced
the khans to allow the succession to the grand principality to descend
regularly from father to son in the branch of Moscow.[19] This natural
order of succession Dmitri Donskoi, in 1359, established by a treaty,
in which his kinsmen consented to renounce the mode of succession from
brother to brother. It was the most remarkable among them, Vladimir the
Brave, who was the first to sign this act. In several other conventions,
Vladimir acknowledged himself the vassal and lieutenant, not merely of
Dmitri, but also of Vasili his son, and even of the son of Vasili, when
he was only five years of age. This example, set by a prince who, of all
the possessors of appanages, was the most renowned for his prudence and
his valour, was followed by the others. Thus, like the Capets, kings of
France, did Ivan I, and particularly Dmitri Donskoi, begin the monarchy
by restoring the direct succession, in causing, while they lived, their
eldest sons to be recognised as their successors. Afterwards we see
Vasili, son of Dmitri, persevering in this practice, and Vasili the
Blind, his grandson, raising up his tottering throne, and preparing the
autocracy of the fourth Russian period, by associating with himself his
next heir, the great Ivan III.

It is easy to conceive the infallible effect of this order of succession,
and with what promptitude it must necessarily have extended and
consolidated the power of the grand princes. In fact, the ideas of the
father being transmitted to the son by education, their policy was more
consistently followed up, and their ambition had a more direct object.
The nobles could not fail to attach themselves more devotedly to a prince
whose son and heir, growing up amongst them, would know only them, and
would recompense their services in the persons of their children; for the
necessary consequence of the succession of power in the same branch, was
the succession of favours and dignities in the same families.

Even before Dmitri had established the principle, the boyars saw the
advantages which this order of succession held out to them. Here, as
elsewhere, the fact preceded the law. This was the reason of their
restoring the direct line in the grandson of Ivan Kalita; it was they
who made him grand prince at the age of twelve years, and who subjected
the other princes to him. In like manner, about 1430, they maintained
this order of succession in Vasili the Blind. Contemporary annalists
declare that these ancient boyars of the grand principality detested
the descent from brother to brother; for, in that system, each prince
of the lateral branch arrived from his appanage with other boyars, whom
he always preferred, and whom he could not satisfy and establish but
at the expense of the old. On the other hand, the most important and
transmissible places, the most valuable favours, an hereditary and more
certain protection, and greater hopes, attracted a military nobility
around the grand princes. In a very short time, their elevation to the
level of the humbled petty princes flattered their vanity, and completed
their junction with the principal authority. This circumstance explains
the last words of Dmitri Donskoi to his boyars, when he recommended his
son to their protection. “Under my reign,” said he, “you were not boyars,
but really Russian princes.” In fact (to cite only some examples), we
see that his armies were as often commanded by boyars as by princes, and
that, from this epoch, it was no longer a prince of the blood, but a
boyar of the grand prince, who was his lieutenant at Novgorod.

Nay, more, when the succession from father to son was once established,
there were, at the very beginning, two minorities (those of Dmitri, and
of Vasili, his grandson), during which the boyars composed the council of
regency, governed the state, and were the equals, and even the superiors,
of the princes who held appanages. This will explain why, in 1392, the
boyars of Boris, the last prince of Suzdal, gave up him and his appanage
to Vasili Dmitrievitch of Moscow. The motive is to be found only in
their interest; as the grand prince of Moscow entrusted them with the
government of the appanages, and thus substituted the nobles in the place
of the princes.

A very remarkable circumstance, with respect to Dmitri Donskoi, is, on
the one hand, the energy with which he subdued those princes, and, on the
other, his circumspect treatment of his boyars. According to Karamsin,
it is more especially to their pride and jealousy of the tyssiatchsky of
Moscow (the boyar of the city, or of the commune, a sort of civil and
military tribune, elected by the people), that we are to attribute the
abolition of that office by Donskoi. During the preceding reign, another
tyssiatchsky of Moscow, who claimed precedence of even the boyars of the
grand prince, had been murdered by them.

[Illustration: DMITRI DONSKOI]

When this hereditary protection afforded by the grand princes of the
Moscow branch was once fairly established, the nobles of each appanage,
who constituted its army, had thenceforth an asylum, and, as it were,
a tribunal for redress, to which they could appeal whenever they were
dissatisfied with their prince. It was this which made Tver fall before
Ivan Kalita; for the sovereign prince of that first and last rival of
Moscow having preferred to his boyars the people of Pskov, who had
defended him, the former withdrew to Moscow.

The power of Ivan Kalita being once raised by the Tatars’ aid, and by
the re-establishment of the direct line of succession, and thoroughly
developed by his son and grandson, Simeon the Proud and Dmitri Donskoi,
it followed, as a natural consequence, that he who was most able to
reward and to punish drew around him, and retained, the whole of the
nobles. These constituted the sole strength of the appanaged princes;
their defection, therefore, completed the subjugation of the princes.
Dmitri Donskoi was, therefore, in reality sovereign, as is proved by his
treaties with the princes who held appanages, all of whom he reduced to
be his vassals. And, accordingly, notwithstanding the appanages which he
gave to his sons, and the dissensions which arose out of that error--an
error as yet, perhaps, unavoidable--the attachment of the nobles, for
which we have just assigned a reason, always replaced the legitimate heir
on the throne.

[Sidenote: [1366 A.D.]]

Already, so early as about 1366, the Russian princes could no longer
venture to contend against their lord paramount by any other means than
by denunciations to the horde; but to what khan could they be addressed?
Discord had created several: what result was to be hoped from them?
Divided among themselves, the Tatar armies had ceased to be an available
force. The journeys to the Golden Horde, which had originally contributed
to keep the Russian princes in awe, now served to afford them an insight
into the weakness of their enemies. The grand princes returned from the
horde with the confidence that they might usurp with impunity; and their
competitors with envoys and letters, which even they themselves well
knew would be of no avail. It was, then, obvious in Russia, that the
only protecting power was at Moscow: to have recourse to its support was
a matter of necessity. The petty princes could obtain it only by the
sacrifice of their independence; and thus all of them became vassals to
the grand prince Dmitri.

Never did a great man arise more opportunely than this Dmitri. It was
a propitious circumstance, that the dissensions of the Tatars gave
them full occupation during the eighteen years subsequent to the first
three of his reign:[20] this, in the first place, allowed him time to
extinguish the devastating fury of Olgerd the Lithuanian, son of Gedimin,
father of Iagello, and conqueror of all Lithuania, Volhinia, Smolensk,
Kiev, and even of Taurida; secondly, to unite several principalities with
his throne; and lastly, to compel the other princes, and even the prince
of Tver, to acknowledge his paramount authority.

The contest with the latter was terrible: four times did Dmitri overcome
Michael, and four times did the prince of Tver, aided by his son-in-law,
the great Olgerd, prince of Lithuania, rise again victorious. In this
obstinate conflict, Moscow itself was twice besieged, and must have
fallen, had it not been for its stone walls, the recent work of the
first regency of the Muscovite boyars. But, at length, Olgerd died; and
Dmitri, who, but three years before, could appear only on his knees at
the horde, now dared to refuse the khan his tribute, and to put to death
the insolent ambassador who had been sent to claim it.

We have seen that, fifty years earlier, a similar instance of temerity
caused the branch of Tver to fall beneath that of Moscow; but times
were changed. The triple alliance of the primate, the boyars, and the
grand prince, had now restored to the Russians a confidence in their own
strength: they had acquired boldness from a conviction of the power of
their grand prince, and from the dissensions of the Tatars. Some bands
of the latter, wandering in Muscovy in search of plunder, were defeated;
at last the Tatars have fled before the Russians! they are become their
slaves, the delusion of their invincibility is no more!

The burst of fury which the khan exhibited on learning the murder of his
representative, accordingly served as a signal for the confederation of
all the Russian princes against the prince of Tver. He was compelled to
submit to the grand prince, and to join with him against the horde.


_The Battle of the Don or Kulikovo (1380 A.D.)_

[Sidenote: [1380 A.D.]]

Russia now began to feel that there were three things which were
indispensably necessary to her; the establishment of the direct
succession, the concentration of the supreme power, and the union of all
parties against the Tatars. The movement in this direction was taken very
opportunely; for it happened simultaneously that the Mongolian chief,
Mamai, was also disembarrassed of his civil wars (1380), and he hastened
with all his forces into Russia to re-establish his slighted authority;
but he found the grand prince Dmitri confronting him on the Don, at
the head of the combined Russian princes and an army of two hundred
thousand[21] men. Dmitri put it to the choice of his troops whether they
would go to encounter the foe, who were encamped at no great distance
on the opposite shore of the river, or remain on this side and wait the
attack? With one voice they declared for going over to the assault. The
grand prince immediately transported his battalions across the river,
and then turned the vessels adrift, in order to cut off all hopes of
escaping by retreat, and inspire his men with a more desperate valour
against an enemy who was three times stronger in numbers. The fight
began. The Russians defended themselves valiantly against the furious
attacks of the Tatars; the hosts of combatants pressed in such numbers to
the field of battle, that multitudes of them were trampled under foot by
the tumult of men and horses. The Tatars, continually relieved by fresh
bodies of soldiers as any part was fatigued by the conflict, seemed at
length to have victory on their side. Nothing but the impossibility of
getting over the river, and the firm persuasion that death would directly
transport them from the hands of the infidel enemy into the mansions of
bliss, restrained the Russians from a general flight. But all at once,
at the very moment when everything seemed to be lost, a detachment of
the grand prince’s army, which he had stationed as a reserve, and which
till now had remained inactive and unobserved, came up in full force,
fell upon the rear of the Tatars, and threw them into such amazement and
terror that they fled, and left the Russians masters of the field. This
momentous victory, however, cost them dear; thousands lay dead upon the
ground, and the whole army was occupied eight days in burying the bodies
of the dead Russians: those of the Tatars were left uninterred upon the
ground. It was in harmony of this achievement that Dmitri received his
honourable surname of Donskoi.[g]


_Significance of Battle of Kulikovo_

The chronicles say that such a battle as that of Kulikovo had never
before been known in Russia; even Europe had not seen the like of it for
a long time. Such bloody conflicts had taken place in the western half
of Europe at the beginning of the so-called Middle Ages, at the time of
the great migration of nations, in those terrible collisions between
European and Asiatic armies; such was the battle of Châlons-sur-Marne,
when the Roman general saved western Europe from the Huns; such too was
the battle of Tours, where the Frankish leader saved western Europe
from the Arabs (Saracens). Western Europe was saved from the Asiatics,
but her eastern half remained long open to their attacks. Here, about
the middle of the ninth century, was formed an empire which should have
served Europe as a bulwark against Asia; in the thirteenth century this
bulwark was seemingly destroyed, but the foundations of the European
empire were saved in the distant northwest; thanks to the preservation of
these foundations, in a hundred and fifty years the empire succeeded in
becoming unified, consolidated--and the victory of Kulikovo served as a
proof of its strength. It was an omen of the triumph of Europe over Asia,
and has exactly the same signification in the history of eastern Europe
as the victories of Châlons and Tours have in that of western Europe.
It also bears a like character with them--that of a terrible, bloody
slaughter, a desperate struggle between Europe and Asia, which was to
decide the great question in the history of humanity: which of these two
parts of the world was to triumph over the other.

But the victory of Kulikovo was one of those victories which closely
border upon grievous defeats. When, says the tradition, the grand prince
ordered a count to be made of those who were left alive after the battle,
the boyar Michael Aleksandrovitch reported to him that there remained in
all forty thousand men, while more than four hundred thousand had been in
action. And although the historian is not obliged to accept the latter
statement literally, yet the ratio here given between the living and the
dead is of great importance to him. Four princes, thirteen boyars, and a
monk of the monastery of Troitsa, were among the slain. It is for this
reason that in the embellished narratives of the defeat of Mamai we see
the event represented on one hand as a great triumph and on the other
as a woeful and lamentable event. There was great joy in Russia, says
the chronicler, but there was also great grief over those slain by Mamai
at the Don; the land of Russia was bereft of all voyevods (captains)
and men and all kinds of warriors, and therefore there was a great fear
throughout all the land of Russia. It was this depopulation through loss
of men that gave the Tatars a short-lived triumph over the victors of
Kulikovo.[e]


THE DESTRUCTION OF MOSCOW (1382 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1382 A.D.]]

The immediate and inevitable consequence of the battle was a sensible
reduction of the Russian army. The numbers that fell before the Tatars
could not be easily or speedily supplied: nor were the means of a
fresh levy accessible. Those districts from which the grand army was
ordinarily recruited had already exhausted their population; all the
remote principalities had contributed in nearly equal proportion, and
the majority of the rest of the empire was composed of persons who
were unaccustomed to the use of arms, having been exclusively occupied
in tillage or commerce. These circumstances, which did not damp the
joy of the victory, or diminish its real importance, presented to the
implacable foe a new temptation for crossing the border. But it was
not until two of the wandering hordes had formed a junction that the
Tatars were able to undertake the enterprise. The preparations for it
occupied them two years. In 1382, the hordes of the Don and the Volga
united, and making a descent upon the frontier provinces with success,
penetrated as far as Moscow. The city had been previously fortified by
the boyars with strong ramparts and iron gates; and Dmitri, trusting with
confidence to the invincibility of the fortifications, left the capital
in the charge of one of his generals, while he imprudently went into the
interior to recruit his army. His absence in the hour of danger spread
consternation amongst the peaceable part of the inhabitants, particularly
the clergy, who relied upon his energies on the most trying occasions.
The metropolitan, accompanied by a great number of the citizens, left the
city upon the approach of the Tatars. The small garrison that remained
made an ineffectual show on the ramparts, and the Tatars, who might not
otherwise have gained their object, prevailed upon the timidity of the
Russians, who consented to capitulate upon a promise of pardon. The
Tatars observed their pledge in this instance as they had done in every
similar case--by availing themselves of the first opportunity to violate
it. They no sooner entered Moscow than they gave it to the flames, and
massacred every living person they met in the streets. Having glutted
their revenge with a terrible scene of slaughter and conflagration, they
returned home, satisfied with having reduced the grand princedom once
more, after their own fashion, to subjection. They did not perceive that
in this exercise of brutal rage they strengthened the moral power of
Russia, by giving an increased motive to co-operation, and by rendering
the abhorrence of their yoke still more bitter than before. All they
desired was the physical and visible evidence of superiority; either not
heeding, or not comprehending, the silent and unseen progress of that
strength which combined opinion acquires under the pressure of blind
tyranny.

Dmitri, thus reduced to submission, was compelled once more to perform
the humiliating penance of begging his dignity at the hands of the khan.
Empire had just been within his grasp; he had bound up the shattered
parts of the great mass; he had effected a union of sentiment, and a bond
of co-operation; but in the effort to establish this desirable end, he
had exhausted the means by which alone it could be perpetuated. Had the
Tatars suffered a short period more to have elapsed before they resumed
the work of spoliation, it is not improbable but that a sufficient force
could have been raised to repel them: but they appeared in considerable
numbers, animated by the wildest passions, at a time when Dmitri was
unable to make head against their approach. The result was unavoidable;
and the grand prince, in suing to be reinstated on the throne from which
he was virtually expelled, merely acquiesced in a necessity which he
could not avert.

But the destruction of Moscow had no effect upon the great principle that
was now in course of development all over the empire. The grand princedom
was still the centre of all the Russian operations: the grand prince was
still the acknowledged authority to which all the subordinate rulers
deferred. While this paramount virtue of cohesion remained unimpaired,
the incursions of the Tatars, however calamitous in their passing
visitations, had no other influence upon the ultimate destiny of the
country than that of stimulating the latent patriotism of the population,
and of convincing the petty princes, if indeed any further evidence were
wanted, of the disastrous impolicy of wasting their resources in private
feuds.


THE DEATH OF DMITRI DONSKOI; HIS PLACE IN HISTORY

The example of Dmitri Donskoi had clearly pointed out the course which
it was the policy of the grand prince to follow; but, in order to place
his own views beyond the reach of speculation, and to enforce them
in as solemn a manner as he could upon his successors, that prince
placed a last injunction upon his son, which he also addressed in his
will to all future grand princes, to persevere in the lofty object of
regeneration by maintaining and strengthening the domestic alliances of
the sovereignty, and resisting the Tatars until they should be finally
driven out of Russia. His reign of twenty-seven years, crowned with
eventful circumstances, and subjected to many fluctuations, established
two objects which were of the highest consequence to the ultimate
completion of the great design. Amidst all the impediments that lay in
his way, or that sprang up as he advanced, Dmitri continued his efforts
to create an order of nobility--the boyars, who, scattered through
every part of the empire, and surrounding his court on all occasions of
political importance, held the keys of communication and control in their
hands, by which the means of concentration were at all times facilitated.
That was one object, involving in its fulfilment the gradual reduction of
the power of the petty princes, and contributing mainly to the security
of the second object, which was the chief agent of his designs against
the Tatars. In proportion as he won over the boyars to his side, and
gave them an interest in his prosperity, he increased the power of the
grand princedom. These were the elements of his plan: the progressive
concentration of the empire, and the elevation of the grand princedom
to the supreme authority. The checks that he met in the prosecution of
these purposes, of which the descent of the Tatar army upon Moscow was
the principal, slightly retarded, but never obscured, his progress.
The advances that he had made were evident. It did not require the
attestation of his dying instructions to explain the aim of his life:
it was visibly exemplified in the institutions he bequeathed to his
country; in the altered state of society; and in the general submission
of the appanages to a throne which, at the period of his accession, was
shaken to its centre by rebellion.[d]

[Sidenote: [1389 A.D.]]

In 1389 Dmitri died at the early age of thirty-nine. His grandfather,
his uncle, and his father had quietly prepared ample means for an
open decisive struggle. Dmitri’s merit consisted in the fact that he
understood how to take advantage of these means, understood how to
develop the forces at his disposal and to impart to them the proper
direction at the proper time. We do not intend to weigh the merits
of Dmitri in comparison with those of his predecessors; we will only
remark that the application of forces is usually more evident and
more resounding than their preparation, and that the reign of Dmitri,
crowded as it was from beginning to end with the events of a persistent
and momentous struggle, easily eclipsed the reigns of his predecessors
with their sparse incidents. Events like the battle of Kulikovo make
a powerful impression upon the imagination of contemporaries and
endure long in the remembrance of their descendants. It is therefore
not surprising that the victor of Mamai should have been given beside
Alexander Nevski so conspicuous a place amongst the princes of the new
northeastern Russia. The best proof of the great importance attributed
to Dmitri’s deeds by contemporaries is to be found in the existence of a
separate narrative of the exploits of this prince, a separate embellished
biography. Dmitri’s appearance is thus described: “He was strong and
valiant, and great and broad in body, broad shouldered and very heavy,
his beard and hair were black, and very wonderful was his gaze.” In his
biography the severity of his life is extolled, his aversion to pleasure,
his piety, gentleness, his chastity both before and after marriage; among
other things it is said: “Although he was not learned in books, yet he
had spiritual books in his heart.” The end of Dmitri is thus described:
“He fell ill and was in great pain, then it abated, but he again fell
into a great sickness and his groaning came to his heart, for it touched
his inner parts and his soul already drew near to death.”

[Illustration: LIVE-FISH MERCHANT]

The important consequences of Dmitri’s activity are manifested in
his will and testament, in which we meet with hitherto unheard-of
dispositions. The Moscow prince blesses his eldest son Vasili and
endows him with the grand principality of Vladimir, which he calls his
paternal inheritance. Donskoi no longer fears any rivals to his son,
either from Tver or Suzdal. Besides Vasili, Dmitri had five sons: Iuri,
Andrew, Peter, John, and Constantine; but the two latter were under
age, Constantine having been born only four days before his father’s
death, and the grand prince confides his paternal domain of Moscow to
his four elder sons. In this domain, that is in the town of Moscow and
the districts appertaining to it, Donskoi had ruled over two parts or
shares, the share of his father Ivan and of his uncle Simeon, while the
third share was under the rule of Vladimir Andreevitch, to whom it now
remained. Of his two shares the grand prince left one half to his eldest
son Vasili; the other half was divided in three parts among the remaining
sons, and the other towns of the principality of Moscow were divided
among the four sons; Kolomna went to Vasili, the eldest, Zvenigorod to
Iuri, Mozhaisk to Andrew, Dmitrov to Peter.


THE REIGN OF VASILI-DMITRIEVITCH (1389-1425 A.D.)

From the very commencement of his reign the young son of Donskoi
showed that he would remain true to the traditions of his father and
grandfather. A year after the khan’s ambassador had placed him on the
grand prince’s throne at Vladimir, Vasili set out for the horde and there
purchased a _iarlik_ (letter-patent of the khans) for the principality
of Nijni-Novgorod, which not long before, after many entreaties had been
obtained from the horde by Boris Constantinovitch. When the letter heard
of Vasili’s designs, Boris called together his boyars and said to them
with tears in his eyes: “My lords and brothers, my boyars and friends!
remember your oath on the cross, remember what you swore to me!” The
senior among his boyars was Vasili Rumianietz, who replied to the prince:
“Do not grieve, my lord prince! we are all faithful to thee and ready to
lay down our heads and to shed our blood for thee.” Thus he spoke to his
prince, but meanwhile he sent to Vasili Dmitrievitch, promising to give
up Boris Constantinovitch to him. On his way back from the horde, when
he had reached Kolomna, Vasili sent from there to Nijni the ambassador
of Toktamish and his own boyars. At first Boris would not let them
enter the town, but Rumianietz said to him: “My lord prince, the khan’s
ambassador and the Muscovite boyars come here in order to confirm peace
and establish everlasting love, but thou wishest to raise dissensions
and war; let them come into the town; what can they do to thee? we are
all with thee.” But as soon as the ambassador and boyars had entered
the town, they ordered the bells to be rung, assembled the people, and
announced to them that Nijni already belonged to the prince of Moscow.
When Boris heard this he sent for his boyars and said to them: “My lords
and brothers, my beloved drujina! remember your oath on the cross, do
not give me up to my enemies.” But this same Rumianietz replied: “Lord
prince! do not hope in us, we are no longer thine, we are not with thee,
but against thee!” Boris was seized, and when somewhat later Vasili
Dmitrievitch came to Nijni, he placed there his lieutenants; and Prince
Boris, with his wife, children, and partisans, he ordered to be carried
away in chains to various towns and kept in strict imprisonment.[e]

[Sidenote: [1395-1412 A.D.]]

The princes of Suzdal, Boris’ nephews, were banished, and Vasili also
acquired Suzdal. Later on the princes of Suzdal made peace with the
grand prince and received back from him their patrimonial estates,
but from generation to generation they remained dependants of Moscow
and not independent rulers. In 1395 took place an event which raised
the moral importance of Moscow: on account of an expected invasion of
Timur (Tamerlane), which, however, never took place, Vasili Dmitrievitch
ordered to be transported from Vladimir to Moscow that famous ikon which
Andrew had formerly taken from Kiev to his beloved town of Vladimir; this
ikon now served to consecrate the pre-eminence of Moscow over all other
Russian towns.

Following in the steps of his predecessors, Vasili Dmitrievitch oppressed
Novgorod, but did not however entirely attain to the goal of his designs.
Twice he endeavoured to wrest her Dvinsk colonies from her, taking
advantage of the fact that in the Dvinsk territories a party had been
formed which preferred the rule of the Moscow grand prince to that of
Grand Novgorod. The people of Novgorod were fortunate in defending their
colonies, but they paid dearly for it: the grand prince laid waste the
territory of Novgorod, and ordered some of the inhabitants who had
killed a partisan of his at Torzhok to be strangled; but worse than all,
Novgorod itself could not get on without the grand prince and was obliged
to turn to him for help when another grand prince, namely the Lithuanian,
attempted its conquest.

At that period the horde was so torn up with inward dissensions that
Vasili had not for some years paid tribute to the khan and regarded
himself as independent; but in 1408 an unexpected attack was made
on Moscow by the Tatar prince Edigei, who like Mamai, without being
khan himself, made those who bore the name of khan obey him. Vasili
Dmitrievitch being off his guard and thinking that the horde had become
weakened, did not take early measures against his wily adversary, who
deceived him by his hypocrisy and pretended good-will. Like his father
he escaped to Kostroma, but provided better than his father for the
defence of Moscow by confiding it to his brave uncle, Prince Vladimir
Andreevitch. The inhabitants themselves burned their faubourg, and
Edigei could not take the Kremlin, but the horde laid waste many Russian
towns and villages. Moscow now learned that although the horde had no
longer the power to hold Russia in servitude, yet it might still make
itself terrible by its sudden incursions, devastations, and capture of
the inhabitants. Shortly thereafter, in 1412, Vasili went to the horde
to do homage to the new khan Djelalledin, brought him tribute, and made
presents to the Tatar grandees, so that the khan confirmed the grand
principality to the prince of Moscow, although he had previously intended
to bestow it upon the exiled prince of Nijni-Novgorod. The power of the
khans over Russia was now only held by a thread; but for some time yet
the Moscow princes could take advantage of it in order to strengthen
their own authority over Russia and to shelter their inclinations under
the shadow of its ancient might. Meanwhile they took measures of defence
against the Tatar invasions, which might be all the more annoying because
they were directed from various sides and from various fragments of the
crumbling horde. In the west the Lithuanian power, which had sprung up
under Gedimin, and grown great under Olgerd, had attained to its utmost
limits under Vitovt.

Strictly speaking, the supreme authority over Lithuania and the part
of Russia in subjection to it belonged to Iagello, king of Poland; but
Lithuania was governed independently in the quality of viceroy by his
cousin Vitovt, the son of that Keistut who had been strangled by Iagello.
Vitovt, following the example of his predecessors, aimed at extending the
frontiers of Lithuania at the expense of the Russian territories, and
gradually subjugated one after another of them. Vasili Dmitrievitch was
married to the daughter of Vitovt, Sophia; throughout his reign, he had
to keep up friendly relations with his kinsman, and yet be on his guard
against the ambitious designs of his father-in-law. The Muscovite prince
acted with great caution and prudence, giving way to his father-in-law
as far as possible, but safeguarded himself and Russia from him. He did
not hinder Vitovt from taking Smolensk, chiefly because the last prince
of Smolensk, Iuri, was a villain in the full sense of the word, and the
inhabitants themselves preferred to submit to Vitovt, rather than to
their own prince. When however Vitovt showed too plainly his intentions
of capturing Pskov and Novgorod, the grand prince of Moscow openly took
up arms against his father-in-law and a war seemed imminent; but in
1407 the matter was settled between them, and a peace was concluded by
which the river Ougra was made a boundary between the Muscovite and the
Lithuanian possessions.


VASILI VASILIEVITCH (AFTERWARDS CALLED “THE BLIND” OR “THE DARK”)

[Sidenote: [1425-1435 A.D.]]

Vasili Dmitrievitch died in 1425. His successor, Vasili Vasilievitch,
was a man of limited gifts and of weak mind and will, but capable of
every villainy and treachery. The members of the princely house had been
held in utter subjection under Vasili Dmitrievitch, but at his death
they raised their heads, and Iuri, the uncle of Vasili Vasilievitch,
endeavoured to obtain the grand principality from the horde. But the
artful and wily boyar, Ivan Dmitrievitch Vsevolozhsky, succeeded in 1432
in setting aside Iuri and assuring the grand principality to Vasili
Vasilievitch. When Iuri pleaded his right of seniority as uncle, and in
support of his claim cited precedents by which uncles had been preferred,
as seniors in years and birth, to their nephews, Vsevolozhsky represented
to the khan that Vasili had already received the principality by will of
the khan and that this will should be held above all laws and customs.
This appeal to the absolute will of the khan pleased the latter and
Vasili Vasilievitch remained grand prince. Some years later this same
boyar, angered at Vasili because the latter had first promised to marry
his daughter and then married Marie Iaroslavna, the granddaughter of
Vladimir Andreevitch Serpukhovski, himself incited Iuri to wrest the
principality from his nephew. Thus Russia again became the prey of civil
wars, which were signalised by hideous crimes. Iuri, who had taken
possession of Moscow, was again expelled and soon after died. The son
of Iuri, Vasili Kossoi (the Squinting) concluded peace with Vasili, and
then, having treacherously violated the treaty, attacked Vasili, but
he was vanquished, captured, and blinded (1435). After a few years the
following events took place at the Golden Horde: the khan Ulu Makhmet was
deprived of his throne and sought the aid of the grand prince of Moscow.
The grand prince not only refused him his aid, but also drove him out of
the boundaries of the territory of Moscow. Ulu Makhmet and his partisans
then established themselves on the banks of the Volga at Kazan, and
there laid the foundations of a Tatar empire that during a whole century
brought desolation on Russia. Ulu Makhmet, as ruler of Kazan, avenged
himself on the Muscovite prince for the past, was victorious over him in
battle, and took him prisoner. Vasili Vasilievitch only recovered his
liberty by paying an enormous ransom. When he returned to his native
land, he was against his will obliged to lay upon the people heavy taxes
and to receive Tatars into his principality and give them estates. All
this awakened dissatisfaction against him, of which the Galician prince
Dmitri Shemiaka, the brother of Kossoi, hastened to take advantage,
and joining himself to the princes of Tver and Mozhaisk, in 1446 he
ordered Vasili to be treacherously seized at the monastery of Troitsa and
blinded. Shemiaka took possession of the grand principality and kept the
blind Vasili in confinement, but observing an agitation among the people,
he yielded to the request of Jonas, bishop of Riazan, and gave Vasili
his liberty, at the same time making him swear that he would not seek to
regain the grand principality. Vasili did not keep his oath, and in 1447
the partisans of the blind prince again raised him to the throne.

[Sidenote: [1447-1448 A.D.]]

It is remarkable that from this period the reign of Vasili Vasilievitch
entirely changed in character. While he had his eyesight, Vasili was a
most insignificant sovereign, but from the time that he lost his eyes,
his reign becomes distinguished for its firmness, intelligence, and
decision. It is evident that clever and active men must have ruled in the
name of the blind prince. Such were the boyars: the princes Patrikeev,
Riapolovski, Koshkin, Plesktcheev, Morozov, and the famous voyevods,
Striga-Obolenski and Theodore Bassenok, but above all the metropolitan
Jonas.


_Jonas Becomes Metropolitan_

[Illustration: RUSSIAN WOMAN]

Jonas was a native of Kostroma. When he was made bishop of Riazan he did
not in any wise become a partisan of the local views, his sympathies
inclined to Moscow because, in conformity with the conditions of that
epoch, Jonas saw in Moscow alone the centre of Russian unification.
In 1431, at the death of the metropolitan Photius, Jonas was elected
metropolitan, but the patriarch of Constantinople had already named
the Greek Isidore to that office. This Isidore had participated in the
capacity of Russian metropolitan, in the Florentine council which had
proclaimed the union of the Greek church with the Roman, the pope of
Rome to be the head of the Universal church. Isidore, together with the
patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine emperor had submitted to
the pope; for Isidore was at heart a Greek: all his aims were directed
to the salvation of his perishing country, and like many other Greeks
he hoped through the pope to arouse Europe against the Turks. It was
these hopes that had caused the Greeks of that time to sacrifice the
independence of their church. In the eyes of Isidore Russia too was
to serve as an instrument for Greek patriotic designs; but the union
was rejected at Moscow, Isidore was driven out, and for some years the
office of metropolitan of Moscow remained unoccupied. Kiev had its own
metropolitans since the days of Vitovt, but Moscow did not wish to have
anything to do with them. The bishop of Riazan, Jonas, having been
already named metropolitan by the Russian clergy, enjoyed at Moscow
a pre-eminent importance and influence, and finally, in 1448, this
archbishop was raised to the rank of metropolitan by an assembly of the
Russian bishops, without regard to the patriarch. This event was a
decisive breach with the past, and from that time the eastern-Russian
church ceased to depend upon the patriarch of Constantinople and acquired
full independence. The centre of her supreme power was Moscow, and this
circumstance definitively established that moral importance of Moscow,
which had been aimed for by the metropolitan Peter, which had been held
up by Alexis, and which had received greater brilliancy from the transfer
of the ikon of the Blessed Virgin from Vladimir. From that time the
Russian territories not yet subject to Moscow and aiming to preserve
their independence from her--Tver, Riazan, Novgorod--were bound to her
more closely by spiritual bonds.

When he had for the third time ascended the throne of Moscow, the grand
prince designated as co-regent with himself his eldest son Ivan, who
was thenceforth called grand prince like his father, as is shown by
the treaties of that period. It was from that time that the political
activity of Ivan commenced and gradually widened; and there is no
doubt that when he attained his majority it was he, and not his blind
father that directed the accomplishment of the events which led to the
strengthening of Moscow. Prince Dmitri Shemiaka, who had been obliged to
promise on his oath to desist from any further attempts upon the grand
principality, did not cease to show his enmity against Vasili the Dark.
The clergy wrote to Shemiaka a letter of admonishment, but he would
not listen to their remonstrances, and the armies of Moscow marched
with the blessing of Jonas and accompanied by the young prince, against
Shemiaka in Galicia. Shemiaka was defeated and fled to Novgorod, where
the inhabitants gave him a refuge, and Galicia with its dependencies
was again joined to Moscow. Shemiaka continued to plot against Vasili,
took Ustiug, and established himself there; but the young prince Ivan
Vasilievitch drove him out, and Shemiaka again fled to Novgorod. The
metropolitan Jonas issued an edict declaring Shemiaka excommunicated from
the church, forbidding orthodox persons to eat and drink with him, and
reproaching the people of Novgorod for having received him. It was then
decided at Moscow to put an end to Shemiaka by secretly murdering him;
the secretary Borodati, through Shemiaka’s boyar Ivan Kotov, induced
Shemiaka’s cook to prepare and serve to him a poisoned fowl (1453).

[Sidenote: [1462 A.D.]]

Vasili the Dark died on the 5th of March, 1462, from an unsuccessful
treatment of burns. He outlived his chief counsellor, the metropolitan
Jonas, by a year, the latter having died on the 31st of March, 1461.[h]


A REVIEW OF THE INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT DURING THE TATAR PERIOD

The beginning of the fourteenth century was the commencement of a new
epoch in the life of Russia; in its two halves two empires began to
crystallize: that of Moscow in the east and that of Lithuania in the
west, and the scattered elements began to gather around the new centres.
Such a centre for eastern Russia was Moscow, until then an insignificant
town, rarely mentioned in the chronicles, being the share of the younger
and therefore less powerful princes. Under Daniel Aleksandrovitch[22]
the town of Moscow constituted the whole principality. With the
acquisition of Pereiaslavl (1302), Mozhaisk (1303), and Kolomna (1308)
this region became somewhat more extended, but when it fell to the
share of Ivan Danilovitch after the death of his brother Iuri, it was
still very insignificant; and yet through its resources the princes
of Moscow managed to become the first in eastern Russia and little by
little to gather round them the whole of eastern Russia. The rise of
the principality of Moscow is one of the most remarkable phenomena in
the history of Russia. It is therefore not surprising that particular
attention should have been directed towards it by historians, and by the
light of their united investigations the phenomenon becomes sufficiently
clear.

In the thirteenth century, under the domination of the Tatars in eastern
Russia, there was a continual struggle amongst the princes for the title
of grand prince, to which they also strove to unite the possession of
Vladimir. We also observe another distinctive feature of the time,
which was that the princes did not remain to live in Vladimir, but only
strove to unite it to their own possessions, and thus augment them, and,
if possible, secure them for their families. The struggle was for the
preponderance of one family over another through the extension of its
territorial possessions. In the Kievan period, whoever became prince of
Kiev, removed to Kiev, and named someone of his own family as ruler in
his own principality, so that if Kiev were lost and it should pass into
another family, he would not lose his own patrimony.

During the Tatar period we note a new phenomenon: the princes did not
merely separate themselves from their patrimonial lands, but even from
their capitals; for instance: Iaroslav lived in Tver, Basil in Kostroma,
Andrew in Gorodeza, Dmitri in Pereiaslavl, and so on. The power of a
grand prince at that time was only a hegemony, a preponderance over
other princes; as a testimony of their independence the other princes,
the elders of their families (such as Riazan, Tver, etc.) began also
to call themselves grand princes, and the preponderance of the grand
prince of Vladimir little by little lost its significance. To all this
there must yet be added another special circumstance, that in order for
anyone to unite Vladimir and its territory to his possessions and thus
obtain the predominance, a _iarlik_ or letter of the khan was required;
no rights were necessary and a wide field was open for every guest. Thus
there appeared a new basis for the right of succession: the favour of
the khan. To obtain this favour was the aim of all the princes, to keep
it--a peculiar art. Whoever possessed this art would be the head over all
eastern Russia, and whoever could maintain this position was bound to
subordinate all the rest to himself. In consequence of this, the first
condition for success at that time was a dexterous tactfulness, and
whoever possessed this quality must come out victor. This dexterousness
was a peculiar distinction of the Muscovite princes, and in it lay the
chief cause of their success. They had neither power nor higher rights,
and all their hopes were founded on their own skill and the favour of
the khan. They had no riches, and their patrimonial lands, poor and
secluded, away from the great rivers which were then the chief means of
communication, did not yield them large means.

But to ensure success with the khan, his wife, and the princes of the
horde, money was necessary; so they became saving and scraping, and
all their capacities were directed to the acquisition of gain. Their
qualities were neither brilliant nor attractive, but in their position
it was only by these sober qualities that anything could be obtained.
Alexander Iaroslavitch (Nevski) pointed out to his successors that their
policy should be to give way when necessary and to wait when uncertain.
He who followed this counsel was successful; whosoever hurried, like
Alexander Mikhailovitch (of Tver), was a loser in the game.

But while taking advantage of every means of influence at the horde, the
Muscovite princes did not lose sight of those means by which they could
also act within Russia itself. Ivan Danilovitch managed to induce the
metropolitan St. Peter to come to Moscow, and his successors continued
to reside in that town. The alliance with the spiritual power, the only
power that embraced the whole of Russia, was of extraordinary advantage
to the Muscovite princes.

The metropolitan could exert his influence everywhere. Thus Theognost
closed the churches at Pskov when that city offered an asylum to
Alexander Mikhailovitch, and St. Sergius did likewise at Nijni-Novgorod
when it accepted a prince to whom Moscow was opposed. This alliance was
a most natural one: if the princes needed the authority of the church,
the clergy--at that time the representatives of the most advanced ideas
concerning the civil order--sought to realise that order of which it
stood in need even for its purely economic interests. There is not the
slightest doubt that one of the chief causes of the devotion of the
clergy to the views and policies of the Muscovite princes, lay in its
conviction that it was bound to derive material advantages from the
concentration of all power in the hands of one prince. In fact, while
the system of appanages prevailed, it was, on the one hand, extremely
difficult for the clergy to enjoy its possessions and privileges in
security, because the maintenance of this security depended not on
one, but on many; while on the other hand, the princes of appanages
infringed on clerical privileges more frequently than the grand prince.
The dispersion of the monastic estates over several principalities still
further contributed to the desire of the clergy for the abolition of
the appanage system, which increased the difficulties of managing those
estates. Especially in the case of war among the princes of appanages,
the clergy of one appanage might easily be deprived of its possessions in
another appanage, because at such a time all means of injuring the enemy
were considered permissible.

In the increase of power of the Muscovite princes a leading part also
belongs to the Moscow boyars, whose activity was principally displayed
during the youth or minority of the grand princes.[23]

Such were the principal causes of the strength of the Moscow princes;
to them should be added (according to the historians N. V. Stankevitch
and S. M. Soloviov) the central position of the principality of Moscow,
both in the sense that Moscow is near the sources of the chief rivers,
and that an attack from without must first fall on the surrounding
principalities. But these causes are evidently secondary and would have
no significance without the others: Moscow is not so far from the other
principalities that these advantages would belong to her alone. It was
much more important that a wise policy, by preserving Moscow from the
attacks of the Tatars, attracted thither an increased population and thus
enriched the principality. A final important cause was the weakening
of the Tatar horde and its dismemberment at the end of this period, of
which the princes of Moscow did not fail to take advantage for their own
ends.[b]


THE INFLUENCE OF TATAR DOMINATION

Karamsin, in relating the history of the invasion of Russia by the
Mongols, makes some reflections on the consequences of the domination
of these barbarians for the Russian people. In spite of his devotion to
autocratic power, he cannot prevent himself from keenly regretting the
liberty which this power had superseded.

“There was a time,” he says, “when Russia, shaped and elevated by the
unity of the sovereign power, yielded neither in force nor civilisation
to the foremost of the European powers founded by the peoples of Germany
on the ruins of the Western Empire. Having the same character, the same
laws, the same usages, the same political institutions, which were
communicated to Russia by the Varangian or Norman princes, she took her
place in the new political system of Europe with some real claims to a
great importance, and with the remarkable advantage of being under the
influence of Greece, the only one of all the powers which had not been
overthrown by the barbarians. This happy time for Russia, is that of
Iaroslav the Great. Strengthened by both Christianity and public order,
she possessed a religious teaching, schools, laws, an important trade,
a numerous army, a fleet, unity of power, and civil liberty. What was
Europe at the beginning of the eleventh century? The theatre of feudal
tyranny, of the weakness of sovereigns, of audacity amongst the barons,
of slavery in the peoples, of superstition and of ignorance. The genius
of Alfred and Charlemagne shone through the darkness, but soon faded
away; their memory only has survived, their beneficent institutions,
their generous intentions, disappeared with them.

“The shadow of barbarism, by veiling the horizon of Russia, hid Europe
from its sight at the very time at which enlightenment was beginning to
spread there; when the people began to shake off slavery, and the towns
to contract alliances for their mutual guarantee against oppression; when
the invention of the compass extended navigation and commerce; the time
which saw the foundation of universities, in which fine manners began
to soften, etc. During this period Russia, oppressed and torn asunder
by the Mongols, was collecting all her forces merely that she might not
perish. There was then no question of civilisation for the Russians. The
rigours of the climate did not permit the Mongols to establish themselves
in Russia as they had done in China and India. The khans wished to reign
over Russia only from afar. But the envoys of the horde, representing
the person of the khan, did what they chose in Russia; the traders,
even the Mongol vagabonds, treated Russians as vile slaves. What was
the natural consequence? Moral degradation. Forgetting national pride
Russians learnt base cunning--the ruses and bravado of the weak. They
deceived the Tatars, and one another they deceived still more. While
ransoming themselves at the price of gold from the oppressions of the
barbarians, they became more greedy, and less sensitive to insults and
to shame, exposed as they were to the violence of foreign tyrants. From
the time of Vasili Iaroslavitch down to that of Ivan Kalita (that most
unhappy period!) Russia resembled a black forest rather than a state;
might appeared to be right; he who could pillage, pillaged, foreigners
and natives alike; there was no safety, either on the roads or at home;
robbery destroyed property everywhere. And when this terrible anarchy
began to disappear, when the stupor and the terror had ceased, and law,
which is the soul of society, could at least be re-established, it was
then necessary to have recourse to a severity unknown to the ancient
Russians. Light pecuniary fines had formerly sufficed for the repression
of theft, but already in the fourteenth century, thieves were hanged. The
Russian of Iaroslav’s day knew no other blows than those he might receive
in a private quarrel; under the yoke of the Mongols corporal punishment
was introduced. It may be that the present character of the nation
still offers traces which were impressed upon it by the barbarity of
the conqueror. It must be remarked also that, together with other noble
qualities, valour and military courage grew visibly weaker. Formerly the
princes had struck with the sword; during this period they redressed
their grievances by means only of baseness and complaints brought before
the khans. If, after two centuries of such slavery, Russians have not
lost all moral sense, all love for virtue, and all patriotism, let us
thank the influence of religion; it is religion which has maintained them
in the position of men and citizens, which has not allowed hearts to grow
hard, and conscience to be silenced. Humiliated as Russians they again
raised themselves under the name of Christians, and they loved their
country as being a country of true believers.

“The internal constitution of the state was changed; everything which
was free, everything which was founded on ancient rights, civil or
political, became extinct. After having humbly cringed to the horde,
the princes returned to their homes as terrible masters, for they were
commanding in the name of a supreme suzerain. That which could not be
done either in the days of Iaroslav the Great or in those of Andrew and
of Vsevolod III, was accomplished noiselessly and without difficulty in
the time of the Mongols. At Vladimir and everywhere else, except Novgorod
and Pskov, there was no longer heard the sound of the vetché bell, that
manifestation of popular sovereignty; a manifestation which was often
tumultuous, but dear to the descendants of Slavo-Russians. This right of
the ancient towns was no longer known to the new towns, like Moscow and
Tver, which became important during the Mongol dominion. Once only do the
chronicles make mention of the vetché of Moscow and they speak of it as
an extraordinary event--when the capital, threatened by the enemy, and
abandoned by the sovereign, found itself thrown on its own resources.
The towns had lost the right of electing their chiefs, who, by their
importance and the splendour of their elective dignity, had given umbrage
not only to the princely dignitaries but to the princes themselves.”[f]


_Wallace’s View_

The Tatar domination did not by any means Tatarise the country. The
Tatars never settled in Russia proper, and never amalgamated with the
people. So long as they retained their semi-pagan, semi-Buddhistic
religion, a certain number of their notables became Christians and were
absorbed by the Russian noblesse; but as soon as the horde adopted Islam,
this movement was arrested. There was no blending of the two races
such as has taken place--and is still taking place--between the Russian
peasantry and the Finnish tribes of the north. The Russians remained
Christians, and the Tatars remained Mahommedans; and this difference of
religion raised an impassable barrier between the two nationalities.

It must, however, be admitted that the Tatar domination, though it
had little influence on the life and habits of the people, had a very
deep and lasting influence on the political development of the nation.
At the time of the conquest Russia was composed of a large number of
independent principalities, all governed by the descendants of Rurik.
As these principalities were not geographical or ethnographical units,
but mere artificial, arbitrarily defined districts, which were regularly
subdivided or combined according to the hereditary rights of the princes,
it is highly probable that they would in any case have been sooner or
later united under one sceptre; but it is quite certain that the policy
of the khans helped to accelerate this unification and to create the
autocratic power which has since been wielded by the czars.[c]


FOOTNOTES

[10] [This is, of course, meant only in a limited sense. The migration
of peoples still continues with unabated force, but its centre has moved
from Asia to Europe. Thence it moves in a two-fold direction: on the one
hand, from western Europe to America and Australia; and on the other
hand, from eastern Europe to the remotest confines of Asia.]

[11] [A modern army inevitably loses in numbers and its difficulties
increase as it advances from its base of operations into the enemy’s
country. The very reverse was the situation of the Tatars. They needed
no base of operations, for they took along with them their flocks, their
tents, and all their belongings, and while their flocks fed upon the
grassy steppes, they in turn fed upon their flocks. And the nomadic and
predatory tribes whom they encountered on their march led the same kind
of life as themselves, and were easily induced to join in the certain
expectation of plunder. Thus the tide kept on ever increasing and gaining
in force. In fact, the Tatars can hardly be styled an army, but a people
in motion.[k][a]]

[12] [At first the Russians had only very vague notions as to who this
terrible enemy was. The old chronicler remarks briefly: “For our sins
unknown people have appeared. No one knows who they are or whence they
have come, or to what race and faith they belong. They are commonly
called Tatars, but some call them Tauermen, and others Petchenegs. Who
they really are is known only to God, and perhaps to wise men deeply read
in books.” Some of these “wise men deeply read in books” supposed them to
be the idolatrous Moabites who had in Old Testament times harassed God’s
chosen people; whilst others thought that they must be the descendants
of the men whom Gideon had driven out, of whom a reverent saint had
prophesied that they would come in the latter days and conquer the whole
earth, from the East even unto the Euphrates, and from the Tigris even
unto the Black Sea.[c]]

[13] Or the Purse.

[14] In the governments of Novgorod, Vladimir, Kostroma, and Rostov, and
the cities of Duglitch, Bielozersk, and Galitch.--[See Karamsin, and an
act of Dmitri Donskoi.]

[15] From 1333 to 1339 the princes who held appanages espoused the
cause of the prince of Tver against the grand prince of Moscow, whom
they called a tyrant. In 1339 the grand prince of Moscow returned to
the horde, and so terrified Usbek Khan by his denunciations against the
prince of Tver and other princes, that the khan immediately summoned them
to the horde, in order to restrain, or get rid of them.--[See Karamsin.]

[16] See Kamenevitch (translated by Karamsin), describing the great mart
of Mologa, where the commerce of Asia and of Europe met in the seventy
inns of its Slavonian suburb; and where seven thousand two hundred
pounds’ weight of silver were collected for the treasury of the prince.

[17] See the treaty of Dmitri Donskoi with Vladimir his uncle, who
promised to pay to him the tribute of his appanage, which bore the name
of the khan’s tribute; and the second treaty with the same Vladimir, by
which the latter prince engaged that his boyars should pay to Dmitri the
same tax which the grand prince might think proper to impose on his own
boyars.

[18] It was thus that, in France, in 1445, Charles VII took advantage of
the exactions of the English, and of the terror which they inspired, to
render perpetual the temporary taxes, and to keep up a permanent corps of
twenty-five thousand men.

[19] Usbek, it is true, with macchiavellian policy, designated all the
children of Ivan I as his successors; but, in 1340, he allowed Simeon,
the oldest and ablest of them, to make himself sole master of the throne.
Ianisbek Khan nominated Ivan II, the brother of Simeon, after his death
and that of his children, to the exclusion of a prince of the branch
of Tver or Nevski. A prince Dmitri, of the Nevski branch, who had been
made grand prince by a whim of Naurus Khan, was deposed in 1362 by Murat
Khan, who chose Dmitri Donskoi, grandson of Ivan I, and son of Ivan II.
Taktamuisch also gave the throne to Vasili II, the eldest son of Donskoi
(1389). Lastly, Ulu-Mahomet nominated Vasili III, son of Vasili II, and
father of the great Ivan III, whom this long succession rendered so
powerful that he completely crushed the horde.

[20] From 1362 to 1380.

[21] [150,000 in Soloviov and Rambaud.]

[22] A son of Alexander Nevski.

[23] “The origin of the Russian aristocracy,” says Turgeniev[f], quoting
from Karamzin, “is lost in the most remote antiquity. The dignity of
boyar is perhaps even more ancient than that of prince; it distinguished
the knights and the most notable citizens, who, in the Slav republics,
commanded the armies and administrated the country. This dignity appears
never to have been hereditary, but only personal. Although in the
course of time it was sometimes conferred by the princes, each of the
ancient towns had nevertheless its own boyars, who filled the principal
elective offices; even the boyars created by the princes enjoyed a
certain independence. Thus, in the treaties of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, we often see the contracting parties confirming
to the boyars the right of quitting the service of one prince to enter
the service of another. Dissatisfied at Tchernigov, the boyar went with
his numerous following to Kiev, Galitch, or Vladimir, where he found
new fiefs and tokens of general respect. But when southern Russia had
become transformed into Lithuania, when Moscow began to grow larger
at the expense of the neighbouring principalities, when the number of
princes possessing appanages began to diminish, at the same time that
the sovereign’s power over the people was becoming more unlimited, then
the dignity of boyar also lost its ancient importance. Popular power
was favourable to that of the boyars, which acting through the prince
on the people, could also act through these latter on the prince. This
support at last failed them. Nothing remained to the boyars but to obey
their prince, or to become traitors or rebels; there was no golden mean
to take, and in the face of the sovereign, no legal means of opposition
existed. In a word absolute power was developing itself.”

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER IV. FROM IVAN THE GREAT TO IVAN THE TERRIBLE

    The great ruler who occupied the throne of Moscow at the end of
    the fifteenth century, was richly endowed with understanding;
    to his contemporaries he appeared more lucky than active,
    but meanwhile it was his active mind that directed all the
    complicated and tangled threads of the foreign and domestic
    relations. If his contemporaries did not always do justice
    to the great unificator of the land of Russia, neither is
    posterity always just to him. We must allow that much had been
    prepared by his predecessors, and this was also recognised
    by contemporaries; but it is nevertheless impossible not to
    acknowledge that Ivan towers far above his predecessors,
    both by his solution of ancient problems--the unification of
    Russia (which he had almost completed) and the throwing off
    of the Tatar yoke--and the raising of new ones. The ability
    to take advantage of circumstances places Ivan in the rank
    of great men. If we do not recognise his greatness, then we
    must apply the same judgment in part to Peter, who was largely
    only the more determined successor of his brother, father, and
    grandfather.--BESTUZHEV RIUMIN.[b]


ACCESSION OF IVAN (III) VASILIEVITCH

[Sidenote: [1462-1584 A.D.]]

The dynasty of the Muscovite princes, which commenced in the person
of Ivan Kalita, and was preserved unbroken in the lineal descent,
was fortunately strengthened by the accident of the longevity of his
successors. The reigns of Ivan, of Simeon the Proud, of Dmitri Donskoi,
of Vasili, and of Vasili the Blind, embraced a period of 130 years.
During that time the people had become habituated to a right which saved
them from the contests of rival competitors. So many protracted reigns
had stamped the legitimate authority with an unquestioned ascendency, and
with this growth of time its powers inevitably increased. The manners of
the Russians were now formed under a rule in which the succession was
fixed and immutable, and under which a progressive system of legislation
was gradually assuming a compact and tangible form. The chaos of
antagonistic principles--of that misrule which is born of short-lived
theories, of constant interruption, and unsettled governments--was
rapidly dissolving; the light of defined administration and regulated
power was rising upon the empire; and the people, who were now beginning
to understand the benefits of constituted rights, were ready to support
their maintenance.

Under these auspicious circumstances, Ivan III, or, as he is called by
some historians, Ivan the Great, ascended the throne.

It was not to be expected that a liberal and enlightened government could
at once spring from the materials which were accumulated in seasons of
anarchy, relieved only by interstitial gleams of peace. The natural
issue of a power purchased by enormous sacrifices, and reared up amidst
difficulties, was unmitigated despotism. The grand princedom was erected
in storms. Its power was built up by constant accessions won at the point
of the sword, or procured by profligate bribery. It was not the growth
of steady improvement, of public opinion, of the voluntary acquiescence
of the people. It began by direct oppression, absolute tyranny, and
open injustice. The acts of outrage which the grand princes committed
in their efforts to sustain their authority were acts of necessity.
They were placed in a situation of peril that exposed them equally to
barbarian spoilers without, and insidious enemies within; and they were
compelled to vindicate their authority by the force of arms and the arts
of perfidy. Their whole career was a fluctuating war against a series of
resistances. They conciliated less than they subdued, and the unity which
was at last gained by perseverance in a mixed policy of violence and
hypocrisy was more the bond of an interest in common, than the reasonable
allegiance of a free people to a government of their own choice.

Throughout the struggle for the concentration of the supreme control
in one head the church, as will already have been perceived, bore a
prominent part. The authority of the clergy had gone on gradually
assuming a more stern and arbitrary aspect, even while the political
affairs of the country were undergoing daily vicissitudes. The evils
that afflicted the state passed harmless over the church; and while
the one was subjected to disasters that checked its progress towards
prosperity, the other was constantly enlarging its powers, profiting
by the misfortunes that surrounded it, and gleaning its share of the
good fortune that occasionally improved the hopes of the people. In the
early periods when Russia was merely the victim of her own dissensions,
the church was freely admitted as a mediator, partly in virtue of her
office as the dispenser of charity and peace, and partly from the
veneration in which religion and its ordinances were held. When the
Tatars invaded Russia, they perceived the mighty influence which the
priests exercised over the passions of the people, and, fully persuaded
of the wisdom of attaching to their cause an order of men who wielded so
enormous a power, they increased their privileges, exonerated them from
taxes, and placed such premiums of gain and protection upon the monkish
habit, that the highest amongst the nobility, and many of the princes,
embraced the clerical profession, and added their rich possessions to
the revenues of the church. To such an extravagance was this estimation
of the benefits of the cowl carried, that the majority of the grand
princes took vows before their death, and died in the retired sanctuaries
of the religious houses. The monks of the Greek religion, loaded with
the spoils of friends and enemies, lived in fortified dwellings, like
the nobles of other lands, and were defended by formidable retinues.
The primate held a court superior in magnificence to that of the grand
prince, and surrounded by boyars, guards, and all the luxuries of the
east, he possessed almost unlimited power over life and death; he was
the first person who was consulted on all questions of difficulty, and,
as a means of exhibiting the supremacy of his station, he instituted
public ceremonies, at which the princes assisted, holding the bridle
of the ass on which he rode. This tendency of the church to outgrow
the space wherein its roots were laid, was greatly forwarded by the
fertilizing contributions which flowed in upon it from all quarters.
Whenever a phenomenon in the physical world alarmed the superstitions
of the people, the major part of the population bequeathed their wealth
to the monasteries, with the hope of propitiating the favour of Heaven
and securing happiness in the next world. The corruptions of the church
of Rome had already crept into the administration of the Greek faith.
The system of donations that prevailed in Papal Italy, where even the
kingdoms of earth were bartered for the kingdom of heaven, had set an
example of which the Russian clergy were not slow to avail themselves.
It was, perhaps, a natural conclusion that the clemency of the Godhead
could be purchased in a country where earthly justice and exemptions from
punishments were sold for pecuniary considerations.

But the lenity and favour shown by the Tatars to the Greek clergy did not
produce the effect upon which they calculated. The Tatars, accustomed to
rule people of different religions, and possessing within themselves no
ecclesiastical foundations, for their wandering mode of life prevented
their priesthood from resolving itself into a corporation, viewed with
comparative indifference the spreading institutions and growing strength
of the church. They only contemplated in the honours and advantages they
heaped upon it, the policy of gaining over to their side a powerful
body of auxiliaries. But the indestructible spirit of Christianity
shrunk from a union with the creed of the pagans; while the barbarous
intolerance of the Tatars furnished a further motive to array the priests
against the enemies of their religion and their country. They knew that
in the grand princedom resided the sole power by which the Tatars were
ultimately to be driven out of the land; they saw that to arm that
power with sufficient means it was necessary to enrich its treasury, to
enlarge its bounds, and to attract within the circle of its sway the
allegiance of the whole of the Russian principalities; they perceived
in the civil commotions that oppressed the empire a constant source of
internal weakness, and they dedicated their energies and their influence
to the one object of rendering the grand prince supreme. Mohammedanism
assailed them on the one hand, and the papal church on the other: they
wanted a rallying point of resistance against both; and they could only
find it in the elevation of the throne to an imperial height. Hence, the
clergy supported the principle of legitimacy, which by its consistency
and perpetuity was calculated to promote the progressive ascension
of the princely authority; and thus by degrees, and the inevitable
progress of an active doctrine that survived through every obstacle, the
church became blended with the state; and the policy of the priesthood,
exercising its subtle influence governed and directed the motions of the
civil jurisdiction.


CHARACTER AND AIMS OF IVAN

Ivan the Great, favoured by such auspicious dispositions on the part of
the clergy, and by the rapid coherence of the principalities, ascended
the throne in 1462, at the age of twenty-two. He was a man of great
cunning and prudence, and was remarkable for indomitable perseverance,
which carried him triumphantly to the conclusions of his designs in a
spirit of utter indifference to the ruin or bad faith that tracked his
progress. Such a man alone, who was prepared to sacrifice the scruples
of honour and the demands of justice, was fit to meet the difficulties
by which the grand princedom was surrounded. He saw them all clearly,
resolved upon the course he should take; and throughout a long reign,
in which the paramount ambition of rendering Russia independent and
the throne supreme was the leading feature of his policy, he pursued
his plans with undeviating consistency. But that policy was not to be
accomplished by open and responsible acts. The whole character of Ivan
was tinged with the duplicity of the churchmen who held so high a place
in his councils. His proceedings were neither direct, nor at first
apparently conducive to the interests of the empire; but the great cause
was secretly advancing against all impediments. While he forbore to risk
his advantages, he left an opportunity for disunion amongst his enemies,
by which he was certain to gain in the end. He never committed himself
to a position of the security of which he was not sure; and he carried
this spirit of caution to such an extremity that many of the early years
of his reign present a succession of timid and vacillating movements,
that more nearly resemble the subterfuges of a coward than the crafty
artifices of a despot.

[Sidenote: [1467-1472 A.D.]]

The objects of which he never lost sight were, to free himself from
enemies abroad, and to convert the princedom at home into an autocracy.
So extensive a design could not have been effected by mere force of arms,
for he had so many domestic and foreign foes to meet at once, and so many
points of attack and defence to cover, that it was impossible to conduct
so grand a project by military means alone. That which he could not
effect, therefore, by the sword, he endeavoured to perform by diplomatic
intrigue; and thus, between the occasional victories of his armies,
and the still more powerful influence of his subtle policy, he reduced
his foes, and raised himself to an eminence to which none of his most
ambitious predecessors had aspired.

The powers against whom he had to wage this double war of arms and
diplomacy were the Tatars and Lithuanians, beyond the frontier; and the
independent republics of Novgorod, Viatka, and Pskov, and the princes
of the yet unsettled appanages within. The means he had at his command
were fully sufficient to have enabled him to subdue those princes of the
blood who exhibited faint signs of discontent in their appanages, and who
could have been easily reached through the widely diffused agency of the
boyars; but the obstinate republics of the north were more difficult of
access. They stood boldly upon their independence, and every attempt to
reduce them was followed by as fierce a resistance, and by such a lavish
outlay of the wealth which their commercial advantages had enabled them
to amass, that the task was one of extraordinary difficulty. Kazan, too,
the first and greatest of the Tatar cities, claimed a sovereignty over
the republics, which Ivan was afraid to contest, lest that which was but
a vague and empty claim might end in confirmed authority. It was better
to permit the insolent republicans to maintain their entire freedom, than
to hazard by indiscretion their transference to the hands of those Tatars
who were loosened from the parent stock.

His first act, therefore, was to acknowledge, directly or indirectly,
according to the nature of their different tenures, the rights of all
his foes within and without. He appeared to admit the justice of things
as he found them; betrayed his foreign enemies into a confidential
reliance upon his acquiescence in their exactions; and even yielded
without a murmur to an abuse of those pretensions to which he affected to
submit, but which he was secretly resolved to annihilate. This plausible
conformity procured him time to prepare and mature his designs; and so
insidiously did he pursue his purpose, that he extended that time by
a servility which nearly forfeited the attachment of the people. The
immediate object of consideration was obviously the Golden Horde, because
all the princes and republics, and even the Poles and Lithuanians, were
interested in any movement that was calculated to embarrass the common
enemy. Ivan’s policy was to unite as many of his enemies as he could
against a single one, and finally to subdue them all by the aid of each
other. Had he ventured upon any less certain course, he must have risked
a similar combination against himself. He began by withholding the
ordinary tribute from the khan, but without exhibiting any symptoms of
inallegiance. He merely evaded the tax, while he acknowledged the right;
and his dissimulation succeeded in blinding the Tatar, who still believed
that he held the grand prince as a tributary, although he did not
receive his tribute. The khan, completely deceived, not only permitted
this recusancy to escape with impunity, but was further prevailed upon
to withdraw the Tatar residents, and their retinues, and the Tatar
merchants, who dwelt in Moscow, and who infested with the haughty bearing
of masters even the avenues of the Kremlin.[g]


IVAN VASILIEVITCH MARRIES THE GREEK PRINCESS SOPHIA (1472 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1472 A.D.]]

By completing the work of his predecessors in destroying the independence
of the townships and the appanaged princes, Ivan created the empire
of Moscow. The form of government of this empire and all the outward
surroundings of power were greatly influenced by the marriage of Ivan
to Sophia, daughter of Thomas Palæologus, and niece of the last emperor
of Byzantium, who brought to Moscow the customs and traditions of the
Byzantine Empire. Ivan had lost his first wife in 1467, and two years
later the question arose of his marriage with the Greek princess. Thomas
Palæologus had retired with his family to Rome; the idea of finding
a bridegroom for his daughter belongs to the Greek vissarion, one of
the most zealous partisans of the union and at that time cardinal. The
cardinal and pope had naturally in view the finding of a new champion
against the then terrible Turks, and at the same time of bringing Russia
into the union. The envoy sent to Moscow was a Greek by the name of Iuri,
who said that Sophia had several suitors, whom she had refused because
she did not wish to enter the Latin church. Ivan, after taking counsel
with his mother and boyars, sent to Rome Karl Friazin (whose brother
Ivan had been coiner of money at the court of Moscow) to see the bride
and confer with the pope; the latter gave his consent and required that
boyars should be sent from Moscow to fetch the bride; Friazin was sent
for the bride and carried on the negotiations; finally in June, 1472,
Sophia, accompanied by the papal legate, left Rome. She was met with
honours at Pskov in November of the same year, and was afterwards greeted
with like homage at Novgorod. When Sophia was drawing near Moscow, warm
disputes arose in the grand prince’s council as to whether it could be
allowed that a Latin crucifix should be carried before the legate. The
metropolitan declared that in the event of it being permitted, the pope’s
legate should enter by one gate and he at another: it is unbecoming to
us to hear of such a thing, not to say witness it, for he who shows
honour and love to another religion offends his own; finally the legate
had to enter without the crucifix. On the day of the entry the marriage
ceremony took place (November 12), after which the legate presented his
credentials and entered into a controversy with the metropolitan Philip,
who called to his aid the scribe Nikita Popovitch. The chronicler says
that being in despair of getting the better of the Russian scribes, the
legate gave up the controversy, saying that he had no books with him.[b]

The marriage of the sovereign of Moscow with the Greek princess was
an event of great importance in Russian history. Properly speaking,
an alliance with the Byzantine emperors was not a novelty, and such
marriages, excepting the first of them--that of St. Vladimir--had no
important consequences and changed nothing essential in Russian life.
But the marriage of Ivan with Sophia was concluded under peculiar
circumstances. In the first place, his bride did not come from Greece,
but from Italy, and her marriage opened the way to intercourse between
Muscovite Russia and the west. In the second place, the empire of
Byzantium had ceased to exist, and the customs, political conceptions,
the manners and ceremonies of court life, deprived of their original
soil, sought a fresh field and found it in a country of a like
faith--Russia. As long as Byzantium had existed, although Russia adopted
her entire ecclesiastical system, yet in political respects she had
always remained purely Russian, and the Greeks had no inclination to
transform Russia into a Byzantium; now, however, that Byzantium no longer
existed, the idea arose that Greece ought to re-incarnate herself in
Russia and that the Russian monarchy ought to be a continuation by right
of succession of Byzantium, in the same degree as the Russian Church
was by order of succession bone of the bone and flesh of the flesh of
the Greek church. It happened opportunely that eastern Russia had freed
herself from the subjugation of the Tatars precisely at the time when
Byzantium was enslaved by the Turks, and there arose the hope that the
youthful Russian monarchy, strengthened and consolidated, would become
the chief mover in the liberation of Greece.

The marriage of Sophia with the Russian grand prince thus acquired the
signification of a transfer of the hereditary rights of the descendants
of Palæologus to the ruling house of Russia. It is true that Sophia had
brothers who had otherwise disposed of their hereditary rights; one of
them, Manuel, had submitted to the Turkish sultan, another, Andrew, had
twice visited Moscow, but had not stayed there long, and had gone to
Italy and sold his hereditary rights, first to the French king Charles
VIII, and afterwards to the Spanish Ferdinand the Catholic. But in the
eyes of the orthodox a transfer of the rights of the Byzantine monarchs
to Catholic kings could not be regarded as lawful; and such being the
case a far greater right was represented by Sophia, who had remained
faithful to orthodoxy, who was the wife of an orthodox sovereign, who
must become and did become the mother and ancestress of his successors,
and who during her lifetime earned the reproaches of the pope and his
partisans, who had been greatly mistaken in counting on her mediation to
bring Muscovite Russia into the Florentine union.


THE GROWTH OF AUTOCRACY

The first visible and outward sign of the fact that Russia came to regard
herself as a successor to Greece, was the adoption of the two-headed
eagle, the arms of the eastern Roman Empire, which thenceforth became the
arms of Russia. From that time much in Russia was changed and assumed a
Byzantine likeness; the change was not effected suddenly, but proceeded
during the entire reign of Ivan Vasilievitch and continued after his
death. In the court household the high-sounding title of czar was
introduced, and the custom of kissing the monarch’s hand. Court ranks
were established also: master of the stables, master of the horse, and
chamberlains (the latter, however, appeared only at the end of Ivan’s
reign). The importance of the boyars as the highest class of society
fell before an autocratic sovereign; all became equal, all alike were
his slaves. The honourable appellation of boyar was bestowed by the
grand prince as a reward for services; besides the boyars there was
also created a somewhat lower rank--that of the Iokolnitchi[24]--the
commencement of the Russian hierarchy of ranks. To the time of Ivan
Vasilievitch may also be attributed the establishment of bureaus
(_prikazi_) with their secretaries and clerks. But most important and
essential of all was the change in the dignity attaching to the grand
prince, strongly to be felt and clearly visible in the actions of the
deliberate Ivan Vasilievitch; the grand prince had become an autocratic
sovereign. Even in his predecessors do we notice an approximation to
this, but the first autocrat in the full sense of the word was Ivan
Vasilievitch, and he became so especially after his marriage to Sophia.
From that time all his activity was consistently and unswervingly
consecrated to the strengthening of monarchy and autocracy.[c]


SUBJUGATION OF THE REPUBLICS

From the beginning of Ivan’s reign there was no change in political
policy; the old system of the gradual annihilation of the independent
republican communities and appanaged princes continued, as well as
the old waiting policy in regard to the Tatars, which was based on
the exploitation of their internecine quarrels. Vasili had already
prepared to deal the final blow to Novgorod, but had been prevented by
the interference of Archbishop Jonas; and the inhabitants, remembering
this, were in expectation of fresh action on the part of Moscow and
sought support from other quarters. Such support could at that time be
afforded them only by the grand prince of Lithuania, but it was difficult
for the people of Novgorod to enter into relations with him, because
such relations would have the signification of a betrayal of orthodoxy.
This being well understood at Moscow, the rulers there hastened to
forestall the danger: the grand prince wrote a letter to Archbishop
Jonas, declaring to him that the Lithuanian metropolitan Gregory was a
disciple of Isidore and a defender of the “unia,” and that relations
with him must not be entered into. In order to support the right on his
side, the metropolitan of Moscow in the interests of Novgorod rejected
the solicitations of the people of Pskov who wished to have a separate
bishop; the grand prince himself left unheeded the insults shown to men
of Moscow in Novgorod, and even the infringement of his ancient princely
rights. Occupied in a war with Kazan, he only exchanged embassies with
Novgorod.

[Sidenote: [1475 A.D.]]

Meanwhile the party in Novgorod which was hostile to Moscow became more
and more rampant; the leaders of this party were the Boretski, the
children of the dead burgomaster (_posadnick_). They were incited by
their mother Martha, who as an “honourable widow” enjoyed great esteem;
the Boretski were wealthy and had great influence in the _vetché_. At
their instigation Prince Michael Olelkovitch, brother of Simon, prince
of Kiev, was invited to come from Lithuania to Novgorod. Previously the
Lithuanian princes that had been called upon to serve Novgorod had lived
together with the Muscovite lieutenants; now the question was already
different and the Lithuanian party decided to go further. At the end of
1470 Jonas died and the question was raised in the vetché of having the
archbishop nominated in Lithuania; this time, however, the archbishop
Theophilus was chosen and his partisans stood out for his consecration
in Moscow and were successful, so that a consent to his passing through
was obtained from the grand prince. An ambassador coming from Pskov with
the news that the grand prince called the men of Pskov upon Novgorod,
and offering proposals of mediation, again gave preponderance to the
Lithuanian party. The vetché assembled, and people in it began to cry
out: “We are free men of great Novgorod and the grand prince of Moscow
does us many wrongs and much injustice; we are for the king of Poland;”
with the help of the “wicked peasants of the vetché” they gained the
victory, and an embassy was sent to Casimir, the result of which was a
convention for the submission of Novgorod to him. Olelkovitch soon left
Novgorod, having wronged the provinces of Novgorod in various ways.
The grand prince still wished to try peaceful measures and sent his
ambassador to Novgorod with an exhortation, and the metropolitan Philip
sent a letter of admonishment. After the failure of this embassy the
grand prince assembled his council (_douma_) and proposed the question:
Shall we march on Novgorod now or wait until winter? It was well known
that a march to Novgorod in summer was very difficult, yet it was decided
to go at once, and a declaration of war was sent. In July, 1471, the
grand prince himself with troops from Moscow and Tver, and accompanied
by his brothers, set out from Moscow; the men of Pskov joined the Moscow
troops on the way. A religious character was given to the expedition.
Before starting, the grand prince went to pray in the cathedral of
Moscow, and chroniclers liken this expedition to that of Gideon against
the Midianites and that of Dmitri against Mamai.

After the battle at Tskorost, Prince Kholmski, a voyevod of Ivan,
decisively defeated the people of Novgorod at the river Shelon (July
14th, 1475?) and the same day the Moscow voyevod Obrazets defeated
Prince Vasili Shuiski, who was in the service of Novgorod, at the river
Shilenga, and subjugated all the Dvinsk territories; “everywhere the
Lord God helped the grand prince to defend his rights.” Nothing remained
for Novgorod but to submit, for Casimir, occupied with his own affairs,
had not come to her defence. Ivan, coming after his armies, first had
Boretski and three other prisoners put to death, then he relented,
accepted the petition of Theophilus which was supported by a letter from
the metropolitan, took a ransom of 15,500 roubles from Novgorod, and
concluded a treaty by which the inhabitants were bound not to be subject
to Lithuania and to have their archbishop nominated at Moscow.

[Sidenote: [1477-1479 A.D.]]

In October, 1475, Ivan visited Novgorod and remained there until
February, 1476. Received with honours and gifts by great Novgorod and
her dignitaries, the grand prince administered justice as of old;
the Slavnovski and Nikitinski appeared with a complaint against the
honourable burgomaster (_posadnick_), Vasili Annanin, and nineteen other
boyars who had attacked and robbed them; a similar complaint was brought
by the boyars Ponarin against other boyars who had made incursions into
their lands and robbed them; for such incursions were of very frequent
occurrence in Novgorod. Ivan sent the guilty persons to be imprisoned in
Moscow, observing in his judgment all the ancient forms, and requiring
that with his commissaries there should also be sent commissaries from
Novgorod; it was also then that he allowed the authorities of Novgorod
to conclude, as in ancient times, a treaty with Sweden. In 1477
complainants from Novgorod came to Moscow; “Such a thing,” says the
chronicle, “had never happened before since the beginning of Novgorod
and since it began to have grand princes from the house of Rurik.” Their
coming was quite comprehensible; the smaller folk were persuaded that it
was only by appealing to the tribunal of the grand prince that they could
obtain redress against the greater, and therefore they had recourse to
him. Such a result having been attained, it only remained to await the
first pretext in order to put an end to the independence of Novgorod. The
occasion soon presented itself; in 1477 the envoys from the bishop and
from all Novgorod, Nazar of Podvoiski and Zacharias, the secretary of the
vetché, called Ivan and his son, young Ivan, _gospodá_ and not lords,[25]
as had always been previously done, and the grand prince sent ambassadors
to Novgorod to demand the confirmation of this title. Tumults, brawls,
and even murder took place in Novgorod, and the ambassador was sent away
with an insulting message. Then Ivan assembled his troops to go against
Novgorod; he called upon Tver and Pskov for aid, ordered his brothers to
assemble, and sending before him the Tatar prince, Daniar Kasimovitch,
he set out himself. The people of Novgorod began to negotiate while the
grand prince was still on the way; they had even tried to do so before,
but Ivan, properly calculating that a satisfactory result could only be
obtained by a warlike demonstration, avoided negotiations. All December,
1477, and the beginning of January, 1478, passed in negotiations; finally
Novgorod submitted when her defender, Prince Vasili Shuiski, bent his
knee[26] before Ivan and refused to serve Novgorod any longer. Novgorod
submitted to the “entire will” of Ivan; the vetché was abolished and its
great bell taken to Moscow to ring with other bells; estates were taken
from the monasteries, and allotted to the grand prince, the first example
of secularisation: till then the princes had not possessed estates
in Novgorod. When he left, Ivan took with him the boyars and Martha
Boretski, who is said to have died at Staritza.

It is reported that in 1479 Novgorod again tried to enter into relations
with Casimir, and taking advantage of threatening danger from the Golden
Horde, re-established the ancient form of government, and that the grand
prince came to the town, ordered the gates to be opened, frustrated the
attempt at the very beginning, and took away many of the inhabitants with
him. This account is confirmed by the fact that other chronicles speak
of the arrival of the grand prince at Novgorod, and of the imprisonment
of the archbishop Theophilus. The loss of their independence was a heavy
blow to the people, and as a consolation legends were composed of the
foolishness of the first bishop sent from Moscow, Sergius by name, and of
the flame that came out of the tomb of St. Bartholomew of Khoutinski and
burned the feet of the grand prince.

Viatka, whose inhabitants refused to help the Moscow troops in the war
against Kazan in 1469, was definitively subdued in 1489. The policy of
the transfer of the natives to the ancient provinces and of sending
others to take their places, was also applied to Viatka.

Pskov remained submissive and thereby preserved a shadow of independence;
but the grand prince kept a zealous watch over all that was done there
and did not allow any aspirations to greater independence. Although
consenting that the inhabitants might ask for any prince they wished, he
did not approve of any wilful change of princes, and strongly took the
part of Prince Iaroslav Obolenski, who had had a quarrel with Pskov and
whom the people wished to get rid of; it was only the desire to have done
with Novgorod that induced the grand prince to give way to Pskov and give
them a new lieutenant--Prince Vasili Shuiski (1477). When, later, Ivan
named his son Vasili grand prince of Novgorod and Pskov, the inhabitants
sent an envoy begging that they might be separated, but the grand prince
replied wrathfully that he would give the principality to whomsoever he
liked; Pskov also endeavoured in vain to get its province separated from
the rule of the bishop of Novgorod.

[Sidenote: [1482-1485 A.D.]]

Towards the appanaged princes Ivan pursued the same policy as towards
the townships. Vasili, prince of Riazan, had already been taken by
Vasili the Dark to be educated in Moscow; in 1464 he was sent back to
Riazan, returned to Moscow, married a sister of the grand prince and went
back to Riazan. He died in 1483, leaving two sons: Ivan and Theodore.
Ivan, as grand prince, concluded a treaty with Moscow by which he was
placed on a level with the brother of the grand prince of Moscow, Andrew
Vasilievitch. In 1496 a treaty was concluded between the brothers, by
which the younger was bound, in case he were to die childless, to leave
his share to his elder brother; but Prince Theodore survived his brother
and bequeathed his share to the grand prince of Moscow. In the year
1500 Ivan, grand prince of Riazan, died, leaving a young son under the
guardianship of his mother and grandmother, who were entirely subservient
to the prince of Moscow.

Since 1461 the prince of Tver, Michael Borisovitch, was Ivan’s
brother-in-law. When he came to the throne Ivan concluded a treaty with
him, but although Michael helped Ivan against Novgorod, yet in their
mutual relations the signs that usually preceded the fall of a separate
principality might be observed. In 1476 certain boyars of Tver went over
to Moscow. In 1484 it became known in Moscow that the prince of Tver
had concluded a treaty with Casimir and married his granddaughter. Ivan
sent troops to lay waste the districts around Tver; Michael hastened to
appease him and concluded a new treaty with him, by which the prince
of Tver was placed on a level with the second brother of the Moscow
grand prince and bound himself not to appeal to Lithuania without his
consent. Meanwhile the departure of the boyars from Tver continued and
Ivan encouraged them by his policy; in the event of frontier disputes,
if the men of Tver were injured they could not obtain justice, but if
those of Moscow were injured, Ivan rigorously demanded satisfaction.
Michael entered into relations with Casimir, but the envoy was seized,
and Ivan sent his troops to Tver; the town surrendered, and Michael fled
to Lithuania. In 1463 the princes of Iaroslav ceded their domain to the
Muscovite monarch, and in 1474 the princes of Rostov, who ruled over only
half of Rostov, for the other half had already been acquired by Kalita,
sold their half to the grand prince. Equally slowly and gradually did
the grand prince also crush the appanaged princes of Moscow; all these
princes were his brothers, with the exception of Michael Andreevitch
Vereiski (the son of Andrew Dmitrievitch, brother of Ivan of Mozhaisk).
With Michael Ivan concluded several treaties that gradually cut down his
rights; finally by the treaty of 1482 Michael ceded, after his death,
Belozero to the grand prince. There was no pretext for this annexation,
but one was soon found; desiring to make a present to his daughter-in-law
Helen[27] (upon the occasion of the birth of his grandson Dmitri) of the
ornaments that had belonged to his first wife, Ivan learned that the
grand princess Sophia had given away much to her niece, who was married
to a son of Michael named Vasili; the irritated grand prince then
ordered Vasili to be seized, but he fled to Lithuania; whereupon Ivan
took Vereia from Michael and only returned it to him as a possession for
life. Michael Andreevitch died in 1485, leaving his domains by will to
the grand prince. The appanages of the brothers also little by little,
for one reason or another, were joined to the grand principality; in 1472
Iuri Vasilievitch, of Dmitriev, died, without leaving any testamentary
disposition of his territory; the grand prince took possession of it; the
brothers were angered, but satisfying them with some provinces, the grand
prince concluded a treaty with two of them, Andrew of Uglitch and Boris
of Volotsk, by which they recognised the priority of their nephew Ivan
the Younger and renounced the succession after their brother.

In 1480 the younger brothers again rose against the elder, and Prince
Obolenski Liko went from Moscow to enter the service of Boris; Ivan,
probably learning of his brother’s relations with the people of Novgorod,
ordered Prince Obolenski to be seized at the court of Boris. The princes
went to Rzhev, thence to the boundary of Lithuania, and entered into
relations with Casimir, who however did not help them. Until then they
had rejected negotiations, but seeing Casimir’s inaction, they asked for
the intercession of their mother, but Ivan refused them; they also sought
support in Pskov, but were unsuccessful. The invasion of Ahmed induced
Ivan to make peace with his brothers, and Andrew received a part of the
appanage of Iuriev. Andrew the younger died in 1481, leaving his domain
to the grand prince. In 1484 the mother of the grand prince, who had in
some degree restrained the dissensions of the brothers, died, and in
1486 Ivan bound his brothers by a new treaty to renounce their rights of
inheritance in regard to appanages. In 1491 Andrew was seized and thrown
into prison, where he died in 1494; his sons were imprisoned with him.
Boris also died soon after, leaving his domains to his sons Theodore
and Ivan: the latter, dying in 1504, left his part by will to the grand
prince, whom he calls “gossudar”[28] (sovereign or sire).


THE FINAL OVERTHROW OF THE TATARS

The most conspicuous event in the reign of Ivan--the casting off of the
Tatar yoke--is connected by many with his marriage. But it should be
borne in mind that this was the ancient and sacred ideal of the Moscow
princes, to the fulfilment of which all their desires had long been
directed, and for which they had been gradually preparing the means.
Such an event cannot be explained by one merely accidental circumstance,
although it is impossible not to agree that the dependence of her husband
upon the Tatar khan must have been humiliating to the proud Sophia, and
therefore it cannot be denied that there is some truth in the traditions
relating to this subject. But in any event the circumstance was a merely
accessory one, for it is known that long before this the expression: “May
the Lord cause the horde to perish,” was to be met with in the wills of
the Moscow princes; the same expression also occurs in the testament
of Vasili the Dark. The Moscow princes had prepared for this by taking
into their service Tatar princes, in whom they saw the best means of
fighting their enemies, the Tatars. And in this work bequeathed to him
by his forefathers, Ivan Vasilievitch remained true to the deliberate,
persistent policy of his predecessors, never losing sight of his aim, but
never hurrying too much in its attainment.

At the time when Ivan Vasilievitch began to reign, the Tatar horde no
longer constituted an undivided kingdom; previously it had been sometimes
divided and then again reunited, but at this period it was definitively
divided into three chief hordes; the Golden, the Kazanese, and the
Crimean, at the head of the last of which, during the reign of Vasili the
Dark, was Azi Girai.

Ivan’s policy consisted in exploiting one horde against the other and
one pretender against the other. Of the principal Tatar hordes, the
nearest and weakest was the Kazan horde, and it was the first which he
attempted to bring under his influence. In 1467 the vassal Kasim, who
was in the service of Ivan, was invited by some of the Tatar princes
(_mourzas_) to come to Kazan, but the khan Ibrahim met him at the Volga
and prevented him from crossing the river; after insignificant mutual
devastations in 1469 a great army was sent against Kazan, composed of
sons of the boyars and Moscow troops, under the leadership of Constantine
Bezzubtiev. The troops marched right up to the town, but beyond ravaging
its territory nothing was done. In the summer of the same year, two of
the grand prince’s brothers, Iuri and Andrew the Big, marched against
Kazan, besieged the town, and Ibrahim hastened to conclude peace “at
the entire will of the grand prince and his voyevods,” and liberated
the prisoners that had been taken during the preceding forty years. For
eight years there was peace, but in 1479 the Kazanese army made a raid
on Russian territory (at Ustiug and Viatka). To avenge this, troops were
sent from Moscow under the leadership of the voyevod Vasili Obrazets,
while from the other side came the men of Viatka and Ustiug and besieged
Kazan. Ibrahim again concluded peace “according to the will of the grand
prince.” At the death of Ibrahim disturbances arose in Kazan; one of his
sons Ali Khan or Alegam, from the younger wife, became khan, and Muhammed
Amin, the son of the elder wife, came to Moscow and asked for help
against his brother.

[Sidenote: [1487 A.D.]]

In 1487 troops were despatched from Moscow under the leadership of Daniel
Kholmski, the town was taken, Alegam made prisoner, and Muhammed Amin
established on the throne of Kazan; he was so entirely subject to Moscow
that he asked the grand prince’s permission to marry, and even paid a
certain tribute to Moscow. In 1496 the people of Kazan, dissatisfied with
Muhammed Amin, called in the Nogaians; the Moscow troops came to the
aid of the khan, but hardly had they been dismissed before the Nogaian
prince Mamuk came to Kazan, and the khan fled to Moscow. Mamuk, fearing
treason, seized the very persons who had called for him, and in general
began to act arbitrarily. When he went to attack the princes of Arsk, the
inhabitants of Kazan shut the gates against him and sent to Moscow to
ask for another khan, only not Muhammed Amin. Ivan sent them Muhammed’s
brother, Abdul Letiv, and gave to the former Koshira and Serpukhov as
fiefs. In 1502, at the complaint of the people of Kazan, Abdul Letiv
was deposed and banished to Belozero. Muhammed Amin again returned, but
he was already dissatisfied with Moscow, and in this attitude he was
supported by his wife, the widow of Alegam. In 1505, under the pretext
that the grand prince had not satisfied his complaints, Muhammed Amin
plundered some Russian merchants that had come to the fair and marched
against Nijni-Novgorod; Ivan died soon after, before he was able to
revenge himself.

The extension of the Russian possessions in the east was accomplished
in another way; in 1472 the grand prince sent troops to the territory
of Perm--which was numbered amongst the Novgorodian possessions--and
its prince was taken prisoner; but until 1505 native princes were
left to reign there, and it was only in that year that Prince Vasili
Kover was sent to Perm as lieutenant. The continual incursions of the
Voguls obliged Ivan to send troops to the Ugrian territory and Prince
Kurbski even crossed the Ural. While leaving there native princes, Ivan
nevertheless included the lands of Perm and Ugria in his title. With the
Golden Horde Ivan did not begin war, although from the very beginning
he did not pay tribute punctually. Ivan’s enemy, the grand prince of
Lithuania, incited the Tatars against Moscow, and in 1471 Casimir called
upon Ahmed to rise against the grand prince of Moscow; Ahmed however took
a whole year to assemble his troops, and meanwhile during the migration
of the Tatars from Sarai, which took place every summer, the people of
Viatka came and plundered it. In 1472 Ahmed at last assembled his troops
and took Alexin, but on meeting the grand prince’s brothers with a strong
army at the river Oka, he decided not to go further.

After this, until 1480, the relations with the Golden Horde remained
indefinite. Meanwhile intercourse was established with the Crimean
horde. Azi Girai died in 1467, and his son Nordovlat succeeded him, but
he was deposed by his brother Mengli Girai, and sought a refuge with
Casimir. Ivan hastened to enter into relations with Mengli Girai through
the intermediation of a Jew of Feodosia, named Kokos; Mengli Girai,
without breaking with Casimir, hastened to affirm these relations, which,
however, were not very profitable, on account of the disturbances in the
Crimea: the overthrow of Mengli Girai, by Aidar, the taking of Feodosia
by the Turks, and the consequent destruction of the power of the Genoese
in the Crimea; the capture of Mengli Girai and his liberation on the
condition of his becoming a Turkish tributary; the devastation of the
Crimea by the son of Ahmed, and the rise of the czarevitch Zenebek to the
supreme power. It was only in 1479 that Mengli Girai finally established
himself in the Crimea and that his constant relations with Moscow
commenced.[29]

In 1480 the khan of the Golden Horde, Ahmed, incited by Casimir of
Lithuania, prepared to march against Russia. It is reported that about
that time Ivan refused to pay tribute, and that Sophia persuaded Ivan
not to go out to meet the Tatar envoys under the pretext of illness,
and also by her cunning managed to destroy the hospice of the Tatars in
the Kremlin; it is said that she wrote to the wife of the khan telling
her that she had had a vision in which she had been commanded to build
a church upon the very same site, and that the wife of the khan, who
was bribed with presents, managed to arrange the matter, and when the
envoys came there was no resting place to be found for them in Moscow.
However this may be, it is certain that Ivan ceased to pay tribute.
When he heard of Ahmed’s coming Ivan took up his position on the banks
of the Oka, where he remained encamped from July until September; Ahmed
being informed that the passage was here occupied, passed through the
territories of Lithuania and came to the Ugra, but here he also found
the passages occupied. The two armies remained in this position until
November, and in the camp of the grand prince councils were held as to
what should be done, for two parties had arisen, the one proposing to
offer a ransom, while the other was for fighting; the famous letter
of Archbishop Vassain of Moscow was written in the latter spirit. The
grand prince was sometimes at Kolomna and sometimes at Moscow to consult
with the metropolitan. When the frosts set in, by which the Tatars
greatly suffered, the grand prince commanded the Russians to fall back
on Kremenets, and meanwhile the Tatars fled.[30] Soon after his return
to Sarai, Ahmed was killed by Ivak, prince of the Nogaian Tatars; and
Mengli Girai delivered Russia from the sons of Ahmed, with whom he was
constantly at war.

The relations with the Crimea, which were of importance in the struggle
against the Golden Horde, were also of importance in the conflict with
Lithuania, and therefore Ivan constantly maintained them; but zealously
looked after his own interests. Of course many presents had to be given
to the Tatars of the Crimea, although Ivan was economical to such a
degree that when sheep were given to the envoys he required the skins
to be returned; but he spent his wealth all the more willingly for this
object, because Lithuania on her side also endeavoured to bribe the
horde, and a regular auction went on in the Crimea. The conquest of
Feodosia by the Turks made it necessary for the Russians to enter into
relations with them for commercial reasons.


AFFAIRS OF LITHUANIA

[Sidenote: [1494-1495 A.D.]]

The friendship of Mengli Girai, which had been of value to Ivan in
his conflicts with the Tatars, was of still greater importance in his
dealings with Lithuania: Casimir, occupied with matters in the west,
principally the establishment of his son on the throne of Bohemia, had
incited both the inhabitants of Novgorod and the Golden Horde against
Ivan, while Ivan on his side had instigated Mengli Girai against
Lithuania and carried on relations with Casimir’s enemy, the king of
Hungary, Matthias (I) Corvinus. The quarrels of the border princes
serving in the various armies, and their passing into the service of the
Muscovite sovereign, served as the chief pretext for dissatisfaction. The
grand prince of Moscow, taking advantage of the fact that in the treaty
concluded between Vasili Vasilievitch and Casimir, the subject of the
princes had been treated very vaguely, began to receive those that passed
into his service. Thus he received together with their domains Prince
I. M. Vorotinski, Prince I. V. Bielski, and Prince D. Th. Vorotinski.
The complaints at their desertions, the quarrels of the border princes,
and in general, the frontier disagreements, were a continual subject of
friction, which occasionally went as far as slight skirmishes. In 1492
Casimir died, and Lithuania chose as king his son Alexander, while Poland
took as king his other son John. Ivan again roused Mengli Girai against
Lithuania and sent detachments of his troops to lay waste the frontiers.
Propositions of peace were sent from Lithuania and negotiations for a
marriage with one of the daughters of Ivan were entered upon. In Moscow
it was insisted that the negotiations for peace should precede those
for marriage. Meanwhile more princes passed into the Russian service:
two more princes Vorotinski, Prince Mezetski and Prince Viazemski; the
frontier incursions also continued. Finally in 1494 Alexander sent his
ambassadors to open negotiations both for peace and for the marriage.
The treaty concluded by them recognised the passing of the princes
into Ivan’s service, and what was of even greater importance, Ivan was
therein called sovereign of all Russia. Ivan then gave his consent to
the marriage of his daughter Helen with the grand prince of Lithuania,
Alexander, stipulating however that a promise in writing should be given
that Helen would not be constrained to change her religion. When all this
was concluded, in 1495 Ivan sent Helen to Lithuania, giving her detailed
instructions. At the celebration of the marriage ceremony the Russian
ambassadors insisted that the ceremony should also be celebrated by an
orthodox priest. But even from the very beginning it was manifest that
seeds of discord lay hidden in this alliance. Alexander refused to build
an orthodox church at his court, the boyars from Moscow who were with
Helen were soon sent back, and finally Alexander ceased to give Ivan the
title of sovereign of all Russia. The dissatisfaction grew, so that Ivan
wrote to Mengli Girai: “If Alexander makes peace with you now, let us
know if he does not, also let us know, and we are with you, our brother.”
More princes passed into the service of the grand prince of Moscow,
amongst them Prince Simon Bielski, who asserted that persecutions against
orthodoxy had commenced in Lithuania, and accused the bishop of Smolensk,
Joseph, of co-operating with the Latins; Prince Simon Ivanovitch (son
of Ivan of Mozhaisk) with Tchernigov, and Prince Vasili Ivanovitch (a
grandson of Shemiaka) with Novgorod Severski also came over (1499). Ivan
sent Alexander a declaration of war; which began with incursions of the
vassal princes, and on the 14th of July, 1500, Prince Daniel Kholmski,
who led the troops of Tver and Moscow, and the vassal Tatars and princes,
met the Lithuanian hetman Prince Constantine, defeated him, and took
him prisoner; on the other hand the grand prince’s son, Prince Dmitri
Ivanovitch, was unable to take Smolensk, and in general during four years
warlike action proceeded very feebly. Diplomatic intrigue was however
carried on with great activity; Moscow incited Mengli Girai against
Lithuania, who sent his sons to devastate Lithuania and Poland, in spite
of tempting offers from Alexander.

[Sidenote: [1495-1503 A.D.]]

Stephen of Moldavia, however, hearing of the disgrace and abandonment
into which his daughter Helen (widow of Ivan’s son) had fallen at the
court of Moscow, made peace with Alexander; his enmity however did
not express itself in any important act. Far more important was the
help given to Alexander by the Livonian grand master Plettenberg.
Notwithstanding the truce which had been concluded, the continual
collisions between the Livonians and the inhabitants of Pskov did not
cease. To avenge one of these incursions, Ivan sent twenty thousand
troops to Livonia who laid waste the land, captured towns, and carried
away prisoners. A fresh truce was concluded (1482) which was extended in
1493, but the Germans burned a certain Russian in Reval, and in answer
to Russian complaints they replied that they would have burned the grand
prince himself. This, it is supposed, explains the order given in 1495 to
expel the Hanseatic merchants and close their shops; but perhaps it is
more probable that the true reason was the treaty concluded with the king
of Denmark, the enemy of the Hansa, who had asked for help against the
Swedes, promising in the event of success to cede a part of Finland to
Russia. Ivan sent an army against Sweden; but when the Danish king took
possession of Sweden he gave nothing to Russia. Such being the relations
between Russia and Livonia, it was quite natural that the grand master
Plettenberg should hasten to conclude an alliance with Lithuania (1501).
He defeated the Russians near Izborsk, but did not take the town and
turned back, while the Russians continued to ravage Livonia. Plettenberg
again entered Russian territory, besieged Pskov, and a battle took place
near Lake Smolin, but it was not decisive (1502). Meanwhile Alexander
began negotiations for peace, partly through his brothers John (after
whose death in 1502 he occupied the throne of Poland) and Vladislav, and
partly through embassies. Finally, in 1503, a treaty was concluded by
which Russia kept all her acquisitions and Ivan was granted the title of
sovereign of all Russia. A truce was then concluded with Livonia.

Relations with the German Empire began under Ivan. They commenced with
the visit of the knight Poppel to Moscow; his narratives revealed Russia
to Germany and he came as ambassador in 1489. Negotiations were opened
for the marriage of one of the grand prince’s daughters with Maximilian,
the son of the emperor Frederick; but nothing came of them. The hope that
it might be possible to incite the emperor against the Polish king was
also frustrated, for Maximilian, who had pretensions to the throne of
Hungary, made peace with Vladislav.


LAST YEARS OF IVAN; INHERITANCE LEFT TO HIS SONS

[Sidenote: [1505 A.D.]]

The last years of Ivan’s life were darkened by dissensions and intrigues
in his family. In 1490 died Ivan the Younger, whom Ivan had proclaimed
as his co-ruler. Two parties were then formed at the court; the boyars
wished to see Dmitri, the son of Ivan the Younger, and Helen of Moldavia
recognised as heir; and Sophia designed her son Vasili (born in 1479)
to be heir. A plot was laid against Dmitri; the sovereign heard of it,
ordered the conspirators to be executed, and was greatly angered with
Sophia, because he had been told that she had called in sorcerers to
her aid (1497). Ivan then had his grandson crowned as his successor
(1498); but soon Sophia again triumphed: a conspiracy was discovered in
which were involved the princes Patrikëiev and Riapolovski; Prince Simon
Riapolovski was beheaded and the Patrikëievs were forced to take holy
orders. It was supposed that the plot had been directed against Sophia.
From the first Ivan did not “rejoice in his grandson,” and proclaimed
Vasili grand prince of Novgorod and Pskov, and in 1502 he had Dmitri
placed under arrest and declared Vasili his successor. The ambassadors to
the various courts were given orders to explain these occurrences.

Ivan died on the 27th of October, 1505, leaving a will and testament by
which he bequeathed sixty-six of the most important towns to Vasili, and
only thirty to his remaining sons (Iuri, Dmitri, Simon, and Andrew);
Moscow was divided into parts, Vasili receiving two-thirds and the others
one-third in all, but the elder was to have a share even in this third;
the younger brothers were commanded to esteem the elder as a father and
to leave him their inheritance in the event of their dying childless.
Thus were changed the relations of the grand prince to the appanaged
princes! In the treaty concluded between the brothers Vasili and Iuri
during the lifetime of Ivan, Iuri calls his brother “lord,” and binds
himself to hold his principality “honourably and strictly.”


APPRECIATIONS OF IVAN VASILIEVITCH

“He sits at home and sleeps, and his dominions augment, while I fight
every day and yet can hardly defend my frontiers.” Such were the words,
it is said, with which Stephen of Moldavia frequently characterised his
daughter’s father-in-law, the grand prince Ivan Vasilievitch.

The observation is a remarkable one, for it represents the first and
most salient feature in the policy of the famous Russian monarch, who
in himself concludes one period of Russian history and opens another.
Under him Russia passes out of its condition of exclusiveness; the west
learns that besides that Russia which is subject to Lithuania, there is
already another Russia, independent, powerful, and self-sufficing; it is
even possible that at first this power was somewhat exaggerated, but it
struck contemporaries because it had, so to say, grown imperceptibly. It
would seem that all around it, as if submitting to some fatal influence,
hastened to yield to this newborn power, while Russia herself did not
hasten to announce herself, but only manifested herself at the last
moment when everything was already prepared for this manifestation, and
when it only remained to gather the fully ripened fruits.

S. M. Soloviov[h] compares Ivan to the fortunate heir of a long line
of careful merchants who, having amassed a considerable capital,
provided their heir with the means for carrying on vast enterprises.
N. I. Kostomarov’s[c] judgment is still more severe; he denies any
merit in Ivan, judges his activity by the requirements of other times
and circumstances, and does not recognise in him and his descendants
anything beyond their own ambitious and self-interested motives. Such
views were probably called forth as a contradiction to Karamzin, who on
his part, carried away by his dislike of the violence which--according
to him--characterised the reform of Peter, placed Ivan above Peter.
The question “Lithuania or Moscow” was raised with entire firmness and
determination by Ivan, for by the defence of Helen’s orthodoxy and
by receiving into his service the Lithuanian princes who expatriated
themselves because of the persecution of orthodoxy, he became the
protector of the Greek church in Lithuania and thus strove to gain
influence in its internal affairs. The secular policy of Russia was thus
marked out; it was also marked out by his insistence on the recognition
of his title grand prince of all Russia and by his demand for the
restoration of Kiev; intercourse with the west also begins with him.[b]

In war Ivan showed a caution which his enemies called cowardice. As
behooved a prince, he conducted everything of importance himself. He
exacted strict obedience, and was indefatigable in studying the thoughts
and private circumstances of all important men in his kingdom, and even
in foreign lands. The whole court and people trembled before his spirit
and will; shy women are said to have fainted before his angry and fiery
look; seldom, if ever, did a petitioner dare to approach his throne,
and none of the nobles at the princely table ventured to say a word to
another, or to leave his place, if the ruler, overcome by eating or
drinking, happened to fall asleep and remained so for many hours. All
the guests sat there dumb until Ivan awoke and gave them further orders,
either to amuse or to leave him.

He was by no means prodigal of the life of his warriors; in fact, he
expected to gain more from the mistakes of his enemies than others do
from battles; and he knew how to incite his enemies into committing
mistakes, as well as to make use of them. He had the enlargement of his
kingdom as much at heart as his absolute power. He boldly projected
many far-seeing plans, and sought with indefatigable zeal to realise
them. After he had broken the pride of Novgorod he considered nothing
impossible, and regarded his own will as the supreme command. We find no
trace of his having been accessible to the petitions of his subjects, or
of his granting public audience days for the hearing of their requests
and complaints.

Arbitrary power over the common people became stronger and prevailed, and
officials abused their power unpunished, for complainants and helpers
were wanting. To enlighten the minds of his people through the study of
science was not a part of his plans, perhaps because he may have thought
that it is easier for the tyrant to rule over rude slaves than over a
free-thinking and enlightened people. He must not be denied the merit of
having raised great edifices at Moscow by means of foreign, especially
Italian, architects; but vanity and love of show probably had more to do
with this than artistic sense and taste. The wide and majestic walls of
the venerable Kremlin with its battlements and towers, secret underground
passages, and fortified gates, were to serve less as objects of beauty
than as means of protection against domestic and foreign enemies. Amongst
the useful arts he especially favoured those of the cannon founder and
silversmith; with the former he desired to terrify his enemies, and with
the latter to spread the renown of his power and glory. His greatest
services to the Russian state include, besides the regulation of the law
code, the increase of the state revenues, partly through the conquest of
new provinces, and partly through a better system of taxation, so that
the government could collect a treasure for unforeseen emergencies and
would become less dependent upon chance.

Thus there can be no doubt that as a prince Ivan ranks high and belongs
to the number of those regents who decide the fate of their people
and land for many years, and are a blessed or a cursed remembrance to
posterity: but neither can it be denied that his greatness and fame lose
much when we come to consider him as a man, and see the harshness of
his character, his unlimited pride, his contempt of all human rights,
his wild and passionate nature, and his greed of power. That he was the
founder of autocracy, as modern writers assert, is not altogether his
own exclusive merit, although it cannot be denied that he contributed
much towards it by his shrewdness and wise moderation. When in the
early days of his youth he seized the reins of government, he found
much that had been prepared towards the future greatness of Russia; but
Russia was still in a chaotic condition, and its forces were scattered
and sunk as it were in a lethargy; they required an awakening and
regulating hand, and this was principally Ivan’s work. Owing to the
unfortunate system of appanages, which had been the ruin of Russia for
many centuries, by destroying all unity in course of time, sowing the
seeds of discord, and making the Russian state an easy prey to its
enemies, the idea of a common fatherland had quite disappeared; and the
internal dissensions among the princes, as well as the despotic pressure
of the foreign barbarians, had so deranged and disjointed it, that the
praiseworthy attempts of individual grand princes could meet with no
brilliant success, and it seemed as if Russia were fated to play a deeply
subordinate part in the hierarchy of states.

Nevertheless those attempts were not quite lost, and the prudent might
surmise that the time would yet come when they would bear fruit, once
the hydra of discord had been conquered and the scattered forces had
been reunited. Ivan’s proceedings in this respect were certainly of
a macchiavellian nature. We have seen that for twenty-three years he
patiently acknowledged the rights of other Russian princes and even
their independence, and that by keeping his conquests to himself and not
sharing them with his brothers and the other princes, and by taking his
brother’s inheritance and giving none to his other brothers, he first
began to consider himself as autocrat and ruler of all Russia, and thus
gradually prepared the princes for a recognition of his undivided sway
and their own impotency and subordination.

We do not inquire as to whether the means he used for the attainment of
his end deserve our approval; we will only remark that great conquerors
and founders of new empires, or such as reorganise and rejuvenate old and
decaying states, cannot be judged with the same standard by which wise
regents are judged in regulated states. The resort to violent measures is
often their highest duty, if they are to persist in their work and arrive
at the aim they have imposed on themselves. From a political point of
view, Ivan’s harsh proceedings therefore deserve some exculpation, all
the more so when we consider that he lived at a time when revolutions of
every kind were taking place in the states and their institutions, in the
modes of thinking and in the religion of men, in the arts and sciences,
the new forms often seeking to supplant the old in a violent manner; and
when this change also began in Russia, where intellectual enlightenment
was so rare, we should not be surprised to see the forces of brutality
often gaining the upper hand over the forces of reason.

We now find ourselves at one of the most important turning points of
Russian political history, when by a regulated system of succession
and by the incorporation of the independent principalities with the
grand principality, the Russian monarchy began to establish itself
firmly and to extend its bounds; when the hitherto terrible defiance
of over-powerful nobles and of princes who claimed equal rank with the
grand prince submits to the restraints of a common obedience; when no
more dangers threaten Russia from the side of Novgorod and the Tatars;
when a regulated system of taxation, a treasury and an organised army
protect the throne; and finally when science and art, the administration
of justice, personal safety on the roads and in the towns, besides
other blessings of peace and order, also begin to attract attention,
protection, and cultivation in Russia.[d]


ACCESSION OF VASILI IVANOVITCH (1505 A.D.)

Vasili Ivanovitch succeeded his father, and continued his policy both in
foreign and domestic affairs. He endeavoured to extend the frontiers of
the Russian monarchy on the Lithuanian side, destroyed the independence
of the last appanaged princes and the last republican township, Pskov,
and strove to keep Kazan in subjection.

In his personal character Vasili resembled his father in his sterner
aspect. He let his nephew, the unfortunate Dmitri, die “destitute”
in prison; over his brothers he maintained a strict surveillance,
not allowing his brother Andrew to marry until 1533, when he himself
had already two children; with his boyars he was also stern, though
there were but few executions and punishments during his reign. He
preferred, in case of any suspected intention of departure on the part
of a boyar, to take a written guarantee in which the security promised,
in the event of departure, to pay a sum of money for those for whom
he went bail. Vasili even forgave his brother Simon, who had the
intention of going over to Lithuania, and only changed his counsellors.
Stern on the occasion of his divorce from his first wife, Vasili was
tender towards his second wife, and was very fond of his children. In
general the characteristics of Vasili are most faithfully summed up by
Karamzin in the following sentence: “He followed the path indicated by
the wisdom of his father, without fear, without impulses of passion,
moving forward with measured and prudent steps, and drew near to his
aim, the aggrandisement of Russia, without leaving to his successor
either the duty or the glory of repairing his faults.” In the eyes of
the historian this, of course, redeems the personally rather stern
sides of his character, which were, however, quite comprehensible to
contemporaries.[31]


WARS WITH LITHUANIA

[Sidenote: [1506 A.D.]]

From the very commencement of his reign Vasili found himself confronted
with two questions: that of Kazan--for Muhammed Amin had risen even
during the reign of Ivan and had to be subdued--and that of Lithuania.
From the ambassadors whom Alexander had sent to Ivan he learned that a
new sovereign was now reigning in Moscow. Having given information of
this in Livonia, so that in any case the grand master might be prepared,
Alexander despatched an embassy to Moscow demanding the cession of the
towns that had been conquered by Ivan. The ambassadors received a firm
reply from the new sovereign to the effect that he only reigned over his
legitimate possessions, which he intended to retain.

Alexander saw the necessity of delay before taking a decisive line of
action, of which course he informed the grand master. Meanwhile the
ambassadors who had come from Moscow to announce Vasili’s accession to
the throne required that Alexander should not constrain his wife to
change her religion. But Alexander died in 1506, and when Vasili heard of
his death he wrote to his sister that she should endeavour to persuade
the Polish lords and landed gentry to serve the Russian sovereign,
promising at the same time to protect the Catholic faith. In answer to
this first attempt on the part of Moscow to unite with Lithuania, Helen
replied that Sigismund, the son of Casimir, was being chosen to the
throne of Lithuania. Sigismund also sent ambassadors with the demand to
return the conquered towns, and received the same reply demanding that
Helen should not be constrained to adopt the Catholic faith. At this time
Sigismund found an unexpected ally in the Crimean khan Mengli Girai,
who having met with support in Lithuania before the death of Alexander
and being dissatisfied with the Muscovite sovereign because of his
expedition against Kazan, sent an embassy to Lithuania with proposals for
an alliance. Sigismund promised him tribute, and Mengli Girai gave him
a _yarlik_ for the Russian territories of Novgorod, Pskov, and Riazan.
Sigismund informed the grand master of Livonia of the relations with the
Crimea and with Kazan and called upon him to go to war, and measures
for the commencement of war were taken in the diet; but this time his
allies were of but little assistance to Sigismund; Kazan submitted, while
the Crimea and Livonia did not move. On the other hand, Vasili found
an important ally in Lithuania itself in the person of Prince Michael
Vasilievitch Glinski.

Prince Michael Glinski, the descendant of a Tatar prince that had left
the horde during the reign of Vitovt and been baptised, had enjoyed great
distinction and influence under Alexander. Glinski was a skilful general
and a highly educated man for those times; he had spent twelve years
abroad and had learned the art of war in the armies of Albrecht of Saxony
during the war in Friesland and of the emperor Maximilian in Italy; he
also visited Spain. In these expeditions and in his continual intercourse
with western kings and princes, Glinski had adopted all the German
customs and had become penetrated with the civilisation of the west.
When he returned to Lithuania, Glinski gained the favour and confidence
of King Alexander, who raised him to the dignity of court marshal and so
increased his possessions that, according to the hyperbolical expression
of a Polish historian, he owned almost half of the entire Lithuanian
principality and stood at the head of the numerous Russian party amongst
the Lithuanian lords. It was for this reason that at the death of
Alexander the Lithuanian party hastened to choose Sigismund, for they
feared that Glinski might obtain the throne of the grand principality and
transfer the centre from Lithuania to Russia.

When Sigismund came to the throne he showed an offensive coldness to
Glinski, and paying no attention to his complaints against the lords who
were at enmity with him, at the head of whom was Zaberezhsky, he left
for Poland. Glinski thereupon decided to obtain satisfaction on his own
account; he made an incursion on the estates of Zaberezhsky, killed
him, and raised a revolt against the king. To this end he entered into
relations with Mengli Girai, and Vasili Ivanovitch, on his side, sent one
of his secretaries to propose to him to become the subject of Russia, and
promising to leave him the lands which he might occupy. Glinski however
still wavered and tried to effect a reconciliation with the king; finally
losing all hope of this, he joined the grand prince’s voyevods, who had
marched up to the frontiers of Lithuania. To Glinski and the foreign
princes in the Russian service was confided the task of devastating
Lithuania, but the voyevods did not move to their help, for in Moscow it
was counted advantageous to let others do its work. Meanwhile Sigismund
sent an embassy, complaining of Glinski’s reception by Vasili and of the
opening of hostilities. The letter was written in the name of Helen,
and in his reply to her the grand prince directed her attention to the
constraint put upon the orthodox in Lithuania and enjoined her to remain
firm in her faith. Sigismund received no aid from Mengli Girai, but
nevertheless he began warlike operations, which however were limited to
insignificant skirmishes. Finally a treaty was concluded by which all
Ivan’s acquisitions remained to Russia, and all that had been taken by
Glinski was given back (1508). Glinski came to Moscow, where Medin and
Maloiaroslavetz were given to him but he remained dissatisfied.

[Sidenote: [1508-1514 A.D.]]

The peace of 1508 could not however put an end to the inimical relations
between the two principalities: Glinski could not remain quiet until
he was avenged on his enemies, and Lithuania could not be quiet so
long as Glinski lived; while on his side Vasili Ivanovitch demanded
better treatment for his sister Helen. Thus the relations between the
two neighbouring states were strained. In 1509 Sigismund demanded
the surrender or execution of Glinski, accusing him of the death of
Alexander; in the same year he announced his connection with the
Danish king; it can also be easily understood that each reciprocal
embassy complained of frontier quarrels, as is always the case in such
circumstances. In 1512 Vasili informed Sigismund that it had come to his
ears that the voyevods of Vilna and Trotski had seized Helen and held her
captive--which does not appear at all improbable when the unruliness of
the Lithuanian lords is borne in mind--Sigismund denied the fact. That
Helen officially received various rights, for instance that of a tribute
or tax from the town of Bielsk, also does not prove that her position
was a very advantageous one, for this was worth nothing more than other
official favours. In 1513 Helen died and the metropolitan of Kiev was
sent for to officiate at her funeral; thus this victim of political
calculations left the scene. Helen herself, as far as can be judged
from her correspondence with her father and brother, was possessed of
considerable tact and energy.

At last a reason for beginning war presented itself; it became known at
Moscow that the incursions made by the Crimeans on the Russian frontier
territories in 1512 were the result of a secret treaty that had been
concluded between Sigismund and Mengli Girai, by which the king had
promised to pay the khan a yearly sum of 15,000 ducats to attack his
enemies. Having sent Sigismund a declaration of war, Vasili began his
warlike preparations. The time was well chosen. In 1511 Albrecht of
Brandenburg had been chosen as Prussian grand master, and although he
was a nephew of the Polish king he refused to acknowledge himself as his
vassal, which he was obliged to do by the Treaty of Thorn; the emperor
and the estates of the empire declared themselves for the grand master.
Advised by Glinski, Vasili had entered into relations with the emperor as
early as 1508, but the treaty between them was only concluded in 1514.

[Sidenote: [1514-1518 A.D.]]

Without waiting for the termination of these negotiations, the grand
prince assembled an army and in December, 1512, took the field. He
marched against Smolensk and having besieged it unsuccessfully, returned
in March, 1513. His second expedition, from June until November of the
same year, was also unsuccessful, but in the third (June, 1514), Smolensk
was at last captured. Vasili made a triumphal entry into the town,
being received with an address of welcome by the bishop of Smolensk.
He confirmed the rights that had been given to its inhabitants by the
Lithuanian government; those in the Lithuanian service who did not desire
to remain under him he sent back to Lithuania, and he appointed Prince V.
V. Shuiski, governor of Smolensk. After the submission of Smolensk the
prince of Mstislavl also submitted to the grand prince. Sigismund himself
hastened to the deliverance of Smolensk. Glinski, probably dissatisfied
because Smolensk had not been given to him, entered into secret
intercourse with him. Learning of this treachery Vasili ordered Glinski
to be brought in fetters to Moscow and sent a voyevod against the king;
the king himself remained at Borissov and sent Constantine Ostrozhski to
meet the Moscow troops.

The Russian voyevods, Tcheliadin and Prince Michael Golitza met
Ostrozhski at Orsha on the Dnieper and sustained a terrible defeat. The
fidelity of the boyars of Smolensk and of the bishop himself wavered and
they entered into communication with Sigismund; but the burghers informed
Shuiski of this treachery, and it was only the terribly energetic
measures taken by him that preserved Smolensk for Russia: he ordered all
the traitors except the bishop to be hanged on the walls of the city, the
presents that had been given them by the sovereign to be suspended round
the neck of each one. The assault on Smolensk was unsuccessful, and the
war was afterward carried on feebly, which is explained by the exhaustion
of Moscow after the battle of Orsha and the probable reluctance of the
Lithuanian nobility to take an active part in it. After this Sigismund
instigated the Tatars against Russia, in particular those of the Crimea,
where in 1515 Mengli Girai had been succeeded by Muhammed Girai, who,
notwithstanding his relations with Moscow, made in 1517 an attack on Tula
and was repulsed. On his side Vasili strengthened his relations with
Albrecht who kept his vassal, the grand master of Livonia, in check.
However while Albrecht hesitated and demanded money, Vasili required that
he should begin to act. The emperor, instead of beginning the war, as had
been at first supposed he would do, offered his mediation, and it was
with this aim in view that in 1517 the famous baron Sigismund Herberstein
came to Moscow. Polish ambassadors also came; but with the news of their
coming, Moscow also learned of the attack on Opochka by the Lithuanian
troops and their repulse, and when Vasili heard of its failure he allowed
the ambassadors access to him. The negotiations however came to nothing.
The Moscow sovereign demanded Kiev and other towns, and the Lithuanian
king refused to give up Smolensk. The death of Maximilian (1519) put
an end to the imperial mediation; anyhow the emperor had not wished to
give any real assistance: “It is not well”--he wrote to the grand master
Albrecht--“to drive out the king, and make the czar of all Russia great.”

In 1518 Albrecht again asked for money; the grand prince agreed, and at
the former’s request sent a notification of his alliance with him to
the French king, Francis I--the first instance of intercourse between
Russia and France. In answer to a fresh embassy from Albrecht bringing
information of an invitation from the pope to join an alliance against
the Turks, which Albrecht would not enter into without the grand prince’s
consent, an ambassador was sent to Koenigsberg from Moscow, who was
received with the highest honours by the grand master. But Albrecht’s
help was not very efficacious; he was soon obliged to conclude a treaty
with King Sigismund by which he acknowledged himself his vassal, in
return for which he obtained Prussia as an hereditary possession, laid
aside his title of grand master, and assumed a new title with his new
faith, that of duke of Prussia.

[Sidenote: [1521-1523 A.D.]]

The war at that time was limited to incursions, and Vasili Ivanovitch
had even decided to seek peace; but the envoys that came would not
make any concessions, only letting negotiations drag on in the hope
of some event coming to their assistance; in this manner the war was
prolonged until the Lent of 1521, when negotiations were to be again
renewed; however they were not opened: in Kazan reigned Sahib Girai, the
brother of Muhammed Girai, and they both threatened Moscow, indeed the
former advanced as far as Moscow itself (1521). The devastations of the
Tatars weakened Russia for a time and the negotiations with Lithuania
were renewed; although a lasting peace was not concluded, a truce was
continued for five years without the exchange of prisoners, and by this
truce Smolensk remained to Russia. In 1526, through the medium of the
emperor’s envoys, negotiations for a definitive peace were again opened,
but Smolensk was an obstacle, neither side consenting to give up the town
which was regarded as the key to Kiev. Smolensk was treated in the same
manner as the other territories annexed; the inhabitants were transferred
to Moscow as had been done with the inhabitants of Pskov and Novgorod,
and it was for this reason that Smolensk stood by Moscow in 1612.


WARS WITH THE TATARS

Besides the relations with Lithuania, the relations with the Tatars
constituted the chief problem of the reign of Vasili Ivanovitch. At
his accession his first enterprise was to send against Kazan an army,
amongst the leaders of which was his brother Dmitri; the siege of Kazan
(1506) was unsuccessful, nevertheless in 1507 Muhammed Amin sent a
letter to the grand prince with proposals of peace. Intercourse with
the Crimea originally bore the same character as in the time of Ivan;
a difference was however soon observable; the Crimea had no longer
anything to fear from the remnants of the Golden Horde, and the Crimeans
were therefore ready to make friends with whatever state would give
them most. “Intercourse between the Crimea and the states of Moscow and
Lithuania”--justly remarks Soloviov--“assumed the character of a bribery
of robbers.”

Such being the condition of affairs, it is not surprising that in spite
of the confirmation of the treaty concluded between Ivan and Mengli
Girai, the Tatars should have begun their attacks. In 1507 they were
defeated at the Oka, and in consequence of this, envoys were sent
demanding presents, the liberation of Abdul Letiv, former czar of Kazan
and stepson of Mengli Girai, and asking for assistance against Astrakhan.
Vasili Ivanovitch liberated Abdul Letiv, gave him the town of Iuriev, and
by an oath of alliance obliged him to promise faithfully to serve the
czar, not to have relations with his enemies, not to permit his servants
to plunder on the roads or insult the churches, to live at peace with
the other princes, not to wage war against Kazan without permission,
and not to leave the confines of the state of Moscow. In 1515 Mengli
Girai died, and his son Muhammed Girai, who succeeded him, demanded
from Vasili Ivanovitch not only the cession to the Polish king of
Smolensk, at the acquisition of which without his knowledge he was much
incensed, but also of those towns which had been taken by Ivan. After
long delays and much trouble, many insults and, of course, presents, an
oath of alliance was obtained of Muhammed Girai in 1519, but meanwhile
the attacks of the Crimeans continued. The son of Muhammed Girai, the
czarevitch Bogatir, laid waste the borderland of Riazan; and in 1517 the
Tatars--notwithstanding the Russian offer of Koshira, bordering on the
steppes, to Ahmed Girai, brother of the khan--penetrated as far as Tula,
where they were repulsed.

The grand prince then proposed to the council (_douma_) the question
whether relations with the Crimea should be maintained, and it was
decided that they must be maintained in order to prevent the rupture from
becoming an open one. Meanwhile in 1518 Muhammed Amin of Kazan died,
and Abdul Letiv, who had previously been czar, died a month after him;
at the request of the inhabitants of Kazan a czar was named from Moscow
in 1519--Shig Alei, a prince of Astrakhan, and descendant of the czars
of the Golden Horde. The Crimean khan was greatly dissatisfied at this
choice of one whose family was at an eternal enmity with his own. Shig
Alei remained in Kazan until 1521 when the inhabitants, dissatisfied with
him, formed a conspiracy and invited Sahib Girai, brother of Muhammed
Girai, to come and rule over them. Having established his brother on
the throne of Kazan, Muhammed Girai advanced towards Moscow. The grand
prince, warned too late by his well-wishers at Azov, could not take
the necessary measures, and left Moscow, confiding the defence of the
city to the boyars and baptised Tatar prince, Peter; they entered into
negotiations with the enemy and paid him a ransom. The heroic defence of
Pereiaslavl in Riazan by Khabar Simski somewhat softened the mournful
impression of this calamity, which was augmented by the fact that Sahib
Girai had at the same time devastated the territories of Nijni-Novgorod
and Vladimir. The khan was preparing to repeat his expedition, and the
grand prince himself took the field in expectation of his coming, but he
never came.

Another undertaking then occupied Muhammed Girai: in 1523 he joined the
Nogaians and conquered Astrakhan. There the Nogaians quarreled with him
and killed him; his place was taken by Saidat Girai, who sent the grand
prince the following conditions for an alliance: To give him 60,000
altines (an ancient coin of the value of three kopecks) and to make peace
with Sahib Girai; but Vasili seeing the devastation of the Crimea both by
the Nogaians and the Cossacks of Dashkevitch, who had hitherto acted in
concert with the Crimeans, rejected these proposals. To avenge himself on
Sahib Girai, who had massacred the Russians in Kazan where blood flowed
like water, Vasili himself came to the land of Kazan (1523), devastated
it, and made the inhabitants prisoners; on his return he built the town
of Vasilsursk. When in 1524 a great army was sent from Moscow to Kazan,
Sahib Girai fled to the Crimea, and the inhabitants of Kazan proclaimed
his young nephew Sava Girai as czar; the expedition from Moscow was
however unsuccessful, although the people of Kazan, who had lost their
artillery engineer, sued for peace.


THE GROWING POWER OF RUSSIA

Their dependence upon the grand prince was irksome to the inhabitants of
Kazan; fresh disputes arose, Vasili brought on an intrigue, and Kazan
soon asked for a new czar. Vasili named Shig Alei, who was at that time
in Nijni, but when the people of Kazan entreated that his brother Jan
Alei (Enalei), who then ruled over Kassimov, should be nominated in his
stead, Vasili consented. Jan Alei was established at Kazan and Shig
Alei was given Koshira, but as he did not keep the peace, and entered
on negotiations with Kazan, he was exiled to Belozero. Disturbances
took place in the Crimea; Saidat Girai was overthrown by Sahib, but the
relations between the Crimea and Moscow remained the same; the Tatars
continued to make insignificant raids and obtained presents. Nevertheless
the Tatar messengers began to be less respectfully treated at Moscow:
“Our messengers”--wrote Sahib Girai--“complain that thou dost not honour
them as of old, and yet it is thy duty to honour them; whoever wishes
to pay respect to the master, throws a bone to his dog.” Of other
diplomatic relations those with Sweden and Denmark bore the character
of frontier disputes; the intercourse with the pope was entered upon
through the desire of the latter to convert Russia to Catholicism and
incite her to war against Turkey. The intercourse with the latter power
had no particular results. It is curious to observe that at this period
relations were entered into with India; the sultan Babur sent ambassadors
(1533) with proposals of mutual commercial dealings.[b]

[Sidenote: [1533 A.D.]]

Each day added to the importance of Russia in Europe. Vasili exchanged
ambassadors with the eastern courts and wrote to Francis I the great
king of the Gauls. He numbered among his correspondents Leo X, Clement
VII, Maximilian, and Charles V; Gustavus Vasa, founder of a new dynasty;
Sultan Selim, conqueror of Egypt and Soliman the Magnificent. The grand
mogul of the Indes, Babur, descendant of Timur, sought his friendship.
The autocracy affirmed itself each day more vigorously. Vasili governed
without consulting his council of boyars. “_Moltchi, smerd!_” (Hold,
clown!) said he to one of the nobles who dared to raise an objection.
This growing power manifested itself in the splendour of the court, the
receptions of the ambassadors displaying a luxury hitherto unprecedented.
Strangers, though not in large numbers, continued to come to Moscow,
of whom the most illustrious was a monk from Mount Athos, Maxine the
Greek.[e]


MAXINE THE GREEK

In the early days of his reign, when Vasili was examining the treasures
left to him by his father, he perceived a large number of Greek church
books which had been partly collected by former grand princes and partly
brought to Moscow by Sophia, and which now lay covered with dust in utter
neglect. The young sovereign manifested the desire of having a person
who would be capable of looking them over and of translating the best of
them into the Slavonic language. Such a person was not to be found in
Moscow, and letters were written to Constantinople. The patriarch, being
desirous of pleasing the grand prince, made search for such a philosopher
in Bulgaria, in Macedonia and in Thessalonica; but the Ottoman yoke
had there crushed all the remains of ancient learning and darkness and
ignorance reigned in the sultan’s realms. Finally it was discovered that
in the famous convent of the Annunciation on Mount Athos there were two
monks, Sabba and Maxine, who were learned theologians and well versed in
the Slavonic and Greek languages. The former on account of his great age
was unable to undertake so long a journey, but the latter consented to
the desire of the patriarch and of the grand prince.

It would indeed have been impossible to find a person better fitted for
the projected work. Born in Greece, but educated in the enlightened
west, Maxine had studied in Paris and Florence, had travelled much,
was acquainted with various languages, and was possessed of unusual
erudition, which he had acquired in the best universities and in
conversation with men of enlightenment. Vasili received him with marked
favour. When he saw the library, Maxine, in a transport of enthusiasm
and astonishment, exclaimed: “Sire! all Greece does not now possess
such treasures, neither does Italy, where Latin fanaticism has reduced
to ashes many of the works of our theologians which my compatriots had
saved from the Mohammedan barbarians.” The grand prince listened to him
with the liveliest pleasure and confided the library to his care. The
zealous Greek made a catalogue of the books which had been until then
unknown to the Slavonic people. By desire of the sovereign, and with the
assistance of three Muscovites, Vasili, Dmitri and Michael Medovartzov,
he translated the commentary of the psalter. Approved by the Metropolitan
Varlaam and all the ecclesiastical council, this important work made
Maxine famous, and so endeared him to the grand prince that he could
not part with him, and daily conversed with him on matters of religion.
The wise Greek was not, however, dazzled by these honours, and though
grateful to Vasili, he earnestly implored him to allow him to return to
the quiet of his retreat at Mount Athos: “There,” said he, “will I praise
your name and tell my compatriots that in the world there still exists a
Christian czar, mighty and great, who, if it pleases the Most High, may
yet deliver us from the tyranny of the infidel.” But Vasili only replied
by fresh signs of favour and kept him nine years in Moscow; this time was
spent by Maxine in the translation of various works, in correcting errors
in the ancient translations, and in composing works of piety of which
more than a hundred are known to us.

Having free access to the grand prince, he sometimes interceded for the
noblemen who had fallen in disgrace and regained for them the sovereign’s
favour. This excited the dissatisfaction and envy of many persons, in
particular of the clergy and of the worldly-minded monks of St. Joseph,
who enjoyed the favour of Vasili. The humble-minded metropolitan Varlaam
had cared little for earthly matters, but his successor, the proud
Daniel, soon declared himself the enemy of the foreigner. It began to be
asked: “Who is this man who dares to deface our sacred church books and
restore to favour the disgraced boyars?” Some tried to prove that he was
a heretic, others represented him to the grand prince as an ungrateful
calumniator who censured the acts of the sovereign behind his back. It
was at this time that Vasili was divorced from the unfortunate Solomonia,
and it is said that this pious ecclesiastic did really disapprove of
it; however we find amongst his works a discourse against those who
repudiate their wives without lawful cause. Always disposed to take
the part of the oppressed, he secretly received them in his cell and
sometimes heard injurious speeches directed against the sovereign and the
metropolitan. Thus the unfortunate boyar Ivan Beklemishef complained to
him of the irascibility of Vasili, and said that formerly the venerable
pastors of the church had restrained the sovereigns from indulging their
passions and committing injustice, whereas now Moscow no longer had a
metropolitan, for Daniel only bore the name and the mask of a pastor,
without thinking that he ought to be the guide of consciences and the
protector of the innocent; he also said that Maxine would never be
allowed to leave Russia, because the grand prince and the metropolitan
feared his indiscretions in other countries, where he might publish
the tale of their faults and weaknesses. At last Maxine’s enemies so
irritated the grand prince against him, that he ordered him to be brought
to judgment and Maxine was condemned to be confined in one of the
monasteries of Iver, having been found guilty of falsely interpreting the
Holy Scriptures and the dogmas of the church. According to the opinion
of some contemporaries the charge was a calumny invented by Jonas,
archimandrite of the Tchudov monastery, Vassian, bishop of Kolomna, and
the metropolitan.[f]


PRIVATE LIFE OF VASILI IVANOVITCH; HIS DEATH

There is one event in the private life of Vasili Ivanovitch which has
great importance on the subsequent course of history, and throws a
clearer light on the relations of men and parties at this epoch. This
event is his divorce and second marriage. Vasili Ivanovitch had first
contracted a marriage in the year of his father’s death with Solomonia
Sabourov; but they had no children and Solomonia vainly resorted to
sorcery in order to have children and keep the love of her husband. The
grand prince no longer loved her and decided to divorce her. He consulted
his boyars, laying stress on the fact that he had no heir and that his
brothers did not understand how to govern their own appanages; it is said
that the boyars replied “The unfruitful fig-tree is cut down and cast out
of the vineyard.” The sovereign then turned with the same question to the
spiritual powers: the metropolitan Daniel gave his entire consent, but
the monk Vassian, known in the world as Prince Vasili Patrikëiev, who,
together with his father, had been forced to become a monk during the
reign of Ivan because he belonged to the party of Helen, but who was now
greatly esteemed by Vasili, was against the divorce and was therefore
banished from the monastery of Simon to that of Joseph. Maxine the Greek
and Prince Simon Kurbski were also against the divorce, and suffered
for their opinion; and the boyar Beklemishev, who was on friendly terms
with Maxine, was executed. Solomonia was made to take the veil at the
convent of Suzdal and Vasili married Helen Vasilievna Glinski, the
niece of Michael Glinski who had been liberated from prison (1526).
From this marriage Vasili had two sons; Ivan (born 1530) and Iuri (born
1533). Vasili’s love for his second wife was so great that according to
Herberstein he had his beard cut off to please her. Towards the end of
1533 Vasili fell ill and died on December 3rd, leaving as his heir his
infant son Ivan.[b]


A FORECAST OF THE REIGN OF IVAN (IV) THE TERRIBLE

The rôle and the character of Ivan IV have been and still are very
differently appreciated by Russian historians. Karamzin, who has never
submitted his accounts and his documents to a sufficiently severe
critic, sees in him a prince who, naturally vicious and cruel, gave,
under restriction to two virtuous ministers, a few years of tranquillity
to Russia; and who subsequently, abandoning himself to the fury of his
passions, appalled Europe as well as the empire with what the historian
designates “seven epochs of massacres.” Kostomarov re-echoes the opinions
of Karamzin.

Another school, represented by Soloviev and Zabielin, has manifested a
greater defiance towards the prejudiced statements of Kurbski, chief
of the oligarchical party; towards Guagnini, a courtier of the king of
Poland; towards Tanbe and Kruse, traitors to the sovereign who had taken
them into his service. Above all, they have taken into account the times
and the society in whose midst Ivan the Terrible lived. They concern
themselves less with his morals as an individual than with his rôle as
instrument of the historical development of Russia. Did not the French
historians during long years misinterpret the enormous services rendered
by Louis XI in the great work of the unification of France and of the
creation of the modern state? His justification was at length achieved
after a more minute examination into documents and circumstances.

At the time when Ivan succeeded his father the struggle of the central
power against the forces of the past had changed character. The old
Russian states, which had held so long in check the new power of Moscow;
the principalities of Tver, Riazan, Suzdal, Novgorod-Seversk; the
republics of Novgorod, Pskov, Viatka had lost their independence. Their
possessions had served to aggrandise those of Moscow. All northern and
eastern Russia was thus united under the sceptre of the grand prince. To
the ceaseless struggles constantly breaking out against Tver, Riazan,
Novgorod, was to succeed the great foreign strife--the holy war against
Lithuania, the Tatars, the Swedes.

Precisely because the work of the unification of Great Russia was
accomplished, the resistance in the interior against the prince’s
authority was to become more active. The descendants of reigning families
dispossessed by force of bribery or arms, the servitors of those old
royal houses, had entered the service of the masters of Moscow. His
court was composed of crownless princes--the Chouiski, the Kurbski, the
Vorotinski; descendants of ancient appanaged princes, proud of the blood
of Rurik which coursed through their veins. Others were descended from
the Lithuanian Gedimine, or from the baptised Tatar _Monzas_.

All these princes, as well as the powerful boyars of Tver, Riazan,
Novgorod, were become the boyars of the grand prince. There was for all
only one court at which they could serve--that of Moscow. When Russia had
been divided into sovereign states, the discontented boyars had been at
liberty to change masters--to pass from the service of Tchernigov into
that of Kiev, from that of Suzdal into that of Novgorod. Now, whither
could they go? Outside of Moscow, there were only foreign rulers, enemies
of Russia. To make use of the ancient right to change masters was to
go over to the enemy--it was treason. “To change” and “to betray” were
become synonymous: the Russian word _izmiyanit_ (third person singular of
“to change”) was become the word _izmiyanik_ (“traitor”).

The Russian boyar could take refuge neither with the Germans, the Swedes,
nor the Tatars; he could go only to the sovereign of Lithuania--but this
was the worst possible species of change, the most pernicious form of
treason. The prince of Moscow knew well that the war with Lithuania--that
state which Polish in the west, by its Russian provinces, in the east
exercised a dangerous attraction over subjects of Moscow--was a struggle
for existence. Lithuania was not only a foreign enemy--it was a domestic
enemy, with intercourse and sympathies in the very heart of the Russian
state, even in the palace of the czar; her formidable hand was felt in
all intrigues, in all conspiracies. The foreign war against Lithuania,
the domestic war against the Russian oligarchy are but two different
phases of the same war--the heaviest and most perilous of all those
undertaken by the grand prince of Moscow. The dispossessed princes, the
boyars of the old independent states had given up the struggle against
him on the field of battle; they continued to struggle against him in his
own court.

It was no longer war between state and state; it was intestine
strife--that of the oligarchy against autocratic power. Resigned to the
loss of their sovereignty, the new prince-boyars of Moscow were not
yet resigned to their position as mere subjects. The struggle was thus
limited to a narrower field, and was therefore the more desperate. The
court at Moscow was a tilt-yard, whence none could emerge without a
change of masters--the Lithuanian for the Muscovite--without treason:
hence the furious nature of the war of two principles under Ivan IV.[e]


THE MINORITY OF IVAN IV

On the death of his father, Ivan was only three years of age. Helena,
his mother, a woman unfit for the toils of government, impure in her
conduct, and without judgment, assumed the office of regent, which she
shared with a paramour, whose elevation to such a height caused universal
disgust, particularly among the princes of the blood and the nobility.
The measures which had of late years been adopted towards the boyars were
not forgotten by that haughty class; and now that the infirm state of the
throne gave them a fair pretext for complaint, they conspired against the
regent, partly with a view to remove so unpopular and degraded a person
from the imperial seat, but principally that they might take advantage
of the minority of the czar, and seize upon the empire for their own
ends. The circumstances in which the death of Vasili left the country
were favourable to these designs. The licentiousness that prevailed at
court, the absence of a strict and responsible head, and the confusion
that generally took the place of the order that had previously prevailed,
assisted the treacherous nobles in their treasonable projects. They had
long panted for revenge and restitution, and the time seemed to be ripe
for the execution of their plans.

[Illustration: IVAN THE TERRIBLE

(1530-1584)]

Amongst the most prominent members of this patrician league, were the
three paternal uncles of the young prince. They made no scruple of
exhibiting their feelings; and they at last grew so clamorous, that the
regent, on the ground that they entertained designs upon the throne,
condemned them to loathsome dungeons, where they died in lingering
torments. Their followers and abettors suffered by torture and the worst
kinds of ignominious punishment. These examples spread such consternation
amongst the rest of the conspirators, that they fled to Lithuania and
the Crimea, where they endeavoured to inspire a sympathy in their
misfortunes. But the regent, whose time appears to have been solely
dedicated to the worst description of pleasures, being unable to preserve
herself without despotism, succeeded in overcoming the enemies whom her
own conduct was so mainly instrumental in creating.

The reign of lascivious folly and wanton rigour was not, however,
destined to survive the wrath of the nobles. For five years, intestine
jealousies and thickening plots plunged the country into anarchy; and, at
last, the regent died suddenly, having, it is believed, fallen by poison
administered through the agency of the revengeful boyars. The spectacle
of one criminal executing summary justice upon another, is not destitute
of some moral utility; and in this case it might have had its beneficial
influence, were it not that the principal conspirators had no sooner
taken off the regent than they violently seized upon the guardianship of
the throne.

The foremost persons in this drama were the Shuiski--a family that had
long been treated with suspicion by the czars, their insolent bearing
having always exposed them to distrust. Prince Shuiski was appointed
president of the council of the boyars, to whom the administration of
affairs was confided, and although his malignant purposes were kept in
check by the crowd of equally ambitious persons that surrounded him, he
possessed sufficient opportunities to consummate a variety of wrongs
upon the resources of the state and upon obnoxious individuals--thus
revenging himself indiscriminately for the ancient injuries his race had
suffered. During this iniquitous rule, which exhibited the extraordinary
features of a government composed of persons with different interests,
pressing forward to the same end, and making a common prey of the trust
that was reposed in their hands, Russia was despoiled in every quarter.
The Tatars, freed for a season from the watchful vigilance of the throne,
roamed at large through the provinces, pillaging and slaying wherever
they went; and this enormous guilt was crowned by the rapacious exactions
and sanguinary proscriptions of the council. The young Ivan was subjected
to the most brutal insults: his education was designedly neglected; he
was kept in total ignorance of public affairs, that he might be rendered
unqualified to assume the hereditary power; and Prince Shuiski, in the
midst of these base intrigues against the future czar, was often seen
to treat him in a contemptuous and degrading manner, on one occasion he
stretched forth his legs, and pressed the weight of his feet on the body
of the boy. Perhaps these unexampled provocations, and the privations
to which he was condemned, produced the germs of a character which was
afterwards developed in such terrible magnificence, the fiend that lived
in the heart of Ivan might not have been born with him; it was probably
generated by the cruelties and wrongs that were practised on his youth.

In vain the Belski, moderate and wise, and the primate, influenced by
the purest motives, remonstrated against the ruinous proceedings of the
council. The voice of admonition was lost in the hideous orgies of the
boyars, until a sudden invasion by the Tatars awakened them to a sense of
their peril. They rallied, order was restored, and Russia was preserved.
But the danger was no sooner over than the Shuiski returned in all their
former strength, seized upon Moscow in the dead of the night, penetrated
to the couch of Ivan, and, dragging him out of his sleep, endeavoured to
destroy his intellect by filling him with sudden terror. The primate,
whose mild representations had displeased them, was ill-treated and
deposed: and the prince Belski, who could not be prevailed upon to link
his fortunes with their desperate courses, was murdered in the height of
their frenzy. Even those members of their own body who, touched by some
intermittent pity, ventured to expostulate, were beaten in the chamber of
their deliberations, and cast out from amongst them.

Under such unpropitious auspices as these, the young Ivan, the inheritor
of a consolidated empire, grew up to manhood. His disposition, naturally
fierce, headstrong, and vindictive, was most insidiously cultivated
into ferocity by the artful counsellors that surrounded him. His
earliest amusements were the torture of wild animals, the ignoble feat
of riding over old men and women, flinging stones from ambuscades
upon the passers-by, and precipitating dogs and cats from the summit
of his palace. Such entertainments as these, the sport of boyhood,
gave unfortunately too correct a prognostic of the fatal career that
lay before him. By a curious retribution, the first exercise of this
terrible temper in its application to humanity fell upon the Shuiski,
who certainly, of all mankind, best merited its infliction. When Ivan
was in his thirteenth year, he accompanied a hunting party at which
Prince Gluiski--another factious lord--and the president of the council
were present. Gluiski, himself a violent and remorseless man, envied
the ascendency of Shuiski, and prompted the young prince to address him
in words of great heat and insult. Shuiski, astonished at the youth’s
boldness, replied in anger. This was sufficient provocation. Ivan gave
way to his rage, and, on a concerted signal, Shuiski was dragged out into
the public streets, and worried alive by dogs in the open daylight. The
wretch expiated a life of guilt by the most horrible agonies.

Thus freed from one tyranny, Ivan was destined for another, which,
however, accepted him as its nominal head, urging him onward to acts of
blood which were but too congenial to his taste. The Gluiski having got
rid of their formidable competitor in the race of crime, now assumed the
direction of affairs. Under their administration, the prince was led to
the commission of the most extravagant atrocities; and the doctrine was
inculcated upon his mind, that the only way to assert authority was by
manifesting the extremity of its wrath. He was taught to believe that
power consisted in oppression. They applauded each fresh instance of
vengeance; and initiated him into a short method of relieving himself
from every person who troubled or offended him, by sacrificing the victim
on the spot.


IVAN ASSUMES THE REINS OF GOVERNMENT

This terrible system continued for three years. The pupilage of the
prince was an uninterrupted scene of horror; and he was crowned czar of
all the Russias in his eighteenth year, after a minority of blood. The
citizens, unsafe and trembling under a despotism which was so capricious
in its enormities, were at length driven to desperation. They fired
the city in several places one night, and Ivan awoke the next morning
amidst flame and smoke, the tossing of brands, and the imprecations of
the multitude. He had been accustomed to terrors, but this conflagration
smote him to the heart. In the midst of the confusion, Sylvester, a monk
belonging to that roving order of persons who then wandered through the
country affecting to be inspired with a divine mission, suddenly appeared
in the presence of the affrighted despot. With a Gospel in one hand,
while the other was raised in an attitude of prophecy, he pointed to the
ruins that surrounded him, and invoking the attention of the prince to
the consequences of his infatuation, he dwelt upon certain appearances
from heaven which prognosticated evil to the dynasty if these courses
were not abandoned; and, working powerfully upon a mind already agonised
with fear, he finally succeeded in gaining a complete ascendency over
the czar. The effect was sudden and extraordinary. The virtuous Alexis
Adaschev aided Sylvester in his efforts to reclaim Ivan; and these,
assisted by the gentle persuasions of the beautiful Anastasia, Ivan’s
young consort whom he had but recently married, appeared to produce a
strong impression upon his feelings.

The result was an entire change in the system of government. Able and
upright men displaced the corrupt and audacious counsellors who had
hitherto filled the empire with alarm; a new organisation of the army
took place; a just assessment of the fiefs, the various services, and
contingents, was established; proprietors of estates were obliged to
contribute to the maintenance of the military strength according to
their means; and by a bonus in the pay of the soldiery, which was now
adopted, the available force of the country was raised to the number of
three hundred thousand men. Thus strengthened, with prudent ministers
and a powerful army, Ivan set himself to the worthy task of subduing
the rebellious Tatars. His ardour even appears to have carried him into
extremes, for in the depth of winter he marched at the head of the
soldiery to the siege of Kazan, although his followers did not hesitate
to declare that no good commander would think of conducting his troops in
so rigorous a season into the quarters of the enemy. But such ebullitions
of discontent were punished with so much severity, that the troops soon
learned to be content with the severities which procured such victories
as Ivan was fortunate enough to gain. The first measure of great utility
which he accomplished, was the erection of forts on the frontier to
repel the aggressions of the enemy; but apprehending that even these
were not sufficient to deter the marauders, he advanced upon Kazan,
and captured it by springing a mine--a process in the art of war which
was quite novel to the Russians, and filled them with astonishment and
admiration. Having taken the city, he turned the mosques of the Tatars
into Christian temples, and caused the khan to be baptised; which proofs
of his religious zeal were admirably calculated to ingratiate him in the
regards of the people.

In one of those ecstatic moods which sometimes assail the better judgment
of the old chroniclers, the Russian historian informs us that Ivan, upon
entering Kazan, wept at the sight of the dead bodies with which the
streets were strewn. We certainly cannot put in any evidence in disproof
of this apocryphal assertion, but the picture of Nero fiddling while Rome
was burning is even more probable.

In addition to his successes at Kazan, Ivan was triumphant in the kingdom
of Astrakhan, which he afterwards annexed to the Russian empire. This
acquisition was very valuable, as in that district the vine, and other
rich productions of the soil, grew in remarkable luxuriance. Fortune
seemed on all hands to favour the interval of grace that visited the
czar. While he was pursuing his course of victory in other places, eighty
thousand Turks, who had been despatched by Selim II against Astrakhan,
perished in the desolate steppes by which it was surrounded. The wars
were thus terminated in glorious and important achievements, which laid
the foundations of that expanded commerce which afterwards rendered
illustrious the era of one of the greatest monarchs the world ever
produced.


THE DISCOVERY OF SIBERIA

But the most important event which distinguished this period of the
reign of Ivan was the discovery of Siberia, an empire of extraordinary
magnitude, producing the richest furs, and studded with inexhaustible
mines of salt, copper and silver. The discovery was accidental, and
caused at first so slight a degree of attention, that it was suffered
to be forgotten until another accident, some years afterwards, recalled
it to the consideration of the government. A body of men, who had been
sent across the mountains of Ingermanland by the czar, penetrated as
far as the banks of the Oley; but the discoveries they reported were
either so imperfect, or so ill-described, that they were passed over in
silence. It subsequently occurred, however, that a merchant of the name
of Strogonov, who was the proprietor of some salt mines on the confines
of Siberia, had his curiosity stimulated by several persons who traded
with him, and whose strange costume and foreign manners excited in him
a desire to become acquainted with the interior of the country from
whence they came. Accordingly he commissioned a few of his people to
return with them into Siberia, and to collect such information respecting
it as their opportunities might enable them to acquire. These people,
having explored the unknown districts, which they found to be inhabited
by a race of Tatars, who possessed a capital called Sibir, returned to
their employer charged with a history of wonders, and a quantity of
costly furs, which promised to open a new source of gain to the diligent
merchant. Strogonov, however, resolved not to keep the knowledge he had
thus attained exclusively to himself, and immediately communicated all he
knew to the court. In the mean time, Iermak, a Don Cossack adventurer,
who, at the head of a gang of those lawless robbers, infested the roads,
plundering the inhabitants and travellers in that part of Russia,
happened to come, accidentally, to the merchant’s dwelling, on his flight
from some Russian troops that had been sent in search of him. While
he remained there, he learned by chance, from Strogonov, of the newly
discovered land; and he and his band, being persons who had nothing to
lose, and who subsisted solely by desperate predatory practices, resolved
to enter the strange country, and seek in its unknown retreats a source
of safety and support. The resistance this adventurer experienced from
the Siberians greatly thinned the ranks of his daring troops, but the
forlorn character of the expedition inspired them with reckless valour;
and, after many exhausting conflicts, they finally overran the country,
and made themselves master of the capital. Iermak now bethought him
of what he should do with his perilous conquest; and seeing that he
possessed no means of accumulating sovereign power, or even of possessing
by tribute, or otherwise, so vast a territory, he threw himself at the
feet of the czar, tendered to him the territory he had won, and solicited
in return a full pardon for all the delinquencies he and his followers
had committed. Ivan readily granted the pardon, and took possession of
his new acquisition. The work of annexation went rapidly forward. Several
commodious towns were built, strong forts were constructed, the mines
were garrisoned, and that great expanse of desert and mountains, which
was afterwards destined to become the convict settlement of Russia, was
formally and permanently consolidated in the dominions of the autocrat.


THE RESTRAINING INFLUENCE OF ANASTASIA

The civil and social improvement of the empire kept pace with the armed
progress. A number of celebrated artists were engaged from the dominions,
and by the permission, of Charles V; the art of letterpress printing was
introduced, and the first type that ever was seen in Russia was imported
by Ivan; the northern parts were opened to a new mercantile intercourse;
and Archangel was established. The laws were revised; and the fees of the
governors of the provinces who administered justice, paying themselves
by pecuniary mulcts on the suitors, were abolished, and in their place
gratuitous justice was administered, and a general assessment levied,
which was collected by officers appointed by government. The grasping
demands of the clergy were restrained, their revenues placed upon a
more equitable basis, and their morals improved by mild but decisive
restrictions.

Such were the fruits of the influence of Anastasia, which procured a
hearing for the wisdom of Alexis and Sylvester. While that amiable and
enlightened lady lived, Ivan pursued a course of just and wise measures
that reflected honour upon his name, and conferred extensive benefits
upon his country. But the latent nature was not extinguished: it only
slept, hushed into slumber by the sweet influences before which his
savage dispositions were subdued. An old bishop, who had formerly been
banished from the court on account of his crimes, and who was one day
consulted by Ivan, replied to the czar in some memorable words which
were ever afterwards cherished in his memory, and were not without their
power over his subsequent life. “If you wish,” exclaimed the bishop,
“to be truly a sovereign, never seek a counsellor wiser than yourself;
never receive advice from any man. Command, but never obey; and you
will be a terror to the boyars. Remember that he who is permitted to
begin advising, is certain to end by ruling, his sovereign.” Ivan,
kissing the old man’s hand, is said to have answered, “My own father
could not have spoken more wisely!” This remarkable advice--similar
to that which is attributed to a celebrated cardinal of modern times,
on his death-bed--seems to have governed the conduct of Ivan from the
moment that the death of the princess Anastasia released him from the
embarrassment of her counsels. She died in 1560.


IVAN’S ATROCITIES

[Sidenote: [1560 A.D.]]

The incarnate fiend, relieved from the oppressive presence of virtue,
resumed at once his original nature. If the narrative of his crimes
could be spared from the page of history, it would rescue us from a
series of details, the very relation of which must sicken the least
susceptible mind. But there was a passion so unearthly in this paragon
of monsters--he was so elevated in atrocity, and reached so sublime a
height in the perpetration of cruelties--that his life, incredible and
disgusting as it is, fills too great a space in the annals of despotism
to be passed over lightly. One of his historians charitably supposes him
to have been a lunatic.

The first act of Ivan was to banish his prudent advisers, the men who
had hitherto preserved him from the worst calamities. Those persons were
replaced by others, who studiously laboured to destroy their predecessors
by false stories of their treachery to the czarina, whose death was
unequivocally laid to their charge. That weakness, or superstition, which
is an inherent quality in all savage natures, led Ivan to believe, or
to fancy, that he believed those absurd accusations; and he acted with
promptitude upon the miserable excuse which they afforded him. He hunted
the partisans of the late ministers wherever they could be detected;
some he put to the most disgraceful deaths, others he imprisoned or
banished, varying the monotony of their solitary lives by the infliction
of exquisite tortures. One prince, who refused to join in the lascivious
pleasures of the court, was poinarded at prayers in the church; and
another was stabbed to the heart by the czar’s own hand, because he had
the presumption to remonstrate with one of the new favourites. The prince
Andrew Kurbski, a noble who, both in the cabinet and the field, had
rendered the most important services to the government and the country,
received intimation that a similar fate awaited him; and, indignant at
the prospect of such an unworthy return for his devotion to the throne of
the czars, he retired into Lithuania, and united himself with Sigismund,
the king of Poland, and, at that time, one of the most formidable enemies
of Russia. This revolt maddened Ivan beyond control; and his exasperation
was increased by the receipt of a letter from the prince, in which he
boldly charged the czar with all the miseries that were entailed upon
their common country, with having shed the blood of Israel’s elders
in the temples of the Lord; and wound up by threatening him with the
vengeance of that tribunal before which he must one day answer to the
accusations of the spirits of the murdered. The messenger who was daring
enough to present this epistle to the czar suffered for his temerity.
Ivan, on learning from whence he came, struck him across the legs with an
iron rod which he usually carried in his hand; and while the blood flowed
copiously from the wounds, leaned unconcernedly upon his rod to read the
rebellious letter. The correspondence that ensued upon this occasion,
like all the correspondence of Ivan’s which has come down to us, is
remarkable for the most blasphemous presumption and arrogant hyperbole.
He wrote all his letters with his own hand, and was proud of his literary
attainments, which, had they been directed into worthier channels, might
have rendered him a distinguished ornament of his age.


THE POLISH INVASION

The consequence of the disaffection of Kurbski was the enrolment of a
Polish army with a view to a descent upon Russia, and an invasion of the
southern provinces by the Tatars at the instigation of Sigismund. This
demonstration increased the rage of the czar: he treated everybody around
him as if they were the creatures of Kurbski: he distrusted everybody;
and put numbers to the rack and to death on the bare suspicion of their
guilt, and was overheard to lament that he could not find victims
enough to satisfy his wrath. He charged the boyars indiscriminately
with harbouring secret designs against the welfare and happiness of the
state; he dispossessed many of them of their private fortunes; and in a
letter which is still extant, he urged against them as crimes, all the
benefits which the sane portion of his rule had conferred upon Russia.
In this delirium of the fever of despotism, the clergy remonstrated
with some firmness; and, in order to obtain a fresh excuse for making
new victims, he adopted an expedient as unexpected as it was singular.
He caused a report to be spread on a sudden, that he was about to leave
Moscow; but the point of his destination, or the reason of his withdrawal
were preserved as profound secrets. The mystery of this announcement
created a panic at Moscow. The people knew not what was to come next,
whether the tyrant was about to put some scheme of universal destruction
into execution, or whether it was merely a prelude to some extravagant
exhibition of superstitious credulity, which always assumed in their eyes
the aspect of religious devotion. Agreeably to this vague announcement
of the czar’s design, one morning in December, at an early hour, the
great square of the Kremlin was filled with travelling sledges, some of
which contained gold and silver, others clothes, and not a few crosses,
images, and the relics of saints. These preparations attracted crowds of
astonished gazers, who looked on in stupid wonder at the extraordinary
sight. In a few minutes the czar, followed by his family, was seen to
descend from the palace, with the officers of his household, and a
numerous retinue. From the palace he passed on to the church of the
Assumption; and, having ordered the metropolitan to celebrate mass, he
prayed with great devotion, and received the blessing of Athanasius.
Returning from the church, he held out his hand to the assembled
multitudes, that they might satisfy themselves with a farewell kiss;
and then, having in silence, and with unusual solemnity, walked through
the groups that beset his path, he mounted his sledge, and drove off
accompanied by a regiment of horse. The inhabitants of Moscow, astonished
and terror-struck by the scene, were lost in conjecture. The city was
without a government. Ivan had so dexterously contrived to impress them
with an idea that he derived his sovereignty from God, that he found
no great difficulty ultimately in confounding to the imagination of an
enslaved and uninstructed people the distinction between God and the
sovereign; and in every crisis of disaster that occurred, the people fell
back upon their fanaticism, and looked to the czar for that succour which
could alone come from heaven. Deserted at this moment by Ivan, they began
to believe that they were deserted by Omnipotence.

A month elapsed, and no tidings were received of the destination or
proceedings of the czar. At length, at the end of that period, two
letters were received from him; the one addressed to the metropolitan,
the other to the people. The former epistle contained a recapitulation
of the disorders that had prevailed during his minority, all of which he
attributed to the clergy and the boyars; and he asserted that similar
crimes against the majesty of the state were about to break out anew.
He also complained that his attempts to secure the public tranquillity
were constantly thwarted by the evil interference of Athanasius and the
clergy; that, therefore, he had abandoned the helm of affairs, and had
left Moscow to wander about the earth. In his letter to the people, he
assured them of his good will, repeated that he had no cause of complaint
against them, and concluded by bidding them farewell for ever. It
appeared by his epistles that he had intrenched himself in Alexandrovski,
a distant fortress that lay in the depths of a gloomy forest.

These communications spread dismay amongst the Muscovites. Ivan’s
severity towards the nobility and clergy had, even against the grain
of reason, procured him no inconsiderable popularity with the bulk of
the people; and on this occasion it broke forth in lamentations, which
derived much of their force from the association of the ideas of the
throne of the czar and the throne of heaven. Groups of disconsolate
citizens assembled in the street to confer upon what was to be done; the
shops were shut, the tribunals of justice and public offices were closed,
and every kind of business was suspended. “The czar,” they exclaimed,
“has forsaken us, and we are lost. Who will now defend us against the
enemy? what are sheep without the shepherd?” In this state of despair a
deputation of the principal inhabitants waited upon the metropolitan,
and besought of him to solicit Ivan to return to his faithful subjects.
Frantic with desperate zeal, they cried, “Let him punish all those who
deserve it; has he not the power of life and death? The state cannot
remain without a head, and we will not acknowledge any other than the
one God has given us.” It was at last resolved that a numerous body of
prelates and nobles should hasten to Alexandrovski, prostrate themselves
in the dust before Ivan, and entreat of him to return to Moscow. This
proceeding had the desired effect. They discovered Ivan in his retreat,
struck the ground before him with their heads, and supplicated him for
the sake of the souls of millions, which were now perishing in his
absence as the head of the orthodox church, to resume his holy functions.
This was what Ivan wanted: he affected to be much moved by their prayers,
and with a show of reluctance consented to return, provided the clergy
pledged themselves not to interfere whenever he found it necessary to
punish those who engaged in conspiracies against the state, or against
him or his family. This artful condition was immediately granted; and the
magnanimity of a tyrant who thus entrapped the people into an admission
of the necessity of his despotic proceedings, was extolled to the skies.

The restoration of the despot was received with acclamations; but the
Muscovites were astonished by the great alteration which had taken place
in his personal appearance during his absence. Only a month, say their
historians, had elapsed, yet they hardly knew him again. His powerful
and muscular body, his expanded chest, and robust limbs, had shrunk to
a skeleton; his head, once covered with luxuriant locks, was now bald;
his rich and flowing beard was reduced to a few ragged stumps; his eyes
were dull; and his features, stamped with a ravenous ferocity, were now
deformed by apparent thought and anguish. Yet these sad changes,--the
fearful effects of the incessant tortures of a mind bewildered by its own
fury--excited the sympathies of the infatuated citizens who beheld them.

After his entry into Moscow he addressed the people, again expatiating on
the crimes of the boyars and the necessity for exercising the dominant
sovereign sway in its extreme development. To this succeeded a pious
exhortation on the vanities of the world--one of the arguments by which
he endeavoured to reconcile his victims to their miserable fate--which
he concluded by a proposal to institute a new body-guard, to be composed
of one thousand men of noble birth, chosen from the general body of the
army, and to be called the Opritshnina, or select legion. The people,
blind to the danger of conceding so great a power to the sovereign,
willingly acceded to this proposal, the execution of which was but a new
instrument for destroying their liberties. The select legion, better
known in subsequent years by the name of the Strelitz, was the foundation
of a regular standing army in Russia; for until the formation of that
corps the military force of the empire was raised upon occasions, each
nobleman contributing according to his ability to meet the exigencies of
the demand.[32]


THE REIGN OF TERROR

This was the first step to the new reign of terror; and while the select
legion was in course of formation, Ivan employed himself in the erection
of a new palace outside the walls of the Kremlin; for it appears that
his ambition or his fears produced in him a dislike for the ancient
residence of the royal family. In order to build this unnecessary palace,
he drove out all the inhabitants of the adjacent streets, and posted
his satellites around the neighbourhood to keep it free from intrusion.
Twelve thousand of the richest inhabitants were dispossessed of their
estates to make room for his designs, and upon the creatures of his
disgraceful bounty he bestowed the spoils of his plunder. The new palace
was to all intents an impregnable fortress; yet such were the secret
horrors engendered by his course of villanies, that Ivan, thinking that
it was not sufficiently secure, retired again to Alexandrovski, which
expanded from an humble village into a considerable town. It contained
a celebrated church of our Lady, which was painted on the outside with
the most gaudy colors, every brick containing the representation of a
cross. Here the czar possessed a large palace surrounded by a ditch and
ramparts: his civil and military functionaries had separate houses; and
the legionaries and trades-people had distinct streets. One of the rules
imposed by the tyrant was that no person should enter or leave the town
without his express permission, and a patrol constantly occupied the
neighbourhood to observe that this order was fulfilled. A new notion
now possessed him. Buried in the forlorn solitudes of the deep forests,
he converted his palace into a monastery, assumed the style and title
of abbot, turned his favourites into monks, and called his body of
select and depraved legionaries by the name of the Brothers. He provided
them all with black vestments, under which they wore splendid habits,
embroidered with gold and fur; and he instituted a code of practice as
austere as it was inconsistent. At three o’clock in the morning, the
matin service began, which lasted until seven; at eight mass commenced
again, and at ten the whole body, except Ivan, who stood reading aloud
from some religious book, sat down to a sumptuous repast. The remnants of
the table were afterwards distributed amongst the poor--for throughout
the whole of Ivan’s actions there was always an evident desire to win
the favour of the multitude; the czar dined after the rest, and then
descended to the dungeons to witness the infliction of tortures upon
some of his victims, which gave him extraordinary delight. At eight
o’clock vespers were read; and at ten Ivan retired to his chamber, where
he was lulled to sleep by three blind men. To diversify this monotonous
life, he sometimes visited the monasteries, or hunted wild beasts in
the woods; but he was constantly employed in issuing his instructions
upon public business, and even during prayers often gave his most cruel
and sanguinary orders. Such was the life of the tyrant in his gloomy
seclusion at Alexandrovski.

During this period, the select legion increased in number to six thousand
men, embracing in their body all the abandoned and infamous wretches who
could be procured for hire. As types of their office, they were ordered
to suspend from the saddle-bow a dog’s head and a broom--the former
to signify that they worried the enemies of the czar, and the latter
to indicate that they swept them off the face of the earth. They went
from street to street armed with long daggers and hatchets in search of
victims, who amounted daily to a score. They soon became the objects
of fear and execration. The first victims were the prince Shuiski and
his son. At the place of execution, the younger offered himself first
to the axe; but the feelings of nature were so strong in the heart of
the parent, that he could not endure to witness the death of his son,
and he insisted on receiving his death first. When his head rolled off,
his son embraced it in a passion of tears; and while the lips of the
living yet clung to the quivering and agonised features of the dead,
the executioner’s axe descended upon the son’s neck. On the same day
four other princes were beheaded, and a fifth impaled. Several boyars
were exiled, others forced to embrace the monastic vows, and a still
greater number were beggared by confiscation. These horrors increased
every day. The streets and squares were filled with dead bodies; and such
was the universal terror, that the survivors did not dare to appear to
give the rites of burial to the dead. It would appear that the murder
of individuals ceased at length to satisfy the insatiate appetite of
the monster: he longed for massacre on a more extended scale; his eyes
grew tired of the slow process of execution in detail. Accordingly he
sought for excuses to lay whole towns in blood. A few of the inhabitants
of Tortchesk happening one day to quarrel with some of the legionaries,
Ivan declared them all to be rebels, and instantly caused them _en masse_
to be either tortured to death or drowned. The inhabitants of Kolomua
were similarly disposed of, merely because they were the dependents of a
nobleman who had outgrown his favour. He spared neither sex nor age. Many
ladies were exposed in the streets, and then shot in the public sight.


THE MARCH AGAINST NOVGOROD

[Sidenote: [1569 A.D.]]

These atrocities, unparalleled in the annals of the world, form but the
prelude to the enormous crimes of this infamous prince. His march of
devastation to Novgorod may be considered as the grand act of his career
of blood. The provocation which led to the sanguinary punishment of that
city was a falsehood invented by a profligate fellow who wanted to escape
justice, and to take refuge upon the authorities, who had found him
guilty of the commission of some offences. This criminal, knowing that
Ivan rewarded all those who came before him with charges of disaffection,
wrote a letter in the name of the archbishop and inhabitants of Novgorod
to the king of Poland, offering to put the city under that monarch’s
protection. This letter he carefully concealed behind an image of the
Virgin in the church of St. Sophia, and then laid before the czar at
Moscow a private revelation of the conspiracy which he had himself
invented. Ivan despatched a trusty messenger to Novgorod, who discovered
the letter in the spot to which the informer had referred, and, upon this
evidence, the city was denounced to the vengeance of the select legion.
But as it was likely that the sight of this dreadful deed would be more
exciting than any he had hitherto witnessed, Ivan put himself at the head
of his guards, and in December 1569, accompanied by his son, departed
from Alexandrovski on his mission of destruction.

On his way he passed through the town of Klin, and exterminated the whole
of the population. When he arrived at the city of Tver, he took up his
quarters at a monastery outside the gates, and sent his soldiers into the
city to massacre and plunder the inhabitants at will. The horrors of the
scene reminded the unfortunate people of the terrible cruelties inflicted
upon their ancestors by the khan Usbak in 1327. At some of the feats of
death, Ivan himself assisted: and his confidential minister Skuratov
secretly entered the cell of a monastery where the virtuous and deposed
metropolitan was confined, and strangled him.

Proceeding onwards from Tver, Ivan depopulated all the towns on his route
to the banks of the Ilmen: and on the 2d of January his advanced guard
entered the devoted and miserable city of Novgorod. The preparations
made upon this occasion to ensure the complete carnage meditated by the
tyrant, are memorable proofs of the coolness with which the demons of the
Opritshnina executed the will of their savage leader. They ordered the
churches and convents to be closed, and demanded a temporary levy from
the monks of twenty roubles per head; and such unfortunate ecclesiastics
as were unable to comply with this exorbitant exaction were deliberately
flogged from morning till night. The houses of the inhabitants were
placed under seizure, and guarded at the entrances, and the owners thrown
into chains. This was merely preliminary to the arrival of the monarch.

In four days afterwards Ivan and the remainder arrived, and rested
within two versts of the city. On the following morning all the monks
who had failed to pay the redemption tax were taken out, beaten to
death with clubs, and their bodies sent to their respective monasteries
for interment. On the next day, accompanied as before by his son, Ivan
made his solemn entrance at the head of his troops into the city. The
archbishop, with the clergy, carrying the miraculous images, met him on
the bridge, and attempted to utter the accustomed benediction: but Ivan,
interrupting the ceremony, addressed them in a long harangue, which
consisted of an elaborate curse against their order. Having satisfied his
rage by the delivery of this anathema, he ordered the crucifix and images
to be borne into the church of St. Sophia, where he heard mass, praying
with great fervour, and then retired to the episcopal palace, where he
sat down to dinner surrounded by his boyars. Suddenly, in the midst
of the feast, he started up and raised a terrible cry. The signal was
scarcely given when his satellites, as if by magic, appeared in a body
before him, and seized the archbishop, and the officers and servants.
The palace and the cloisters were then given up to plunder. The czar’s
confessor, assisted in the sacrilege by the master of the ceremonies,
burst into the cathedral and carried off its sacred treasures, the rich
vestments, the images, and the bells. The churches and monasteries were
all pillaged, and not a fragment of the precious accumulations of the
temples and religious houses escaped the impious hands of the spoliators.

Next came the massacre of the inhabitants, which was conducted with
the utmost patience and regularity. Every day from five hundred to
one thousand Novgorodians were brought before Ivan and his son, and
immediately put to death either by torture or fire. Some were tied to
sledges and dragged into the Volkhov; others flung over the bridge into
the river--wives with their husbands, mothers with their tender infants;
while soldiers armed with long sharp spears sailed on the water to pierce
and hew those who attempted to escape by swimming. When the massacre
had continued in this way for five weeks, Ivan drew off and visited the
neighbouring monasteries, which he pillaged indiscriminately, levelling
houses, destroying cattle, and burning the corn. He then returned to
Novgorod, and inspected in person the remaining work of destruction. He
passed through the streets while his myrmidons plundered the shops and
houses, which were entered by the doors or windows indifferently: rich
silks and furs were divided by the brutal soldiery, and all unavailable
goods, such as hemp and wax and tallow, were either burnt or cast into
the river. Detachments were then sent into the adjacent domains to
plunder and murder without any respect of persons.

Having exhausted all his arts of ruin, Ivan now relaxed, and issued a
general pardon to the few wretched persons who survived, and to whom
death would have been an act of mercy. He summoned them to appear before
him; and a ghastly assemblage of skeletons, motionless and in despair,
stood in the presence of the murderer like ghosts invoked from the grave.
Untouched by the appalling sight, he addressed them in the mildest
language, desired to have their prayers that he might have a long and
happy reign, and took his leave of them in the most gracious words. The
miserable inhabitants were smote with delirium; they looked around them
in vain for the friends that had been sacrificed, for the houses and the
wealth that had been laid waste. Sixty thousand victims were stretched
dead in the streets of the once proud and opulent republic: and to
complete its melancholy doom, pestilence and a famine succeeded, sweeping
off nearly all those who had survived the extermination of the less
merciful czar. The city was now entirely depopulated, and presented the
sepulchral aspect of a vast cemetery.

The monster passed on to the city of Pskov, where, however, he consented
to forego his terrible schemes of destruction, satisfying himself with
plundering the principal inhabitants. He then returned home to Moscow,
loaded with plunder, and carrying in his train the archbishop of
Novgorod, and other distinguished victims, whom he reserved for a public
execution.


CARNAGE IN MOSCOW

He had no sooner arrived in Moscow than he caused several of his
favourites to be arrested on the ground of suspicion, but really in order
to increase the number of the wretches he designed to put to death;
and thus, naming a day for a general execution of the whole, extensive
preparations were made in the market place to carry his inhuman project
into execution. Eighteen gibbets were erected, numberless instruments of
torture were exhibited, and a great fire was made in the centre, over
which a huge copper cauldron was suspended. The inhabitants, seeing these
dreadful preliminaries, believed that the czar’s object was to set the
city on fire, and consign the people to death; and, flying from the spot,
they abandoned their shops and merchandise, leaving their property to the
mercy of the select legion. In a few hours Moscow was utterly deserted,
and not a living person was to be seen but a troop of the Opritshnina
ranged in gloomy silence round the gibbets and blazing fire. Presently
the beating of drums rose upon the air, and the czar was seen advancing
on horseback, accompanied by his favourite son, and followed by his
devoted guards. In the rear came the spectral troop of victims, in number
about three hundred, wan and bloody, and hardly able to crawl upon the
ground. On perceiving that the theatre of carnage was destitute of an
audience, Ivan commanded his soldiers to collect the inhabitants; and,
after a short pause, finding that they did not arrive with promptitude,
he went in person to demand their presence at the treat he had prepared
for them, assuring them at the same time of the good-will he entertained
towards them. The wretched Muscovites dared not disobey him, and hurrying
in terror from their hiding places, they crowded to the scene of
execution, which was speedily filled with spectators even to the roofs of
the houses. Then the dreadful rites began. The czar addressed the people
with exclamations upon the righteousness of the punishments he was about
to inflict, and the people, oppressed with horror, replied in terms of
approbation. A crowd of one hundred and twenty victims, who were declared
to be less guilty than the rest, were first separated from the others and
pardoned. The condemned were called one by one, and some, after hearing
the accusation in general terms from the lips of the czar, accompanied
by occasional blows on the head from a whip which he held in his hand,
were given over to the assassins, who hung them up by the feet, and then
cut them to pieces, or plunged them half alive into the boiling cauldron.
These executions, which are too horrible to be related in detail, lasted
for about four hours; during which time nearly two hundred victims,
innocent of the crimes with which they were charged, suffered deaths of
the most exquisite and prolonged agony.

A despotism so sanguinary and so wanton was well calculated to
endanger the safety of those institutions which the wisdom of others
had established. Russia, distracted through all her provinces by the
atrocities of Ivan, soon became a prey to those unwearied foes who never
lost an opportunity of taking advantage of her domestic difficulties.
The declaration of Ivan’s supremacy to his unfortunate subjects was, “I
am your god as God is mine; whose throne is surrounded by archangels,
as is the throne of God.” But this piece of blasphemy, which had the
effect of making the Russians tremble, only increased the determination
of his external enemies. Sweden had already wrested Esthonia from him;
Kettler, the last grand-master of the Livonian knights, satisfied himself
with Courland and Semigallia; while Battori of Poland, the successor of
Sigismund Augustus, deprived him of Livonia, one of the most important
points in his dominions. In 1566, Ivan laid before an assembly of the
states-general, consisting of a convocation of ecclesiastics, nobles,
citizens, and traders, a statement of his negotiations with Poland on the
subject of Livonia; but as his real object was to assert his tyrannical
power rather than to gain the political advantages he pointed out, the
issue of the assembly was merely an admission from all the parties
present that the will of the czar was indisputable, and that they had no
right even to tender him their advice. The great advantage of recovering
Livonia from Poland was obviously to secure it as an outlet upon the
Baltic for Russian commerce, and as a means of opening a communication
with Europe. To the ministry of Sylvester and Adaschev belongs the
credit of this admirable project; but a design which they would have
accomplished with comparative facility, was suffered by Ivan to be wasted
in fruitless contentions.

Battori terrified Ivan in the midst of his tyrannies; and the monster who
could visit his people with such an example of cruelties, crouched before
the king of Poland. His fear of Battori carried him to extremes. He not
only supplicated terms at his hands, but suffered him to offer personal
insults to the officers who represented the czar at his court. The
grovelling measures and cowardice of Ivan disgusted his adversary; and in
reply to some fresh instance of dastardly submission, Battori charged him
with the grossest crimes--with having falsified the articles of treaties,
and applied inhuman tortures to his peoples. The letter containing
these strong, but just, animadversions, closed with a challenge to
single combat, which the poverty of the czar’s spirit met by renewed
protestations of the most abject character.


THE STRUGGLE FOR LIVONIA

At length, urged by the clamour of his advisers, Ivan organised an army
of three hundred thousand men; but, although he could instigate and
assist at the most revolting punishments, he shrunk from a personal share
in the numerous petty conflicts which took place between his forces
and the Livonian knights. Instead of advancing boldly upon the enemy,
who could not have maintained war against the superior numbers of the
Russians, he suffered himself to be shielded by a jesuit, the pope’s
envoy, whose intercession with Battori he had procured by representing,
with consummate audacity, that he hoped to be able to effect the
conversion of the Russians to catholicism. Whenever he fell in with
the Livonians, and the collision terminated in victory, he committed
the wildest excesses: plundered the captives of their wealth, which he
transmitted to his own private coffers, and then sentenced the prisoners
to be flung into boiling cauldrons, spitted on lances, or roasted at
fires which he amused himself by stirring--while the sacrificial murders
were in progress. Wars so irregularly conducted, and terminating in such
frightful revenge could not but entail calamities upon the empire. All
that was gained by the long struggle for Livonia, was the occasional
plunder which Ivan appropriated to himself.

To support the system of profligate expenditure to which the whole life
of this extraordinary man inevitably led, he laid on the most exorbitant
taxes, and lent himself to the most unjust monopolies. Nor was he
satisfied with exceeding in this way the most arbitrary examples that had
preceded him; but, with a recklessness of human life, and a disregard of
the common decencies and obligations of the worst condition of society,
he proceeded to rifle his subjects of their private means, sometimes upon
slight pretences, but oftener without any pretence whatever. It would
almost appear that his appetite for sights of destruction had palled with
ordinary gratification; and that he had jaded his invention to discover
new modes of cruelty. Having exhausted in all its varieties the mere art
of slaughter, he proceeded to make his objects violate before his eyes
the sacred feelings of nature. He demanded fratricide and parricide at
their hands: one man was forced to kill his father, another his brother:
eight hundred women were drowned, and, bursting into the houses of his
victims, he compelled the survivors to point out the places where the
remnant of their wealth was concealed. His excesses carried him beyond
all law, human and divine. He assumed the place, and even usurped the
attributes of the Deity, and identified himself to a proverb with the
Creator. Not content with indulging his insane passions in the frenzy of
an undisciplined mind, he trampled the usages of Russia under foot, and
married seven wives--which was held by the tenets of the Greek religion
to be a crime of great magnitude.[g]


PROJECTS OF ALLIANCE WITH ENGLAND

[Sidenote: [1582-1584 A.D.]]

The unfortunate issue of the war with Sweden did not however make Ivan
the Terrible give up the idea of compensating himself for his losses; he
continued to seek for alliances with European states. With this object
Theodore Pissemski was sent to England in 1582 with instructions to
endeavour to bring about a close alliance with Elizabeth against his
enemy the king of Poland, and at the same time to enter into matrimonial
negotiations for the czar with the queen’s relative, Maria Hastings. The
English would not entertain either project, but only sought to obtain an
exemption from entry duties for their trade with Russia. In 1583 Jeremiah
Bowes was sent to Moscow from England with the delicate mission of
attaining this object. The negotiations dragged on a long time; first the
czar sent away Bowes and then recalled him again, and in fact they had
not come to an end before the death of Ivan the Terrible.[b]


DEATH OF IVAN THE TERRIBLE

[Sidenote: [1584 A.D.]]

We have already seen what was the life of Ivan: we shall now see its
ending--which was equally astonishing--desirable indeed for mankind,
but terrifying to the imagination; for the tyrant died as he had lived,
that is, exterminating men, although in contemporary narratives there is
no mention of his last victims.[33] Strong in bodily constitution, Ivan
had hoped for a long life; but what bodily strength could withstand the
furious rage of the passions that agitated the sombre existence of the
tyrant? The continued outbursts of wrath and fear, the racking of the
unrepentant conscience, the odious transports of abominable sensuality,
the torments of shame, the impotent fury at the reverses of his arms,
finally the horrible remembrance of the murder of his own son, had
exhausted the measure of Ivan’s strength. At times he experienced a
painful languor, the precursory symptom of dissolution, but he struggled
against it and did not noticeably weaken until the winter of the year
1584. At that time a comet appeared in the sky between the churches of
Ivan the Great and of the Annunciation, which had the form of a cross.
Curious to see it, Ivan went out on the red staircase, gazed at it long,
grew pale, and said to those around him: “there is the portent of my
death.” Pursued by this idea, it is said that he caused astrologers and
pretended magicians to be sought for throughout Russia and Lapland,
brought together about sixty of them, assigned to them a house in Moscow,
and daily sent his favourite Belski, to confer with them concerning the
comet. Soon he fell dangerously ill. It is said that the astrologers
predicted his death on the 18th of March. During February he was still
able to occupy himself with affairs; but on the 10th of March a courier
was despatched to delay the arrival of the Lithuanian ambassador who was
on his way to Moscow, by reason of the illness of the czar. Ivan himself
had given the order; he had still hopes of recovery, nevertheless he
called together the boyars and commanded that his will and testament
should be written down. He declared the czarevitch Theodore heir to
the throne and monarchy, and chose well-known men for councillors to
watch over the prosperity of the state and lighten for Theodore (who
was feeble both in mind and body) the burden of the cares of the state;
these men were: Prince Ivan Petrovitch Shuiski (the famous defender of
Pskov), Ivan Mstislavski, son of a niece of the grand prince Vasili,
Nikita Romanovitch Iuriev (brother of Ivan’s first wife, the virtuous
Anastasia), Boris Godunov, and Belski. To the young Dmitri and his mother
he assigned the town of Uglitch as appanage, the boy’s education to be
exclusively confided to Belski. He declared his gratitude to all his
boyars and voyevods, calling them his friends and companions in arms in
the conquest of unbelieving kingdoms, in the victories gained over the
knights of the Livonian order, the khan, and the sultan. He exhorted
Theodore to rule piously, lovingly and mercifully, advising him and the
five chief dignitaries of the state to avoid war with Christian powers.
He spoke of the disastrous consequences of the wars with Lithuania and
Sweden, deplored the exhaustion of Russia, enjoined a reduction of the
taxes and the liberation of all captives, even of the Lithuanian and
German prisoners.

The strength of the sick man presently left him; his thoughts were
beclouded; stretched in unconsciousness upon his bed, Ivan called loudly
for his murdered son, imagined he saw him and spoke to him tenderly. On
the 17th of March he felt better from the effects of a warm bath, so
that he commanded the Lithuanian ambassador to come without delay from
Mozhaisk to Moscow. The next day (if Horsey is to be believed) he said
to Belski, “Go and tell those liars, the astrologers, that they shall
die: according to their fables I am to die now, but I feel a great deal
better.” But, answered the astrologers, the day has not yet passed. A
bath was again prepared for the czar in which he remained about three
hours, then he lay down on his bed and rested. Soon he asked for a
chessboard, and sitting up in bed in his dressing-gown, he himself set
up the chessmen and wanted to play with Belski.[34] Suddenly he fell
back and closed his eyes for all eternity. The doctors rubbed him with
strengthening fluids, while the metropolitan--probably fulfilling the
will of Ivan that had been long known to him--read the prayers for the
taking of orders over the dying man, giving him the monastic names of
Jonas. During these moments a deep silence reigned throughout the palace
and the capital; people waited in expectancy, but nobody dared to ask.
Ivan lay already dead, yet he appeared still terrible to the surrounding
courtiers, who for a long time could not believe their eyes and did not
announce his death. On the third day magnificent obsequies took place in
the church of St. Michael.


KARAMZIN’S ESTIMATE OF IVAN

Amidst the various and heavy trials imposed by destiny on Russia, besides
the miseries of the feudal or appanage system, besides the Mongolian
yoke, Russia had also to bear the ferocity of the autocrat-tormentor: yet
she preserved her love for autocracy, believing that plagues, earthquakes
and tyrants are sent by God. Instead of breaking the iron sceptre in
the hands of Ivan, she bore for twenty-four years with the destroyer,
arming herself solely with prayer and patience in order that in happier
times she might have a Peter the Great, a Catherine II (history does not
like to name the living[35]). Magnanimously submissive, the martyrs
died on the scaffold like the Greeks at Thermopylæ, for their country,
their faith and fealty, without thought of rebellion or riot. In order
to excuse Ivan’s cruelties some foreign historians have spoken of plots
and conspiracies against which they were directed; but such plots only
existed in the troubled mind of the czar, as all our chronicles and state
papers bear witness. The clergy, the boyars, the prominent citizens would
not have called forth the wild beast from his lair of Alexandrovski,
if they had had thoughts of the treachery imputed to them with as much
absurdity as witchcraft. No, the tiger gorged himself with the blood of
the lambs, and his victims, casting a last glance on the distressful
earth, demanded from their contemporaries and from posterity both justice
and compassionate remembrance.

In spite of all speculative explanations, the character of Ivan, a
virtuous hero in his youth, and an insatiable, bloody tyrant in the years
of his manhood and old age, remains an enigma, and we should doubt the
truth of the most trustworthy narratives concerning him, if the history
of other nations did not show us equally astonishing examples; if for
instance Caligula, at first a model for sovereigns and afterwards a
monster of cruelty--if Nero, the pupil of the wise Seneca, an object of
love and an object of loathing, had not reigned at Rome.

Thus Ivan possessed a superior intellect, he was not uneducated, and
his knowledge was united to an uncommon gift of speech, yet he was the
shameless slave of the most abominable vices. He had an unusually fine
memory, he knew the Bible by heart, he was also well acquainted with
Greek and Roman history, besides the history of his own country, and only
used his knowledge in order to give the most absurd interpretations in
favour of tyranny. He boasted of his firmness and self control, because
he could laugh loudly in the hour of fear and of inward uneasiness.
He boasted of his clemency and generosity, because he enriched his
favourites with the possessions of the boyars and citizens who had
fallen into disgrace. He boasted of his justice, and punished with
equal satisfaction the meritorious and the criminal. He boasted of his
sovereign spirit and of knowing how to maintain the sovereign dignity,
ordering that an elephant which had been sent to him from Persia should
be cut to pieces because the animal would not kneel before him, and
cruelly punishing the unfortunate courtiers who dared to play at cards
or chess better than his majesty. Finally he prided himself on his deep
statecraft in exterminating systematically, at certain fixed epochs,
with cold blooded calculation, some of the most illustrious families
under the pretext of their being dangerous to the royal power; raising
to their rank new and mean families; touching with his destroying hand
even the future, for like a swarm of famine-bringing insects, the band of
informers, of calumniators, of “_opritchniki_”[36] that he had formed,
left, as they disappeared, the seed of evil among the people, and if the
yoke of Bati had lowered the spirit of the Russians, there is no doubt
that the reign of Ivan did nothing to raise it.

But justice must be rendered even to a tyrant: even in the extremity of
evil, Ivan at times seems the phantom, as it were, of a great monarch,
zealous, unwearying, often showing proofs of great penetration in
state matters. For valour he liked to compare himself to Alexander of
Macedonia, although there was not a shadow of courage in his soul: yet
he was a conqueror; in his outward policy he followed unswervingly the
great schemes of his grandfather. He wanted justice to be observed in
the tribunals, and not frequently himself examined the lawsuits, listened
to complaints, read every paper laid before him, and was prompt in
his decisions. He punished the oppressors of the people, unscrupulous
functionaries, and extortioners, both corporally and by putting them
to shame (he had them clothed in sumptuous attire, seated in carts and
driven by the hangmen through the streets). He forbade all drunken
excesses and only allowed the people to divert themselves in the public
houses during the Easter holidays and at Christmastide; at every other
time drunken people were sent to prison. Although he did not like daring
reproaches, yet at times Ivan detested coarse flattery; of the latter
we will give an instance: The voyevods, the princes Shtcherbati and
Iri Boriatinski, who had been ransomed by the czar from captivity in
Lithuania, were honoured with his favour, were given presents, and had
the distinction of dining with him. He questioned them about Lithuania.
Shtcherbati spoke the truth, but Boriatinski lied shamelessly, averring
that the king had neither troops nor fortresses and trembled at the name
of Ivan. “Poor king!” said Ivan quietly, shaking his head: “how I pity
thee!” and suddenly seizing his staff he broke it to splinters over
Boriatinski’s back, saying: “Take that, you shameless fellow, for your
flagrant lying!”

[Illustration: CATHEDRAL OF ST. BASIL, MOSCOW

(Built by Ivan the Terrible, who considered it so beautiful that he had
the architect’s eyes put out that he might not build another)]

Ivan was distinguished by a wise tolerance in matters of religion
(excepting that of the Jews); but although he at first allowed the
Lutherans and the Calvinists to have churches in Moscow, five years later
he ordered their churches to be burned. It is possible, however, that he
had heard of the people’s dissatisfaction and was afraid of some scandal;
in any case he did not hinder their meeting for worship in the houses of
their pastors. He was fond of disputing with learned Germans upon matters
of faith and was not angry at contradiction: thus in the year 1570 he
had a solemn discussion in the palace of the Kremlin with the Lutheran
theologian Rotsita, whom he accused of heresy: Rotsita was seated before
him on a raised platform covered with rich carpets; he spoke boldly in
defence of the dogmas of the Augsburg Confession, and was honoured with
tokens of the czar’s favour.

Ivan evinced esteem for the arts and sciences, showing marks of
favour to educated foreigners. Although he did not found academies,
yet he contributed to popular education by increasing the number of
ecclesiastical schools where the laity also could study reading, writing,
religion, and even history, and in particular prepare to become clerks
in the chanceries; to the shame of the boyars, many of whom were not yet
able to write. Finally Ivan is famous in Russian history as a lawgiver
and organiser of the state.[f]


IVAN THE TERRIBLE COMPARED WITH PETER THE GREAT

Deeply tragic were the life and destiny of Ivan the Terrible! As we
penetrate into the full signification of his work, we are involuntarily
drawn to the comparison which suggests itself between him and the
hero czar of the eighteenth century. It was not without reason that,
according to tradition, Peter looked upon Ivan as his precursor: they
had both entertained the same projects. Even in the circumstances of
their childhood and early youth there were points of resemblance; but
Ivan had not a tender, loving mother at his side, and this difference
was an essential one. There is also another very essential difference:
by nature Ivan was a man of more abstract character, less capable of and
less inclined to practical activity; for this reason he at times confided
in others, then suddenly became suspicious, but never acted himself. It
appeared to him that the duty of a czar was only to direct the activity
of others. Although this is a true view in ordinary times, it may
sometimes become a false one, and Peter served Russia as much with the
carpenter’s hatchet as he did with the sword of Pultowa. The practical
Peter believed in his people, and if at times he overstrained the bow,
yet it was as if he felt that matters would adjust themselves. Ivan
lost faith in everything and everyone; it may also be added that Peter
thought less of himself and in this respect he was larger minded than his
terrible predecessor. The painful impression produced on the historian
by Ivan’s trying to secure a refuge in England, has no parallel in the
life of Peter. Also, however terrible were the executions and punishments
in the time of Peter, and although at times there may be observed in
them signs of personal irritation, yet the impression produced by the
narrative of the devastations in Novgorod is still more distressing.
Practical statesmen never go to such lengths as abstract theorists: Peter
never entered into theoretical controversies, which were foreign to his
nature. For the same reason Peter, however well disposed he might be
towards foreigners, always counted himself a Russian, while Ivan took
pleasure in tracing the descent of his race from Cæsar Augustus. It was
also for this reason that Peter could not entirely abase himself in
sensual delights; he had too much work on his hands; his was a practical,
not a contemplative nature. And this is one of the principal causes of
Peter’s success and Ivan’s failure; another and more important reason
lies in the fact that Russia was weaker in the time of the Terrible czar
than in the time of Peter the Great.[b]


FOOTNOTES

[24] From _ókolo_, about, around--persons about the czar.

[25] _Gospodá_, plural of _gospodin_.

[26] Literally “beat his forehead.”

[27] Daughter of Stephen, Gospodin of Moldavia, married to Ivan’s son
Ivan.

[28] [A title borne by the Russian emperors.]

[29] Mengli Girai’s rivals: Adir, Nordovlat, and Zenebek, fled to Moscow
and were detained by Ivan, who thus rendered Mengli Girai a service at
the same time that he held out their liberation as a tacit menace.[a]

[30] Soloviov[h] decisively confutes the story that the cause of Ahmed’s
retreat was the destruction of Sarai by Nordovlat.

[31] Thus the courtiers regarded it as a matter of course that he should
take away from his envoys the gifts made to them by the sovereigns to
whom they had been accredited.

[32] [The Opritshnina, composed at first, or proposed to be composed, of
men of noble birth, was really filled by persons of the lowest class, who
acted as spies, informers and assassins.]

[33] Oderborn says that a few days before his death Ivan had six noblemen
executed. In other narratives it is only said that he destroyed men up to
the very end of his life.

[34] The historian Kostomarov relates that Ivan could not set the king in
its place and fell back dead as he endeavoured to do so.

[35] [A compliment to Alexander I, the author’s patron.]

[36] The life guards of Ivan the Terrible.




[Illustration]




CHAPTER V. THE CENTURY AFTER IVAN THE TERRIBLE


[Sidenote: [1584-1682 A.D.]]

Ivan left two sons, Feodor and Dmitri, the first of whom, at twenty-two
years of age, succeeded him. The second, born in 1581, was sprung from
a seventh marriage, contracted by Ivan in contempt of the canons of the
Greek church, which recognises no union as legitimate after the fourth
widowhood. Notwithstanding this circumstance, the right of Dmitri to the
title of czarevitch was not disputed, and he was even regarded as the
presumptive heir to the crown, as the feeble health of Feodor rendered it
extremely probable that he would die without issue.

The character of the new czar contrasted strangely with that of his
father. Gentle and timid as a child, and devout even to superstition,
Feodor spent his days in prayer, or in listening to and commenting
upon pious legends. He was constantly to be seen in the churches, and
he frequently took delight in ringing the bells himself, to call the
faithful to divine service. “He is a sacristan,” said Ivan the Terrible,
“not a czarevitch.” When not engaged in devotional exercises, Feodor
used to shut himself up with his buffoons; or else, from a balcony, he
would watch his huntsmen combating with bears. To a mind so weak, the
cares of government were insupportable; and he therefore lost no time in
transferring them to one of his own favourites, the boyard Boris Godunov,
his brother-in-law. He first bestowed upon him the office of master of
the horse, and attached to that title many important duties and immense
power. Shortly afterwards, by a public confession of his own incapacity,
he appointed him _pravitel_, or regent of the empire.[b]


CHARACTER OF BORIS GODUNOV

From that time on, for eighteen years, the destiny of the Russian
monarchy and people was bound up with the personality of Boris Godunov.
His family traced its origin from the Tatar prince (_mourza_) Tchet,
who in the fourteenth century had been baptised in the horde by
the metropolitan Peter and had settled in Russia under the name of
Zacharias. The Ipatski monastery, erected by him near Kostroma, was
a monument of the piety of the newly baptised Tatar; it became the
holy place of his descendants, who provided for it by their offerings
and were buried there. The grandson of Zacharias, Ivan Godum, was the
forefather of that branch of the family of Prince Tchet which from the
appellation of Godum received the name of Godunov. The posterity of
Godum flourished remarkably; the Godunovs owned estates, but they did
not play an important rôle in Russian history until the time when one
of the great-grandsons of the first Godunov had the honour of becoming
the father-in-law of the czarevitch Feodor Ivanovitch. Then there
appeared at the court of Ivan the Terrible the brother of Feodor’s
wife, Boris, who was married to a daughter of the czar’s favourite,
Maluta Skuratov. Ivan liked him. The exaltation of persons and families
through relationship with the czaritsas was a very ordinary occurrence
in the history of Moscow, but such exaltation was often precarious. The
relatives of Ivan’s wives were destroyed as freely as the other victims
of his bloodthirstiness. Boris himself, by his nearness to the czar,
was in imminent peril, and it is reported that Ivan wounded him badly
with his staff when Boris interceded for the czarevitch Ivan, murdered
by his father. But the czar himself lamented his son and afterwards
showed Boris even greater favour for his boldness, which nevertheless
cost him some months’ illness. But towards the end of his life Ivan,
under the influence of other favourites, began to look askance at Boris,
and perhaps things might have gone badly with Godunov had not Ivan died
suddenly.

After Ivan’s death Boris found himself in a position such as had
never before been occupied by a subject in the empire of Moscow. The
feeble-minded Feodor had become czar, and as he could not in any case
have ruled himself, he was obliged to give up his power to that one among
his immediate entourage who proved himself the most capable and crafty.
Such a one in the court circles of that time was Boris. At the time of
Ivan’s death he was thirty-two years of age; of a handsome presence,
distinguished for his remarkable gift of speech, intelligent, prudent,
but egotistical to a high degree. All his activity was directed to the
serving of his own interests, to his enrichment, to the increase of his
power, to the exaltation of his family. He understood how to wait, to
take advantage of propitious moments, to remain in the shade or advance
to the front when either manœuvre seemed opportune, to put on the mask
of piety and of every virtue, to show kindness and mercy, and where it
was necessary severity and harshness. Ever deliberate, he never gave
way to enthusiastic impulses and always acted with reflection. Like all
such characters, he was ready to do good if good did not stand in the
way of his personal interests; neither did he stop at any wickedness or
crime if he considered it necessary for the furtherance of his personal
advantages, and least of all when it was a question of personal safety.

There was nothing creative in his nature. He was incapable of becoming
the propagator of any idea or the guide of men into new pathways;
egotistical natures are not fitted for such tasks. As regent of the state
he was not far-seeing, but only apprehended proximate circumstances,
and could only take advantage of them for close and pre-eminently
self-centered aims. The lack of a good education still further narrowed
the horizon of his vision, although his strong common sense enabled him
to understand the profitableness of acquaintance with the west for the
furtherance of his power. All the good of which his mind was capable
was frustrated by his narrow egotism and the extraordinary mendacity
that penetrated his whole being and was reflected in all his actions.
This last quality, however, had become a distinguishing characteristic
of the people of Moscow at that period. The seeds of this vice had long
existed, but they were in a very great measure fostered and developed by
the reign of Ivan the Terrible, who was himself falsehood personified.
By creating the _opritchniki_ Ivan had armed the Russians against one
another, and taught them to look for favour or safety in the ruin of
their neighbours; by punishments and executions for imaginary crimes, he
had taught them to give false information; and by perpetrating the most
inhuman villanies for pure diversion, he had educated those around him in
heartlessness and cruelty. Respect for right and morality vanished after
the czar, who according to the national ideal should be the guardian of
both, had organised before the eyes of his subjects such spectacles as
the baiting of innocent persons by bears or the public torture of naked
girls, while at the same time he observed the strictest rules of monastic
piety. In moments of personal danger everyone naturally thinks only of
himself; but when such moments were prolonged for Russians into decades,
it is comprehensible that a generation of self-seeking and hard-hearted
egotists must have arisen, whose whole thought and aspiration were
directed to the preservation of their own safety--a generation for whom,
in spite of the outward observance of the customary forms of piety,
lawfulness, and morality, there remained no inward righteousness. He who
was clever beyond the average, was bound to become a model of falsity;
it was an epoch when the mind, rivetted in the narrow fetters of the
self-interested motives inherent in the whole contemporary sphere of
existence, could only show its activity in the attainment of its personal
aims by means of deceit. Desperate diseases of human society, like
physical illnesses, are not quickly cured when the general conditions
of life contribute not to the cessation but rather to the prolongation
of the unhealthy state; the terrible phenomena of the “troubled times”
can be explained only as the outbreaking of the hidden corruptions
accumulated during the awful period of the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible.

The mendacity which constituted a feature of the period is powerfully
reflected in the contemporary Russian sources of information, and it
would be easy to fall into error and inaccurate inferences if we were
to trust to them and accept their guidance; fortunately the evident
contradictions and absurdities into which they fall sufficiently testify
to their untruthfulness.[c]


WAR WITH SWEDEN

[Sidenote: [1590 A.D.]]

Russia boasted of her power, having in reality the largest army in
Europe, yet a part of old Russia was in Sweden’s power. The peace
concluded with King John expired at the beginning of the year 1590. The
second interview with the ambassadors on the borders of the Plusa was
fruitless, the Swedes having refused to restore their conquests. Under
such circumstances no understanding could be arrived at. Sweden proposed
a mere exchange, giving up Koporie for Sumersk on the banks of the Neva.
John complained that the Russians annoyed Finland by incursions, ravaging
the land like tigers. Feodor reproached the voyevods for their brigandage
in the Zaonega, Olonetz, Ladoga, and Dvina countries. During the summer
of 1589 they came from Caianie to pillage the lands belonging to the
convents of Sklovetzk, Petchensk, Kola, Kereta, and Kovda, seizing as
booty more than half a million of silver roubles in cash. In engaging
the king to make concessions, the czar spoke to him of his great allies,
the emperor and the shah. But John answered ironically: “I am delighted
to see you now know your weakness and wait for help from others. We
shall see what kind of aid our relation Rudolph will give you. As for
ourselves, we do not need allies to finish you off.” Notwithstanding this
insolence, John asked for a third interview with the ambassadors. But
Feodor declared to him that neither peace nor a truce was wanted unless
the Swedes would yield, besides the lands belonging to Novgorod which
they had invaded, Revel and all Esthonia. In short, Russia declared war.

Up to that time, Godunov had only shone by his genius in interior and
exterior politics. Always prudent and inclined to peace, not warlike nor
aspiring to glory through arms, he yet wished to prove that his love of
peace did not arise from cowardice on this occasion when, without being
ashamed or failing in the sacred use of power, bloodshed could not be
avoided. To fulfil this duty he employed every means necessary to ensure
success. He put on the field (if one can credit official documents of the
time) nearly three hundred thousand fighters, infantry and cavalry, with
three hundred pieces of artillery. All the boyars, all the czarevitches
(Muhammed, Koul of Siberia, Rouslanei son of Kaiboula, and Ouraze Magmet
of the Kirghiz), the voyevods of countries near and far, towns and
hamlets where they lived in quiet, were obliged to be at a certain time
under the royal flag; for the pacific Feodor, having left--not without
regret--his religious occupations, himself headed his army. This was just
what Godunov needed to animate the troops and hinder senseless disputes
among the principal dignitaries concerning ancient lineage and precedence.

[Illustration: ESTHONIAN GIRL]

Prince Feodor Mstislavski commanded the grand army; the advance guard
was under Prince Dmitri Khvorostinin, a voyevod distinguished for
talent and courage. Godunov and Feodor Romanov-Turiev (descended from
the illustrious Philarete), the czar’s second cousin, were combined
with him under the title court voyevods. The czarina Irene followed
her husband from Moscow as far as Novgorod, where the monarch assigned
the destination of the troops. He ordered some to march to Flanders
beyond the Neva; others to Esthonia as far as the coast; he himself at
the head of the principal army set out on the 18th of January, 1590,
against Narva. It was a hard campaign on account of the severe cold,
but distinguished by the zeal of the troops. The Russians marched to
retake what was theirs, and, on the 27th of January, seized Jama. Twenty
thousand Swedes, as many cavalry as infantry, commanded by Gustav Banér,
met Prince Dmitri Khvorostinin near Narva, but were defeated and driven
back into the town, which was full of people but destitute of provisions.
That was why Banér, having left the necessary number of soldiers in the
fortress, fled during the night and went to Vesemberg, pursued by the
Russian Asiatic cavalry, and left all his baggage and artillery. Among
the prisoners were several Swedes of distinction.

On the 4th of February the Russians besieged Narva, and having managed
by a vigourous bombardment to make three breaches demanded a submission.
The commander, Charles Horn, called them on to the assault and valiantly
repulsed the enemy. The voyevods Saburov and Prince Ivan Tokmakov, as
well as certain boyar children, Strelitz, and Mordiren, and Tcherckess
women and soldiers perished in the breach. Nevertheless, this affair,
however brilliant for the Swedes, could not save the town: the cannonade
did not cease; walls were tottering and the Russian troops prepared
for a new assault on the 21st of February. Even at this epoch the
Russians ravaged Esthonia without opposition as far as Revel, and in
Finland as far as the Åbo, for King John had more pride than forces.
Then negotiations were opened. Russia demanded Narva and all Esthonia
in return for peace from the Swedes; but the czar, “yielding to the
Christian insistence of Godunov,” as it is said in official documents,
contented himself with re-establishing the former frontier.

On the 22nd of February Horn, in the king’s name, concluded a peace for
one year, yielding the czar Jama, Ivangorod, and Koporie, with all stores
and war ammunition. It was agreed to fix the fate of Esthonia at a nearby
meeting of Russians and Swedes, by promising to yield to Russia even
Karelia, Narva, and other Esthonian towns. Russia gained in glory by her
moderation. Feodor, after leaving the voyevods in the three fortresses
taken, hastened to return to Novgorod and his wife, and go thence with
her to Moscow to celebrate a victory over those same European powers with
which his father, doubtful of his military skill, had warned him not
to engage. The clergy, headed by the cross, came to meet the sovereign
outside the town; and the metropolitan, Job, in a pompous discourse
compared him to Constantine the Great and Vladimir, according him thanks
in the name of country and church for having driven the infidels from the
heart of Holy Russia, also for having re-established the altars of the
true God in the town of Ivan III and in the old Slav possessions of Ilmen.

Soon Swedish perfidy gave new and important success to the arms of the
pacific Feodor. King John, accusing Horn of cowardice, declared that the
convention signed by him was incriminating. He reinforced his troops in
Esthonia, and sent two seigneurs, lieutenants from Upsala and Vestergöt,
to the mouths of the Plusa, there to have an interview with Prince Feodor
Mstislavski and a member of the Pissemski council, not to give Esthonia
to Russia, but to exact that Jama, Ivangorod, and Koporie should be
returned. At this news not only Feodor’s ambassadors but even the Swiss
soldiers showed their discontent. Ranged on the other side of the Plusa
they called on the Russians, but Russia desired no more slaughter, and
they forced their plenipotentiaries to forego their pretentions, so that
nothing but peace was sought and they ended by consenting to yield all
Karelia to Russia. But she insisted on having Narva, and the ambassadors
separated.

That same night the Swiss general, Joran Boyé, treacherously besieged
Ivangorod whilst the terms of the Narva convention had not yet expired.
But the intrepid voyevod Ivan Saburov completely defeated by a vigourous
sortie not only General Boyé but the duke of Sudermania joined with him.
The principal Moscow army was at Novgorod but was not in time to help.
They found the fortress already delivered and saw only from a distance
the enemy fleeing.[d]


SERFDOM

It was Boris Godunov, to whom his contemporaries give the title
Lieutenant of the Empire, who in reality introduced into it the
attachment of serfs to the soil. Up till then the peasants, using and
abusing the faculty of passing from one estate to another, had changed
masters on every occasion; and many were the inconveniences which
resulted, notably this that they accustomed themselves to no given
situation with its climate, men, and accessories, were not attached
to the ground, and remained strangers to the locality they inhabited.
Boris was besieged with the landowners’ complaints on this subject, and
saw, besides, that the cultivators themselves, frequently deceived in
their hope of finding a better landlord, would then abandon themselves
to discouragement; and this engendered poverty, increased the number of
vagabonds and the lowest classes, and caused numerous habitations, well
suited to shelter field-labourers, to be deserted, become dilapidated,
and fall into ruin. Boris had favoured agriculture by releasing the
peasants on the czar’s estates, and perhaps those on his own, from the
tax. His intentions were doubtless benevolent: his aim was to unite
the labourers and the landlords as by a family tie, and to augment
the well-being of both, by establishing between them an indissoluble
community of interest to their mutual advantage. It was in this hope that
he instituted the law of 1592 or 1593, by which the peasant’s undisputed
right to liberty of removal (_vykhod_) was suppressed.

We may, however, believe that Boris had still another motive. In a
country of the extent of Russia and administered as she was, the
government had some difficulty in keeping up direct relations with
the peasants who were bound to pay it the tax and to provide for the
recruiting of the army, which had recently been transformed like the
rest. The government was then very glad to avail itself of the nobles as
intermediaries and enlightened executors of its orders. Consequently it
made them its delegates for the administration and police, an arrangement
which simplified the machinery; and the nobles, acting in their own most
apparent interests, must have afterwards pushed matters to extremes.
However that may be, the peasants were now inscribed in review books
and forbidden to go away from their commune except by the authority of
their lord. In spite of the discontent which this measure produced, it
was further strengthened by the ukase of the 21st of November, 1597,
relative to fugitive peasants, of which there were a great number in
consequence of these legal prescriptions, so evidently contrary to the
temperament and genius of the nations. Those who had hired themselves out
for a certain time were forbidden to redeem themselves from the effects
of this new _régime_, even by reimbursing the sum stipulated as the price
of hire. What was more, these peasants who had disposed of their persons
by contract were not the only ones affected by these laws of oppression:
they touched even the freemen who, without having signed any engagement,
happened to be in the service of the landlords. If they had been there
for more than three months, they were obliged to remain permanently, and
where their time of service was not so long all they gained was the power
of choosing between the last lord and another, but always renouncing the
right of being their own masters. A new ukase ordained that all boyars,
princes, nobles, the military and legal classes, etc., should present, on
account of the individuals in their service, present or in the course of
flight, their letters of serfdom, in order to have them inscribed in the
registers of the chamber for the regulation of serfs.

The measure once taken, Godunov, who wished to be agreeable to the
mass of the rural proprietors, gave it all the extension possible;
still, at the same time he declared the emancipated to be free forever,
as well as their wives and their children; this last, however, was a
very feeble amelioration of an evidently iniquitous law, which did not
fail to produce extreme indignation in the whole rural population. In
various places the peasants protested by flight against the tyranny
exercised over them by a power whose despotism had never gone so far.
Want was doubtless not long in bringing the greater part back to their
abandoned homes, or they were constrained to return by armed force; but
St. George’s day, the date when this law of enslavement was put into
execution, was graven in their memories as a day of ill-omen; the people
have never pardoned it for its disgrace and will perhaps continue to
curse it, although the day of reparation is come at last. But the peasant
was not the only one to suffer; the great number of men in flight gave
occasion to a thousand ruinous suits between landowners; they accused
each other of offering an asylum to the fugitives and of keeping them
in concealment. The evil was so great, says the historian upon whose
narratives ours is based, that Boris, though unwilling to abolish a law
passed from good motives, decided at least to declare that it should
be only temporary, and, by an ukase of the 21st of November, 1601, he
authorised the peasants of boyars’ children, and of other nobles of the
secondary classes, to return, within a fixed period, from one proprietor
to another of the same rank; not more than two at a time, however, and
exception being made of the Moscow district. On the other hand, he
ordered the peasants belonging to the boyars and other great nobles, and
those of the crown, the bishoprics, and the convents, not to stir during
this same year 1601, but to remain in their respective habitations.
Karamzin adds that the sensation produced by all this was such that
Boris was personally affected by it. It is asserted, he says, that the
abolition of the old _régime_ and the uncertainty of the new, a source
of discontent to so many, exercised a great influence over the fate of
the unfortunate Godunov. In the end he seems to have left the matter
in suspense, and it was Prince Chuïski who, raised to the throne under
the name of Vasili (V) Ivanovitch, consummated the social revolution
we are speaking of, by his ukase of the 9th of March, 1607, confirming
that of 1593 and, in addition, laying down the penalties to be inflicted
on whoever should give asylum to the fugitives. The lot was cast--the
peasant had lapsed into a serf attached to the soil.[e]


DEATH OF DMITRI (1591 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1591 A.D.]]

Boris desired above all things to be feared, but he did not disdain a
certain amount of popularity for his family; and he left no means untried
to render his sister Irene dear to the Russian people. All rigorous
measures were executed in the name of the czar, and by order of the
regent; but acts of clemency and favours of every kind were ascribed to
the intercession of the czarina Irene, who, indeed, was always a docile
instrument in the hands of her brother. She acted and thought only in
obedience to his inspirations, blending with great simplicity of heart
her respect and admiration of Boris with the passionate love which she
felt for Feodor.

The intimidated boyars were reduced to silence. Dmitri, still a child,
could cause no apprehension; but his mother, the czarina-dowager, Maria
Feodorovna, and his three uncles, Michael, Gregory, and Andrew Nagoi,
might perhaps attempt to avail themselves of their alliance with the
reigning family. Boris therefore banished them to the town of Uglitch,
which had been assigned as an appanage to young Dmitri by the will of
Ivan; and, under the pretext of intrusting them with the education of the
czarevitch, he kept them there in a kind of exile.

At Uglitch, in 1591, Dmitri, at ten years of age, had his little
court--his _jiltsy_ (children brought up with the young princes), and
his great officers, among whom the regent had doubtless introduced
many a spy. The pensions of the young prince and his family were paid
and controlled by a _deak_, or secretary of chancery, named Michael
Bitiagovski, a creature of Boris; and between this functionary and
the Nagoi there naturally arose frequent discussions, which increased
in bitterness from day to day. Strong in the authority with which the
regent had invested him, the secretary delighted to cavil at all the
pretensions of the family of the czarevitch. It seemed his constant aim,
by the incessant renewal of petty vexations, to make them feel that their
fortune had greatly declined since the death of Ivan the Terrible. To
the complaints which they laid before the czar, Bitiagovski replied by
denouncing any imprudent expressions that might have escaped from the
Nagoi during their exile. If we may believe the report of the secretary
of chancery, the czarevitch already exhibited the ferocious instincts and
cruel tastes of his father. He took pleasure in nothing, it was said, but
in seeing animals beaten, or else in mutilating them with a refinement of
barbarity. It is related that, one winter’s day, when playing with some
children of his own age, he constructed several figures of men out of the
snow in the courtyard of his palace. To each of these he gave the name of
one of the great functionaries of the empire; and the largest of all he
called Boris. Then seizing a wooden sabre, he knocked off either their
arms or their heads. “When I am a man,” said the child, “that is how I
will treat them.” These and similar anecdotes were carefully collected
and commented upon at Moscow. Perhaps they may have been invented by
the agents of Boris, in order to render the Nagoi odious to the Russian
nobility; or perhaps, educated as he was by servants and courtiers in
disgrace, the young prince repeated only too faithfully the lessons which
he was taught.

The hopes and fears occasioned by his education were, however, speedily
dissipated by the sudden death of Dmitri. His end was strange, and it
is difficult to say whether it was the result of an accident or of a
crime. On the 15th of May, 1591, the czarevitch, whom his mother had just
left for a moment, was amusing himself with four children, his pages or
_jiltsy_, in the courtyard of his palace--a spacious enclosure which
contained several separate dwelling houses, built irregularly in various
parts. He was still attended by Vasilissa Volokhov his governess, his
nurse, and a chambermaid. It is probable that they may have lost sight
of him for a moment. According to the unanimous testimony of the three
women and of the pages, he was holding a knife, which he was amusing
himself by sticking into the ground, or with which he was cutting a piece
of wood. On a sudden, the nurse looked around, and saw him weltering in
his blood. He had a large wound in his throat, and he expired without
uttering a word. On hearing the cries of the nurse, the czarina ran up,
and in the first transports of her despair exclaimed that her son had
been assassinated. She flew upon the governess, whose duty it was to
take care of him, and beat her furiously with a heavy stick, accusing
her of having admitted the murderers who had just slain her son. At the
same time, as her thoughts doubtless turned to her recent quarrels with
Bitiagovski, she invoked upon that man the vengeance of her brothers and
of the servants of her household.

Michael Nagoi now came up, having just left the dinner table, in a state
of intoxication, according to the testimony of several witnesses; in his
turn he began to beat the poor governess, and ordered that the alarm bell
should be rung at the church of the Saviour, which stood near the palace.
In an instant the courtyard was filled with inhabitants of Uglitch and
domestics, who ran up with pitchforks and hatchets, believing that the
palace of the czarevitch was on fire. With them arrived Bitiagovski,
accompanied by his son and by the gentlemen employed in his chancery. He
endeavoured to speak, to appease the tumult, and cried out at once that
the child had killed himself by falling on his knife in an epileptic
fit, from which it was well known that he frequently suffered. “Behold
the murderer!” exclaimed the czarina. A hundred arms were immediately
raised to strike him. He fled into one of the houses in the enclosure,
and barricaded the door; but it was soon burst open, and he was cut to
pieces. His son was slain at the same time. Whoever raised his voice in
his defence, whoever was known to be connected with him, was immediately
struck down and put to death. The governess Vasilissa, covered with blood
and half-killed by the blows she had received, lay on the ground near the
czarina, bareheaded, and with dishevelled hair; for the servants of the
Nagoi had taken off her cap--which was considered by the Russians, at
this period, a more infamous outrage even than blows. One of her serfs,
compassionating her disgrace, picked up her cap, and replaced it on her
head; he was instantly massacred. The furious crowd, still pursuing
and murdering those who were pointed out to its vengeance, carried the
bleeding body of the czarevitch into the church. Thither they dragged
Daniel Volokhov, the son of the governess, who was known to be intimate
with Bitiagovski. This was enough to procure his condemnation as an
accomplice in the crime; and he was immediately put to death before the
eyes of his mother, in front of the body of the young prince. It was
with great difficulty that the priests of the church of the Saviour
rescued Vasilissa and the daughters of Bitiagovski from the hands of the
multitude. All these women, however, were shut up in one of the buildings
adjoining the cathedral; and guards were placed at all the approaches.[b]

Public opinion denounced Boris, and in order to quiet the people he
ordered an investigation. His emissaries had the audacity to declare that
the young prince, in an access of folly, had cut his own throat, and that
the Nagoi and the people of Uglitch had killed, as murderers, men who
were innocent. The result of this policy was the extermination of the
Nagoi and the depopulation of Uglitch.

Seven years afterward the pious Feodor died: in the person of this pale
and virtuous sovereign ended the violent and sanguinary race of men
of prey who had made Russia. The dynasty, issue of André Bogoliubski,
had accomplished its mission--it had founded a united Russia. The task
of bringing into the heart of Europe this semi-Asiatic country was to
devolve on another dynasty.[f]


THE REIGN OF BORIS (1598-1605 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1598 A.D.]]

In 1598 Boris Godunov, by the voice of the electors and through the
intrigues of his friends, ascended the throne of Russia. A crown
obtained by indirect and fraudulent measures could not be preserved
without tyranny. Boris, conscious of the jealousies which his elevation
engendered in the minds of the nobles, and especially in the family of
the Romanovs, who were allied to the race of Rurik but not to the Moscow
line, was constantly haunted by apprehensions, and sought to lose them in
the revel, and to propitiate them by the sacrifice of all persons whom
he suspected. Had he been a legitimate sovereign he would have conferred
lasting benefits upon his country, because he was a wise and paternal
ruler in all matters apart from his personal affairs. He bestowed
considerable pains on many laudable measures of improvement; but these
were so sullied by acts of merciless revenge, to which he was moved by
the danger in which he was placed by his usurpation, that it is difficult
to separate his merits from his crimes.

The Tatars of the Crimea, immediately after Boris was proclaimed czar,
exhibited a disposition to renew their old hostilities; but Boris
promptly turned his attention to that part of the empire, and, assembling
a numerous army, availed himself of the opportunity of ingratiating
himself with the troops. The descent of the Tatars was merely an idle
threat; but the occasion was one which contributed considerably to
enlarge the popularity of Boris. He exceeded all his predecessors in the
splendour and hospitality of his entertainments, in the frequency of the
amusements which he provided for the soldiery and the citizens, and the
general amenity and condescension of his bearing in public. It seems to
have been the policy of the tyrants of Russia to conciliate the lower
orders, in order that they might, with the greater facility, crush the
aristocracy, from whom they chiefly dreaded opposition; and Boris was
eminently successful in his attempts to ensnare the affections of the
multitude, although he had actually deprived them of the only fragment of
liberty they possessed.

In the commencement of his reign he evinced a strong desire to cultivate
the friendship of the different powers of Europe, from whom severally
he received ambassadors at his court; to extend to all his subjects in
common the means of procuring cheap and rapid justice, in the fulfilment
of which he gave audiences for the purpose of receiving and redressing
complaints; and to diffuse abroad a taste for European knowledge and
instruction in those arts and sciences which had hitherto been neglected
and despised. In some of these wise projects he met great resistance from
the clergy, who, released from the presence of a sovereign who ruled them
by a mission from heaven, began to exhibit uneasiness and impatience
of control. Thus constantly thrown back upon the uncertain tenure of
his power, and reminded that he was not a legitimate master, Boris was
forced to exert arbitrary and unjust means to maintain his authority.
The current of the official and privileged classes was running against
him, and he was compelled to erect such defences as the necessities of
the occasion required. But even out of this difficulty he contrived to
extract some benefits for the country.

[Illustration: BORIS GODUNOV, IN RETIREMENT AT THE MONASTERY, INTREATED
TO ACCEPT HIS ELECTION AS CZAR

(Painted for the HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD by Thure de Thulstrup)]

For three years a famine fell upon Russia, paralysing the efforts of
industry, and spreading misery and distress over the whole empire.
Throughout the whole of this calamitous period, Boris incessantly
employed himself in devising modes of relief, and levying from the
surplus funds of the rich a treasury of alms to alleviate the wants of
the poor. Out of his own abundant coffers he daily distributed several
thousand rubles, and he forced the nobility and the clergy, who, with
a grasping avariciousness, kept aloof from the miseries that surrounded
them, to open their granaries, and to sell him their stores of corn
at half price, that he might distribute it gratuitously amongst the
impoverished people. These exactions depressed the wealthy, and won the
gratitude of the needy; but still they were insufficient to meet the
whole demand of poverty. Great numbers died, and Boris, unable to provide
sustenance for them while living, caused them to be buried with respect,
furnishing to each corpse a suit of linen grave-clothes.

These benevolent exertions of Boris were viewed with distrust and malice
by the nobility, who clearly enough discerned the policy that lay at the
bottom. Their murmurs arose in private, and gradually assumed a sterner
expression in public. At the feasts, and even in the court itself,
the signs and words of disaffection could not be misunderstood. The
insecurity of his position urged Boris to protect himself by a machinery
of terror. Into a small space of time he crowded a number of executions,
and consigned several of the discontented grandees to imprisonment and
exile. His alarm magnified his danger, and supplied him with expedients
of cruelty. At his own banquets he did not hesitate to rise up and
denounce particular individuals, who were immediately seized upon by his
adherents, and either put to death or cast into dungeons, or banished,
and their properties confiscated to the state. Despotism penetrated to
all classes; the peasantry, bound to the soil, were further oppressed by
penal laws.

Amongst other sanguinary provisions, it was enacted that all the
individuals of a family were held to be involved in the punishment of
a single member. It was also declared that every Russian who passed
beyond the frontiers was a rebel to his country and a heretic. A father
was invested with all the powers of a despot in his hut, and allowed to
inflict summary punishment upon his wife and children, the latter of whom
he was permitted to sell four times; and this regulation was annulled
only by the bondage to the fief, which substituted a worse tyranny for
the domestic slavery. The merciless rule of Boris may be regarded as
the consequence of his situation, which exposed him to hazards from
which he could not escape except by some such decisive and terrible
measures. The iron sway pressed down the expiring spirit of licentious
freedom. The wandering minstrels who had hitherto travelled through the
country, perpetuating in their songs the historical glories of Russia,
and inspiring the people with proud sentiments of national emulation,
disappeared. The metrical chronicles perished in the general dismay.
The immediate result of this struggle to preserve the object of his
guilty ambition was an extensive emigration of the peasantry, who fled
from the scene of misery to embrace the wild freedom of the Cossacks or
seek protection from the king of Poland; and an atrocious _jacquerie_
succeeded, which was, for a short time, triumphant.[g]

Never had the government of Boris met with fewer obstacles; never had
the authority of a czar appeared more firmly established. At peace with
foreign powers, and quietly watching the conflicts of his neighbours,
he applied himself to the task of civilising his people, of encouraging
commerce, and of establishing an exact system of police in all the
provinces of his empire. Every one of his acts was received with
submission and executed with alacrity; but, nevertheless, all minds were
agitated by a secret disquietude. The czar could not conceal from himself
the aversion with which he was regarded by the Russians; all classes,
nobles and serfs, alike detested him. He saw all his intentions, all his
decrees interpreted as violations of the laws of the country. At this
period of benighted ignorance the Russians, even of the higher classes,
regarded foreigners with a kind of superstitious horror. They made no
difference between a foreigner and an infidel, and applied the name of
“pagan” indiscriminately to the idolatrous Tcheremiss, the Mussulman
Tatar, and the Lutheran or Catholic German. Love of their country, or,
to speak more correctly, of their native soil, was confounded by them
with their attachment to their national religion. They called themselves
the “orthodox people,” and their country Holy Russia. Elsewhere than
in that privileged land it was impossible, they believed, to obtain
salvation. The early troubles of the Reformation in Germany had brought
into Russia a large number of poor adventurers, who had sought to turn
their superior knowledge to account. The people were not slow to perceive
the pre-eminence of these foreigners in the arts and industry, but they
only detested them the more on this account. The Germans were continually
charged by the vulgar herd with a desire to corrupt the national faith,
and to appropriate to themselves the wealth of the country. Boris,
indeed, flattered them and invited them into his dominions, feeling
that he had need of them to guide his subjects towards a higher stage
of civilisation. But the commercial privileges and facilities which he
granted to Livonian and German merchants only served as a pretext to the
most terrible accusation which could be brought against a sovereign--that
of betraying his country and his religion. He sent eighteen young
gentlemen to study in Germany, France, and England; their families
lamented them as doomed victims. On either side of the frontier all
contact with foreigners was deemed a pollution.[b]


_The False Dmitri Appears_

[Sidenote: [1603 A.D.]]

[Illustration: A FEMALE OSTIAK]

Suddenly, a surprising rumour was brought from the frontiers of
Lithuania, and spread with incredible rapidity through all the provinces
of the empire. The czarevitch Dmitri, who was believed to have been
assassinated at Uglitch, was still living in Poland. Having been
favourably received by a palatine, he had made himself known to the
principal nobles of the republic, and was preparing to reclaim his
hereditary throne. It was related that he had wandered for some time
in Russia, concealed beneath the frock of a monk. The archimandrite of
the convent of the Saviour at Novgorod Seversk had given him a lodging
without recognising him. The prince had proceeded thence to Kiev, leaving
in his cell a note, in which he declared that he was Dmitri, the son of
Ivan the Terrible, and that he would one day recompense the hospitality
of the archimandrite. On the other hand it was stated that the persons
worthy of belief had seen the czarevitch among the Zaparogian Cossacks,
taking part in their military expeditions and distinguishing himself
by his courage and address in all warlike exercises. The name of the
ataman under whose orders he had enrolled himself was also given. Other
authorities declared that they had seen the same person at the same time
studying Latin at Huszcza, a small town in Volhinia. Though reports were
contradictory as to details, they all agreed on this one point--that
Dmitri was still living, and that he intended to call the usurper to
account for all his crimes.[b]

Who was the personage whom the Russian historians have called the “false
Dmitri.” Was he really the son of Ivan the Terrible, saved by the
foresight of the Nogai from the assassins’ knife and replaced in the
coffin, as he related, by the son of a pope (Russian parish priest)?
Was he, as the czar and the patriarch proclaimed him, a certain Gregori
Otrepiev, a vagabond monk who was for a time secretary to the patriarch
Job and was thus enabled to surprise state secrets--who in his nomadic
life afterwards appeared amongst the Zaparogians, where he is said to
have become an accomplished rider and an intrepid Cossack? To all these
questions, in the present state of our information, no absolutely certain
answer can be given. Kostomarov compared the handwriting of the pretender
with that of the monk Otrepiev and affirms that they do not resemble each
other. Captain Margeret knew people who conversed with Otrepiev after the
pretender’s death. Not to prejudge the solution we will give this last
not the name of Dmitri but that of Demetrius, with which he signed his
letters to the pope.

About the year 1603 a young man entered the service of the Polish _pan_,
Adam Vichnevetski. He fell or feigned to fall ill, sent for a Catholic
priest, and under the seal of professional secrecy revealed to him
that he was the czarevitch Dmitri, who had escaped from the assassins
of Uglitch. He showed, suspended from his neck, a cross enriched with
precious stones, which he asserted that he had received from Prince
Mstislavski, the godfather of Dmitri. The priest dared not keep such a
secret to himself. Demetrius was recognised by his master Vichnevetski as
the legitimate heir of Ivan the Terrible. Mniszek, palatine of Sandomir,
promised him his help. Demetrius had already fallen in love with Marina,
the eldest daughter of Mniszek, and swore to make her czarina of Moscow;
the father and the young girl accepted the proposal of marriage.

Meantime the strange tidings of the resuscitation of Dmitri spread
through the whole kingdom of Poland. Mniszek and Vichnevetski conducted
Demetrius to Cracow and presented him to the king. The papal nuncio
interested himself in his behalf; the Jesuits and Franciscans worked in
concert for his conversion; in secret he abjured orthodoxy and promised
to bring Moscow within the pale of the Roman church. He corresponded with
Clement VIII whose least servant, _infimus cliens_, he declared himself
to be. Thus he was recognised by the king, the nuncio, the Jesuits, and
the pope. Did they really believe in his legitimacy? It is probable
that they saw in him a formidable instrument of disturbance; the king
flattered himself that he would be able to turn it against Russia and
the Jesuits--that they might use it against orthodoxy. Sigismund dared
not take upon himself to break the truce concluded with Boris and expose
himself to Muscovite vengeance. He treated Demetrius as czarevitch, but
only in private; he refused to place the royal troops at his disposal,
but authorised the nobles who were touched by the misfortunes of the
young prince to aid him as they might desire.

The pans had no need of a royal authorisation; many of them, with the
light-heartedness and love of adventure which characterised the Polish
nobility, took arms.

[Sidenote: [1604-1605 A.D.]]

No revolution, be it the wisest and most necessary, is accomplished
without setting in motion the dregs of society, without coming into
collision with many interests and creating a multitude of outcasts. The
transformation then being accomplished in Russia for the creation of
the modern unitary state had awakened formidable elements of disorder.
The peasant, whom the laws of Boris had just attached to the glebe, was
everywhere covertly hostile. The petty nobility, to whose profit this
innovation had been made, could only with great difficulty live by their
estates: the czar’s service had become ruinous; many were inclined to
make up for the inadequacy of their revenues by brigandage. The boyars
and the higher nobility were profoundly demoralised and were ready for
any treason. The military republics of the Cossacks of the Don and
Dnieper, the bands of serfs or fugitive peasants which infested the
country districts, were only waiting an opportunity to devastate Moscow.
The ignorance of the masses was profound, their minds greedy of marvels
and of change: no nation has allowed itself to be so often captured by
the same fable--the sudden reappearance of a prince believed to be dead.
The archives of the secret chancery show us that there were in Russia,
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, hundreds of impostors,
of false Dmitris, false Alexises, false Peters II, false Peters III. It
might be thought that the Russian people, the most Asiatic of European
peoples, had not renounced the oriental dogma of reincarnations and
_avatars_.

So long as power was in the hands of the skilful and energetic Godunov,
he succeeded in maintaining order, in restraining the fomenters of
disturbance, and in discouraging Demetrius. The patriarch Job, and Vasili
Shuiski, who had directed the inquiry at Uglitch, made proclamations
to the people and affirmed that Dmitri was indeed dead and that the
pretender was no other than Otrepiev. Messengers were despatched bearing
the same affirmations to the king and the diet of Poland. Finally troops
were set on foot and a cordon was established along the western frontier.
But already the towns of Severia were agitated by the approach of the
czarevitch; the boyars ventured to say publicly that it was “difficult to
bear arms against a legitimate sovereign”; at Moscow the health of the
czar Dmitri was drunk at festive gatherings. In October, 1604, Demetrius
crossed the frontier with a host of Poles, and banished Russians,
German mercenaries, and Zaparogians. Severia immediately broke out into
insurrection, but Novgorod Seversk resisted. After Severia, the towns of
Ukraine joined in defection. Prince Mstislavski tried to arrest Demetrius
by giving battle; but his soldiers were seized with the idea that the man
against whom they were fighting was the real Dmitri. “They had no arms
to strike with,” says Margeret. Twelve thousand Little-Russian Cossacks
hastened to join the pretender’s standard. Vasili Shuiski, the successor
of Mstislavski, did his best to restore their _morale_; this time
Demetrius was vanquished at Dobrinitchi. Boris fancied that the war was
ended: it was only beginning. Four thousand Don Cossacks came to join the
brigand. The inaction of the Muscovite voyevods announced that the spirit
of treason was gaining the higher nobility.

In 1605 Boris died, after recommending his innocent son to Basmanov, the
boyars, the patriarch, and the people of Moscow. All took the oath to
Feodor Borissovitch. But Basmanov had no sooner taken command of the army
of Severia than he was in a position to convince himself that neither the
soldiers nor their leaders intended to fight for a Godunov. Rather than
be the victim of an act of treason he preferred to be its perpetrator;
the man in whom the dying Boris had placed all his confidence joined
Galitzin and Soltikov, the secret partisans of Demetrius. He solemnly
announced to the troops that the latter was indeed the son of Ivan the
Terrible and the legitimate master of Russia; he was the first to throw
himself at the feet of the pretender, who was immediately proclaimed by
the troops. Demetrius marched on Moscow. At his approach his partisans
rose: the son and the wife of Godunov were massacred. Such was the
sanguinary end of the dynasty which Boris had thought to found in the
blood of a czarevitch.

Let us bear in mind that in 1586 had appeared the narrative of Jean
Sauvage, sailor and merchant of Dieppe, who had come to reconnoitre the
harbours of the White Sea and prepare the way for French traffic. The
same year the czar Feodor Ivanovitch sent to Henry III a Frenchman of
Moscow, Pierre Ragon, to notify him of his accession; at Moscow appeared
the first ambassador sent there by France, François de Carle. In 1587 a
company of Parisian merchants obtained a commercial charter from the same
czar. Henry IV was in correspondence with the czars Feodor Ivanovitch and
Boris.


CAREER AND MURDER OF DEMETRIUS (1606 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1606 A.D.]]

What was now taking place in Russia is one of the most extraordinary
events of which the annals of the world make mention. An unknown man was
making his triumphal entry into Moscow and the Kremlin (June 20th-30th).
All the people wept for joy, thinking they beheld the scion of so many
princes. One man alone dared to affirm that he had seen Dmitri murdered
and that the new czar was an impostor; this was Vasili Shuiski, one of
those who had superintended the inquiry of Uglitch and who, at the battle
of Dobrinitchi, had defeated the pretender. Denounced by Basmanov, he
was condemned to death by an assembly of the three orders. His head was
already on the block, when the czar sent an express bearing his pardon.

The son of the terrible czar was not recognisable in this act of mercy.
Later on Demetrius was to repent of it. Job, the creature of Godunov, was
replaced in the patriarchate by a creature of the new prince, the Greek
Ignatius. The czar had an interview with his pretended mother, Marie
Nagoi, the widow of Ivan IV: whether because she wished to complete the
work of an avenger, or because she was glad to recover all her honours,
Marie recognised Demetrius as her son and publicly embraced him. He
heaped favours on the Nagoi as his maternal relatives: the Romanovs also
were recalled from exile and Philaret was made metropolitan of Rostov.

The czar presided regularly at the douma; the boyars admired the
correctness of his judgment and the variety of his knowledge. Demetrius
was a man of learning, brave and skilful in all bodily exercises. He was
fond of foreigners and spoke of sending the Russian nobles to study in
the west. This taste for foreigners was not unaccompanied by a certain
contempt for the national ignorance and rudeness. He offended the boyars
by his mockeries; he alienated the people and the clergy by his contempt
for Russian religious rites and usages. He ate veal, did not sleep after
dinner, did not frequent the baths, borrowed money from the convents,
turned the monks into ridicule, opposed the hunting with bears, paid
familiar visits to foreign jewellers and artisans, took no heed of the
strict etiquette of the palace, himself pointed cannon, organised sham
fights between the national and foreign troops, took pleasure in seeing
the Russians beaten by the Germans, surrounded himself with a European
guard at the head of which were found men like Margeret, Knutzen, Van
Dennen. A conflict having broken out between the clergy and the pope’s
legate on the occasion of his entry into Moscow, two bishops were
exiled. No one thanked him for resisting the pope and the king of Poland,
refusing to the one to occupy himself in the cause of the reunion of the
two churches, declaring to the other that he would not yield an inch of
Russian territory. The arrival of his wife, the Catholic Marina, with a
suite of Polish noblemen, who affected insolence towards the Russians,
completed the irritation of the Muscovites. Less than a year after the
entry of Demetrius [or as we may henceforth call him, Dmitri] into the
Kremlin, men’s minds were ripe for a revolution.[f]


_The False Dmitri; Marriage and Death_

It is difficult to understand why, though as unscrupulous as most
adventurers, Demetrius persisted in his determination to espouse a
Catholic Pole, although he was well aware that such a union would
be highly distasteful to his people. When compelled to solicit the
assistance of the palatines of Lithuania by all means in his power, it
was not surprising that he eagerly sought to ally himself with Mniszek:
but now that he was seated upon the throne of the czars, such an alliance
could not be otherwise than prejudicial to his interests. Yet he was the
first to remember his promise, and as soon as he had been crowned at
Moscow he sent to invite Marina to share his throne. When he signed the
promise of marriage in Poland, he was, doubtless, under the influence
of Marina’s charms, but at Moscow we cannot ascribe his impatience
to conclude the projected union to the eagerness of love. For whilst
Vlassiev, bearing magnificent presents for the bride and all her family,
was on his way to Cracow to hasten their departure for Russia, the czar
had an acknowledged mistress, who resided with him in the Kremlin, and
this mistress was no other than the daughter of Boris.

“Xenia,” writes a contemporary author, “was a girl of the greatest
intelligence; her complexion was pink and white, and her black eyes
sparkled with vivacity. When grief caused her to shed tears, they
shone with a still greater radiance. Her eyebrows joined; her body
was formed with perfect symmetry, and was so white that it seemed to
have been moulded with cream. She was an accomplished person, speaking
more elegantly than a book. Her voice was melodious, and it was a real
pleasure to hear her sing songs.”

This beauty was fatal to Xenia. After witnessing the death of her mother
and brother, she took refuge first of all in a convent, or, according to
some annalists, she found an asylum in the house of Prince Mstislavski.
Soon afterwards she entered the palace of the enemy of her family, and
for some months she was the favourite mistress of the czar. It was
probably to her influence that several of the Godunovs were indebted for
their lives, and even for some degree of favour. Whether she yielded to
seduction or to violence, as some modern authors have asserted, it is
impossible to discover at the present day. It is no less impossible to
decide whether Dmitri allowed himself to be subdued by the charms of his
captive, or whether, like a pitiless conqueror, he sacrificed her to his
arrogant vanity, and desired, with a refinement of vengeance, to inflict
the greatest dishonour on the enemy’s family. At all events, it appears
certain that for some time Xenia exercised such marked influence over
him that Mniszek grew alarmed, and seriously remonstrated with the czar.
It was only when Marina was actually on her way to Moscow that Dmitri
dismissed his captive. He sent her into a monastery, according to the
usage of the time. She took the vows in the convent of St. Sergius, at
Moscow, under the name of Olga, and died there in 1622.

[Illustration: RUSSIAN WEDDING FEAST OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

(From the painting by C. Makovski)

_Original and copyright owned by Messrs. Schumann’s Sons, N. Y._]

These singular amours, this fidelity to his engagements in the midst
of inconstancy and even of debauchery, this boldness in attempting a
desperate enterprise, this imperturbable coolness in maintaining an
audacious imposture, this gracefulness in acting the part of a legitimate
monarch, so many brilliant qualities united with puerile vanity and the
most imprudent levity--such are the contrasts presented by the character
of Dmitri, which are perhaps explicable by his extreme youth and his
adventurer’s education. Nothing, however, is more rare than a character
all the parts of which are in perfect harmony. Contradiction is the
characteristic of most men, and there are very few whose lives correspond
to the projects which they have formed or to the hopes to which they
have given rise. Who can say that the pleasure of exhibiting himself in
all the splendour of his high fortune before the eyes of those who had
witnessed his poverty had not the greatest share in the resolutions of
Dmitri? Mniszek and Marina were probably the first persons whose esteem
appeared precious to him. To obtain the approbation of a few Polish
palatines, he risked his crown; but does not every man believe that the
world’s opinion is that of the little circle in which he is accustomed to
move?[b]

The security of the pretender was, however, but seeming. Vasili Shuiski,
whom Dmitri had pardoned, presently organised a plot for his destruction.
The czar’s extreme confidence was his ruin. One night the boyars assailed
the Kremlin where no guard was kept. Demetrius was flung from a window
and slaughtered in the courtyard of the palace. Basmanov, who had tried
to defend him, was killed at his side. The corpse of Demetrius was taken
up, a fool’s mask was placed on the face, and the body exposed in the
place of executions between a bagpipe and a flute. The father-in-law
and the widow of Dmitri, the envoys of the Polish king and the Poles
who had come to attend the imperial nuptials were spared but retained
as prisoners by the boyars. The corpse of the “sorcerer” was burned; a
cannon, turned in the direction of Poland, was charged with the ashes and
scattered them to the winds (May, 1606).[f]


VASILI IVANOVITCH SHUISKI (1606-1610 A.D.)

Immediately after the death of Demetrius, the boyars concerted measures
for convoking deputies from all the towns and proceeding to the election
of a new sovereign; but they were not allowed to accomplish their
design. The throne had been but four days vacant when Shuiski directed
his partisans to proclaim himself. They led him forth into the public
place, named him czar by acclamation, and immediately escorted him to the
cathedral. There, in order to ingratiate himself with his new subjects
and make them forget the illegality of his election, he took a solemn
oath not to punish anyone without the advice and consent of the boyars;
not to visit the offences of the fathers on the children; and that he
would never revenge himself in any way on those who had offended him in
the time of Boris. Since Novgorod lost its privileges, this was the first
time that a sovereign of Russia had pledged himself to any convention
with his subjects; but Shuiski’s oath was no guarantee for its fulfilment.

Having good reason to dread the resentment of the Polish nation,
Shuiski sent Prince Volkonski on an embassy to them, to represent the
late czar as an impostor, who had deluded both Poland and Russia; but
the ambassador was not even listened to. Sigismund and his subjects
were resolved to be revenged on the Russians, and to profit by the
disturbances which they foresaw would soon break out among them. Shuiski
was not liked by the Russian nobles, many of whom might have competed
with him for the throne had the choice of the nation been free; and his
conduct after his elevation augmented the number of his enemies. In spite
of his oath he could not forget any of his old grudges; and he ventured
to indulge them just enough to exasperate their objects without depriving
them of the power of retaliation. Moscow was the only city in the empire
on the allegiance of which he could rely; but even there the people had
imbibed from their late excesses an alarming propensity to disorder and
mutiny. To meet all the dangers thickening round him Shuiski had neither
an army nor money; for Dmitri’s profusions and the pillage of the Kremlin
had exhausted the imperial treasury. His chief strength lay in his renown
for orthodoxy, which insured him the favour of the clergy. The more to
strengthen his interests in that direction, he made it his first business
to depose and send to a monastery the heretic patriarch Ignatius, who had
been appointed by Dmitri, and to nominate in his stead Hermogenes, bishop
of Kasan, an aged prelate whose simplicity rendered him a useful tool in
the hands of the crafty czar.

Rumours began to be rife in the provinces, and even in Moscow, that
Dmitri was not dead. Many of those who had seen his mangled body exposed
denied its identity, and believed that one of the czar’s officers had
been massacred instead of him. Four swift horses were missing from the
imperial stables; and it was surmised that by means of them Dmitri had
escaped in the midst of the tumult. Three strangers in Russian costume,
but speaking Polish, crossed the Oka in a boat, and one of them gave the
ferryman six ducats, saying, “You have ferried the czar; when he comes
back to Moscow with a Polish army he will not forget this service.” The
same party held similar language in a German inn a little farther on.
It was afterwards known that one of them was Prince Shakhovskoi, who,
immediately upon the death of Dmitri, had, with singular promptitude,
conceived the idea of finding a new impostor to personate the dead one.

To put an end to the alarming rumours, Shuiski sent to Uglitch for the
body of the real czarevitch, that with the help of the patriarch he might
make a saint of him. When the grave was opened the body of the young
prince was found in a perfect state of preservation, with the fresh hue
of life upon it, and still holding in his hands some nuts as miraculously
preserved as itself. It is curious that Shuiski should have forgotten
that nothing was said of these nuts in the report of the inquest at
Uglitch signed by himself. That document only stated that at the moment
of his death the czarevitch was amusing himself with sticking his knife
in the ground. Notwithstanding this oversight, the act of canonisation
was good policy; for if the czarevitch became an object of veneration for
the people, if it was notorious that his body worked miracles on earth,
and consequently that his soul was in heaven, then anyone assuming his
name could be nothing but an impostor. The czar took pains to make known
far and wide what prodigies were effected by the relics of the blessed
martyr. But the credit of the new saint was of short duration: Shuiski
himself damaged it by a gross blunder in permitting the pompous removal
to the monastery of Troitsa of the remains of Boris Godunov, whom but
a few days before he had named as the murderer of the sainted Dmitri.
No doubt he hoped in this way to conciliate the partisans of a still
powerful family; but his enemies immediately accused him of blasphemous
wickedness, alleging that he had substituted the body of a newly murdered
boy for the decomposed corpse of the real Dmitri.

The public retractations of the dowager czaritza obtained no more credit
than the miracles imputed to her son. In a letter signed by her, and
immediately published by Vasili, she declared that the impostor Grishka
Otrepiev had threatened her with death to herself and all her family
if she did not recognise him as her son. But who could believe in her
sincerity after so many contradictory avowals and disavowals? Her
declaration that she had been compelled by fear to yield to the threats
of a man whose aversion to cruelty was notorious, suggested to everybody
the idea that she acted at that moment under the coercion of threats and
fear.

Civil war began. Prince Shakhovskoi had raised the inhabitants of
Putivle, and in a few days assembled a great number of Cossacks and
peasants, who routed the forces sent against them. The insurrection
spread rapidly; but still the prince, twice miraculously saved, did not
make his expected appearance. Instead of him there came from Poland a
general with a commission bearing the imperial seal of Dmitri. This
was an adventurer named Ivan Bolotnikov, originally a serf to Prince
Teliatevski. He had been a prisoner among the Turks, and having escaped
to Venice had probably acquired some military experience in the service
of the republic. His commission was recognised at Putivle; he took the
command of the insurgents, defeated Shuiski’s forces in two engagements,
and pursued them to within seven versts of the capital. But the
inexplicable absence of the prince for whom they fought damped the ardour
of Bolotnikov’s men; for they could not believe that if Dmitri was alive
he would delay to put himself at their head. The ataman of the Cossacks,
too, was mortified at being supplanted in the command by an adventurer,
and suffered himself to be corrupted by Shuiski. Deserted by a part of
his army, Bolotnikov was defeated by Skopin Shuiski, the czar’s nephew,
and forced to shelter himself in the fortress of Kaluga.

[Sidenote: [1607 A.D.]]

It is probable that all this while Shakhovskoi and the Poles were looking
about for a fit person to play the part of Dmitri; but it required time
to find him, and to put him through training. In this conjuncture the
false Peter Feodorovitch, who had made a brief appearance in the former
reign, repaired to Putivle, and offered himself to Shakhovskoi and the
people as regent in the absence of his uncle. The rebel cause stood
in need of the prestige of a royal name, and the czarevitch Peter was
eagerly welcomed. Presently, the czar having marched against him in
person, the impostor and Shakhovskoi shut themselves up in the strongly
fortified town of Tula, where they were joined by Bolotnikov. Vasili
laid siege to the town with an army of a hundred thousand men; but the
besieged, who had no mercy to expect if taken, fought more earnestly for
their own lives than did Shuiski’s soldiers for the rights of a master to
whom they were but little attached. Seeing the light progress he made,
the czar began to doubt the success of an enterprise to fail in which
would be ruin.

While he was in this anxious state, an obscure ecclesiastic, named
Kravkov, presented himself before the czar and his council, and
undertook, if his directions were followed, to drown all the people
of Tula. They laughed at him at first as an idle braggart, but he
reiterated his assertion with such confidence that the czar at last
desired him to explain his plan. Tula is situated in a valley, and the
little river Upa flows through the town. Kravkov proposed to dam the
stream below the town, and engaged to answer for it with his head if
in a few hours after the execution of that work the whole town was not
laid under water. All the millers in the army, men accustomed to such
operations, were immediately put under his orders, and the rest of the
soldiers were employed in carrying sacks of earth to the spot chosen for
the dam. The water soon rose in the town, inundated the streets, and
destroyed a great number of houses; but the garrison still fought for
several months with unabated courage, though decimated by famine, and
afterwards by a terrible epidemic. All the efforts both of the besiegers
and the besieged were concentrated about the dam, the former labouring
to raise and maintain it, the latter to break it down. The inhabitants
of Tula were persuaded that magic must have had some share in raising
so prodigious a work with such rapidity, and magic was not neglected
among the means by which they sought to destroy it. A monk, who boasted
his proficiency in that art, offered to effect the desired object for a
reward of a hundred roubles. His terms being accepted by Bolotnikov, he
stripped, plunged into the river, and disappeared. An hour afterwards,
when everyone had given him up for dead, he rose to the surface, with
his body covered with scratches. “I have just had to do,” he said, “with
the twelve thousand devils at work on Shuiski’s dam. I have settled six
thousand of them, but the other six thousand are the worst of all, and
will not give in.”

For a long time the inhabitants of Tula continued to fight against men
and devils, encouraged by letters they received in Dmitri’s name, with
promises of succour which never came. Shakhovskoi, the chief instigator
of the rebellion, was the first to propose a capitulation, and was
thrust into a dungeon by the Cossacks. At last, when the besieged had
eaten their horses, dogs, and all other carrion, and had not so much as
an oxhide left to gnaw, Bolotnikov and Peter offered to capitulate on
condition of amnesty for their heroic garrison. They asked nothing for
themselves, but declared that unless their soldiers obtained honourable
conditions they were resolved to die with arms in their hands, and even
to eat each other, rather than surrender at discretion. Vasili accepted
these terms, and the gates were opened to him (October, 1607). Bolotnikov
advanced before the czar with undaunted mien, and presenting his sword,
with the edge laid against his neck, offered himself as a victim, saying,
“I have kept the oath I swore to him who, rightfully or wrongfully,
calls himself Dmitri. Deserted by him, I am in thy power. Cut off my
head if thou wilt; or if thou wilt spare my life, I will serve thee as
I served him.” Shuiski, who did not pique himself on generosity, sent
Bolotnikov to Kargopol, where he soon after had him drowned. The false
Peter Feodorovitch was hanged; but Shakhovskoi, the most guilty of the
three, was more fortunate. The victor found him in chains when he entered
Tula, and Shakhovskoi made a merit of his sufferings at the hands of
the obstinate rebels whom he had urged to submit to their sovereign. He
obtained his liberty; but the first use he made of it was to rekindle the
flames of insurrection.

Before Shuiski had terminated the siege of Tula, and whilst the issue of
his conflict with one pretender was still dubious, another, assuming the
name of Dmitri, appeared in the frontier town of Starodub, where he was
hailed with enthusiasm. Bolotnikov sent an officer to him from Tula, to
acquaint him with the desperate condition of the town. This envoy was
a Polish adventurer, named Zarucki, who had become one of the atamans
of the Don Cossacks, had fought bravely for the first Demetrius, and
been distinguished by his favour. Although the first glance must have
satisfied Zarucki that the new pretender was an imposter, he affected
without the least hesitation to recognise him as his former master.
Another false witness of this identity was the Pane Miechaviecki, a Pole,
who was well known for the eminent position he had held at the court
of the first Demetrius, and who was now the secret instructor of his
successor in what we may call the histrionic details belonging to his
assumed character.

The pupil profited but badly by the lessons he received; for in
everything but profusion he was the reverse of his prototype, and the
least attentive observer could see that he was a coarse, ignorant, vulgar
knave, qualified only by his impudence for the part he had undertaken.
The Cossacks were not such fastidious critics as to be shocked by his
uncourtly manners; but the Poles, whilst treating him as a sovereign for
their own ends, were by no means the dupes of his gross imposture. Baer
states that he was originally a schoolmaster of Sokol, in White Russia;
but, according to the Polish writers, who had better opportunities of
learning the truth, he was a Lithuanian Jew, named Michael Moltchanov.

[Sidenote: [1608 A.D.]]

The adherents of Dmitri, as we may continue to call him, increased so
rapidly in numbers that he was able to defeat a detachment of Vasili’s
army sent against him from Tula, and to make himself master of the town
of Kozelsk on the road to the capital. When the fall of Tula had left the
czar at liberty to act against him with all his forces, Dmitri retreated
to Novgorod Seversk. There he was joined by unexpected reinforcements led
by Rozynckil Sapieha, Tiszkievicz, Lissovski, and others, the flower of
the Polish and Lithuanian chivalry. Prince Adam Viszinoviecki, the patron
of the first false Dmitri, came in person to the aid of his successor at
the head of two thousand horse. The Don Cossacks brought in chains to him
another schemer, who had tried to put himself at their head. All that
is known of the man is that he called himself Feodor Feodorovitch, and
pretended to be the son of the czar Feodor. His more prosperous rival in
imposture condemned him to death.

Dmitri’s army, commanded by the veteran prince Roman Rozinski, defeated
that of the czar with great havoc near Volkhov, on the 24th of April
1608. All the vanquished who escaped the lances of the Poles and Cossacks
fled in disorder to Moscow, and had the victors pressed their advantage,
the capital would have fallen into their hands. Possibly the Polish
leaders were in secret unwilling to let their _protégé_ triumph too soon
or too completely, or to give up Moscow to pillage, which is always more
profitable to the soldier than to the general; but, whatever was the
reason, they halted at the village of Tushino, twelve versts from Moscow,
which the impostor made his headquarters, and there he held his court for
seventeen months.

With a view to prevail on Sigismund to recall the Polish volunteers
in Dmitri’s service, Vasili resolved to liberate the ambassadors, the
palatine of Sendomir and his daughter, and the other Poles whom he had
kept in captivity since the massacre of Moscow. With their liberty he
bestowed on them indemnifications for their losses, and only exacted
from them a pledge that they would not bear arms against Russia, or in
any way favour the new pretender. Thus, after having made sport of the
most solemn oaths, Vasili expected to find in men, so deeply provoked,
scruples of conscience which he had never known himself. He sent
Mniszek and his daughter away under charge of an escort; but they were
intercepted by a detachment of Poles, and carried to Dmitri’s camp.

They had been prepared for this event by a letter previously received
by the palatine from his pretended son-in-law, which contained this
remarkable phrase: “Come both of you to me, instead of going to hide
yourselves in Poland from the world’s scorn.” He could hardly have
dropped a hint more adapted to move a woman of Marina’s character.
Rather than go back to encounter ridicule at Sendomir, she was willing
to share the bed of a bandit who might bestow a crown upon her. It is
said, however, that in their first interview with Dmitri neither she nor
her father testified all the emotion befitting so touching an occasion,
nor could quite conceal their surprise at the sight of a man not at all
like him whose name he bore. But after a few days the scene of meeting
was played over again with more success, and the whole camp was witness
of Marina’s demonstrations of tenderness for her husband. In apology
for her previous coldness it was said that, having so long believed her
Dmitri was dead, she durst not yield to the delight of seeing him alive
again until she had received the most certain proofs that it was not a
delusion. This clumsy excuse was admitted; Marina’s recognition of the
impostor brought over to him numbers who had doubted till then; and, the
news being soon spread abroad, almost all Russia declared for him, except
Moscow, Novgorod, and Smolensk.

This was the culminating point of his fortunes: their decline was rapid.
The mutual jealousy of the Polish commanders rose to such a pitch that
it became necessary to divide the army; and Sapieha quitted the camp of
Tushino, with thirty thousand men and sixty cannon, to lay siege to the
famous monastery of the Trinity, near Moscow, which was at the same time
a powerful fortress and the most revered sanctuary of Russian orthodoxy.
The support which Shuiski received from the monks was worth more to him
than an army; for besides large subsidies he derived from them a moral
force which still kept many of his subjects true to their allegiance.
The loss of such auxiliaries would have consummated his ruin; therefore
the capture of the monastery was of extreme importance to the impostor.
But in spite of the most strenuous efforts, continued for six weeks,
Sapieha was unable to obtain the least advantage over a garrison whose
courage was exalted by religious enthusiasm; and meanwhile the Poles had
to sustain a harassing and murderous guerilla warfare, waged against them
by the plundered peasants, whom they had made desperate. These partisan
bands were about to be supported by a more formidable army, led by Skopin
Skuiski and by James de la Gardie, who brought five thousand Swedish
auxiliaries to Vasili’s aid.

[Sidenote: [1609-1610 A.D.]]

Early in 1609 these two generals began a brilliant campaign in the north;
the Poles and the partisans of the impostor were beaten in several
encounters, and in a few months the whole aspect of the war was changed.
Finally, Sapieha himself was defeated in an obstinate engagement, forced
ignominiously to raise the siege of the monastery, and shut himself
up with the remnant of his force in Dmitrov. Skopin entered Moscow in
triumph; but Vasili’s jealousy kept him there inactive for two months
until he died suddenly, in his twenty-fourth year. Vasili, to whose cause
the young hero’s death was fatal, was accused by public rumour of having
effected it by poison.

For some months before this time there had been a new champion in the
field, whose appearance was equally to be dreaded by Shuiski and Dmitri.
About the end of September, 1609, Sigismund, king of Poland, laid siege
to Smolensk, with an army of twelve thousand men, and immediately
summoned to his standard the Poles who served under Dmitri. The greater
part of them complied, and the impostor fled to Kaluga. In the spring
of 1610 Russia presented a most deplorable spectacle, being devastated
by three great armies, all opposed to one another. In the west,
Sigismund was pressing the siege of Smolensk; in the south, Dmitri was
in possession of Kaluga, Tula, and some other towns. Some of the Poles
who had quitted the impostor’s service had established themselves on the
banks of the Ugra, in a fertile country, which had not yet experienced
the sufferings of war; and there, under the command of their new leader,
John Sapieha, they offered their services simultaneously to Sigismund
and the false Dmitri, being ready to join whichever of them bid highest.
Nor was this all: one of the Russian princes, Procope Liapunov, took
advantage of the general confusion to raise a new banner. He proclaimed
himself the defender of the faith, and, at the head of a considerable
force, waged a war of extermination against the Poles and the Russians
who recognised either Dmitri or Vasili. A chronicler applies to him the
phrase which had served to characterise Attila--“No grass grew where his
horse’s hoof had been.” And, as if all these armies were not enough for
the desolation of the land, the Tatars of the Crimea had crossed the
Oka, under pretence of succouring Vasili, their ally, but in reality to
plunder the villages, and make multitudes of captives, whom they carried
off into slavery.

Such was the condition of Russia at the moment of Skopin’s death. Vasili
still derived some hope from the division of his enemies, and turned his
whole attention against the most formidable among them. He despatched to
the relief of Smolensk an army of nearly sixty thousand men, consisting
partly of foreign mercenaries, under James de la Gardie; but he gave
the chief command to his brother, Dmitri Shuiski, who was neither liked
nor respected by the soldiers. Chiefly in consequence of this fatal
appointment the whole army was defeated at Klushino, by a force of
only three thousand horse and two hundred infantry, led by the veteran
Zolkiewski, and was forced to lay down its arms. But for the enormous
blunders subsequently committed by Sigismund, the battle of Klushino
might have determined forever the preponderance of Poland in the north.

[Illustration: A WOMAN OF TSCHUTSKI]

The defeat of Klushino was immediately followed by an insurrection
at Moscow. Vasili Shuiski was deposed, and forced to become a monk;
and being soon after delivered up to Sigismund, he ended his days in
a Polish prison. The same event was equally disastrous to the false
Dmitri. Deserted by Sapieha and his Poles, he lost all hope of ascending
the throne of Moscow; he lived as a robber in Kaluga, at the head of
his ferocious gangs of Cossacks and Tatars, until he was murdered by
the latter in December, 1610, in revenge for the death of one of their
countrymen whom he had drowned. Marina was far advanced in pregnancy when
she lost her second husband. She was delivered of a son, who received
the name of Ivan, and to whom the little court of Kaluga swore fealty.
Zarucki declared himself the protector of the mother and the child, and
put himself at the head of the still numerous remnant of the faction that
remained obstinately attached to the name of Dmitri. But the cause was
hopeless; for Zarucki was neither a general nor a statesman--his talents
were those only of a bold leader of Cossack marauders.

Russia was without a sovereign, and the capital was in the hands of the
Polish marshal. Zolkiewski used his advantages with wise moderation,
and easily prevailed on the weary and afflicted Muscovites to resign
themselves to the foreign yoke, and agree to offer the throne to
Wladislaw, the son of Sigismund. One word from the latter’s lips might
have reversed the subsequent fortunes of Russia and Poland; but in his
selfish vanity he preferred the appearance of power to its reality,
and claimed the crown of the czars, not for his son but for himself.
Philaretes, bishop of Rostov, and other ambassadors, were sent to him at
his camp before Smolensk, to make known the resolution of the Russians in
favour of Wladislaw. Sigismund insisted that they should at once put him
in possession of Smolensk, which he had been besieging for a year; and,
this being refused, he seized the ambassadors, and afterwards carried
them away to Poland, where they remained nine years in captivity.

Zolkiewski, foreseeing the consequences of his master’s folly, against
which he had remonstrated in vain, retired from the government of
Moscow, leaving Gonsiewski as his successor. The Polish troops seized
the principal towns, proclaimed Sigismund, and observed none of that
discretion by which the great marshal had won the confidence and esteem
of the vanquished. National feeling awoke again among the Russians;
eagerly responding to the call of their revered patriarch, Hermogenes,
they took up arms in all parts of the empire, and war was renewed with
more fury than ever.

[Sidenote: [1612-1613 A.D.]]

Smolensk fell after an obstinate resistance of eighteen months; but at
the moment of the last assault the explosion of a powder magazine set
fire to the city, and Sigismund found himself master only of a heap of
ruins. The Poles in Moscow, assailed by the Russians, secured themselves
in the Kremlin, after burning down the greater part of the city, and
massacring a hundred thousand of the inhabitants. They were besieged by
an immense levy from the provinces, consisting of three armies; but these
seemed more disposed to fight with each other than to force the Poles in
their intrenchments. One of them consisted chiefly of vagabonds escaped
from the camp at Tushino, and was commanded by Prince Trubetskoi. Zarucki
led another in the name of Marina’s son; the third army, and the only
one, perhaps, whose commander sincerely desired the independence of his
country, was that of Prince Procope Liapunov; but that brave leader was
assassinated, and the besiegers, disheartened by his death, immediately
dispersed. About the same time the patriarch Hermogenes, the soul of the
national insurrection, died in his prison in the Kremlin, to which he had
been consigned by the Poles.

Anarchy was rampant in Russia; every town usurped the right to act in
the name of the whole empire, and set up chiefs whom they deposed a few
days afterwards. Kazan and Viatka proclaimed the son of Marina; Novgorod,
rather than open its gates to the Poles, called in the Swedes, and
tendered the crown to Charles Philip, second son of the reigning king
of Sweden, and brother of Gustavus Adolphus. Another imposter assumed
the name of Dmitri, and kept his state for awhile at Pskov; but being
at last identified as one Isidore, a fugitive monk, he was hanged.
When all seemed lost in irretrievable disorder, the country was saved
by an obscure citizen of Nijni-Novgorod. He was a butcher, named Kozma
Minin, distinguished by nothing but the possession of a sound head and a
brave, honest unselfish heart. Roused by his words and his example, his
fellow-citizens took up arms, and resolved to devote all their wealth to
the last fraction to the maintenance of an army for the deliverance of
their country. From Nijni-Novgorod the same spirit spread to other towns,
and Prince Pojarski who had been lieutenant to the brave Liapunov, was
soon able to take the field at the head of a considerable force, whilst
Minin, whom the popular voice styled the elect of the whole Russian
Empire, ably seconded him in an administrative capacity.

Pojarski drove the Poles before him from town to town; and having
at length arrived under the walls of the Kremlin, in August, 1612,
he sustained for three days a hot contest against Chodkiewicz, the
successor of Gonsiewski, defeated him, and put him to flight. Part of the
Polish troops, under the command of Colonel Nicholas Struss, returned
to the citadel and defended it for some weeks longer. At the end of
that time, being pressed by famine, they capitulated; and on the 22nd
of October, 1612, the princes Pojarski and Dmitri Trubetzkoi entered
together into that inclosure which is the heart of the country, and
sacred in the eyes of all true Russians. The assistance of Sigismund came
too late to arrest the flight of the Poles.

Upon the first successes obtained by Prince Pojarski the phantom of
Dmitri, and all the subaltern pretenders, disappeared as if by magic.
Zarucki, feeling that an irresistible power was about to overwhelm him,
was anxious only to secure himself a refuge. Carrying Marina and her
son with him, he made ineffectual efforts to raise the Don Cossacks.
After suffering a defeat near Voroneje, he reached the Volga, and took
possession of Astrakhan, with the intention of fortifying himself there;
but the generals of Michael Romanov, the newly elected czar, did not
allow him time. Driven from that city, and pursued by superior forces,
he was preparing to reach the eastern shore of the Caspian, when he was
surprised, in the beginning of July, 1614, on the banks of the Iaïk, and
delivered up to the Muscovite generals, along with Marina and the son of
the second Dmitri. They were immediately taken to Moscow, where Zarucki
was impaled; Ivan, who was but three years old, was hanged; and Marina
was shut up in prison, where she ended her days.


ACCESSION OF THE HOUSE OF ROMANOV (1613 A.D.)

The deliverance of Moscow had alone been awaited in order to fill the
vacant throne by a free election. This could not properly take place
except in that revered sanctuary of the imperial power, the Kremlin,
where the sovereigns were crowned at their accession, and where their
ashes reposed after their death. Delivered now from all foreign
influence, the boyars of the council, in November, 1612, despatched
letters or mandates to every town in the empire, commanding the clergy,
nobility, and citizens to send deputies immediately to Moscow, endowed
with full power to meet in the national council (_zemskii soveth_),
and proceed to the election of a new czar. At the same time, to invoke
the blessing of God upon this important act, a fast of three days was
commanded. These orders were received with great enthusiasm throughout
the whole country: the fast was so rigorously observed, according to
contemporary records, that no person took the least nourishment during
that interval, and mothers even refused the breast to their infants.

The election day came: it was in Lent, in the year 1613. The debates
were long and stormy. The princes Mstislavski and Pojarski, it appears,
refused the crown; the election of Prince Dmitri Trubetskoi failed, and
the other candidates were set aside for various reasons. After much
hesitation the name of Michael Romanov was put forward; a young man
sixteen years of age, personally unknown, but recommended by the virtues
of his father, Philaretes, and in whose behalf the boyars had been
canvassed by the patriarch Hermogenes, the holy martyr to the national
cause. The Romanovs were connected through the female branch with this
ancient dynasty. The ancestors of Michael had filled the highest offices
in the state. He fulfilled, moreover, the required conditions. “There
were but three surviving members in his family,” says Strahlenberg; “he
had not been implicated in the preceding troubles; his father was an
ecclesiastic, and in consequence naturally more disposed to secure peace
and union than to mix himself up in turbulent projects.”

The name of the new candidate, supported by the metropolitan of
Moscow,[37] was hailed with acclamation, and after some discussion he was
elected. The unanimous voice of the assembly raised Michael Feodorovitch
to the throne. Before he ascended he was required to swear to the
following conditions: that he would protect religion; that he would
pardon and forget all that had been done to his father; that he would
make no new laws, nor alter the old, unless circumstances imperatively
required it; and that, in important causes, he would decide nothing by
himself, but that the existing laws and the usual forms of trial should
remain in force; that he would not at his own pleasure make either war or
peace with his neighbours; and that, to avoid all suits with individuals,
he would resign his estates to his family, or incorporate them with the
crown domains. Strahlenberg adds that Alexis, on his accession, swore to
observe the same conditions.

These forms, however futile they may have been, are remarkable: not
because they render sacred a right which stands in no need of them, but
because they recall it to mind; and also because they prove that, even
on the soil most favourable to despotism, a charter which should give
absolute power to a monarch would appear such a gross absurdity that we
know not that an instance of the kind ever existed.

Nothing could be more critical than the state of the empire at the moment
when its destinies were confided to a youth of seventeen. Disorder and
anarchy everywhere prevailed. Ustrialov gives us the following picture:
“The strongholds on the frontier which should have served to defend his
dominions were in the hands of external or internal enemies. The Swedes
possessed Kexholm, Oresheck, Koporie, and even Novgorod. The Poles ruled
in Smolensk, Dorogobuje, Putivle, and Tchernigov; the country around
Pskov was in the power of Lisovski; Raisin, Kashira, and Tula struggled
feebly against the Tatars of the Crimea and the Nogai; Sarutzki (Zarucki)
was established in Astrakhan; Kazan was in revolt. At home bands of
Cossacks from the Don, and the Zaparogians, and whole divisions of Poles
and Tatars ravaged the villages and the convents that were still entire,
when there were hopes of finding booty. The country was wasted, soldiers
were dying of hunger, the land-tax was no longer collected, and not a
kopeck was in the treasury. The state jewels, crowns of great price,
sceptres, precious stones, vases--all had been plundered and carried into
Poland.

“The young prince was surrounded by courtiers belonging to twenty
different factions. There were to be found the friends of Godunov, the
defenders of Shuiski, the companions of Wladislaw, and even partisans
of the brigand of Tushino--in a word, men professing the most various
opinions and aims, but all equally ambitious, and incapable of yielding
the smallest point as regarded precedence. The lower class, irritated by
ten years of misery, had become habituated to anarchy, and it was not
without difficulty and resistance on their part that they were reduced
to obedience.” Such, then, was the situation of the country; but Michael
found means to redeem it.

[Sidenote: [1617-1627 A.D.]]

Notwithstanding the desperate state of his finances, the insubordination
of his troops, the ill-will of the diets, and the confederations
continually springing up against him, Sigismund did not abandon his
attempts upon Russia; but the negotiations which ensued in consequence,
upon various occasions, produced no result. Wladislaw, at the head of an
army, once more crossed the frontiers, and appeared for the second time,
in 1617, under the walls of Moscow, which he assaulted and whence he was
repulsed. Deceived in the expectation which the intelligence he kept up
with various chiefs had induced him to form, harassed by his troops, who
were clamorous for pay, he consented to renounce the title of czar, which
he had up to that period assumed, and concluded, on the 1st of December,
1618, an armistice for fourteen years. The Peace of Stolbovna, January
26th, 1617, had terminated the preceding year the war with Sweden, and
was purchased by the surrender of Ingria, Karelia, and the whole country
between Ingria and Novgorod; besides the formal renunciation of Livonia
and Esthonia, and the payment of a sum of money.

The captivity of Philarete had now lasted nine years; from Warsaw he
had been removed to the castle of Marienburg, and it was from that
place, as it is asserted, that he found means to communicate with the
council of the boyars, and use his influence in the election of the
czar, never dreaming that it would fall upon his son. The cessation of
hostilities restored him to freedom. He returned to Moscow on the 14th
of June, 1619, and was immediately elevated to the patriarchal chair,
which had remained vacant from the death of Hermogenes, in 1613. His son
made him co-regent, and the ukases of that date are all headed “Michael
Feodorovitch, sovereign, czar, and grand prince of all the Russias, and
his father Philarete, mighty lord and most holy patriarch of all the
Russias, order,” etc. There exist, moreover, ukases issued in the sole
name of the patriarch, thus called out of his usual sphere of action, and
placed in one in which absolute power was granted him. He took part in
all political affairs; all foreign ambassadors were presented to him, as
well as to the czar: and at those solemn audiences, as well as at table,
he occupied the right of the sovereign. He held his own court, composed
of stolnicks and other officers; in a word, he shared with his son all
the prerogatives of supreme power. From this period dates the splendour
of the patriarchate, which at a later epoch excited the jealousy of the
czar Peter the Great, who was induced to suppress it in 1721.

Philarete always gave wise advice to his son, and the influence he
exercised over him was always happily directed. A general census, of
which he originated the idea, produced great improvement in the revenue;
but, perhaps without intending it, he contributed by this measure to
give fixity to the system of bondage to the soil. In the performance of
his duty as head pastor, he directed all his efforts to re-establish a
press at Moscow,[38] which had been abandoned during the troubles of the
interregnum; and he had the satisfaction of seeing, after 1624, many
copies of the Liturgy issue from it.[h]


THE COSSACKS

[Sidenote: [1627 A.D.]]

In the year 1627 the Cossacks of the Don, in one of their periodical
uprisings, conquered Azov, which they offered to the czar, but which he
did not accept. As we shall meet the Cossacks again from time to time, it
is worth while to interrupt our main narrative to make inquiry as to the
antecedents of this peculiar people.[a]

Soloviev gives the following definition of the term “cossacks”: “At the
end of the first half of the fifteenth century we encounter for the
first time the name of Cossack, principally the Cossacks of Riazan.
Our ancestors understood by this name, in general, men without homes,
celibates obliged to earn their bread by working for others. In this
way the name “cossack” took the meaning of day-labourer. They formed
a class altogether opposed to land owners; that is, the villagers. The
steppes, so agreeable to live on, not lacking fertility, watered by
rivers filled with fish, attracted in these countries the more hardy,
namely the Cossacks; the people who could not stay in villages, those who
were pursued for some crime, fugitive serfs, united with each other; it
is this group of individuals who formed the population of the frontiers
and were known under the name of Cossacks. The Cossacks were therefore
of great importance; being an enterprising people they were the first
to lead the way to the great solitudes which they peopled. It was not
difficult for a Russian to become a Cossack; in going to the steppes he
did not enter a strange country, nor did he cease to be a Russian; there
among the Cossacks he felt at home. The Cossacks who remained near the
frontier recognised the right of the Russian government over them in
all things, but obeyed it only when it would prove useful to them. They
depended somewhat on the government, while those who lived far away were
more independent.”[i]

Polish authors have acquainted western Europe with the name and the fact
of the existence of the Cossacks. This name (in Russian _kazak_) has
passed into other languages, by the writings of the seventeenth century,
with the Polish pronunciation. The etymology of this word long exercised
the sagacity of northern savants. Some derive it from the Slavonic _koza_
“goat”--the Cossacks, they argued, wandered about like goats. Others
believe it comes from _kossa_, which signifies “tress of hair,” “scythe,”
“body of land projecting into a river.” Justifications are not wanting
for these different acceptations, since (1) the Cossacks were formerly
in the habit of wearing long braids; (2) they used scythes to make hay,
as well as in battle; (3) their first colonies were on the river banks,
which abounded in promontories. In these days, when etymological study
has made such great progress, the word cossack is generally accepted as
derived from the Turkish. In that language _cazak_ signifies marauder,
plunderer, soldier of fortune. Such were in effect the first Cossacks
established on the banks of the Dnieper and its tributaries, between the
Polish, the Tatar, and the Muscovite territories. Their customs greatly
resembled those of the inhabitants on the Border, or Scottish frontier;
and the name of the country where they first appeared, Ukrania (Pokraina)
signifies border, frontier, in the Slavonic dialects.

The Cossacks have never formed a distinct nationality, but their manners
and institutions separate them from the rest of the Russian people.
The _Cossackry_--to translate by a single word all that the Russians
understand by _Kazatchestvo_--is the species of society, government,
political organisation which the Russian peasant understands by instinct,
so to speak, to which he conforms most easily and which he probably
regards as the best. The different fractions of the Cossacks were
designated as armies according to the provinces which they occupied.
There was the army of the Dnieper, the army of the Don, that of the
Iaïk (Ural), etc. Each of these armies was divided into small camps
or villages, called _stanitsas_. The ground round the stanitsa, the
flocks which grazed on its meadows, formed the undivided property of
the commune. At regular intervals equal partitions took place for
cultivation; but each gathered the fruit of his own labour and could
increase his share in the common fund by his private industry. Every
man was a soldier and bound to take up arms at the word of the chief
whom the public suffrage had designated. There was one of these for each
expedition and he bore the name of “errant captain,” _ataman kotchévoï_,
which was distinct from the _ataman_ or political chief for life of the
whole army. This captain had under his orders an adjutant or lieutenant,
_iéssaoul_, then centurions, commanders of fifties, and commanders of
tens. During peace the administration of each stanitsa belonged to the
elders, _startchini_; but every resolution of any importance had to be
submitted to a discussion in which all the men of the community could
take part and vote. The political or administrative assembly was called
the circle, _kroug_. There were no written laws, the circle being the
living law, preserving and adding to the traditions. It left, moreover,
complete liberty to the individual, so long as this was not harmful to
the community. As to the foreigner, anything, or almost anything, was
permitted. Such institutions find fanatics amongst men in appearance the
most rebellious against all discipline. The filibusters at the end of the
seventeenth century had similar ones.

We are ignorant of the period of the first organisation of the Cossacks;
it appears, however, very probable that it is contemporary with the Tatar
conquest. The little republic of the Zaparogians in the islands and on
the banks of the Dnieper seems to be the model on which the other Cossack
governments were formed; for their dialect, the Little Russian, has left
traces amongst the Cossacks most remote from Ukraine. There is no doubt
that the first soldiers who established themselves in the islands of the
Dnieper were animated by patriotic and religious sentiments. Their first
exploits against the Tatars and Turks were a protest of the conquered
Christians against their Mussulman oppressors. In consequence of having
fought for their faith they loved war for its own sake and pillage became
the principal object of their expeditions. In default of Tatars their
Russian or Polish neighbours were mercilessly despoiled.

[Illustration: MICHAEL ROMANOV]

Formerly the Cossacks had been recruited by volunteers arriving on the
borders of the Dnieper--some from Great Russia, others from Lithuania or
Poland. The association spread. It colonised the banks of the Don and
there instituted the rule of the stanitsas and the circle. The czars
of Muscovy, while they sometimes suffered from the violence of the
newcomers, beheld, with pleasure the formation on their frontiers of an
army which fought for them, cost them nothing, and founded cities of
soldiers in desolate steppes.

From the Don the Cossacks carried colonies along the Volga, to the
Terek, to the Ural; they conquered Siberia. In 1865 descendants of
these same men were encamped at the mouths of the Amur and fringed the
Chinese frontier. The Don Cossacks, conquerors of a country subdued
by the Tatars, submitted to Russia in 1549, but they enjoyed a real
independence. It is true that in war-time they furnished a body of troops
to the czar; but war was their trade and a means of acquiring fortune.
They appointed their own atamans, governed themselves according to their
own customs, and scarcely permitted the Moscow government to interfere
at all in their affairs. They even claimed the right to make war without
command of the czar, and in spite of his injunctions devoted themselves
to piracy on the Black Sea and even on the Caspian Sea. In 1593, when
Boris Godunov instituted serfdom in Russia, by a ukase which forbade the
peasants to change their lord or their domicile, the Cossacks received
immense additions to their numbers. All those who wished to live in
freedom took refuge in a stanitsa, where they were sure of finding
an asylum. In their ideas of honour, the atamans considered it their
first duty to protect fugitives. Consequently the most usual subject of
disputes between the government of Moscow and the hordes of the Don was
the restoration of serfs. At times exacted by the czars, when they had
no foreign enemy to fear, it was evaded by the atamans; at times it was
in some sort forgotten, whenever the services of the Cossacks became
necessary. Practically it was considered impossible to get back a serf
once he had procured his adoption into a stanitsa.

There were always two parties among the Cossacks, which might be called
the aristocratic party and the democratic faction, although there was no
nobility amongst them. The old-established Cossacks, possessing a fortune
acquired either by raids or industry, did not look with a friendly
eye on the newcomers, who were strangers to the country. They first
preached in the circle respect of treaties and obedience to the czar; the
others, on the contrary, declared themselves in favour of every violent
course, supported those bold spirits who were meditating some hazardous
expedition, and troubled themselves little concerning the danger of
compromising the privileges of the army of the Don by abusing them. The
old Cossacks in contempt called the newcomers _gole_ (nakedness, trash),
and this name, like that of _gueux_ in Flanders, had ended by being borne
proudly by the opposite faction.

The class of poor Cossacks, which was unceasingly recruited from
fugitives, hated the Russian government and obtained the sympathy of
the serfs who dared not break their chain. The condition of the latter
was deplorable; at a time when the life of a freeman was held of small
account, a slave was less than a beast of burden and certainly more
miserable. The savagery of manners, the harshness of the masters,
was equalled only by the ferocity of the laws. One example will be
enough to show what the legislation of this epoch was like. The serf
was responsible for his master’s debts. If the lord did not pay his
creditors the serf was put in prison and daily beaten before the courts
of justice until the debtor had paid or the creditors had abandoned
their claims. In their wretchedness the serfs were witnesses of the
liberty of the Cossacks, who spoke the same language as themselves and
who had the same origin. We need not be astonished if, in their despair,
they were disposed to accept as their liberators the Cossacks who came
to pillage their masters. A slave rarely dares to conceive the idea of
conquering his liberty; but he is always ready to aid the freeman who
declares himself his protector. Thus it is to be noted that all the
great insurrections of serfs which broke out in Russia were organised
by Cossacks. The False Dmitri, Stenka Radzin, and Pugatchev furnish the
proof of this.[b]


LAST YEARS OF MICHAEL

The peace with Poland being only for a stated term of years, Michael
endeavoured, before its expiration, to have his troops placed in such
a condition by foreign officers that he might be able to reconquer the
countries ceded to the Poles. Nay, on the death of Sigismund, ere the
armistice had expired, he began the attempt to recover these territories,
under the idle pretext that he had concluded a peace with Sigismund
and not with his successor. But the Russian commander, Michael Schein,
the very same who had valiantly defended Smolensk with a small number
of troops against the Poles, now lay two whole years indolently before
that town, with an army of fifty thousand men and provided with good
artillery, and at length retreated on capitulation, a retreat for which
he and his friends were brought to answer with their heads. The Russian
nation were so dissatisfied with this campaign, and the king of Sweden,
whom Michael wanted to engage in an alliance with him against the Poles,
showed so little inclination to comply, that the czar was fain to return
to the former amicable relation with Poland. Peace was therefore again
agreed on, and matters remained as they were before.

During his reign, which continued till 1645, Michael had employment
enough in endeavouring to heal the wounds which the spirit of faction
had inflicted on his country; to compose the disorders that had arisen;
to restore the administration which had been so often disjointed and
relaxed; to give new vigour and activity to the laws, disobeyed and
inefficient during the general confusions; and to communicate fresh
life to expiring commerce. It redounds greatly to his honour that he
proceeded in all these respects with prudence and moderation, and brought
the disorganised machine of government again into play. More than this,
the restoration of the old order of things, was not to be expected of
him. Much that he was unable to effect was accomplished by his son and
successor, Alexis.


ALEXIS (1645-1676 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1645 A.D.]]

The administration, however, of the boyar Boris Morosov, to whom Michael
at his death committed the education of Alexis, then in his sixteenth
year, well-nigh destroyed the tranquillity which had so lately been
restored. Morosov trod in the footsteps of Boris Godunov, put himself,
as that favourite of the czar had done, into the highest posts, and thus
acquired the most extensive authority in the state, turned out all that
stood in his way, distributed offices and dignities as they fell vacant
among his friends and creatures, and even became, like Boris, a near
relation of the czar Alexis, by marrying a sister of the czaritza. Like
his prototype, indeed, Morosov effected much good, particularly by making
the army a main object of his concern, by strengthening the frontiers
against Poland and Sweden, erecting manufactories for arms, taking a
number of foreigners into pay for the better disciplining of the army,
and diligently exercising the troops himself.

But these important services to the state could not render the people
insensible to the numerous acts of injustice and oppression which were
practised with impunity by the party protected by this minion of the
czar. The most flagrant enormities were committed, more particularly
in the administration of justice. The sentence of the judge was warped
to either side by presents; witnesses were to be bought; several of
the magistrates, however incredible it may seem, kept a number of
scoundrels in readiness to corroborate or to oppugn, for a sum of money,
whatever they were required to confirm or to deny. Such profligates
were particularly employed in order to get rich persons into custody
on charges of any species of delinquency sworn against them by false
witnesses, to condemn them to death, and then to seize upon their
property, as the accumulation of wealth seemed to be the general object
of all men in office. From the same corrupt fountain flowed a multitude
of monopolies and excessive taxes on the prime necessaries of life. The
consequence of all this was the oppression of the people by privileged
extortioners and murmurs against injustice and the exhorbitance of
imposts. In addition to this, those grandees who had now the reins of
government in their hands assumed a haughty, austere behaviour towards
the subjects, whereas Michael and his father had been friendly and
indulgent, and their gentleness communicated itself to all who at that
time took part in the administration.

From these several causes arose discontents in the nation; such great
men as were neglected and disappointed contributed what they could to
fan these discontents, and to bring them to overt act. Moscow, the seat
of the principal magistrate, who, himself in the highest degree unjust,
connived at the iniquities of his subordinate judges, was the place where
the people first applied for redress. They began by presenting petitions
to the czar, implored the removal of these disorders, and exposed to him
in plain terms the abuses committed by the favourite and his adherents.
But these petitions were of no avail, as none of the courtiers would
venture to put them into the hand of the czar, for fear of Morosov’s long
arm. The populace therefore, once stopped the czar, as he was returning
from church to his palace, calling aloud for righteous judges. Alexis
promised them to make strict inquiry into their grievances, and to
inflict punishment on the guilty; the people, however, had not patience
to wait this tardy process, but proceeded to plunder the houses of such
of the great as were most obnoxious to them. At length they were pacified
only on condition that the authors of their oppressions should be brought
to condign punishment. Not, however, till they had killed the principal
magistrate, and other obnoxious persons, and forced from the czar the
abolition of some of the new taxes and the death of another nefarious
judge, could they be induced to spare the life of Morosov, though the
czar himself entreated for him with tears. Thenceforth Morosov ceased to
be the sole adviser of his sovereign, though he continued to enjoy his
favour and affection.

[Illustration: TATAR GIRL OF THE TELEUT TRIBE]

Some time after these events, disturbances not less violent occurred
in Pleskov and Novgorod, and were not quelled until much mischief had
been done. The pacification of Novgorod was mainly due to the wisdom and
intrepidity of the celebrated Nicon, who was afterwards patriarch.

While the nation was in this restless and angry mood, another false
Dmitri thought to avail himself of an opportunity apparently so
favourable to gather a party. He was the son of a draper in the Ukraine,
and was prompted to his imposture by a Polish nobleman, named Danilovski.
One day, when the young man was bathing, marks were observed on his
back which were thought to resemble letters of some unknown tongue.
Danilovski, hearing of this freak of nature, determined to build a plot
upon it. He sent for the young man, and had the marks examined by a Greek
pope whom he had suborned. The pope cried out, “A miracle!” and declared
that the letters were Russian, and formed distinctly these words: Dmitri,
son of the czar Dmitri. The public murder of Marina’s infant son was
notorious; but that difficulty was met by the common device of an alleged
change of children, and the Poles were invited to lend their aid to the
true prince thus miraculously identified. They were willing enough to do
so; but the trick was too stale to impose on the Russians. The impostor
found no adherents among them; and after a wretched life of vagrancy and
crime, he fell into the hands of Alexis, and was quartered alive.

Alexis soon had an opportunity to repay in a more substantial manner
the ill will borne to him by the Poles, who had further offended him by
rejecting him as a candidate for their throne, and electing John Casimir.
The cruel oppressions exercised by the Poles upon the Cossacks of the
Ukraine had roused the latter to revolt, and a furious war ensued, in
which the enraged Cossacks avenged their wrongs in the most ruthless and
indiscriminate manner. At last, after many vicissitudes, being deserted
by their Tatar allies, the Cossacks appealed for aid to Alexis, offering
to acknowledge him as their suzerain. With such auxiliaries the czar
could now renew with better prospects the attempt made by his father to
recover the territories wrested from Russia by her inveterate foe. He
declared war against Poland; his conquests were rapid and numerous, and
would probably have terminated in the complete subjugation of Poland,
had he not been compelled to pause before the march of a still more
successful invader of that country, Charles Gustavus, king of Sweden.

[Sidenote: [1658-1662 A.D.]]

Incensed at seeing his prey thus snatched from him when he had nearly
hunted it down, Alexis fell upon the king of Sweden’s own dominions
during his absence; but from this enterprise he reaped neither advantage
nor credit; and he was glad to conclude, in 1658, a three years’ truce
with Sweden, and subsequently a peace, which was an exact renewal of the
Treaty of Stolbova in 1617. The war in Poland ended more honourably for
Russia. An armistice for thirteen years, agreed upon at Andnissov, in
Lithuania, and afterwards prolonged from time to time, was the forerunner
of a complete pacification, which was brought to effect in 1686, and
restored to the empire Smolensk, Severia, Tchernigov, and Kiev, that
primeval principality of the Russian sovereigns. The king of Poland
likewise relinquished to the czar the supremacy he had till then asserted
over the Cossacks of the Ukraine.

Russia had as much need as Poland of repose; for the empire was suffering
under an accumulation of evils--an exhausted treasury, commercial
distress, pestilence and famine, all aggravated by the unwise means
adopted to relieve them. To supply the place of the silver money, which
had disappeared, copper of the same nominal value was coined and put in
circulation. At first these tokens were received with confidence, and no
inconvenience was experienced; but ere long the court itself destroyed
that confidence by its audacious efforts to secure to itself all the
sterling money, and leave only the new coin for the use of commerce.
The cupidity displayed in transactions of this kind, especially by Ilia
Miloslavski, the czar’s father-in-law, taught the public to dislike the
copper coinage; it became immensely depreciated, and extreme general
distress ensued. A rebellion broke out in consequence in Moscow (1662),
and though it was speedily put down it was punished in the most atrocious
manner in the persons of thousands of wretches whose misery had driven
them to crime; whilst the authors of their woe escaped with impunity. The
prisoners were hanged by hundreds, tortured, burned, mutilated, or thrown
by night, with their hands bound, into the river. The number who suffered
death in consequence of this arbitrary alteration of the currency was
estimated at more than seven thousand; the tortured and maimed, at
upwards of fifteen thousand.

[Sidenote: [1665-1671 A.D.]]

The conduct of the Don Cossacks was soon such as to make it questionable
whether the acquisition of these new subjects was not rather a loss than
a gain to the empire. At the end of the campaign of 1665 the Cossacks
were refused permission to disband as usual and to return to their homes.
They mutinied; and several of them were punished with death. Among those
who were executed was an officer, whose brother, Stenka Radzin, had no
difficulty in rousing his countrymen to revenge this violation of their
privileges, and at the same time to gratify their insatiable appetite for
havoc and plunder.

He began his depredations on the Volga by seizing a fleet of boats
belonging to the czar, which was on its way to Astrakhan, massacring
part of the crews, and pressing all the rest into his service. Having
devastated the whole country of the Volga, he descended into the Caspian,
and having swept its shores, returned to the Volga laden with booty.
For three years this flagitious ruffian continued his murderous career,
repeatedly defeating the forces sent against him. At last, having lost
a great number of men in his piratical incursions into Persia, he
was hemmed in by the troops of the governor of Astrakhan, and forced
to sue for pardon. The imperial commander thought it more prudent to
accept Radzin’s voluntary submission than to risk an engagement with
desperate wretches whose numbers were still formidable. Radzin was
taken to Astrakhan, and the voyevod went to Moscow, to learn the czar’s
pleasure respecting him. Alexis honourably confirmed the promise made
by his general in his name, and accepted Radzin’s oath of allegiance;
but instead of dispersing the pardoned rebels over regions where they
would have been useful to the empire, he had the imprudence to send them
all back to the country of the Don, without despoiling them of their
ill-gotten wealth, or taking any other security for their good behaviour.

The brigand was soon at his old work again on the Volga, murdering and
torturing with more wanton ferocity than ever. To give to his enormities
the colour of a war on behalf of an oppressed class, he proclaimed
himself the enemy of the nobles and the restorer of the liberty of the
people. As many of the Russians still adhered to the patriarch Nicon, who
had been deposed and sent to a monastery, he spread it abroad that Nicon
was with him; that the czar’s second son (who had died at Moscow, January
16th, 1670) was not dead, but had put himself under his protection; and
that he had even been requested by the czar himself to come to Moscow,
and rid him of those unpatriotic grandees by whom he was unhappily
surrounded.

These artifices, together with the unlimited license to plunder which
Radzin granted to everyone who joined his standard, operated so strongly
that the rebel found himself, at length, at the head of two hundred
thousand men. The czar’s soldiers murdered their officers, and went
over to him; Astrakhan betrayed its governor, and received him; he was
master of the whole country of the lower Volga; and on the upper course
of the river, from Nijni-Novgorod to Kazan, the peasants rose to a man
and murdered their lords. Had Stenka Radzin been anything better than a
vulgar robber and cut-throat, he might have revolutionised Russia; but
he was utterly without the qualities most requisite for success in such
an enterprise. Disasters overtook him in the autumn of 1670: a division
of his army was cut to pieces; twelve thousand of his followers were
gibbeted on the high-road, and he himself was taken in the beginning of
the following year, carried to Moscow, and executed.

[Illustration: THE ANSWER OF ZAPOROGIAN COSSACKS TO SULTAN MUHAMMED IV

(From the painting by Elias Repin)]

The Turks had by this time made war on Poland, and Alexis was bound by
the Treaty of Andnissov, as well as by regard for the safety of his own
dominions, to support the latter power. In 1671 the Turks made themselves
masters of the important town of Kaminitz, and the Cossacks of the
Ukraine, ever averse to subjection, could not tell whether they belonged
to Turkey, Poland, or Russia. Sultan Muhammed IV, who had subdued and
lately imposed a tribute on the Poles, insisted, with all the insolence
of an Ottoman and of a conqueror, that the czar should evacuate his
several possessions in the Ukraine, but received as haughty a denial.
The sultan in his letter treated the sovereign of the Russias only as
a Christian _gospodin_ (hospodar), and entitled himself Most Glorious
Majesty, King of the World. The czar made answer that he was above
submitting to a Mohammedan dog, but that his sabre was as good as the
grand seignior’s scimitar.

[Sidenote: [1676 A.D.]]

Alexis sent ambassadors to the pope, and to almost all the great
sovereigns in Europe, except France, which was allied to the Turks, in
order to establish a league against the Porte. His ambassadors had no
other success at Rome than not being obliged to kiss the pope’s toe;
everywhere else they met with nothing but good wishes, the Christian
princes being generally prevented by their quarrels and jarring interests
from uniting against the common enemy of their religion. Alexis did not
live to see the termination of the war with Turkey. His death happened in
1676, in his forty-eighth year, after a reign of thirty-one years.


FEODOR (1676-1682 A.D.)

Alexis was succeeded by his eldest son, Feodor, a youth in his nineteenth
year, and of very feeble temperament. The most pressing task that
devolved on him was the prosecution of the war with Turkey, which, as
far as Russia was interested, had regard chiefly to the question whether
the country of the Zaparogian Cossacks should be under the sovereignty
of the czar or of the sultan. The contest was terminated, three years
after Feodor’s accession, by a treaty which established his right over
the disputed territory. Only one other memorable event distinguished his
brief reign.

Nothing could equal the care with which the noble families kept the books
of their pedigrees, in which were set down not only every one of their
ancestors but also the posts and offices which each had held at court, in
the army, or in the civil department. Had these genealogies and registers
of descent been confined to the purpose of determining the ancestry and
relationship of families no objection could be alleged against them. But
these books of record were carried to the most absurd abuse, attended
with a host of pernicious consequences. If a nobleman were appointed to a
post in the army, or at court, or to some civil station, and it appeared
that the person to whom he was now subordinate numbered fewer ancestors
than he, it was with the utmost difficulty that he could be brought to
accept of the office to which he was called. Nay, this folly was carried
to still greater lengths: a man would even refuse to take upon him an
employ, if thereby he would be subordinate to one whose ancestors had
formerly stood in that position towards his own.

It is easy to imagine that a prejudice of this kind must have been
productive of the most disagreeable effects, and that discontents,
murmurs at slights and trifling neglects, disputes, quarrels, and
disorders in the service must have been its natural attendants. It was,
therefore, become indispensably necessary that a particular office should
be instituted at court in which exact copies of the genealogical tables
and service-registers of the noble families were deposited; and this
office was incessantly employed in settling the numberless disputes that
arose from this inveterate prejudice. Feodor, observing the pernicious
effects of this fond conceit--that the father’s capacity must necessarily
devolve on the son, and that consequently he ought to inherit his
posts--wished to put a stop to it; and with the advice of his sagacious
minister, Prince Vasili Galitzin, fell upon the following method. He
caused it to be proclaimed that all the families should deliver into
court faithful copies of their service-rolls, in order that they might
be cleared of a number of errors that had crept into them. This delivery
being made, he convoked the great men and the superior clergy before
him. In the midst of these heads of the nobles, the patriarch concluded
an animated harangue by inveighing against their prerogatives. “They
are,” said he, “a bitter source of every kind of evil; they render
abortive the most useful enterprises, in like manner as the tares stifle
the good grain; they have introduced, even into the heart of families,
dissensions, confusion, and hatred; but the pontiff comprehends the grand
design of his czar. God alone can have inspired it!”

[Sidenote: [1682 A.D.]]

At these words, and by anticipation, all the grandees blindly hastened
to express their approval; and, suddenly, Feodor, whom this generous
unanimity seemed to enrapture, arose and proclaimed, in a simulated
burst of holy enthusiasm, the abolition of all their hereditary
pretensions--“To extinguish even the recollection of them,” said he, “let
all the papers relative to those titles be instantly consumed!” And as
the fire was ready, he ordered them to be thrown into the flames before
the dismayed eyes of the nobles, who strove to conceal their anguish by
dastardly acclamations. By way of conclusion to this singular ceremony,
the patriarch pronounced an anathema against everyone who should presume
to contravene this ordinance of the czar; and the justice of the sentence
was ratified by the assembly in a general shout of “Amen!” It was by
no means Feodor’s intention to efface nobility; and, accordingly, he
ordered new books to be made, in which the noble families were inscribed;
but thus was abolished that extremely pernicious custom which made it
a disgrace to be under the orders of another if his ancestry did not
reach so high, or even--in case of equal pedigree--if a forefather of
the commander had once been subordinate in the service to the progenitor
of him who was now to acknowledge him for his superior. Feodor died
in February, 1682, after a reign of five years and a half, leaving no
issue.[h]


FOOTNOTES

[37] There was no patriarch at that time.

[38] Established in 1560. The first book printed in Moscow, _The
Evangelist_, appeared in the month of March, 1564.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER VI. PETER THE GREAT

    When, towards the beginning of the eighteenth century, Peter
    the Great laid the foundation of Petersburg or rather of his
    empire, no one predicted success. Had anyone at that time
    imagined that a sovereign of Russia could send victorious
    fleets to the Dardanelles, subjugate the Crimea, drive out
    the Turks from four great provinces, dominate the Black Sea,
    establish the most brilliant court of Europe, and make all the
    arts flourish in the midst of war--if anyone had said that he
    would merely have been taken for a visionary.--VOLTAIRE.[b]


[Sidenote: [1684-1725 A.D.]]

The question of the succession was now again thrown open to discussion,
and the family feuds were revived. Ivan, the next in succession, was
nearly blind, and, according to some historians, nearly dumb, and
inferior in mind and body; and shortly before his death Feodor expressed
his wish that his half-brother, Peter, then between nine and ten years of
age, should be nominated to the throne; a nomination of which Ivan had
just sense enough to approve. The imbecility of Ivan was so great that,
had it not been for the influence of the family to which he belonged,
and the bold and ambitious spirit of his sister Sophia, he must have
been set aside at once, and Peter without further difficulty raised to
the sovereignty. The Miloflavskoi, however, were resolved to preserve
the right of succession in their own blood; and Sophia, a princess of
singular beauty and high mental endowments, in the meridian of youth
and possessed of indomitable courage, set the example of contesting the
throne, first in the name of her idiot brother and next in her own name:
for when her plans were ripe she did not scruple to declare that she
aspired to the sceptre in the default of the rightful heir. But as all
her machinations were carefully conducted with a colour of justice on
behalf of Ivan, she escaped from the charge of interested motives, which,
in the early part of the plot, would have defeated her grand object.

[Sidenote: [1684 A.D.]]

While Sophia was employed in devising her plans, the Narishkins urged
with unabating activity the claims of Peter. Friends arose in different
quarters for both parties, and the city was thrown into consternation.
But the Miloflavskoi had the advantage of possession: the keys of power
were in their hands: the officers of the state were in their immediate
confidence, and the bands of the strelitz, the janissaries of Russia,
were under their control. Sophia, availing herself of these fortunate
circumstances, pleaded with her supplicating beauty in the name of
her brother; besought the strelitz, by arts of fascination which were
irresistible, to make common cause with her; and where her eyes failed to
impress their sluggard hearts, she was bountiful in money and promises.
A body so corrupt and slavish as the strelitz was easily won by bribes
to any offices of depredation, and they accordingly declared for the
beautiful and prodigal Sophia.

The accession of fourteen thousand soldiers to her side--men who were
ready at any moment to deluge the capital in blood--determined the scales
at once. It was necessary in the first instance to exterminate the
Narishkins, the formidable supporters of Peter; and next, if it could
be accomplished with safety, to make away with the life of the prince.
A rumour was accordingly disseminated that the Narishkins had compassed
the death of Feodor, in order to make room for the young Peter; that they
had poisoned him through the agency of foreign physicians; and that they
contemplated a similar act of treachery towards Ivan. The zeal of the
Narishkins seemed to justify these charges; and the populace, who were
universally in favour of the direct lineal succession, were brought to
believe them; particularly as Galitzin, the favourite minister of Feodor,
was the chief counsellor and friend of Sophia. Affairs were now ripe for
revolt. The chiefs of the strelitz, having previously concerted their
plans, broke out into open violence; and for three days in succession
this band of legalised plunderers committed the most extravagant excesses
in the streets of Moscow, secretly abetted by the encouraging patronage
of Sophia. In their fury they murdered all those officers of the state
whom they suspected to be inimical to the views of the princess;
and bursting into the palace of the czars demanded the lives of the
Narishkins. Two brothers of Natalia, the widow of Alexis, were sacrificed
on the spot, and sixty of her immediate kindred were shortly after put to
death in the most cruel manner.

The czarina herself was forced to flee for safety from the capital,
accompanied, providentially for the destiny of Russia, by the young
prince Peter. For sixty versts she fled in consternation, carrying the
boy, it is reported, in her arms: but the ferocious strelitz had tracked
her footsteps, and followed close upon her path. Her strength at last
began to fail: her pursuers were rapidly gaining on her; she could hear
the sound of their yells, and the tramp of their approaching feet: her
heart trembled at the horrors of her situation, and in despair she
rushed into the convent of the Trinity to seek for a last shelter in the
sanctuary. The strelitz, uttering cries of savage triumph, followed on
the moment: the despairing mother had just time to gain the foot of the
altar, and place the child upon it, when two of the murderous band came
up. One of them seized the prince, and, raising his sword, prepared to
sever the head from the body, when a noise of approaching horsemen was
heard without: the ruffian hesitated--his fellow murderers at the distant
part of the church were struck with terror--dismayed by the apprehension
of some sudden change in the fortune of the day, he abandoned his grasp
of the prince and fled, and Peter the Great was preserved to Russia.

The immediate result of those violent efforts of the strelitz was the
declaration of the sovereignty in the name of Ivan. That prince,
however, trembled at the prospect of incurring the responsibility of
a trust to which he felt himself to be unequal, and entreated his
counsellors to permit his half-brother Peter to be associated with
him in the government. This request, which was considered on all
sides reasonable enough, could not be refused without increasing the
difficulties of Sophia’s party, and rendering such further measures
necessary as might probably betray her motives too soon. It was therefore
sanctioned by the nobles; and on the 6th of May, 1681, the coronation
of Ivan and Peter were celebrated in due form; Sophia being nominated
regent, on account of the imbecility of the one and the youth of the
other. Thus far Sophia had carried her purpose. She was now in possession
of the power to which her ambition tempted her to aspire; but she panted
to have that power formally assigned and publicly acknowledged. In order
the more effectually to exclude Peter from any future lien upon the
throne, she brought about a marriage between Ivan and a young Soltikov;
trusting to the issue for an insurmountable obstacle in the path of the
prince, whose dawning genius, even at that early age, she appeared to
dread.[c]


THE CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH OF PETER

During Sophia’s government Peter continued to reside with his mother in
the village of Preobrazhenski. His education was entirely neglected;
his teacher, Nikita Zotov, was taken away from him and not replaced by
another; he spent his time in play, surrounded by companions of his own
age and without any intelligent occupation: such an existence would
certainly have spoiled and maimed a less gifted nature. Upon Peter it
only had the effect, as he himself afterwards recognised, of making him
feel in later years the want of that knowledge which is indispensable for
a sound education. By reason of this neglect Peter had to study much when
he reached maturity; besides this, the manner in which his boyhood was
spent deprived him of that training of the character in intercourse with
other people which is the mark of an educated man. From his youth Peter
adopted the rough habits of those who surrounded him, an extreme want of
self-restraint, and hideous debauchery.

But his unusually gifted nature could not be crushed by this absence
of all intellectual interests. Peter had no early instruction, but the
love of knowledge inherent in him could not be destroyed. He himself
afterwards communicated the circumstances which directed him into the
paths he elected to follow. When he was fourteen years of age, he heard
from Prince Iakov Dolgoruki that he had possessed an instrument “by means
of which it was possible to measure distances or extension without being
on the spot.” The young czar wished to see the instrument, but Dolgoruki
replied that it had been stolen; so Peter commissioned the prince, who
had gone to France as ambassador, to purchase there for him such an
instrument. In 1688 Dolgoruki brought from France an astrolabe and case
of mathematical instruments, but there was no one amongst the czar’s
entourage who had any understanding of what they were for. Peter applied
to a German doctor, but neither did he know how to use the instruments;
finally he found a Dutchman, Franz Timmerman, who explained to him
the significance of the objects. The czar began to study arithmetic,
geometry, and the science of fortification with him. The teacher was not
a great authority in these matters, but he knew sufficient to give Peter
indications, and the talented pupil worked out everything himself; but
his education had been neglected to such an extent that when he was
learning the four rules of arithmetic, at the age of sixteen, he could
not write a single line correctly and did not even know how to divide
one word from the other, joining two or three together with continual
mistakes and omissions.

Some time later Peter was in the village of Izmailov, and strolling
through the storehouses, he looked over a lot of old things that
had belonged to the cousin of the czar Michael Feodorovitch--Nikita
Ivanovitch Romanov, who had been distinguished in his time for his
remarkable love of knowledge. Here he found a foreign-built vessel and
questioned Franz Timmerman about it; the latter could tell him only that
it was an English boat, which had the superiority over Russian boats as
being able to sail not only with the wind but also against it. Peter
inquired whether there was anyone who could mend the boat and show him
how to sail it. Timmerman replied that there was and found for Peter the
Dutchman, Christian Brandt (Karstein Brandt, as Peter called him). The
czar Alexis Michailovitch had thought of building a ship and launching
it at Astrakhan, and had therefore sent for shipwrights from Holland;
but the ship that had been built and launched at Astrakhan was destroyed
by Stenka Radzin, the shipwrights were dispersed, and one of them, the
ship’s carpenter, Karstein Brandt, lived in Moscow where he gained a
living by doing carpenter’s work.

[Illustration: PETER THE GREAT

(1672-1725)]

By order of the czar Brandt mended the boat, put in a mast and sail,
and in Peter’s presence manœuvred it on the river Iauza. Peter was
astonished at such art and himself repeated the experiment several times
with Brandt, but not always successfully; it was difficult to turn the
boat, which stuck to the shore because the channel was too narrow. Peter
then ordered the boat to be taken to a pond in the village of Izmailov,
but there also navigation was difficult. Then Peter learned that the
lake near Pereiaslavl would be suitable for his purpose; it was thirty
versts in circumference and had a depth of six sazhen.[39] Peter asked
his mother’s leave to go on a pilgrimage to the Troitsa monastery, came
to Pereiaslavl, and examined the lake, which greatly pleased him. On
his return to Moscow he entreated his mother to let him go again to
Pereiaslavl in order to take the boat there. The czaritza could not
refuse her beloved son, although she was much against such a project out
of fear for his life. Together with Brandt, Peter built a wharf at the
mouth of the river Troubezh, which falls into the lake of Pereiaslavl and
thus he laid the foundation of his ship building.

[Sidenote: [1687-1689 A.D.]]

At that period Peter’s diversions with his companions began to lose
their playful character. He enrolled amongst them volunteers of every
condition and in 1687 he formed with them two regular regiments, called
by the name of the two royal villages near Moscow--the Preobrazhenski and
the Semenovski. Sophia and her partisans endeavoured to represent these
diversions as foolish extravagances; Natalia Kirillovna, the mother of
Peter, did not herself see anything more in them than the amusements of
a spirited, impetuous youth, and thought to steady him by marriage. She
found for him a bride in the person of Eudoxia Lapoukhin, a beautiful
young girl; her father, an _okolnitchi_, or courtier of the second rank,
called Sarion, had his name changed to Theodore, and the marriage took
place on the 27th of January, 1689. Peter had no attachment or love for
his wife and only married to please his mother; in fact, he married
as the majority of men married at that period. His mother hoped that
when the young man was married he would begin to lead the life that was
considered fitting for exalted personages. But soon after the marriage,
as soon as the ice began to break up in the rivers, Peter galloped away
to Pereiaslavl and there occupied himself with the building of ships. His
mother wished to draw him away and demanded his return to Moscow under
the pretext of a requiem service for the czar Theodore: “You were pleased
to summon me to Moscow,” wrote the czar to his mother, “and I was ready
to come, but verily there is business on hand.” His mother insisted that
he should come to the capital; Peter obeyed and came to Moscow, but after
a month he was again back at the Pereiaslavl lake. He loved his mother
and in his letters shared with her the satisfaction he experienced in
the success of his work. “Thanks to your prayers,” he wrote, “all is
well, and the ships are a great success.” But the czaritza Natalia did
not understand her son’s passion, and moreover feared Sophia’s inimical
designs; therefore she called him again to Moscow. His young wife also
wearied for his presence and wrote to him, calling him “her joy, her
light, her darling,” and begging him either to come back or let her come
to him. Peter, recalled by his mother’s persistent demands, unwillingly
returned that summer to Moscow.[d]


PETER ASSERTS CONTROL

It is alleged, with what truth we know not, that at this period Sophia
and her favourite, Prince Galitzin, engaged the new chief of the Strelitz
to sacrifice the young czar to their ambition. It appears at least that
six hundred of those soldiers were to seize on that prince’s person, if
not to murder him. Peter was once more obliged to take refuge in the
monastery of the Trinity, the usual sanctuary of the court when menaced
by the mutinous soldiery. There he convoked the boyars of his party,
assembled a body of forces, treated with the captains of the strelitz,
and sent for some Germans who had been long settled in Moscow, and
were all attached to his person, from his already showing a regard to
foreigners. Sophia protested her abhorrence of the plot, and sent the
patriarch to her brother to assure him of her innocence; but he abandoned
her cause on being shown proof that he himself was among those who had
been marked out for assassination.

Peter’s cause prevailed. All the conspirators were punished with great
severity; the leaders were beheaded, others were knouted, or had their
tongues cut out, and were sent into exile. Prince Galitzin escaped with
his life, by the intercession of a relative, who was a favourite of the
czar Peter, but he forfeited all his property, which was immense, and was
banished to the neighbourhood of Archangel.

[Illustration: SOPHIA ALEXIEVNA

(1658-1704)]

The scene concluded with shutting up the Princess Sophia in a convent
near Moscow, where she remained in confinement until her death, which did
not happen until fifteen years afterwards. From that period Peter was
real sovereign. His brother Ivan had no other share in the government
than that of lending his name to the public acts. He led a retired life,
and died in 1696.

Nature had given Peter a colossal vigour of body and mind, capable of
all extremes of good and evil. It is impossible to review his whole
history without mingled feelings of admiration, horror, and disgust.
That he was not altogether a monster of wickedness was not the fault of
Sophia and her minister, whose deliberate purpose it was to destroy in
him every germ of good, that he might become odious and insupportable to
the nation. They succeeded only in impairing the health, corrupting the
morals, and hardening the heart of the youthful czar; it was no more in
their power to deprive him of his lofty nature than to have given it to
him. General Menesius, a learned Scotchman, to whom Alexis had intrusted
his education, refused to betray him, and was, therefore, driven from
his charge. The first impressions on the mind of Peter were allowed to
be received from coarse and sordid amusements, and from foreigners, who
were repulsed by the jealousy of the boyars, hated by the superstition of
the people, and despised by the general ignorance. Thus it was hoped that
he would at last be driven by public execration to quit the palace for a
monk’s cell; but to ensure his disgrace served to lay the foundations of
his greatness and glory.

Kept at a distance from the throne, Peter escaped the influence of that
atmosphere of effeminacy and flattery by which it is environed; the
hatred with which he was inspired against the destroyers of his family
increased the energy of his character. He knew that he must conquer his
place upon the throne, which was held by an able and ambitious sister,
and encircled by a barbarous soldiery; thenceforth, his childhood had
that which ripened age too often wants, it had an aim in view, of which
his genius, already bold and persevering, had a thorough comprehension.
Surrounded by adventurers of daring spirits, who had come from afar
to try their fortune, his powers were rapidly unfolded. One of them,
Lefort, who doubtless perceived in this young barbarian the traces of
civilisation, which had perhaps been left there by his first tutor, gave
him an idea of the sciences and arts of Europe, and particularly of the
military art.


MILITARY REFORMS

[Sidenote: [1692-1695 A.D.]]

Lefort, in whom Peter placed his whole confidence, did not understand
much of the military service, neither was he a man of literature, having
applied himself deeply to no one particular art or science; but he had
seen a great deal, and was capable of forming a right judgment of what
he saw. Like the czar, he was indebted for everything to his own genius:
besides, he understood the German and Dutch languages, which Peter was
learning at that time, in hopes that both those nations would facilitate
his designs. Finding himself agreeable to Peter, Lefort attached himself
to that prince’s service: by administering to his pleasures he became
his favourite, and confirmed this intimacy by his abilities. The czar
intrusted him with the most dangerous design a Russian sovereign could
then possibly form--that of abolishing the seditious and barbarous body
of the strelitz. The attempt to reform the janissaries had cost the great
sultan Osman his life. Peter, young as he was, went to work in a much
abler manner than Osman. He began with forming, at his country residence
of Preobrajen, a company of fifty of his youngest domestics; and some
of the sons of boyars were chosen for their officers. But in order to
teach those young boyars a subordination with which they were wholly
unacquainted, he made them pass through all the military degrees, setting
them an example himself, and serving successively as private soldier,
sergeant, and lieutenant of the company.

This company, which had been raised by Peter only, soon increased in
numbers, and was afterwards the regiment of Preobrajenski guards. Another
company, formed on the same plan, became in time the regiment of guards
known by the name of Semenovski. The czar had now a regiment of five
thousand men on foot, on whom he could depend, trained by General Gordon,
a Scotchman, and composed almost entirely of foreigners. Lefort, who had
seen very little service, yet was qualified for any commission, undertook
to raise a regiment of twelve thousand men, and effected his design. Five
colonels were appointed to serve under him; and suddenly he was made
general of this little army, which had been raised as much to oppose the
strelitz as the enemies of the state.

Peter was desirous of seeing one of those mock fights which had been
lately introduced in times of peace. He caused a fort to be erected,
which one part of his new troops was to defend and the other to attack.
The difference on this occasion was that, instead of exhibiting a sham
engagement, they fought a downright battle, in which there were several
soldiers killed and a great many wounded. Lefort, who commanded the
attack, received a considerable wound. These bloody sports were intended
to inure the troops to martial discipline; but it was a long time
before this could be effected, and not without a great deal of labour
and difficulty. Amidst these military entertainments, the czar did not
neglect the navy: and as he had made Lefort a general, notwithstanding
this favourite had never borne any commission by land, so he raised him
to the rank of admiral, though he had never before commanded at sea. But
he knew him to be worthy of both commissions. True, he was an admiral
without a fleet, and a general without any other troops than his regiment.

By degrees the czar began to reform the chief abuse in the army, viz.,
the independence of the boyars, who, in time of war, used to take the
field with a multitude of their vassals and peasants. Such was the
government of the Franks, Huns, Goths, and Vandals, who, indeed, subdued
the Roman Empire in its state of decline, but would have been easily
destroyed had they contended with the warlike legions of the ancient
Romans, or with such armies as in our times are maintained in constant
discipline all over Europe.

Admiral Lefort had soon more than an empty title. He employed both Dutch
and Venetian carpenters to build some long-boats, and even two thirty-gun
ships, at the mouth of the Voroneje, which discharges itself into the
Don. These vessels were to fall down the river, and to awe the Crim
Tatars. Turkey, too, seemed to invite the czar to essay his arms against
her; at the same time disputes were pending with China respecting the
limits between that empire and the possessions of Russia in the north of
Asia. These, however, were settled by a treaty concluded in 1692, and
Peter was left free to pursue his designs of conquest on the European
side of his dominions.


AZOV TAKEN FROM THE TURKS

It was not so easy to settle a peace with the Turks; this even seemed a
proper time for the czar to raise himself on their ruin. The Venetians,
whom they had long overpowered, began to retrieve their losses. Morosini,
the same who surrendered Candia to the Turks, was dispossessing them of
the Morea. Leopold, emperor of Germany, had gained some advantages over
the Ottoman forces in Hungary; and the Poles were at least able to repel
the incursions of the Crim Tatars.

Peter profited by these circumstances to discipline his troops, and to
acquire, if possible, the empire of the Black Sea. General Gordon marched
along the Don towards Azov, with his regiment of five thousand men; he
was followed by General Lefort, with his regiment of twelve thousand;
by a body of strelitz, under the command of Sheremetrev and Schein,
officers of Prussian extraction; by a body of Cossacks, and a large train
of artillery. In short everything was ready for this grand expedition
(1694). The Russian army began its march under the command of Marshal
Sheremetrev; in the beginning of the summer of 1695, in order to attack
the town of Azov, situated at the mouth of the Don. The czar was with the
troops, but appeared only as a volunteer, being desirous to learn before
he would take upon him to command. During their march they stormed two
forts which the Turks had erected on the banks of the river.

This was an arduous enterprise, Azov being very strong and defended by a
numerous garrison. The czar had employed several Venetians in building
long-boats like the Turkish saicks, which, together with two Dutch
frigates, were to fall down the Voroneje; but not being ready in time,
they could not get into the sea of Azov. All beginnings are difficult.
The Russians, having never as yet made a regular siege, miscarried in
this their first attempt.

A native of Dantzic, whose name was Jacob, had the direction of the
artillery under the command of General Schein; for as yet they had none
but foreign officers belonging to the train, and indeed none but foreign
engineers and foreign pilots. This Jacob had been condemned to the rods
by Schein, the Prussian general. It seemed as if these severities were
necessary at that time in support of authority. The Russians submitted
to such treatment, notwithstanding their disposition to mutiny; and
after they had undergone that corporal punishment, they continued in the
service as usual. This Dantziker was of another way of thinking, and
determined to be revenged; whereupon he spiked the cannon, deserted to
the enemy, turned Mohammedan, and defended the town with great success.
The besiegers made a vain attempt to storm it, and after losing a great
number of men, were obliged to raise the siege.

[Sidenote: [1696 A.D.]]

Perseverance in his undertakings was the characteristic of Peter the
Great. In the spring of 1696 he marched a second time to attack the town
of Azov with a more considerable army. The most agreeable part of the
czar’s success was that of his little fleet, which he had the pleasure
to see completely equipped and properly commanded. It beat the Turkish
saicks that had been sent from Constantinople, and took some of them. The
siege was carried on regularly, though not entirely after the English
manner. The trenches were three times deeper than the English, and the
parapets were as high as ramparts. At length the garrison surrendered,
the 28th of July, 1696, without obtaining any of the honours of war; they
were likewise obliged to deliver up the traitor Jacob to the besiegers.

The czar immediately began to improve the fortifications of Azov. He
likewise ordered a harbour to be dug, capable of holding large vessels,
with a design to make himself master of the straits of Caffa, which open
the passage into the Black Sea. He left two-and-thirty armed saicks
before Azov, and made all the preparations for fitting out a strong
fleet against the Turks, which was to consist of nine sixty-gun ships,
and of one-and-forty carrying from thirty to fifty pieces of cannon.
The principal nobility and the wealthiest merchants were obliged to
contribute to the fitting out of this fleet; and, as he thought that the
estates of the clergy ought to bear a proportion in the service of the
common cause, orders were issued that the patriarch, the bishops, and
the superior clergy should find money to forward this new expedition, in
honour of their country, and for the general advantage of Christendom.
He likewise obliged the Cossacks to build a number of light boats, such
as they use themselves, with which they might easily infest the whole
coast of the Crimea. The scheme was to drive the Tatars and Turks forever
out of the Crimea, and afterwards to establish a free and easy commerce
with Persia, through Georgia. This is the very branch of trade which
the Greeks formerly carried on to Colchis, and to this peninsula of the
Crimea, which the czar seemed likely to subdue.

Before Peter left the Crimea he repudiated his wife Eudoxia, and ordered
her to be sent to a convent, where, before his return to Moscow, she
became a nun, under the name of Helena. She had long made herself
distasteful to her husband by her querulous jealousy, for which, indeed,
she had ample cause, and by her aversion to his foreign favourites and
the arts they introduced.

After his successful campaign against the Turks and Tatars, Peter wished
to accustom his people to splendid shows, as well as to military toil.
With this view, he made his army enter Moscow under triumphal arches,
in the midst of fireworks and other tokens of rejoicing. The soldiers
who had fought on board the Venetian saicks against the Turks led the
procession. Marshal Sheremetrev, generals Gordon and Schein, Admiral
Lefort, and the other general officers, took precedence of their
sovereign, who pretended he had no rank in the army, being desirous to
convince the nobility by his example that merit ought to be the only road
to military preferment.

This triumphal entry seemed, in some measure, to resemble those of the
ancient Romans, especially in that as the triumphers exposed the captives
to public view in the streets of Rome, and sometimes put them to death,
so the slaves taken in this expedition followed the army; and Jacob,
who had betrayed them the year before, was carried in a cart, with the
gibbet, to which he was fastened after he had been broken upon the wheel.

Upon this occasion was struck the first medal in Russia. The legend,
which was in the language of that country is remarkable: “Peter I, the
august emperor of Muscovy.” On the reverse is Azov, with these words,
“Victorious by fire and water.”


SCHEMES OF CONQUEST

The paramount idea of Peter’s whole life displayed itself in the siege of
Azov, his first military enterprise. He wished to civilise his people by
beginning with the art of war by sea and land. That art would open the
way for all the others into Russia, and protect them there. By it the
czar was to conquer for his empire that element which, in his eyes, was
the greatest civiliser of the world, because it is the most favourable to
the intercourse of nations with each other.

But ignorant and savage Asia lay stretched along the Black Sea, between
Russia and the south of Europe. It was not, therefore, through those
waters that Peter could open himself a passage to European knowledge.
But towards the northwest, another sea, the same whence, in the ninth
century, came the first Russian founders of the empire, was within
his reach. It alone could connect Muscovy with ancient Europe; it
was especially through that inlet, and by the ports on the gulfs of
Finland and of Riga, that Russia could aspire to civilisation. Those
ports belonged, however, to a warlike land, thickly studded with strong
fortresses. It mattered not; everything was to be tried to attain so
important an object.

Peter, however, did not deem it proper to begin such an arduous
enterprise until he should have made himself better acquainted with the
nations which he wished to conciliate, or to conquer, and which were
recommended to him as models. He was desirous, with his own eyes, of
beholding civilisation in what he supposed to be its mature state, and to
improve himself in the details of government, in the knowledge of naval
affairs, and of the several arts which he wished to introduce among his
countrymen.


CONSPIRACY TO MURDER PETER

[Sidenote: [1697 A.D.]]

But he was not allowed to depart in peace. The announcement of his
intention was received with deep disgust by his bigoted subjects. The
strelitz in particular, who saw themselves supplanted by the regiments
disciplined in the European manner, were actively hostile. The childhood
and youth of Peter had several times escaped from their rage; and now,
in the horror which was inspired by his approaching departure for
profane Europe, they determined to sacrifice the impious czar who was
ready to defile himself by the sacrilegious touch of foreigners whom
they abhorred. They saw in the midst of them twelve thousand heretics,
already organised, who would remain masters of their holy city; while
they themselves, exiled to the army, were destined to fight at a distance
on the frontier. Nor was this their only grievance, for Peter had given
orders to construct a fleet of a hundred vessels; and of this sudden
creation they complained, as being an insupportable tax in the midst of
an already ruinous war, and as rendering it necessary to introduce into
their sacred land a fresh supply of those schismatical artisans who were
preferred to them. A few days before the departure of their sovereign,
Tsikler and Sukanim, two of the strelitz leaders, plotted a nocturnal
conflagration. They knew that Peter would be the first to hasten to it;
and in the midst of the tumult and confusion common to such accidents,
they meant to murder him without mercy, and then to massacre all the
foreigners who had been set over them as masters.

Such was the infamous scheme. The hour fixed for its accomplishment
was at hand. The principal conspirators assembled at a banquet, and
sought in intoxicating liquors the courage requisite for the dreadful
work before them. But drunkenness produces various effects on different
constitutions. Two of the villains lost in it their boldness, left the
company under a specious pretext, promising their accomplices to return
in time, and hurried to the czar to disclose the plot.

At midnight the blow was to have been struck; and Peter gave orders
that, exactly at eleven, the haunt of the conspirators should be closely
surrounded. Shortly after, thinking that the hour was come, he went
thither alone, and entered boldly, not doubting that he should find
them already fettered by his guards. But his impatience had anticipated
the time, and he found himself, single and unarmed, in the midst of the
ferocious gang at the instant when they were vociferating an oath that
they would achieve his destruction.

At his unexpected appearance they all rose in confusion. Peter, at once
comprehending the full extent of his danger, exasperated at the supposed
disobedience of his guards, and furious at having thrown himself into
peril, had yet the presence of mind to conceal his emotions. Having
gone too far to recede, he unhesitatingly advanced among the throng of
traitors, greeted them familiarly, and, in a calm and natural tone, said,
that “as he was passing by their house he saw a light in it, and guessing
that they were amusing themselves, he had entered in order to share their
pleasures.” He then seated himself, and drank to his assassins, who,
standing up around him, could not avoid putting the glass about, and
drinking his health.

But they soon began to exchange looks and signs. At last one of them
leaned over to Sukanim, and said, in a low voice, “Brother, it is time!”
The latter, for what reason is unknown, hesitated, and had scarcely
replied, “Not yet,” when Peter, who heard these words, and along with
them the footsteps of his guards, started from his seat, knocked him down
by a blow in the face, and exclaimed, “If it is not yet time for you,
scoundrel, it is for me!” This blow, and the sight of the guards, threw
the assassins into consternation; they fell on their knees and implored
forgiveness. “Chain them!” replied the terrible czar. Then turning to
the officer of the guards, he struck him, and reproached him with his
want of punctuality; but the latter showed him his order; and the czar
perceiving his mistake, clasped him in his arms, kissed him on the
forehead, proclaimed his fidelity, and entrusted him with the custody of
the traitors.

His vengeance was terrible; the punishment was more ferocious than the
crime. First the rack, then the successive mutilation of each member;
then death, when not enough of blood and life was left to allow of the
sense of suffering. To close the whole, the heads were exposed on the
summit of a column, the members being symmetrically arranged around them,
as ornaments--a scene worthy of a government of masters and of slaves,
brutifying each other, whose only god was fear.


PETER TRAVELS TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE

After this terrific execution, Peter began his journey in April, 1697,
travelling incognito in the retinue of his three ambassadors, General
Lefort, the boyar Alexis Golovin, and Vonitsin, _diak_, or secretary
of state, who had been long employed in foreign courts. Their retinue
consisted of two hundred persons. The czar, reserving to himself only
a _valet de chambre_, a servant in livery, and a dwarf, was confounded
in the crowd. It was a thing unparalleled in history, either ancient or
modern, for a sovereign of five-and-twenty years of age to withdraw from
his kingdoms, only in order to learn the art of government. His victory
over the Turks and Tatars, the splendour of his triumphant entry into
Moscow, the multitude of foreign troops attached to his interest, the
death of his brother Ivan, the confinement of the princess Sophia to a
cloister, and the fearful example he had just made of the conspirators
might naturally encourage him to hope that the tranquillity of his
dominions would not be disturbed during his absence. The regency he
entrusted to the boyar Strecknev and Prince Romadonovski, who in matters
of importance were to consult with the rest of the nobility.

The troops which had been trained by General Gordon continued at Moscow,
with a view to awe the capital. The disaffected strelitz, who were likely
to create a disturbance, were distributed on the frontiers of the Crimea,
in order to preserve the conquest of Azov and check the incursions of
the Tatars. Having thus provided against every contingency, he gave a
free scope to his passion for travelling, and his desire of improvement.
He had previously sent threescore young Russians of Lefort’s regiment
into Italy, most of them to Venice and the rest to Leghorn, in order to
learn the art of navigation and the method of constructing galleys: forty
more set out by his direction for Holland, to be instructed in the art
of building and working large ships: others were ordered to Germany, to
serve in the land forces and to learn the military discipline of that
nation.

At that period, Mustapha II had been vanquished by the emperor Leopold;
Sobieski was dead; and Poland was hesitating in its choice between the
prince of Conti and Augustus of Saxony; William III reigned over England;
Louis XIV was on the point of concluding the Treaty of Ryswick; the
elector of Brandenburg was aspiring to the title of king; and Charles XII
had ascended the throne.

Setting out from Novgorod, Peter first visited Livonia, where, at the
risk of his liberty, he reconnoitred its capital, Riga, from which he was
rudely repulsed by the Swedish governor. Thenceforth he could not rest
till he had acquired that maritime province through which his empire was
one day to be enriched and enlightened. In his progress he gained the
friendship of Prussia, a power which, at a future time, might assist his
efforts; Poland ought to be his ally, and already he declared himself the
supporter of the Saxon prince who was about to rule it.

The czar had reached Amsterdam fifteen days before the ambassadors. He
lodged at first in a house belonging to the East India Company, but chose
afterwards a small apartment in the yards of the admiralty. He disguised
himself in a Dutch skipper’s habit, and went to the great ship-building
village of Zaandam. Peter admired the multitude of workmen constantly
employed; the order and exactness observed in their several departments;
the prodigious despatch with which they built and fitted out ships;
and the vast quantity of stores and machines for the greater ease and
security of labour. He began with purchasing a boat, and made a mast
for it himself. By degrees he executed every part of the construction
of a ship, and led the same life all the time as the carpenters of
Zaandam--clad and fed exactly like them; working hard at the forges, at
the rope-yards, and at the several mills for sawing timber, extracting
oil, manufacturing paper, and wire-drawing. He entered himself as a
common carpenter, and was enrolled in the list of workmen by the name
of Peter Michaelov. They commonly called him Master Peter, or Peter-bas;
and though they were confounded at first to behold a sovereign as their
companion, yet they gradually accustomed themselves to the sight.

Whilst Peter was handling the compass and axe at Zaandam, he received
intelligence of the division in Poland, and of the double nomination of
the elector Augustus and the prince of Conti. Immediately the carpenter
of Zaandam promised King Augustus to assist him with thirty thousand men.
From his shop he issued orders to his army in the Ukraine, which had been
assembled against the Turks.

His troops obtained a victory over the Tatars, in the neighbourhood of
Azov; and a few months after became masters of the town of Orkapi, or
Perekop. For his part he persisted in making himself master of different
arts. With this view he frequently went from Zaandam to Amsterdam, in
order to hear the anatomical lectures of the celebrated Ruisch. Under
this master he made such progress as to be able to perform some surgical
operations, which, in case of necessity, might be of use, both to himself
and to his officers. He likewise studied natural philosophy, under
Vitsen, celebrated for his patriotic virtue and for the noble use he made
of his immense fortune.[e]


_Peter in Holland, England, and Austria_

Besides ship-building Peter also turned his attention to machinery,
factories, and industry of every kind. Sometimes he was to be found
sitting at the weaver’s loom, sometimes handling the sledge-hammer, axe,
and plane. He could truthfully write to the patriarch Adrian concerning
himself: “We act obedient to the word of God to our first parent Adam and
are working--not because it is necessary, but in order that we may have a
better insight into naval affairs and be the more able to go against the
enemies of Jesus Christ’s name and conquer by his grace.”

On the 9th of September Peter, accompanied by Vitsen and Lefort,
journeyed to Utrecht for a conference with the hereditary stadholder
William of Orange, king of England. On his return he visited the
whale-fishing fleet which had shortly before arrived, so as to become
acquainted with everything concerning whale-fishing--that important
branch of the seaman’s activity.

Peter always took note of everything new and important that he saw.
Vitsen had to take him everywhere--to the hospitals, the foundling
asylums, and the prayer meetings of different religious sects. He found
great pleasure in the anatomical cabinet of the celebrated Ruisch, who
had greatly advanced the art of preserving corpses from decomposition
by injections. It was with difficulty that the czar could be got out of
the room. He stood there transfixed and as it were unconscious, and he
could not pass before the body of a child, that seemed to smile as if it
were alive, without kissing it. His taste for being present at surgical
operations went so far that at his request a special door was made in the
wall of the St. Peter Hospital, by which he could enter it with Ruisch
from the embassy, unobserved and unmolested by the curious. It was this
doctor who recommended to him the surgeons for the new Russian naval and
military troops.

After a stay of two months the Russian embassy went to the Hague, where
it had long been expected. The entry was even more magnificent than at
Amsterdam. Peter wished to attend the formal audience of his embassy in
strict incognito. Vitsen, accompanied by two gentlemen, fetched him in
his carriage. The czar wished to take along his dwarf, and when told
that space was lacking, he replied: “Very well, then, he will sit on my
lap.” At his command a drive was taken outside the town. At every one of
the many mills that he passed, he asked what it was for; and on being
told that one before which there were no stores was a grinding-mill, he
jumped out of the carriage, but it was locked. On the road to Haarlem
he observed a small water-mill for irrigating the land. It was in vain
that they told him it was encompassed by water. “I must see it,” was
the reply. The czar satisfied his curiosity and returned with wet feet.
Twilight was already setting in, and the Dutch escort of the czar were
rejoicing that the sight-seeing was at an end. But alas! before entering
the Hague, Peter felt the carriage give a sharp jolt. “What is it?” he
inquired. He was told that the carriage had driven on to a ferry-boat. “I
must see it,” said he, and by lantern light the width, length, and depth
of the ferry-boat had to be taken. Finally, at eleven at night, one of
the best hotels in the Hague was reached. The czar was given a beautiful
bedroom with a four-post bed. He preferred a garret. After midnight it
occurred to him to spend the night at the hotel where his ambassadors
were. Looking there for a place to sleep in, he found a Russian servant
snoring on a bear skin. With a few kicks he awakened him. “Go away, go
away, I am going to sleep here.” At last he found a comfortable resting
place.

On the day of the audience, Peter dressed himself as an ordinary nobleman
in a blue garment not overladen with gold lace, a large blond wig, and
a hat with white feathers. Vitsen led him to the anteroom of a hall
where soon the members of the states general and many distinguished
spectators assembled. As some time passed before the retinue of his
embassy arrived, and meanwhile all eyes in the hall were turned towards
the ante-chamber where the czar was, he became extremely restless. “It
takes too long,” he said and wanted to depart. But Vitsen represented to
him that he would have to pass through the hall where the states general
were already assembled. Thereupon he demanded that the lords should turn
their backs to him as he passed through the room. Vitsen replied that
he could command the lords nothing, as they were the representatives
of the sovereignty of the land, but that he would ask them. The reply
brought back was that the lords would stand up as the czar passed through
the room, but would not turn their backs. Peter then drew his great wig
before his face and ran at full speed through the assembly room and down
the porch.

In the Hague also Peter had several informal meetings with the
stadholder, King William; he became personally acquainted with the
eminent statesmen Heinsius, Van Slingerland, Van Welde, Van Haven, and
with the recorder of the states general, Franz Flagel. He besought the
latter to find him someone who would know how to organise the Russian
chancellery on the Dutch model. He also entered into connection with the
celebrated engineer, General Coehorn, and on his recommendation took many
Dutch engineering officers into the Russian service.

As Peter next undertook a journey to Leyden, the great scientist
Leeuwenhoek had to come on board his yacht. He brought some of his most
beautiful apparatus and a microscope with him. Peter conversed with him
for two hours, and manifested much pleasure in the observation of the
circulation of the blood in fishes. Boerhaave took him to the Botanical
Gardens and to the anatomical lecture-room. On observing that one of
his suite could not hide his aversion for a body which seemed to him
particularly worthy of observation on account of its exposed sinews, he
ordered him to tear out one of these sinews with his teeth.

From Leyden, Peter returned to Amsterdam. Here he often joined in the
work on the galley which had been commenced at his request. In the name
of the town Vitsen requested the czar to accept this ship as a present.
Peter gave it the name _Amsterdam_, and in the following year, laden
with wares bought by Peter himself, it started on its first journey to
Archangel. From Amsterdam Peter often made excursions to Zaandam, ever
keen and confident, although his Russian attendants trembled and quaked
at the threatening dangers. On market days he was greatly entertained
by the quacks and tooth drawers. He had one of the latter brought to
him, and with great dexterity soon acquired the knack necessary for
this profession. His servants had to provide him with opportunities for
practising the newly acquired art.

Through Vitsen the Dutch Jews petitioned the czar to permit their nation,
which had been banished by Ivan IV from Russia, to re-enter it, and they
offered to prove their gratitude by a present of 100,000 gulden. “My good
Vitsen,” replied Peter, “you know my nation and that it is not yet the
time to grant the Jews this request. Tell them in my name that I thank
them for their offer, but that their condition would become pitiable
if they settled in Russia, for although they have the reputation of
swindling all the world in buying and selling, I am afraid they would be
greatly the losers by my Russians.”

During his sojourn in Amsterdam Peter received the joyful news of
two successful engagements against the Tatars in July and August. To
celebrate this victory he gave a brilliant fête to the authorities and
merchants of the town. The brilliant victory of Prince Eugene at Zenta
was yet more decisive for the issue of the war against the Turks.

On the 9th of November Peter, accompanied only by Lefort, returned to the
Hague, where he informed King William III of his desire to see England.
The king preceded him, and sent three men of war and a yacht under the
command of Admiral Mitchel to conduct the czar. On the 18th of January,
1698, accompanied by Menshikov and fifteen other Russians of his suite,
he set sail at Hellevoetsluis. Soon after the first days of his arrival
in England, he exchanged the dwelling assigned to him in the royal castle
of Somerset for the house of Mr. Evelyn at Deptford in the neighbourhood
of the admiralty works, whence he could enter the royal construction
yards unseen. There he learned from the master builders how to draw
up the plan according to which a ship must be built. He found extreme
pleasure in observing the cannon at the Tower, and also the mint, which
then excelled all others in the art of stamping.

In his honour Admiral Carmarthen instituted a sham sea fight at Spithead
on the 3rd of April which was conducted on a greater scale than a similar
spectacle given for him in Holland. He often visited the great cathedrals
and churches. He paid great attention to the ceremonial of English
church worship; he also visited the meeting-houses of the Quakers and
other sects. At Oxford he had the organisation and institutions of the
university shown him. As in Holland, he preferred to pass most of his
time with handicraftsmen and artists of every kind; from the watchmaker
to the coffin maker, all had to show him their work, and he took models
with him to Russia of all the best and newest. During his stay he always
dressed either as an English gentleman or in a naval uniform.

In Holland the English merchants had presented the czar with a memorial
through Count Pembroke on the 3rd of November, 1697, in which they had
petitioned for permission to import tobacco (which had been so strongly
forbidden under the czars Michael and Alexis), and offered to pay a
considerable sum of money for the privilege. The marquis of Carmarthen
now again broached the subject, and on the 16th of April a treaty was
signed with the Russian ambassador Golovin for three years, which
authorised Carmarthen’s agents to import into the Russian Empire in the
first year three thousand hogsheads (of five hundred English pounds
each), and in each of the following two years four thousand hogsheads,
against a tax of 4 kopecks in the pound. Twelve thousand pounds were paid
down in advance. This money placed the czar in a position to make still
greater purchases, as well as to engage a greater number of foreigners
in his service; amongst them the astronomer and professor of mathematics
Ferguson of Scotland, the engineer Captain Perry, and the shipbuilders
John Dean and Joseph Ney.[f]

[Sidenote: [1698 A.D.]]

King William made Peter a present of the _Royal Transport_, a very
beautiful yacht, which he generally used for his passage over to
Holland. Peter went on board this vessel, and got back to Holland in
the end of May, 1698. He took with him three captains of men-of-war,
five-and-twenty captains of merchant ships, forty lieutenants, thirty
pilots, thirty surgeons, two hundred and fifty gunners, and upwards of
three hundred artificers. This colony of ingenious men in the several
arts and professions sailed from Holland to Archangel on board the _Royal
Transport_; and were sent thence to the different places where their
service was necessary. Those whom he engaged at Amsterdam took the route
of Narva, at that time subject to Sweden.

While the czar was thus transporting the arts and manufactures from
England and Holland to his own dominions, the officers whom he had sent
to Rome and Italy succeeded so far as also to engage some artists in
his service. General Sheremetrev, who was at the head of his embassy to
Italy, made the tour of Rome, Naples, Venice, and Malta; while the czar
proceeded to Vienna with the other ambassadors. All he had to do now
was to observe the military discipline of the Germans, after seeing the
English fleet and the dockyards in Holland. But it was not the desire of
improvement alone that induced him to make this tour to Vienna, he had
likewise a political view; for the emperor of Germany was the natural
ally of the Russians against the Turks. Peter had a private audience of
Leopold, and the two monarchs stood the whole time of the interview, to
avoid the trouble of ceremony.

[Illustration: EXECUTION OF THE STRELITZ BY COMMAND OF PETER THE GREAT

(Painted for THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD by Thure de Thulstrup)]

During his stay at Vienna, there happened nothing remarkable, except
the celebration of the ancient feast of “landlord and landlady,” which
Leopold thought proper to revive upon the czar’s account, after it
had been disused during his whole reign. The manner of making this
entertainment, to which the Germans gave the name of _Wirthschaft_, was
as follows: The emperor was landlord, and the empress landlady; the
king of the Romans, the archdukes, and the archduchesses were generally
their assistants; they entertained people of all nations, dressed after
the most ancient fashion of their respective countries. Those who were
invited as guests drew lots for tickets; on each of which was written the
name of the nation, and the character to be represented. One had a ticket
for a Chinese mandarin, another for a Tatar mirza, another for a Persian
satrap, or a Roman senator; a princess might happen to be allotted the
part of a gardener’s wife, or a milkwoman; and a prince might act the
peasant or soldier. They had dances suited to these different characters;
and the landlord and landlady with their family waited at table. On
this occasion Peter assumed the habit of a Friesland boor, and in this
character was addressed by everybody, at the same time that they talked
to him of the great czar of Muscovy. “These indeed are trifles,” says
Voltaire, from whom the account is taken, “but whatever revives the
memory of ancient customs is, in some measure, worthy of being recorded.”


THE INSURRECTION OF THE STRELITZ

Peter was preparing to continue his journey from Vienna to Venice and
Rome when he was recalled to his own dominions by news of a general
insurrection of the strelitz, who had quitted their posts on the
frontiers, and marched on Moscow. Peter immediately left Vienna in
secret, passed through Poland, where he had an interview with King
Augustus, and arrived at Moscow in September, 1698, before anyone there
knew of his having left Germany.[e]

When Peter I arrived from Vienna he found that his generals and the douma
had acted with too great leniency. He cherished an old grudge against
the strelitz; they had formed the army of Sophia which had been arrayed
against that of the czar, and in his mind was still alive the memory
of the invasion of the Kremlin, the murder of his maternal relatives,
the terrors undergone by his mother in Troitsa, the plots that had
well-nigh prevented his departure for the west, and the check placed by
the mutineers on the plans he had matured for the good of his country
during his journey through Europe. He resolved to seize the opportunity
thus placed in his hands to crush all his enemies at one blow, and to
inaugurate in old Russia a reign of terror that should recall the days of
Ivan IV. The particular point of attack had been his taste for foreign
fashions, for shaven chins, and abbreviated garments. These therefore
should be the rallying-sign of the Russia of the future. Long beards had
been the standard of revolt; long beards must fall. He ordered all the
gentlemen of his realm to shave, and even performed that office with his
own hand for some of the highest nobles of his court. On the same day the
Red Square was covered with gibbets. The patriarch Adrian tried in vain
to divert the anger of the czar. “My duty is to protect the people and to
punish rebels,” was the only answer he received.

On the 10th of October a first consignment of two hundred prisoners
arrived in the Red Square, followed by their wives and children, who
ran behind the carts chanting funeral dirges. The czar ordered several
officers to assist the headsman in his work. Johann Korb, an Austrian who
was an eye-witness of the scene, relates that the heads of “five rebels
were struck off by the noblest hand in Russia.” Seven more days were
devoted to the executions, and in all about a thousand victims perished.
Many were previously broken on the wheel or given up to other frightful
tortures. The czar forbade the removal of any of the bodies, and for five
months Moscow was given the spectacle of corpses hanging from the turrets
of the Kremlin, or exposed in the public squares. Two of Sophia’s female
confidantes were buried alive, and Sophia herself and the repudiated
czarina, Eudoxia Lapukhin, noted for her attachment to old customs,
were confined in monasteries. After the revolt of the inhabitants of
Astrakhan, who murdered their voyevod (1705), the militia was abolished
and the way was clear for the establishment of a new army.[g]


WAR WITH SWEDEN

[Sidenote: [1699 A.D.]]

The external relations as well as the domestic circumstances of the
empire were at this juncture peculiarly favourable to the czar’s grand
design of opening a communication with the Baltic. He had just concluded
a treaty of peace for thirty years with the Turks, and he found himself
at the head of a numerous army, a portion, at least, of which was well
disciplined, and eager for employment. The death of General Lefort, in
1699, at the early age of forty-six, slightly retarded the progress of
his movements; but in the following year he prepared to avail himself of
events that called other powers into action and afforded him a feasible
excuse for taking the field.

Charles XII, then only eighteen years of age, had recently succeeded
to the throne of Sweden. The occasion seemed to yield an auspicious
opportunity to Poland and Denmark for the recovery of certain provinces
that in the course of former wars had either been wrested from them
by Sweden, or ceded by capitulation. Augustus, the elector of Saxony,
called by choice to the throne of Poland, was the first to assert this
doctrine of restitution, in which he was quickly followed by the Danish
king. Livonia and Esthonia had been ceded by Poland to Charles XI, and
the provinces of Holstein and Schleswig had been conquered from Denmark
in the same reign, and annexed to the Swedish territories. The object
of the allies was to recover those places. Sweden, thus assailed in two
quarters, presented an apparently easy victory to the czar, whose purpose
it was to possess himself of Ingria and Karelia, that lay between him and
the sea. A confederacy was, therefore, entered into by the three powers
for the specific view of recovering by war those provinces that had
previously been lost by war. But Peter miscalculated his means. The arms
of Sweden were crowned with triumphs, and her soldiery were experienced
in the field. The Russian troops, on the contrary, were for the greater
part but raw recruits, and, except against the Turks and Tatars, had as
yet but little practice in military operations. The genius of Peter alone
could have vanquished the difficulties of so unequal a contest.

The preparations that were thus in course of organisation awakened the
energies of Charles. Without waiting for the signal of attack from
the enemy, he sent a force of eight thousand men into Pomerania, and,
embarking with a fleet of forty sail, he suddenly appeared before
Copenhagen, compelled the king of Denmark within six weeks to sign a
peace by which the possession of Holstein was confirmed to the reigning
duke, and a full indemnity obtained for all the expenses of the war. He
had no sooner overthrown the designs of the Danish monarch than he turned
his arms against Poland. Augustus had laid siege to Riga, the capital of
Livonia; but that city was defended with such obstinacy by Count Dalberg
that the Polish general was glad to abandon the enterprise, upon the
shallow pretext that he wished to spare the Dutch merchandise which was
at that time stored in the port. Thus the confederation was dissolved,
and the struggle was left single-handed between the Russians and the
Swedes.

Peter, undismayed by the reverses of his allies, poured into Ingria
an army of sixty thousand men. Of these troops there were but twelve
thousand disciplined soldiers; the remainder consisted of serfs and fresh
levies, gathered from all quarters, rudely clad, armed only with clubs
and pikes, and unacquainted with the use of firearms. The Swedish army,
on the other hand, was only eight thousand strong; but it was composed
of experienced battalions, flushed by recent successes, and commanded
by able generals. The advanced guards of the Russians were dispersed on
their progress, in some skirmishes with the Swedes; but the main body
penetrated to the interior, and intrenched itself before the walls of
Narva, a fortified place on the banks of the Narova, a river that flowed
from Lake Peipus into the Baltic Sea. For two months they lay before the
town, when Peter, finding it necessary to hasten the movements of some
regiments that were on their march from Novgorod, as well as to confer
with the king of Poland in consequence of his abandonment of the siege
of Riga, left the camp, delegating the command to the duke of Croy, a
Flemish officer, and prince Dolgoruki, the commissary-general.

[Sidenote: [1701 A.D.]]

His absence was fatal to this undertaking. Charles, during a violent
snow-storm, that blew directly in the face of the Russians, attacked
the enemy in their intrenchments. The besiegers were filled with
consternation. The duke of Croy issued orders which the prince Dolgoruki
refused to execute, and the utmost confusion prevailed amongst the
troops. The Russian officers rose against the Germans and massacred the
duke’s secretary, Colonel Lyons, and several others. The presence of
the sovereign was necessary to restore confidence and order, and, in
the absence of a controlling mind the soldiers, flying from their posts
and impeding each other in their attempts to escape, were slaughtered
in detail by the Swedes. In this exigency, the duke of Croy, as much
alarmed by the temper of the Russians as by the superiority of the enemy,
together with almost all the German officers in the service, surrendered
to the victorious Charles, who, affecting to despise his antagonist,
contented himself with retaining a few general officers and some of the
Saxon auxiliaries, as prisoners to grace his ovation at Stockholm, and
suffered the vanquished troops to return home. Thus failed the first
descent upon Ingria, which cost Russia, even on the statement of the
czar himself, between five thousand and six thousand men. The loss of
the Swedes is estimated by Peter at three thousand, but Voltaire reduces
the number to twelve hundred, which, considering the relative positions
of both armies, and the disadvantages of other kinds under which the
Russians were placed, is more likely to be accurate.

This unpropitious event did not discourage Peter. “The Swedes,” he
observed, “will have the advantage of us for some time, but they will
teach us, at last, how to beat them.” If Charles, however, had followed
up his success, and pushed his fortunes into the heart of Russia
immediately after this victory, he might have decided the fate of the
empire at the gates of Moscow. But, elated with his triumphs in Denmark,
and tempted by the weakness of the Poles, he embraced the more facile
and dazzling project of concentrating his whole power against Augustus,
declaring that he would never withdraw his army from Poland until he had
deprived the elector of his throne. The opportunity he thus afforded
Peter of recruiting his shattered forces, and organising fresh means of
aggression, was the most remarkable mistake in the whole career of that
vain but heroic monarch.


RALLYING FROM DEFEAT

While Charles was engaged in Poland, Peter gained time for the
accomplishment of those measures which his situation suggested.
Despatching a body of troops to protect the frontiers at Pskov, he
repaired in person to Moscow, and occupied himself throughout the ensuing
winter in raising and training six regiments of infantry, consisting of
1000 men each, and several regiments of dragoons. Having lost 145 pieces
of cannon in the affair at Narva he ordered a certain proportion of the
bells of the convents and churches to be cast into field pieces; and
was prepared in the spring of the year 1701 to resume hostilities with
increased strength, and an artillery of 100 pieces of cannon, 142 field
pieces, 12 mortars, and 13 howitzers.

Nor did he confine his attention to the improvement of the army.
Conscious of the importance of diffusing employment amongst his subjects,
and increasing their domestic prosperity, he introduced into the
country flocks of sheep from Saxony, and shepherds to attend to them,
for the sake of the wool; established hospitals, and linen and paper
manufactories; encouraged the art of printing; and invited from distant
places a variety of artisans to impart to the lower classes a knowledge
of useful crafts. These proceedings were treated with levity and contempt
by Charles, who appears all throughout to have despised the Russians,
and who, engrossed by his campaign in Courland and Lithuania, intended
to turn back to Moscow at his leisure, after he should have dethroned
Augustus, and ravaged the domains of Saxony.

Unfortunately the divisions that prevailed in the councils of Poland
assisted to carry these projects rapidly into effect. Peter was anxious
to enter into a new alliance with Augustus, but, in an interview he held
with that prince at Birzen, he discovered the weakness of his position
and the hopelessness of expecting any effectual succour at his hands.
The Polish diet, equally jealous of the interference of the Saxon and
Russian soldiery in their affairs, and afraid to incur the hostility of
Charles, refused to sanction a league that threatened to involve them in
serious difficulties. Hence, Augustus, left to his own resources, was
easily deprived of a throne which he seemed to hold against the consent
of the people, while Peter was forced to conduct the war alone. His
measures were consequently taken with promptitude and decision. His army
was no sooner prepared for action than he re-entered Ingria, animating
the troops by his presence at the several points to which he directed
their movements. In some accidental skirmishes with small bodies of the
Swedes, he reaped a series of minor successes, that inspired the soldiers
with confidence and improved their skill for the more important scenes
that were to follow. Constantly in motion between Pskov, Moscow, and
Archangel, at which last place he built a fortress called the New Dvina,
he diffused a spirit of enthusiasm amongst the soldiers, who were now
becoming inured to action.

[Sidenote: [1702 A.D.]]

An open battle at last took place in the neighbourhood of Dorpat, on the
borders of Livonia, when General Sheremetrev fell in with the main body
of the enemy on the 1st of January, 1702, and, after a severe conflict
of four hours, compelled them to abandon their artillery and fly in
disorder. On this occasion, the Swedes are said to have lost three
thousand men, while there were but one thousand killed on the opposite
side. General Sheremetrev was immediately created a field-marshal, and
public thanks were offered up for the victory.

Following up this signal triumph, the czar equipped one fleet upon Lake
Peipus to protect the territory of Novgorod, and manned another upon Lake
Ladoga, to resist the Swedes in case they should attempt a landing. Thus
guarded at the vulnerable points, he was enabled to prosecute his plans
in the interior with greater certainty and effect.

Marshal Sheremetrev in the meantime marched upon Marienburg, a town on
the confines of Livonia and Ingria, achieving on his progress another
triumph over the enemy near the village of Humolova. The garrison at
Marienburg, afraid to risk the consequences of a siege, capitulated
at once, on condition that the inhabitants should be permitted a free
passage, which was agreed to; but an intemperate officer having set fire
to the powder magazine, to prevent the negotiation from being effected,
by which a number of soldiers on both sides were killed, the Russians
fell upon the inhabitants and destroyed the town.


THE ANTECEDENTS OF AN EMPRESS

[Illustration: CATHERINE I

(1679-1727)]

Amongst the prisoners of war was a young Livonian girl, called Martha,
an orphan who resided in the household of the Lutheran minister of
Marienburg. She had been married the day before to a sergeant in the
Swedish army; and when she appeared in the presence of the Russian
general Bauer, she was bathed in tears, in consequence of the death of
her husband, who was supposed to have perished in the melée. Struck
with her appearance, and curious to learn the history of so interesting
a person, the general took her to his house, and appointed her to the
superintendence of his household affairs. Bauer was an unmarried man,
and it was not surprising that his intercourse with Martha should have
exposed her to the imputation of having become his mistress; nor, indeed,
is there any reason, judging by the immediate circumstances as well as
the subsequent life of that celebrated woman, to doubt the truth of the
charge. Bauer is said to have denied the fact, which is sufficiently
probable, as it was evidently to his interest to acquit the lady of
such an accusation; but, however that may be, it is certain that Prince
Menshikov, seeing her at the general’s house, and fascinated by her
manners, solicited the general to transfer her services to his domestic
establishment; which was at once acceded to by the general, who was under
too many obligations to the prince to leave him the option of a refusal.

Martha now became the avowed mistress of the libertine Menshikov, in
which capacity she lived with him until the year 1704, when, at the
early age of seventeen, she enslaved the czar as much by her talents as
by her beauty, and exchanged the house of the prince for the palace of
the sovereign. The extraordinary influence she subsequently exercised
when, from having been the mistress she became the wife of the czar, and
ultimately the empress Catherine, developing, throughout the various
turns of her fortune, a genius worthy of consort with that of Peter
himself, opens a page in history not less wonderful than instructive.
The marriage of the sovereign with a subject was common in Russia; but,
as Voltaire remarks, the union of royalty with a poor stranger, captured
amidst the ruins of a pillaged town, is an incident which the most
marvellous combinations of fortune and merit never produced before or
since in the annals of the world.


MILITARY SUCCESS: FOUNDATION OF ST. PETERSBURG

The most important operations of the campaign in the year 1702 were
now directed to the river Neva, the branches of which issue from the
extremity of Lake Ladoga, and, subsequently reuniting, are discharged
into the Baltic. Close to the point where the river flowed from the lake
was an island, on which stood the strongly fortified town of Rottenburg.
This place, maintaining a position that was of the utmost consequence
to his future views, Peter resolved to reduce in the first instance;
and, after laying siege to it for nearly a month, succeeded in carrying
it by assault. A profusion of rewards and honours were on this occasion
distributed amongst the army, and a triumphal procession was made to
Moscow, in which the prisoners of war followed in the train of the
conqueror. The name of Rottenburg was changed to that of Schlüsselburg,
or city of the key, because that place was the key to Ingria and Finland.
The solemnities and pomp by which these triumphs were celebrated were
still treated with contempt by Charles, who, believing that he could at
any moment reduce the Russians, continued to pursue his victories over
Augustus. But Peter was rapidly acquiring power in the very direction
which was most fatal to his opponent, and which was directly calculated
to lead to the speedy accomplishment of his final purpose.

The complete occupation of the shores of the Neva was the first object
to be achieved. The expulsion of the enemy from all the places lying
immediately on its borders and the possession or destruction of all the
posts which the Swedes held in Ingria and Karelia were essential to the
plans of the czar. Already an important fortress lying close to the river
was besieged and reduced, and two Swedish vessels were captured on the
lake by the czar in person. Further successes over the Swedish gunboats,
that hovered near the mouth of the river, hastened his victorious
progress; and when he had made himself master of the fortress of Kantzi,
on the Karelian side, he paused to consider whether it would be advisable
to strengthen that place, and make it the centre of future operations, or
push onwards to some position nearer to the sea. The latter proposal was
decided upon; and a marshy island, covered with brushwood, inhabited by
a few fishermen, and not very distant from the embouchure of the Neva,
was chosen as the most favourable site for a new fortress. The place was,
by a singular anomaly, called Lust Eland, or Pleasure Island, and was
apparently ill adapted for the destinies that in after-times surrounded
it with glory and splendour. On this pestilential spot, Peter laid the
foundations of the fortress of St. Petersburg, which gradually expanded
into a city and ultimately became the capital of the empire.

The country in the neighbourhood of this desolate island, or cluster
of swamps, was one vast morass. It did not yield a particle of stone,
and the materials with which the citadel was built were derived
from the ruins of the works at Nianshantz. Nor were these the only
difficulties against which Peter had to contend in the construction of
the fortifications. The labourers were not furnished with the necessary
tools, and were obliged to toil by such expedients as their own invention
could devise. So poorly were they appointed for a work of such magnitude
that they were obliged to carry the earth, which was very scarce, from a
considerable distance in the skirts of their coats, or in bags made of
shreds and matting. Yet the fortress was completed within five months,
and before the expiration of a year St. Petersburg contained thirty
thousand houses and huts of different descriptions.

So gigantic an undertaking was not accomplished without danger, as well
as extreme labour. Peter, who could not be turned aside from his purposes
by ordinary obstacles, collected a vast concourse of people from a
variety of countries, including Russians, Tatars, Kalmucks, Cossacks,
Ingrians, and Finlanders; and employed them, without intermission, and
without shelter from an inclement climate of sixty degrees of latitude,
in deepening the channels of the rivers and raising the general level of
the islands which were in the winter seasons usually sunk in the floods.
The severity of the labour, and the insufficiency of provisions, caused
a great mortality amongst the workmen. A hundred thousand men are said
to have perished in the first year. While this fort was in progress of
erection, Peter despatched Menzikov to a little island lying nearer to
the mouth of the river, to build another fortress for the protection
of the entrance. The model of the fortress was made by himself in
wood. He gave it the name of Kronstadt, which, with the adjacent town
and buildings, it still retains. Under the cannon of this impregnable
fortress the largest fleet might float in shelter.

The establishment of a new city on so unfavorable a site, and the
contemplated removal of the seat of government, received considerable
opposition from the boyars and upper classes, as well as from the
inferior grades, who regarded the place with terror, in consequence
of the mortality it had already produced. The discontent of the lower
orders broke out in loud complaints during Peter’s temporary absence. No
measures short of the most despotic could have compelled the inhabitants
of Moscow to migrate to the bleak and dismal islands of the Neva, and
Peter was not slow to carry such measures into effect.

If the people could have looked beyond the convenience of the moment into
the future prospects of the empire, they must at once have perceived
the wisdom of the change. The paramount object of Peter’s policy was
the internal improvement of Russia. The withdrawal of the nobility, the
merchants, and the artisans from their rude capital in the interior, to
an imperial seat on the gulf of Finland, by which they would be brought
into closer intercourse with civilised Europe, and acquire increased
facilities for commercial enterprise, was evidently calculated to promote
that object, which was distinctly kept in view in the place upon which
the city was built. Peter had not forgotten the practical lessons he had
learned during his residence in Holland. That country, the inhabitants
of which in Pliny’s time were described to be amphibious, as if it were
doubtful to which element, the land or the sea, they really belonged, had
been redeemed from the ocean by the activity and skill of the people;
and Peter, profiting by their experience, adopted Amsterdam as his model
in securing the foundations of St. Petersburg. He employed several Dutch
architects and masons; and the wharfs, canals, bridges, and rectilineal
streets, planted with rows of trees, attest the accuracy with which the
design was accomplished. To a neighbouring island, which he made a depot
for timber, he gave the name of New Holland, as if he meant to leave to
posterity an acknowledgement of the obligations he owed to that country.

The speculations of the czar were rapidly fulfilled in the commercial
relations invited by the establishment of St. Petersburg. Five months
had scarcely elapsed from the day of its foundation when a Dutch ship,
freighted with merchandise, stood into the river. Before the expiration
of a year, another vessel from Holland arrived; and the third vessel,
within the year, that entered the new port was from England. These
gratifying facts inspired confidence amongst those who had been disposed
to look upon the project with such hasty distrust; and Peter, whose
power was now rapidly growing up on all sides, was enabled to extend his
operations in every direction over Ingria. The variety of affairs which,
at this juncture, occupied his attention sufficiently proves the grasp
of his capacity and the extraordinary energy of his mind. At nearly the
same time that he founded a new capital he was employed in fortifying
Pskov, Novgorod, Kiev, Smolensk, Azov, and Archangel; and in assisting
the unfortunate Augustus with men and money. Cornelius van Bruyer, a
Dutchman, who at that period was travelling in Holland, states that Peter
informed him that, notwithstanding all these undertakings, he had 300,000
roubles remaining in his coffers, after providing for all the charges of
the war.

The advances that the czar was thus making in strengthening and
civilising the empire were regarded with such contempt by Charles that he
is reported to have said that Peter might amuse himself as he thought
fit in building a city, as he should soon find him to take it from him
and set fire to his wooden houses. The Porte, however, did not look
with indifference upon his movements, and sent an ambassador to him to
complain of his preparations; but Peter replied that he was master of his
own dominions, as the Porte was of his, and that his object was not to
infringe the peace, but to render Russia “respectable” upon the Euxine.


RENEWED HOSTILITIES

[Sidenote: [1704 A.D.]]

The time was now approaching when the decision of the disputes in Poland
enabled Charles to turn back upon Ingria, where Peter was making so
successful a stand. On the 14th of February, 1704, the primate of Warsaw
threw off his allegiance to Augustus, who was in due form deposed by the
diet. The nomination of the new king was placed in the hands of Charles,
who proposed Stanislaus Leszczynski, a young nobleman distinguished
for his accomplishments, who was accordingly declared king of Poland
and grand duke of Lithuania. But Lithuania had not as yet sent in her
adherence to either side; and Peter, still taking a deep interest in the
fortunes of Augustus, whose Saxon troops were every day suffering fresh
discomfitures from the Swedish army, sent that monarch a reinforcement
of twelve thousand men to support his claims in the undecided province.
The military force of Russia had now become a formidable body, highly
disciplined, and fully equipped; and Peter, without loss of time, in the
spring of 1704, disposed the remainder of his army into two divisions,
one of which he sent under the command of Field-Marshal Sheremetrev, to
besiege Dorpat, while he took in person the conduct of the other against
Narva, where he had formerly endured a signal defeat.

Dorpat, which is better known by this siege than by the university
which Gustavus Adolphus had previously established there, was forced to
capitulate by a _ruse de guerre_. It was necessary in the first instance
to become master of Lake Peipus, for which purpose a Russian flotilla
was placed at the entrance of the Embach. Upon the advance of a Swedish
squadron a naval battle ensued, which ended in the capture or destruction
of the whole of the enemy’s fleet. Peter now sat down before Dorpat,
but, finding that the commandant held out for six weeks, he adopted an
ingenious device to procure entrance into the town. He disguised two
regiments of infantry and one of cavalry in the uniforms of Swedish
soldiers, giving them Swedish standards and flags. These pretended Swedes
attacked the trenches, and the Russians feigned a fight. The garrison
of the town, deceived by appearances, made a sortie, when the false
attackers and the attacked reunited, fell upon the troops, and entered
the town. A great slaughter ensued, and, to save the remainder of the
garrison, the commandant surrendered.

At Narva Peter was equally successful. The siege was conducted under his
own personal command. Sword in hand, he attacked three bastions that
offered the strongest points of defence, carried them all, and burst into
the town. The barbarities that ensued were of a nature to revolt even the
czar himself. Pillage, slaughter, and lustful excesses were committed by
the infuriated men; and Peter, shocked at the cruelties he witnessed,
threw himself amongst the barbarians who refused to obey his orders and
slew several of them in the public streets. A number of the unfortunate
citizens had taken refuge in the hôtel de ville; and the czar, appearing
in the midst of them, cast his bloody sword on the table, declaring
that it was stained not with the blood of the citizens but of his own
soldiers, which he had shed to save their lives.

These victories were decisive of the position of Peter. He was now master
of all Ingria, the government of which he conferred upon Menzikov, whom
he created a prince of the empire and major-general in the army. The
elevation of Menzikov, through the various grades of the service, from
his humble situation as a pastrycook’s boy to the highest dignities in
the state, was a practical reproof to the indolent and ignorant nobility,
who were now taught to feel that merit was the only recommendation to
the favour of the czar. The old system of promotion was closed. The
claims of birth and the pride of station ceased to possess any influence
at court. The great body of the people, impressed with the justice that
dictated this important change in the dispensation of honour and rewards,
began for the first time to be inspired with a spirit of emulation and
activity; and exactly in proportion as Peter forfeited the attachment
of the few, whose power was daily on the decline, he drew around him
the mixed wonder and allegiance of the many, whose power he was daily
enlarging. Thus were laid the foundations of a mighty empire in the
hearts of a scattered population, as various in habits and in language as
it had always been discordant in interests and disunited in action.

Having acquired this valuable possession, and secured himself in St.
Petersburg against the Swedes, it was the profound policy of Peter to
keep up the war between Charles and Augustus, with a view to weaken
by diversion the strength of the former. He accordingly made a great
offer of assistance to the dethroned king, and despatched General
Repuin with six thousand horse and six thousand foot to the borders of
Lithuania; while he advanced in person into Courland at the head of a
strong force. Here he received a severe check, having fallen in with
the Swedish general Lewenhauft, who defeated the Russians after an
obstinate battle, in which the czar’s troops lost between five thousand
and six thousand men, and the Swedes no more than two thousand. Peter,
notwithstanding, penetrated into Courland, and laid siege to the capital,
which surrendered by capitulation. On this occasion the Swedes degraded
themselves by committing an extensive pillage in the palace and archives
of the dukes of Courland, descending even into the mausoleums to rob
the dead of their jewels. The Russians, however, before they would take
charge of the vaults, made a Swedish colonel sign a certificate that
their sacrilegious depredations were the acts of his own countrymen.


POLISH AFFAIRS

The greatest part of Courland, as well as the whole of Ingria, had now
been conquered in detail by Peter, and, as Charles was still engrossed
by his operations in Poland and Saxony, he returned to Moscow to pass
the winter; but intelligence of the approach of the Swedish king at the
head of a powerful force towards Grodno, where the combined armies of
Russia and Saxony were encamped, recalled him from his repose. Peter
immediately hastened to the field, and found all the avenues occupied by
Swedish troops. A battle ensued near Frauenstadt, in which the flower of
the confederated battalions, under the command of General Schullemberg,
to the number of eighteen thousand men, six thousand of whom were
Russians, suffered a complete defeat. With an insignificant exception,
they were nearly all slain. Some authorities attribute this disaster
to the treachery of a French regiment, which had the care of the Saxon
artillery; but it is certain that the most sanguinary atrocities were
committed on both sides, in a contest upon the issues of which two crowns
appeared to be dependent.

[Illustration: WIFE OF A MERCHANT OF KALONGA]

The consequences of this overthrow would have been immediately fatal
to Augustus, but for the energy of the czar, who, rapidly organising
an army of twenty thousand men, urged that wavering prince to take
advantage of the absence of Charles in Saxony, and throw himself once
more into Poland. A revolt in Astrakhan called Peter into that part of
his territories; but he deputed General Patkul, a brave Livonian, who had
formerly made his escape from the hands of Charles, and had passed from
the service of Augustus into that of the czar, to explain the necessity
of the measure. Augustus yielded to the advice of his ally, and marched
into Poland; but he had no sooner made good his progress than, suddenly
panic-struck by the increasing successes of Charles, he resolved to sue
for peace upon any terms at which it could be procured. He accordingly
invested two ambassadors with full powers to treat confidentially with
Charles, and had the temerity to cast Patkul into prison. While the
plenipotentiaries were negotiating this shameful treaty at the camp of
Charles XII, Menshikov joined the forces of Augustus at Kalish with
thirty thousand men. The consternation of Augustus at this unexpected
reinforcement was indescribable; and his confusion amounted almost to
despair upon the receipt of intelligence that ten thousand Swedes, under
the command of General Meierfeldt, were on their march to give him battle.

In this dilemma he transmitted a private message to General Meierfeldt
to inform him of the negotiation he had opened with his master; but
that general, naturally treating the whole affair as a mere pretext to
gain time, made preparations for hostilities. The superior force of
the Russians decided the fate of the day, and, after having defeated
the Swedes with great slaughter, they entered Warsaw in triumph. Had
Augustus relied upon the energy and friendship of his ally, he would now
have been replaced upon his throne; but the timidity that tempted him
to cast himself upon the mercy of Charles was prolific of misfortunes.
He had scarcely entered Warsaw as a victor when he was met by his own
plenipotentiaries, who placed before him the treaty they had just
concluded, by which he had forfeited the crown of Poland forever. His
humiliation was complete. Thus the weak and vacillating Augustus, fresh
from a triumph that ought to have placed him upon the throne of Poland,
was a vassal in its capital, while Charles was giving the law in Leipsic
and reigning in his lost electorate.

His struggles to escape from the disgrace into which his folly and his
fears had plunged him only drew down fresh contempt upon his head. He
wrote to Charles a letter of explanation and apology, in which he begged
pardon for having obtained a victory against his will, protesting that it
was entirely the act of the Russians, whom it was his full intention to
have abandoned, in conformity with the wishes of Charles; and assuring
that monarch that he would do anything in his power to render him
satisfaction for the great wrong he had committed in daring to beat his
troops. Not content with this piece of humility, and fearing to remain at
Warsaw, he proceeded to Saxony, and, in the heart of his own dominions,
where the members of his family were fugitives, he surrendered in person
to the victorious Swede. Charles was too conscious of his advantages
not to avail himself of them to the full, and not only made the timid
Augustus fulfil all the stipulations of the treaty, by which he renounced
the crown of Poland, abandoned his alliance with the czar, surrendered
the Swedish prisoners, and gave up all the deserters, including General
Patkul, whom Augustus had arrested by a violation of good faith, but he
forced him to write a letter to Stanislaus, congratulating him on his
accession to the throne. The unfortunate Patkul was no sooner delivered
into the hands of Charles than he condemned him to be broken on the wheel
and quartered.

The timid and treacherous conduct of Augustus and the deliberate cruelty
of Charles drew from Peter expressions of unbounded indignation. He laid
a statement of the whole circumstances before the principal potentates
of Europe, and declared his determination to use all the means in his
power to drive Stanislaus from the throne of Poland. The first measure
he adopted was the holding of a conference with several of the Polish
grandees, whom he completely gained over to his side by the suavity of
his manners. At a subsequent meeting it was agreed that the throne of
Poland was in fact vacant, and that a diet should be summoned for the
purpose of electing a king. When the diet assembled, Peter urged upon
their attention the peculiar circumstances in which the country was
placed, and the impossibility of effecting any substantial resistance
against the ambitious intrigues of Charles, unless a new king were placed
upon the throne. His views were confirmed by the voice of the assembly,
who agreed to the public declaration of an interregnum, and to the
investiture of the primate in the office of regent until the election
should have taken place.


CHARLES XII INVADES RUSSIA (1707 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1707 A.D.]]

But while these proceedings were going forward at Lublin, King
Stanislaus, who had been previously acknowledged by most of the
sovereigns of Europe, was advancing into Poland at the head of sixteen
Swedish regiments, and was received with regal honours in all the places
through which he passed. Nor was this the only danger that threatened
to arrest the course of the proposed arrangements for the settlement
of the troubles of Poland. Charles, whose campaign in Saxony had
considerably enriched his treasury, was now prepared to take the field
with a well-disciplined army of forty-five thousand men, besides the
force commanded by General Lewenhaupt; and he did not affect to conceal
his intention to make Russia the theatre of war, in which purpose he
was strengthened by an offer on the part of the Porte to enter into an
offensive alliance with him against Peter, whose interference in the
affairs of Poland excited great jealousy and alarm in Turkey. Charles
calculated in some degree upon the support he might receive from the
Russians themselves, who, he believed, would be easily induced to revolt
against Peter, in consequence of the innovations he had introduced and
the expenses that he would be likely to entail upon them by a protracted
war.

But the people of Russia were well aware that mere personal ambition did
not enter into the scheme of Peter, and that, although he had broken
through many antiquated and revered customs, yet that he had conferred
such permanent benefits upon the empire as entitled him to their lasting
gratitude. Whatever prospects of success, therefore, Charles might
have flattered himself upon deriving from the dissatisfaction of the
great mass of the community were evidently vague and visionary. But
the argument was sufficient for all his purposes in helping to inspire
his soldiers with confidence. About this time the French envoy at the
court of Saxony attempted to effect a reconciliation between Charles and
the czar, when the former made his memorable reply that he would treat
with Peter in Moscow; which answer being conveyed to Peter produced his
equally memorable commentary--“My brother Charles wishes to play the part
of Alexander, but he shall not find a Darius in me.”

Rapid preparations were made on both sides for the war which had now
become inevitable. In the autumn of 1707 Charles commenced his march
from Altranstadt, paying a visit to Augustus at Dresden as he passed
through that city, and hastening onwards through Poland, where his
soldiers committed such devastations that the peasantry rose in arms
against them. He finally fixed his winter quarters in Lithuania. During
the time occupied by these movements Peter was wintering at Moscow,
where, after an absence of two years, he had been received with universal
demonstrations of affection. He was busily occupied in inspecting the new
manufactories that had been established in the capital, when news reached
him of the operations of the Swedish army. He immediately departed, and,
with six hundred of the guards established his headquarters in the city
of Grodno. Charles no sooner heard of his arrival at that place than,
with his usual impetuosity, he hastened forwards with only eight hundred
men to besiege the town.

By a mistake, the life of Peter was nearly sacrificed. A German officer,
who commanded the gate towards which Charles approached, imagining that
the whole Swedish army was advancing, fled from his post and left the
passage open to the enemy. General consternation prevailed throughout the
city as the rumour spread; and the victorious Charles, cutting in pieces
the few Russians who ventured to contest his progress, made himself
master of the town. The czar, impressed with the belief that the report
was true, retreated behind the ramparts, and effected his escape through
a gate at which Charles had placed a guard. Some Jesuits, whose house,
being the best in the town, was taken for the use of Charles, contrived
in the course of the night to inform Peter of the real circumstances;
upon which the czar re-entered the city, forced the Swedish guard, and
contended for possession in the streets. But the approach of the Swedish
army compelled him at last to retire, and to leave Grodno in the hands of
the conqueror.

The advance of the Swedes was now marked by a succession of triumphs;
and Peter, finding that Charles was resolved to pursue him, and that
the invader had but five hundred miles to traverse to the capital, an
interval unprotected by any places of consequence, with the exception of
Smolensk, conceived a masterly plan for drawing him into a part of the
country where he could obtain neither magazines nor subsistence for his
army, nor, in case of necessity, secure a safe retreat. With this design
he withdrew to the right bank of the Dnieper,[40] where he established
himself behind sheltered lines, from which he might attack the enemy at
an advantage, preserving to himself a free communication with Smolensk,
and abundant means of retreat over a country that yielded plentiful
resources for his troops.

In order to render this measure the more certain, he despatched General
Goltz at the head of fifteen thousand men to join a body of twelve
thousand Cossacks, with strict orders to lay waste the whole province for
a circle of thirty miles, and then to rejoin the czar at the position he
had taken up on the bank of the Dnieper. This bold movement was executed
as swiftly as it was planned; and the Swedes, reduced to immediate
extremity for want of forage, were compelled to canton their army until
the following May. Accustomed, however, to the reverses of war, they were
not daunted by danger or fatigue, but it was no longer doubtful that both
parties were on the eve of decisive events. They regarded the future,
however, with very different hopes. Charles, heated with victories, and
panting for further acquisitions, surveyed the vast empire, upon the
borders of which he now hung like a cloud, as if it were already within
his grasp; while Peter, more wary and self-possessed, conscious of the
magnitude of the stake for which he fought, and aware of the great
difficulties of his situation, occupied himself in making provision
against the worst.[c]


REVOLT OF THE COSSACKS OF THE DON; MAZEPPA

Meantime there were foes at home that had demanded the attention of he
czar.[a] The strelitz were not the only military body belonging to old
Russia whose existence had become incompatible with the requirements of
a modern state. The undisciplined Cossack armies, which had hitherto
formed a rampart for Russia against barbarian hordes, were also to
undergo transformation. The empire had many causes of complaint against
the Cossacks, particularly those of the Ukraine and the Don who had
formerly sustained the usurper, Dmitri, and from whose ranks had issued
the terrible Stenka Radzin.

In 1706 the Cossacks of the Don had revolted against the government
of the czar because they were forbidden to give asylum in their camp
to refugee peasants or taxpayers. The ataman Boulavine and his aids,
Nekrassov, Frolov, and Dranyi, called them to arms. They murdered Prince
George Dolgoruki, defeated the Russians on the Liskovata, took Tcherkask,
and menaced Azov, all the while proclaiming their fidelity to the czar
and accusing the voyevods of having acted without orders. They were
in turn defeated by Vasili Dolgoruki, Bulavin was murdered by his own
soldiers and Nekrassov with only two thousand men took refuge in the
Kuban. After clearing out the rebel camps Dolgoruki wrote: “The chief
traitors and mutineers have been hung, together with one out of ten of
the others; and all the bodies have been placed on rafts and allowed to
drift with the current that the Dontsi may be stricken with terror and
moved to repent.”

Since the disgrace of Samoilovitch, Mazeppa had been the hetman of the
Little Russian Cossacks in Ukraine. Formerly a page of John Casimir, king
of Poland, he had in his youth experienced the adventure made famous
by the poem of Lord Byron and the pictures of Horace Vernet. Loosened
from the back of the untamed horse that fled with him to the deserts of
Ukraine, he at once took rank in the Cossack army, and rose by means of
treachery, practised against all the chiefs in turn, to fill the highest
posts in the military service. His good fortune created for him numerous
enemies; but the czar, who admired him for his intelligence and had faith
in his fidelity, invariably delivered over to him his detractors. He put
to death the monk Solomon for revealing his intrigues with Sophia and the
king of Poland, and later denunciators shared the same fate.

Ukraine, meanwhile, was being undermined by various factions. In the
Cossack army there was always a Russian party, a party that wished to
restore the Polish domination, and a party which designed to deliver
over the country to the Turks. In 1693 Petrik, a Turkish chief, invaded
Ukraine but failed in his attempts at subjugation. Moreover, profound
dissent existed between the army and the sedentary populations of
Ukraine. The hetman was constantly scheming to make himself independent,
the officers of the army objected to rendering an account of their
actions to others, and the soldiers wished to live at the country’s
expense without working or paying taxes. The farmers, who had founded
the agricultural prosperity of the country, the citizens in towns who
were not secure in the pursuit of their avocations, the whole peaceful
and laborious population, in fact, longed to be free from this turbulent
military oligarchy and called upon the czar at Moscow to liberate them.

Mazeppa represented the military element in Ukraine and knew that he was
odious to the quiet classes. The czar showered proofs of confidence upon
him, but Mazeppa had reason to fear the consolidation of the Russian
state. The burdens that the empire imposed upon the vassal state were
day by day becoming heavier, and the war against Charles XII served to
increase them still more. There was everything to fear from the imperious
humour and autocratic pretensions of the czar, and the imminent invasion
of the Swedes was certain to precipitate a crisis; either Little Russia
would become independent with the aid of strangers, or their defeat
on her soil would deal the death-blow to her prosperity and hopes for
the future. Knowing that the hour was approaching when he should be
obliged to obey the white czar Mazeppa allowed himself to be drawn into
communication with Stanislaus Leszczynski, the king of Poland elected
by the Swedish party. The witty princess Dolskaia gave him an alphabet
in cipher. Hitherto Mazeppa had given over to the czar all letters
containing propositions of betrayal, just as the czar had surrendered to
him his accusers. On receiving the letters of the princess he remarked
with a smile: “Wicked woman, she wishes to draw me away from the czar.”

When, however, the hand of the sister of Menshikov was refused to one
of his cousins, when the Swedish war and the passage of Muscovite
troops limited his authority and increased taxation in his territory,
when the czar sent urgent injunctions for the equipment of troops
after the European fashion, and he could feel the spirit of rebellion
against Moscow constantly growing around him, he wrote to Leszczynski
that though the Polish army was weak in numbers it had his entire good
will. His confidant Orlik was in the secret of all these manœuvres, and
several of his subordinates who had divined them undertook to denounce
him to the czar. The denunciation was very precise and revealed all
the secret negotiations with the emissaries of the king and of the
princess Dolskaia; but it failed before the blind confidence of the
czar. Palei, one of the denunciators, was exiled to Siberia; Iskra and
Kotchonbei, the remaining two, were forced by torture to avow themselves
calumniators, and were then delivered over to the hetman and beheaded.
Mazeppa realised that good fortune such as his could not long endure, and
the malcontents urged upon him the consideration of the common safety.
At this juncture Charles XII arrived in the neighbourhood of Little
Russia. “It is the devil who brings him here!” cried Mazeppa, and placed
between his two powerful enemies he exerted all his craft to preserve
the independence of his little state without giving himself into the
hands of either Charles XII or Peter the Great. When the latter invited
him to join the army he feigned illness; but Menshikov approaching
simultaneously with Charles XII, it was necessary to make a choice.
Mazeppa left his bed, rallied his most devoted Cossacks about him, and
crossed the Desna for the purpose of effecting a junction with the Polish
army. At this the czar issued a proclamation denouncing the treason of
Mazeppa, his alliance with the heretics, his plots to bring Ukraine once
more under vassalage to Poland and to restore the temples of God and the
holy monasteries to the uniates. Mazeppa’s capital, Baturin, was taken by
Menshikov and rased to the ground, his accomplices perished on the wheel
or the scaffold.[g]


MAZEPPA JOINS CHARLES XII; PULTOWA

[Sidenote: [1708-1709 A.D.]]

Mazeppa with his army passed over the Desna; his followers, however,
believed they were being led against Charles, and deserted their hetman
as soon as his views were known, because they had more to fear from
Peter than to hope from Charles. The hetman joined the Swedes with only
seven thousand men, but Charles prosecuted his march and despised every
warning. He passed the Desna; the country on the farther side became more
and more desolate, and appearances more melancholy, for the winter was
one of the most severe; hundreds of brave Swedes were frozen to death
because Charles insisted upon pursuing his march even in December and
January. The civil war in Poland in the mean time raged more violently
than ever, and Peter sent divisions of his Russians to harass and
persecute the partisans of Stanislaus. The three men who stood in most
immediate relation to the Swedish king, Piper, Rehnskold, and Levenhaupt,
belonged, indeed, among the greatest men of their century; but they
were sometimes disunited in their opinions, and sometimes incensed and
harassed by the obstinacy of the king.

Mazeppa fell a sacrifice to his connection with Charles, his residence
(Baturin) was destroyed by Menshikov, and his faithful Cossacks, upon
Peter’s demand, were obliged to choose another hetman (November, 1708).
Neither Piper nor Mazeppa could move the obstinate king to relinquish his
march towards the ill-fortified city of Pultowa. Mazeppa represented to
him in vain that, by an attack upon Pultowa he would excite the Cossacks
of the Falls (Zaparogians) against him; and Piper entreated him, to no
purpose, to draw nearer to the Poles, who were favourable to his cause,
and to march towards the Dnieper; he continued, however, to sacrifice his
men by his march, till, in February (1709), a thaw set in.

He was successful in gaining the favour of the Zaparogians through their
hetman, Horodenski; but fortune had altogether forsaken the Swedes since
January. In that month they were in possession of Moprik; in February,
the battles at Goronodek and Rashevka were decided in favour of the
Russians; in March, Sheremetrev took Gaditch, which was occupied by the
Swedes, and thereby gave a position to the Russian army which could not
but prove destructive to the Swedes, who were obliged to besiege Pultowa
without the necessary means, because their intractable king insisted
upon the siege. In April and May, the Swedes exerted themselves in vain
in throwing up trenches before the miserable fortifications of Pultowa,
whilst the Russians were enclosing them in a net. One part of the
Russians had already passed the Vorskla in May, and Peter had no sooner
arrived, in the middle of June, than the whole army passed the river, in
order to offer a decisive engagement to the invaders.

Rehnskold acted as commander-in-chief at the battle of Pultowa; for
Charles had received a dangerous wound in his foot ten days before, and
was unable to mount his horse. The Swedes on this day performed miracles
of bravery, but everything was against them, for the Russians fought this
time at least for their country, and had at length gained experience
in the field. The defeat of the Swedes is easily explained, when it is
known that they were in want of all the munitions of war, even powder
and lead, that they were obliged to storm the enemy’s fortifications
in opposition to an overwhelming numerical force, and that Levenhaupt
and Rehnskold were so much disunited in opinion that the former, in his
report of the engagement at Pultowa, makes the bitterest complaints
against the commander-in-chief, which have since that time been usually
adopted by all historians. Of the whole Swedish army, only fourteen
or fifteen thousand under Levenhaupt and Kreuz succeeded in erecting
an ill-fortified camp on the Dnieper, where they were shut up by the
Russians and the river.

This small force might possibly have succeeded in fighting its way into
Poland, and Charles had at first adopted this determination; he was,
however, with great trouble, induced to pass the Dnieper, and accompanied
by a small guard, to take refuge in Turkey. His plan was to reach the Bug
over the pasture lands which then belonged to the Tatars on the Black
Sea, and, aided by the Turks and the Tatars, to make his way first to
Otchakov and then to Bender, whence he hoped to persuade the Turks to
take part in the Polish affairs. As soon as the king had escaped (July
10th, 1709), Levenhaupt, mourning over the sacrifice which the wilfulness
of Charles had brought upon his Swedes, concluded a capitulation, in
virtue of which all the baggage and artillery were surrendered to
the Russians, together with the remnant of the Swedish army, which,
calculating those who had been taken prisoners in the battle, amounted in
all to about eighteen thousand men.

Charles’ flight to Bender, and his long residence of five years in
Turkey, were the most favourable events which could have occurred for
the accomplishment of Peter’s great plans. He was now master in Poland.
In the Swedish, German, and French adventurers who had been in Charles’
army, he received the very best instructors of his people. Among
those who entered into his service, there were experienced officers,
artillerymen, architects, and engineers.

The Swedes, who for thirteen long years were neither set at liberty nor
accorded by their impoverished country the usual support of prisoners
of war, were distributed over the whole of Russia, and sent far into
Siberia. They founded schools and institutions, in order to get a
livelihood, and used their knowledge and experience against their will
for the promotion of Peter’s designs. This was the more important, as
there was not a man among those many thousand prisoners who was not in a
condition to teach the Russians to whom he came something of immediate
utility, drawn from his experience in his native land. Many never
returned to their homes, because they had raised up institutions and
commenced undertakings which were as advantageous to themselves as to the
Russian Empire.[e]

[Illustration: PETER THE GREAT AT THE BATTLE OF PULTOWA

(Painted for THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD by Thure de
Thulstrup)]


PETER AND THE POWERS

[Sidenote: [1711 A.D.]]

A treaty was entered into by Poland, Prussia, and Denmark, which restored
to those states the conquests of Gustavus Adolphus, and to Russia her
sovereignty over her ancient possessions of Livonia, Ingria, and a part
of Finland. When these preliminaries were settled, Peter went in person
to make a defensive treaty with the elector of Brandenburg, the first
king of Prussia; a mode of negotiation unusual amongst sovereigns,
but which was perfectly consistent with the individual character and
promptitude of the czar. Having concluded these important plans, he
proceeded to reduce some Swedish fortresses, and to bombard the town of
Riga, the capital of Livonia, where he lost between nine and ten thousand
men by a pestilence that was then raging in that place. The garrison,
struck down by two enemies--the plague and the Russians, and scarcely
able to decide which was the more fatal--speedily capitulated; and
Livonia was once more rendered tributary to Muscovy.

In the meanwhile Charles was employing all his interest at Constantinople
to prevail upon the sultan to undertake a war against Russia, which the
sultan was easily induced to embrace, in consequence of the ravages
committed by the Muscovite troops on the frontiers of Turkey, and the
rapidly extending power of the czar on the sea of Azov and the Black
Sea. The khan of the Crimean Tatars naturally regarded with apprehension
the Russian establishment at Azov, which the Turks had been forced
to surrender a few years before; and he, therefore, strengthened the
arguments that were submitted to the Divan to persuade them into a
declaration of hostilities against the common enemy. A statement setting
forth the formidable advances that Russia was making in her navy on the
Don and in the harbour of Taganrog, and of the spirit of acquisition she
was constantly exhibiting in her encroachments upon the border lands, was
laid before the council by Poniatowski, the active friend of the Swedish
king, and was immediately assented to by the mufti. In order to render
the views of the sultan still more impressive, Count Tolstoi, the czar’s
ambassador at Constantinople, was arrested in the public streets, and
committed to the castle of the Seven Towers.

The indignity offered to Peter in the person of his minister was scarcely
necessary to inflame his irritable temper. Within a short space of
time his plenipotentiary in Saxony was broken on the wheel, and his
ambassador in London imprisoned for debt; but these events had taken
place before the battle of Pultowa, which suddenly elevated him to the
highest consideration amongst contemporary sovereigns. The insult,
therefore, which the sultan cast upon him by the arrest of Count Tolstoi
was the more acutely felt, as it appeared to treat him with contempt
in the very hour of victory. He soon made the necessary arrangements
for the approaching war, sending one division of his army to Moldavia,
another to Livonia; and fleets to Azov, the Baltic, and the Black Sea.
It was necessary, however, to return to Moscow to make provision for
the government during his absence, and while he was there he issued a
conscription for the purpose of recruiting his army.


CATHERINE ACKNOWLEDGED AS PETER’S WIFE (1711 A.D.)

The time was now arrived for acknowledging before his subjects his
marriage with Catherine, which had taken place privately in 1707; and
accordingly, on the 6th of March, 1711, the czarina Catherine Alexievna
was solemnly declared to be his legitimate wife. The ascendency which
Catherine had acquired over him was not more extraordinary than it
was propitious. Peter’s disposition was naturally impatient and cruel,
and when he was excited to acts of severity he could not be restrained
by any appeal to his reason or his humanity. The only influence that
possessed any permanent power over him was that of female society; and
the remarkably sweet temper of Catherine, who was never known to be out
of humour, invariably tranquillised him, even in his most angry moods, so
complete was the fascination she exercised over his mind that the agony
of those spasmodic fits to which he was subject yielded to her soothing
presence. Without forgetting the low condition from which she sprang, she
maintained the pomp of majesty with irreproachable propriety, and united
an air of ease and authority that excited the admiration of those by
whom she was surrounded. She was not distinguished by that lofty beauty
which would seem to sympathise with these august qualities; nor was she
either very brilliant in conversation or of a very quick imagination, but
she was graceful and animated; her features were pretty and expressive,
and a tone of good sense and kindness always pervaded her actions. She
was admirably formed for the sphere she embellished, and, above all,
for the peculiar necessities of the era that called her to the throne.
Her devotion to Peter was boundless. She constantly attended him, even
upon occasions of the utmost danger, and especially upon this eventful
expedition, when she accompanied him upon his campaign into Turkey.


WAR WITH TURKEY

The whole body of troops which the precautions of the czar had enabled
him to collect amounted to 130,000 men; but, being distributed in
different quarters, and failing to join the czar on the Pruth, as he
expected, he was obliged to proceed with an army that fell short of
40,000 men. The perils of the enterprise were so apparent that Peter
issued orders requiring the women who followed in the train of the army
to return; but Catherine, who insisted upon remaining with the czar,
prevailed upon him to retract his determination. This slight circumstance
eventually proved to be the salvation of the czar and his empire.

From Sorokat the army proceeded to Jassy, where Peter was led to expect
supplies from the prince of Wallachia, with whom he had entered into
a secret negotiation; but the sultan, warned of the prince’s intended
revolt, suddenly deposed him, and appointed Cantemir in his place. But
Cantemir, who was a Christian prince, was no less inclined to assist the
czar, and proffered him such aid as he could command; admitting very
candidly, however, that his subjects were attached to the Porte,[41]
and firm in their allegiance. In this extremity Peter found himself at
the head of a very inadequate force in the heart of a wild and rugged
country, where the herbage was destroyed by swarms of locusts, and where
it was impossible to procure provisions for the troops. The dangers of
his situation, however, offered a valuable test of the fidelity and
endurance of the soldiers, who, although they suffered the most severe
privation, never uttered a single complaint.

In this state of things, intelligence was received that the Turkish
army had crossed the Danube, and was marching along the Pruth. Peter
called a council of war, and declared his intention of advancing at
once to meet the enemy; in which measure all the generals, except one,
expressed their concurrence. The dissentient officer reminded the czar
of the misfortunes of the king of Sweden in the Ukraine, and suggested
to him the possibility that Cantemir might disappoint him; but Peter was
resolved, and, after a fatiguing march for three nights over a desert
heath, the troops arrived on the 18th of June at the river Pruth. Here
they were joined by Prince Cantemir, with a few followers, and they
continued their march until the 27th, when they discovered the enemy,
to the number of 200,000 men, already crossing the river. There was no
alternative left but to form the lines of battle; and Peter, perceiving
that the enemy was endeavouring to surround him with cavalry, extended
his lines a considerable way along the right bank.

The situation of the army at this juncture was extremely unfortunate. The
great body of the Turkish soldiers were before the Russians on one side
of the river, and on the other the hostile Tatars of the Crimea. The czar
was thus completely surrounded, his means of escape by the river were cut
off, and the great numbers of the Turks rendered a flight in the opposite
direction impossible. He was placed in more critical circumstances
than Charles at Pultowa, and he had been misled, like that unfortunate
prince, by an ally who did not possess the power of fulfilling his
promise. But his presence of mind and indomitable courage never forsook
him. He formed his army, which consisted in detail of 31,554 infantry,
and only 6,692 cavalry, into a hollow square, placing the women in the
centre, and prepared to receive the disorderly but furious onslaught
of the Turks. It is evident that, if the forces of the sultan had been
commanded by skilful officers, the contest must have been speedily
terminated. But the superior discipline of the Russians was shown in the
steadiness with which they met the charge, and maintained themselves
against such great odds. The Turks injudiciously confined their attack
to one side of the square, by which, although the loss sustained by the
Russians was immense, the czar was enabled constantly to relieve the
troops, and supply the front with fresh men. The fight continued for
three days. Their ammunition was at last exhausted, and there remained
no choice between surrendering and making a desperate attempt to cut
their way through the enemy. This latter proposition is said to have
been entertained by Peter, who proposed to force a passage in the night,
accompanied by his officers and a few select men; but it is extremely
unlikely that he should have contemplated a step that must inevitably
have sacrificed the czarina and the remnant of his brave army.


_Catherine’s Heroism; the Peace of Pruth_

It is not improbable, however, that Peter may have conceived some heroic
design for forcing a passage; but the certainty of failure must have
overruled such an intention almost as soon as it was formed. After the
agitation of that eventful day, he surrendered himself to the anxiety by
which he was oppressed, and, retiring to his tent on the third night,
gave strict orders that he should be left undisturbed. It was on this
occasion that the genius and influence of the czarina preserved the
empire, her consort, and the army. She who had accompanied him through
so many dangers, who had shared in the toils of the field without
murmuring, and partaken in the fatigues consequent upon his reforms
and improvements, had a right to be heard at a moment of such critical
importance. In despite, therefore, of his prohibition she entered his
tent, and representing to him the perils by which they were on all sides
environed, urged upon him the necessity of seeking to negotiate a peace.
She not only suggested this measure, which was probably the very last
that might have occurred to Peter, but she undertook to carry it into
effect herself. It is the immemorial custom in the East to approach all
sovereigns, or their representatives, with presents, and Catherine, aware
of that usage, collected all her own jewels and trinkets, and those of
the women who had accompanied the expedition, giving a receipt for their
value to be discharged on their return to Moscow, and dispatched the
vice chancellor, accompanied by an officer, with a letter from Marshal
Sheremetrev to the grand vizir, proposing negotiations for a treaty of
peace.[42]

Some hours elapsed, and no answer was returned. It was supposed that the
bearers of the letter were put to death, or placed under arrest, when
a second officer was despatched with a duplicate of the letter, and it
was determined in a council of war, that, should the vizir refuse to
accept the proffered terms, an attempt should be made to break through
the enemy’s ranks. With this view an intrenchment was rapidly formed,
and the Russians advanced within a hundred paces of the Turkish lines. A
suspension of arms, however, was immediately proclaimed by the enemy, and
negotiations were opened for a treaty.

It would appear strange that the vizir should have consented to a
cessation of hostilities under such circumstances, when the Russians were
completely at his mercy; but he was aware that the Russian troops in
Moldavia had advanced to the Danube after reducing the town of Brabilow,
and that another division of the general army was on its march from the
frontiers of Poland. He, therefore, considered it advisable to avail
himself of that opportunity to dictate to Peter the terms upon which
he wished to terminate the campaign, knowing that if he postponed the
treaty he would be compelled to renew the war against the whole force of
the empire. The conditions he proposed were sufficiently humiliating.
He demanded the restitution of Azov, the demolition of the harbour of
Taganrog, the renouncement of all further interference in the affairs
of Poland and the Cossacks, a free passage for Charles back to his own
country, and the withdrawal from the sea of Azov and the Black Sea. Peter
subscribed to all these conditions, but refused to deliver up Prince
Cantemir to the sultan, declaring that he would rather cede to the Turks
the whole country as far as Kursk than violate his word.

This treaty, however, did not satisfy the expectations of Charles; and,
indeed, obtained for him scarcely any advantage. The only passage it
contained which directly related to him was that which bound Peter to
give him a safe return home, and to conclude a peace with him, if the
terms could be agreed upon. He never ceased to importune the sultan to
dismiss the vizir and make war upon Russia, until the Porte, wearied
by his ungrateful and frantic complaints, at last recalled the pension
allowed him, and sent him an order to leave the Turkish dominions. The
sequel of that monarch’s career presents a series of acts that abundantly
justify the suspicion that his mind was shattered by the reverses of
fortune he had undergone; for, after remaining five years in Turkey, and
venturing with a band of grooms and valets, secretaries and cooks to
make a stand against an army of janissaries, spahis, and Tatars he fled
in the disguise of a courier to his own kingdom, where he had not been
seen during that long interval and where his death had for some time been
currently believed in.

The battle of the Pruth, so fatal in its results to Peter, was a very
destructive engagement. If the statements of the czar be correct, his
army, on the first day of the engagement, consisted of 31,554 infantry,
and 6,692 cavalry, and was reduced on the last day to 22,000 men, which
would make his loss amount to 16,246. The loss sustained by the Turks was
still greater in consequence of their irregular and scattered method of
attack. But numerical details cannot always be relied upon, since they
are frequently modified to suit the views of one party or the other.
There can be no doubt, however, that the czar fought at an extraordinary
disadvantage, and that the losses on both sides were dreadful.

When the treaty was concluded, Peter returned into Russia, causing
the fortresses of Samara and Kamenka to be demolished; but, as some
unavoidable delay occurred in the surrender of Azov and Taganrog, the
sultan became dissatisfied, and Peter entered into a fresh treaty,
by which he pledged himself to evacuate Poland within three months;
stipulating, however, that Charles, who was still intriguing with the
Divan, should be required immediately to withdraw from Turkey. The
fatigues of the campaign required repose; and Peter, who had suffered
considerably by ill health, rested for some time at Carlsbad for the
benefit of the waters.

When Peter returned to St. Petersburg, he again solemnised his wedding
with the czarina, and held a festival in that city which was remarkable
for its pomp and the expression it drew forth of the popular confidence.
But this was only the prelude to fresh labours. He renewed his plans
for the improvement of the country, laid down a number of new roads,
cut several canals, enlarged his navy, and encouraged the erection of
more substantial dwellings in the new city. His ultimate design of
establishing St. Petersburg as the capital of the empire now gradually
developed itself; and the first open measure he adopted towards the
accomplishment of that object was the removal of the senate from Moscow.
The commercial advantages the people had already gained through their
communication with the Baltic had reconciled them to the change, and
the opposition with which the return had been originally received was
now considerably relaxed. But much remained yet to be done before the
prosperity of the new capital could be secured. Resistance from without
was more to be apprehended than remonstrances at home; and Peter was not
slow to act upon the necessity of circumstances.


WAR WITH SWEDEN (1714 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1714 A.D.]]

The possession of Pomerania, the most northerly of the German provinces,
was necessary to the projects of the czar, who desired as much to
humiliate the king of Sweden as to secure the safety of his establishment
on the embouchure of the Neva. Pomerania, which lies north and south
between the Baltic and Mecklenburg, had passed through the hands of
several masters, and had at last been ceded to Gustavus Adolphus in the
Thirty Years’ War. In order to render his design more certain, Peter
entered into a league with the electors of Brandenburg and Hanover, and
the king of Denmark, drawing up the articles himself, and the details of
the necessary operations. Stralsund was first blockaded, and the allied
forces proceeded along the Wismar road, followed at a distance by the
Swedish troops under the command of Count Stenbock, who, coming up with
the Danish and Saxon divisions before the Russians had time to join
them, completely routed them in a few hours. This slight check to their
progress was soon repaired by a victory obtained by Peter over Stenbock
(whose march was signalised by disgraceful excesses), in the little town
of Altona, close to Hamburg, which he reduced to ashes.

The Russian army went into quarters for the winter, and the campaign
was again renewed with vigour in the following year, when Stenbock was
compelled to abandon the town of Tenningen, into which he had obtained
entrance by the intrigues of Baron Görtz, one of the most crafty and
unprincipled diplomatists of his age. Stenbock and eleven thousand Swedes
surrendered themselves prisoners of war, and although the ransom demanded
for the liberation of that general was only 8,000 imperial crowns, he was
suffered to linger in the dungeons of Copenhagen until the day of his
death. Nearly the whole of Pomerania was overrun and partitioned amongst
the allies, scarcely a place remaining in the possession of Sweden
except Stralsund, the siege of which Peter confided to Menshikov, while
he returned to St. Petersburg to make preparations for a descent upon
Helsingfors in the gulf of Finland. His operations along the whole line
of that coast were equally successful. He soon mastered Bergo and Åbo,
the capital; and, transferring to St. Petersburg from the latter town a
magnificent library, he raised a building for its reception, which still
remains a witness to his enterprise and the spirit of improvement which
seemed to preside over all his actions.


_A Naval Victory; Peter’s Triumph_

But the Swedes, viewing the encroachments of the czar in Finland with
terror, and resolving to spare no means to arrest his progress, fitted
out a considerable squadron to cruise in the gulf. The czar, however,
was ready to meet them; and, setting sail from Kronstadt, fell in with
them close to the island of Åland, where, after a severe engagement, he
destroyed several of their ships, and took the admiral prisoner. The
consternation which the news of this victory spread over Sweden was so
great that even Stockholm trembled for its safety.

His return to St. Petersburg on this occasion was an ovation of more
than ordinary magnificence. The czarina had just given birth to a
daughter; and, upon his triumphal entry, Peter instituted the order of
St. Catherine to commemorate his sense of her devotion and magnanimity.
The galleys of the conquerors and the conquered sailed up the Neva in
procession, and the czar, in his capacity of rear-admiral, presented
to the senate a report of the battle, and was immediately created
vice-admiral, amidst the rejoicings of the people. It was not the least
remarkable feature in the character of this great man that he set the
example, in his own person, of ascending through the different grades of
the service by the force of his individual claims. At Pultowa he served
as major-general, and in the action in the gulf of Finland he acted as
rear-admiral, under the command of Admiral Apraxin. This precedent could
not fail to have due weight with a people who had been so long accustomed
to oppression and the right of the strong hand. It had more effect in
generating a spirit of emulation, and in eradicating the prejudices
and vices of feudal slavery, than a code of the wisest laws could have
accomplished.

St. Petersburg presented a scene of festivity such as had never been
known in Russia before. The intercourse of the people with other nations
had in a few years changed the whole character of society. Balls and
entertainments, upon a large scale, diffused amongst the inhabitants
a taste for pleasures that had been hitherto unknown to them. Public
dinners were given in the palace of the czar, to which all classes of
persons were invited, and at which the different ranks were appropriately
divided at separate tables, the czar passing from table to table, freely
conversing with his subjects on matters connected with their particular
trade or occupations. Civilisation was thus promoted in detail, and
insinuated in the most agreeable shape into the domestic usages of the
citizens.


PETER AT THE HEIGHT OF POWER

But while amusements occupied a part of the czar’s time, he was not
forgetful of the more important affairs that demanded consideration. The
necessity of establishing a naval force had always been apparent, and his
recent victories over the Swedes sufficiently testified the facility with
which it might be rendered available for the ulterior projects which the
extension and security of the empire required. He accordingly devoted
much care to the subject, and in an incredibly short period was master
of so large a fleet that he contemplated a descent upon Sweden, and even
calculated upon the possibility of entering Stockholm. Besides a variety
of galleys and other vessels, he built fifty ships of war, which were all
ready for sea within a twelvemonth.

The discovery of some large peculations amongst the ministers and several
favourites of the court just at this juncture directed the czar’s
proceedings, for a short time, into an unexpected channel. It appeared
that Menshikov, Apraxin, and others who held high offices of trust and
responsibility had, either by themselves or through their servants,
embezzled a part of the finances of the empire; that the revenues were
consequently in a state of confusion, that trade was greatly deranged,
and that the payments to the army had been made very irregularly. The
ministers, availing themselves of the new outlet for commerce, had
monopolised its chief advantages; and the Dutch merchants complained
bitterly of a system by which they were deprived of the greater part
of their profits. Peter at once established an inquisition into the
facts, and proceeded to act with the utmost rigour. He felt that the
prosperity of his new capital depended mainly upon the justice with
which its affairs were administered, and that its geographical position,
which afforded it so complete a command of maritime resources, must
cease to attract a foreign trade unless its fiscal officers possessed
the confidence of the merchants. Menshikov and the rest pleaded that
they had been engaged abroad in the service of the country, and could
not be aware of the malpractices of their servants. The czar admitted
that their plea was in some measure founded in justice; but, resolved
to make an example, he confiscated the greater part of the property of
those whose agents were proved to be guilty. The estates of the remainder
were wholly forfeited; some individuals were sentenced to the knout, and
others were banished to Siberia. This measure was loudly called for by
the necessities of the case, and the inflexible honesty of the sovereign
was never exercised with a more beneficial result.

The unhappy wife of Alexis, who had been treated by her husband with the
most cruel neglect, expired in a few days after having given birth to a
son, whose fortunes she committed to the guardianship of the czar. The
court was plunged into deep affliction by this melancholy circumstance,
and the czar in particular exhibited profound grief. But the birth of a
prince to the czarina converted their mourning into congratulations, and
the most extravagant festivities were held in honour of the event.

St. Petersburg had now gradually become the capital of Russia. Foreign
merchandise imported at Archangel was prohibited from being sent to
Moscow, and was consequently transmitted to St. Petersburg, which was
the residence of the court, of the principal nobility, and of all the
ambassadors from other powers, including at this period two from the
East. The rapidity with which its prosperity advanced was unparalleled.
Its manufactures increased with its external trade, and it soon assumed
a rank equal to that of some of the most important cities in Europe. The
fame and power of Peter were attaining their utmost height. Livonia,
Esthonia, Karelia, Ingria, and nearly the whole of Finland were now
annexed to the Russian Empire. He had established outlets to the sea by
which he could communicate in security with civilised Europe; and within
his own territories he had created new establishments adapted to the
various departments of industry, to the army, the navy, and the laws.
Prince Galitzin occupied Finland with a disciplined army; generals Bruce
and Bauer had the command of thirty thousand Russians, who were scattered
through Poland; Marshal Sheremetrev lay in Pomerania with a large
force; Weimar had surrendered by capitulation, and all the sovereigns
of the north were either his allies or his instruments. The dream of
Russian aggrandisement appeared now to be realised almost in full by the
sleepless activity and fertile genius of the czar. It was not surprising,
therefore, that the people of Stockholm daily expected that he would
appear before their gates, and, taking advantage of the disasters of
their fugitive monarch, reduce Sweden to subjection, as he had previously
laid waste the provinces that separated him from the coast of the Baltic
Sea on the one side, and the Black Sea on the other. He was master of
both shores of the gulf of Finland, and the possession of Sweden would
have given him the entire command of the Baltic and the gulf of Bothnia,
over which, even as it was, his flag ranged in freedom. But Peter was too
politic to attempt at this juncture so enormous an extension of power. He
was aware of the jealousies which such a disposition must have excited in
Germany and Poland, and he wisely contented himself with the acquisitions
he had already secured; suffering the headstrong Charles to bring his
kingdom into greater jeopardy, in the hope, probably, that it might
ultimately fall to pieces by its own weakness.

At this crisis of affairs the unprincipled Görtz endeavoured to effect
a union between the two monarchs; and negotiations, having that object
in view, were actually commenced, and might have been carried to a more
decisive conclusion but for events which diverted the attention of both
sovereigns into other channels. Görtz has been blamed for projecting this
treaty of reconciliation, and accused of desiring to accomplish through
its means a variety of results, such as the restoration of Pomerania to
Sweden and the crown of Poland to Stanislaus, the dethronement of the
king of England, and, by a conspiracy against the duke of Orléans, the
reduction of France under a Spanish regency. It is very probable that
the subtle minister might have contemplated some of these projects, that
he might have anticipated from the combined armies of the two northern
heroes the rescue of Spain and the advancement of Alberoni, and that
he might have even calculated upon the cession of Pomerania and the
recognition of Stanislaus. But, as the adviser of Charles XII, he was
justified in seeking an alliance which must in any case have greatly
benefited his master and protected his country against those imminent
dangers that appeared to be impending over it at the moment; and if he
looked beyond immediate advantages, to remote contingencies, the design
was not, on that account, the less worthy of applause. As it was, it
had the effect of openly confirming the dispositions of Peter towards
Sweden, the czar declaring that he did not enter into war for the sake
of glory, but for the good of the empire, and that he had no desire to
exhibit any feelings of animosity against an enemy whom he had deprived
of the power of doing mischief. Whatever faults may be charged upon
Görtz--and there is no doubt that they were numerous enough--history
must pronounce his conduct upon this occasion to have been guided by a
sagacious policy.


PETER’S SECOND EUROPEAN TOUR (1717 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1717 A.D.]]

Satisfied with the circumstances of the empire, and anxious to improve
his knowledge of other nations, Peter now resolved to undertake a second
tour through Europe. His first tour had been limited to practical
inquiries into the useful arts; but his second was mainly addressed to
an examination of the political systems of the European cabinets. When
he first left his own country to acquire information abroad, he was
young, ardent, uninstructed, and undistinguished; but now he had achieved
a name that was famous all over the world, and he was regarded, with
justice, as one of the most extraordinary persons of the age. During the
nineteen years that had elapsed, in the interval, he had strengthened and
enlarged his dominions, had traversed and subjugated many provinces, had
succeeded in accomplishing the great purposes of his wise ambition, and
had experienced amidst the splendid triumphs of his career some serious
reverses, from which such a mind as his could not fail to extract useful
admonitions. He went forth, followed by the gratitude of Russia, to
improve his knowledge of the means by which he could contribute still
more largely to her prosperity. The czarina accompanied him upon this
journey, but being in her third pregnancy she rested for a short time at
Schwerin, whence she soon afterwards set out to rejoin her husband at
Holland. On her way, however, she was again taken ill, and delivered at
Wesel of a prince, who died on the following day. This event, it appears,
did not delay her intention of meeting her husband in Holland, as we find
that in ten days afterwards she arrived in Amsterdam.

In the meantime Peter had visited Stralsund, Mecklenburg, Hamburg, and
Pyrmont, and subsequently proceeded to Copenhagen, where he was received
with great distinction by the king of Denmark. On this occasion, a
squadron of British ships, under the command of Sir John Norris, and a
squadron of Dutch ships, commanded by Rear-Admiral Grave, arrived at
Copenhagen; and, it being understood that a Swedish fleet was out at sea,
the four armaments, Russian, Danish, Dutch, and English, united under the
standard of the czar, and put out to sea. Not falling in with the Swedes,
who had secured their safety in Karlskrona, the fleets separated, and
Peter, taking leave of the court of Denmark, proceeded to Hamburg. This
incident was always referred to by Peter as one of the most gratifying
circumstances of his life, and even his proudest victories appeared to
afford him less pleasure than the recollection of the moment when he
raised his flag as commander-in-chief of the united fleets.

From Hamburg he continued his route to Lubeck, and had a private
interview with the king of Prussia at Havelberg, whence he returned
by the Elbe to Hamburg. The anecdotes of his journey that have been
preserved in a variety of personal memoirs are all calculated to show
the simplicity of his manners and his natural aversion to parade and
ceremony. At Nimeguen, where he arrived late at night in a common
postchaise, accompanied by only two attendants, he is said to have supped
upon poached eggs and a little bread and cheese, for which the landlord
charged 100 ducats the next morning. Peter remonstrated against the
demand, and inquired if eggs were so very scarce in that place. “No,”
replied the landlord, “but emperors are.” Peter paid the bill, and was
well satisfied to have purchased such a hint of European tactics at so
small a rate.

At Amsterdam he was received with a feeling of delight almost approaching
idolatry. The people regarded him as their pupil in the arts of commerce
and ship-building; and shared in the glories of the victor of Pultowa, as
if he were one of themselves. Nor did Peter hesitate in putting them as
much at their ease in his presence as he had done when he had formerly
lived amongst them, working like themselves and participating in their
hard labour and rude fare. The cottage in which he had resided when he
was learning the art of ship-building he now found just as he had left
it, but distinguished by the name of the Prince’s House, and preserved in
order by the affectionate people with unabated interest. Upon entering
this humble scene, he was deeply affected, and desired to be left alone.
The recollections that pressed upon him at that moment were not amongst
the least impressive of his busy life.

His residence in Holland, where he remained for three months, exhibited
a succession of trivial incidents connected with his former associates,
all of whom were recognised by the czar with the greatest cordiality;
but while he was thus engaged in revisiting the dockyards, in examining
models, and receiving small tokens of popular attachment, he was not
indifferent to matters of higher importance. The Hague, from the time of
the Peace of Nimeguen, had acquired the reputation of being the centre of
the negotiations of Europe, and was crowded with travellers and foreign
ministers. The foundations of a European revolution were then being laid
in the diplomatic circles of that place; and the czar prolonged his stay
in the Netherlands, with a view to assure himself more clearly of the
state of parties in the south and in the north, and to prepare for the
side which, in the course of time, it might become advisable for him to
take.

Keeping himself aloof from the intrigues by which he was surrounded, and
availing himself of all the opportunities within his reach of improving
his information respecting the state of Europe, he proceeded to fulfil
his intention of visiting France, after he had satisfied his curiosity
in Holland. Vast preparations, worthy of the occasion, were made in
France for his reception; but Peter, with his accustomed contempt of
splendour, desired to avoid the display as much as possible. Accompanied
by four gentlemen, he outstripped the escorts, and entered Paris without
ostentation. His journey was a succession of fêtes; wherever he appeared
he was treated with magnificence. His fame had penetrated the haunts of
art and science, as well as the halls of palaces; portraits of himself
and the czarina, medals with flattering inscriptions, and the most
ingenious devices, representing some of the events of his life, started
up before him in places where he least expected to meet such evidences of
his greatness. He stepped in the midst of triumphs, and renewed, in his
ovation at the French capital, the whole history of his glories as a hero
and a legislator. But he could not be flattered out of his simplicity.
Declining the offers of the court, he retired to a private hotel in
a remote quarter of the town, in order that he might employ his time
agreeably to his own wishes, instead of being trammelled by the fatiguing
and idle ceremonies of the Louvre.

He left Catherine behind him in Holland on this occasion, apprehending
that the witty court of France, with its sarcasms and its ceremonials,
might possibly wound by neglect the delicacy of a woman whose greatness
of soul elevated her above the conventions of the palace. The marriage
of Louis XIV with Madame de Maintenon bore some resemblance, it is
true, to his own union with Catherine; but Madame de Maintenon was an
accomplished person, and Catherine’s merits were of a different order.
Catherine was a heroine, Madame de Maintenon a fascinating woman.
Catherine had perilled life by the side of her husband, from the Pruth
to the Baltic, upon land and sea; Madame de Maintenon, retreating from
political display, was content to attest her devotion, and preserve
her supremacy, in retirement. Catherine was of obscure origin, Madame
de Maintenon was of noble birth; and while the czarina was publicly
acknowledged by Peter, Madame de Maintenon became the wife of Louis XIV
in private. Yet, although Peter determined not to risk the feelings of
the czarina in the French court, especially as the death of Louis XIV had
removed Madame de Maintenon from the position which she had previously
held, the last wish he expressed on leaving Paris was to see that
celebrated woman, the widow of the king.

Peter was not only a practical artist, but was well acquainted with
those sciences upon which the practical arts are based. He possessed
a mathematical mind and a skilful hand. The rapidity with which he
accumulated knowledge could be paralleled only by the tenacity with
which he retained it, and the facility with which he could employ it as
the occasion served. At the Academy of Sciences they placed before him,
amongst other curiosities, a map of Russia, which he instantly discovered
to be full of errors, and pointed out to the exhibitors the mistakes
they had made in the geography of his dominions, and of the tracts on
the borders of the Caspian Sea. He afterwards accepted at their hands
the honour of being admitted as a member of their body. He visited the
manufactories and mercantile depots, and carried away all the information
he could glean from them; had several private conferences with the French
ministers in relation to the subsisting peace between the northern
powers; and drew up the minutes of a treaty of commerce, which he caused
to be shaped into regular form, and negotiated on his return to St.
Petersburg.

Every moment was filled with business. He visited the tapestry of
the Gobelins, the carpets of the Savonnerie, the residences of the
goldsmiths, painters, sculptors, and mathematical instrument makers; and
so far overcame his scruples against appearing in public that he went to
see the French parliament, and attended public worship on two occasions
in state. Amongst the objects that extracted unbounded admiration from
him was the tomb of Cardinal Richelieu, one of the richest specimens
of sculpture in Paris. But it was not on account of the glories of the
chisel that it occupied his attention. He is said to have exclaimed, upon
seeing it, “Great man! I would have given half of my empire to learn of
thee how to govern the other half!”

Having satisfied his curiosity in France, he took his leave of that
country, carrying with him several artisans for the purpose of
establishing their different crafts in Russia. During the period of
his short residence in the French capital he inspired a universal
sentiment of respect. Although he did not hesitate to protest against
the luxurious extravagance of the court, and even carried the expression
of his opinions so far as to say that he “grieved for France and its
infant king, and believed that the latter was on the point of losing his
kingdom through luxury and superfluities”; yet the witty and satirical
courtiers, who observed him closely, were compelled to bear testimony
to the magnanimity of his nature. Contemporary criticism is of so much
value in the attempt to determine historical character that the opinions
which were pronounced concerning him at this period cannot be excluded
from the estimate which posterity will make of his faults and merits.
Louville,[l] who was attached to the court, describes him thus:

“His deportment is full of dignity and confidence, as becomes an absolute
master. He has large and bright eyes, with a penetrating and occasionally
stern glance. His motions, which are abrupt and hasty, betray the
violence of his passions and the impetuosity of his disposition; his
orders succeed each other rapidly and imperiously; he dismisses with
a word, with a sign, without allowing himself to be thwarted by time,
place, or circumstance, now and then forgetting even the rules of
decorum; yet with the regent and the young king he maintains his state,
and regulates all his movements according to the points of a strict and
proud etiquette. For the rest, the court discovered in him more great
qualities than bad ones; it considered his faults to be merely trivial
and superficial. It remarked that he was usually sober, and that he
gave way only now and then to excessive intemperance; that, regular in
his habits of living, he always went to bed at nine o’clock, rose at
four, and was never for a moment unemployed; and, accordingly, that
he was well-informed, and seemed to have a better knowledge of naval
affairs and fortification than any man in France.” The writers of that
period, who possessed the best opportunities of becoming acquainted
with his movements, speak in terms of admiration of the experienced
glance and skilful hand with which he selected the objects most worthy
of admiration, and of the avidity with which he examined the studios of
the artists, the manufactories, and the museums. The searching questions
which he put to learned men afforded sufficient proof, they observe,
of the sagacity of a capacious mind, which was as prompt to acquire
knowledge as it was eager to learn.

The journey of the czar through France, to rejoin the czarina at
Amsterdam, was distinguished by the same insatiable love of inquiry.
Sometimes he used to alight from his carriage, and wander into the fields
to converse with the husbandmen, taking notes of their observations,
which he treasured up for future use. The improvement of his empire was
always present to his thoughts, and he never suffered an occasion to pass
away, however trivial, from which he could extract a practical hint,
without turning it to account. His activity appeared to be incapable
of fatigue. From Amsterdam, accompanied by Catherine, he passed on to
Prussia. Upon his arrival at Berlin he went at once to a private lodging;
but the king sending his master of the ceremonies to attend upon him, the
czar informed that officer that he would wait upon his majesty the next
day at noon. Two hours before the time, a magnificent cortège of royal
carriages appeared before the door of the czar’s lodging; but when noon
arrived, they were informed that the czar was already with the king.
He had gone out by a private way, to avoid the magnificence which he
regarded as an impediment to action.

The character of Frederick of Prussia was distinguished by the same
blunt, persevering, military qualities which belonged to that of
Peter. He lived plainly, dressed like a common soldier, was extremely
abstemious, and exhibited in his habits even a needless severity of
discipline. The meeting, therefore, between sovereigns who so closely
resembled each other in their tastes, who were equally self-devoted
to the good of their people, and equally uncorrupted by the pomp and
temptations of power, was a spectacle such as history rarely presents.
The czarina was worthy of entering into the scene, for she was the only
female sovereign in Europe who could share, without shrinking, the toils
and difficulties of their career. Voltaire remarks that if Charles XII
had been admitted to the group, four crowned heads would have been seen
together, surrounded by less luxury than a German bishop or a Roman
cardinal.

But, while Peter, Catherine, and Frederick entertained an utter contempt
for ostentatious display, the fashion of the court, which was probably
directed by the queen, rendered it necessary that the illustrious
visitors should be treated with a show of grandeur and parade which
they despised. They were entertained in a costly style at the palace;
and their manners did not fail to excite the sarcasms and gossip of the
courtiers, who were incapable of comprehending the real dignity of their
character, and who were disappointed to find in the czar and czarina
of Russia a couple of plain, rough, and, agreeably to their notions,
vulgar persons. The particulars of this visit to the court of Prussia
are minutely commemorated in the loose and satirical memoirs of the day;
while the visits to Paris, Amsterdam, and London are recorded, without
a single exception, in a spirit of grave admiration, that exhibits a
curious contrast to the flippant tracasseries of Berlin.

Amongst the most pert and lively writers who chronicled the visit and
caricatured the czar and his simple train of followers, is the markgräfin
von Bayreuth. She gives a very amusing account in her memoirs of the
reception at court; and says that when Peter approached to embrace the
queen, her majesty looked as if she would rather be excused. Their
majesties were attended, she informs us, by a whole train of what were
called ladies, as part of their suite, consisting chiefly of young
German women, who performed the part of ladies’ maids, chamber-maids,
cook-maids, and washerwomen; almost every one of whom had a richly
clothed child in her arms. The queen, it is added, refused to salute
these creatures. At table the czar was seized with one of his convulsive
fits, at a moment when he happened to have a knife in his hand, and the
queen was so frightened that she attempted to leave the table; but Peter
told her not to be uneasy, assuring her that he would do her no harm. On
another occasion, he caught her by the hand with such force that she was
obliged to desire him to be more respectful; on which he burst out into a
loud fit of laughter, and said that she was much more delicate than his
Catherine. But the most entertaining part of the whole is a sketch of the
personal appearance of the uncultivated sovereigns. “The czarina,” says
the markgräfin, “is short and lusty, remarkably coarse, and without grace
or animation. One needs only see her to be satisfied of her low birth.
At the first blush one would take her for a German actress. Her clothes
looked as if bought at a doll-shop, everything was so old-fashioned
and so bedecked with silver and tinsel. She was decorated with a dozen
orders, portraits of saints, and relics, which occasioned such a clatter
that when she walked one would suppose an ass with bells was approaching.
The czar, on the contrary, is tall and well made. His countenance is
handsome; but there is something in it so rude that it inspires one
with dread. He was dressed like a seaman, in a frock, without lace or
ornament.” The spirit of the tiring-woman shines through the whole of
this saucy and superficial description. The markgräfin took the measure
of the illustrious visitors as she would of her lady’s robe--colour,
spangles, and shape. It never occurred to her that, in the little coarse
woman who looked so like a German actress, she saw the heroine of the
Pruth; and that the rude seaman who frightened the queen was the man
who, amidst ignorant wonder and superstitious resistance, laid the
foundations of the most gigantic empire that the world has ever seen! But
the circumstances under which the markgräfin obtained her impressions
were unfavourable to the formation of a just opinion, or, indeed, of any
opinion at all. She was only eight years of age when she saw Peter and
Catherine, although she had arrived at a mature age when she wrote her
memoirs. She retained no more than the silly whispers and jests of the
ante-chamber. She noted down what she heard rather than what she thought;
but it serves to show very clearly the sort of atmosphere in which the
eccentric Frederick moved, and the courtly weaknesses against which,
in his own person, he must have been compelled to sustain a continual
warfare.

On Peter’s return through Holland, he purchased a variety of pictures of
the Dutch and Flemish schools, several zoölogical, entomological, and
anatomical cabinets, and a large collection of books. With the treasures
thus accumulated he laid the foundation of the imperial Academy of
Sciences, the plan of which he drew up himself. He would probably have
lingered longer in those countries, but for the intelligence which he
received concerning the conduct of his son Alexis, which induced him to
hasten to St. Petersburg under the agitation of bitter feelings, in which
the natural dispositions of the father were drawn into direct collision
with the duty of the sovereign.[c]


THE CZAREVITCH ALEXIS DISINHERITED (1718 A.D.)

The czar arrived at St. Petersburg from his foreign tour on the 21st of
October, 1717. Twenty years before he had signalised his return from
a first visit to civilised countries by the inhuman butchery of the
strelitz, and now he was about to give still more appalling evidence of
the deep depravity of his heart.

Peter’s early aversion to Eudoxia had a most deplorable influence on
Alexis, the son she bore him in 1690. The dissensions between the
father and the mother speedily diminished the father’s affection for
Alexis. Moreover, as Peter’s vast labours prevented him from paying much
attention to the education of his son, Alexis at first grew up under
female tuition, and then fell into the hands of some of the clergy, under
whose guidance he daily conceived a greater abhorrence for his father.
This being observed by Peter, he put an end to the spiritual education,
and appointed Menshikov superintendent of the prince’s preceptors.

Menshikov was no friend to Alexis, and the latter had been early inspired
by his mother with contempt and aversion for the favourite of his
father. The tutors who were now placed about the prince were not able
to eradicate the prejudices impressed on his mind from his infancy,
and now grown inveterate; besides, he had an unconquerable dislike to
them as foreigners. The future sovereign of so vast an empire that was
now reformed in all its parts, and by prosperous wars still further
enlarged; the heir of a throne whose possessor ruled over many millions
of people, had been brought up from his birth as if designed for a
Russian bishop; theology continued to be his favourite study. With a
capacity for those sciences which are useful in government, he discovered
no inclination to them. Moreover, he addicted himself early in life to
drunkenness and other excesses. There were not wanting such as flattered
his perverse dispositions, by representing to him that the Russian nation
was dissatisfied with his father, that it was impossible for him to be
suffered long in his career of innovation, that even his life was not
likely to hold out against so many fatigues, with many other things of a
like nature.

The conduct of Alexis, particularly his indolence and sloth, were highly
displeasing to Peter. Menshikov, from political motives, to preserve
himself and Catherine, was constantly employed in fanning the czar’s
resentment, while the adherents of Alexis, on the other hand, seized
every opportunity to increase the aversion of the prince, who, from his
very cradle, had never known what it was to love, and had only dreaded
his father. Alexis at times even gave plain intimations that he would
hereafter undo all that his father was so sedulously bringing about. Nay,
when the latter, in 1711, appointed the prince regent during his absence,
in the campaign of the Pruth, Alexis made it his first business to alter
many things in behalf of the clergy, so as clearly to evince in what
school he had been brought up.

The czar was in hopes of reforming his son by uniting him with a
worthy consort; but even this attempt proved fruitless. The princess
of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, who was selected for his bride, and to
whom Alexis was married at Torgau, in 1711, notwithstanding all her
eminent qualities of mind and heart and her great beauty, could make no
impression on him, and sank under the load of grief brought on by this
unhappy connection, soon after giving birth to a prince, who was called
by the name of his grandfather, Peter (1715). By a continuance in his
dissolute mode of life, by his bad behaviour towards his spouse, and his
intercourse with persons who were notorious for their hatred of Peter and
his reforms, Alexis seemed bent upon augmenting his father’s displeasure.

After the death of the princess, Peter wrote his son a letter, the
conclusion of which ran thus: “I will still wait awhile, to see if you
will amend; if not, know that I will deprive you of the succession, as a
useless limb is cut off. Do not imagine I am only frightening you; nor
would I have you rely on the title of being my eldest son; for since I
do not spare my own life for the good of my country and the prosperity
of my people, why should I spare yours? I shall rather commit them to a
stranger deserving such a trust than to my own undeserving offspring.”

At this very juncture the empress Catherine was delivered of a prince,
who died in 1719. Whether the above letter disheartened Alexis, or
whether it was imprudence or bad advice, he wrote to his father that he
renounced the crown, and all hopes of reigning. “God is my witness,” said
he, “and I swear upon my soul, that I will never claim the succession;
I commit my children into your hands, and for myself desire only a
subsistence during life.”

His father wrote to him a second time. “I observe,” says he, “that all
you speak of in the letter is the succession, as if I stood in need
of your consent. I have represented to you what grief your behaviour
has given me for so many years, and not a word do you say of it; the
exhortations of a father make no impression on you. I have brought
myself to write to you once more; but for the last time. If you despise
my counsels now I am living, what regard will be paid to them after my
death? Though you may now mean not to violate your promises, yet those
bushy beards will be able to wind you as they please, and force you to
break your word. It is you those people rely on. You have no gratitude to
him who gave you life. Since you have been of proper age, did you ever
assist him in his labours? Do you not find fault with, do you not detest
everything I do for the good of my people? I have all the reason in the
world to believe that, if you survive me, you will overthrow all that I
have been doing. Amend, make yourself worthy of the succession, or turn
monk. Let me have your answer either in writing, or personally, or I will
deal with you as a malefactor.”

Though this letter was harsh, the prince might easily have answered
that he would alter his behaviour; but he only acquainted his father,
in a few lines, that he would turn monk. This assurance did not appear
natural; and it is something strange that the czar, going to travel,
should leave behind him a son so obstinate, but this very journey proves
that the czar was in no manner of apprehension of a conspiracy from
his son. He went to see him before he set out for Germany and France;
the prince being ill, or feigning to be so, received him in bed, and
confirmed to him, by the most solemn oaths, that he would retire into a
convent. The czar gave him six months for deliberation, and set out with
his consort.

He had scarcely reached Copenhagen when he received advice (which was no
more than he might well expect) that Alexis admitted into his presence
only evil-minded persons, who humoured his discontent; on this the czar
wrote to him that he must choose the convent or the throne, and, if he
valued the succession, to come to him at Copenhagen.

The prince’s confidants instilled into him a suspicion that it would be
dangerous for him to put himself into the hands of a provoked father
and a mother-in-law, without so much as one friend to advise with. He
therefore feigned that he was going to wait on his father at Copenhagen,
but took the road to Vienna, and threw himself on the protection of the
emperor Charles VI, his brother-in-law, intending to continue at his
court till the czar’s death.

This was an adventure something like that of Louis XI, who, whilst he was
dauphin, withdrew from the court of Charles VII, his father, to the duke
of Burgundy. Louis was, indeed, much more culpable than the czarevitch,
by marrying in direct opposition to his father, raising troops, and
seeking refuge with a prince, his father’s natural enemy, and never
returning to court, not even at the king’s repeated entreaties.

Alexis, on the contrary, had married purely in obedience to the czar’s
order, and had not revolted nor raised troops; neither, indeed, had he
withdrawn to a prince in anywise his father’s enemy; and, on the first
letter he received from his father, he went and threw himself at his
feet. For Peter, on receiving advice that his son had been at Vienna, and
had removed thence to Naples, then belonging to the emperor Charles VI,
sent Romanzov, a captain of the guards, and Tolstoi, a privy-councillor,
with a letter in his own hand, dated from Spa, the 21st of July, N.S.
1717. They found the prince at Naples, in the castle of St. Elmo, and
delivered him the letter, which was as follows:

“I now write to you, and for the last time, to let you know that you had
best comply with my will, which Tolstoi and Romanzov will make known to
you. On your obedience, I assure you, and promise before God, that I will
not punish you; so far from it, that if you return I will love you better
than ever. But if you do not, by virtue of the power I have received from
God as your father, I pronounce against you my eternal curse; and as your
sovereign, I assure you I shall find ways to punish you; in which I hope,
as my cause is just, God will take it in hand, and assist me in revenging
it. Remember further that I never used compulsion with you. Was I under
any obligation to leave you to your own option? Had I been for forcing
you, was not the power in my hand? At a word, I should have been obeyed.”

Relying on the faith thus solemnly given by a father and a sovereign,
Alexis returned to Russia. On the 11th of February, 1717, N.S., he
reached Moscow, where the czar then was, and had a long conference in
private with his father. A report immediately was spread through the city
that a reconciliation had taken place between the father and son, and
that everything was forgotten; but the very next day the regiments of
guards were ordered under arms, and the great bell of Moscow tolled. The
boyars and privy-councillors were summoned to the castle: the bishops,
the archimandrites, and two monks of the order of St. Basil, professors
of divinity, met in the cathedral. Alexis was carried into the castle
before his father without a sword, and as a prisoner; he immediately
prostrated himself, and with a flood of tears delivered to his father a
writing, in which he acknowledged his crimes, declared himself unworthy
of the succession, and asked only his life. The czar, raising him up, led
him to a closet, where he put several questions to him, declaring, that
if he concealed anything relating to his escape, his head should answer
for it. Afterwards the prince was brought back into the council-chamber,
where the czar’s declaration, which had been drawn up beforehand, was
publicly read.

The father in this piece reproached his son with his manifold vices, his
remissness in improving himself, his intimacy with the sticklers for
ancient customs, his misbehaviour towards his consort: “He has,” says
he, “violated conjugal faith, taking up with a low-born wench whilst his
wife was living.” Alexis might fairly have pleaded that in this kind
of debauchery he came immeasurably short of his father’s example. He
afterwards reproaches him with going to Vienna, and putting himself under
the emperor’s protection. He says that Alexis had slandered his father,
intimating to the emperor Charles VI that he was persecuted; and that a
longer stay in Muscovy was dangerous, unless he renounced the succession;
nay, that he went so far as to desire the emperor openly to defend him by
force of arms.[e]


_Death of the Czarevitch Alexis_

[Sidenote: [1718 A.D.]]

The proceedings against the czarevitch and his friends lasted for about
half a year: they were begun in Moscow and continued in St. Petersburg;
the cells of the fortress of the latter place were filled with prisoners,
amongst whom were two members of the royal family--the czarevitch
and Marie Alexievna; fresh persons were continually added to their
number, denounced under the pressure of unbearable tortures. One of the
differences between the legal proceedings of that period and the present
consists in the fact that, when we now have the evidence of a crime
before us, we endeavour to discover the persons guilty of it, whereas
then they sought to find out whether someone had not done something
criminal.

In May a “declaration” or manifesto was issued setting forth the
czarevitch’s crimes. His whole life was related in the manifesto;
mention was made of his idleness in studying, his disobedience to his
father’s will, his ill treatment of his wife, and finally his flight and
his apparent solicitation of the help of the German emperor and “the
protection of an armed hand,”--which was not at all clearly proved by the
evidence. There was, however, no mention in the manifesto of the fact
that he had been promised an unconditional pardon and the permission to
live at a distance with his beloved Euphrosyne. For all these offences,
for his disobedience to his father, his treachery and dissimulation, the
czarevitch and his “accomplices” were delivered up for judgment to the
tribunal; but this tribunal was not an ordinary one: it was a special
one, composed of persons named by Peter himself. Why was such a departure
made from the usual order of things? In matters of peculiar importance,
when it happened that persons in proximity to the throne were to be
judged, it was not unfrequent in western Europe that special, so-called
supreme tribunals were named. But this custom always gave reason to
suppose that the members of those supreme tribunals were only chosen
from amongst those who would be ready to fulfil the will of him who had
named them.

The committee appointed to judge the czarevitch consisted of 127 members
of the clergy and laity; in the instructions given by the czar to the
first it was enjoined that they should act “without any hypocrisy or
partiality”; in the instructions given to the laity the following was
signified: “I ask you in order that this matter may be truthfully
accomplished, without seeking to flatter me; without any respect for
persons, to act righteously, and not to destroy your souls and mine, so
that our consciences may be pure at the terrible day of judgment, and
our country secure.” Such were the words that the czar addressed to the
tribunal; they were fine in themselves, but their signification could not
have been great, because the judges were not independent. The conceptions
of the present time require that judges should not be afraid of being
dismissed from their functions, of being deprived of the salaries
accompanying these functions, and so on--then only can a judge be
entirely impartial; but were the judges of the czarevitch and in general
all the judges of that time in such a position? They were all persons in
the government service and entirely dependent on their chiefs; in the
present case whom was it they risked displeasing? The czar himself! It
was natural that they should try and read the czar’s will in the eyes of
Menshikov, Tolstoi, and others of his intimates.

On the 24th of June, 1718, the sentence of the supreme tribunal was
pronounced. The clergy refused to pronounce sentence, but the laity
unanimously decreed the penalty of death against the czarevitch.
Execution, however, did not follow, but something far more terrible than
a public death on the scaffold did--the czarevitch was tortured on the
rack. In fact, during the last days of the sitting of the tribunal, he
had been several times subjected to it and, he was even tortured after
sentence had been passed upon him! All this was more than the feeble
organism of the czarevitch could bear, and on the 26th of June he died
in a cell of the Petersburg fortress. Amongst the number of his friends
and sharers in his flight many were executed, others banished to distant
places, to monasteries and fortresses; amongst the latter was also the
czarevna Marie Alexievna, who was sent to Schlüsselburg.

Such is one of the darkest episodes of the reign of Peter. The czarevitch
Alexis could not have continued the work commenced by his father; he
could not have succeeded him; he might have been judged, even condemned,
if the tribunal (but an impartial tribunal) had found him guilty, and
his head might have fallen at the hands of the public executioner like
that of a criminal. But he was promised pardon if he would return, and
having returned he was delivered up to the tribunal, he was judged by
persons in whose impartiality it is impossible to believe; finally he
was tortured after sentence was pronounced, when everywhere, even to the
most insignificant of men and the greatest of criminals, time is given
to prepare for death. For these things history cannot forgive the czar.
Upon contemporaries the judgment and death of the czarevitch produced
a deep impression. There were persons who admired the czar’s decision
to sacrifice his son to the welfare of the country and his great plans;
they compared him to Brutus. But there were but few such persons and they
for the greater part were foreigners and not Russians. The greatness of
Brutus and civic virtues in general did not powerfully move the hearts of
our forefathers; but each of them felt that it was unnatural for a father
to take away his son’s life!

Terrible rumours as to the details of the czarevitch’s death began to
be current amongst the people; some said that he had been secretly
poisoned, others that he had been strangled, and yet others that the
czar himself had cut off his head in the cell. All these were fables,
but fables which, however, may even now be met with in the works of many
foreign authors and which also prove how powerfully the imagination of
contemporaries was affected by this event and how much it was talked
of. That noble quality of human nature--sympathy with sufferings even
when they are deserved--made the czarevitch dearer still to his numerous
partisans. The idea that Peter had indeed been “changed” became stronger.
The common people, the merchants, the clergy, even distinguished persons,
when they were not afraid of being overheard, said: “Would such a thing
have been possible if he were the rightful czar--would he have killed his
son and made the czarevna take the veil?” In some more fanatical minds
the idea became confirmed that the czarevitch was alive and the name of
the unfortunate young man became, as did in previous times the name of
the czarevitch Dmitri, an ensign for impostors and pretenders.[h]


DOMESTIC AFFAIRS

The appalling episode we have just related was so far from engrossing
the thoughts of the czar that it hardly interrupted the course of his
ordinary occupations. Nay, as if to darken still more the tragic horrors
of the year 1718, by mingling with them the coarsest and most disgusting
buffoonery, it was in that very year he instituted the crapulous
burlesque of the Conclave. The occasion of it was this: During the czar’s
visit to Paris, the doctors of the Sorbonne addressed him with the view
of effecting a union between the Russo-Greek church and that of Rome, and
they presented to him a memorial full of learned arguments against the
schismatical tenets of his co-religionists. This memorial only gave great
offence to the court of Rome, without pleasing either the emperor or the
church of Russia.

“In this plan of reunion,” says Voltaire, “there were some political
matters which they did not understand, and some points of controversy
which they said they understood and which each party explained according
to its humour. There was a question about the Holy Ghost, who, according
to the Latins, proceeds from the Father and the Son; and according to
the Greeks, at present, proceeds from the Father, through the Son, after
having, for a long time, proceeded from the Father only. They quoted
St. Epiphanius, who says that ‘the Holy Ghost is not the Son’s brother,
nor the Father’s grandson.’ But the czar, at leaving Paris, had other
business than to explain passages from St. Epiphanius; however, he
received the Sorbonne’s memorial with great affability. They also wrote
to some Russian bishops, who returned a polite answer; but the greater
number received the overture with indignation.” It was to dissipate the
apprehensions of this reunion that, after expelling the Jesuits from his
dominions, he instituted the mock conclave, as he had previously set on
foot other burlesque exhibitions, for the purpose of turning the office
of patriarch into ridicule.

There was at his court an old man named Sotov, an enormous drunkard,
and a court-fool of long standing; he had taught the czar to write, and
by this service imagined that he deserved the highest dignities. Peter
promised to confer on him one of the most eminent in the known world: he
created him _kniaz papa_, that is to say, prince-pope, with a salary of
2,000 roubles, and a palace at St. Petersburg, in the Tatar ward. Sotov
was enthroned by buffoons; four fellows, who stammered, were appointed
to harangue him on his exaltation; his mock holiness created a number of
cardinals, and rode in procession at the head of them, sitting astride
on a cask of brandy, which was laid on a sledge drawn by four oxen. They
were followed by other sledges loaded with food and drink; and the march
was accompanied by the rough music of drums, trumpets, horns, hautboys,
and fiddles, all playing out of tune; and the clattering of pots and
pans, brandished by a troop of cooks and scullions. The train was swelled
by a number of men dressed as monks of various Romish orders, and each
carrying a bottle and glass. The czar and his courtiers brought up the
rear, the former in the garb of a Dutch skipper, the latter in various
comic disguises.

When the procession arrived at the place where the conclave was to be
held the cardinals were led into a long gallery, part of which had been
boarded off into a range of closets in each of which a cardinal was
shut up with plenty of food and intoxicating liquors. To every one of
their eminences were attached two conclavists--cunning young fellows,
whose business it was to ply their principals well with drink, carry
real or pretended messages to and fro between the members of the sacred
college, and provoke them to bawl out all sorts of abuse of each other
and of their respective families. The czar listened eagerly to all
this ribaldry, not forgetting in the midst of his glee to note down on
his tablets any hints of which it might be possible for him to make a
vindictive use. The cardinals were not released from confinement until
they were all agreed upon a number of farcical questions submitted to
them by the _kniaz papa_.

The orgie lasted three days and three nights. The doors of the conclave
were at last thrown open in the middle of the day, and the pope and his
cardinals were carried home dead drunk on sledges--that is to say, such
of them as survived; for some had actually died during the debauch, and
others never recovered from its effects. This stupid farce was repeated
three times; and on the last occasion especially it was accompanied with
other abominations, which admit of no description. Peter himself had his
death accelerated by his excesses in the last conclave.

From 1714 to 1717 Peter published ninety-two ordinances or regulations;
in 1718 alone, in that year of crime, thirty-six ukases, or regulations,
were promulgated, and twenty-seven in 1719. The majority of them related
directly to his new establishments. The council of mines dates in its
origin from that period, as do also the uniformity of weights and
measures, the institution of schools for teaching arithmetic in all the
towns of the empire; that of orphan-houses and foundling-hospitals,
of workshops for the poor, and of manufactories of tapestry, silks,
linens, and cloths for soldiers’ clothing; the founding of the city of
Ladoga; the canal of the same name, which he began with his own hands;
that of Kronstadt; the plan of another, which now unites the Baltic to
the Caspian by the intermedium of the Volga; besides numerous measures
of detail, including the police, the health of towns, lighting and
cleansing, founded upon what he had remarked during the previous year in
the great cities of Europe.

At this sanguinary epoch it was that, by this multitude of establishments
for the promotion of all kinds of industry, he gave the most rapid
impulse to the knowledge, commerce, and civilisation to which he
sacrificed his son; as though, by thus redoubling his activity, he had
sought to escape from himself, or to palliate, by the importance of the
result, the horror of the sacrifice. In several of these ordinances it
is remarkable that, either from the inconsistency which is inherent in
our nature or from the pride of a despot, which believes itself to be
detached from and above everything, he required respect to be paid to
religion, at the very moment when, with such cruelty, he was paying
no respect to the sanctity of his own oath; and yet the importance
of keeping sworn faith must have been well known to a prince who one
day said, “The irreligious cannot be tolerated because, by sapping
religion, they turn into ridicule the sacredness of an oath, which is the
foundation of all society.”

It is true that, on this occasion, pushing right into wrong, as he too
often did, he mutilated and banished to Siberia a miserable creature
who, when drunk, had been guilty of blasphemy. So intolerant was he
against intolerance. The raskolniks were, and still are, the blind and
uncompromising enemies of all innovation. One of them, at that period,
even believed that he might avenge heaven by an assassination. Under the
guise of a suppliant, this fanatic had easily penetrated into the chamber
of the prince; he was already within reach of him, and, while he feigned
to implore him, his hand was seeking for the dagger under his clothes,
when, fortunately, it dropped and betrayed the assassin, by falling at
the feet of the czar.

This abortive crime had made the persecution rage with redoubled fury
when, all at once, a frightful report was spread; it was soon confirmed
that several hundred of these wretched beings had taken refuge in a
church, and, rather than abjure their superstitions, had set fire to
their asylum, leaving nothing but their ashes to their persecutor. A
horrible sacrifice, which, however, was not useless. Peter saw his error;
his intolerance was only political--it was enlightened by these flames,
which religious intolerance witnessed with such atrocious joy.

Yet, unable to forgive these sectaries an obstinacy which was victorious
over his own, he once more tried against them the weapon of ridicule.
He ordered that they should wear a bit of yellow stuff on their backs,
to distinguish them from his other subjects. This mark of humiliation,
however, they considered as a distinction. Some malignant advisers
endeavoured to rouse his anger again, but he replied, “No; I have learned
that they are men of pure morals; they are the most upright merchants
in the empire; and neither honour nor the welfare of the country will
allow of their being martyred for their errors. Besides, that which a
degrading badge and force of reason have been unable to effect will never
be accomplished by punishment; let them, therefore, live in peace.”

These were remarkable words, and worthy the pupil of Holland and England,
worthy of a prince to whom superstition was a most inveterate enemy. In
reality, he was a believer, but not credulous; and even while he knelt
on the field of victory, he gave thanks to God alone for the reward of
so many toils, and could separate the cause of heaven from that of the
priests; it was his wish that they should be citizens. We have seen that
he subjected them to the same taxes as his other subjects; and because
the monks eluded them he diminished their numbers. He unmasked the
superstitious impostures of the priests, who all sought to close up every
cranny by which the light might have a chance of reaching them.

For this reason, they held St. Petersburg in abhorrence. According to
their description of it, this half-built city, by which Russia already
aspired to civilisation, was one of the mouths of hell. It was they
who obtained from the unfortunate Alexis a promise that it should be
destroyed. Their prophecies repeatedly fixed the epoch at which it would
be overthrown by the wrath of heaven. The labours upon it were then
suspended, for so great was the fear thus inspired that the orders of the
terrible czar were issued almost in vain.

On one occasion, these lying priests were for some days particularly
active; they displayed one of their sacred images, from which the tears
flowed miraculously; it wept the fate which impended over those who dwelt
in this new city. “Its hour is at hand,” said they, “and it will be
swallowed up, with all its inhabitants, by a tremendous inundation.” On
hearing of this miracle of the tears, the treacherous construction which
was put upon it, and the perturbation which it occasioned, Peter thought
it necessary to hasten to the spot. There, in the midst of the people,
who were petrified with terror, and of his tongue-tied court, he seized
the miraculous image, and discovered its mechanism; the multitude were
stupefied with a pious horror, but he opened their eyes by showing them,
in those of the idol, the congealed oil, which was melted by the flame
of tapers inside, and then flowed drop by drop through openings artfully
provided for the purpose.

[Sidenote: [1719 A.D.]]

At a later period he did still more; the horrible execution of a young
Russian by the priests was the cause. This unfortunate man had brought
back from Germany a highly valuable knowledge of medicine, and had left
there some superstitious prejudices. For this reason all his motions were
watched by the priests; and they at last caught up some thoughtless words
against their sacred images. They immediately arrested the regenerated
young Russian, sentenced him without mercy, and put him to a torturing
death. But this individual evil produced a general good. Indignant at
their cruelty, Peter deprived the clergy of the right of condemning
to death. The priests lost a jurisdiction which they alleged they had
possessed for seven centuries, from the time of Vladimir the Great, and
thus the source of their power was forever annihilated by this execrable
abuse of it.

It was particularly in that sanguinary year, so fatal to the last hope
which the old Russians placed in his successor, that Peter seemed in
haste to sever them from their ancient customs, by giving an entirely
new form to the administration of his empire. As far back as 1711, he
had already replaced the old supreme court of the boyars by a senate, a
sovereign council, into which merit and services might obtain admission,
independent of noble origin. Subsequently, and every year, other changes
had been effected. Thus, in 1717, he brought from France, along with a
commercial treaty, the institution of a general police. But, in 1718,
instead of the old prikaz, he substituted, at one stroke, colleges for
foreign affairs, naval affairs, finance, justice, and commerce, and
fixed, by a general regulation, and with the utmost minuteness, the
functions and privileges of each of them.

At the same time, when capable Russians were not to be found, he
appointed his Swedish prisoners, and the most eminent of the foreigners,
to fill these administrative and judicial situations. He was careful to
give the highest offices to natives, and the second to foreigners, that
the native officers might support, against the pride and jealousy of
their countrymen, these foreigners who served them as instructors and
guides. For the purpose of forming his young nobles for the service of
the state, he adjoined a considerable number of them to each college; and
there merit alone could raise them from the lowest stations to the first
rank.


RENEWED HOSTILITIES WITH SWEDEN (1719-1721 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1719-1720 A.D.]]

The death of Charles XII was immediately followed by a revolution in
Sweden. His sister Ulrica Eleonora, who was married to the crown prince
of Hesse-Cassel, succeeded him on the throne; but the constitution was
changed, the despotic authority of the crown was reduced to a mere
shadow, and the queen and her husband became the tools of an oligarchy
who usurped all the powers of the state. The czar and the new queen
mutually protested their desire for peace; but Peter at the same time
announced to the Swedish plenipotentiaries that, if the propositions
he had made were not accepted within two months, he would march forty
thousand men into Sweden to expedite the negotiations.

A project for the pacification of the north, the very opposite from that
conceived by Görtz, was formed by the diet of Brunswick. The concocters
of this scheme started from the principle that the German possessions of
Sweden were more onerous than profitable to that power, as the occasions
of interminable wars. It was resolved, therefore, that they should be
abandoned to the powers that had conquered them; but as it was reasonable
that the new possessors should purchase the ratification of their titles
by some services to the common cause, they were required to aid Sweden
in recovering possession of Finland and of Livonia, the granary of that
kingdom. Of all the czar’s conquests nothing was to be left to him but
St. Petersburg, Kronstadt, and Narva; and, if he refused to assent to
this arrangement, all the contracting powers were to unite their forces
and compel him to submit. This was one of those brilliant and chimerical
schemes with which diplomatists sometimes allow their minds to be so
dazzled as not to be convinced of their impracticability until after a
lavish waste of blood.

Whilst the allies were in imagination depriving Peter of his conquests,
Siniavin, his admiral, took from the Swedes two ships of the line and
a brigantine, which were carrying corn to Stockholm. The queen of
Sweden, however, encouraged by the promises made her by Lord Carteret,
the ambassador of George I, intimated to the czar that she would break
off the conferences at Åland if he did not consent to restore all the
provinces he had conquered. By way of reply, Peter went in June, 1719,
with a fleet of 30 ships, 150 galleys, and 300 barges, carrying in all
40,000 men, to Åland, took up his station for a while under the cliffs
of the island of Lämeland, and sent Apraxin to ravage the wastes on
the right of Stockholm, whilst Lessy destroyed everything on the left
of the city. North and south Telge, Nyköping, Norköping, Osthammer,
and Oregrund, together with two small towns, were burned, besides 150
noble mansions, 43 mills, 1,360 villages, 21 copper, iron, and tile
works--among the iron works one was worth 300,000 dollars; 100,000 cattle
were slaughtered, and 80,000 bars of iron thrown into the sea. The
mines were blown up and the woods set on fire, and Stockholm itself was
seriously threatened. Meanwhile, the English fleet under Admiral Norris
again entered the Baltic. Peter sent a message to the English admiral
asking peremptorily whether he came only as a friend to Sweden or as an
enemy to Russia. The admiral’s answer was that as yet he had no positive
orders. This equivocal reply did not hinder Peter from keeping the sea,
and incessantly harassing the Swedes before the eyes of their naval
allies.

The Swedish oligarchs and their mock king[43] had reckoned in vain upon
the intercession of the English ambassador, and the aid of the admiral
and his fleet. Carteret was not even listened to by Peter, and Admiral
Norris did not venture to attack the Russians, because he knew that the
English nation was dissatisfied with the politics of their king and of
his ministers, who favoured his Hanoverian plans. The Swedes were at
length obliged to acquiesce in the Russian demands; negotiations for
peace were again commenced in Nystad at the end of the year 1720, but
their conclusion was only brought about at the close of the following
year by the exercise of some further cruelties on the part of the
Russians. The Swedes had demanded a cessation of hostilities during the
whole time in which the negotiations were pending, but Peter only granted
it till May, 1721, in order to compel the council of state to come to
a resolution by that time; and as they still procrastinated, the whole
coast of Sweden was again plundered and devastated in the month of June.

[Sidenote: [1721 A.D.]]

The Russian incendiaries landed in sight of the English, whose fleet
under Admiral Norris, still continued in the Baltic, but did not venture
to lend any assistance to the Swedes. The whole coast, from Gefle as
far as Umeå, was ravaged; four small towns, nineteen villages, eighty
nobles’ and five hundred peasants’ houses burned; twelve iron-works and
eight saw-mills destroyed; six galleys and other ships carried away.
Peter’s plenipotentiaries at last prevailed--for he so jocularly called
his soldiers and sailors who were committing such horrible destruction
in Sweden. Negotiations were again opened in Nystad, a small town in
Finland, and the war of twenty-one years was closed by a peace dictated
by the conquering czar.

The provinces ceded to Russia by the Peace of Nystad (September 10th,
1721) were Livonia, Esthonia, and Karelia, together with Viborg, Kexholm,
and the island of Ösel; on the other hand, Peter restored Finland, with
the exception of Viborg and Kexholm, and promised to pay two millions of
dollars, but in the first years of the peace scarcely paid off half a
million.

From this time forward, the despotic sway and military oppression of
Russia became the dread of all neighbouring countries and people. All
contributed to the external greatness and splendour of the ruler of a
barbarous but powerful race of slaves, whom he constrained to adopt the
vestments of civilisation. The czar commanded in Poland and Scandinavia,
where weak or wicked governments were constantly in dread from the
discontent of the people. He also gained an influence in Germany, which
ultimately caused no small anxiety to the emperor and the empire. The
Russian minister Bestuzhev played the chief part in Sweden in all
political affairs, sometimes by counsel and sometimes by threats,
sometimes by mediation and sometimes by commands. Bestuzhev was powerful
in the Swedish council, and at the same time, in compliance with the
wishes of his master, allured artists, artisans, workmen, and all those
who had been deprived of occupation or ruined by the late inroads of
the Russians, to remove with their tools, manufactures, and trades to
Russia. Peter employed these people in all parts of his empire to raise
up manufactories, to originate trades, and to set mines and iron-works in
action.

The Russian minister spoke in a no less commanding tone in Copenhagen
than in Sweden, for Denmark was also frightened by Peter’s threats to
adopt and second the cause of the duke of Holstein. The duke was detained
in Russia by repeated promises, of whose fulfilment there was little
prospect. The Poles, through Russian mediation, were at length reconciled
to their king, and the Russians not only kept firm possession of
Courland, but remained in Poland itself, under the pretence of preserving
the peace of the country. Peter, nevertheless, in his negotiations with
Görtz and Charles XII, had showed himself well inclined to sacrifice King
Augustus to his plans; but this scheme was frustrated by the death of
Charles.


PETER AS ADMINISTRATOR

Peter had now achieved a prodigious amount of external and internal
power; yet the original nucleus of it all was nothing more than fifty
young companions in debauchery, whom he transformed into soldiers,
and the remains of a sailing-boat, which had been left forgotten in
a magazine. In twenty-five years this seed, nursed by a skilful and
vigorous hand, had, on the one part, produced two hundred thousand men,
divided into fifty-five regiments, and cantoned, with three hundred field
pieces, in permanent quarters; a body of engineers, and, particularly,
of formidable artillerymen; and fourteen thousand pieces of cannon,
deposited in a great central establishment, in the fortresses, and three
military magazines on the frontiers of the three chief national enemies,
the Turks, the Poles, and the Swedes. On the other hand, from the relics
of the sailing boat had arisen thirty ships of the line, a proportionate
number of frigates and smaller vessels of war, two hundred galleys with
sails and oars, and a multitude of experienced mariners.

But with what treasures did Peter undertake the moral and physical
transformation of such an extensive empire? We behold an entire land
metamorphosed, cities containing a hundred thousand souls, ports,
canals, and establishments of all kinds, created; thousands of skilful
Europeans attracted, maintained and rewarded; several fleets built, and
others purchased; a permanent army of a hundred and twenty thousand men,
trained, equipped, provided with every species of arms and ammunition,
and several times renewed; subsidies of men and money given to Poland;
and four wars undertaken. One of these wars spread over half of Europe
and when it lasted twenty-one years the treasury from which it was fed
still remained full. And Peter, whose revenues on his accession did not
exceed a few hundred thousand pounds, declared to Munich that he could
have carried on the war for twenty-one years longer without contracting
any debt.

Will order and economy be sufficient to account for these phenomena?
We must, doubtless, admire them in the czar, who refused himself every
superfluity at the same time that he spared nothing for the improvement
of his empire. Much must have been gained when, after having wrested the
indirect taxes from the boyars, who were at once civil, military, and
financial managers, and from those to whom the boyars sold in portions
the collecting of them, Peter, in imitation of Holland, entrusted the
finances to committees composed of select merchants. We may also feel
less surprised at the increase of his revenue, after we have seen him
subjecting to taxation the clergy as well as the laity; suppressing a
number of monasteries, by forbidding monastic vows to be taken before
the age of fifty; and uniting their estates to the domains of the crown,
which were swelled by confiscations, by the reversion of his brother
Ivan’s appanage, and by his conquests from the Swedes.

We must remark, at the same time, that he had opened his states to
foreign commerce and to the treasures of Europe, which were carried
thither to be exchanged for the many raw materials which had hitherto
remained valueless; we must consider the augmentation of revenue which
necessarily ensued, and the possibility of requiring to be paid in money
a multitude of taxes which had previously been paid in kind. Thus, in
place of quotas of provisions, which were brought from great distances
and were highly oppressive to the people, he substituted a tax; and the
sum raised was applied to the payment of contractors. It is true that
even under this new system the state was shamefully robbed; for the
nobles contrived in secret to get the contracts into their own hands,
in order to fatten upon the blood of the people; but Peter at length
perceived them; the evil betrayed itself by its own enormity. The czar
then created commissions of inquiry, passed whole days in them, and,
during several years, keeping these great peculators always in sight,
made them disgorge by fines and confiscations, and punished them by the
knout, the halter, and the axe.

To this superintendence by the head of the state, which, subsequently to
1715, the contraction of the war within a narrower circle allowed him
to exert, let us add the increase of salary to the collectors, which
deprived them of all pretext for misconduct. Nor must it be forgotten
that most of the stipends were paid in kind; and that, for several years,
the war, being carried on out of the empire, supplied its own wants. It
must be observed, too, that the cities and provinces in which the troops
were afterwards quartered furnished their pay on the spot, by which the
charge of discount was saved; and that the measures which they adopted
for their subsistence appear to have been municipal, and consequently
as little oppressive as possible. Finally, we must remark, in 1721, the
substitution, in place of the Tatar house-tax, of a poll-tax, which was
a real impost on land, assessed according to a census repeated every
twenty years, the payment of which the agriculturists regulated among
themselves, in proportion to the value of their produce.

At the same time, the reformer refused to foreigners the privilege
of trading with each other in Russia; he even gave to his subjects
exclusively the right of conveying to the frontiers of the empire the
merchandise which foreigners had bought from them in the interior. Thus
he ensured to his own people the profit of carriage. In 1716 he chose
rather to give up an advantageous alliance with the English than to
relinquish this right in their favour.

But all the causes we have enumerated will not yet account for the
possibility of so many gigantic undertakings and such immense results,
with a fixed revenue in specie which, in 1715, was estimated by an
attentive observer at only some millions of roubles. But in the fiscal
expedients of a despotic empire it is to fluctuating revenue, illegal
resources, and arbitrary measures that we must direct our attention;
astonishment then ceases, and then begins pity for one party, indignation
against another, and surprise excited by the ignorance with respect to
commercial affairs which is displayed by the high and mighty geniuses of
despotism, in comparison with the unerring instinct which is manifested
by the humblest community of men who are free.

It is the genius of Russian despotism, therefore, that we must question
as to the means by which it produced such gigantic results; but however
far it may be disposed to push its frightful candour, will it point out
to us its army recruited by men whom the villages sent tied together in
pairs, and at their own expense--soldiers at a penny a day, payable every
four months, and often marching without pay; slaves whom it was thought
quite enough to feed, and who were contented with some handfuls of rye
or of oats made into gruel or into ill-baked bread; unfortunate wretches
who, in spite of the blunders of their generals, were compelled to be
victorious, under pain of being decimated! Or will this despotism confess
that, while it gave nothing to these serfs, who were enlisted for life,
it required everything from them; that, after twenty-one years of war, it
compelled them to dig canals, like miserable bond-slaves? “For they ought
to serve their country,” said Peter, “either by defending or enriching
it; that is what they are made for.”

Could this autocrat pride himself on the perennial fulness of an
exchequer which violated its engagements in such a manner that most of
the foreigners who were in his service were anxious to quit it? What
answer could he make to that hollow and lengthened groan which, even
yet, seems to rise from every house in Taganrog, and in St. Petersburg,
and from his forts, built by the most deadly kind of statute-labour, and
peopled by requisitions? One half of the inhabitants of the villages were
sent to construct them, and were relieved by the other half every six
months; and the weakest and the most industrious of them never more saw
their homes!

These unfortunate beings, whatever might be their calling, from the
common delver to the watchmaker and jeweller, were torn without
mercy from their families, their ploughs, their workshops, and their
counting-houses. They travelled to their protracted torture at their own
expense; they worked without any pay. Some were compelled to fill up
swamps, and build houses on them; others, to remove thither suddenly,
and establish their trade there; and all these hapless men, one part of
whom were bent to the earth with toil, and the other part in a manner
lost in a new world, were so badly fed and sheltered, or breathed such a
pestilential air, that the Russians of that period used to say that St.
Petersburg was built upon a bed of human skeletons.

Listen to the complaints of the nobles and the richest merchants: after
the gift of a hundred vessels had been required from them, they were
forced to unite in this slough to build stone houses, and were also
constrained to live there at a much greater expense than they would
have incurred in their own homes. And when even the clergy remonstrated
against the excessive taxes laid upon the priests (who were able to
indemnify themselves out of their flocks) who can be astonished at the
possibility of so many creations, and at the plenitude of a treasury
which opened so widely to receive and so scantily to disburse?

Personal services, taxes in kind, taxes in money--these were the three
main sources of the power of the czar. We have just seen what estimate
we ought to form as to the manner in which the first of these was
employed. As to the taxes in kind and in money, how could the insulated
cries of such a multitude of taxpayers, who were scattered over so wide
a space, have reached the present age, if the excess of a simultaneous
and universal evil had not blended them into one vast clamour, stronger
than time and space? It is from this we learn the names of the throng
of taxes which were laid upon everything, and at every opportunity,
for the war, the admiralty, the recruiting-service, for the horses
used in the public works, for the brick and lime-kilns required in the
building of St. Petersburg, for the post-office, the government offices,
the extraordinary expenses, for the contributions in kind, for the
requisitions of men and their pay and subsistence, and for the salaries
of those who were in place; to which must be added innumerable other
duties on mills, ponds, baths, beehives, meadows, gardens, and, in the
towns, on every square fathom of land which bore the name of black, or
non-free. And all this was aggravated by other exorbitant and grinding
burdens, and by fleecing the artisans in proportion to their industry and
their assumed wealth--the result of which was that they concealed both;
the most laborious of them buried their earnings that they might hide
them from the nobles; and the nobles intrusted their riches to foreign
banks, that they might hide them from the czar.

To this we have yet to add the secondary oppressions; collectors, whose
annual pay was, for a long time, only six roubles; and who, nevertheless,
accumulated fortunes in four years, for they converted to their own use
two thirds of the sums which they extorted; executing by torture whoever
was unable to pay, they made the most horrible misuse of the unlimited
powers which according to the practice of absolute governments, were
necessarily entrusted to them--despotism being unable to act otherwise
than by delegation.

These men had the right of levying taxes on all the markets of the
country, of laying whatever duties they pleased upon commodities, and
of breaking into houses, for the purpose of preventing or discovering
infractions of their orders, so that the unfortunate people, finding that
they had nought which they could call their own, and that everything,
even to their industry, belonged to the czar, ceased to exert themselves
for more than a mere subsistence, and lost that spirit which only a
man’s personal interest can inspire. Accordingly, the forests were
peopled with men driven to desperation, and those who at first remained
in the villages, finding that they were obliged to pay the taxes of the
fugitives as well as their own, speedily joined their companions.

What can bear witness more strongly to the disordered state of those
times than the facts themselves? They show us grandees, who were
possessed of the highest credit, repeatedly convicted of embezzling the
public money; others hanged or beheaded! and a vice-chancellor himself
daring, without any authority, to give places and pensions, and, in so
poor a country, contriving to purloin nearly a hundred and fifty thousand
pounds. It was not, therefore, the czar alone whom the people accused of
their sufferings. But such is the tenure of despotism that, in depriving
the people of their will, it takes upon itself the whole responsibility.
All, however, agree that, about 1715, they beheld their czar astounded at
the aspect of such numerous evils; they acknowledge the efforts which he
had made, and that all of them had not been fruitless.

But, at the same time, to account for the inexhaustible abundance of the
autocrat’s treasury, they represent him to us as monopolising everything
for his own benefit, giving to the current coin of his empire the
value which suited his purpose, and receiving it from foreigners at no
more than its intrinsic worth. They accuse him of having engrossed the
purchase or sale of numberless native and foreign productions, either by
suddenly taxing various kinds of merchandise or by assuming the right
of being the exclusive purchaser, at his own price, to sell again at an
exorbitant price when he had become the sole possessor. They say also
that, forestalling everything, their czar made himself the sole merchant
trading from European Russia to China and Siberia, as well as the sole
mint-master, the sole trader in tobacco, soap, talc, pitch, and tar; that
having also declared himself the only public-house keeper in an empire
where drunkenness held sovereign sway, this monopoly annually brought
back into his coffers all the pay that had been disbursed from them.

When, in 1716, he wished to defray the expenses of his second journey
to Holland, and at the same time avoid being a loser by the rate of
exchange, what was the plan which he adopted? He laid hands on all the
leather intended for exportation, which he paid for at a maximum fixed by
himself, and then exported it on his own account, the proceeds being made
payable in Holland, where it was purchased by foreigners.

It is thus that many of his contemporaries explain the riches of a prince
who was the principal manufacturer and merchant of a great empire--the
creator, the superintendent of its arts. In his eyes, his subjects were
nothing more than workmen, whose labours he prompted, estimated, and
rewarded according to his own pleasure; he reserved to himself the sale
of the produce of their industry, and the immense profits which he thus
gained he employed in doubling that produce.

What a singular founder of commerce in his empire was a monarch who
drew it all within his own sphere and absorbed it in himself! We may,
however, be allowed to believe that he sometimes became a merchant and
manufacturer, as he became a soldier and a sailor, for the sake of
example, and that the obstinate repugnance of his ignorant subjects to
many branches of industry and commerce long compelled him to retain the
monopoly of them, whether he would or not. It is curious to remark how
his despotism recoiled upon himself when he interfered with matters so
impatient of arbitrary power as trade and credit. Soloviev is an example
of this. Assisted by the privileges which Peter had granted to him, that
merchant succeeded in establishing at Amsterdam the first commercial
Russian factory that had ever been worthy of notice; but in 1717, when
the czar visited Holland for the second time, his greedy courtiers
irritated him against their fellow countryman. Soloviev had not chosen to
ransom himself from the envy which his riches inspired. They therefore
slandered him to their sovereign; he was arrested and sent back to
Russia; his correspondents lost their advances; confidence was ruined,
and the autocrat, by confiscating this source of riches, destroyed his
work with his own hand. Yet he had a glimpse of something like free-trade
principles. He would never impose any higher penalty on smuggling than
confiscation. “Commerce,” he said, “is like a timid maiden, who is scared
by rough usage, and must be won by gentle means. Smuggle who will, and
welcome. The merchant who exposes himself to the chance of having his
goods confiscated runs a greater risk than my treasury. If he cheats me
nine times and I catch him the tenth, I shall be no loser by the game.”


_The Church and the Aristocracy_

Peter had never been at any pains to conceal his indifference or
contempt for the national church; but it was not until that culminating
point in his history at which we are now arrived that he ventured to
accomplish his design of abolishing the office of patriarch. He had left
it unfilled for one-and-twenty years, and he formally suppressed it
after the conclusion of the Peace of Nystad; when heaven had declared
in his favour, as it seemed to the multitude, who always believe the
Deity to be on the strongest side. In the following year, however, the
synod, in spite of Theophanes, its president, whom we may consider as
his minister for religious affairs, dared to desire that a patriarch
might be appointed. But bursting into a sudden passion Peter started up,
struck his breast violently with his hand and the table with his cutlass,
and exclaimed, “Here, here is your patriarch!” He then hastily quitted
the room, casting, as he departed, a stern look upon the panic-struck
prelates.

Of the two conquests which Peter consummated about the same time--that
over Sweden and that by which he annihilated the independence of the
Russian clergy--it is hard to say which was the more gratifying to his
pride. Someone having communicated to him the substance of a paper in the
English _Spectator_, in which a comparison was made between himself and
Louis XIV, entirely to his own advantage, he disclaimed the superiority
accorded to him by the essayist, save in one particular: “Louis XIV,”
said he, “was greater than I, except that I have been able to reduce my
clergy to obedience, while he allowed his clergy to rule him.”

Soon after the abolition of the patriarchate, Peter celebrated the
marriage of Buturlin, the second _kniaz papa_ of his creation, with the
widow of Sotov, his predecessor in that mock dignity. The bridegroom
was in his eighty-fifth year, and the bride nearly of the same age. The
messengers who invited the wedding guests were four stutterers; some
decrepit old men attended the bride; the running footmen were four of
the most corpulent fellows that could be found; the orchestra was placed
on a sledge drawn by bears, which being goaded with iron spikes made
with their horrid roarings an accompaniment suitable to the tunes played
on the sledge. The nuptial benediction was given in the cathedral by a
blind and deaf priest with spectacles on. The procession, the marriage,
the wedding feast, the undressing of the bride and bridegroom, the
ceremony of putting them to bed were all in the same style of repulsive
buffoonery. Among the coarse-minded courtiers this passed for an
ingenious derision of the clergy.

The nobles were another order in the state whose resistance, though
more passive than that of the clergy, was equally insufferable to the
czar. His hand had always been heavy against that stiff-necked race. He
had no mercy upon their indolence and superstition, no toleration for
their pride of birth or wealth. As landed proprietors he regarded them
merely as the possessors of fiefs, who held them by the tenure of being
serviceable to the state. Such was the spirit of the law of 1715 relative
to inheritances, which till then had been equally divided; but from that
date the real estate was to descend to one of the males, the choice of
whom was left to the father, while only the personal property was to pass
to the other children. In this respect the law was favourable to paternal
authority and aristocracy; but its real purpose was rendered obvious
by other clauses. It decreed that the inheritors of personal property
should not be permitted to convert it into real estate until after seven
years of military service, ten years of civil service, or fifteen years’
profession of some kind of art or of commerce. Nay, more, if we may rely
on the authority of Perry, every heir of property to the amount of five
hundred roubles, who had not learned the rudiments of his native language
or of some ancient or foreign language, was to forfeit his inheritance.

The great nobles had ere this been shorn of their train of boyar
followers, or noble domestics, by whom they were perpetually attended,
and these were transformed into soldiers, disciplined in the European
manner. At the same time several thousand cavalry were formed out of
the sons of the priests, who were free men, but not less ignorant and
superstitious than their fathers. Against the inertness of the nobles,
too, Peter made war even in the sanctuary of their families. Every one
of them between the ages of ten and thirty, who evaded an enlistment
which was termed voluntary, was to have his property confiscated to the
use of the person by whom he was denounced. The sons of the nobles were
arbitrarily wrested from them; some were placed in military schools;
others were sent to unlearn their barbarian manners and acquire new
habits and knowledge among polished nations; many of them were obliged
to keep up a correspondence with the czar on the subject of what they
were learning; on their return, he himself questioned them, and if they
were found not to have benefited by their travels, disgrace and ridicule
were their punishment. Given up to the czar’s buffoon, they became the
laughing-stocks of the court, and were compelled to perform the most
degrading offices in the palace. These were the tyrannical punishments of
a reformer who managed that he might succeed in doing violence to nature
by beginning education at an age when it ought to be completed, and by
subjecting grown-up men to chastisements which would scarcely be bearable
for children.

It is with reason that Mannstein reproaches Peter with having expected
to transform, by travels in polished countries, men who were already
confirmed in their habits, and who were steeped to the core in ignorance,
sloth, and barbarism. “The greatest part of them,” he says, “acquired
nothing but vices.” This it was which drew upon Peter a lesson from
his sage; for such was the appellation which he gave to Dolgoruki.
That senator having pertinaciously, and without assigning any reason,
maintained that the travels of the Russian youth would be useless, made
no other reply to an impatient and passionate contradiction from the
despot than to fold the ukase in silence, run his nail forcibly along it,
and then desire the autocrat to try whether, with all his power, he could
ever obliterate the crease that was made in the paper.

[Sidenote: [1722 A.D.]]

At last, by his ukase of January 24th, 1722, Peter annihilated the
privileges of the old Russian aristocracy, and under the specious pretext
of making merit the only source of social distinction, he created a new
order of nobility, divided into eight military and as many civil grades,
all immediately and absolutely dependent on the czar. The only favour
allowed to the old landed aristocracy was that they were not deprived of
the right of appearing at court; but none of them could obtain the rank
and appointments of an officer, nor, in any company, the respect and
distinctions exclusively belonging to that rank, until they had risen
to it by actual service. Such was the fundamental principle of that
notorious system called the _tchin_;[44] and plausible as it may appear
upon a superficial view, it has been fruitful of nothing but hideous
tyranny, corruption, chicanery, and malversation. The modern nobility
of Russia is in fact but a vile bureaucracy. The only thing truly
commendable in the ukase of 1722 is that it degrades to the level of the
rabble every nobleman convicted of crime and sentenced to a punishment
that ought to entail infamy. Previously, as the reader has already seen,
a nobleman might appear unabashed in public, and claim all the privileges
of his birth, with his back still smarting from the executioner’s lash.


_Commerce with the East_

Peter had always encountered great difficulty in attracting to St.
Petersburg the commerce of central Russia, which the merchants
obstinately persisted in throwing away upon Archangel. Yet at St.
Petersburg they enjoyed several privileges, and a milder climate allowed
of two freights a year, while at Archangel the ice would admit of only
one. To this must be added the advantage of a calmer sea, a better port,
lower duties, a much shorter distance, and a much larger concourse of
purchasers; but no persuasion could make the Russians abandon the old
routine, until at last Peter treated them like ignorant and stubborn
children, to whom he would do good in spite of themselves. In 1722 he
expressly prohibited the carrying of any goods to Archangel but such as
belonged to the district of that government. This ordinance at first
raised a great outcry among the traders, both native and foreign, and
caused several bankruptcies; but the merchants, accustoming themselves by
degrees to come to St. Petersburg, at last found themselves gainers by
the change.

The trade with the Mongols and Chinese had been jeopardised by the
extortions of Prince Gagarin, the governor of Siberia, and by acts of
violence committed by the Russians in Peking and in the capital of
Contaish, the prince pontiff of a sect of dissenters from Lamaism.
To check the growth of this evil, Peter sent Ismailov, a captain in
the guards, to Peking, with presents to the emperor, among which were
several pieces of turnery, the work of his own hands. The negotiation
was successful; but the Russians soon lost the fruits of it by fresh
acts of indiscretion, and were expelled from China by order of Kam-hi.
The Russian court alone retained the right of sending a caravan every
three years to Peking; but that right again was subsequently lost in
consequence of new quarrels. The court finally renounced its exclusive
privilege, and granted the subjects leave to trade freely on the Kiakhta.


WAR WITH PERSIA (1722-1724 A.D.)

Peter’s attention had long been directed to the Caspian Sea with a view
to making it more extensively subservient to the trade of Russia with
Persia and central Asia, which as yet had been carried on at Astrakhan
alone, through the medium of Armenian factors. Soon after the Peace of
Nystad had left the czar free to carry his arms towards the East, a
pretext and an opportunity were afforded him for making conquests on the
Caspian shores. The Persian Empire was falling to pieces under the hand
of the enervated and imbecile Husain Shah. The Lesghiians, one of the
tributary nations that had rebelled against him, made an inroad into the
province of Shirvan, sacked the city of Shemakha, put the inhabitants to
the sword, including three hundred Russian traders, and plundered Russian
property to the amount of 4,000,000 roubles. Peter demanded satisfaction;
the shah was willing to grant it, but pleaded his helpless condition, and
entreated the czar to aid him in subduing his rebellious subjects.

This invitation was promptly accepted. Peter set out for Persia on the
15th of May, 1722, his consort also accompanying him on this remote
expedition. He fell down the Volga as far as the city of Astrakhan, and
occupied himself in examining the works for the canals that were to join
the Caspian, Baltic, and White seas, whilst he awaited the arrival of his
forces and material of war. His army consisted of twenty-two thousand
foot, nine thousand dragoons, and fifteen thousand Cossacks, besides
three thousand sailors on board the several vessels, who, in making a
descent, could do the duty of soldiers. The cavalry marched by land
through deserts, which are frequently without water; and beyond those
deserts, they were to pass the mountains of Caucasus, where three hundred
men might keep a whole army at bay; but Persia was in such anarchy that
anything might be attempted.

The czar sailed above a hundred leagues southward from Astrakhan, as
far as the small fortified town of Andreeva, which was easily taken.
Thence the Russian army advanced by land into the province of Daghestan;
and manifestoes in the Persian and Russian language were everywhere
dispersed. It was necessary to avoid giving any offence to the Ottoman
Porte, which besides its subjects, the Circassians and Georgians,
bordering on this country, had in these parts some considerable vassals,
who had lately put themselves under its protection. Among them, one of
the principal was Mahmud D’Utmich, who styled himself sultan, and had the
presumption to attack the troops of the emperor of Russia. He was totally
defeated, and the public account says “his country was made a bonfire.”

In the middle of September, Peter reached Derbent, by the Persians and
Turks called _Demir-kapu_, _i.e._ Iron Gate, because it had formerly such
a gate towards the south; it is a long narrow town, backed against a
steep spur of the Caucasus; and its walls, at the other end, are washed
by the sea, which, in stormy weather, is often known to break over them.
These walls may be justly accounted one of the wonders of antiquity;
they were forty feet high and six broad; flanked with square towers at
intervals of fifty feet. The whole work seemed one single piece, being
built of a kind of brown free-stone, and a mortar of pounded shells, the
whole forming a mass harder than marble itself; it was accessible by sea,
but, on the land side, seemed impregnable. Near it were the ruins of
an old wall, like that of China, unquestionably built in times of the
earliest antiquity; it was carried from the Caspian to the Black Sea, and
probably was a rampart thrown up by the ancient kings of Persia against
the numerous barbarian hordes dwelling between those two seas. There were
formerly three or four other Caspian gates at different passages, and
all apparently built for the same end; the nations west, east, and north
of this sea having ever been formidable barbarians; and from these parts
principally issued those swarms of conquerors which subdued Asia and
Europe.

On the approach of the Russian army, the governor of Derbent, instead
of standing a siege, laid the keys of the city at the emperor’s
feet--whether it was that he thought the place not tenable against such
a force, or that he preferred the protection of the emperor Peter to
that of the Afghan rebel Mahmud. Thus the army quietly took possession
of Derbent, and encamped along the sea-shore. The usurper Mahmud, who
had already made himself master of a great part of Persia, had neglected
nothing to be beforehand with the czar and hinder him from getting into
Derbent; he raised the neighbouring Tatars, and hastened thither himself;
but Derbent was already in the czar’s hands.

[Sidenote: [1723 A.D.]]

Peter was unable to extend his conquests further, for the vessels with
provisions, stores, horses, and recruits had been wrecked near Astrakhan;
and as the unfavourable season had now set in he returned to Moscow and
entered it in triumph (January 5th, 1723), though he had no great reason
to boast of the success of his ill-planned expedition.

Persia was still divided between Husain and the usurper Mahmud; the
former sought the support of the emperor of Russia; the latter feared him
as an avenger who would wrest from him all the fruits of his rebellion.
Mahmud used every endeavour to stir up the Ottoman Porte against Peter.
With this view, he sent an embassy to Constantinople; and the Daghestan
princes, under the sultan’s protection, having been dispossessed of
their dominions by the arms of Russia, solicited revenge. The Divan were
also under apprehensions for Georgia, which the Turks considered part of
their dominions. The sultan was on the point of declaring war, when the
courts of Vienna and Paris diverted him from that measure. The emperor of
Germany made a declaration that if the Turks attacked Russia he should be
obliged to join in its defence; and the marquis de Bonac, ambassador from
France at Constantinople, seconded the German menaces; he convinced the
Porte that their own interest required them not to suffer the usurper of
Persia to set an example of dethroning sovereigns, and that the Russian
Empire had done no more than the sultan should have done.

During these critical negotiations, the rebel Mahmud had advanced to the
gates of Derbent, and laid waste all the neighbouring countries, in order
to distress the Russians. That part of ancient Hyrcania, now known by the
name of Ghilan, was not spared, which so irritated the people that they
voluntarily put themselves under the protection of the Russians. Herein
they followed the example of the shah himself, who had sent to implore
the assistance of Peter the Great; but the ambassador was scarcely on
the road ere the rebel Mahmud seized on Ispahan, and the person of his
sovereign. Thamaseb, son of the captive shah, escaped, and getting
together some troops fought a battle with the usurper. He was not less
eager than his father in urging Peter the Great to protect him, and sent
to the ambassador a renewal of the instructions which the shah Husain had
given.

Though this Persian ambassador, named Ismail Beg, was not yet arrived,
his negotiation had succeeded. On his landing at Astrakhan, he heard
that General Matufkin was on his march with fresh troops to reinforce
the Daghestan army. The town of Baku, from which the Persians called the
Caspian Sea, the sea of Baku, was not yet taken. He gave the Russian
general a letter to the inhabitants, exhorting them, in his master’s
name, to submit to the emperor of Russia; the ambassador continued his
journey to St. Petersburg, and General Matufkin went and sat down before
the city of Baku. The Persian ambassador reached the czar’s court at the
same time as the news of the surrender of that city (August, 1723).

Baku is situated near Shemakha, where the Russian factors were massacred;
and although in wealth and number of people inferior to it, is very
famous for its naphtha, with which it supplies all Persia. Never was
treaty sooner concluded than that of Ismail Beg. The emperor Peter,
desirous of revenging the death of his subjects, engaged to march an army
into Persia, in order to assist Thamaseb against the usurper; and the new
shah ceded to him, besides the cities of Baku and Derbent, the provinces
of Ghilan, Mazandaran, and Astarabath.

Ghilan, as we have already noticed, is the southern Hyrcania; Mazandaran,
which is contiguous to it, is the country of the Mardi; Astarabath
borders on Mazandaran; and these were the three principal provinces of
the ancient kings of the Medes. Thus Peter by his arms and treaties came
to be master of Cyrus’ first monarchy; but this proved to be but a barren
conquest, and the empress Anna was glad to surrender it thirteen years
afterwards in exchange for some commercial advantages.

So calamitous was the state of Persia that the unhappy sophy Thamaseb
wandering about his kingdom, pursued by the rebel Mahmud, the murderer
of his father and brothers, was reduced to supplicate both Russia and
Turkey at the same time, that they would take one part of his dominions
to preserve the other for him. At last it was agreed between the emperor
Peter, the sultan Achmet III, and the sophy Thamaseb, that Russia should
hold the three provinces above mentioned, and that the Porte should have
Kasbin, Tauris, and Erivan, besides what it should take from the usurper.


LAST YEARS AND DEATH OF PETER

[Sidenote: [1723-1724 A.D.]]

Peter, at his return from his Persian expedition, was more than ever
the arbiter of the north. He openly took into his protection the family
of Charles XII, after having been eighteen years his declared enemy. He
invited to his court the duke of Holstein, that monarch’s nephew, to whom
he betrothed his eldest daughter, and from that time prepared to assert
his rights on the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein, and even bound himself to
it in a treaty which he concluded with Sweden (February, 1724). He also
obtained from that power the title of royal highness for his son-in-law,
which was a recognition of his right to the throne, should King Frederick
die without issue. Meanwhile he held Copenhagen in awe of his fleet, and
ruled there through fear, as he did in Stockholm and Warsaw.

The state of Peter’s health now warned him that his end was near; yet
still he delayed to exercise the right of naming a successor, which he
had arrogated to himself in 1722. The only step he took which might
be interpreted as an indication of his wishes in that respect was
the act of publicly crowning his consort Catherine. The ceremony was
performed at Moscow (May 18th, 1724) in the presence of the czar’s niece,
Anna, duchess of Courland, and of the duke of Holstein, his intended
son-in-law. The manifesto published by Peter on this occasion deserves
notice; after stating that it was customary with Christian monarchs to
crown their consorts, and instancing among the orthodox Greek emperors
Basilides, Justinian, Heraclius, and Leo the Philosopher, he goes on to
say:

“It is also known how far we have exposed our own person, and faced the
greatest dangers in our country’s cause, during the whole course of the
last war, twenty-one years successively, and which, by God’s assistance,
we have terminated with such honour and advantage, that Russia never saw
a like peace, nor gained that glory which has accrued to it by this war.
The empress Catherine, our dearly beloved consort, was of great help to
us in all these dangers, not only in the said war but likewise in other
expeditions, in which, notwithstanding the natural weakness of her sex,
she voluntarily accompanied us, and greatly assisted us with her advice,
particularly at the battle of the river Pruth against the Turks, where
our army was reduced to 22,000 men, and that of the Turks consisted of
270,000. It was in this desperate exigency that she especially signalised
a zeal and fortitude above her sex; and to this all the army and the
whole empire can bear witness. For these causes, and in virtue of the
power which God hath given us, we have resolved, in acknowledgment of all
her fatigues and good offices, to honour our consort with the imperial
crown, which, by God’s permission, shall be accomplished this winter at
Moscow; and of this resolution we hereby give notice to all our faithful
subjects, our imperial affection towards whom is unalterable.”

In this manifesto nothing was said of the empress’ succeeding to the
throne; but the nation were in some degree prepared for that event by
the ceremony itself, which was not customary in Russia, and which was
performed with sumptuous splendour. A circumstance which might further
cause Catherine to be looked upon as the presumptive successor was that
the czar himself, on the coronation day, walked before her on foot, as
first knight of the order of St. Catherine, which he had instituted in
1714 in honour of his consort. In the cathedral he placed the crown on
her head with his own hand. Catherine would then have fallen on her
knees, but he raised her up, and when she came out of the cathedral the
globe and sceptre were carried before her.

It was not long before Peter was with difficulty restrained from sending
to the block the head on which he had but lately placed the crown. We
have already mentioned that the enmity of his first wife is said to
have sprung from her jealousy of Anne de Moens, who was for awhile
the czar’s mistress, and whom, as Villebois tells us, he had serious
thoughts of raising to the throne. But she submitted to his passion only
through fear, and Peter, disgusted with her coldness towards him, left
her to follow her inclinations in marrying a less illustrious lover.
Five-and-twenty years afterwards Eudoxia was avenged through the brother
of her rival. Anne de Moens, then the widow of General Balk, was about
the person of Catherine, and the handsome and graceful young Moens de la
Croix was her chamberlain. A closer intimacy soon arose between them,
and so unguarded were they that Villebois, who saw them together only in
public during a very crowded reception at court, says that their conduct
was such as left no doubt on his mind that the empress was guilty. The
czar’s suspicions were roused, and he set spies upon Catherine.

The court was then at Peterhof; Prince Repnin, president of the war
department, slept not far from the czar; it was two o’clock in the
morning; all at once the marshal’s door was violently thrown open,
and he was startled by abrupt and hasty footsteps: he looked round in
astonishment; it was Peter the Great; the monarch was standing by the
bedside; his eyes sparkled with rage, and all his features were distorted
with convulsive fury. Repnin tells us that at the sight of that
terrible aspect he was appalled, gave himself up for lost, and remained
motionless; but his master, with a broken and panting voice, exclaimed to
him, “Get up! speak to me! there’s no need to dress yourself”; and the
trembling marshal obeyed.

He then learned that, but the instant before, guided by too faithful a
report, the czar had suddenly entered Catherine’s apartment; that the
crime was revealed, the ingratitude proved; that at daybreak the empress
should lose her head--that the emperor was resolved!

The marshal, gradually recovering his voice, agreed that such a monstrous
act of treachery was horrible; but he reminded his master of the fact
that the crime was as yet known to no one, and of the impolicy of making
it public; then, growing bolder, he dared to call to recollection the
massacre of the strelitz, and that every subsequent year had been
ensanguined by executions; that, in fine, after the imprisonment of
his sister, the condemning of his son to death, and the scourging and
imprisonment of his first wife, if he should likewise cut off the head of
his second, Europe would no longer look upon him in any other light than
that of a ferocious prince, who thirsted for the blood of his subjects
and even of those who were a part of himself. Besides, he added, the czar
might have satisfaction by giving up Moens to the sword of the law upon
other charges; and as to the empress, he could find means to rid himself
of her without any prejudice to his glory.

While Repnin was thus advising, the czar, who stood motionless before
him, gazed upon him intently and wildly, and kept a gloomy silence. But
in a short time, as was the case when he was labouring under strong
emotions, his head was twisted to the left side, and his swollen features
became convulsively contracted--signs of the terrible struggle by which
he was tortured. And yet the excessive working of his mind held his body
in a state of frightful immovability. At length, he rushed precipitately
out of the chamber into the adjoining room. For two whole hours he
hastily paced it; then suddenly entering again like a man who had made up
his mind, he said to Repnin, “Moens shall die immediately! I will watch
the empress so closely that her first slip shall cost her life!”

Moens and his sister were at once arrested. They were both confined in
the winter palace, in an apartment to which none had admission except
the emperor himself, who carried them their food. At the same time a
report was spread that the brother and the sister had been bribed by the
enemies of the country, in hopes of bringing the empress to act upon the
mind of the czar prejudicially to the interests of Russia. Moens was
interrogated by the monarch in presence of General Uschakov; and after
having confessed whatever they pleased, he lost his head on the block
(November 27th). At the same time his sister, who was an accomplice in
the crime and a favourite of Catherine, received the knout, and was
banished to Siberia; her property was confiscated; her two sons were
degraded and were sent to a great distance, on the Persian frontier, as
private soldiers.

Moens walked to meet his fate with manly firmness. He always wore a
diamond bracelet, to which was a miniature of Catherine; but, as it was
not perceived at the time of his being seized, he found means to conceal
it under his garter; and when he was on the scaffold he confided this
secret to the Lutheran pastor who accompanied him, and under cover of his
cloak slipped the bracelet into his hand to restore it to the empress.

The czar was a spectator of the punishment of Moens from one of the
windows of the senate. The execution being over, he got upon the
scaffold, took the head of Moens by the hair, and expressed with brutal
energy how delighted he was with the vengeance he had taken. The same
day Peter had the cruelty to conduct Catherine in an open carriage round
the stake on which was fixed the head of her unfortunate lover. He
watched her countenance attentively, but fortunately she had self-command
enough not to betray her grief. Repnin adds that, from that dreadful
night till his death, Peter never more spoke to the empress except in
public, and that, in his dwelling, he always remained separate from
her.[e]

[Sidenote: [1725 A.D.]]

Peter the Great only lived to his fifty-third year. In spite of frequent
attacks of illness and of his calling himself an old man, the emperor
might have hoped to live yet a long while and to be able to dispose of
his great inheritance in accordance with the interests of the state.
But his days were already numbered. When Peter came to St. Petersburg
in March, 1723, on his return from Persia, he appeared in much better
health than before the campaign; in the summer of 1724 he became very
weak, but in the second half of September he grew visibly better, walked
at times in his gardens, and sailed on the Neva. On the 22nd of September
he had a very severe attack; it is said that he fell into such a state of
irritation that he struck the doctors and called them asses; afterwards
he again became better, and on the 29th of September he was present at
the launching of a frigate, although he told the Dutch minister Wild that
he still felt rather weak. In spite of this he set off in the beginning
of October to inspect the Ladoga canal, against the advice of his doctor
Blumentrost; then he went to the Olonetz iron works and hammered out with
his own hands a bar of iron of the weight of three pouds;[45] from there
he went to Starya Rusa to inspect the salt works, and in the beginning
of November he went by water to St. Petersburg. But there, at a place
called Lakta, he saw that a boat coming from Kronstadt with soldiers had
run aground; he allowed no one to restrain him, but went himself to their
assistance and helped to float the boat and save the people, standing
up to his waist in the water. The attacks were speedily renewed; Peter
arrived at St. Petersburg ill and could not regain his health; the affair
of Mons also aggravated his condition. He occupied himself but little
with affairs, although he showed himself as usual in public. On the 17th
of January, 1725, the malady increased; Peter ordered that a movable
church should be constructed near his sleeping room and on the 22nd he
made his confession and received the sacrament; his strength began to
leave him, he no longer cried out as before from the violence of the pain
but only groaned. On the 27th all criminals were pardoned who had been
condemned to death or to the galleys according to the articles of war,
excepting those guilty of the first two offences against the law--murder
and repeated robbery; the noblemen who had not appeared at the military
reviews at the appointed time were also pardoned. On that day, at the
expiration of the second hour, Peter asked for paper and tried to write,
but the pen fell out of his hand; of that which he had written only the
words “give up everything” could be deciphered; he then ordered his
daughter Anna Petrovna to be called so that she might write under his
dictation, but he could not pronounce the words. The following day, the
28th of January, at the beginning of the sixth hour after midnight, Peter
the Great was no more. Catherine was almost unceasingly with him, and it
was she who closed his eyes.

In terrible physical sufferings, in full recognition of the weakness of
humanity, asking for the comfort afforded by religion, died the greatest
of historical workers. We have already spoken in the proper place of
how the work of Peter was prepared by all preceding history; how it
necessarily proceeded from the same; how it was required by the people,
who by means of a tremendous revolution in their existence and customs,
by means of an extraordinary effort of strength, had to be brought forth
from their hopeless condition into a new way, a new life. But this in
nowise diminishes the greatness of the man who in the accomplishment of
so difficult an exploit lent his mighty hand to a great nation, and by
the extraordinary power of his will strained all her forces and gave
direction to the movement.


SOLOVIEV’S ESTIMATE OF PETER’S WORK

Revolutionary epochs constitute a critical time for the life of nations,
and such was the epoch of the reformation of Peter. Complaints of the
great burdens were to be heard from all sides--and not without cause. The
Russian knew no rest from recruiting: recruiting for painful, ceaseless
military service in the infantry, and for the newly created naval
service; recruiting of workmen for new and difficult labour in distant
and unattractive places; recruiting of scholars for the schools, and of
young men to be sent to study abroad. For the army and for the fleet, for
the great works and undertakings, for the schools and the hospitals, for
the maintenance of diplomats and diplomatic bribery, money was necessary.
But there was no money in the impoverished state, and heavy taxes in
money and in kind had to be levied upon all; in necessary cases they
were deducted from the salaries; well-to-do people were ruined by the
construction of houses in St. Petersburg; everything that could be taken
was taken, or farmed out; the poor people had one object of luxury--oak
coffins; but these were confiscated by the fiscus and sold at a high
price; _raskolniki_ (dissenters) had to pay double taxes; the bearded
had to pay for the privilege of wearing their beards. Orders upon orders
were issued; men were to seek for ores and minerals, and for dye-stuffs;
they were to tend their sheep not as they had previously done, to dress
the skins differently, to build boats in a new way, to dare weave no
narrow pieces of cloth, to take their goods to the west instead of to the
north.[46] New government centres were created, new courts established,
the people did not know where to turn, the members of these new
institutions and courts did not know how to go about their novel duties,
and official papers were sent from one place to another.

[Illustration: A BASHKIRIAN WOMAN]

The standing army pressed heavily on the unarmed population. People tried
to escape from the hard service and hide themselves, but all were not
successful, and cruel punishments threatened the disobedient. Illiterate
nobles were forbidden to marry. Meanwhile beneath the new French frocks
and wigs there was the old coarseness of manners; the same want of
respect for human dignity in oneself and in others; the same hideous
drunkenness and noisy brawling with which every festivity was terminated.
Woman was brought into the society of men, but she was not surrounded
with the respect due to her sex and obligations; pregnant women were made
to drink to excess. The members of the highest institutions quarrelled
and abused each other in the coarsest manner; bribery was as bad as
before; the weak were subjected to every violence from the strong, and,
as formerly, the noble was permitted to oppress the _moujik_ (peasant),
the well-born the base-born.

But this is only one side: there is another. The people were passing
through a hard school--the stern teacher was not sparing in punishments
for the idle and those who violated the regulations; but the matter was
not limited to threats and punishments alone. The people were really
learning, learning not only figures and geometry, not only in Russian and
foreign schools; the people were learning the duties of citizens, the
work of citizens. At the emission of every important regulation, at the
inauguration of every great reform, the lawgiver explains why he acts
thus, why the new is better than the old. The Russians then received such
instruction for the first time; what now seems to us so simple and within
the reach of all was first learned by these people from the edicts and
manifestoes of Peter the Great.

[Illustration: A PEASANT OF LITTLE RUSSIA]

For the first time the mind of the Russian was awakened, his attention
directed to the great questions of political and social organisation;
whether he turned sympathisingly or unsympathisingly to the words and
deeds of the czar was a matter of indifference--he was obliged to
think over these words and deeds, and they were continually there to
arouse him. That which might have ruined a decrepit society, a people
incapable of development--the shocks of the epoch of reforms, the utter
restlessness--developed the forces of a vigorous young nation which had
been long asleep and required a violent shock to awaken it. And there
was much to be learned. Above was the governing senate, the synod;
everywhere was collegiate organisation, the advantages of which were
set forth in the church statutes. Everywhere the principle of election
was introduced. The trade guilds were withdrawn from the jurisdiction
of the local governors and given their own independent administration.
Peter’s whole system of government was directed against the chief evils
from which ancient Russia had suffered: the immaturity of forces, the
want of a public spirit, the lack of independence of action, the absence
of initiative capacity. The former council of the czar (_douma_) had
suffered from all the deficiencies enumerated. Peter established the
senate, to which fidelity had to be sworn and the ukases of which had to
be obeyed as the ukases of the czar himself. Peter was not jealous of
the power created by him: he did not limit it; but on the contrary he
continually and without ceremony required that it should profit by its
importance, that it should really be a governing body. Peter’s reproaches
and rebukes to the senate were directed against its slowness, its
languor, its want of management, and its inability to carry its decrees
into immediate effect. The Russian of former times who had received a
commission from the government went about in leading strings. He was not
trusted, his smallest movement was feared, he was swathed like a child in
long detailed instructions, and upon every fresh occasion that presented
itself and was not defined in the instructions, the grown up child
required teaching. This habit of asking for orders greatly angered Peter:
“Act according to your own consideration, how can I tell you from such a
distance!” he wrote to those who asked him for instructions. He employed
the collegiate system--whether he had met with it in the west or whether
it had been advised by Leibnitz is a matter of indifference; he employed
it everywhere as the most powerful method of training the Russian people
to unrestrained public activity. Instead of separate individuals,
institutions came to the front, and over all rose the state, the real
significance of which the people of Russia now learned for the first time
when they had to take the oath.

Having set forth the importance of the state, and demanding that heavy
sacrifices should be made, to this new divinity, himself giving the
example, he nevertheless took measures that the individual should not be
crushed, but should receive the requisite, balancing development. The
first place must here naturally be given to the civilisation introduced
by Peter, to the acquaintance with other nations in advance of Russia. We
know that before the time of Peter the bond of the family was powerfully
maintained in Russia; its prolonged existence is easily explained by the
condition of society, which was unable to safeguard its members, and
who were therefore obliged to seek security in private associations,
chief among which was the natural blood relationship between members of
the same family or clan. The elder protected the younger, and had power
over them because they had to answer to the government for them. It was
thus in every sphere of society; the independent Russian never presented
himself alone, but always accompanied by his brothers and nephews; to be
without clan and family was equivalent to being in the utmost poverty. It
is easy to understand that the clan association hindered the development
of personality; the state could not give to personal merit power over
clan rights; jealous to the last degree of any insult to the honour of
his clan, the ancient Russian was indifferent to his own personal honour.
But by the end of the seventeenth century the demands of the state had so
increased that the unity of the clan could not withstand them, and the
destruction of precedence (_mestnitchestov_) struck a blow to the clan
bond in the highest class of society, among those in the service of the
czar. The reform of Peter struck a final blow by its decided, exclusive
attention to personal merit, by raising persons “above their old parents”
(that is, their kinsfolk), by bringing into the service a large number of
foreigners; it became advantageous for new men to appear to have no clan
relations, and many of them began willingly to trace their origin from
foreign countries.

As to the lower ranks of the population, the blow to the clan bond was
brought about by the poll-tax; the former expression, “such a one with
his brothers and nephews,” began to disappear, for the brothers and
nephews had to pay separately each for himself, and appeared as separate,
independent individuals. And not only did the former clan relations
disappear, but even within the family itself, while requiring the
deepest respect from children to their parents,[47] Peter recognised
the right of the individual, and enjoined that marriages should be
celebrated by the agreement of the children, and not by the will of
their parents; the right of the person was also recognised in the
bond-servant, for the landowner had to swear that he would not compel his
peasants to marry against their will. We have heard the dispassionate
declaration of a contemporary Russian as to the corruption of persons
in the service of the czars in the seventeenth and the beginning of the
eighteenth centuries, of their indifference to honour, so that amongst
them the shameful saying was current: “Flight may be dishonourable, but
it is salutary.” Under Peter this saying was extirpated, and he himself
testified that in the second half of the Northern War flight from
the field of battle had ceased. Finally the personality of woman was
recognised in consequence of her liberation from the _terem_.[48]

Thus were the people of Russia trained in the stern school of reform.
The terrible labour and privations they endured were not in vain. A vast
and comprehensive programme was traced out for many future years, not
on paper but on the earth which must open up its riches to the Russian,
who through science had acquired the full right of disposing of it; on
the sea, where the Russian fleet had now appeared; on the rivers, united
by canals; it was traced out in the state by the new institutions and
regulations; it was traced out in the people by the new civilisation, by
the enlarging of its mental sphere, by the rich stores of mental food
furnished by the west, now disclosed to his view, and by the new world
created within Russia herself. The greater part of all this was only in
its beginnings; the rest in rough outline--for much only the materials
were prepared, only indications made; and therefore we have called the
work of the epoch of reform a programme, which Russia is fulfilling until
now, and will continue to fulfil, and any deviation from which has always
been accompanied by grievous consequences.

Clearly recognising that the Russian people must pass through a hard
school, Peter did not hesitate to subject it to the painful, humiliating
position of a pupil; but at the same time he succeeded in balancing the
disadvantages of such a position by glory and greatness: in converting
it into an active one, he succeeded both in creating the political
importance of Russia and the means for its maintenance. A difficult
problem presented itself to Peter; for the education of the Russian
people it was necessary to call in foreign instructors, directors who
naturally endeavoured to subject their pupils to their influence, to
set themselves above them; but this humiliated the pupils, of whom
Peter wished to make masters as soon as possible. He did not give way
to the temptation, did not accept proposals to carry the work to a
speedy success with the aid of learned foreigners; he desired that his
own Russian subjects should pass through an active, practical school,
even though it might occasion great losses and be accompanied by great
discomforts. We have seen how he hastened to rid himself of a foreign
field-marshal, how he put Russians in all the highest positions and
foreigners only in secondary ones; and we have also seen how he was
rewarded for his faith in his people and his devotion to it.

It was with the same uncommon caution, with the skill required for
remaining within due bounds that Peter solved the difficult problem of
church reform. He destroyed unipersonal government and replaced it by
the collegiate or council system, which fully corresponded with the
spirit of the eastern church; we have seen that one of Peter’s chief
cares was to raise the Russian clergy by means of education; in spite of
his strong and comprehensible aversion to monasticism he did not abolish
this institution as did Henry VIII of England--he only tried to give it a
greater activity corresponding to its character.

From whatever point of view we study the epoch of reforms, we must fall
into wonderment both at the mental and physical powers of Peter. Powers
are developed by their exercise, and we do not know of any historical
worker whose sphere of activity was so vast. Born with an unusually
wide-awake intellect, Peter cultivated this quickness of perception to
the highest degree. From his youth he listened and looked to everything
himself, was not guided or restricted by anyone, but was excited and
aroused by the state of society, already then on the threshold of changes
and hesitating between two directions, agitated by the question of the
old and new, when by the side of ancient Moscow the advance guard of the
west, the German suburb, was already in view. Peter’s nature was cast in
the old Russian heroic mould, he loved breadth and scope; this explains
the fact that besides his conscious attraction for the sea he had also an
unconscious attraction for it: the heroes of ancient Russia yearned for
the wide steppes--the new hero yearned after the broad ocean; places shut
in by mountains were displeasing and wearisome to him. Thus he complained
to his wife of the situation of Karlsbad: “This place is so merry that
it might almost be called an honorable prison, for it is so squeezed in
between mountains that the sun can hardly be seen.” In another letter he
calls Karlsbad a hole in the ground.

To the powers of a hero of ancient times corresponded passions not
moderated by any regular, skilful education. We are aware to what lengths
the unbridled passions of a vigorous man could be carried in ancient
Russian society, unrestrained as it was by due bounds: how then could
such a society put a check upon the passions of a man who stood at the
very summit of power? But an observant contemporary woman has very justly
declared with regard to Peter that he was both a very good and a very bad
man. Without denying or diminishing the dark side of Peter the Great’s
character, let us not forget the brighter side, which outweighed the dark
and was able to attach people so strongly to him. If his wrath burst
forth at times so terribly against those whom he regarded as the enemies
of the country and of the general welfare, yet he attached to himself
strongly, and was strongly attached to persons of opposite tendencies.

An unusual greatness, joined to the recognition of the insignificance
of mere human intellect, a stern insistence on the fulfilment of
duties, a stern demand for truth, the capacity of listening to the
harshest objections, an extraordinary simplicity, sociability, and kind
heartedness--all these qualities powerfully attached to Peter the best of
the men who had occasion to come in contact with him; and it is therefore
easy to understand the impression produced upon them by the news of the
death of the great emperor. Nepluev writes as follows: “In the month
of February, of the year 1725, I received the lamentable news that the
father of the country, the emperor Peter I had departed this life. I
watered this paper with my tears, both out of duty to my sovereign and
in remembrance of his many kindnesses and favours to me; verily I do not
lie when I say that I was unconscious for more than twenty-four hours,
for it would have been sinful for me to have been otherwise. This monarch
brought our country into equality with others; he taught us to know that
we, too, are men; in a word, whatever you look upon in Russia was all
begun by him, and whatever will be done in future will be drawn from the
same source; as to me personally, above what I have already written, the
sovereign was a good and merciful father. May the Lord grant to his soul,
which laboured so greatly for the common good, rest with the righteous!”

Another person who was in close contact with Peter (Nartov) says: “If
it should ever happen to a philosopher to look through the archives
of Peter’s secret acts, he would shudder with horror at what was done
against the monarch. We who were the servants of that great sovereign
sigh and shed tears, when we sometimes hear reproaches against the
hard-heartedness and cruelty which were not in reality to be met with
in him. If many knew what he endured and by what sorrows he was cut
to the heart, if they knew how indulgent he was to the weaknesses of
humanity and how he forgave crimes that did not deserve mercy they would
be amazed. And although Peter the Great is no longer with us, yet his
spirit lives in our souls, and we, who had the felicity of being near
this monarch, shall die faithful to him, and the ardent love we had for
our earthly god will be buried together with us. We are not afraid to
proclaim the deeds of our father, in order that a noble fearlessness and
truth shall be learned from them.”[i]


KOSTOMAROV’S ESTIMATE OF PETER

As an historical character Peter presents an original phenomenon, not
only in the history of Russia but in the history of all humanity, of all
ages and all nations. The immortal Shakespeare by his artistic genius
created in Hamlet an inimitable type of a man in whom reflection takes
the ascendancy over his will and does not permit him to give substance
or effect to his desires and intentions. In Peter not the genius of
the artist, understanding the meaning of human nature, but nature
herself created the opposite type--that of a man with an irresistible,
indefatigable will in whom every thought was at once transformed into
action. “I will it, because I count it good, and what I will must
infallibly be”--such was the device of the whole life and work of this
man.

[Illustration: A KABARDINIAN]

He was distinguished by an aptitude and enterprise unattainable for
ordinary mortals. Not having received any regular education, he wished
to know everything and was obliged to study a great deal; however, the
Russian czar was gifted with such a wealth of capacities that even with
his short preparation he astounded persons who had spent their lives over
what Peter only studied by the way. All that he learned he endeavoured
to apply in Russia in order to transform her into a mighty European
state. This was the thought that he cherished sincerely and wholly during
the continuation of his entire life. Peter lived at a time when it was
impossible for Russia to remain in the same beaten track, but must
necessarily enter upon the path of renovation. Being gifted with mental
clearsightedness, he recognised this necessity of his fatherland and set
about the task with all the force of his gigantic will.

Peter’s autocracy, inherited from his forefathers, helped him more than
anything. He created the army and the fleet, although for this was
required an innumerable multitude of human sacrifices and the fruits of
many years of national labour. All was offered by the people for this
object, although the people itself did not clearly understand it and
therefore did not desire it; but everything was given because the czar
wished it. Incredible taxes were imposed, hundreds of thousands of the
healthy young generation were sent to the war or to hard and painful
labour never to return again. The people were ruined and impoverished in
order that Russia might gain the sea, that she might extend her frontiers
and organise an army capable of being measured against its neighbours.
The Russians had grown attached to their ancient manners and customs,
they hated everything foreign; immersed in outward forms of piety, they
showed an aversion to the sciences. The autocratic czar compelled them to
adopt foreign dress, to study foreign sciences, to disdain the customs of
their forefathers, and to forswear their most sacred traditions. And the
Russians mastered themselves; they were obedient because it was the wish
of their autocratic sovereign.

During the whole of his reign Peter struggled against the prejudices and
evil nature of his subjects and dependants; he prosecuted embezzlers
of the public funds, takers of bribes, imposters, and lamented that
things were not done in Russia as he could have wished. His partisans
sought and even now seek to find in all this the cause of the obdurate
vices and defects of the ancient Russian. But looking into the matter
dispassionately, it follows that much must be ascribed to the character
of Peter’s action. It is impossible to make a man happy against his own
will or to force his nature. History shows us that, in a despotically
ruled society, the vices that chiefly hinder the fulfilment of the
most laudable and salutary preconceived designs of the power are most
frequently and saliently manifested. What were the measures that Peter
employed for bringing his great reforms to fulfilment? The tortures
of the Preobrajenski Edict and the secret chancery, sentences of a
painful death, prisons, the galleys, the knout, the tearing of the
nostrils, espionage, the encouragement by rewards of informers. It is
comprehensible that by such means Peter could inoculate neither civil
courage, nor the feeling of duty, nor that love for one’s neighbour
which is above all material or intellectual forces and more powerful
than knowledge itself; in a word, although he established a multitude of
institutions and created a new political organisation for Russia, yet
Peter was not able to create a living, new Russia.

Possessed by the abstract idea of the state and sacrificing to this idea
the temporary prosperity of the people, Peter did not act sincerely by
the people. For him they only existed as the ciphers in a total--as the
material good for the construction of the edifice of the state. He valued
the Russian people as far as they were necessary to him in creating
soldiers, masons, excavators, sailors; or, by their laboriously earned
kopeck, in furnishing him with means for the maintenance of the state
mechanism. Peter himself by his personality might serve as a model for
the people he ruled over and transformed only in his boundless, untiring
love of work; but in nowise by the moral qualities of his character. He
did not even endeavour to restrain his passions, which not unfrequently
led him to furious outbursts and bloody actions, although he severely
punished like actions in those he ruled over. Peter allowed drunkenness
and double dealing in himself, yet he prosecuted these same vices in his
subjects. Many shocking actions that he committed have been justified by
the sophisms of political necessity. To what an extent his ferocity and
bloodthirstiness were carried is shown by the fact that he was not afraid
to lower his royal dignity by taking upon himself the office of hangman
during the time of the savage execution of the strelitz. Throughout his
reign a bloody vapour arose from those who were tortured and put to death
in accordance with the Preobrajenski Edict and contaminated the air of
Russia, but it evidently did not trouble the slumbers of her sovereign.

Peter himself justified his cruel punishments by the requirements of
justice, but facts prove that he was not equally inflexible in his
justice to all and did not set an example to others in the indulgence
he showed to his favourite, Menshikov, at whose hands such iniquities
were committed as would have cost others their lives. His own outward
political actions were not distinguished by irreproachable integrity and
rectitude; the Northern War can never be justified from the point of view
of justice. It is also impossible to call honourable the expedient Peter
made use of with the English king George when, in spite of the clearest
evidence, he assured him of his devotion and non-participation in the
pretender’s designs. How far Peter respected the rights of neighbouring
foreign nations when he had no reason to fear them is shown by his savage
behaviour to the uniat monks of Polosk--an action for which he himself
would have probably punished by death any one of his subjects who had
thus dared to take the law into his own hands in a foreign land.

All the dark sides of Peter’s character may of course be easily excused
by the features of the age in which he lived; it may justly be pointed
out to us that for the greater part such traits are also to be found in
the characters of his contemporaries. It remains indubitable that Peter
surpassed the sovereigns contemporary with him by the vastness of his
intellect and by his untiring love of work; but in moral respects he was
not better than many of them; and it was for this reason that the society
which he wished to re-create did not rise superior to those societies
which were governed by Peter’s contemporaries. Until Peter’s reign Russia
was plunged in ignorance; and, boasting of her bigoted, ceremonial piety,
glorified herself with the name of the New Israel, whilst in reality she
was by no means a “new Israel.” By his despotic measures Peter created
out of her a monarchy that was a terror to foreigners by her army and
fleet; he communicated to the upper class of her people the outward marks
of European civilisation; yet Russia after Peter did not in reality
become the “new Israel” that she had desired to be before his time.

All Peter’s pupils, the men of new Russia who outlived him, were
entangled in their own snares; following their own egotistical aims, they
perished on the scaffold or in exile, and the Russian public man adopted
in his conscience the rule that he might do anything he found profitable,
although it might be immoral, justifying himself by the fact that other
nations did the same. Yet, in spite of all this, as a historical royal
worker Peter has preserved for us in his personality such an exalted
moral trait that it involuntarily draws our heart to him; this trait is
his devotion to the ideal to which he wholly consecrated his soul during
all his lifetime. He loved Russia, loved the Russian people, loved it
in the sense of the mass of Russian men who were his contemporaries and
subjects in the sense of that ideal to which he desired to bring his
people; and this love constitutes in him that great quality which incites
us, beyond our own will, to love his personality, setting aside both his
bloody tribunal and all his demoralising despotism reflecting a baneful
influence even on posterity. Because of Peter’s love for the ideal of the
Russian people, the Russians will love Peter until he himself loses the
national ideal, and for the sake of this love they will forgive him all
that a heavy burden has laid upon his memory.[d]


HAXTAUSEN’S ESTIMATE OF PETER’S INFLUENCE

From the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries a national spirit
dominated entirely. Moreover, Russian sovereigns had, for many years,
perceived that the people were behind other nations who had sprung into
being as late as themselves or who were inferior either in origin or in
physical or intellectual faculties. To remedy this tardy growth they
conceived it necessary to put themselves into direct contact with the
west in order to borrow its light and imitate its progress. The best
way of accomplishing this was, they thought, to get as many foreigners
as possible into the country to train the young; to give the state
new institutions, and remodel the old on western principles. Ivan
Vasilievitch had already drawn a crowd of foreigners, and particularly
Germans; had even tried to put his army on a European footing. The
successors of the Romanov branch followed zealously in this path, but no
prince felt more strongly than Peter I the necessity of letting Russia
take a foremost place in Europe. His quick impetuous nature detested slow
and incomplete measures. To him, to sow without reaping, or prune without
tasting the fruits, was labour provoking all his repugnance.

The impetus he gave Russia is that in which she still continues.
Everywhere in the public and social life of this people is to be noticed
the impulse he gave. It is an accomplished fact that no human power
can annul; so all inquiry to find out if this impetus was necessary
and favourable to Russia would be inopportune and sterile. There is,
however, no doubt that in Peter’s haste in his work of reform he did
not sufficiently consider national things both great and good; that he
introduced a crowd of foreign innovations, some mediocre, some positively
bad, without pausing to think whether they were suitable to the climate,
the established order of things, or if they would fit in harmoniously
with Russian nationality.[j]


FOOTNOTES

[39] A verst is 3500 English feet and a sazhen 7 feet.

[40] The ancient Borysthenes.

[41] [Porte is the name given to the chief office of the Ottoman
government, so called from the gate of the palace at which justice
was administered. The name is applied also to the Ottoman court--the
government of the Turkish Empire.]

[42] Bruce, who was in the battle of the Pruth, asserts his belief
that this negotiation was conducted without Peter’s knowledge; and the
_Journal de Pierre le Grand_ alludes to the transmission of the letter,
but is silent as to the share Catherine took in the affair. There is no
doubt, however, that the details of her interference are correct, and
Peter afterwards appears to have confirmed them by his declaration at the
coronation of the empress in 1723, that she “had been of great assistance
to the empire in all times of danger, but particularly at the battle of
the Pruth.”

[43] Ulrica had ceded the crown to her husband.

[44] The men who have no _tchin_, the _tchornii narod_, that is, the
black people, or blackguards.

[45] A poud contains forty Russian pounds, or about thirty-six pounds
avoirdupois.

[46] [That is, to St. Petersburg instead of to Archangel.]

[47] Peter’s own words were as follows: “Those who do not respect them
that have given them life are most ungrateful creatures, and ingratitude
is the most abominable of all vices.”--GOLIKOV.[m]

[48] [The separate female apartments, corresponding to the Attic
γὔναικών.]

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER VII. CATHERINE I TO PETER III


CATHERINE I (1725-1727 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1725-1727 A.D.]]

At the death of Peter the Great two powerful parties were arrayed against
each other, one supporting his youthful grandson Alexievitch, and the
other advancing the claims of Catherine, the Livonian. The Galitzins,
the Dolgoruki, Repnins, and all Old Russia wished to crown Peter’s son,
Alexis; but those who owed their elevation to Peter I, or had been
involved in the suit against his son, as well as the members of the
tribunal that had condemned the czarevitch, felt that their only hope of
safety lay in raising Catherine to the throne. This party, counting among
its numbers the most capable and enlightened men, still held the highest
authority in the administration and in the army, and its adversaries felt
that a compromise was the most that they could expect. Dmitri Galitzin
proposed to proclaim Peter II, but only under the guardianship of the
widowed empress.

Tolstoi combated this proposition by showing that it was the surest
method of arming parties against each other, of furnishing hostile
factions a pretext for inciting the people to rebellion against the
regent. He demonstrated that in the absence of the testamentary
disposition she had the best right to succeed Peter I; furthermore, she
had been solemnly crowned, had received the oath of allegiance from her
subjects, had been initiated into all the state secrets, and had learned
from her husband the art of reigning. The officers and regiments of the
guards declared energetically in favour of the heroine of Pruth, and
it was finally decided that she should reign alone, with an authority
as absolute as that of her dead husband. This was a greater novelty in
Russia than the regency of Sophia; Catherine was not only a woman, but
a foreigner, a captive, and a second wife, scarcely to be considered as
a wife at all. Many were the protests against a decision which excluded
from the throne the grandson of Peter the Great, and certain of the
_raskolniks_ submitted to the torture rather than swear allegiance to a
woman.

Menshikov, one of Catherine’s earlier lovers, now became all-powerful. He
stopped the suit for mal-administration that the late czar had commenced
against him, and obtained for himself Baturin, the former capital of
Mazeppa, which was equivalent to the principality of Ukraine. His
despotic and evil character rendered him odious to his companions and
discord everywhere broke out among the “eaglets” of Peter the Great.
Iagushinski publicly lamented on the tomb of the czar, and Tolstoi was
later exiled to Siberia. Catherine, however, restrained the ambition of
her favourite and refused to sacrifice her other councillors to him.

Catherine’s rule, which was a continuation of that of Peter the Great,
gave the lie to the pessimistic predictions that had announced the
abandonment of St. Petersburg and the fleet, and the return to Moscow.
The greater part of the plans for reform entertained by the czar were
put in execution. The Academy of Sciences was inaugurated in 1726, the
publication of the _Gazette_ was carefully supervised, the order of
Alexander Nevski, originated by Peter, was founded, the Danish captain
Béhring was placed at the head of the Kamchatka scientific expedition,
Chasirov, recalled from exile, was commanded to write the history of
Peter the Great, and Anna Petrovna was solemnly married to the duke of
Holstein, to whom she had been affianced by her father. On the other hand
the senate and the holy synod lost their title of Directors, and the
affairs of state were given into the hands of the secret high council
which sat under the presidency of the empress and was composed of
Menshikov, the admiral Apraxin, the chancellor Golovkin, Tolstoi, Dmitri
Galitzin, and the vice-chancellor Ostermann.

On her death-bed Catherine designated as her successor Peter Alexievitch,
the grandson of her husband, and in default of Peter her two daughters
Anna of Holstein and Elizabeth. Pending the majority of the youthful
emperor the regency was to be conducted by a council composed of Anna and
Elizabeth, the duke of Holstein, Menshikov, Apraxin, Golovkin, Ostermann,
and others; but Menshikov after the first sitting took the duties of
regent upon himself.


PETER II (1727-1730 A.D.)

The empress died on the 17th of May, 1727, and on the following day the
nobility and clergy assembled in the palace to be present at the reading
of the will by which Peter was made emperor of all the Russias. Menshikov
had taken measures to retain his high position and even to increase
his power under the new reign. With the design of removing all those
who might be detrimental to him he banished Apraxin from court, sent
Iagushinski to Ukraine and despatched Makarov on a mission to the mines
of Siberia. Menshikov had further obtained Catherine’s consent to the
betrothal of his daughter to the young prince. He gave his own palace as
a residence for the emperor and surrounded him with men on whose devotion
he could count. He assumed the title of generalissimo and signed his
letters to his sovereign “your father.” He caused the members of his own
family to be inscribed in the almanac beside those of the imperial house,
and had his daughters mentioned in the public prayers; he also planned
to obtain the hand of Peter’s sister, Natalia Alexievna, for his son in
addition to marrying his daughter to the emperor.

Peter II soon began to chafe under the rule of the generalissimo.
Menshikov had appointed Ostermann to be his tutor, but the young prince
hated study and preferred to spend his days hunting with his favourite,
Ivan Dolgoruki. The adroit Ostermann excused himself to the prince for
the disagreeable nature of his pedagogic duties, and contrived to cast
all the blame on Menshikov. The emperor one day sent a present of 9,000
ducats to his sister Natalia, and Menshikov insolently confiscated them
with the remark that the “emperor was too young to know the proper use of
money.” Peter II rebelled at this and it was with difficulty that the
prince appeased him. The generalissimo had another enemy in the person
of Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great and aunt of Peter II. She was
seventeen years old at the time, gay, careless, and lively, with a bright
complexion and blue eyes; her laughter drove the insupportable tutor from
his office.

[Sidenote: [1728 A.D.]]

An illness which overtook Menshikov and kept him absent for a time from
court prepared his downfall; Peter II accustomed himself to the idea of
getting rid of him. When the prince returned and began again to oppose
the young ruler’s wishes the latter left Menshikov’s house, caused
all the crown furniture to be removed from it to the imperial palace,
treated his affianced wife with marked coldness, and finally gave orders
to the guards that they were to obey no commands save those given by
their colonels. This was the prelude to an overwhelming disgrace; in
September, 1727, Menshikov was arrested, stripped of all his dignities
and decorations, and banished to his own lands.

The Dolgorukis profited by the revolution they had caused. They fell,
however, into Menshikov’s error and oppressed the prince with the same
officious care. Like Menshikov they banished all who gave them offence,
even Ostermann for whom Peter began to feel affection, and the old
czarina, Eudoxia Lapukhin, who had been liberated from the prison in
Ladoga. Advancing as a pretext certain placards in which the services of
Menshikov were extolled, they exiled the latter to Berezov, in Siberia,
where he died in 1729. Taking no lesson by his example they imposed on
the prince a new bride, Catherine Dolgoruki, sister of his favourite,
Ivan. Their administration bore all the character of a reaction against
the reforms instituted by Peter the Great.

In 1728, when the young emperor went to Moscow for his coronation, he
was warmly received by the people. Ostermann, however, and all the other
faithful servants of the “giant czar” were chagrined at the return of
the court to Moscow and its indifference to European affairs in general.
In order to gain more complete possession of their master the Dolgoruki
encouraged his taste for dissipation and took him away on hunting
expeditions that lasted weeks at a time. Peter would certainly have
grown as weary of them as he had of Menshikov: and to the complaints
of his aunt Elizabeth that she was left without money he had already
replied: “It is not my fault: they do not execute my orders; but I shall
find means to break my chains.” The crisis came about in a different
manner from what had been expected; the young emperor caught cold while
attending the ceremony of the benediction of the waters, and died of
smallpox at the age of fourteen years and four months. The two reigns
of Catherine and Peter II, which lasted in all about five years, were
peaceful.

In 1726 Russia had concluded an alliance with the court of Vienna and in
1727 it became involved in the war of the Quadruple Alliance. Despite the
efforts of Campredon and Kurakin the failure of the project of marriage
between Louis XV and Elizabeth had brought about coolness between France
and Russia. The most remarkable episode of the foreign relations was
the attempt of Maurice of Saxony, illegitimate son of King Augustus, to
obtain possession of the duchy of Courland. The offer of his hand had
been accepted by the widowed Anna Ivanovna, and he had been elected at
Mittau by the deputies of the nobility. Disregarding the protestations
of Prussia, Russia, and the Polish diet, he levied a body of troops with
the money raised by the sale of the jewels belonging to an abbess of
Quedlinburg, a certain French actress, his mother Aurora of Königsmark,
and Adrienne Lecouvreur, and set about putting his duchy in a state of
defence. His father disavowed him and Cardinal Fleury did not venture to
support him even indirectly. Menshikov, restored to greater liberty since
the death of Catherine I, himself laid claims to the duchy. He despatched
Lacy at the head of eight thousand men to drive out the Saxon adventurer.
The future victor of Fontenoy could get together no more than 247, and
was obliged to swim across an arm of the sea in his retreat. His election
was annulled, his father publicly reviled him as a _galopin_, or rascal,
and Courland came once more under Russian influence.

[Sidenote: [1730 A.D.]]

During the reign of Peter II a treaty was signed with Prussia by virtue
of which the two powers pledged themselves to sustain, on the death of
Augustus II, the candidate they might choose for Poland. The emperor
Charles VI and the “sergeant king” sounded Russia as to the eventual
dismemberment of the Polish Republic. This was not the first time that
the question of partition was brought forward. In Asia, Iagushinski
concluded on the Bura a treaty of commerce with the Celestial Empire
in the name of Peter II, by the terms of which Russian caravans could
journey to Pekin every three years and could carry on their trade
toll-free. Russia was also to have the privilege of keeping four priests
and six young men in Pekin to learn Chinese. Kiakhta on the Russian
territory and Maimatchin on the Chinese were to be the authorised
depots.[f]

[Illustration: PRINCE ALEXANDER MENSHIKOV]

The death of Peter II was universally regretted in Russia. During his
reign, the empire enjoyed tranquillity at home and peace abroad; and
he discovered such excellent qualities for government that the people
looked forward to enjoying under his rule a period of freedom and
prosperity such as they had never before experienced. There is no doubt,
however, that if he had survived his own good intentions would have been
perverted by those advisers who had obtained so strong a hold upon his
mind. His predilection for Moscow had already produced serious injury to
the maritime affairs of St. Petersburg: the fleet and the army suffered
severely by his continued absence from the capital; and had he lived to
complete the change by which he meditated Russia must have ultimately
lost, by the neglect of her great station on the Neva, the national
consequence she had maintained amongst the states of Europe during the
two previous reigns. It was evident, also, that he would gradually have
discouraged the residence of foreigners in his dominions; and that the
old families were acquiring such power at court that they would finally
have succeeded in restoring those national usages which had been set
aside by Peter the Great. If the people, therefore, were deprived on the
one hand of the temporary advantages of a tranquil reign, Russia on the
other was preserved from the risk of permanent evils.

Disappointed in their expectations of an alliance with the emperor,
the Dalgoruki did not wholly relinquish their hopes of securing some
advantage by their position. The young Dalgoruki, impatient of delay,
forged a testament in the name of Peter II, in which Catherine Dalgoruki
was named as the successor to the throne. With this instrument in one
hand and a drawn sword in the other he rushed into the hall, where the
senators were assembled in deliberation, and cried aloud, “Long live the
empress Dalgoruki!” But no voice seconding him in this wild and shallow
trick, he sheathed his sword, and suppressed the fraudulent testament.

The question of the succession was now to be considered; and the only
authentic document by which the proceedings of the council could be
regulated was the will of Catherine I, which devised the succession
to the princess Anna and her posterity, or, in failure, the princess
Elizabeth. But Anna had died two years before, and her husband the duke
of Holstein had retired into Germany. It was true that there was a young
prince, the issue of this marriage; but the council were so averse to
the introduction of foreigners into the state that they decided at once
against any claim that might be set up in that quarter.

The princess Elizabeth, second in the order of nomination, exhibited
no desire to avail herself of the testament of her mother, although
she was strongly urged to do so by Lestocq, her physician, preferring
to enjoy the ease of a life unburdened by the cares of the state. In
these circumstances the council, the senate, and the great officers of
state assembled to consult upon the election of a successor to Peter II.
Although the male line of the Romanovs was extinct in that sovereign,
yet the female line was preserved in the three daughters of Ivan, the
stepbrother of Peter the Great, and for some time a partner with him in
the government. The eldest was separated from her husband, the duke of
Mecklenburg; the second, Anna, duchess of Courland, was a widow living at
Mittau; and the third was still unmarried, residing at St. Petersburg.
The objection that was entertained against foreign alliances determined
the senate to reject the claims of the first, and the choice consequently
fell upon Anna Ivanovna.


ANNA IVANOVNA (1730-1740 A.D.)

From the time of the death of Catherine I the prejudice against
foreigners had insensibly acquired weight amongst those influential
persons who surrounded the throne. The Dolgoruki were the most active
agents of this sentiment, through which they hoped at last to reap the
largest share of profit themselves. Taking advantage of the jealousy
in which the old aristocracy held their privileges, and apprehensive
that the new sovereign might act upon the system of her immediate
predecessors, they struck upon an expedient by which they hoped to
deprive her of the power of exercising her own judgment, and to place
her under the control of that irresponsible council which had been
instituted by Catherine I. “The welfare of the nation,” said Galitzin,
in an address to the assembly, “demands that the supreme authority and
the unlimited power of the sovereign, by which Russia has suffered so
much and which has been sustained chiefly by the influx of foreigners,
should be circumscribed, and that the crown should be conferred upon the
new sovereign under certain conditions.” This proposal was received with
universal approbation, and the following conditions were unanimously
agreed to:

That the empress should govern solely by the resolves of the high privy
council; that she was not, of her own motion, either to wage war or
make peace; that she could not, of herself, impose any new tax upon the
people; that she could not dispose of any important office, nor inflict
capital punishment on any nobleman, nor confiscate his estate, unless
he had been previously convicted of the crime laid to his charge; that
she should not alienate any lands belonging to the crown; and that she
could not marry, or nominate an heir, without obtaining, in the first
instance, the consent of the council. A strange article was added to
these conditions--that her chamberlain, von Biren, should not accompany
the empress into Russia.

These conditions, which were apparently intended to curb the tyranny of
the throne, aimed at nothing more than the abolition of one description
of despotism, for the purpose of substituting a worse in its stead.
If it abrogated the supreme and unlimited power of the sovereign, it
transferred that power to the secret council, which was thus elevated
above the sovereignty and the senate and invested with a complete control
over the administration of the public affairs. The proposed change was
from an unlimited monarchy to an irresponsible oligarchy.

The drift of this capitulation was speedily detected by those whose
interests it affected--the aristocracy. They saw that it concentrated
the power of the state in the hands of seven persons; that the Dolgoruki
had already possessed themselves of the voice of the council; and that
the issue would be the sacrifice of the empire to a family contract. The
capitulation, therefore, was scarcely passed when a powerful opposition
was raised up against it; and the people, accustomed to the despotism
of an unlimited sovereignty, from which, amidst all its severities,
they had derived many valuable safeguards and benefits, declared that
they preferred rendering obedience to one master instead of seven. This
feeling rapidly spread amongst the guards, who had good reasons for
objecting to a clause which would throw the patronage of the army into
the hands of a few persons, who, instead of promoting the meritorious,
would, as a matter of course, provide for their own friends and relatives.

[Illustration: ANNA IVANOVNA

(1693-1740)]

Nor was the princess Anna insensible to the wrong which she suffered from
this novel procedure; and, when the deputation from the council waited
upon her to inform her of her election, and the conditions which were
annexed to it, she would have refused to subscribe to the capitulation,
had she not been already prepared by the advice of General Iagushinski
as to the course she ought to pursue. That officer had previously
recommended her to accept the conditions, but to revoke them immediately
after she should be acknowledged as empress, assuring her, at the same
time, that she would be powerfully supported in the proper quarter. She
accordingly agreed to the demands of the deputation, and was crowned in
the usual forms.

The empress Anna was no sooner established upon the throne, than her
friends gave her an opportunity of carrying the advice of General
Iagushinski into effect. A petition signed by several hundred noblemen
was presented to her, in which she was entreated to abrogate the
restrictions which the council had placed upon her authority, and to
assume the unlimited power that had hitherto been exercised by her
predecessors. Fortified by this requisition, the empress presented
herself before the council and the senate, and, reading the terms of the
capitulation, demanded whether such was the will of the nation. Being
answered in the negative by the majority of those who were present,
she exclaimed, “Then there is no further need of this paper,” and tore
the capitulation in pieces. This act was ratified and published in a
manifesto which declared that the empress ascended the throne not by
election but by hereditary right, and which exacted from the people
an oath of allegiance, not to the sovereign and the country, as had
formerly been the case, but to the empress alone, as unlimited sovereign,
including not only the rights of sovereignty already existing but those
that might be asserted hereafter.

Anna was now empress without conditions, and her chamberlain, von Biren,
was raised to that place in her councils which Menshikov filled during
the reign of Catherine I. The first exercise she made of her power was to
abolish the council of seven and to restore to the senate the privileges
it enjoyed under Peter the Great. She appointed, however, a cabinet
of three persons, with Ostermann at its head, whose duty it was to
superintend the affairs of the most pressing importance, leaving to the
senate the management of less momentous matters. When these arrangements
were completed, the urgent attention of the empress was directed to the
foreign relations of the empire, which, at this crisis, demanded serious
consideration.

The struggle for the throne in Poland had entailed jealousies which
threatened not only to involve the peace of Russia but to draw France and
Sweden into the quarrel. The cause of Augustus, the elector of Saxony,
which had originally been espoused by Peter I, was still maintained
by the Russian cabinet; and, although France made strenuous exertions
to reinstate Stanislaus, the father-in-law of Louis XV, yet, by the
determined interference of his northern ally, Augustus was proclaimed
king of Poland, and Stanislaus was compelled to fly. The mortification
which France endured under these circumstances excited in her a strong
feeling of hostility against Russia; but there existed still more cogent
reasons why she should make an attempt to restrain the advances of that
power.

It had long been a favourite point in the policy of France to secure
upon the throne of Poland a monarch who should be devoted to her will,
and although she had been hitherto defeated in that object, she did not
relinquish the hope of its ultimate accomplishment. She saw also rising
in the north a gigantic empire, which had already acquired extraordinary
power in Europe, and which threatened at last to overshadow and destroy
the influence which she had been accustomed to exercise in that part of
the globe. Urged by these considerations, and knowing how important it
was to Russia to be at peace with Sweden, she left no means untried to
engage the court at Stockholm on her side. Her diplomacy succeeded even
better than she expected and Russia was once more compelled to watch with
vigilance the movements of a dangerous neighbour, who was still suffering
under the disastrous effects of a war from which Russia had reaped all
the benefits and she the misfortunes.

But affairs pressed with still greater energy in a more remote quarter.
It was found by experience that the territories which Peter had acquired
in Persia by the treaty entered into between him, the sultan, and the
shah were exceedingly burdensome to the country. In his desire for
the enlargement of his dominions, Peter overlooked the necessity of
ascertaining whether the new provinces were likely to be productive of
advantages, either in the way of revenue or as adding strength to the
frontiers. In order to preserve the possession of those provinces, it
was necessary to maintain a considerable garrison in the interior, even
in time of peace; they were also frequently exposed to scenes of warfare
and devastation; and the climate was so injurious to the health of the
Russians that in the course of a few years no less than 130,000 men
perished there.

[Sidenote: [1735 A.D.]]

The great cost of these dependencies, and their uselessness in a
territorial point of view, determined Anna to relinquish them upon the
best terms she could procure from the shah. She accordingly proposed to
that prince the restoration of the conquered provinces, upon condition
that he would grant to the Russian merchants certain commercial
privileges in the trade with Persia. To these terms the shah acceded, and
in 1735 Russia made a formal surrender of her Persian possessions. This
negotiation was connected with another of still greater importance--a
defensive treaty between Persia and Russia, which was concluded at the
same time. The motives which induced Anna to enter into this alliance
require a brief recapitulation of preceding events.

The unfortunate situation in which Peter I was placed upon the banks
of the Pruth compelled him to submit to the terms dictated by the
Porte, by which he surrendered many important advantages which he had
previously obtained by conquest. The principal sacrifices he had made
upon that occasion were the evacuation of Azov and the destruction of the
fortifications at Taganrog which had the immediate effect of shutting him
out from the trade on the Euxine. The annoyances also to which the empire
was subjected by the frequent incursions of the Crimean and other Tatars
into the border lands, where they committed the most frightful excesses,
and the haughty refusal of the Porte to acknowledge the imperial title
which the people had conferred upon him, led Peter to meditate a new war
against the Turks. He made ample preparations for the fulfilment of this
design by fortifying the frontiers in the neighbourhood of Turkey; but
his death arrested the execution of the project, which was entirely laid
aside by Catherine I and Peter II.

Anna, however, relying upon the assistance of thirty thousand auxiliaries
from Germany, considered this a favourable opportunity for reviving a
stroke of policy which promised such signal advantages to the country,
particularly as the Turk was at this period employed in hostilities
against Persia. She did not long want an excuse for opening the war.
The Tatars had of late made several predatory inroads upon the Russian
territories, and laying waste the districts through which they passed
carried off men and cattle on their return. These Tatars being under the
protection of the Porte, the empress remonstrated upon the subject, and
demanded satisfaction; but the sultan, in his reply, excused himself from
interfering in the matter, upon the pretext that it was impossible to
keep those roving bands under proper restraint. This evasive reply was
precisely what Anna anticipated, and as the sultan declined to render
her any atonement, she undertook to obtain retribution for herself. A
force was immediately despatched into the country of the Tatars, which
they overran, spreading ruin in their path, and destroying the marauders
in great numbers. The expedition failed, however, in consequence of the
incautious advance of the troops too far into the interior, where, not
being prepared with a sufficient stock of provisions, they underwent
severe privations, and sustained a loss of ten thousand men.

But this discomfiture did not divert the empress from her grand design;
and in the year 1736 Count Munich, at the head of a sufficient force,
was sent into the Ukraine, with a free commission to retaliate upon the
Tatars. After a victorious course through that region, he passed into
the peninsula of the Crimea; the Tatars, unequal to contending with him
in the open field, flying before him until they reached their lines,
extending from the sea of Azov to the Euxine, behind the intrenchments of
which they considered themselves secure. The lines were established with
a view to protecting the Crimea from any attack on the land side; and,
having been built with incredible toil, and being strongly fortified with
cannon, the Tatars deemed them impregnable. They did not long, however,
withstand the vigorous assault of the Russians, who speedily scaled them,
and, driving the tumultuous hordes before them, soon possessed themselves
of the greater part of the Crimea. But the same inconveniences were felt
on this as on the former expedition. The Tatars on their flight laid the
country in ashes, and it was impossible to provide sustenance for the
troops without keeping up a constant communication with the Ukraine,
where provisions at least were to be had, but which was attended with
great difficulty. In this exigency, Count Munich was obliged to return to
the Ukraine, to take up his winter quarters.


_War with Turkey_

[Sidenote: [1737 A.D.]]

While Munich was thus engaged against the Tatars, a much more important
movement, in which the real object of the Russian government was directly
exhibited, was taking place elsewhere. General Lacy had laid siege to
Azov, and reduced it to submission on the 1st of July, in the same year.
This bold and decisive step forced the reluctant Divan to take into
consideration the means by which the progress of the Russians could be
most effectually stayed. The sultan was unwilling to commit himself in
a war with Russia, content with the possession of the advantages he
had gained by the Treaty of the Pruth; and even now that Russia had
regained one of the ceded forts, and was manifestly prepared to follow
up the victory, he preferred to attempt the negotiation of peace through
the mediation of Austria, for the sake of avoiding hostilities as long
as he could. Russia, however, would not agree to any accommodation;
and, instead of being moved from her purpose by the representations
of Austria, she demanded of that power the fulfilment of the treaty
subsisting between them, by which, in case of need, she was bound to
furnish thirty thousand auxiliaries. This demand placed the subject in
a new light before the German cabinet. The required assistance would
obviously have the effect of enabling Russia to extend her conquests
without producing any benefits whatever to Austria; whereas, if Austria
united herself with Russia in the war, she might derive some advantages
from an alliance against which it appeared highly improbable that the
Turks could make a successful stand. She decided, therefore, upon
throwing the whole weight of her power into the scale, greatly to the
consternation of the Turks, who had, in the first instance, solicited her
friendly interference. The sultan, however, felt that, doubtful as must
be the issue of a contest against such formidable enemies, it would be
wiser to risk it than, yielding to intimidation, to make such sacrifices
as would be inconsistent with the security and honour of the country.
He accordingly lost no time in preparing for the campaign. He recruited
the garrisons and forts, raised new levies, put his army into proper
condition, and equipped a fleet for the protection of the Euxine; on the
other hand, the combined forces rapidly prepared to act in concert.

The operations of the year 1737 were not followed by any important
results. The Russian army, strengthened by forty thousand recruits, was
separated into two divisions; one of which, under the command of Count
Munich, proceeded to Otchakov on the Euxine, while General Lacy, with
the other, entered the Crimea. The objects proposed to be attained by
these expeditions were not adequate to the expenditure that attended
them. Otchakov submitted, and was garrisoned by the conquerors; and the
Crimea was again desolated. This was all Russia gained by the sacrifice
of about fifty thousand of her veteran troops. The blame of these barren
and expensive victories was to be attributed to that very union of forces
which ought to have been productive of increased strength. The most
unfortunate jealousies existed, not only amongst the Austrian officers,
but between Count Munich and the Austrians. To so extravagant a length
was this dangerous feeling carried that, with the exception of the affair
at Otchakov, Munich remained inactive throughout the campaign, from an
obstinate determination not to act upon the same plan that was pursued by
the Austrians.

Nor was this the only evil that these feuds produced. The Turks, taking
advantage of the dissension, poured in with greater force upon the German
ranks, which they broke through on several occasions, gaining frequent
petty advantages, which, at all events, had the effect of rendering their
movements in a great measure abortive. Constant complaints were now
made alternately by the courts of Vienna and St. Petersburg, respecting
the conduct of the officers at both sides; and, although Munich was
especially accused of thwarting the efforts of the allies, he always had
the address to escape from reprehension, by throwing the censure on his
accusers.

These circumstances inspired the Turks with fresh courage. A congress
had been appointed to be held at Nemirov, in Poland, but they withdrew
their ambassador; signifying, however, that if Russia would evacuate
Azov and Otchakov, and the rest of her conquests, they might be induced
to entertain a treaty of peace. This insolent proposition was at
once rejected by Russia, and the war was resumed. In the campaign of
the following year, Munich appeared to be anxious to make amends for
his former inactivity; but, although he made some vigorous marches
and vindicated the character of the soldiery, he effected nothing of
substantial importance. A similar fortune attended General Lacy in the
Crimea, from which, after a disastrous progress through a desolated
country, and after a great mortality amongst his troops, occasioned
partly by fatigue and partly by the deficiency of provisions, he was
ultimately obliged to withdraw.

[Sidenote: [1739 A.D.]]

The opening of the year 1739 promised to make amends for these successive
failures. General Munich, whose ability in the field was admitted on all
hands, collected a numerous army at Kiev, and, crossing the Bug, met the
Turks in a pitched battle, near Stavutshan, in which he obtained a signal
victory. Pursuing his success with vigour, he advanced and, passing
the Pruth, he possessed himself of Jassi, the capital of Moldavia, the
whole of which territory he subjugated in an incredibly short space
of time. Retracing his march, after having achieved this important
conquest, he made preparations for a descent upon Bender. These brilliant
triumphs, accomplished with such rapidity that the couriers were kept
constantly occupied in the transmission of despatches to the court of St.
Petersburg, encouraged, for a brief season the flattering prospects of
complete restitution which the unpropitious commencement of the war had
almost annihilated.

But unfortunately the same evil spirit which had frustrated the former
campaigns broke out just at the moment when Turkey was so discomfited
that Russia, had she pushed her successes a little further, might have
dictated a settlement upon her own terms. Envy at the progress of the
Russian army was again exhibited in the ranks of the Austrians, who were
suffering under a contagious disease that helped in a still greater
degree to paralyse their activity. Unfortunately, too, the emperor
Charles VI was afflicted with a dangerous illness; and his daughter,
shrinking from the apprehensions of the future, was extremely desirous
by any means to bring about a peace with Turkey. This disposition on
the part of Austria was gladly seized upon by the sultan; and, before
there was time to reconcile the unhappy differences that existed amongst
the allies, a treaty of peace was drawn up and signed between Austria
and Turkey, on the 1st of September, 1739. By this inglorious treaty,
Austria escaped from all further responsibility in the war; but she
purchased the peace at so enormous a price that it is difficult to
comprehend the tortuous policy which led her to adopt so extraordinary
a measure. The war, in which she had embarked in the hope of securing
territorial advantages, had cost her a considerable expenditure in
troops and treasure; and she not only did not obtain an indemnity for
this outlay, nor acquire a single rood of ground by her participation in
the campaigns, but by the conditions of the treaty she was compelled to
relinquish Belgrade, her Hungarian rampart against the Turks, and all
those conquests which she had formerly obtained under the victorious flag
of Prince Eugene.

This peace produced great dissatisfaction at St. Petersburg; for,
although Austria reserved to herself the right of fulfilling her treaty
with Russia by succouring her in the field, it was not deemed prudent
to prosecute a war single handed, which had been commenced with such a
formidable display of power. The Turks, relieved from one antagonist,
were now the better enabled to resist the other; and the empress
conceived that the wisest course she could pursue was to negotiate her
differences with the sultan, to which proposal he was not unwilling to
accede. A peace was consequently entered into between the belligerents
with such promptitude that it was concluded as early as the 18th of
September. The conditions of this treaty involved compromises on both
sides. It was agreed that Azov and its surrounding territory should be
evacuated and remain uncultivated, as a neutral boundary between the
two empires; a similar arrangement was guaranteed respecting Kabarda,
both governments agreeing to retain in their hands a certain number of
hostages from that province, for better security against an abuse of the
stipulation. It was also settled that Russia should be at liberty to
erect a fortress on the Don, and that the Porte should construct another
in the Kuban. Some minor conquests of the Russians were surrendered:
Russian fleets were not to be allowed to be kept in the sea of Azov
or the Euxine; and in the latter sea the commerce of Russia was to be
conducted only in Turkish bottoms.


_Internal Administration_

The empress Anna, in thus suddenly concluding a peace with Turkey, was
actuated by a still stronger motive than that which was supplied by the
desertion of Austria. She justly apprehended that Sweden, influenced by
the intrigues of France, who had now attained a decided ascendency in the
councils of Stockholm, would endeavour to distract Russia in the north,
while the main body of her army was occupied with the Porte on the south.
Secret negotiations, carried on between the three powers, appeared to
confirm this suspicion. It was true that, at the conclusion of the last
war, Russia and Sweden had entered into an amnesty for twelve years,
which was renewed for a similar period, on its expiration in the year
1736. But this amnesty served only as a thin disguise for the rankling
and bitter hostility which the Swedes entertained towards Russia. They
had not forgotten the protracted and ruinous struggle between Charles
XII and Peter I, which convulsed the whole kingdom and exhausted its
resources; nor the sacrifices which they were compelled to make at the
Peace of Nystad. These feelings were assiduously cultivated by the French
court, which found easy means of securing a strong party in the national
council, which in fact was paramount in Sweden, the king being completely
under its control. The empress, warned of this increasing desire for a
rupture on the part of Sweden, was the more anxious to come to terms with
Turkey, that she might be free to act in Finland and that neighbourhood,
should it become necessary.

Anna was evidently guided in the whole course of her policy by the
example of Peter I, whom she adopted as her model. Fortunate in the
choice of at least two of her advisers--Ostermann in the council of
state, and Munich at the head of the army--she persevered in her attempts
to complete those projects of improvement which her great predecessor had
left unfinished. The canal connected with the Lake of Ladoga, which was
designed to facilitate the transport of provisions to St. Petersburg,
was brought to a close by her in the year 1738. She also fitted out an
expedition to sail from Kamchatka towards the north, for the purpose of
determining whether Siberia was connected with North America.

The manufacture and commerce of Russia, too, commanded a large share of
her attention. She instructed her ambassadors at foreign courts to make
vigilant inquiries after the most skilful persons engaged in those trades
in which Russia was most deficient; and by this means she was enabled
to draw into her dominions a great number of artisans, particularly
those who were experienced in the production of such fabrics as silks
and woollen stuffs. In furtherance of these views she entered into a
treaty of commerce with Great Britain, from which the industry of her
people derived a fresh and invigorating stimulus. It may be observed,
also, that she increased the numerical population by the return of the
Zaparogian Cossacks to their allegiance, shortly after the opening of
the campaign in the Crimea, which they had forfeited by the rebellion of
Mazeppa; and that she enlarged her territories by the acquisition of the
province inhabited by the Kirghiz, a nomad tribe, on the Chinese borders.
This latter accession was of great importance, from the protection it
afforded to the frontiers against the incursions to which they had
hitherto been continually exposed: while it not only created a new trade
with the Kirghiz themselves, but gave greater freedom to the commercial
intercourse with China, which had been constantly interrupted by these
hostilities.


_Biron the Favourite_

Throughout her life Anna placed unreserved confidence in a favourite
who, rising from a humble station in society to the first place in the
councils of his sovereign, at last aspired to the illicit possession of
her affections. John Ernest Biron, the son of a gamekeeper in Courland,
happening to attract the attention of the duchess, was appointed her
private secretary. From this post he was elevated to the more important
office of chamberlain; and even then it was rumoured that he stood higher
in her grace’s favour than was consistent with the position which he
nominally occupied. When the council elected his mistress to the imperial
throne, it was stipulated that Biron should not be suffered to accompany
her into Russia; and one of the conditions of the capitulation restricted
her from marrying, or choosing an heir, without the consent of the
council and senate. The empress, accepting the sovereignty under these
limitations, left Biron at Mittau, when she came to St. Petersburg; but
she had no sooner abrogated the stipulations within which her power was
restrained, than Biron appeared at court, was created a Russian count,
appointed first lord of the bedchamber, and raised at once to the same
eminence which he had occupied before. Some years previously he had
succeeded in prevailing on the nobility of Courland to confer upon him
the title of duke; and when the Kettler family became extinct by the
death of the duke of Courland, he procured that dignity from the hands of
the electors for himself and his heirs in perpetuity.

Thus glittering with honours, which at best were but surreptitiously
obtained, he took upon himself at once in St. Petersburg the character
of one who wielded an absolute authority. He was careful, however, not
to offend Ostermann or Munich, because, possessing no abilities for
government himself, he was obliged to rely upon them as the instruments
of his power. It was supposed that the Turkish war was undertaken at
the instigation of this daring man, for the purpose of keeping Munich
at a distance from the capital--that officer having attained in a high
degree the confidence of the empress. By the most adroit measures Biron
contrived to remove from a familiar intercourse at court everybody who
might be likely to interfere with his ambitious designs. Apprehensive
that the empress, freed from the control of the council, might entertain
thoughts of marriage, he assiduously limited all opportunities that could
lead to such a result; and even attempted to prevent a union between
the princess Anna and Ulrich duke of Brunswick, the object of which had
reference to the succession. In this scheme, however, the machinations
of Biron were defeated, and the marriage was celebrated in the month of
July, 1739. This event seriously interfered with the projects of the
favourite; but his ingenuity was not exerted in vain in the attempt to
derive profit from circumstances which at first seemed so discouraging.


_Death of Anna (1740 A.D.); the Succession_

[Sidenote: [1740 A.D.]]

[Illustration: RUSSIAN PEASANT WOMAN]

In the August following, the duchess of Brunswick became the mother
of a prince, who was immediately taken by the empress under her own
guardianship and nominated to be her successor. This proceeding,
apparently founded upon some show of justice, was in reality the result
of a deep-laid conspiracy. The empress was in a declining state of
health, and it was felt that she could not long continue to exercise the
sovereignty. In this state of things, it became necessary to provide
a successor by an authentic act that could not afterwards be called
into question. Biron aimed at the concentration of the imperial power
in his own hands; but as an open declaration to that effect would have
provoked animosities dangerous to his safety, it was arranged that the
young prince, then but a few weeks old, should be nominated to the
throne, and that Biron should be appointed regent during the minority
of Ivan. Ostermann and Munich, relying upon the future gratitude of
Biron, favoured this crafty design. Biron coquetted for a time with the
dignities which he was solicited to accept; and pretended at last that,
in undertaking the toils of the regency, he yielded to the importunities
of others at the sacrifice of his own private wishes.

The extent of the power thus delegated to him was specified in the
provisions of the will of the empress, which ordained that he should
be the administrator of government until the emperor Ivan had attained
his seventeenth year; and that, should Ivan die before that time, Biron
should continue guardian to Ivan’s brethren, born after him, who should
succeed him on the throne; but that, should neither Ivan nor any of his
brethren survive, then Biron, with the concurrence of the state, should
elect and confirm a new emperor as unlimited monarch. This was the final
injunction of the czarina, who died in 1740.[b]


_A Russian Estimate of Anna and of Biron_

Contemporaneous writers are unanimous in asserting that, during her
entire reign, Anna Ivanovna was not only under the influence, but, so
to say, under the domination of her favourite. On the basis of such
authorities it therefore became customary to ascribe to Biron and the
Germans who were grouped around him all the cruelties and coarseness
that characterised her reign. But if we subject this question to
a dispassionate and severe criticism it would appear that such an
accusation of Biron--and in general of the Germans who governed with
him--has no firm foundation. It is impossible to ascribe all the
character of the reign to a German clique, because those Germans who were
at the head of the government did not constitute a united corporation,
but each of them followed his own personal interests; they were envious
of one another and at enmity each with the rest.

Biron was a somewhat narrow-minded egotist, incapable of attracting any
circle around him; his power rested exclusively on the personal favour of
the empress; and therefore, as soon as Anna Ivanovna’s eyes were closed
forever, her former favourite had no sure ground to go upon, and although
his deceased mistress had made his position secure yet he was not able to
maintain it a month without her. There is no contemporary indication that
the cruelties which signalised the reign of Anna emanated from Biron or
that they were accomplished at his initiative.

Moreover, the cruelties and in general the harsh measures which
signalised the reign of Anna Ivanovna were not an exclusive
characteristic of that epoch; they did not begin to make their appearance
in Russia with her and did not cease with her. The administration of
Peter the Great was signalised by persecutions even more cruel and
harsh of everything opposed to the supreme power. The actions of Prince
Romodanovski in accordance with the Preobrajenski edict were in no wise
milder or more humane than those of Andrew Ivanovitch Uskakov in the
secret chancery. On the other hand, similar features of cruelty and
contempt for human dignity are to be met with after Anna Ivanovna under
Elizabeth Petrovna. Therefore we do not hesitate to say that all that
disturbs us in the reign of Anna should not be ascribed to the empress
herself, nor to her favourite, the duke of Courland, but to the whole age
in which such occurrences took place. On the contrary, if we separate
from that which belongs to the age what we may justly ascribe to the
empress herself and the statesmen of her time, we come to a conclusion
which is more to the advantage and credit of the government of the epoch
than to its condemnation. Many dispositions of the government of that
time in matters of interior policy were accomplished in the spirit of
Peter the Great and it was not in vain that Anna Ivanovna confided the
affairs of the state to the wise and gifted “fledgelings” of Peter.
Thanks to them, in many respects the reign of Anna may be called a
continuation of the glorious reign of her great uncle: in general the
life of Russia moved forward and was not stagnant. The people of Russia
suffered from bad harvests during the reign, besides other various
accidental calamities, as for instance fires and robbers; for all such
evils, of course, the governments of the period cannot be blamed, and
there is no doubt that measures were taken to alleviate the distress of
the people.[c]


THE NOMINAL REIGN OF IVAN VI (1740-1741 A.D.)

For a short time after the death of Anna (1740) Biron maintained
an autocratic rule, assuming the title of His Highness, Regent of
the Russian Empire. But finally the people, jealous of seeing the
administration of the imperial rule confided to the hands of a
foreigner--and one too who, instead of exhibiting a sympathy in their
interests, treated them with the most flagrant tyranny--betrayed
universal discontent at the new order of things. It was held to be
a direct act of injustice to debar the duke of Brunswick from the
guardianship of his son; and a formidable party now rapidly sprang up,
prepared to espouse the rights of that prince. The popular disaffection
increased on all sides; but Biron had established his spies in every
direction, and was unsparing in the punishments which he inflicted
upon all those persons whom he had reason to believe inimical to his
government. The streets groaned with the cries of the victims of the
knout; the people fled before him, or, in an agony of fear, prostrated
themselves upon the earth as he advanced; and the dungeons were filled
with the unhappy objects of his suspicions. It was calculated that,
throughout the period of his authority, including the reign of the
empress Anna, no less than twenty thousand persons were exiled to Siberia.

At length the smothered flame broke out, and the demands in favour of
Duke Ulrich took an affirmative shape. Count Munich, disappointed in his
expectations by the hypocritical Biron, warmly embarked on the other
side; and, by still affecting to be the friend of the regent, he was
enabled to render essential service in the revolution which was now
swiftly encircling the walls of the palace. The confidence which the
military placed in Munich gave increased importance to his services; and,
as he found that he had nothing to expect from the regent, he attached
himself zealously to Duke Ulrich in the anticipation that he would
ultimately be rewarded with the chief command of the army, which was the
station he had long eagerly desired to obtain.

The revolution which was thus organised was promptly accomplished. The
regent was arrested in the middle of the night, in his house, by a
detachment of the guards; and the principal senators assembled in the
palace before daybreak, and acknowledged the princess Anna as grand
duchess of Russia, and guardian of her son the infant emperor. This
proceeding was the work of a few hours. Biron was at first confined
in the castle of Schlüsselburg, whence he was removed as a prisoner
and brought to trial for obtaining the regency by improper means, for
squandering the imperial treasures, for treating with contumely the
parents of the emperor, and for violating the statutes and ordinances
so as to throw the empire into confusion. For these capital offences
he was condemned to death; but his sentence was mitigated to perpetual
banishment to the deserts of Siberia, where, in addition to the ordinary
miseries of that forlorn region, he was compelled to associate in the
labours of the numerous wretches whom he had himself condemned to the
same fate. [He was, however, set at liberty by Peter III, and Catherine
II ultimately restored to him the duchy of Courland.]


_Anna of Brunswick Assumes the Regency (1740 A.D.)_

The regency of the princess Anna was slightly perplexed at its opening,
by the importunate demands of Munich to be placed at the head of the
army--a post which Duke Ulrich appropriated to himself, and peremptorily
refused to relinquish. As a compensation, however, to Munich, he removed
Ostermann, and appointed his rival in his place as first minister of the
government. Munich did not long hold this office: failing to accomplish
a course of policy which he urged upon the regent, he tendered his
resignation, which was unexpectedly accepted. Frustrated in his hopes,
he lingered in St. Petersburg, anticipating that he would be recalled;
but the period of his utility was past, and his anticipations were
disappointed. The ground of his retirement involved a serious change in
the foreign policy of the empire. Frederick II had just ascended the
throne of Prussia, and, regarding with jealousy the alliance that had
been formed between the courts of St. Petersburg and Vienna, endeavoured
to accomplish a union with Russia through the regency of Munich, whose
antipathy to Austria was notorious. Frederick did not find it very
difficult to work upon the vanity and prejudices of the minister, who
was easily brought to prevail upon the regent to enter into a defensive
treaty with the cabinet of Berlin; both parties mutually binding
themselves to furnish assistance, as occasion might require, to the
extent of twelve thousand men. In consenting to this treaty, the regent
mentally resolved to fulfil the stipulation it enjoined, only so long
as Prussia should be at peace with Austria. An occasion soon offered
which obliged her to act upon this secret resolution, Frederick having
signified his intention of taking possession of Silesia as a part of the
inheritance of Maria Theresa. In consequence of this proceeding, a new
alliance was formed with Austria at the commencement of the year 1741, by
which a fresh engagement to furnish auxiliaries was entered into. Munich
in vain remonstrated against this measure; and at last, finding his
influence at an end, he solicited permission to resign, which was granted
to him at once. Notwithstanding the disposition thus manifested on the
part of Russia, she did not take any part in the war between Prussia and
Austria; particularly as the king of Poland and the elector of Saxony,
who also raised pretensions to the patrimony of Theresa, protested
against the progress of the Russian troops through Poland; Sweden at the
same time threatening the empire on the borders of Finland.


_Sweden Renews the War_

[Sidenote: [1741 A.D.]]

The Swedes had long looked anxiously for an excuse to make war against
Russia; and now that the government of that empire was, to a certain
degree, unpopular, and likely from that circumstance to undergo an
alteration, a favourable opportunity appeared to present itself for
executing a project so gratifying to the whole nation. The ambassador
of France at the court of Stockholm encouraged the council to prosecute
this war; while the French minister at St. Petersburg demonstrated its
facility by representing in strong colours the weakness and instability
of the new administration. The Swedes, flattered by the hopes in which
they were led to indulge, already calculated with certainty upon the
results of the campaign; and the diet at Stockholm were so sanguine of
success that they actually drew up no less than three sets of articles
containing the conditions which they intended to dictate at the
conclusion of the war, when they were assured Russia would be compelled
to submit to any terms they might propose. By these articles, they made
provision for the resumption of all the provinces that had been ceded to
Russia by the Treaty of Nystad; and prepared arrangements, in the event
of these not being quite so successful as they expected, by which certain
terms, less humiliating but exceedingly extravagant, were to be forced
upon their adversary. It was decided, at all events, that, in any case,
Russia should surrender Karelia, Ingermanland, and Livonia; that she
should not be permitted to keep a single ship on the Livonia or Esthonian
coasts; and that she should be compelled to grant the free exportation of
corn.

These plans of aggrandisement were deliberately settled by the diet,
before any preparations were made for their execution. The Swedes were
zealous enough in their desire to wrest from Russia her conquered
territories; but they were lamentably deficient in the means by which
that desire was to be accomplished. Their fleet was not seaworthy;
and the army, brave to a proverb, was insufficiently furnished with
provisions, and so destitute of skilful commanders that if it had
achieved a victory it must have been by some miracle of good fortune,
and not by its own prowess. The generals Levenhaupt and Buddembrock were
the most strenuous advocates of the war; yet, although its conduct was
committed to their own hands, the sequel proved that the enterprise was
as rashly conceived as it was badly conducted.

Russia was the first in the field; and General Lacy, advancing on the
Swedes in August, 1741, before they had time to organise their forces,
obtained a signal victory over them near Vilmanstrand. This fortress
immediately surrendered to the Russians; but the Swedes collected in such
superior numbers that no further progress was made by Lacy throughout the
rest of the campaign.

When Sweden entered upon this ill-advised war, she acted under a
conviction that serious discontents prevailed in Russia against the
regency of the duchess of Brunswick. The sudden changes, succeeding
each other with marvellous rapidity, that had taken place in the
imperial government, justified, in some measure, the supposition that
the present regency was as much exposed to revolution as the preceding
administrations. The question of the succession had been treated so
vaguely, and had been subjected to such fluctuating decisions, that it
was believed some new theory would be set up to annul the last election,
as others had been annulled before. There was no doubt that the division
of parties in Russia afforded a reasonable ground for anticipating a
convulsion. The supreme power had latterly become the prize for which
base and ambitious men, without hereditary pretensions and destitute of
personal merit, had struggled with various degrees of success. There was
evidently no settled principle of inheritance; and even the dangerous
principle sanctioned by the example of Peter the Great, which gave to one
unlimited sovereign the right of choosing another to succeed him, was
acted upon capriciously, and appealed to or overruled as it happened to
suit the exigency of the occasion.

The brief reigns of Catherine, of Peter, and of Anna, remarkable as they
were for the confusion to which they led in the attempts to settle the
crown, for the vicissitudes which they drew down upon persons who had
previously enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity, and for the factious views
which they extracted and condensed into conspiracies, might be referred
to as furnishing the probabilities of the future, and confirming the
hopes of those who desired, above all things, to see Russia once more
broken up by civil commotions. The antipathy which existed against
foreigners, and the objections of the old aristocracy to those European
reforms that had been from time to time forced upon the people, were
well known to the courts of Stockholm and Paris. The vulnerable point
in the domestic concerns of the empire was laid bare; and Sweden, who
anticipated a revolution from some cause or other, without being able
to predicate from what precise ground of discontent it would spring,
resolved, at all events, to expose to the Russians the permanent evil of
their condition, leaving it to work its effects as it might. With this
view she issued a manifesto, containing the following artful reasons,
which were designed to draw with her the sympathies of the Russian
population.

“The sole intention on the part of Sweden,” observed the manifesto, “is
to defend herself by arms against the oppressions exercised against
her by the arrogant foreigners, the ministers of the Russian court;
and at the same time to deliver the Russian nation from the yoke which
these ministers have imposed on it, by assisting the Russians to regain
their right of electing for themselves a lawful ruler.” The foreigners
particularly pointed at in this manifesto were Munich and Ostermann. The
allusion, towards the close, of the design of Sweden to deliver Russia
from the yoke of those ministers and to assist her in her right of
electing a lawful ruler, touched upon topics which were well calculated
to disturb the minds of the people, and to suggest to them notions
of independence which they had been hitherto prevented by coercive
institutions from entertaining. But there was either a stolid apathy on
the part of the Russians, an indifference to or ignorance of the nature
of liberty, or a national jealousy at the interference of other countries
in their affairs, which rendered this ingenious and inflammatory document
perfectly harmless. It was disseminated and forgotten; but, although
Sweden could not create a revolution in Russia, there were elements of
discord within which rendered revolution inevitable.

The assertion of the right of the sovereign to nominate his successor was
productive of inconvenience in a variety of ways: (1) as it constantly
brought the new monarch into collision with the authorities, who were
thus deprived of the privilege of election; (2) as it was almost certain
to dissatisfy some party, and to produce continual feuds; (3) as it
led to dissensions and attempts to vindicate the ancient principle,
whenever the sovereign, as we have seen, happened to die intestate;
and (4) as it was calculated to perpetuate in particular families the
inheritance of the patronage and the power of government. But the chief
danger arose from the fatal precedent of its interruption, which was
seized upon with avidity as a justification, on all future changes, of
those revolutions which so frequently originated within the walls of the
palace. Alterations had now followed each other so quickly in the persons
to whom the administration of the government was committed, and they were
conceived so rapidly, and executed with such suddenness and decision,
that it was no longer surprising to find the imperial authority vested in
the morning in different hands from those which exercised it the night
before.

These bold transactions were, of course, founded upon some plausible
pretext--the unpopularity of the late ruler, the more authentic claims
of the new, the support of the army, or, perhaps, the rare argument of
the national will, which it would be mockery to designate public opinion.
The overthrow of Biron was effected by a combination of circumstances:
the hatred in which he was universally held, his cruelty and rapacity,
the obscurity of his origin, and the fact that he was an alien by birth.
But the last of these objections lay with almost equal force against
the young emperor Ivan, and might be employed with still greater truth
against his father, the duke of Brunswick, who, as husband of the regent,
exercised considerable influence at court. A stronger motive than this
was not required to inflame the prejudices of a powerful section of the
nobility, and to yield a satisfactory apology for removing the regent and
her son, who was not considered a true Russian, from power. The project
was not slow in arriving at maturity; and the term of authority permitted
to the guardian of Ivan was, all circumstances considered, of little more
duration than that extended to Biron, who held his perilous elevation
only two and twenty days.


_Successful Conspiracy against the Regent_

These designs against the throne were greatly facilitated by the
strange conduct of the princess Anna and her husband. Since they had
attained their wishes in the government, their behaviour towards each
other had undergone a most remarkable change. Harmony and confidence
seemed to have ceased between them; and, no longer acting in concert,
but, on the contrary, opposing each other by conflicting views, the
affairs of the state unavoidably fell into perplexity and confusion.
The rivalry that had been produced between Ostermann and Munich in
consequence of the favour shown, in the first instance, by the duke to
the latter, contributed to increase that disagreement in action which
was imperceptibly dividing the government into two parties. Ostermann,
finding himself displaced to make way for Munich, attached himself still
more closely to the duke, for the purpose of supplanting his rival upon
the first opportunity; while Munich, on the other hand, smarting under
the mortification he endured by the duke’s repeated refusal of the
office he solicited, sought to ingratiate himself in the good opinion
of the regent. The consequence of this spirit of opposition, fed by the
jealousies of those able ministers, was the daily counteraction by one
party of the measures projected by the other.

The regent was a woman of serene temper and lenient disposition; she
regarded severity with aversion, and always resorted to the prerogative
of mercy where it was possible she could do so consistently with justice:
but her desires were so completely thwarted by Ostermann that the public
results of the administration bore a very different character from that
by which they would have been distinguished had her own opinions been
allowed their proper weight. Perhaps it was to this undercurrent of
resistance that the indifference concerning the government into which she
fell ought to be attributed. But, to whatever cause it might be referred,
she gradually neglected the duties of her station, and suffered them to
be discharged at hazard by the advisers of the duke. Totally estranging
herself from her husband, she retired for weeks together from public
affairs, and shut herself up with a Countess Mengden, who obtained so
great an ascendency over her mind as to withdraw her attention almost
wholly from the responsibility of her position. This circumstance
produced considerable dissatisfaction, and heightened the antipathy
with which the people regarded the German party that was now growing
up at court. The aversion entertained towards foreigners now broke out
with more violence than ever. It seemed as if the administration of
affairs had completely passed out of the hands of the Russians. The
convention that had been formed on the demise of Peter II, by which the
supreme authority was vested in the council, which was composed almost
exclusively of members of native families, would have had indirectly the
effect of excluding strangers from the government; but the evils with
which it was pregnant, and its immediate interference with the privileges
of the empress, led to its abrogation. The ascendency of foreigners was
then resumed with greater force than ever. Biron the insolent guardian,
Ostermann the experienced politician, and Munich the able commander rose
to the summit and swayed the destinies of the empire.

Nor did Ivan himself possess a much better claim to be considered as a
Russian. He was but a remote descendant of the house of Romanov; his
father was a German prince, his mother the daughter of a German prince;
and the only member of the imperial house to whom he could refer his
lineal descent was his grandfather Ivan, stepbrother to Peter I. The
family, therefore, that occupied the throne, was almost exclusively of
German blood, which was rendered still more repugnant to the people by
the fact that all the most important offices under government were filled
by foreigners. There was in these circumstances, and in the desire to
arrest finally the influence of strangers--which appeared to progress
with increasing certainty in each successive reign--a sufficient ground
for protest; and the extraordinary indolence of the regent, her utter
neglect of state affairs, her discouragement of Russian customs, and her
lavish patronage of her immediate adherents, who were all obnoxious to
the people, furnished the ready pretext upon which a plot was formed to
expel her from the throne.

The princess Elizabeth, daughter of Peter I, residing at St. Petersburg,
was the person in favour of whose claims this conspiracy was got up.
By birth, she was closer to the throne than either the young emperor
or the regent; and the habits of her life were much more congenial to
the feelings of the country. She might have preferred her pretensions
on the death of Peter II, when there was a strong probability that they
would have commanded the suffrages of the council; but at that time she
expressed no desire to enter upon the cares of sovereignty, choosing
rather to cultivate the repose of a retired and tranquil life. Throughout
the reign of the empress Anna she observed the same quiet course, kept
aloof from politics, and avoiding, as much as possible, all intercourse
with the great men or distinguished families at court. Her conduct was
so entirely free from suspicion that she enjoyed the closest intimacy
with the empress, who, believing that the princess was averse to the
toils of power, bestowed her full confidence upon her; and even Biron,
who distrusted almost everyone about him, never contemplated any measure
to her prejudice. She enjoyed the immunities of a private person; never
made any display of her rank in public; and was in truth, as she was
in appearance, without a party in the country. The only exception to
the privacy of her life was the attachment she showed for the soldiery,
particularly the guards; which she did not hesitate to exhibit by
frequently standing sponsor for their children.

Yet, although her conduct was so exempt from reproach, the Dolgoruki were
accused of an intention of placing her upon the throne--an intention
which they might have entertained without her knowledge or sanction; for
there was sometimes as much violence committed in forcing the dignity
upon unwilling shoulders as in deposing the possessor. That aspiring
family fell under the displeasure of Biron, and its members were put to
the torture towards the close of the year 1739; when they confessed that
they had planned an insurrection, the purpose of which was to carry off
the empress, the princess Anna, and her husband, to expel the Germans
from Russia, to proclaim Elizabeth empress, and to bring about a marriage
between her and one of the Nariskins. This confession might be true, or
it might have been wrung from the accused by torture, which, in those
times, was too often persuasively employed to make its victims confess
more than the truth; but it was satisfactory for the ends of Biron, who,
proceeding to capital punishment at once, broke one of the victims on the
wheel, decapitated three others, and sentenced two more to a dungeon for
life.

There is no reason to believe that Elizabeth contemplated any designs
upon the throne during the reign of the empress Anna, or that the
simplicity of her general conduct was assumed as a disguise for secret
intrigues. The project seems to have occurred to her for the first time,
when she saw an infant emperor consigned to the regency of a foreigner;
it was probably strengthened afterwards, when the guardianship of the
child was transferred to its parents, one of whom was a German by birth,
and the other by descent; and it reached its maturity, when she heard
it reported currently that the regent intended to have herself declared
empress on her birthday in the following December, 1741, and to establish
the succession in the line of her daughters. This intelligence, which
every day obtained fresh credit at court, imparted a new aspect to the
question. It was no longer to be considered a choice between lineal and
indirect descendants of the house of Romanov, but between a sovereign who
should be chosen by the electors and one who was resolved to usurp by
force what she could not legitimately obtain.

The discontent of the people, the inconsistent bearing of the regent,
and the favourable disposition for a change which began to be developed
in influential quarters, seemed to sanction the act of revolution, and
to invoke Elizabeth from her retirement to fulfil its ends. Personally,
she stood alone; she had never drawn around her any powerful friends;
she had never mixed in the court feuds; and her whole reliance was upon
the temper and accidents of the time. But it was not forgotten in her
calculations that the individual who is the representative of a principle
acquires at once all the power which the cause he espouses can confer,
and that he is sure to be sustained by a party for the promotion of their
own objects, although he might be destitute of support in the attempt to
advance his own.

Lestocq, the physician and favourite of the princess, was the mainspring
of the plot. It was by his advice that the enterprise was undertaken,
and it was almost solely by his perseverance that it was prosecuted. He
first addressed himself to the guards, who were individually devoted to
the princess. The earliest confidants of his schemes were Grünstein, a
broken merchant, who was then a corporal in the Preobrajenski guards,
and Schwartz, a trumpeter. Through the agency of these persons, to whom
he promised large rewards, Lestocq succeeded in gaining over to his
views a strong party of the soldiery. M. de la Chetardie, the French
ambassador resident at St. Petersburg, readily engaged in the conspiracy,
acting, no doubt, under the sanction of his court, whose policy it was to
convulse the Russian government by any means in its power, in the hope
of ultimately effecting a disunion between that cabinet and the Austrian
emperor. From that minister Lestocq procured the sums of money that were
necessary to carry forward his plans, which now proceeded with rapidity.

But Elizabeth, who had entered into the project with reluctance, regarded
its progress with fear, and was as anxious to postpone the catastrophe as
Lestocq was eager for its accomplishment. This produced delays which were
nearly fatal. The soldiers, entrusted with a secret of too much magnitude
for persons in their condition, could not long preserve the confidence
that was reposed in them; and at last the design began to be rumoured
abroad. It even reached the ears of the regent, who, possessed by some
unaccountable infatuation, treated it with the utmost carelessness. She
either did not believe in its truth, or lulled herself into security
by depending upon the fidelity of her friends. Unmoved by the danger
that threatened her, she concealed from her husband the information she
had received; for which, when it was too late to retrace her steps, he
afterwards severely censured her. Ostermann, who was early made aware of
the proceedings of the conspirators, warned the regent of her danger,
and entreated her to take some decisive measures to avert it: and the
British ambassador, detecting, probably, the insidious hand of France,
predicted her destruction in vain. Her facile nature still lingered
inactive, until at last she received an anonymous letter, in which she
was strongly admonished of the perils by which she was surrounded. A
more energetic mind would have acted unhesitatingly upon these repeated
proofs of the approaching insurrection; but Anna, still clinging to the
side of mercy, instead of seizing upon the ringleaders, who were known
to her, and quieting at once the apprehensions of her advisers, read the
whole contents of the letter in open court in the presence of Elizabeth,
and stated the nature of the reports that had reached her. Elizabeth, of
course, protested her ignorance of the whole business, burst into a flood
of tears, and asserted her innocence with such a show of sincerity that
the regent was perfectly satisfied, and took no further notice of the
matter.

This occurred on the 4th of December, 1741. Lestocq had previously
appointed the day of the consecration of the waters, the 6th of January,
1742, for Elizabeth to make her public appearance at the head of the
guards, to issue declarations setting forth her claims upon the throne,
and to cause herself to be proclaimed. But the proceeding that had
taken place in the court determined him to hasten his plans. Now that
the vigilance of the court was awakened, he knew that his motions would
be watched, and that the affair did not admit of any further delay. He
applied himself, accordingly, with redoubled vigilance, to the business
of collecting and organising the partisans of the princess; continued to
bribe them with French gold; and, when everything was prepared, he again
impressed upon his mistress the urgent necessity of decision. He pointed
out to her that the guards, upon whose assistance she chiefly relied,
were under orders to march for Sweden, and that in a short time all would
be lost. She was still, however, timid and doubtful of the result, when
the artful Lestocq drew a card from his pocket, which represented her
on one side in the habit of a nun, and on the other with a crown upon
her head--asking her which fate she preferred; adding that the choice
depended upon herself, and upon the promptitude with which she employed
the passing moment. This argument succeeded; she consented to place
herself in his hands; and, remembering the success that had attended the
midnight revolution that consigned Biron to banishment, he appointed
the following night, the 5th of December, for the execution of his
plan--undertaking the principal part himself, in the hope of the honours
that were to be heaped upon him in the event of success.

When the hour arrived Elizabeth again betrayed irresolution, but
Lestocq overcame her fears; and after having made a solemn vow before
the crucifix that no blood should be shed in the attempt, she put on
the order of St. Catherine, and placing herself in a sledge, attended
by Lestocq and her chamberlain, she drove to the barracks of the
Preobrajenski guards. When she arrived at this point, she advanced
towards the soldiers on foot, holding the cross in her hand; and,
addressing them in a speech of some length, justified the grounds on
which she advanced her claims to the throne; reminded them that she was
the daughter of Peter the Great; that she had been illegally deprived of
the succession; that a foreign child wielded the imperial sceptre; and
that foreigners were advanced, to the exclusion of native Russians, to
the highest offices in the state. A considerable number of the guards
had been previously prepared for this proceeding by bribes and promises,
and inflammatory liquors were distributed amongst them to heighten their
zeal. With the exception of a few, who would not violate their duty and
who were, in consequence, manacled by the remainder, the whole body
responded to the address with enthusiasm.

They now proceeded to the palace of the emperor and his parents, pressing
into their train everybody they met on the way, to prevent their object
from being betrayed; and, forcing the sentries at the gates, obtained
easy admittance to the sleeping apartments of the regent and the duke,
whom they dragged, unceremoniously, and without affording them time to
dress, out of their beds, and conveyed to the palace of Elizabeth, where
they confined them under a strong guard. The infant Ivan, unconscious
of the misery that awaited him, was enjoying a gentle slumber during
this scene of violence; and when he awoke he was carried, in a similar
manner, to the place where his unhappy parents were immured. On the same
night the principal persons connected with the government were seized in
the same way, and thrown into prison. Amongst them were Lewis Ernest of
Brunswick, the brother of the duke, Ostermann, and Munich.

This revolution was as rapid and complete as that which deprived Biron
of the regency, and was effected by a similar stealthy proceeding in the
silence of the night. Early on the following morning, the inhabitants
were called upon to take the oath of fealty to Elizabeth. But they were
accustomed to these sudden movements in the palace; and before the day
was concluded the shouts of the intoxicated soldiery announced that
the people had confirmed, by the usual attestation of allegiance, the
authority of the empress.[49] A manifesto was immediately issued, which
contained the following statement:

The empress Anna having nominated the grandson of her sister, a child
born into the world only a few weeks before the empress’ death, as
successor to the throne; during the minority of whom various persons
had conducted the administration of the empire in a manner highly
iniquitous, whence disturbances had arisen both within the country and
out of it, and probably in time still greater might arise; therefore
all the faithful subjects of Elizabeth, both in spiritual and temporal
stations, particularly the regiments of the life-guards, had unanimously
invited her, for the prevention of all the mischievous consequences to be
apprehended, to take possession of the throne of her father as nearest by
right of birth; and that she had accordingly resolved to yield to this
universal request of her faithful subjects, by taking possession of her
inheritance derived from her parents, the emperor Peter I and the empress
Catherine.

Shortly after this another manifesto appeared, in which Elizabeth
grounded her legitimacy on the will of Catherine I. As the statements
in this document respecting the right of inheritance are singular in
themselves, and as they illustrate in a very remarkable degree the
irregularity with which the question of the succession was suffered to
be treated, the passage touching upon those points appears to be worthy
of preservation. It will be seen, upon reference to previous facts, that
these statements are highly coloured to suit the demands of the occasion.
After some preliminaries, the manifesto proceeds to observe, that on the
demise of Peter II, whom she (Elizabeth) ought to have succeeded, Anna
was elected through the machinations of Ostermann; and afterwards, when
the sovereign was attacked by a mortal distemper, the same Ostermann
appointed as successor the son of Prince Antony Ulrich of Brunswick and
the princess of Mecklenburg, a child only two months old, who had not the
slightest claim by inheritance to the Russian throne; and, not content
with this, he added, to the prejudice of Elizabeth, that after Ivan’s
death the princes afterwards born of the said prince of Brunswick and the
princess of Mecklenburg should succeed to the Russian throne; whereas
even the parents themselves had not the slightest right to that throne.
That Ivan was, therefore, by the machinations of Ostermann and Munich,
confirmed emperor in October, 1740; and because the several regiments
of guards, as well as the marching regiments, were under the command of
Munich and the father of Ivan, and consequently the whole force of the
empire was in the hands of those two persons, the subjects were compelled
to take the oath of allegiance to Ivan. That Antony Ulrich and his spouse
had afterwards broken this ordinance, to which they themselves had sworn;
had forcibly seized upon the administration of the empire; and Anna had
resolved, even in the lifetime of her son Ivan, to place herself upon
the throne as empress. That, in order, then, to prevent all dangerous
consequences from these proceedings, Elizabeth had ascended the throne,
and of her own imperial grace had ordered the princess with her son and
daughter to set out for their native country.

Such were the arguments upon which Elizabeth attempted to justify her
seizure of the throne. With what sincerity she fulfilled the act of grace
towards the regent and her family, expressed in the last sentence, will
be seen hereafter.


ELIZABETH PETROVNA (1741-1762 A.D.)

The revolution which elevated Elizabeth to the throne and the
circumstances which preceded that elevation were in every respect
remarkable. She had no claim to the dignity, either by birth or by the
regulation in regard to the succession introduced by the innovating
Peter. Elizabeth was the younger daughter of Peter: Anna, who had been
married to the duke of Holstein, was the elder; and though this princess
was dead, she left a son, the representative of her rights, who, as
we shall hereafter perceive, did ultimately reign as Peter III. The
right of primogeniture, indeed, had, in the regulation to which we have
alluded, been set aside, and the choice, pure and simple, of the reigning
potentate substituted; but the infant Peter had the additional claim
of being expressly indicated in the will of Catherine I. These claims,
however, had been utterly disregarded when Anna, duchess of Courland and
daughter of Ivan, brother of Peter I, had been raised by a faction to the
throne. On the death of this empress without issue, Peter, as we have
seen, was again overlooked, through the ambition rather of an individual
than of a faction--the bloodthirsty Biron.

Ivan, the son of Anna, had been preferred to his mother, who had been
married to Prince Antony Ulrich of Brunswick; and no doubt could be
entertained that the object of Biron, in prevailing on the empress to
nominate the child, was to retain the supreme power in his own hands
as regent. We have seen by what means his ruin was effected; what
circumstances accompanied the regency of the duchess Anna, mother of the
youthful emperor; and how, by a similar revolution, Anna herself was
replaced by the princess Elizabeth.

That Ivan had no other right to the throne than that conferred
by the will of the empress Anna, was one of the pretexts which
Elizabeth employed to prove the validity of her own title. That will,
in the manifesto published three days after the revolution, was
insinuated--probably with great truth--to have been irregularly obtained;
but in either case it was of no validity, since the right of Elizabeth
was asserted to be superior even to that of the former empress. But the
instrument was a tissue of sophistry. Though she had been placed on the
throne by about three hundred soldiers, she did not hesitate to affirm
that the revolution had been effected at the demand of all her subjects.
In ostentatiously displaying her clemency, in proclaiming that she had
sent back the parents of Ivan to their own country, with all the honours
due to their station, she was equally insincere. Both passed their
lives in captivity, and were transferred from one fortress to another,
according to her caprice or jealousy. Until his eighth year Ivan was
permitted to remain with them; but, apprehensive lest his mind should be
taught ambition, he was consigned to solitary confinement first in the
fortress of Oranienburg, next in that of Schlüsselburg. In one respect
his fate was worse than that of his parents: they died in the course of
nature[50]; he, as we shall hereafter perceive, perished by violence.

[Illustration: ELIZABETH PETROVNA

(1709-1762)]

One of Elizabeth’s first cares was to punish the men who had, during
the former reigns, kept her from the throne--those especially who had
assisted the regent Anna in overturning the power of Biron, and had
instigated her afterwards to seize the throne. All were condemned to
death; but the new empress was not a woman of blood, and the sentence was
commuted into perpetual banishment. Ostermann, Munich, Golovkin, Mengden,
Lövenwold, driven from a power scarcely less than supreme and from riches
almost inexhaustible, were forced to earn their own subsistence in the
wilds of Siberia. Munich opened a school. The hand which had conquered
the Turks, which had given a king to Poland, was employed in tracing
mathematical figures for children.

If Elizabeth could punish, she could also reward. The surgeon, Lestocq,
was made head physician of the court, president of the college of the
faculty, and privy councillor, with a magnificent income. The company
of grenadiers who had raised her to the throne were all declared noble;
and the common soldiers ranked in future as lieutenants. But under a
despotic government there is little security for the great, least of all
for those whom capricious favour has exalted. Presuming on his services,
the ambition of Lestocq urged him to demand higher preferment, and he had
the mortification to be refused. Nor was this all: by his arrogance he
offended the most powerful favourites of Elizabeth, especially the grand
chancellor Bestuzhev, who had been the minister of Anna; and, in seven
years after the revolution, he was exiled to a fortress in the government
of Archangel. Exile, in short, was perpetual in this reign. The empress
vowed that no culprit should suffer death; but death would often have
been preferable to the punishments which were inflicted. Torture, the
knout, slitting of the tongue, and other chastisements--so cruel that the
sufferer frequently died in consequence--were not spared even females.

[Sidenote: [1743 A.D.]]

Soon after her accession a conspiracy was discovered, the object of
which was the restoration of young Ivan. The conspirators, who were
encouraged by a foreign minister, were seized, severely chastised,
and sent into exile. Among them was a court beauty, whose charms had
long given umbrage to the czarina, and we may easily conceive that the
revenge was doubly sweet which could at once destroy the rebel and the
rival. But the number of these victims was small, compared with that
which was consigned to unknown dungeons, and doomed to pass the rest of
life in hopeless despondency. With all her humanity, Elizabeth suffered
that most inquisitorial court, the secret chancery, to subsist; and the
denunciations which were laid before it were received as implicitly as
the clearest evidence in other tribunals.


_Foreign Affairs (1743-1757 A.D.)_

In her foreign policy this empress seems scarcely to have had an object.
Averse to business, and fond of pleasure, she allowed her ministers,
especially Bestuzhev, to direct the operations of the wars in which
she was engaged, and to conduct at will the diplomacy of the empire.
Her first enemy was Sweden. That power demanded the restitution of
Finland, and was refused; hostilities which, indeed, had commenced at the
instigation of France during the last reign, were resumed, but they were
prosecuted with little vigour by the Swedes. The valour of the nation
appeared to have died with their hero, Charles XII. So unfortunate were
their arms that, by the Treaty of Nystad, in 1721, and that of Åbo, in
1743, Livonia, Esthonia, Karelia, Ingermanland, Viborg, and Kexholm
passed under the domination of Russia.

Still worse than the loss of their possessions was the influence
thenceforward exercised over the court of Stockholm by that of St.
Petersburg. In vain did Sweden endeavour to moderate the exactions of the
empress by electing the duke of Holstein, her nephew, successor to the
throne of the Goths: the Treaty of Åbo was not the less severe. It is,
indeed, true that the intelligence of this election did not reach St.
Petersburg until Elizabeth herself, who was resolved never to marry,[51]
had already nominated Duke Peter as her own successor; but she ought to
have received in a better spirit a step designed as an act of homage to
herself.

Had Elizabeth known her own interests, she would never have engaged in
the celebrated war which during so many years shook all Europe to its
centre. But, in the first place, she affected much commiseration for the
Polish king, whose Saxon dominions were invaded by the Prussians, and
whom she called her ally. In the second, she was evidently actuated by a
personal antipathy to Frederick, and whoever were his enemies were sure
to be her allies. It would, however, be wrong to suppose that personal
feeling alone was her sole motive for interfering in a foreign war.
There can be no doubt that even at this early period, and indeed long
before this period, the ministers of Russia had cast a longing eye on the
possessions of Poland.

[Sidenote: [1757 A.D.]]

Courland and Semigallia, though nominally dependent on the Polish crown,
were in reality provinces of Russia. They had been lost to Poland
through the marriage of Anna, niece of Peter I, to Kettler, sovereign
of the duchy. Though she had no issue; though Ferdinand, the successor
of Kettler, was also childless; though the Polish diet contended, with
justice, that the fief was revertible to the republic, Anna was resolved
that its future destiny should be changed. Under the pretext of certain
pecuniary claims, the Russian troops overran the territory; and the
states were compelled to elect Biron, the parent of the empress, to the
vacant dignity. After the fall of that unprincipled adventurer, the
states, disgusted with Russian preponderance, had ventured to unite
their suffrages in favour of Charles, son of Frederick Augustus III
king of Poland; but Frederick durst not sanction the election until he
had obtained the permission of the empress Elizabeth. She could, for
once, well afford to be generous; and Duke Charles was suffered to take
possession of the dignity. And, while on this subject, we may so far
anticipate events as to add that Peter III, successor of Elizabeth,
refused to admit the rights of Charles, whom he expelled from the duchy;
and that Catherine II incorporated it with her dominions. That Elizabeth
herself had the ambitious views of her father, in reference not only to
Courland but to other provinces, is certain; and, as we have already
observed, one of her motives for engaging in the great European contest
was the prospect of ulterior advantages. The pretext of succouring an
ally was sufficient to justify, in the eyes of Europe, the march of her
armies. In this respect, her policy was macchiavellian enough. But to her
the war was an imprudent one; whatever her views, the time was not yet
arrived when they could be fully executed. Nor were the events always
honourable to the military glory of the empire. The reason is generally
and, perhaps, justly assigned to the partiality of the grand duke Peter,
the heir presumptive, for the Prussian monarch--a partiality so great
as to be inexplicable. The Russian generals, however anxious to win the
favour of their sovereign, still more the honours of successful warfare,
were yet loth to incur the dislike of Peter: hence the operations were
indecisive; and success, when gained, was not pursued.


_Antecedents of the Future Peter III_

Charles Peter Ulrich, duke of Holstein Gottorp, whom Elizabeth had
nominated her successor, who had embraced the Greek religion, and who,
at his baptism, had received the name of Peter Fedorovitch, had arrived
at St. Petersburg immediately after her accession. He was then in his
fourteenth year. The education of this unfortunate prince was neglected;
and the cause must be attributed alike to his own aversion to study and
to the indifference of the empress. Military exercises were the only
occupation for which he had any relish, and in them he was indulged.
At the palace of Oranienbaum, with which his aunt had presented him,
he passed the months of his absence from court--a period of freedom
for which he always sighed. As his recollections were German, so also
were his affections. He had little respect for those over whom he was
one day to reign: instead of native, he surrounded himself with young
German officers. His addiction to such exercises became a passion, and
was doubtless one of the causes that so strongly indisposed him to more
serious and more important pursuits.

But it was not the only cause. In his native province he had probably
learned to admire another propensity, common enough in his time--that
of hard drinking; and it was not likely to be much impaired in such a
country as Russia. His potations, which were frequent and long, were
encouraged by his companions; and, in a few years, he became a complete
bacchanalian. If we add that both he and they indulged in gratifications
still more criminal--in licentious amours--we shall not hesitate to
believe the charge of profligacy with which he has been assailed. Whether
the empress was for some time privy to his excesses has been disputed;
but probability affirms that she was, and that, by conniving at these
ignoble pursuits, her policy was to keep him at a distance from the
affairs of state. In this base purpose she was, from motives sufficiently
obvious, zealously assisted by her ministers, especially by Bestuzhev.
Profligate as was the grand duke, he was displeased with this state of
restraint; and he sometimes complained of it with a bitterness that was
sure to be exaggerated by the spies whom they had placed near him.


_The Future Catherine II Appears_

The empress paid little attention to the reports concerning him.
Her purpose was to disqualify him for governing, to render him too
contemptible to be dreaded; nor was she much offended with his murmurs.
That purpose was gained; for Peter had the reputation of being at
once ignorant, vicious, and contemptible. In a country so fertile in
revolutions, where unprincipled adventurers were ever ready to encourage
the discontent of anyone likely to disturb the existing order of things,
this reputation was one of the surest safeguards of Elizabeth’s throne.
She no longer feared that he would be made the tool of the designing,
and she secretly exulted in the success of a policy which Macchiavelli
himself would have admired. Nor did she prove herself unworthy of that
great master in the refined hypocrisy which made her represent her
nephew as a prince of hopeful talents. But even she blushed at some of
his irregularities; and, in the view of justifying him, had furnished
him with a wife. Her choice was unfortunate; it was Sophia Augusta,
daughter of the prince of Anhalt-Zerbst, who, on her conversion to the
Greek faith--a necessary preliminary to her marriage--had received the
baptismal name of Catherine.

This union was entitled to the more attention as in its consequences it
powerfully affected not only the whole of Russia but the whole of Europe.
Shortly before its completion Peter was seized with the smallpox, which
left hideous traces on his countenance. The sight of him is said so far
to have so affected Catherine that she fainted away. But, though she was
only in her sixteenth year, ambition had already over her more influence
than the tender passion, and she smothered her repugnance. Unfortunately,
the personal qualities of the husband were not of a kind to remove the
ill impression; if he bore her any affection, which appears doubtful,
his manners were rude, even vulgar; and she blushed for him whenever
they met in general society. What was still worse, she soon learned to
despise his understanding; and it required little penetration to foresee
that, whatever might be his title after Elizabeth’s death, the power must
rest with Catherine. Hence the courtiers in general were more assiduous
in their attentions to her than to him--a circumstance which did not
much dispose him for the better. Finding no charms in his new domestic
circle, he naturally turned to his boon companions; his orgies became
frequent, and Catherine was completely neglected. Hence her indifference
was exchanged into absolute dislike.

The contrast between their characters exhibited itself in their conduct.
While he was thus earning contempt for himself, she was assiduously
strengthening her party. She had the advantage--we should rather say the
curse--of being directed by a wily mother, who had accompanied her into
Russia, and whose political intrigues were so notorious that at length
she was ordered by the empress to return into Germany. The grand duchess,
however, had been too well tutored to suffer much by her mother’s
departure; and she prosecuted her purpose with an ardour that would have
done honour to a better cause.

So long as the German princess remained at court, the conduct of
Catherine was outwardly decorous; but now less restraint was observable
in her behaviour. She was little deterred by the fear of worldly censure,
in a court where the empress herself was anything but a model of
chastity; and her marital fidelity soon came to be more than doubtful.


_Court Intrigues; the Death of Elizabeth (1762 A.D.)_

[Sidenote: [1762 A.D.]]

That, in concert with several Russian nobles, of whom Bestuzhev was
the chief, Catherine meditated the exclusion of her husband from the
throne and the elevation of herself as regent during the minority of her
son Paul, is a fact that can no longer be disputed. Hence the criminal
condescension of the chancellor to the views of Catherine; hence his
efforts to prevail on the empress to nominate the infant Paul as her
successor. The indiscretion of the grand duke, who was no favourite with
anybody; his frequent complaints of the tutelage in which he was held;
his bursts of indignation at his exclusion from the councils of the
empire--were carefully related to his aunt, with such exaggeration as
were most likely to destroy the last traces of the lingering regard she
bore him. All, indeed, who had been the friends of Catherine, all who had
shared in the confidence of the minister, might well contemplate with
alarm the succession of one that had vowed revenge against the partisans
of both. Besides, the contempt which Peter felt, and which he seldom
hesitated to express, for the Russian people, rendered his succession far
from agreeable to them.

Thus, when, in 1757, Apraxin, field marshal of the Russian forces,
invaded Prussia, took Memel, and, near Jägerndorf, obtained a brilliant
victory over the troops of Frederick, yet, as if defeated, instantly
fell back upon Courland, the cause was something more than the fear
of offending Peter. This retrograde movement surprising, as well it
might, both the empress and her people, Apraxin was placed under arrest,
and the command of the army bestowed on another general. He was tried
for the crime, but absolved--a result still more surprising to men
who regarded merely the surface of things. The reason was that the
grand-chancellor, Bestuzhev, had secretly ordered the marshal to retreat,
and was, of course, his protector in the trial. It was not to please the
heir-presumptive of the crown, whose blind adoration of the Prussian king
was so well known, that Bestuzhev despatched the secret order for Apraxin
to retreat: it was that the chiefs of the army, of whom many were his
creatures, might be ready to join in effecting the revolution which was
meditated. But the ambitious minister, presuming on the distaste which
his imperial mistress generally showed for affairs, and still more on
her bodily indisposition, which at this time placed her life in danger,
proceeded too rapidly. His intrigues were discovered; his letter to the
marshal was produced; he was deprived of all his power; and Peter had the
joy of seeing him exiled.

The general who succeeded Apraxin obtained advantages over the Russian
monarch, which had never been contemplated by his predecessor. But
though he took Königsberg, placed most of Prussia under contribution,
and defeated the Prussian army in a decisive engagement, he, too,
was unwilling to irritate beyond forgiveness the heir of the empire,
especially as the reports which daily reached him of Elizabeth’s health
convinced him that the succession was not far distant. Under the pretext
of illness, he demanded leave to retire. His successor, Soltikov (not,
we may be sure, the favourite of that name), was still more successful.
Frederick was defeated in one of the best contested battles of this
famous war; Berlin was taken, and Kolberg reduced after a vigorous
siege. The news of this last success reached the empress, but she was no
longer capable of deriving satisfaction from it. Much to her honour, she
withstood all the solicitations of the intriguers who wished to exclude
her nephew and to place Paul on the throne, under the regency of his
mother. She died on the 5th day of January, 1762.[b]


_Spread of Art, Literature, and Education under Elizabeth_

The empress Elizabeth had a passion for building; Peter the Great’s
summer palace and even the empress Anna’s winter palace appeared to her
small and confined. Upon the site of the latter she began to build the
present edifices; during her reign was also built the vast, elegant,
and beautiful palace at Tsarskoi Selo; the palace of Oranienbaum
was reconstructed, and the fine churches of the Smolni convent, of
Vladimirskaia and of Nicholas Morskoi (in St. Petersburg) were also
erected. Some handsome private houses were built by Elizabeth’s noblemen,
and in general St. Petersburg, which had not long before been a desert
place, consisting chiefly of wooden houses, became greatly embellished;
the palace quay, as may be seen from drawings and engravings of the time,
already showed a continuous row of huge stone edifices.

Of course all these buildings cost enormous sums which led private
persons into debt and the government into superfluous expenditure, but
it is impossible not to observe that there was to be seen in this luxury
an artistic quality which had never before existed. The finest edifices
of that period form a special style, which after temporary neglect is
now beginning to be imitated; the creator of this style in Russia was
Count Rastrelli--a foreigner, of whom, however, Russia has the right to
speak. The palaces and churches built by Rastrelli merit description, and
although painting at that time did not represent a very high standard,
yet the ceilings painted in accordance with the fashion of the day,
with bouquets of flowers and mythological goddesses, even now attract
the attention of artists. The grandees gave high prices for pictures by
foreign masters; their houses became distinguished not only for their
handsome façades but also for the comfort of their interior arrangements;
it would hardly be possible, for instance, to imagine anything more nobly
elegant than the house of the chancellor Vorontzov (now the _corps des
Pages_).

All these beautiful architectural productions, and likewise those of
music and painting, were for the greater part the work of foreign
artists--visitors to Russia; but under their influence Russian artists
were formed and taste developed. The church of Nicholas Morskoi was built
by a pupil of Rastrelli. The almost daily theatrical representations
produced at court gave rise to the idea of organising similar
representations at the _corps des Cadets_. The empress took a lively
interest in them; she often assisted at them and lent her diamonds for
the women’s costumes. In their turn these representations could not but
assist the development of a taste for the stage, for dramatic art and
literature in general and from amongst the number of cadet actors not a
few became well known writers, as for instance Beketov, Kheraskov, and
Sumarokov.

We must dwell for a few moments on Sumarokov--a man who in his time
enjoyed an extensive literary reputation and secured for himself the
appellation of Father of the Russian Stage. The love of literature, and
especially of the stage, was already developed in Sumarokov when he
was in the corps des Cadets; when he was afterwards made aide-de-camp
to Razumovski, he could almost daily assist at operas and ballets. At
that period he read with avidity the dramatic authors then in fashion:
Corneille, Racine, Voltaire, and Molière became his idols; he decided to
try to imitate them in his own native language then very undeveloped, and
in 1747 he wrote a tragedy, the _Chorists_.

It was not the merits of this work, which were very insignificant, but
the unwontedness of the appearance of an original Russian tragedy, and
besides that the fact of its being in verse, that so astounded and
enraptured his contemporaries that they proclaimed Sumarokov the “Russian
Racine”; encouraged by such a success he wrote a second and yet, a third
tragedy; he took up comedy (for which he had hardly any more vocation)
and in fact wrote a whole repertory; there were, however, no actors;
because neither in St. Petersburg nor in Moscow did there any longer
exist such company and such theatres as were begun in the time of Peter.

Meanwhile, far away from both capitals, in Iaroslav there was formed,
almost of itself without any commands or even any encouragement being
given, a Russian dramatic company which is indissolubly bound up with the
name of Volkov. Theodore Volkov was the son of a merchant and had been
educated in the Iaroslav seminary, where, following the example of the
Academy of Kiev, and others, representations of a spiritual or religious
character were given. They produced a great impression upon the young
merchant; when later on he managed to get to St. Petersburg and saw on
the stage of the corps des Cadets a dramatic representation given with
scenery, lighting, and mechanical contrivances, Volkov was stupefied with
rapture and astonishment. Being to the highest degree sensitive to every
artistic impression, being a painter, a musician, and a sculptor--all
self-taught--Volkov was also endued with that constancy and patience
without which even gifted natures do not attain to any results. Volkov
studied the material side of scenic art to the smallest details--that is,
the arrangement of the machinery, of the scenes, etc.; when he returned
to Iaroslav he asked his parents, with whom he lived, to let him have an
empty tanner’s shed; there he arranged a pit and a stage, and making up
a company of young merchants like himself, sons of citizens and clerks,
gave representations which aroused the enthusiasm of all the spectators.
The intelligent and practical Volkov, seeing how the population of
Iaroslav flocked to his representations, named a price for them--a five
kopeck piece for the first rows--and thus little by little he amassed a
sum with which in 1752 he was able to build a general public theatre with
room for one thousand spectators.

The taste for the stage had meanwhile greatly spread in St. Petersburg;
in various private houses dramatic representations were given at evening
parties; it was therefore not surprising that the Iaroslav theatre
soon began to be talked of. The empress invited Volkov to come to St.
Petersburg with his company, as she wished to see his representations
given on the stage of the court theatre. She was remarkably pleased
with them, and four years later issued an ukase for the establishment
of a public theatre. The first director of this theatre and almost
the only dramatic writer was Sumarokov; according to the testimony of
contemporaries Volkov was one of its most talented actors and his friend
and fellow worker Dmitrievski a great artist.

We must here speak of another still more remarkable Russian native
genius--Lomonosov. It is well known how, when he was a youth of sixteen,
devoured by a thirst for knowledge, he secretly left the paternal roof
and made his way on foot from Kholmogori to Moscow. How unattractive must
life and learning have appeared to him in those early days! “Having only
one altyn (a three-kopeck piece) a day for salary, it was impossible
for him to spend more on food than a halfpenny a day for bread and a
halfpenny worth of _kvass_ (a kind of beer or mead); the rest had to
go for paper, books, and other necessities.” Thus he described his
life in the Zaikonospaskvi Ecclesiastical Academy to Ivan Shuvalov and
concluded with the following words: “I lived thus for five years and
did not abandon science!” Theodore Prokopovitch, when he was already
an old man, visited the Moscow academy a few years before his death;
he noticed Lomonosov there and praised him for his laboriousness and
learning. In 1737 Lomonosov was sent abroad to perfect himself and
placed himself under the surveillance of the then famous scholar, Wolff,
who, while despising him for his disorderly life, spoke with respect of
his capacities and success in study. Lomonosov followed the lectures
of the German professors and amused himself with the German students.
The news of Minikh’s great victories and the taking of Khotin reached
him; his patriotic feelings were aroused, and he wrote an ode. When the
verses were received in St. Petersburg everyone was struck with their
harmony; and when Lomonosov returned from Germany in the beginning of
Elizabeth’s reign his reputation as a poet had already preceded him--the
more he wrote the greater his fame became. Poetry, however, was not
Lomonosov’s strongest point, and verses do not occupy a quarter of his
entire works. His mind worked even more than his imagination, and his
scholarly writings are striking in their variety. He composed a grammar
of the Russian language from which several generations have learned;
he laid down rules of versification, the foundation of which are even
now recognised by everyone; he wrote on chemistry, physics, astronomy,
metallurgy, geology; he composed a Russian history, wrote a hypothesis
concerning the great learned expeditions and memoranda bearing on
questions of the state (as for instance measures for increasing and
maintaining the population in Russia): in fact, Lomonosov’s extraordinary
intellect seemed to touch upon every branch of mental activity. He was
made a member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, but there the
German element reigned supreme and Lomonosov was one of those who,
while venerating the work of Peter the Great and the European learning
introduced by him, yet was oppressed by foreign tutorage and took offence
when the Germans put forward their own countrymen to the detriment of
meritorious Russians. Continual disputes and quarrels arose between
Lomonosov and his fellow members; nor, being of a very impetuous and
obstinate nature, was Lomonosov always in the right. His rough and sharp
measures frequently led him into quarrels even outside the academy, for
instance with his literary brethren, Frediakovski and Sumarokov. All
this might greatly have injured Lomonosov, but fortunately for him he
possessed powerful protectors in the persons of Count Worontzov and Count
Razumovski, who liked to show favour to the first Russian scholar and
poet.

But the strongest, truest, and most constant of his protectors was Ivan
Shuvalov. Shuvalov had many defects--his character was weak, lazy, and
careless; but he nevertheless represented one of the most consolatory
types of his epoch: strong, energetic types were not uncommon in the
first half of the eighteenth century, but gentle, benevolent, indulgent
natures were rarely to be met with. Shuvalov was not captivated by
clamorous deeds, like the men of Peter’s time, but by the peaceful
progress of science and art. Therefore if the weakness of his character
made him an instrument for the ambitious designs of his cousin, his
heartfelt sympathies drew him towards Lomonosov, of whom he naturally
learned much and--what is of more importance--with whom he devised means
for the spread of education in Russia. The result of these deliberations
was a vast plan for the establishment of schools throughout the
governments, and finally of a university in Moscow. The establishment
of a university seemed of the first necessity, as it was to furnish
Russia with teachers; this had been Peter’s intention with regard to the
academy: but it had not been fulfilled. In his report to the senate upon
this subject, Shuvalov wrote that it would be desirable to appoint a
“sufficient number of worthy men of the Russian nationality, acquainted
with the sciences, to spread education in distant parts among the common
people, so that thus superstition, dissent, and other like heresies
proceeding from ignorance might be destroyed.” The senate approved
Shuvalov’s proposition and in 1755 the University of Moscow was founded.

We have given as just and complete a picture of the period of the
empress Elizabeth as is possible in view of the scarcity of information
obtainable concerning many circumstances of that time. Elizabeth left
behind her if not a great memory yet, broadly speaking, a good one. Her
administration may be reproached with much: in its foreign policy it
was not sufficiently independent; it was not sufficiently watchful in
interior affairs, where oversights occasioned special evils; moreover
examples of unlawful enrichment attained huge dimensions. But her reign
may be said to have led Russia out of bondage to the Germans, while the
level of education was not in the smallest degree lowered, but on the
contrary considerably raised. Much that brought forth such brilliant
fruits under Catherine II was sown under Elizabeth.[d]


_Bain’s Estimate of Elizabeth_

It is the peculiar glory of Elizabeth Petrovna that she consulted once
for all the life work of her illustrious father. During the first
fifteen years after the death of the great political regenerator, his
stupendous creation, Russia, (before him we only hear of Muscovy,) was
frequently in danger. The reactionary boyars who misruled the infant
empire under Peter II would have sacrificed both the new capital and the
new fleet, the twin pivots upon which the glory and the prosperity of the
new state may be said to have turned; the German domination under the
empress Anna, directly contrary as it was to the golden rule of Peter,
“Russia for the Russians,” threatened the nation with a western yoke
far more galling than the eastern or Tatar yoke of ruder times. From
this reaction, from this yoke the daughter of Peter the Great set the
nation free, and beneath her beneficent sceptre Russia may be said to
have possessed itself again. All the highest offices of state were once
more entrusted to natives and to natives only, and whenever a foreigner
was proposed for the next highest, Elizabeth, before confirming the
appointment, invariably inquired: “Is there then no capable Russian who
would do as well?” Moreover she inherited from her father the sovereign
gift of choosing and using able councillors, and not only did she summon
to power a new generation of native statesmen and administrators, but
she constrained them to work harmoniously together despite their mutual
jealousies and conflicting ambitions. She herself had advantageously
passed through the bitter but salutary school of adversity. With all
manner of dangers haunting her path from her youth upwards, she had
learnt the necessity of circumspection, deliberation, self-control;
she had acquired the precious faculty of living in the midst of people
intent on jostling each other, without in any way jostling them; and
these great qualities she brought with her to the throne without losing
anything of that infinite good-nature, that radiant affability, that
patriarchal simplicity which so endeared her to her subjects and made
her, deservedly, the most popular of all the Russian monarchs. As regards
her foreign policy, it may be safely affirmed she laid down the deep and
durable foundations upon which Catherine II was to build magnificently
indeed, but too often, alas! so flimsily. The diplomacy of Elizabeth,
on the whole, was not so confident or so daring as the diplomacy of her
brilliant successor; but, on the other hand, it was more correct, equally
dignified and left far less to chance. It must also be borne in mind that
the energy and firmness of Elizabeth considerably facilitated the task
of Catherine by rendering Prussia, Russia’s most dangerous neighbour,
practically harmless to her for the remainder of the century. This of
itself was a political legacy of inestimable value, and it was not the
only one. All the great captains, all the great diplomatists of the “ever
victorious Catherine,” men like Rumiantsev, Suvarov, Riepnin, Besborodko,
the Panins and the Galitzins, were brought up in the school of Elizabeth.
Excellent was the use which the adroit and audacious Catherine made of
these instruments of government, these pioneers of empire, but it should
never be forgotten that she received them all from the hands of the
daughter of Peter the Great.[g]


PETER III (1762 A.D.)

As Elizabeth, on her death-bed, had confirmed the rights of Peter
III; and as the conspirators, deprived of Bestuzhev their guide, were
unable to act with energy, the new emperor encountered no opposition.
On the contrary, he was immediately recognised by the military; and the
archbishop of Novgorod, in the sermon preached on the occasion, thanked
heaven that a prince so likely to imitate his illustrious grandfather was
vouchsafed to Russia. Catherine was present. She wore a peculiar dress to
conceal her pregnancy, and her countenance exhibited some indication of
the anxious feeling which she was obliged to repress. Compelled to defer
the execution of her ambitious purposes, and uncertain what vengeance
the czar might exert for her numerous infidelities, she might well be
apprehensive.

But she had no real foundation for the fear. Of all the sovereigns of
that or any age, Peter was among the most clement. Whether he thought
that clemency might bind to his interests one whose talents he had
learned to respect, or that her adherents were too numerous and powerful
to allow of her being punished--whether, in short, he had some return of
affection for her, or his own conscience told him that she had nearly as
much to forgive as he could have, we will not decide. One thing only is
certain--that, in about three months after his accession, he invested
her with the domains held by the late empress. Certainly his was a mind
incapable of long continued resentment. His heart was better than his
head. Resolved to signalise his elevation by making others happy, he
recalled all whom his predecessor had exiled, except Bestuzhev. Many he
restored to their former honours and possessions. Thus the aged Munich
was made governor-general of Siberia, restored to his military command;
while Biron, who certainly deserved no favour, was reinvested with the
duchy of Courland. He did more: he restored the prisoners made by the
generals of Elizabeth, and gave them money to defray their passage home.
And, as Frederick had always been the object of his idolatry, the world
expected the armistice which he published, and which was preparatory to a
peace between the two countries.

That declaration was an extraordinary document. In it the emperor
declares that, his first duty being the welfare of his people, that
welfare could not be consulted so long as hostilities were continued;
that the war, which had raged six years, had produced no advantage to
either party, but done incredible harm to both; that he would no longer
sanction the wanton destruction of his species; that, in conformity
with the divine injunction relative to the preservation of the people
committed to his charge, he would put an end to the unnatural, impious
strife; and that he was resolved to restore the conquests made by his
troops. In this case he had been praised, and with great justice, for
his moderation. We fear, however, he does not merit so high a degree of
praise of humanity as many writers have asserted. At this moment, while
proclaiming so loudly his repugnance to war, he was sending troops into
his native principality of Holstein, with the intention of wresting from
the king of Denmark the duchy of Schleswig, which he considered the
rightful inheritance of his family. He even declared that he would never
rest until he had sent that prince to Malabar.

[Illustration: PETER III

(1728-1762)]

Nor must we omit to add that from the enemy he became the ally of
Frederick; that his troops joined with the Prussians to expel the
Austrians from the kingdom. His humanity only changed sides; if it spared
the blood of Prussians, it had little respect for that of Austrians. We
may add, too, that there was something like madness in his enthusiastic
regard for Frederick. He corresponded with that monarch, whom he
proclaimed his master, whose uniform he wore, and in whose armies he
obtained the rank of major-general. Had he been capable of improvement,
his intercourse with that far-sighted prince might have benefited him.
Frederick advised him to celebrate at Moscow his coronation--a rite of
superstitious importance in the eyes of the multitude. He was advised,
too, not to engage in the Danish war, not to leave the empire. But advice
was lost on him.

In some other respects, Peter deserves more credit than the admirers
of Catherine are willing to allow him. (1) Not only did he pardon his
personal enemies--not only did the emperor forget the wrongs of the grand
duke--but on several he bestowed the most signal favours. He suppressed
that abominable inquisitorial court, the secret chancery, which had
consigned so many victims to everlasting bondage, which had received
delations from the most obscure and vicious of men, which had made every
respectable master of a family tremble lest his very domestics should
render him amenable to that terrible tribunal. Had this been the only
benefit of his reign, well would he have been entitled to the gratitude
of Russia. (2) He emancipated the nobles from the slavish dependence
on the crown, so characteristic of that barbarous people. Previous to
his reign, no boyar could enter on any profession, or forsake it when
once embraced, or retire from public to private life, or dispose of his
property, or travel into any foreign country, without the permission of
the czar. By breaking their chains at one blow, he began the career of
social emancipation. (3) The military discipline of the nation loudly
demanded reform, and he obeyed the call. He rescued the officers from the
degrading punishments previously inflicted; he introduced a better system
of tactics; and he gave more independence to the profession. He did not,
however, exempt the common soldier from the corporal punishment which
at any moment his superior officers might inflict. (4) He instituted a
useful court to take cognisance of all offences committed against the
public peace, and to chastise the delinquencies of the men entrusted
with the general police of the empire. (5) He encouraged commerce, by
lessening the duties on certain imports, and by abolishing them on
certain exports. (6) In all his measures, all his steps, he proved
himself the protector of the poor. In fact, one reason for the dislike
with which he was regarded by the nobles arose from the preference which
he always gave to the low over the high.


_Impolitic Acts of Peter III_

But if impartial history must thus eulogise many of this monarch’s
acts, the same authority must condemn more. He exhibited everywhere
great contempt for the people whom he was called to govern. He had no
indulgence for their prejudices, however indifferent, however inveterate.
Thus, in commanding that the secular clergy should no longer wear long
beards, and should wear the same garb as the clergy of other countries,
he offended his subjects to a degree almost inconceivable to us. In
ordering the images to be removed from the churches--he was still a
Lutheran, if anything--he did not lessen the odium which his other acts
had produced. The archbishop of Novgorod flatly refused to obey him, and
was in consequence exiled; but the murmurs of the populace compelled the
czar to recall him. Still more censurable were his efforts to render
the church wholly dependent on the state--to destroy everything like
independence in its ministers; to make religion a mere engine in the
hands of arbitrary power for the attainment of any object. His purpose,
in fact, was to seize all the demesnes of the church--its extensive
estates, its numerous serfs--and to pension the clergy like other
functionaries.

In the ukase published on this occasion, he expressed a desire to
relieve ecclesiastics of the temporal cares so prejudicial to their
ghostly utility; to see that they indeed renounced the world, and free
from the burden of perishing treasures, applied their whole attention
to the welfare of souls. He therefore decreed that the property of the
church should in future be managed by imperial officers; and that the
clergy should receive, from the fund thus accumulated, certain annual
pensions, corresponding to their stations. Thus the archbishops of
Novgorod, Moscow, and St. Petersburg were to have each 2,500 rubles; and
the same sum was to be allowed for the support of their households, of
their capitular clergy, and for the sustentation of the sacred edifices.
But the twenty-three other archbishops and bishops were to have only
3,000 rubles for both purposes. The salaries of the other ecclesiastics
were carefully graduated. The inferior were divided into three
classes--individuals of the first to receive 500, of the second 300, of
the third 150 rubles per annum. The surplus funds were to be applied to
the foundation of hospitals, to the endowment of colleges, and to the
general purposes of the state.

Peter attempted these and other innovations in virtue of the two-fold
character which, from the time of his grandfather, the czars had been
anxious to assume, as supreme heads alike of religion and of the state.
Not even the grand lama of Thibet ever arrogated a higher degree of
theocratic authority. Indeed, our only surprise is that in addition to
their other functions they did not assume that of bishops; that they did
not array themselves in pontificals, and celebrate mass at the altar. But
they certainly laid something like a claim to the sacerdotal character.
Thus, on the death of the patriarch, Peter I opposed the election of
another supreme head of the church; and when he found that the synod
durst not venture on so far irritating the people as to dispense with
the dignity, he insisted on being elected himself. If the sultan of
Constantinople combined with himself the two-fold character, why should
it be refused to him? The reign of Peter was too short to permit his
designs of spoliation to be carried into effect; but, by confirming
the dangerous precedent of his grandfather, he had done enough, and
his successor Catherine was enabled to complete the robbery which he
commenced.

But the most impolitic measure of Peter--that which rendered those who
might have defended him indifferent to his fate--was his conduct towards
the imperial guards. Two regiments he ordered to be in readiness for
the Danish war. This was contrary to custom. In the faith of remaining
near the court, most of the soldiers had embraced the military life; and
they were as indignant as they were surprised when told that they must
exchange the dissipations of a metropolis for the fatigues and privations
attending a distant campaign. They were offended, too, with the
introduction of the Prussian discipline, which they found by experience
to be far more rigid than that to which they had hitherto been subject;
and they patriotically condemned the innovation as prejudicial to the
military fame of the empire. Still more irritating was the preference
which he everywhere gave to the German over the native troops. His most
intimate friends were Germans; the officers around his person were of the
same nation; Germans directed the manœuvres not only of his household
but of all his regiments; and a German--Prince George of Holstein, his
uncle--was placed at the head of all the imperial armies.

Couple these acts of imprudence with others of which he was hourly
guilty. In his palace of Oranienbaum he constructed a Lutheran chapel;
and though he appears to have been indifferent to every form of religion,
he held this in much more respect than the Greek form, which in fact,
he delighted to ridicule. If churchmen became his enemies, the people
in general were not likely to become his friends when they heard of a
boast--probably a true one--that in the last war he had acquainted the
Prussian monarch with the secrets of the imperial cabinet. Lastly, he
insulted men of honour by making them the jest of his buffoons.

Circumstances much less numerous and much less cogent than these would
have sufficed so ambitious, able, and unprincipled a woman as Catherine
to organise a powerful conspiracy against the czar. But he was accused
of many other things of which he was perfectly innocent. In fact, no
effort seems to have been spared to invent and propagate stories to his
disadvantage. In some instances, it is scarcely possible to separate
the true from the false. Whether, for example, he, from the day of his
accession, resolved to divorce his wife, to marry his mistress, to set
aside Paul from succession, and to adopt Ivan, still confined in the
fortress of Schlüsselburg, can never be known with certainty. That he
secretly visited that unhappy prince seems undoubted; but we have little
evidence for the existence of the design attributed to him. If, in fact,
he sincerely contemplated raising the daughter of Count Vorontzov to the
imperial throne, he would scarcely have adopted Ivan, unless he felt
assured that no issue would arise from the second marriage. He could
not, however, entertain any regard for a consort who had so grievously
injured him, and little for a boy whom he knew was not his own. And, as
there is generally some foundation for every report, there seems to be no
doubt that Peter had promised to marry his mistress if she survived his
wife. The report was enough for Catherine: on it she built her own story
that her life was in danger; and that if her son were not designed for a
similar fate, he would at least have that of Ivan.


_Catherine Plots against the Czar_

The anxiety of the empress to secure adherents was continually active;
and as her husband passed so much time in drunkenness, her motions were
not so closely scrutinised as they should have been. Gregory Orlov, her
criminal favourite, was the man in whom she placed the most reliance.
Gregory had four brothers--all men of enterprise, of courage, of
desperation; and none of them restricted by the least moral principle.
Potemkin, afterwards so celebrated, was the sixth. This man was, perhaps,
the most useful of the conspirators, as by means of his acquaintance
with the priests of the metropolis he was able to enlist that formidable
body in the cause. They were not slow to proclaim the impiety of the
czar, his contempt of the orthodox faith, his resolution “to banish
the fear of the Lord” from the Russian court, to convert churches into
hospitals and barracks, to seize on all revenues of the church, and
to end by compelling the most orthodox of countries to embrace the
errors of Luther. The archimandrites received these reports from the
parish priests, the bishops from the archimandrites; nor was there much
difficulty in obtaining an entrance for them into the recesses of the
neighbouring monasteries. The hetman of the Cossacks, an officer of
great authority and of great riches, was next gained. Not less effectual
than he was the princess Dashkov, who, though the sister of Peter’s
mistress, was the most ardent of the conspirators: perhaps the threatened
exaltation of that sister, by rendering her jealous, only strengthened
her attachment to the czarina. Through the instrumentality of this woman,
Count Panin, the foreign minister and the governor of the grand duke
Paul, was gained over. Whether the argument employed was, as one writer
asserts, the sacrifice of her sister, or whether, as another affirms, she
was the daughter of the count, who notoriously intrigued with her mother,
is of no moment. What is certain is, that the count was exceedingly fond
of her; and one authority expressly asserts that he became acquainted
with the details of the conspiracy before her, and admitted her into the
plot. This, however, is less probable than the relation we have given;
for the princess had long been the friend of Catherine.

Her activity was unceasing. A Piedmontese adventurer, Odart by name,
being forced to leave his native country for some crime, and having
tried in vain to obtain a subsistence in the neighbouring capitals,
wisely resolved to try his fortune in St. Petersburg--a city where guilt
might reside with impunity, and where it had only to be successful to
win the applause of mankind. As he had a considerable knowledge of the
fine arts, especially of music and painting, he had little difficulty in
obtaining an introduction to the princess Dashkov. She, who had a shrewd
insight into human character, soon perceived that this supple, crafty,
active, sober, intriguing, unprincipled foreigner was just the man that
was required to act as spy and confidential agent. He was introduced
to Catherine, whose opinion confirmed that of her favourite. No choice
could, indeed, have been better. Little cared he in what service he
was employed. If a partisan were to be gained, no man could be more
insinuating: if an enemy were to be removed, he had his pistols and his
dirk, without which he never appeared in the street. His penetration soon
enabled him to secure the aid of two other bravos--the one, Possik, a
lieutenant in the guards; the other, Globov, a lawyer in the employment
of the senate. Of the character of these men, some notion may be formed
from the fact that Possik offered to stab the emperor in the midst of the
court. He knew how to ally duplicity with desperation; he was at once the
hypocritical intriguer and the remorseless bravo.

Through the same Princess Dashkov, Volkonski, major-general of the
guards, was won; and by Potemkin, or his ghostly allies, the archbishop
of Novgorod was soon in the secret. The hetman of the Cossacks went
further. Great as was the danger of entrusting that secret to many,
he assembled the officers who served under him, assured them that he
had heard of a conspiracy to dethrone the emperor, too irresistible
to be appeased; and exhorted them to seize the favourable moment of
propitiating the favour of the czarina, rather than, by remaining hostile
or inactive, to bring down vengeance on their own heads. His advice had
all the success that he could desire.

While these most vicious and in every way most worthless of men were
thus employed in her behalf, Catherine was no less active. She knew that
Count Panin espoused the cause of her son--less, perhaps, from affection
to his charge, than from the hope of exercising more power under an
infant emperor than under one of the mother’s enterprising character.
Her promise, that his influence should be second only to her own, made
him her willing instrument. His defection constrained the rest of the
conspirators: there was no more heard of a regency; and Catherine was to
be proclaimed autocratrix of all the Russias.

Without increasing unnecessarily the number of the initiated, she yet
prepared the minds of many for some impending change, and rendered them
eager for its arrival by her artful and seasonable insinuations. If an
officer of the guards stood near her, she whispered in his ear that the
emperor had resolved on disbanding the present force, and exiling its
chiefs; if an ecclesiastic, she bewailed the fate of the pure orthodox
church; if a less interested person, she lamented her own misfortunes
and those of her son--both doomed to immediate imprisonment, and she, at
least, to an ultimate death. If a senator were near, she deplored the
meditated destruction of the venerable and patriotic body to which he
belonged; the transformation of the debauchees, perpetually around the
emperor, into judges; and the substitution of the _Code Frederic_ for the
ancient law of Russia.

By these means she prepared the minds of the people for the revolution:
her affability, in fact, was the theme of their praise. But she did not
trust merely to their good will. She knew that, unless two or three
regiments were secured, the insurrection might not find immediate
supporters, and that the critical moment might be lost. Without
money this object could not be obtained; and though both she and her
confidential agents voluntarily disbursed all that they could command,
and converted their most valuable effects into coin, the amount was
alarmingly inadequate. In this emergency she applied to the French
ambassador for a loan; and when he showed less readiness to accommodate
her than she expected, she addressed herself, we are told, to the
ambassador from England, and with more success. But this statement is
untrue: it was not the English ambassador, but an English merchant, who
furnished her with the sum she demanded. With this aid, she prevailed on
the greater part of three regiments to await the signal for joining her.

Though the conspirators were, in point of numbers, formidable, their
attempt was one of danger. Peter was about to leave Russia for Holstein,
to prosecute the war against the Danish king; and of the troops whom he
had assembled, though the greater part were on their march, some were
now with him, and might be induced to defend him. Besides, the two great
divisions of his fleet were at Kronstadt and Revel, and nobody could
foresee how they would act. The conspirators agreed that he should be
taken by surprise; that midnight should see him transferred from the
throne to a dungeon. The festival of St. Peter and St. Paul--one of high
importance in the Greek church--was approaching: the following day the
emperor had resolved to depart. It was to be celebrated at Peterhov;
there it was resolved to arrest him.

But accident hastened the execution of the plot. Until the arrival of
the festival, Peter left St. Petersburg for Oranienbaum, to pass in riot
and debauchery the intervening time. Accompanied by the most dissolute
of his favourites, and by many of the court ladies, he anticipated the
excesses which awaited his arrival. That he had received some hints of a
plot, though he was unacquainted alike with its object and authors, is
exceedingly probable. His royal ally of Prussia is said to have advised
him to be on his guard, and several notes are supposed to have been
addressed to him by his own subjects. If such information was received,
it made no impression on him; and indeed its vagueness might well render
him indifferent to it. But on the eve of his departure, when the superior
officer of Passik, who had accidentally learned that danger attended
the steps of the emperor, denounced the lieutenant, and the culprit was
arrested, he had an opportunity of ascertaining all the details of the
conspiracy. He treated the denunciation with contempt; affirmed that
Passik belonged to the dregs of the people, and was not to be dreaded;
and proceeded to Oranienbaum. The culprit, though narrowly watched, had
time to write a line to the hetman, whom he exhorted to instant action,
if they wished to save their lives. The note fell into the hands of the
princess Dashkov, who immediately assembled the conspirators.

Not a moment was to be lost: the presence of Catherine was indispensable;
and, though it was midnight and she was at Peterhov, seven leagues
distant from St. Petersburg, one of the Orlovs went to bring her.
He arrived at the fortress, entered a private door, and by a secret
staircase ascended to the apartments occupied by the empress. It was now
two o’clock in the morning: the empress was asleep; and her surprise was
not unmixed with terror, when she was awakened by a soldier. In a moment
she comprehended her situation: she arose, called one of her women, and
both, being hastily clad in a strange habit, descended with the soldier
to one of the gates, passed the sentinel without being recognised, and
stepped into the carriage which was waiting for her. Orlov was the
driver, and he urged the horses with so much severity that before they
had proceeded half way from Peterhov to St. Petersburg, they fell down
from exhaustion. The situation of the empress was critical: she might at
any moment be overtaken; and she was certain that with the dawn of day
Peter would acquire some more definite intelligence of the plot. In a
state bordering on distraction, she took refuge in the first house that
she approached: it was a tavern, and here she burned the letters which
had passed between her and the conspirators. Again she recommenced her
journey on foot: by good fortune she met a countryman with a cart; Orlov
seized the vehicle, the peasant ran away; Catherine ascended it, and, in
this undignified manner, she, her woman, and Orlov entered St. Petersburg
about seven o’clock on the morning of July the 9th.


_Catherine Usurps the Crown_

No sooner was Catherine in the capital than she was joined by the hetman;
and, accompanied by him, she hastened to the barracks of the troops which
he commanded. Four companies immediately declared for her; their example
constrained the rest of the regiment; three other regiments, hearing the
acclamation, and seeing the people hurry to the spot, joined in the cry;
all St. Petersburg was in motion; a report was spread that she and her
son had just escaped assassination by order of the czar; her adherents
rapidly multiplied: and, accompanied by about two thousand soldiers, with
five times that number of citizens, who loudly proclaimed her sovereign
of Russia, she went to the church of Our Lady of Kazan. Here everything
was prepared for her reception: the archbishop of Novgorod, with a host
of ecclesiastics, awaited her at the altar; she swore to observe the laws
and religion of the empire; the crown was solemnly placed on her head;
she was proclaimed sole monarch of Russia, and the grand duke Paul her
successor; and _Te Deum_ concluded the eventful ceremony.

From the church she proceeded to the palace occupied by the late empress;
the mob crowded to see her, and to take the oath of allegiance; while
the more respectable portion of the citizens were awed into submission,
or at least into silence, by a report that Peter had just been killed
by falling from his horse. To gratify the populace, the taverns were
abandoned to them: the same fate visited the houses of all who were
obnoxious to the conspirators; intoxication was general; robbery was
exercised with impunity; the palace, to which Catherine had hastened, was
strengthened; a numerous guard was stationed in its defence; a manifesto
was proclaimed; a notification was delivered into the hands of each
foreign minister, and the revolution was complete.

One object of the conspirators had been to close every avenue of egress
from the capital, that Peter might not be acquainted with the revolution
until it was too powerful to be repressed. All the troops in the vicinity
were called within the walls; but there was one regiment about sixteen
hundred strong, which lay between the city and Peterhov, the conduct of
which was doubtful. Without the slightest knowledge of what had taken
place, the colonel arrived in the city, and was soon persuaded not only
to declare for the new sovereign but to prevail on the regiment to follow
his example. He was successful; and, with the whole body, he returned in
triumph to the capital. On this very day Peter had promised to dine with
Catherine: on reaching Peterhov he was surprised to hear of her flight.
Vorontzov, the father of his mistress, the father also of the princess
Dashkov, who had witnessed without repugnance the dishonour alike of
his wife and daughter, proposed to the emperor to visit St. Petersburg
to ascertain the cause of her departure; and, if any insurrection were
meditated, to suppress it. He arrived in the presence of the empress, was
induced to swear allegiance to her, and was ordered to retire into his
own house.

But Peter had already been informed of the revolution; and he traversed
with hasty steps the gardens of Peterhov, indecisive and terrified. Yet
he was not wholly deserted. The brave Munich, whose locks were ripened
by age, and whose wisdom equalled his valour, advised him instantly
to place himself at the head of his Holstein troops, march on the
capital, and thereby enable all who were yet loyal to join him. Whether
the result would have been such as the veteran anticipated, _viz._ a
counter-revolution, may well be doubted; but there can be no doubt that
a considerable number of soldiers would have joined him, and that he
would have been able to enter into negotiations with the hostile party.
He was too timid to adopt the suggestion: nothing, in fact, could urge
him to decisive action. When informed that Catherine was making towards
Peterhov, at the head of ten thousand men, all that he could resolve to
do was to send messengers to her with proposals. His first was that the
supreme power should be divided between them; the second, when no reply
was deigned to his letter, that he should be allowed to leave Russia,
with his mistress and a favourite, and pass the rest of his days in
Holstein. She detained his messenger, and still advanced.

Munich now advised him to embark for Kronstadt, and join his fleet,
which was still faithful; but unfortunately he delayed so long that one
of Catherine’s emissaries had time to corrupt the garrison of the fort:
on arriving, he was prohibited from disembarking, and told that if he
did not immediately retire his vessel would be sunk by the cannon of the
place. Still he had a fleet at Revel; and if it were disloyal he might
escape into Prussia, Sweden, or Holstein. With the fatality, however,
which characterised all his measures on this eventful day, he returned
to Oranienbaum, where he disembarked at four o’clock in the morning of
July the 10th. Here he was soon visited by the emissaries of Catherine;
was persuaded to sign an act of abdication; was conducted to Peterhov;
was divested of all his imperial orders; was clad in a mean dress, and
consigned, first to one of the country houses of the hetman, and soon
afterwards to the fortress of Ropscha, about twenty miles distant from
Peterhov. He was not allowed to see the empress; and his mistress and
attendants were separated from him.[b]


_Death of Peter III (1762 A.D.)_

What was to be done with Peter? At the deliberations on this question
Catherine calmly listened to arguments as to the necessity of measures
being taken in order that the former emperor should not injure her rule
by disturbing weak minds; she clearly realised all the dangers that might
be created for her, if not by Peter himself at any rate by his partisans.
They were not numerous, yet they did exist and they might multiply in the
future. It was necessary that Peter should be definitively made harmless,
but how was it to be done? During the deliberations on the means to be
taken, no restraint was imposed by Catherine’s presence. The empress
was not an Elizabeth Petrovna: she at once understood the uselessness
of imprisonment at Schlüsselburg or any other place; she was not likely
to fall into a fainting fit at any proposition made. The examples of
Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great did not disturb her. Nevertheless,
not one of those present, not even the persons nearest to her, reading
in her eyes the secret desire decisively to finish once for all with
this unbearable question, would have dared even to hint at an unnatural
death--they knew Catherine, they might read her thought, but not aloud.

When the persons who surrounded Catherine were definitively convinced
that Peter’s removal was recognised by her as indispensable, they decided
to devise a means for it without her knowledge and to accomplish it
without her consent. In this were interested all the personal partisans
of Catherine, those “chosen sons of the people,” who had stirred up the
empress to put herself at the head of the movement. They were far more
interested in the matter than Catherine herself: the change had been
brought about by all classes of society, by the whole nation, not by her;
no one could even think of the detested Peter ascending the throne a
second time--it was not on Catherine that the malcontents would revenge
themselves, that is if there were or would be any, but on the “chosen
of the people.” Peter did not prevent a change being brought about;
still, he might hinder not Catherine but many of the “chosen ones” from
reaping the fruits of their labours. The Orlov brothers were above all
interested in the matter; all of them, and especially Gregory, occupied
important posts, which gave them the right to dream of great things; the
realisation of these dreams could, it seemed to them, be prevented only
by Peter’s perpetual imprisonment. As long as Peter lived, Catherine
was not free: it was now observed by everyone that in the manifesto of
the 28th of June Peter was not once called the consort, the husband of
Catherine; but such bonds imposed by the church are not broken either by
manifestoes or imprisonment: Peter living, by the one fact of his being
alive, prevented the Orlovs from attaining the final results of their
efforts, their sacrifices. No matter by what means, somehow the Orlovs
must guard not merely what was as yet only possible and cherished in
their dreams, but the good fortune that had already been attained to;
and, for this, haste must be made. The favour shown to them, especially
to Gregory, was visible to every eye. At the court there were already
snares laid for them, intrigues began to be carried on against them,
endeavours were made to overthrow Gregory; if Gregory fell his brothers
would fall with him. Haste must be made.

On Wednesday, the 3rd of July, on the fourth day after the appearance of
the attacks of Peter’s illness, in the evening the doctor, Leyders, came
to Ropscha from St. Petersburg. On Thursday, the 4th of July, the former
emperor probably grew worse: at any rate a second doctor came that day
from St. Petersburg--the regimental surgeon Paulsen. The doctors did not
observe any change for the worse, and according to the expressions of the
language of contemporaries, the condition of the patient left nothing to
be desired. Friday passed quietly. On Saturday, the 6th of July, in the
morning while the prisoner was still asleep, the valet who attended on
Peter went out into the garden, “to breathe the fresh air.” An officer
who was in the garden ordered him to be seized and the valet was put into
a carriage which stood in readiness and removed from Ropscha. In the
evening, at six o’clock, a messenger who had ridden from Ropscha gave to
Catherine a packet from Alexis Orlov. On a sheet of soiled gray paper, in
the ignorant handwriting of Alexis Orlov and by his own drunken hand was
traced the following:

    Merciful sovereign mother![52]

    How can I explain, how describe what has happened; you will
    not believe your faithful servant; but before God I speak the
    truth. Matushka! I am ready to go to my death; but I myself
    do not know, how this calamity happened. We are lost, if you
    do not have mercy. Matushka, he is no more on earth. But no
    one had thought of this, and how could we have thought to
    raise our hands against the sovereign! But, your majesty, the
    calamity is accomplished. At table he began to dispute with
    Prince Theodore;[53] we were unable to separate them and he was
    already no more; we do not ourselves remember what we did; but
    we are all equally guilty and deserving of punishment. Have
    mercy upon me, if it is only for my brother’s sake. I have
    brought you my confession and seek for nothing. Forgive or
    command that it may be quickly finished. The world is not kind;
    we have angered you and destroyed our souls forever.

The news of death is a great matter. It is impossible either to prepare
for it or grow accustomed to it. In the present case the death of Peter,
doing away with many perplexities, and giving a free hand to many
persons, appeared as the only possible and most desirable issue to the
political drama which was agitating the people of Russia. Nevertheless
the news of this death struck some, disturbed others, and puzzled all as
an unexpected sudden phenomenon. On Catherine it produced the strongest
impression, and (justice must be rendered to her) she was the first to
control herself, to examine into the mass of new conditions, created by
the death of Peter, and to master the various feelings which made their
invasion together with the news of the catastrophe of Ropscha.

“_Que je suis affectée: même terrassée par cette mort_” (How affected
and even overwhelmed I am by this death), said Catherine to Princess
Dashkov. She was touched by it as a woman; she was struck by it as
empress. Catherine clearly recognised her position: the death of Peter,
a death that was so sudden, would at such a time awaken rumours, throw a
shadow on her intentions, lay a spot on the memory of those until then
clear, bright ten days; yet she did not hide from herself that it was
only by death that the great undertaking “begun by us” could be entirely
consummated. The tragedy of Catherine’s position was still further
increased by the circumstance of Alexis Orlov’s having taken an active
part in the catastrophe of Ropscha: she was under great obligations to
the Orlovs as empress, while as a woman she was bound by the ties of
affection to Gregory Orlov; she loathed the crime, but she could not give
up the criminal. “One must be firm in one’s resolutions,” said Catherine,
“only weak-minded people are undecided.” Even she herself, she must
conceal the crime and protect the criminal, taking upon herself all the
moral responsibility and political burden of the catastrophe. Catherine
then for the first time showed a healthy political understanding of the
widest diapason and played the rôle she had taken upon herself with the
talent of a virtuoso.

The letter of Alexis Orlov, which entirely exculpated her from all
suspicion was hidden in a cupboard, where it lay for thirty-four years,
until the very death of the empress. With the exception of two or three
persons in the immediate entourage of Catherine, who were near her at the
moment when the letter was received besides Nikita Panin and the hetman
Razumovski, no one ever read it, no one knew of it while the empress
lived. Having decided upon the fate of the letter, she herself marked
out the programme of her actions clearly and shortly: “_Il faut marcher
droit; je ne dois pas être suspecte_.” (I must walk uprightly; I must not
be suspected.)

The programme was exactly fulfilled. The letter of Alexis Orlov did not
communicate the trifling details of the catastrophe, but the general
signification of the narrative did not leave any doubts as to its chief
features, and therefore Catherine considered it first of all necessary
to certify whether poison had been employed; the postmortem examination,
made by order of the empress, did not show the least trace of poison.
Neither the medical certificate as to the cause of death nor the act
of death has been preserved; we can only guess that these certificates
directed the composition of the following “mourning” manifesto:

    On the seventh day after our acceptation of the throne of all
    the Russias, we received the news that the former emperor
    Peter III, by an attack of hemorrhage which was common and
    previously frequent to him, had fallen into a most dangerous
    condition. In order therefore not to neglect our Christian duty
    and the sacred command, by which we are obliged to preserve the
    life of our neighbour, we immediately ordered that everything
    necessary should be sent to him in order to avert consequences
    that might be dangerous to his health through this mischance,
    and tend to assist to his speedy recovery. But to our extreme
    grief and trouble of heart, we yesterday evening received news
    that, by the will of God, he had departed this life. We have
    therefore commanded that his body should be taken to the Nevski
    monastery to be there interred; meanwhile we incite and exhort
    all our true and faithful subjects by our imperial and maternal
    word that, without evil remembrance of all that is past, they
    should raise to God their heartfelt prayers that forgiveness
    and salvation of his soul may be granted to the deceased;
    this unexpected decree by God of his death we accept as a
    manifestation of the divine providence through which God in
    his inscrutable judgment lays the path, known to his holy will
    alone, to our throne and to the entire fatherland. Given at St.
    Petersburg on the 7th day of July, 1762.

                                                          CATHERINE.

The Russian made the sign of the cross as he read this manifesto. Yes,
the judgments of God are indeed inscrutable! The former emperor had
experienced in his last days so many sorrows, so many reverses--no wonder
his feeble, sickly nature, which had already suffered from attacks of
hemorrhage, would not withstand these shocks; in the matter of death
nobody is free: he had fallen ill and died. To the common people his
death appeared natural; even the upper classes, although they might
hear even if they did not know something, did not admit any thoughts of
Catherine’s having had any share in his death. The empress “must not be
suspected” and she remained unsuspected. On the night between Sunday,
the 7th of July, and Monday, the 8th, the body was brought straight
to St. Petersburg, directly to the present monastery of St. Alexander
Nevski to the same place where the body of the princess Anna of Brunswick
was exposed for reverence, and later on the body of the princess Anna
Petrovna, Catherine’s daughter.[e]


FOOTNOTES

[49] It is said that when the infant Ivan heard the shouts of the
soldiers in front of the palace, he endeavoured to imitate their
vociferations, when Elizabeth exclaimed, “Poor babe! thou knowest not
that thou art joining in the noise that is raised at thy undoing.”

[50] The mother died in childbed, 1746; the father survived until 1780.

[51] She is said to have been privately married to a singer; but this is
doubtful. What is certain is that her lovers were as numerous after as
before the alleged union.

[52] The exact expression in Russian is _Matushka_ (little mother), a
title of endearment given by the people to the sovereign.

[53] Prince Theodore Sergeivitch Bariatinski.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER VIII. THE AGE OF CATHERINE THE GREAT

    We must acknowledge that in many respects Catherine was far
    from irreproachable; her very accession to the throne casts a
    dark shadow on her moral image. But the reproaches that must
    be made to her on this account cannot but be counteracted by
    the thirty-four years of greatness and prosperity which Russia
    enjoyed under her and to which the popular voice has given the
    appellation of the Age of Catherine.--SHEHEBALSKI.[b]


[Sidenote: [1762-1796 A.D.]]

There are few names so popular in Russia and so dear to her as that
of Catherine II. The generation of men who belonged to her time spoke
of her with the most profound emotion. Memoirs and reminiscences of
her contemporaries breathe almost without exception the same ardent
devotion--a sort of worship of her. In opposition to these feelings,
foreign reports of her represent her as cruel, heartless, and
unscrupulous to the last degree. Some authors represent her as a sort of
monster. However strange such contradictions may appear, they can readily
be accounted for. Foreigners view Catherine II more from the side of her
external policy, which was certainly often unsparing and unscrupulous in
the means employed; they refer caustically to her private life, which
was certainly not irreproachable. Russians, on the other hand, felt
above all the influence of her interior administration, which contrasted
sharply from that of her predecessors by its mildness, and which was full
of useful and liberal reforms. The Russians of her day could not remain
indifferent to the glory with which Catherine surrounded Russia. And
thus to the descendants of Catherine, acquainted as they are with the
reports given of her both by Russians and foreigners, she appears as the
two-faced god of antiquity; her visage when turned to the neighbouring
powers is stern and unwelcoming; that, on the contrary, which is turned
toward Russia is full of majesty and mildness.

[Sidenote: [1762 A.D.]]

The state of affairs was very much entangled when Catherine ascended the
throne, both in the interior of the empire and in respect to exterior
policy. One of the first acts of the new empress was the conclusion of
peace with all those who had taken part in the Seven Years’ War. Not
seeing any advantage to Russia in helping the king of Prussia in his war
against the German emperor and his allies, Catherine did not consider it
necessary to assist the latter. “I am of tolerably martial tastes,” said
she, in the first days after her accession to the throne, to one of the
ambassadors to the Russian court, “but I will never begin war without a
cause; if I begin war, it will not be as the empress Elizabeth did--to
please others, but only when I find it favourable for myself.” These
words are characteristic of all Catherine’s further foreign policy; to
listen to them was not without profit for foreign courts, which, during
the preceding reigns, had certainly been over-spoiled by the complaisance
of the Russians.

The next circumstance must have enlightened them still further as
to how little Catherine had the intention of allowing herself to be
restrained by considerations which did not tend to the furtherance of
the glory and prosperity of her dominions. We have already seen by what
persistency--sometimes even to the sacrifice of their dignity--the
preceding governments had succeeded in obtaining the recognition of
their right to the imperial title. France had recognised it only under
Elizabeth, and that under the condition that at all foreign courts the
Russian ambassador must, as previously, yield the precedence to the
French ambassador; the late empress Elizabeth herself engaged that this
should be done. When Catherine came to the throne, it was proposed to
her to renew this engagement; she, however, very decidedly refused to
do so, and commanded that it should be declared that she would break
off all relations with those courts that did not recognise her in the
quality of empress--a title, she added, which, however, was in no degree
more exalted than that of the czars. Such were the first acts of the
new empress in regard to foreign governments: they were bold, firm, and
determined.[b]


CATHERINE’S OWN VIEWS ON RUSSIA

[Sidenote: [1763 A.D.]]

The interior condition of Russia and the position at that time occupied
by Catherine are best described by herself, in her own words. In the
very beginning of the year 1764 the procurator-general, A. I. Glebov,
was removed from his functions. As his successor in this weighty and
responsible office the empress named Prince A. A. Viasemski. The
procurator-general had to superintend the finances of the empire, to
direct the senate, and to govern all the interior affairs of the nation,
thus uniting in himself the powers of minister of finance, of justice,
and of home affairs. He was subordinate to none except the law, the good
of the country, and the will of the empress. He was the right hand of
the empress: “In cases where you may be in doubt,” said Catherine to
him, “consult with me, and put your trust entirely in God and in me; and
I, seeing how gratifying your conduct is to me, will not forsake you.”
Prince Viasemski was still a young man--he was not yet thirty-seven
years of age. A pupil of the land-forces cadet corps, he had taken part
in the Prussian War--not, however, in the character of a brave soldier,
but as the executor of “secret orders.” At the accession of Catherine
to the throne he was already quartermaster-general. In 1763 he was
entrusted with the pacification of the peasants in the eastern provinces
of Russia. He was well educated, industrious, and was recognised by
everyone as an absolutely honest man. It was this last circumstance that
determined Catherine’s choice. Having selected for herself her “closest
helper,” with whom she would have to be in constant relations, the
empress considered it necessary once for all to have a clear explanation
with him, and with her own hand wrote him “instructions” in which
she expressed her own views on Russia, on the chief branches of the
administration, and on herself personally, drawing her portrait for him
as empress:

“The Russian Empire,” wrote Catherine, “is so vast in its extent that any
other form of government excepting that of an autocratic sovereign would
be prejudicial to it; for any other would be slow of accomplishment and
would include in itself a multitude of diverse interests and passions
which tend to the weakening of the administrative power. No, there must
be one sovereign, invested with authority to destroy evil, and who
esteems the public welfare as his own. Other rulers are, in the words of
the Gospel, hirelings.”

The first institution in the empire is the senate. Catherine thus
describes it to the young procurator-general: “In the senate you will
find two parties, but in my opinion a wise policy does not require that
much regard should be paid to them, lest too much firmness should thus
be given them: in this manner they will disappear the sooner; I have
only kept a watchful eye over them and have used men according to their
capabilities for one object or another. Both parties will now try to
catch you for their side. In one you will find men of upright character,
although not of far-seeing intellects; in the other I think their views
are wider, but it is not clear whether they are always advantageous.
Some think that because they have been in one or another country for
a long time, everything must be arranged in politics for the good of
their beloved land, and everything else without exception meets with
their criticism, in spite of the fact that all interior administration
is founded on the law of the rights of nations. You must not regard
either one party or the other, but be courteous and dispassionate in your
behaviour to both, listening to everything, having only the good of the
country and justice in view, and walking in firm steps to the shortest
road to truth.”

The senate “by its want of attention to the deeds of certain of my
forefathers left its fundamental principles, and oppressed other courts
through which the lower tribunals fell greatly into decline. The
servility and meanness of persons in these tribunals is indescribable and
no good can be expected until this evil is done away with. Only the forms
of bureaucracy are fulfilled, and people do not dare to act uprightly
although the interests of the state thus suffer. The senate having once
passed its proper bounds, it is now difficult to accustom it to the
necessary order in which it should stand. Perhaps for the ambition of
some members, the former measures have some charm, but at any rate while
I live, it will remain my duty to command.”

The “servility” of the members of the government offices was ascribed to
the senate, but the senate was not to repair the evil it had occasioned.
By a ukase of the 19th of December, 1763, Catherine required that the
“government offices should be filled by worthy and honest men.” The
motive of this ukase is explained in the above cited instructions to
Prince Viasemski. In these instructions Catherine draws his attention
to the great burdensomeness for the people of the duties on salt and
wine, but she confides to his particular care the question of silver or
copper money, which had long interested her, as well as the position
of trade and commerce. “This very delicate matter,” she says, “of which
many persons find it unpleasant to hear must however be looked into and
examined by you.” Catherine did not conceal from herself that the laws
required amending. “Lack of time alone,” she says, “has prevented the
introduction of reforms.”

[Illustration: AN OLD MORDVINIAN WOMAN]

Catherine did not forget to tell the young procurator-general what her
views were on the frontier country of Russia: “Little Russia, Livonia,
and Finland are provinces that must be governed in conformity with
their privileges; to violate them by revoking them all suddenly would
be quite unseemly, to call them foreign countries, however, and treat
them on such a basis would be more than an error--it might rightly be
called stupidity. These provinces, as also that of Smolensk, must by
the lightest possible means be gradually russianised so that they shall
cease to be looked upon as wolves in the forest. The attainment of such
an object is quite easy if sensible persons are chosen for the governors
of these provinces. When there is no longer a hetman in Little Russia, we
must endeavour to abolish even the appellation of hetman.”

Having initiated Prince Viasemski into the most secret matters, having
reminded him that a procurator-general in the exercise of his functions
is obliged to oppose the most powerful personages and that therefore the
sovereign power is his only support, Catherine in the following passage
expressed her views on her own sovereign power:

“You ought to know with whom you have to do. Occasions will arise daily
which will lead you to seek my counsel. You will find that I have no
other aims than the highest welfare and glory of the fatherland and
desire nothing but the happiness of my subjects of whatever condition
they may be. My only aspiration is that both within and without my
dominions tranquillity, contentment, and peace should be preserved. I
love truth above all things, and you may speak it, fearing nothing; I
shall encourage discussion, if good can be accomplished by it. I hear
that all esteem you as an honest man; I hope to show you by experience
that persons with such qualities can live happily at court. I will add
that I require no flattery from you, but solely frankness and sincerity
in your dealings, and firmness in the affairs of state.” Such an
administration programme and such political principles gave Catherine
full right to look calmly towards the future.[c]


THE POLISH SUCCESSION; THE POLICY OF THE NATIONS

A subject of deep gravity soon claimed her attention--the approaching
death of the king of Poland and the consequent opening of the succession.
Two parties were contending for power in Warsaw--the court party with
minister Brühl and his son-in-law Mniszek at its head, and the party
which looked to Russia for support and had for chiefs the Czartoriski.
The first-named faction wished to assure the succession to the prince
of Saxony, an aim in which France and Austria shared, and the second,
planning to elect a _piast_ or native noble who should belong to their
party, chose as candidate a nephew of the Czartoriski, Stanislaus
Poniatovski. Thus France, which in 1733 had waged war in the cause of a
piast against the Saxon candidate, now came to support the Saxon against
Poniatovski. The face of affairs had completely changed, and the Polish
monarchy, growing weaker day by day, arrived at the point where it
could no longer stand erect save by the aid of Saxony, a German state.
Frederick II had as much reason to dread an increase of power for Saxony
as for Poland, since Saxony was an inveterate enemy of Prussia in the
empire, as was Poland in the regions of the Vistula. Russia, which had
formerly fought against Stanislaus Leszczynski, father-in-law of Louis
XV, was now to oppose the candidate favoured by France and Austria; it
was eager also to prevent the accession to the throne of any Polish noble
wielding too much power of his own. The choice, therefore, of Stanislaus
Poniatovski, a simple gentleman without personal following or influence,
met fully the desires of Frederick II, the interests of the Russian
Empire, and the private feelings of Catherine II, who was happy to bestow
a crown upon one of her former lovers.

[Sidenote: [1765 A.D.]]

When Augustus III finally died, the diets of convocation and of election
stirred up great agitation all over the country. The two rival parties
waged fiercer strife than ever; at last the Czartoriski called upon
the Russian army to help drive out their enemies, and it was under the
protection of foreign bayonets that Poniatovski inaugurated that fatal
reign during which Poland was to be three times dismembered and in the
end wiped completely from the list of nations. Three principal causes
were to bring about the ruin of the ancient royal republic:

(1) The national movement in Russia, which aimed to complete its
territory on the west and recover, so said its historians, the provinces
which had formerly been part of the domain of St. Vladimir, or White
Russia, Black Russia, and Little Russia. With the national question was
mingled another which had already led, under Alexander Mikhailovitch,
to a first dismemberment of the Polish states. Complaints against the
operations of the uniates had multiplied in Lithuania, and Russia had
frequently attempted to intervene. Peter the Great protested to Augustus
II against the treatment accorded to his co-religionists in Poland, and
Augustus had issued an edict assuring free exercise of the orthodox
religion; but this never went into effect owing to the inability of the
monarchy to repress the zeal of the clergy and the Jesuits. In 1723 Peter
begged the intervention of the pope, but his petition was refused and the
abuses continued.

(2) The covetousness of Prussia. Poland being in possession of western
Prussia, that is the lower Vistula including Thorn and Dantzic, eastern
Prussia was completely cut off from the rest of the Brandenburg monarchy,
which was thus made a divided state. The government of Warsaw committed,
moreover, the serious error of confounding Protestant and orthodox
dissenters and harassing them alike.

(3) The inevitable enkindling of Poland in its turn by the spirit of
reform that spread abroad during the eighteenth century. Poniatovski and
the most enlightened of his countrymen had long perceived the contrast
presented by national anarchy as it prevailed at home and the order
that was being established in neighbouring states. Nevertheless, while
Prussia, Russia, and Austria were exerting every effort to re-form
themselves into strictly modern states, Poland still clung obstinately
to the traditions of the feudal ages, and allowed the other European
monarchies to get so far ahead that when at last the impulse to reform
did come it hastened the dissolution of the country.

From a social point of view Poland was a nation of agricultural serfs,
above which had been superimposed a numerous petty nobility that was
itself in bondage to a few great families, against whom even the king
was powerless. There existed no third estate unless we can designate
by that name a few thousand Catholic bourgeois and a million Jews, who
had no interest in maintaining a condition of things that condemned
them to everlasting opprobrium. From an economical point of view the
country had only a limited agriculture carried on by serfs after the most
primitive methods; but little commerce, no industries, and no public
finances. From a political standpoint the “legal” nation was composed
exclusively of gentleman--rivalry between the great families, anarchy
in the diets, the _liberum veto_, and the inveterate habit of invoking
foreign intervention having destroyed in Poland all idea of law or even
of state. From a military point of view Poland was still in the feudal
stage of undisciplined militia; it had scarcely any organised troops
outside the cavalry formed of nobles, no infantry, but little artillery,
and no fortresses worthy the name on frontiers that were thus left open
to the enemy. What means of defence had a nation divided against itself,
guilty of having received gold from the enemy, against the three powerful
monarchies which beset it on all sides, and whose ambassadors had more
power than its own king in his diets?

Catherine and Frederick were agreed on two essential points: to vindicate
the rights of dissenters and prevent any reform in the anarchial
constitution which made Poland their easy prey. By affecting to espouse
the cause of tolerance they could blind Europe to their real designs
against the integrity of the country, and Poland’s own noisy fanaticism
would further enable them to conceal their object.

In 1765 Koninski, an orthodox bishop of White Russia, presented a memoir
to the king of Poland in which were recounted all the vexations which the
followers of the Greek religion had been made to suffer in his kingdom.
“The missionary fathers,” said the memoir, “were particularly remarkable
for their zeal; upheld by the secular authorities they were in the habit
of summoning all the Greco-Russian inhabitants of the villages and
banding them together like a flock of sheep six weeks at a time, forcing
them to confess, and displaying thorny rods and stakes to intimidate
the rebellious, separating children from their parents and wives from
husbands. In case of stubborn resistance the recalcitrant ones were
severely beaten, their hands were burned, or they were confined in prison
for several months.”

Russia supported the dissenters in the Polish diet and Stanislaus
promised to sustain them. To do this it was necessary to assure to
the people the free exercise of their religion, and to the nobles the
political rights of which they had been despoiled under preceding
legislators. The diet of 1766 violently opposed this proposition, and
the deputy Gourovski who had tried to speak in favour of the dissenters
narrowly escaped assassination.

[Sidenote: [1767-1768 A.D.]]

Repnin, Catherine’s ambassador, urged the dissenters to resort to the
legal method of confederation. Those of the orthodox faith united at
Sluth, the Protestants, under the patronage of the Prussian ambassador,
at Thorn; even at Radom there was a confederation of Catholics and of all
those who feared a reform in the constitution or the abolition of the
_liberum veto_. Russia, which with Prussia had guaranteed the support
of this absurd constitution, took these also under its protection. Such
were the auspices under which was opened the diet of 1767; the Poles
seemed insensible to the attack made on their independence and exerted
themselves solely to maintain intolerance. Soltik, bishop of Cracow,
Zaluski, bishop of Kiev, and two other of the pope’s ambassadors were the
most ardent in opposing the project of reform. Repnin had them seized and
carried to Russia, and so persistently had Poland shown herself in the
wrong that Europe applauded an act, in itself a violation of the rights
of men, which seemed to assure liberty of conscience. The diet yielded
and consented to the dissenting nobles being granted equal rights with
the Catholics; in any case the state religion was to remain that of Rome.


POLAND IS DISMEMBERED

In 1768 a treaty was drawn up between Poland and Russia by the terms
of which no modification could be made in the constitution without the
consent of the latter power. This was equivalent to legalising foreign
intervention, from the abuse of which Poland was to perish. The Russian
troops evacuated Warsaw, and the confederates sent deputies to render
thanks to the empress.

The Radom Confederation, the most considerable of the three, which had
taken up arms solely to prevent reforms in the constitution, not to
support the dissenters, was gravely dissatisfied with the result. On its
dissolution another and still more numerous confederation was formed,
that of Bar in Podolia, which had for object the maintenance of the
_liberum veto_ and the securing of exclusive privileges to Catholics. It
sent deputies to the courts of Dresden, Vienna, and Versailles to awaken
interest in its cause. In the west opinions differed; on which side were
right, the Polish nation, the brightest promise for the future? Were they
at Warsaw with the king, the senate, and all those who had striven for
the enfranchisement of the dissenters and the reconstruction of Poland,
or were they at Bar with the turbulent nobles who, guided by fanatical
priests, had revolted in the name of the _liberum veto_ and religious
intolerance? Voltaire and most of the French philosophers declared for
the king; but the minister of Louis XV, Monsieur de Choiseul, favoured
the confederates, without taking into consideration that in weakening
the power of the Polish king he was weakening Poland itself. The royal
army consisting of only nine thousand men, the government committed the
grievous blunder of calling upon Russia for aid, and the result was that
the Muscovite troops succeeded in recapturing from the confederates Bar,
Berdichev, and Cracow. The Cossacks of the Ukraine, the Zaparogians and
the laïdamaks or brigands were called to arms and a savage war, at once
national, religious, and social, ensued, desolating the provinces of
the Dnieper. The massacre of Ouman, a town belonging to Count Potocki,
horrified the inhabitants of the Ukraine.

The confederates obtained the support of the Viennese court and
established a council at Teschen, and their headquarters at Eperies,
in Hungary. They were still in possession of three strongholds in
Poland. Choiseul sent them money and commissioned successively De
Taules, Dumouriez, and the baron de Viomesnil to assist in their
organisation. From the memoirs of Dumouriez we learn that the forces
of the confederation, distributed about over all Poland, consisted of
sixteen thousand cavalry divided into five or six separate bands, each
commanded by an independent chief. Dumouriez with his undisciplined
troops was defeated at Landskron (1771); but Viomesnil, Dussaillans, and
Choisy became masters of the château of Cracow (1772), which was finally
recovered by Souvorov. An attempt made by certain confederates on the
3rd of November, 1771, to obtain possession of the person of the king,
excited noisy but insincere indignation at the three northern courts, and
increased Voltaire’s aversion to the confederates.[d]

By the treaty of St. Petersburg (signed August 5th, 1772), the
palatinates of Malborg, Pomerania, Warmia, Culm (except Dantzic and
Thorn), and part of Great Poland was ceded to Prussia. Austria had
Galicia, Sandomir, Cracow, and part of Podolia. Russia had Polotsk,
Vitepsk, Mikislav, and Polish Livonia. The next point was to execute the
treaty. A pretext could not long be wanting for the armed interference
of all the three powers: each had been expressly invited by some one of
the parties which divided that unhappy country, which were perpetually
engaged in civil war. The three bandit chiefs despatched armies into
Poland, and Europe waited with much anxiety the issue of this step. Its
suspense was not of long continuance: the Treaty of St. Petersburg was
presented to the Polish king and senate; and manifestoes, stating the
pretensions of each power, were published.

Never were documents so insulting laid before rational men. King and
senate could oppose little resistance to demands so powerfully supported;
but their consent alone could not sanction the dismemberment of the
republic. Hence the diet was convoked. That eight or ten members only
should resist the destruction of their country, that all the rest should
tamely sanction it, might appear incredible if it were not a matter of
history. In this monstrous robbery the lion’s share fell to Russia. She
acquired an extent of territory estimated at 3,440 square leagues, with
one million and a half of inhabitants: Austria had 2,700 leagues, but a
greater population, _viz._ two millions and a half: Prussia had scarcely
1,000 square leagues, and less than a million of people.

As the three co-robbers were so courageous as to set at defiance both
justice and public opinion, so magnanimous as to show themselves in
their real character to all posterity, it may appear matter of surprise
that they did not seize on the whole of the kingdom. But though they had
resolved to seize the remainder, they were cautious enough to await the
course of events--to take advantage of any favourable circumstance that
might arise. The French Revolution furnished them with it. That event
had many admirers in Poland, many who wished to imitate it at home.
It was easy for the three neighbouring powers to take umbrage at the
progress of republican opinions; to assert, as indeed truth authorised
them to assert, that the Poles were in communication with the heads of
the movement in Paris. In reality, in the year 1791 a new constitution
was proclaimed, exceedingly like a republic. The reduction of Dantzic
and Thorn, the two most important possessions in the north of Europe,
convinced the Poles that they had been duped. Catherine was not a woman
to let others derive the sole advantage where anything was to be gained.
Preparatory to active operations, she declared war against Poland. The
diet resolved to resist; but, as usual, the Poles were divided among
themselves. One party declared for Russia; and though the greater
number declared for independence, they could not be brought to combine.
Success after success was obtained by the Russian general; the empress
negotiated the details of another partition with Prussia; and the king
and the diet were, as before, compelled to sanction it. By it the Russian
frontier was extended to the centre of Lithuania and Volhinia; while the
remainder of Great and a part of Little Poland were ceded to Frederick
William. Much to the honour of Austria, she had no hand in this second
iniquity.

The territory of the republic was now reduced to about 4,000 square
miles; and her army, by command of the czarina, was in future not to
exceed fifteen thousand men. The Poles were never deficient in bravery;
and they were, on this occasion, sensitive to the national shame. They
felt that the narrow limits still allowed them would soon be passed, and
that their remaining provinces were intended soon to be incorporated
with the neighbouring states. A general insurrection was organised;
an army voluntarily arose, and Kosciuszko placed himself at its head.
For a time wonders were wrought by the patriots; though opposed by two
great enemies--Russia and Prussia--they expelled the enemy from most of
the fortresses; and even when Austria acceded to the coalition and took
Cracow they were not desponding. To effect impossibilities, however,
was an absurd attempt: the majority felt it to be so, and they sullenly
received the foreign law. Kosciuszko was made prisoner; the last outworks
of the last fortress were reduced; Warsaw capitulated; Stanislaus
was deposed; and a third partition ended the existence of the Polish
Republic. By it Austria had Cracow, with the country between the Pilitza,
the Vistula, and the Bug. Prussia had Warsaw, with the territory to the
banks of the Niemen. The rest, which, as usual, was the lion’s share,
fell to Russia.


_War with Turkey (1769-1774 A.D.)_

[Sidenote: [1769 A.D.]]

The wars with this power occupied a considerable portion of Catherine’s
reign; yet they were not originally sought by her. The Porte, at the
suggestion of the French ambassador, whose master was anxious to divert
her from her meditated encroachments on Poland, was, unfortunately for
itself, induced to declare war against her. The Grand Seignior, indeed,
was the ally of the republic; and he was one of the parties to guarantee
its independence. But his dominions were not tranquil; the discipline of
his armies was impaired, while that of the Russians was improving every
day. Perhaps, however, he was ignorant of the disadvantages which must
attend the prosecution of the war: certainly his pride was flattered by
the insinuation that he held in his hands the balance of power in eastern
and northern Europe. In 1769 hostilities commenced by the invasion of the
Crimea, the khan of which was the vassal of the Porte. Azov and Taganrog
were soon taken; Moldavia was entered; Servia was cleared of the Tatar
allies. Before Kotzim, however, Prince Galitzin received a check, and
was forced to repass the Dniester. A second attempt on that important
fortress was equally unsuccessful. But the Turks, who pursued too far,
were vanquished in some isolated engagement; and the campaign of 1769
ended by the acquisition of Kotzim.

The operations of the following year were much more decisive. Galitzin,
disgusted by the arrogance of the favourite Orlov, resigned the command
into abler hands than even his own--those of Count Romanzov. The
reduction of Jassy and Brailov was preparatory to two great victories,
which rendered the name of Romanzov forever memorable in the annals of
his country. The first was on the banks of the Pruth. The Turks, in
number eighty thousand, under the khan of the Crimea, were intrenched on
a hill, in a position too strong to be assailed. But after three weeks,
they became wearied of their inactivity; and believing, from a feint
of the Russian general, that he was about to retire, twenty thousand
of them rushed down the hill. They were repulsed with terrible loss;
the remainder carried dismay into the camp; and the Russians, taking
advantage of the circumstances, ascended, forced the intrenchments,
killed many, compelled the rest to flee, and seized considerable booty,
with thirty-eight pieces of cannon. Retreating towards the Danube, the
Turks effected a junction with the grand vizir, whose army was thereby
increased to 150,000.

Unaware of its extent, Romanzov pursued with ardour, and was suddenly in
the presence of his formidable competitor. His position was a critical
one. The vizir was intrenched; and the khan, resolved to efface the shame
of his recent defeat, wheeled round his left flank, and encamped behind
him. Hence he could not move backwards or forwards. On the following day
the vizir gave the signal of battle; and the contest raged for some hours
with desperate fury. Annoyed at the perpetual discharges of the enemy’s
artillery, which alarmingly thinned his ranks, the count ordered his men
to fix their bayonets and rush on the intrenchments. Here the struggle
was more deadly than before; but in the end numbers yielded to discipline
and valour. The Turks fled, the vizir with them, leaving immense stores
(among which were 143 pieces of cannon) in the power of the victors,
and nearly one-third of their number on the field. Romanzov now crossed
the Dniester; one of his generals, Repnin, reduced Ismailov; the other,
Panin, took the most important fortress, Bender, after a siege of three
months; while a detachment from the main army seized the capital of
Bessarabia.

Nor were these the only successes of the year. Not satisfied with warfare
on land, Catherine resolved to try her fortunes on the deep; and to do
what none of her predecessors had ever dreamed--to send a powerful fleet
into the Mediterranean, for the purpose of assailing her enemy in Greece.
Many new ships were built; many English naval officers persuaded to
command them, and to teach her seamen the arts by which the superiority
of England had been so long maintained. The Greeks were impatient for
the arrival of their co-religionists; the czarina’s gold had gained over
the chiefs, and a general insurrection of the people was meditated. Her
designs were truly gigantic--no less than to drive the Mohammedans from
Europe. The fleet sailed, arrived in the Archipelago, disembarked both
on the islands and the continent; and while the Turkish possessions were
assailed on the Danube, they were equally perilled in these southern
latitudes.

A terrible warfare now commenced--the Greeks everywhere butchering the
Mohammedans, the latter retaliating. A naval battle was inevitable; the
hostile fleets met between Scio and Natolia: the engagement continued
until night, to the manifest advantage of the Russians. That very night
the Turkish admiral was so foolish as to run his ships into a narrow
bay, in which he was instantly blockaded. Some fire-ships, sent by
Vice-Admiral Elphinstone, a Scotchman in the service of the empress,
set all of them on fire; and at sunrise the following morning not a
flag was to be seen. This blow sensibly affected the Turks, especially
as the appearance of the Russians in the Mediterranean had encouraged
Tripoli, Egypt, and Syria to rebel against the Porte. Ali Bey, the
governor of Egypt, an able, ambitious, and enterprising insurgent, was
ready to assist his allies with all his might; but the incapacity yet
egregious haughtiness of the Russian admiral, Alexis Orlov, prevented
them from deriving much advantage from the union. The year, however, was
one of brilliant success; and Catherine was so elated that she built
a magnificent palace, which she called after the bay in which the last
victory was gained.

[Sidenote: [1771-1774 A.D.]]

In the spring of 1771, Orlov again resorted to the Mediterranean,
where the Russian fleet still lay, with the intention of forcing the
Dardanelles; while the armies on the Danube renewed their operations. The
position of Turkey was, indeed, critical: not only was one-half of the
empire in revolt, but the plague had alarmingly thinned the population.
Fortunately, however, for this power, the same scourge found its way
into the heart of Russia: its ravages were as fatal at Moscow as at
Constantinople; and it no more spared the Christians on the Danube than
it did the Mohammedans. This calamity slackened, but did not suspend
operations. If the Russians were sometimes repulsed, the balance of
success was decidedly in their favour. The famous lines of Perekop, from
the Euxine to the sea of Azov were forced by Prince Dolgoruki, though
they were defended by fifty thousand Tatars; the whole of the Crimea,
one fortress excepted, was subdued; and the surname of Krimski, or
Conqueror of the Crimea, was given to the victor. The country, however,
was not incorporated with the empire: on the contrary, while it was
declared independent of the Porte, it was proclaimed as merely under
the protection of Russia. The khan, Selim Girai, being thus expelled,
proceeded to Constantinople, where he died. The exertions of the fleet,
however, did not correspond with those of the land forces: all that Orlov
effected was to destroy the Turkish commerce on the Levant.

During the year 1772 no hostilities were committed, and negotiations for
peace were undertaken. Though the two contracting parties, which sent
their representatives to Bucharest, could not agree on the conditions,
both were anxious to recruit their strength, after the heavy losses
they had sustained both by the sword and the plague. Catherine too had
another motive for temporary inaction; she was busily effecting the first
partition of Poland. With the return of the following spring, however,
the banks of the Danube were again the theatre of war; but this campaign
was not destined to be so glorious as the one of 1771. Its opening was
unfavourable for the Russians: while a body of fourteen thousand, under
Prince Repnin, were crossing that river, they were surprised by one
of the Turkish generals; many perished; about six hundred, with the
prince himself, were made prisoners and sent to Constantinople. Shortly
afterwards, Romanzov who had passed that river and was marching on
Silistria, was compelled to retrace his steps. At Roskana a considerable
body of his troops was defeated by the vizir. This harassing warfare--for
the Turks carefully avoided a general action--thinned the ranks and, what
is worse, depressed the spirits of the invaders. Romanzov was no less
averse to such a risk. Nor did the fleet in the Mediterranean effect
anything to counterbalance their indecisive yet destructive operations.
What little advantage there was belonged to the Turks.

The campaign of 1774 promised to be more important than the preceding;
and the Porte, from the rebellion of Pugatchev, was confident of success.
Several actions on the Danube, which, however bravely contested, led
to no result, were yet considered as indicative of a severe if not a
decisive struggle. But the anticipation was groundless. Though several
bodies of Tatars, who were to effect a diversion in favour of Pugatchev,
were defeated; though the Danube was crossed; though twenty-five thousand
of the Turks were repulsed by Soltikov, and another body still stronger
by Suvarov, though the vizir himself was blockaded in Shumla--Europe was
disappointed in its expectations; for negotiations were opened for a
peace which was soon concluded.


_The Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji (1774 A.D.)_

[Sidenote: [1774 A.D.]]

By the Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji (July, 1774) Russia obtained the free
navigation of the Black Sea, the right of passage through the Danube,
a large tract of land between the Bug and the Dnieper, with the strong
fortresses of Azov, Taganrog, Kertch, and Kinburn. The rest of the
Crimea was ceded--not, indeed, to the Turks, but to its own khan, who,
though declared independent, must of necessity be the creature of the
empress, in whose hands those fortresses remained. They were the keys to
his dominions, and even to the command of the Black Sea. A sum of money
sufficient to defray the expenses of the war was also stipulated; but
it was never paid. The advantages which Russia derived from the other
articles were ample enough: among them, not the least, was the commerce
of the Levant and of the Black Sea.[e]


THE MIGRATION OF THE KALMUCKS

It seemed as if Catherine’s reign was destined to be marked by the most
extraordinary events, and one of them was this simultaneous departure of
a horde variously estimated at from three hundred thousand to six hundred
thousand Tatars, an example at the end of the eighteenth century of one
of those great migratory movements which history never expected again to
record. Catherine was humiliated with having to furnish the example; it
was in too striking contrast with that happiness which her philosophic
friends said the human race enjoyed in her empire; and the peaceful
migration of an indignant and angry people gave the formal lie to all
the praises loud shouted by philanthropy. Our readers will not regret to
find here were details of this unexpected event which suddenly made in
the Russian Empire an empty spot, more than fifteen hundred versts in
length, between Tzaritsin and Astrakhan. These Tatars, known under the
name of Kalmucks, were originally included in three principal tribes. At
first subject to China, they had been frequently at war either with it or
with themselves. One of their khans, Amusanan, defeated and pursued by
the Chinese, had taken refuge at Tobolsk in Siberia, where he died about
1757. These troubles, whose origin dated back more than sixty years, had
in 1696 caused a great number of Kalmucks of the three tribes to reunite,
quit a country devastated by constant war, and seek new homes at the
eastern extremity of the Russian Empire.

They settled or located themselves in a vast stretch of territory
close to the Caspian Sea, between the Ural and the Volga. The Chinese
claimed that according to some ancient treaties Russia had to return all
fugitive subjects, but received no reply except that there was nothing to
prevent a wandering people from settling in waste places, a reply which
seventy-five years later the Chinese made use of on their own part with
advantage. Russia received these fugitive hordes and did not delay in
getting service out of them. Another Tatar nation composed principally
of Lesghians, who lived beyond Kisliar and were greedy for pillage,
made frequent incursions into the empire and depopulated the border by
the quantity of slaves they brought back with them. The new Kalmucks
were charged with keeping them out and performed the duty if not with
constant success, at least with a fidelity which did them great credit.
The government felt that this permanent defence was more advantageous to
it than a contribution necessarily small and hard to collect would be;
and consequently, guided a long time by this wise principle, it contented
itself with taking annually from the Kalmucks a certain number of men
and horses for the light cavalry; but when once it deviated from a rule
which it should never have broken, troubles began and the cupidity of its
agents multiplied particular iniquities under pretext of collecting for
the public funds. The Russian governors and even the minor officials were
confirmed in the belief that everything was permitted them because they
were sure that everything would be ignored.

[Illustration: A KALMUCK WOMAN]

Several of the Kalmuck chiefs were treated with indignity. It was
established as a state maxim that they had no right to complain against
injustice; all protest was regarded as a crime. Finally the khan Ubashi,
alive to his people’s misfortunes and wretched himself through the
pride and rapacity of his oppressors who had taken his only son from
him, dared to draw a picture of his sad position and wished to present
it at St. Petersburg. But all means of getting there were closed to
him. This attempt only aggravated his fate and vengeance was now added
to oppression. Here is exhibited a truly interesting spectacle. This
numerous people who, by joining the Lesghians, could, especially in the
condition that Russia then was, give it the greatest alarm and mete out
terrible retaliation, had no thought of using force. They had come to
seek peace and had been deprived of it, so they withdrew. They withdrew
without making use of arms, at least none but what they were forced to by
the necessity of defending themselves and of procuring what they stood in
need of for themselves and their large herds in occupying a front about
one hundred leagues wide over a route nearly twelve hundred leagues in
length.

The preparations for this journey were made with a secrecy which
concealed them from Russia’s knowledge. A nomadic people travels with no
other equipment than its herds, which furnish its drink and a portion
of its nourishment. Obliged often to change locality in order to obtain
grazing grounds, it might without arousing suspicion creep nearer and
nearer the frontiers and even cross them without being stopped by
detachments sent in pursuit. This is what happened. The preparations were
furthered by the Ural Cossacks, who had experienced the same troubles
with Russian officials and who were shortly to rise in open rebellion
under Pugatchev. Furthermore the migration was carried out like all those
of northeastern peoples--with this difference, however: the others came
to Europe to invade realms and destroy and replace the inhabitants; while
this one was returning to its ancestral home to reunite itself to the
empire it had left at the end of the preceding century. In fact, while
all known migrations have taken place from the northeast and east to the
west and south, this is the single exception which retrograded from west
to east.

It divided itself into several columns in order to have sufficient
stretch of territory to pasture the herds, and the first column left
the Volga on the 16th of December, 1770. This prodigious assemblage of
men, women, and children, formed of more than eighty thousand families
and taking with it an immense number of cattle, was after a few days
on the march vainly attacked by the Russians, continued its journey,
was sometimes obliged to use force in making its way, and on the 9th of
August appeared in the Elenth country on the borders of China near the
river Obi. Its progress may be calculated at about five leagues per day,
a rate that seems almost incredible when one thinks of all that composed
the body. They also had with them as prisoners a hundred Russian soldiers
as well as an officer named Dudun who had commanded them, who is believed
to have been French. It was indeed a strange destiny for this officer to
be brought to China as the slave of a Kalmuck!


_The Kalmucks Reach China_

Ubashi, shortly after leaving the Volga, had informed the Chinese of
the migration; and precautions were taken in advance that the arrival
of such an enormous crowd should occasion no disorder. The emperor of
China erected forts and redoubts in the most important places to watch
the passing carefully and collect the necessary provisions. The Kalmucks,
received like old subjects, found on arriving provision for clothing,
food, and shelter. They were worn out by fatigue and in an extremely
ragged condition. They had made their way north of the Caspian Sea, one
division skirted the borders of Siberia to gain the fertile banks of the
Irtish, the other kept farther south near the Usben country in order to
reach that of the Elenths without crossing the Kobi desert, where no
sustenance would have been found.

They lost on the way more than a third of their number by fatigue, by
sickness, and in the battles they were frequently obliged to wage,
especially against the wandering Tatars. They were but four hundred
thousand on arriving. To each family was assigned a piece of ground
suitable as much for pasturage as for agriculture, to which the
government desired that they should devote themselves--an efficient means
of fixing a people and attaching it to the soil which it cultivates.
Ubashi appeared at court and was received with honour. Twenty thousand
other Tatar families who had accompanied Amusanan in his flight or were
dispersed along the Siberian frontiers followed the example of the Tatars
of the Volga, and returned to their old homes. The Chinese government
seemed truly paternal in greeting these children whose long misfortunes
finally brought them back to their ancestral homes.

Catherine on learning of their departure became justly indignant against
the Russian officials who by force of bad treatment had pushed the
Kalmucks to this extremity; but the wrong was done, and it was impossible
to right it. As soon as she knew what route they had taken she took
measures to have the Peking government send them back. The emperor
replied that these people were returning to their old homes, that he
could not refuse them an asylum, and for the rest if she wished to know
the reason of their flight she had only to ask those who had overwhelmed
these people, their chiefs, and even their khan with outrages and
injustices. Catherine, despairing of bringing them back, was obliged to
make use of several bodies of light troops to protect the frontiers the
Kalmucks had recently left.[f]


INSURRECTIONS AND PRETENDERS

A riot in Moscow having clearly revealed the depths of barbarism in which
were still plunged the lower classes of the capital--the domestic serfs,
lackeys, and factory-workers; the insurrection headed by Pugatchev will
show what elements of disorder were still fermenting in the most remote
provinces of the empire. The peasants upon whom fell the whole burden of
state charges, as well as the exactions of proprietors and functionaries,
dreamed in their ignorance of all sorts of impossible changes, and were
always ready to follow impostors; many were the false Peters and Ivans
and Pauls who started up with worthless claims to trade on the credulity
of these simple minds, deeply imbued as they were with the distrust
of “women on the throne.” The raskolniks, made savage and fanatical
by previous persecutions, remained in their forests on the Volga,
irreconcilable enemies of this second Roman empire that was stained with
the blood of so many martyrs. The Cossacks of the Don and the Zaparogians
of the Dnieper chafed under a yoke to which they were unused, and the
pagan, Mussulman, or orthodox tribes of the Volga were but awaiting an
opportunity to regain their former liberty and retake the lands occupied
by the Russians.

How little these various ungovernable elements could accommodate
themselves to the conditions of a modern state has been shown, when,
in 1770, three hundred thousand of the Kalmuck-Turguts abandoned their
encampments. Add to these malcontents a crowd of vagabonds of all sorts,
ruined nobles, unfrocked monks, fugitive serfs, and pirates of the Volga,
and it will be seen that Russia contained in its eastern portion all the
materials necessary for an immense _jacquerie_, such as had before been
unchained by the false Dmitri, or Stenka Radzin.

[Illustration: A BOKHARIAN OF SIBERIA]

It was the Cossacks of the Jaik, cruelly repressed after their
insurrection in 1766, who were to provide the rebel serfs with a leader
in the person of Emilian Pugatchev, a raskolnik who had escaped from
prison to Siberia. Passing himself off as Peter III, who had been rescued
from the hands of the executioner, he raised the banner of the Holsteins
and declared his intention of marching on St. Petersburg to punish his
wife and place his son on the throne. With a following of but three
hundred men he laid siege to the little fortress of Jaik. All the troops
that were sent against him passed over to his side. He caused all the
officers to be hanged, and put to death all the nobles in the towns
through which he passed, capturing by means of such terrorisation several
small fortresses on the steppes. By his intimates who knew the secret
of his origin, he was treated in private as a simple Cossack, but the
populations were deceived and received him with the ringing of bells.
Certain Polish confederates who were captives in these regions organised
for him a body of artillery. For nearly a year he kept Kazan and Orenburg
in a state of terror, defeating all the generals that were sent against
him. Peasants began to rise against the nobles, Tatars and other tribes
against the Russians, until the bitterest of social wars was unchained
in the whole Volga basin. Moscow with its one hundred thousand serfs was
thrown into agitation; among the lower classes there was talk of liberty
and extermination of the masters. Catherine II charged Alexander Bibikov
to check the progress of sedition.

Bibikov was aghast, on arriving at Kazan, to see the extent of the
demoralisation. He set about reassuring the nobles and soothing the
lower classes, but in letters to his wife he wrote: “Conditions are
frightful, I fear all will go ill!” Without great confidence in his
own troops he decided to attack the impostor, whom he recognised as
merely an instrument in the hands of the Cossacks. He defeated Pugatchev
twice, once at Tatistchev and once at Kargula, dispersing his army and
seizing his cannon. Bibikov died in the full flush of victory, but his
lieutenants, Michelson, Collongues, and Galitzin, continued to pursue
the vanquished pretender. Hunted to the lower Volga, Pugatchev suddenly
ascended the river and pillaged and burned Kazan, but was afterwards
defeated on the Kazanka. Descending the river he entered Saransk, Samara,
and Tsaritsin, and though hotly pursued by his enemies took time to
establish there new municipalities. Meanwhile the populations on the
route to Moscow were awaiting his coming, and to meet this expectation
innumerable Peter III’s and Pugatchevs arose, who at the head of furious
bands went about assassinating proprietors and burning châteaux. It
was high time that Pugatchev should be brought to justice. Tracked
down between the Volga and the Jaik by Michelson and the indefatigable
Suvarov, he was taken to Moscow, where the people were given the
spectacle of his execution.

[Sidenote: [1775 A.D.]]

These troubles had been a warning to Catherine II, and she still bore
them in mind when she destroyed the Zaparogian Republic in 1775. The
valiant tribes of the Dnieper, expulsed under Peter the Great and
recalled under Anna Ivanovna, no longer recognised their former territory
of Ukraine. Southern Russia, freed from the incursions of the Tatars,
was rapidly being colonised; cities were springing up on all sides and
the vast herb-covered steppes were becoming transformed into cultivated
fields. The Zaparogians were highly displeased at the transformation, and
wished to have their lands restored to them in their former condition.
They protected the _haïdamaks_ who were constantly harassing the
colonists, until Potemkin, the actual creator of “new” Russia, wearied
of such uncomfortable neighbours, occupied on the empress’ order the
_sitcha_ and destroyed it. The malcontents fled for refuge to the lands
of the sultan; the rest were organised into the Cossacks of the Black
Sea, and in 1792 the island of Phanagoria and the southern shore of the
sea of Azov were assigned to them as residence. Such was the end of the
great Cossack uprising which is heard of to-day only in the songs of the
_kobzars_.[d]


FAVOURITISM UNDER CATHERINE II

During the reign of Catherine favouritism attained a very wide
development. In her _Memoirs_[g] we meet with the following
characteristic passage which is not devoid of interest: “I was endowed by
nature with great sensitiveness, and an exterior which if not beautiful
was, nevertheless, attractive; I pleased from the first moment and did
not require to employ for this purpose artifice or embellishments. By
nature my soul was of such a sociable character that always when anyone
had spent a quarter of an hour with me, he felt perfectly at ease and
could converse with me as if he had known me for a long time. By my
natural indulgence I inspired confidence in those that had to do with
me; because everyone was aware that nothing was pleasanter to me than to
act benevolently and with the strictest honesty. I may venture to say
(if I may be allowed thus to speak of myself) that I was like a knight
of liberty and lawfulness; I had rather the soul of a man than that of a
woman; but there was nothing repellent in this, for to the intellect and
character of a man was united in me the charm of a most amiable woman. I
trust I may be pardoned these words and expressions of my self-love: I
use them counting them as true, and not desiring to screen myself by any
false modesty.

“I have said that I pleased; consequently half of the temptation that
arises is already included in that fact itself; the other half in such
cases naturally follows from the very essence of human nature, because
to be subjected to temptation and to yield to it are very near to each
other. Although the very highest principles of morality may be impressed
on the mind, yet they soon become involved, and feelings appear which
lead one immeasurably further than one thinks. For my part even until now
I do not know how they can be averted. People perhaps may say that there
is one means--flight; but there are cases, positions, circumstances where
flight is impossible; in fact where can one flee to, where seek a refuge,
where turn aside amidst a court that makes a talk over the smallest
action? And thus if you cannot flee, then in my opinion there is nothing
more difficult than to shun that which is essentially pleasing to you.
Believe me, all that may be said to you against this is hypocrisy and
founded on a want of knowledge of the human heart. A man is not master
over his own heart; he cannot at his will squeeze it in his fist and then
set it free again.”

Both contemporaries and posterity have not without foundation harshly
judged favouritism under Catherine. One-sidedness and harshness of
judgment in this respect have however deprived both contemporaries and
immediate posterity of the possibility of dispassionately estimating
the personality of the empress in general. Taking into consideration
Catherine’s unusual capacities, the circumstances in which she was
placed, and her temperament, it is impossible not to acknowledge that
in accusing her we must not lose sight of the age in general and of the
morals at the court in particular. Favouritism was no new apparition
under Catherine. Almost the same state of things had arisen during the
reign of Elizabeth Petrovna. A particularly unpleasant impression,
however, is made by frequent changes of favourites. One after another
in turn there were “in favour”: Gregory Orlov, Vasiltchikov, Potemkin,
Zavadovski, Zoritch, Korsakov, Lanskoi, Ermolov, Mamonov and Zubov. Both
Russians and foreigners have harshly censured Catherine for the rapidity
of these changes, which were unexpected and sometimes without any visible
cause. On the other hand, even writers who are unfavourable to Catherine
have praised her for the fact that not one of the favourites banished
from the court was ever persecuted or punished, while history presents a
multitude of examples of cruelty and extreme arbitrariness on the part of
crowned women in parallel cases.

It must be acknowledged, however, that favouritism, given the unbounded
cupidity of Catherine’s favourites and of their relations, friends, and
acquaintances, cost the treasury and the nation very dear.[h]

Under the influence of new favourites and other confidants, the second
half of Catherine’s reign assumed an essentially different character as
regards her actuating motives, although in the outward course of events a
certain resemblance to the first half was preserved. When Catherine began
to reign she had in mind a policy of peaceful splendour, advised also
by Panin; she would willingly have secured the sovereignty of Poland by
pacific means. It was only the force of circumstances which drew her into
an undesired war.

Now her ambition assumed a different direction; we behold her recklessly
bent on high-handed conquests, taking the initiative and deliberately
making plans to bring about new wars. And, as this has often proved the
case when government is vested in a woman, the change was caused by the
most intimate personal circumstances. It would be out of place here to
relate in detail the paltriness of all the court intrigues. It will
suffice to recall the fact that Catherine, weary of the brutal tyranny
of Gregory Orlov, tried to shake off his yoke and only succeeded with
difficulty in wrenching herself free. She sent him at the time of the
plague to Moscow, much against his will, and his numerous enemies hardly
concealed their hope that he might never return. The empress endeavoured
to keep him at a distance when he returned, but he struggled to remain
master of the field and to stand his ground, although he saw himself
supplanted in her personal favour by an insignificant young officer of
the guards called Vasiltchikov.


_The Rise of Potemkin_

When Catherine began after a time to feel ashamed of the insignificance
of this young man, the much discussed General Gregory Alexandrovitch
Potemkin, known to the empress in the days of her quarrels with her
husband, knew how to take advantage of this favourable moment to force
himself almost by violence into the long coveted position of her
acknowledged and honoured favourite. The Orlovs tried for some time to
wrest from him his sway over Catherine and over Russia, but they were
obliged finally to give way, and retired to the ancient capital of the
empire--which had remained the national capital, the capital of ancient
Muscovy and the refuge of all who had reasons for avoiding the court.

There is much in this strife that is characteristic of time and place.
When Gregory Orlov was forced to start on his dangerous journey to
Moscow, many hoped, as already pointed out, that he would never return.
When he reappeared safe and sound and in excellent health, and it was
feared that he might regain his lost position in the favour of the
empress, many a shrewd man was unable to conceal his vexation. The
distinguished German doctor, Tode, to whom may be ascribed practically
all the expedient measures taken in Moscow against the plague,
remained not only unrewarded, but was unable for a long time to obtain
compensation for the loss of his wardrobe. When he finally expressed
his astonishment thereat, one of the senators is said to have solved
the riddle with the dry remark: “Well, why did you bring the count back
alive?” Then when Gregory Orlov got married in Moscow it was quite
seriously proposed in the senate that the marriage should be dissolved as
sinful, and that the fallen favourite and his wife should be shut up in
penitential monasteries because they had married within the prohibited
degrees. The empress, who had bestowed upon her former friend the title
of prince as a consolation and a farewell, was angered by this decree and
caused it to be revoked. However, in spite of the protection afforded
him, Gregory Orlov came to a tragic end a few years later (1783). He
died insane--as tradition will have it, a violent death, one of the
mysterious occurrences that will never be cleared up.

But the empress Catherine, generally so acute, was singularly deceived
concerning Potemkin, the Prince of Darkness, as he was afterwards called
from a play on his name. He was the son of an insignificant nobleman
of Smolensk, a retired major, and bore a name till then unknown in
Russian history; a man of doubtful capabilities, ignorant, and in fact
distinguished by nothing but a boundless and unscrupulous egotism, by an
immense craving for coarse, extravagant pleasures, and by the nefarious
energy with which he pursued his selfish desires. The first condition for
his enjoyment of life was the power to exercise a boundless autocracy and
to be able to tread under foot not only those who bowed before him but
also those who attempted to resist him.

The empress, however, as a woman and conscious of her unauthorised
position, feeling the need of energetic support, saw in the man, whose
almost gigantic frame seemed to betoken a titanic nature, something
really extraordinary, and believed him destined to accomplish great
deeds. Thus Potemkin retained his ascendancy even after he had withdrawn
from her most intimate favours under the pretence of long-continued
ill-health, and had thrust forward all sorts of handsome insignificant
young men who were one after the other loaded with riches. Potemkin
understood how to increase the distrust which the empress felt for her
son, and to keep it constantly awake. He made her believe that she was
continually surrounded by dangers; that he was the only one who would
protect her, and more especially that he was the only one who would wish
to do so under all circumstances. On the other hand he flattered her
vanity still more than her ambition by plans on an adventurously large
scale, by fantastic pictures of fame and greatness which he suggested to
her imagination. Thus, he pointed to the conquest of Constantinople, the
expulsion of the Turks from Europe, the foundation of a Greek empire on
the Bosporus, not as triumphs which one might hope to see realised in the
future but as deeds which might and should be accomplished within the
next few years.

The general idea was not originated by Potemkin. Field-Marshal Munich had
already pointed out to the empress that Constantinople was the necessary
goal of Russian aspirations. But formerly an object so remote in time and
place aroused but little interest. Now everything seemed to have advanced
within grasp; the empress was to wear the crown of the new Greek empire
during her lifetime; now the idea aroused in her the wildest enthusiasm.
The very fact that no cautious statesman would consider these plans only
made Potemkin appear all the greater in her eyes; his assurance raised
him far above the everyday mediocrity of the others.

The eldest grandson of the empress received the name of Alexander, the
second the no less significant name of Constantine. The former was in due
time to inherit the Greek crown from his grandmother. They took care in a
manner which bordered on exaggeration to make prophesies, or to announce
to the whole world the vast schemes with which they deluded themselves.
The young prince was not christened according to the Russo-Greek but the
somewhat different oriental-Greek ritual, as it was practised in the
churches of his future empire. They tried to procure a Greek nurse for
him, but as that did not succeed they at least chose one called Helen.
Greek playfellows were found for him, and he learned modern Greek as if
it were his mother tongue.

The fascination which Potemkin exercised over Catherine may be
attributed to her feeling of insecurity, to the support Potemkin
promised her, and to the vast prospects he opened out for her ambition.
There is one thing calculated to astonish us and that is that neither
the empress nor Potemkin was able to realise how insufficient was the
actual might of Russia at that time to carry out these gigantic schemes.
It was scarcely surprising that Potemkin should be unable to judge of
this, for he was an ignorant man, who was wanting in the most elementary
political foresight and was besides no thinker. But how came it that
Catherine should be so deceived, who had studied earnestly and had by
that time accumulated a varied experience? How could it escape her
that the comparatively limited financial resources of the empire, more
especially, would prove quite inadequate, particularly as they were
anything but well husbanded? They gave themselves up light-heartedly to
the magic of the banknote press and thus brought down untold calamities
upon Russia, as has been the case also in other countries. But this
calamity did not stand alone; it is in fact not to be regarded as an
independent manifestation, but rather as one of a whole series of
necessary consequences of a premature effort of Russia to lay claim to a
world-power of such magnitude and importance, before her might was fully
established at home or had attained sufficient maturity.

[Illustration: GENERAL SUVAROV

(1729-1800)]

The fact that the forces of the empire must from that time be almost
entirely devoted to the support of a foreign policy; that little, if
anything, could be done for the development of culture and industry (and
that only as a matter of secondary importance), that no consideration
could be given to the most necessary reforms--none of these circumstances
worked Russia such visible and tangible harm as the flooding of
the country with unconsolidated paper money doomed in advance to
depreciation; as matters stood, this was probably a greater evil. When
Russia entered upon the grasping policy of Potemkin she began to lay
out her future in advance, so to speak, and that on a scale utterly out
of proportion to the actual gain which might be or which was in fact
attained. The evils which resulted have continued to work themselves
out down to the present day. As in this way the germs of a future power
were constantly being sacrificed in order to conjure up power in the
present by overdrawing the resources in hand, the real advancement
of the empire was paralysed, and even the actual might in which they
gloried remained partly a sham which certainly did not correspond with
the reality. When later it became necessary for Russia to participate in
the momentous struggles which involved the destiny of Europe, her power
was not matured, concentrated, or husbanded at the decisive moment--as
for instance the power of Prussia by Frederick William I; her future
prospects were encumbered by a heavy burden and by manifold obligations,
the inner development was behind the times, and her financial position
was shaken. It became necessary continually to make fresh, feverish
efforts, which always over-reached the possibilities of the present and
which hindered the inner development afresh, involved the future deeper
and deeper, and exhausted its resources.[i]


_The Official Status of the Favourite_

It may be deemed necessary in this place to explain what were the duties
expected from and the distinguished honours paid to the favourites of
Catherine. When her majesty had made choice of a new favourite, she
created him her general aide-de-camp, in order that he might accompany
her wherever she went, without incurring public censure. From that period
the favourite occupied in the palace an apartment under that of his royal
mistress, with which it communicated by a private staircase. The first
day of his installation he received a present of 100,000 rubles, and
every month he found 12,000 placed on his dressing-table. The marshal
of the court was ordered to provide him a table of twenty-four covers,
and to defray all his household expenses. The favourite was required to
attend the empress wherever she went, and was not permitted to leave
the palace without asking her consent. He was forbidden to converse
familiarly with other women; and if he went to dine with any of his
friends, the absence of the mistress of the house was always required.

Whenever the empress cast her eyes on one of her subjects, with the
design of raising him to the post of favourite, he was invited to dinner
by some one of her female confidants, on whom she called as if it were by
chance. There she would draw the new candidate into discourse, and judge
how far he was worthy of her destined favour. When the opinion she had
formed was favourable, a significant look apprised the confidant, who, in
her turn, made it known to the object of her royal mistress’ pleasure.
The next day he was examined as to the state of his health by the court
physician, and as to some other particulars by Mademoiselle Protasov, one
of the empress’ ladies, after which he accompanied her majesty to the
Hermitage, and took possession of the apartment that had been prepared
for his reception. These formalities began upon the choice of Potemkin,
and were thenceforth constantly observed.

When a favourite had lost the art of pleasing, there was also a
particular manner of dismissing him. He received orders to travel, and
from that moment all access to her majesty was denied him; but he was
sure of finding at the place of his retirement such splendid rewards
as were worthy of the munificent pride of Catherine. It was a very
remarkable feature in her character that none of her favourites incurred
her hatred or vengeance, though several of them offended her, and their
quitting office did not always depend on herself.


_Potemkin’s Schemes of Conquest_

[Sidenote: [1775-1780 A.D.]]

Potemkin’s rule commenced at the very time in which the Peace of
Kutchuk-Kainardji was concluded (July, 1774). The disputes with Poland
and the rebellion of Pugatchev were no sooner ended than he immediately
violated every condition of that treaty, well knowing that the empress
would approve of everything he might do. Dowlet Gerai, who was elected
khan by the now independent Tatars, still remained much more favourably
disposed to the Turks than to the Russians: the latter, therefore, by
means of money and intrigues, raised up a pretender against him; and
then, under pretence of an armed mediation, a Russian army occupied a
part of the Crimea, and seemed disposed to make the khan a prisoner, and
to seize the whole province. Dowlet Gerai took refuge with the Turks in
April, 1775, and Sahim Gerai, who was a mere creature of Russia, was
elected in his stead, to the great satisfaction of the Russians, who
foresaw that the majority of the Tatars would oppose the new khan, and
thus furnish them with another pretext for a renewal of hostilities.
A war with the Porte appeared unavoidable, and Romanzov received
commands to collect a considerable army on the Dnieper, whilst Repnin
in Constantinople was endeavouring to deceive the sultan, and Potemkin
betrayed the unfortunate Sahim Gerai.

By this time Potemkin had ceased to be the personal favourite of the
empress; but he himself recommended his successors in that post to
her notice. Potemkin was indispensable to Catherine in consequence of
those colossal undertakings which procured her the name of Great; and
because the fear with which he inspired all her enemies secured to her
the possession of the throne, which she withheld from her son Paul.
Zavadovski had become the occupant of the apartments of the royal palace
in November, 1776, and been created a major-general; as soon, however, as
he fell under Potemkin’s suspicion, the latter authoritatively insisted
upon his dismissal. Zavadovski had turned against his patron, and was
an eager favourer of the Orlovs and Field-Marshal Romanzov. For this
reason Potemkin succeeded in obtaining leave of absence for the favourite
in July, 1777, in order to provide during his temporary retirement
a substitute who should eventually displace him. Potemkin had long
before selected a Major Zoritch for his adjutant, who was politically
insignificant, but very attractive in his hussar uniform, with a view
to present him to the empress. Zavadovski had no sooner left the palace
than he carried his design into effect, and the empress made Zoritch a
colonel adjutant-general and her companion. At the expiration of nine
months, he too fell under Potemkin’s displeasure, and was obliged to
retire, for the empress was completely under the control of her minister.
Next came Korsakov, a handsome sergeant in the guards, who was suddenly
raised to the rank of aide-de-camp general. He too was indignant at
Potemkin’s unbounded pride and avarice, but attempted in vain to open
the eyes of the empress; he was obliged to yield to the influence of the
indispensable tyrant after he had enjoyed the favour of the empress for
fifteen months.

The circumstances of the year 1778 were peculiarly favourable to the
accomplishment of Potemkin’s plans of conquest, for war had broken out
in the spring between France and England, and both powers were so fully
occupied in the west that they had no leisure to attend to the concerns
of the east. Potemkin, therefore, sent an army, commanded by Suvarov,
against the Kuban and Bedjiak Tatars, whilst other Russians penetrated
into the Crimea and were guilty of the most cruel devastations. This led
to the seizure of some Russian ships in the straits of the Dardanelles
on the part of the sultan, who was, however, unable to commence a war
without the aid and co-operation of France. But that power, unwilling
to break with Russia, insisted on mediating, and the sultan was forced
to acquiesce. The result was that the Russian ships were restored, and
the sultan formally recognised Sahim Gerai as the rightful ruler of the
Crimea.

Catherine was so pleased with the conduct of France on this occasion that
she embraced with alacrity the plan of the armed neutrality, which was
devised by the French minister Vergennes; and in 1780 she put herself
at the head of that league which was joined by almost all the powers of
Europe except Great Britain. It was formed for the purpose of resisting
the right asserted by the English navy to make prize of an enemy’s
goods, or of goods shipped for an enemy’s port, wherever found, and even
though covered by a neutral flag. The leading principle of the league was
that free ships make free goods. Great Britain would not admit this; but
at that time she did no more than expostulate with her good friend and
ally the empress of Russia. It was not until the reign of Paul that she
waged war for the maintenance of the opposite principle, which she later
repudiated during the Crimean War.

From this time forward, as we have seen, Potemkin, Voltaire, and a host
of flatterers amused the empress with dreams of the restoration of a
Byzantine empire, and the erection of a new capital on the Black Sea.
Sahim Gerai prized the slavish title of a lieutenant-colonel in the
guards of a foreign empress more than that of prince of a nation to which
the Russian czars for many years had been vassals, and he renounced the
national costume of his people in order to glitter in a Russian uniform
and wear the decorations of the order of St. Anne. Potemkin contrived
every month to alienate him more and more from his people, till at last
this miserable man was induced to lay down his khanate, from which he
derived a revenue of three or four millions of rubles, in order, as he
thought, to revel peacefully in the enjoyment of some hundred thousand
rubles, which Potemkin was to pay him as the newly appointed Russian
governor-general of Tauris, as the country was now to be called. Potemkin
was too much accustomed to receive and not to give, and to contract debts
without thinking of paying them, to give himself much concern about the
payment of the promised salary, although the empress was led to believe
that the yearly sum always charged to her was in reality regularly paid
to the khan.

[Sidenote: [1783 A.D.]]

The shamelessness of the Russian government on this occasion fully
equalled the audacity of their manifestoes respecting the partition of
Poland, or that of the state-papers of a Genz and a Talleyrand. In the
Russian manifestoes published in April, 1783, it was made as clear as the
sun to the Tatars that the empress and Potemkin were really proposing to
confer upon them the most signal benefits. It was stated that the Tatars,
as Russian subjects, were in future to be delivered from all the evils
of their internal disputes, and by the incorporation of the Crimea, the
Kuban, and the eastern Nogaians an end was to be put to those oppressions
from which they had hitherto suffered from the Turks and the Russians
alternately. What the correspondence was between these promises and the
subsequent reality may be learned from all the works of travellers who
visited these districts, and gave accounts of the Crimea and the Tatars
a generation or two later. That numerous, free, and rich race of people,
clothed in silks and of noble appearance, had then dwindled into a crowd
of starving beggars; their magnificent tented cities had become gipsy
encampments, and their houses and palaces exhibited mere masses of ruin
and decay.

These manifestoes, indeed, as is usually the case, were not intended
for those to whom they were addressed, but merely to conceal in a
cloud of words, from the eyes of those at a distance, the cruelties
and bloodshed with which they were accompanied. The Tatars made an
effort to defend their liberties, and their magnates made no secret
of their dissatisfaction; Potemkin, therefore, had recourse to one of
those heroic means which usually find defenders enough when they are
applied for the support of the true faith and of autocratic government,
and are only reviled and execrated in the hands of a Danton and a
Robespierre. He proposed by a single massacre summarily to annihilate
the malcontents, and to awe the rest into submission by the dread of a
similar fate. Posorovski received express orders to make himself master
of the malcontents, their families, and adherents, and put them all to
the sword; he, however, possessed moral courage enough to decline the
business of an executioner. Potemkin’s cousin was not so scrupulous.
According to the accounts, whose unanimous testimony we are obliged to
follow, even when it appears to us incredible, Paul Potemkin caused
above thirty thousand Tatars, of every age and sex, to be massacred in
cold blood, and in this way procured for his cousin the easily won title
of the Taurian, and the place of grand-admiral of the Black Sea and
governor-general of the new province of Tauris.

The massacre in Tauris took place in April, 1783, and the Turks were
unable to render any assistance to the Tatars without foreign support.
Among the European powers, however, England was at that time fully
occupied with the disturbances which in the following year brought Pitt
to the helm of affairs; France was glad to see an end to the American
war; Joseph II was bound by the Treaty of Tsarskoi Selo; Frederick II
hoped to become master of Thorn and Dantzic, if Russia was well-disposed
towards him; and Gustavus III of Sweden was the only monarch who could
have rendered any aid. In the very same year, however, Gustavus suffered
himself to be induced to go to Friedrichsham, where he sold himself to
the empress; nothing, therefore, was now left to the Turks but to yield
to their destiny. The sultan did what had been done by the king of Poland
a few years before; by his consent he changed that into a righteous
and legal possession which, being seized in the midst of peace, was
previously a robbery. The whole territory of the Tatars, the Crimea, the
island of Taman, and a great part of the Kuban were ceded to Russia,
and a treaty of commerce was forced upon the Turks, by virtue of which
the Russian consuls in the various ports of Turkey were erected into a
power wholly independent of the government of the country. This treaty of
commerce had been drawn up by Panin before he had been obliged to yield
to the superior influence of Potemkin and withdraw from public affairs;
and it was now concluded on the 10th of June, 1783. By virtue of this
treaty the Turks were obliged to submit the decision of all mixed civil
cases in which a Russian and a Turk were the respective parties, not to
the local tribunals, nor to the higher authorities, nor to a court of
arbitration, but to the Russian consul; and in all pecuniary transactions
the claims of a Russian against a Turk were urged with much greater
strictness than in those cases in which the Turk was the claimant and the
Russian the debtor.

In the eyes of the world, which regards only externals, Potemkin was now
a great and admired statesman; and so absolute was his sway over the
empress herself, that she not only tolerated his insolence, his total
neglect of all pecuniary obligations, his tyranny over all classes,
and his imperial expenditure and magnificence, but allowed him to help
himself to an unlimited extent out of the coffers of the state. Potemkin
on the one hand did homage to the empress as if she were a goddess, and
on the other he suffered himself to treat her with the most insolent
familiarity and rudeness. He would even saunter from his own apartments
into hers in his dressing-gown and slippers, with his stockings hanging
down and his legs bare. He went so far as to extort from those who
enjoyed the empress’ favour a part of the money which they received from
her, and yet he allowed poor Sahim Gerai to starve. He never paid him
the assigned pension of 100,000 rubles which was yearly debited to the
empress’ account, and even the displeasure of Catherine could not induce
him to bestow upon this Russian _protégé_ the simplest means of life.

The founding of a new Russo-Grecian capital, with which Potemkin now
busied himself, was a magnificent piece of flattery for the empress, but
for which she was unhappily obliged to pay too dear. Catherine indulged
with Voltaire in those visionary schemes of a utopian Greece, of a
civilisation of which she and not the people was to be the source, of an
enlightenment, industry, and trade to be carried into these conquered
deserts by ukases and courtiers; Potemkin acted according to this fancy.
He first erected a city with buildings of every description, and then
sought for inhabitants, or forcibly drove them for a time from all
quarters, when he wished to make a court-spectacle of this theatrical
city and to enchant the empress. It was of no consequence to him that
his city fell to pieces and its inhabitants disappeared as soon as he
turned away his eyes. The new city was called Kherson, a name long since
obscured by that of Odessa; the empress granted 18,000,000 rubles,
most of which, however, Potemkin diverted to his own private use. The
situation was badly chosen, and yet this shadow of a capital was for a
length of time charmed into existence by innumerable arts of fraud and
open violence; and the deserts of which it was to be the metropolis were
erected into a province, to which Potemkin gave the name of Catherine’s
Glory (_Slava Ekatharina_). Another province, somewhat farther to the
north, near the celebrated falls of the Kaidak, was also honoured with
the name of the empress, and called Iekatarinoslav.


GENERAL SUVAROV

The general to whom Potemkin at this time assigned the congenial task
of havoc and destruction in the country of the Nogaian Tatars and in
Kuban was Suvarov, a man who from that period till the end of the
century had the misfortune to be continually employed as the instrument
of a murderous military despotism. In Poland he executed three times
those orders of annihilation which were issued from St. Petersburg. He
destroyed the Turks and sacrificed the Russians by thousands at the will
of Potemkin. He subsequently shared Paul’s hatred against the French and
every thought of civil freedom, and performed the same kind of heroic
deeds for that madman’s pleasure as he had previously done at the bidding
of Potemkin. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest generals of modern
times, but wholly destitute of humanity, for he sacrificed thousands
without hesitation in order to secure a victory or storm a fortress, when
either was calculated to produce a splendid effect though but for the
moment. He not only flattered the empress, but even the common soldiers
and their superstitions. Though he was a man of various knowledge,
and had made himself master of all the arts of life as practised in
the highest society, he assumed at court the character of a sort of
court-fool, and acted often as if he were mad, merely in order to carry
out some surprising piece of flattery. In the company of the common
soldiers he affected the manners of the semi-barbarous Russian, lived as
they did themselves, submitted to every privation which they might be
called upon to endure, and knelt and prayed before every wayside image,
often when the roads were deep with mud.


THE FAVOURITES LANSKOI AND IERMOLOV

[Sidenote: [1785 A.D.]]

At the time when a high-flown sentimentality was the fashion in Germany,
and the empress was past fifty, she indulged in a fit of romantic love
for the insipid and spiritless Lanskoi. This turn in her affections
was very agreeable to Potemkin, for Lanskoi neither took up the cause
of the destitute khan, nor yielded to the allurements of the king of
Prussia, the emperor Joseph II, or the English, when they were desirous
of engaging him in affairs of state. Potemkin freely permitted the
empress to indulge her visionary love for the wonderfully handsome and
youthful face which captivated her affections, and did not grudge her,
among the many gross and degrading scenes of her life, the enjoyment
of one romantic passion, after the manner of Werther and Siegwart,
from the year 1780 till July, 1784. Catherine’s love for Lanskoi had
been romantic in his life, and her sorrow at his death was not less
extravagant; but notwithstanding all this ideality, she had been also
careful to show him substantial proofs of her affection at the cost of
the country. She bestowed upon him not only all possible titles, orders,
and decorations--diamonds, plate, and collections of every kind, but he
left behind him in cash a property of 7,000,000 rubles.

The fantastic mourning for Lanskoi was no sooner evaporated than the
empress allowed Potemkin, who presented candidates for every office, to
supply her with a substitute for her departed lover. In order to exclude
all other pretenders, Potemkin on every such occasion was prepared to
fill the vacancy; and with this view he had for some time made Lieutenant
Iermolov one of his adjutants. In 1785 this man became the declared
favourite of the empress, and soon ventured to pursue a course which
Lanskoi would never have thought of. He directed Catherine’s attention to
the tyranny of Potemkin, and gave her some hints respecting his behaviour
towards Sahim Gerai. The empress expressed her displeasure without naming
the person who had made her acquainted with the unhappy fate of the
khan; Potemkin, however easily guessed that no man in the empire would
dare to speak ill of him to the empress except Iermolov. He therefore
threateningly replied, “That must have been said by the White Moor,” as
he was accustomed to call Iermolov on account of his fair countenance and
flat nose.

Catherine did not hesitate severely to reproach Potemkin for his harsh
and unjust conduct towards the khan, and she even wavered for some months
between her favourite and this son of the Titans, whom she regarded as
her protector and the creator of her glory and her greatness. At the end
of June, 1786, a fresh scene occurred, by which the empress was compelled
to declare either for the one or the other. Iermolov had made a new
attempt to alienate the empress from Potemkin; the latter, therefore,
haughtily insisted that either Iermolov or he must retire from her
service; Catherine felt herself constrained to adhere to Potemkin, and
Iermolov went upon his travels. During the course of the year he had been
loaded with riches, and on his departure he was furnished with 100,000
rubles and imperial recommendations to the Russian ambassadors at all the
European courts. On the day after his departure Momonov, another adjutant
of Potemkin, occupied his place.


JOSEPH II VISITS CATHERINE; A SPECTACULAR TOUR

[Sidenote: [1787 A.D.]]

About this period Potemkin repeatedly travelled from St. Petersburg to
Tauris and back with all the expedition of a courier, whilst he was
engaged in the building of Kherson, in order to prepare a splendid
triumph for the empress. The neglected Sahim Gerai hastened thither
to meet him and make him acquainted with the urgency of his wants;
but Potemkin, instead of rendering him any assistance, banished him
to Kaluga, where he fell into a state of the deepest poverty. He then
conceived that he might find some relief from his fellow believers, and
fled to Turkey, but the sultan caused him to be arrested as a traitor
and renegade at Khotin, to be conveyed to Rhodes, and there despatched by
the bow-string (1787). The plan contemplated by Potemkin and the empress
was to raise the grand duke Constantine, second grandson of the empress,
to the dignity of emperor of Byzantium, at the expense of the Turks,
and at the same time to incorporate the kingdom of Poland with Russia.
The new city of Kherson was no sooner ready for this grand theatrical
representation than the empress was to travel thither to receive the
homage of her new subjects, and to deceive the world by an ostentatious
display of magnificence and pomp.

Joseph II was invited to meet the empress in Kherson, in order to consult
with her upon a partition of the Turkish Empire; but Constantine himself
was in the first instance left at home. The luxury and extravagance
exhibited by Potemkin during the empress’ journey and the fêtes
prepared for her reception and entertainment at Kherson were worthy
of the heaven-storming characters of the pair. They remind us of the
extravagance of the Abassides and the descendants of Timur, with this
difference--that civilisation and the arts were strangers to the people
of the caliphs and of the Great Mogul. Never perhaps was there seen in
monarchical Europe, where such things are not rare, such a gross abuse of
the wealth and well-being of the people, and such insult cast on public
opinion by a contemptible comedy, as on the occasion of this imperial
progress.

It began in January, 1787, and was continued night and day. To facilitate
the journey by night, Potemkin had caused great piles of wood to be
erected at every fifty perches, which were kindled at nightfall, and
imparted to the whole district almost the brightness of day. On the sixth
day the cortège reached Smolensk, and fourteen days afterwards Kiev,
where the degraded Polish magnates, who made a trade of their nation,
their honour, and their friendship, were assembled to offer their homage
to the empress and join in the revelry of her court. Potemkin himself
had gone forward in advance in order to arrange the side-scenes of the
theatre which he erected from St. Petersburg to Kherson. Deserts were
peopled for the occasion; and palaces were raised in the trackless wild.
The nakedness of the plains was disguised by villages built for the
purpose of a day, and enlivened by fireworks. Chains of mountains were
illuminated. Fine roads were opened by the army. Howling wildernesses
were transformed into blooming gardens; and immense flocks and herds
were driven to the sides of the road in order to delight the eyes of
the empress in her hasty transit. The rocks in the Dnieper were sprung,
that the empress might descend the stream as conveniently as she had
travelled thither in the chamber of her sledge. At the beginning of May
the whole party embarked on the river in fifteen splendid galleys at
Krementshuk, and on the following day Stanislaus of Poland presented
himself at Kaniev, in order, as it were, by his insipid and pitiful
character to serve as a foil to the monarchial splendour of a woman.
He accepted an alms of 100,000 rubles for the expenses of his journey,
was very graciously received by Potemkin, treated with coldness and
indifference by the empress, and as if his royal Polish income was simply
a Russian pension he begged for an augmentation. He was not ashamed to
acknowledge to all the courts whose ambassadors accompanied the empress
that he regarded his kingdom as a Russian province, for he besought the
empress to grant the succession to his nephew and to his nation the free
navigation of the Dnieper. As is customary in such cases, there was no
lack of promises; but none of his petitions were really granted, for it
was impossible either to value or respect him, and in his situation he
was incapable of inspiring fear.

[Illustration: MEETING OF CATHERINE II OF RUSSIA AND JOSEPH II OF AUSTRIA

(Painted for THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD by Thure de
Thulstrup)]

The emperor Joseph, who had anticipated the arrival of his ally in
Kherson, travelled to meet her as far as Kaidak, and returned with her.
He soon perceived that she was shamefully deluded by the appearance
of prosperity, civilisation, and population, and that soon as she had
passed through all was again to become empty and deserted. Like the
villages, flocks, and men by the wayside, the new buildings in which the
distinguished travellers passed their nights and the houses and shops in
Kherson all vanished again when they had served their temporary purpose.
It will not be regarded as incredible that 7,000,000 rubles were expended
on the journey, when it is known that the throne itself, which was
erected for the empress in what was called the admiralty at Kherson, cost
14,000. Catherine made a magnificent entry into the new city, passing
under a triumphal arch, on which was inscribed in the Greek tongue, “The
way to Byzantium.”


OUTBREAK OF THE AUSTRO-RUSSIAN WAR WITH TURKEY

After the meeting at Kherson the two imperial allies prepared to direct
their forces against the whole extent of the Turkish frontier, from the
Adriatic to the Black Sea. Care was taken, however, to furnish an excuse
for the participation of Austria, by inciting the Turks to make the first
attack; for only in such a case was Austria bound to furnish auxiliaries
to the Russians. To this end Bulgakov, Catherine’s ambassador at
Constantinople, was ordered by every means to excite commotions among the
Greeks, Bulgarians, Wallachians, and Slavonians, as well as in Egypt and
in Asia Minor. The Turks, justly incensed at these intrigues, insisted
upon a distinct declaration of their views on the part of the Russians;
and when they received for answer only the usual diplomatic subterfuge
that the ambassador must wait for instructions from St. Petersburg, they
immediately declared war, sent Bulgakov to the state prison of the Seven
Towers, and nothing but the threatening interference of the English
minister could have prevented them from inflicting summary vengeance
upon him, to show their righteous displeasure at the conduct of his
government. Catherine and Joseph had now gained their wishes. The Turks
were the first to declare war, and a pretence was thus afforded to the
Russians to call upon the Austrians for that aid which they were bound by
treaty to render in case of an attack on the part of the Turks.

Catherine published a manifesto, in which after a long enumeration of the
pretended wrongs ascribed to the Porte, she added that, provoked by a
conduct, in itself so offensive, she had, very unwillingly, been obliged
to have recourse to arms, as the only means left her for the support
of those rights which she had acquired at the price of so much blood,
and to avenge her wounded dignity, suffering from the violence that had
been used towards her minister at Constantinople; that entirely innocent
of all the calamities inevitably engendered by war, she relied with
confidence, not only on the Almighty protection and the assistance of her
allies, but on the prayers of the Christian world, for triumph in a cause
so just as that which she was obliged to defend. This manifesto was soon
followed up by a second, which declared that the Porte had arrogantly
presumed to insist on a categorical answer to its absurd demands; and
that the empress, forced to repel the aggression of the enemy of the
Christian name, armed herself with confidence, under the protection of
that just God who had so long and so powerfully shielded the Russian
Empire.

Had Potemkin been as great a general as he was capable of devising
magnificent plans and playing the Russian tyrant, great things would have
been accomplished in 1787, for all the preparations for the war had been
made long beforehand. Field-Marshal Romanzov was to share the command of
the army with Potemkin; that is to say, he was to do all the work, and
the other was to engross all the merit. Romanzov declined this thankless
office, and Potemkin stood alone at the head of the army; but he did not
succeed in deceiving posterity, for no one has ever ascribed to him what
was effected by the officers under his command--by Repnin, Paul Potemkin,
Suvarov, Kamenskoi, Galitzin, and Kutusov, all of whom became more or
less renowned in later wars. Potemkin found in Suvarov precisely such an
instrument as he needed: for to that general the will of the empress or
her favourite was in all cases a law paramount to all moral obligations,
or any feelings of humanity. He was sent to Kinburn, the chief object of
the campaign being apparently the siege of Otchakov, by the main body
under Potemkin, whilst other divisions were despatched to observe the
movements of the Tatars in the Kuban.

[Sidenote: [1787-1788 A.D.]]

Kinburn was a small fortress occupied by the Russians, and situated
upon a promontory directly opposite to Otchakov, in and around which
the Turkish army was stationed. The object of Suvarov’s mission was to
frustrate the efforts of the Turkish fleet to land a division on the
promontory of Kinburn; and he executed the task in a masterly manner. At
first he remained perfectly quiet in the fortress, after having erected
a battery at the extremity of the promontory, in order to cannonade the
Turkish ships from the land, at the same moment in which they might be
attacked by the Russian fleet. He allowed the Turks to proceed without
molestation till they had disembarked from six thousand to seven thousand
men; he then sent a few regiments of Cossacks against them, and at
the same time charged them at the head of two battalions of infantry
with fixed bayonets, and exterminated them all. Immediately afterwards
he employed his battery against the Turkish fleet. The prince of
Nassau-Siegen, who had the command of the Russian gunboats of Nikolaiev,
attacked the Turkish ships at the very entrance of what is called the
Liman, and within range of Suvarov’s guns, to whose well-directed fire he
was indebted for a great share of the advantages which he gained.

The whole remaining part of the year 1787, as well as the spring and a
great part of the summer of 1788, elapsed without anything important
having been undertaken; the whole of the Russian land-forces were,
however, directed towards the Bug, in order to push forward with the
greatest expedition to the Danube. The Turks had already suffered defeats
at sea and in the Caucasus. The Russian fleet in the Black Sea, which was
almost wholly commanded by foreigners, nearly annihilated the Turkish
navy; generals Tallitzin and Tekeli massacred the Tatars of the Kuban,
and Tamara reduced Georgia and Lesghistan. In August, Potemkin at length
marched against Otchakov, but very wisely left the whole conduct of
the military operations to Suvarov, the victor of Kinburn. The Russian
operations were delayed in expectation of an Austrian army, which, in
connection with a Russian force under Soltikov, was to make an incursion
into Moldavia. This delay was protracted till King Gustavus began to
exhibit symptoms of making an attack on the provinces contiguous to
Sweden, which were now deprived of means of defence. He had to revenge
on Russia a long series of wrongs, crowned by the intolerable conduct of
Catherine’s ambassador Razumovski, whom she had sent to form conspiracies
against him, and to persecute and insult him in his own capital.


THE SWEDISH WAR (1788-1790 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1788 A.D.]]

Gustavus III would also willingly have induced Denmark to take part in
the movement against Russia; in this, however, he was unsuccessful,
although supported by England and Prussia. Razumovski, the Russian
ambassador, was ordered to leave Stockholm on the 23rd of June, and went
to the army in Finland. The king appeared as if he designed immediately
to march against St. Petersburg, which excited no small concern in the
minds of the government, because, in confident reliance on the king’s
misunderstanding with the Swedish nobles, the whole of their good troops
had been despatched to the frontiers of Turkey.

The king of Sweden was acquainted with the feelings of his nobles,
consequently with those of the generals and officers of his army; he
therefore endeavoured to deprive the malcontents of the apparently legal
point of a refusal to serve, by changing the offensive war which he
contemplated into a defensive one, and for this purpose had recourse to a
very childish subterfuge. There had been a long-existing dispute between
the two countries respecting the bridge over the small river Kimmene,
the boundary between the two states, whether it should be painted in
Swedish or Russian colours; he provoked the Russians to maintain this
disputed right by force of arms, and then proclaimed that he had been
attacked by them, and was therefore justified in carrying on a defensive
war without consulting the estates. We leave it undecided whether he took
possession of the bridge by force, and thereby compelled the Russians to
resist force by force; or whether, as the best accounts allege, he caused
some Swedes to be clothed in Russian uniforms in order to attack his own
soldiers, and in this way to justify an offensive war.

The distance from the river Kimmene to St. Petersburg is less than
150 miles. There would have been no difficulty in storming the small
fortresses of Viborg and Friedrichsham, which lay upon the route, and an
unexpected attack from the sea might probably have led to the surprise
and capture of Kronstadt and Kronslot, the former of which is less than
twenty miles from the open waters, and the latter is situated on a
sand-bank in the sea.[54] The favourable moment, however, for an attack
by sea had been already allowed to pass by the king’s brother Charles,
duke of Södermanland, who commanded the Swedish fleet, and by land the
king was precipitate when he ought to have delayed, and hesitated when
everything depended on rapidity.

On the 22nd of June Duke Charles, with fifteen ships of the line and
five frigates, had fallen in with three sail of Russian ships, to the
north of the island of Gothland, which he ought to have captured, but was
restrained by a feeling of reluctance to begin the war (which was then
actually commenced), and immediately a superior Russian fleet appeared.
Admiral Greig, an Englishman, commanded it; his fleet outnumbered the
Swedish by two ships of the line and two frigates, and therefore the
issue of the engagement between the two fleets which took place on the
17th of July was the less inglorious for the Swedes. They fell in with
the Russians off the island of Hogland, and fought with great skill and
courage; they lost, it is true, one of their line-of-battle ships, but
took one of the Russian fleet in its stead; at length, however, they
were compelled to seek for safety in the harbour of Sveaborg, where
they were kept in a state of blockade by the Russians during the whole
of the campaign. The secretary of the king’s embassy in St. Petersburg
delivered such an extremely absurd ultimatum that no other answer was
given than an order from the commandant to take his departure from the
capital. Gustavus commanded armaments to be prepared and a commissariat
to be provided, but left the whole superintendence to others, who
neglected everything, and instead of preparing means to oppose entered
into secret correspondence with the Russians. All this immediately
appeared when the king at length resolved to storm the fortress of
Friedrichsham. He found himself destitute of heavy artillery and other
materials of war, which he supposed were all in readiness, and whilst the
artillery was being slowly brought up by land, the nobles were devising
the most shameful treason.

[Sidenote: [1789 A.D.]]

It was arranged that Friedrichsham should be at once attacked both by sea
and by land; and Siegeroth had actually landed his troops and commenced
operations when he suddenly received counter orders, because the troops
which were with the king refused obedience. In these circumstances,
Gustavus had no other alternative than to return to Stockholm, in
order there to recover his royal dignity and power which he had lost
at Friedrichsham. He entered Stockholm in September, and thenceforth
occupied himself in preparing a _coup d’état_, which he accomplished on
the 17th of February in the following year. Meanwhile, his traitorous
nobles had concluded a truce with Russia, which was so far advantageous
to Gustavus that it liberated his fleet from its captivity in the bay of
Sveaborg. He was now dictator and autocrat; he had at command the means
of prosecuting the war with Russia: but the favourable moment was past,
and the Russians had already completed all their preparations by land and
sea for the defence of their provinces bordering upon Sweden. Gustavus’
project of burning the Russian fleet in the harbour of Copenhagen was
discovered beforehand, and brought him nothing but disgrace. When he
again joined the army in Finland, his Swedes gave evidence of their
attachment and courage; but he himself again contrived to injure the
success of the war by his interference in its conduct. In the murderous
fights which ensued from the middle of June till the end of July, both
the Russians and Swedes lost great numbers of men, without any other gain
on either side than military renown. The Swedes in the meantime were
unfortunate at sea, and could not have profited by their success had they
been victorious by land.

Admiral Ehrenswerd commanded the Swedish flotilla of flat-bottomed
boats, constructed for navigating the rocky shallows of the coast,
whilst the similar Russian fleet was under the orders of the prince of
Nassau-Siegen, who had shortly before been commander of the Russian fleet
in the Black Sea, and had fallen into disputes with Potemkin, which led
to his being sent to the Baltic. The Russian ships of the line were under
the command of Admiral Tchitchakov, and had on board a considerable
number of British naval officers of experience. This fleet had on the
26th of June fallen in with that of the Swedes, which was so injured in
an engagement between Bornholm and Gothland as to be obliged to return to
Karlskrona. The unfortunate issue of the battle was generally ascribed to
disloyalty on the part of some of the naval officers.

The king still persisted in his determination of opening up a way for
himself to St. Petersburg, and therefore of storming Friedrichsham. He
himself directed the execution of the project, although he was, properly
speaking, merely a volunteer with his army. By his interference he
exposed the Swedish army to considerable loss, on the same day (August
24th) on which the Russian flotilla gained an important victory over the
Swedes at Rogensalm. Friedrichsham, according to the king’s command,
was to be stormed by the three generals, Siegroth, Kaulbart, and Platen;
the assault, however, failed of success, and the Swedes were obliged
to retire: their flotilla was twice beaten. The first victory of the
Russians at Rogensalm was attributed to the prince of Nassau-Siegen,
who, however, was accompanied by three or four persons who rendered him
the same service which the British officers did to Admiral Tchitchakov.
On the 1st of September the Swedish flotilla experienced a defeat at
Högfors, and the land army, commanded by the king, was there also
compelled to retreat. The loss in human life was indeed great, but the
real injury small, for the Swedish army continued till the beginning of
winter to occupy its quarters on the frontiers of Russia.


_The Campaign of 1790; the Treaty of Varela_

[Sidenote: [1790 A.D.]]

During the winter, Gustavus withdrew from his army, but he resumed his
duties as commander in March, 1790, and was now careful to supply all the
deficiencies of the two previous years. On the 15th of April, in Finland,
he reduced the two important posts of Kärnakoski and Pardakovski near
Vilmanstrand; his Swedes were victorious at Valkiala; and on the 30th
repulsed the Russians in their attempt to recover the two posts just
mentioned. On the 4th and 5th of May the Swedes were afterwards beaten at
Aberfors by the Russian general Numsen, and lost twelve pieces of cannon.
The king having again taken Pardakovski, the key of Savolax, immediately
caused a portion of his land forces to embark in the flotilla, of which
he himself assumed the command, and ordered the remainder of the army
to press forward by the shore towards St. Petersburg, relying on the
assistance of the fleet, which was to receive them on board in case of
a defeat. The fleet consisted of nineteen large ships, twenty-seven
galleys, and a number of gunboats, which in all mounted about two
thousand guns. It was absolutely necessary to the execution of this
adventurous undertaking that Friedrichsham should in all haste be
reduced by storm. The king, having been successful on the 15th in a
naval engagement, made his third attempt at storming the fortress on the
17th and 18th of May, and notwithstanding a great loss in men failed in
effecting his object. Although the way by land thus remained barred, he
nevertheless persisted in his design of terrifying the empress in her
capital.

Gustavus, having now embarked a greater number of Swedish troops than
before, reached Viborg, and on the 2nd of June, 1790, disembarked a
division of his army at Blörke, about forty miles from St. Petersburg.
The whole success of this rash enterprise depended on his remaining
master of the sea. In order to maintain this superiority, Duke Charles
was to prevent the junction of the two Russian fleets, one of which was
lying in Kronstadt and the other in Revel, and on the 3rd of June he
was ordered to engage the division of the fleet in the former harbour.
The Swedish fleet was no sooner thus withdrawn from its position than
an opportunity was afforded to the Russians to form a junction between
their two fleets, which actually took place on the day the duke entered
the sound of Viborg (June 6th). The Swedish fleet was blockaded by the
Russian squadrons, consisting, when united, of thirty ships of the line
and eighteen frigates; the former, however, continued to keep up its
connection with the flotilla. It appears that both the Swedish fleets
would have been entirely lost had the two Russian admirals been qualified
for such a command. Captain Pélissier, who had served in Holland, is
said to have given Admiral Tchitchakov advice which he ought to have
followed, had he not been too obstinately attached to his own opinions;
Pélissier even pointed out to generals Suchtelen and Soltikov the places
where they ought to have erected their batteries in order effectually to
bar the egress of the Swedish fleet from the bay; no attention, however,
was paid to his advice. The prince of Nassau-Siegen proved himself to be
in no respect superior as a commander to Tchitchakov. On the other hand,
if the advice of Duke Charles had been adopted, the Russians would have
been victorious without a battle; King Gustavus and Stedingk, however,
rescued the honour of the Swedish name.

The Swedes had now been closely shut up in the bay of Viborg for three
weeks, and at the end of June were reduced to extremities; in the
beginning of July a grand council of war was held. Duke Charles and many
other members of the council recommended a capitulation, but the king
and Stedingk were in favour of making a desperate effort to force their
way through the enemy’s line. The attempt was accordingly made on the
3rd of July, and through Tchitchakov’s neglect it was so far successful,
as it enabled the Swedish fleet to bring the blockading squadron to an
engagement. But the Swedes lost in it not only seven ships of the line,
three frigates, and more than thirty galleys and gunboats, but almost
the whole of the royal guards, the queen’s regiment, and that of Upland,
amounting to six thousand or seven thousand men, which had been put on
board the fleet. Whilst the larger Swedish ships thus endeavoured to
gain the open sea, the flotilla had withdrawn for safety into an arm
of the gulf, which runs parallel to the shore and stretches towards
Friedrichsham. This inlet, called the sound of Suenske, is extremely
difficult of access on the side towards Friedrichsham, in consequence
of a group of rocky islands at its mouth, but it may be safely reached
through the open harbour of Asph. By this way the prince of Nassau-Siegen
determined to pass into the sound with the Russian flotilla, and attack
the Swedes in their place of refuge.

The latter were well protected from the attack of the Russian fleet by
rocks, and when the prince gave orders for the assault, on the 9th, the
sailors were so exhausted and his orders for battle were so unskilful
that the king of Sweden gained a splendid victory on that and the
following day. The loss of the Russians was so great as to have surpassed
any which they had suffered since the Seven Years’ War. Fifty-five
vessels were captured, a number of others destroyed, and fourteen
thousand Russians either taken prisoners or slain. In spite of this
signal victory, the king of Sweden now awoke from his dream of humbling
the pride and glory of Russia; already he began to cast his eyes towards
France, and in the following year he dreamed his monarchical dream in
favour of the French émigrés. The idea of becoming the Godefroy de
Bouillon of the aristocratic and monarchical crusade, which Burke at that
time proclaimed in the English parliament and in his work on the French
Revolution, had been awakened in his mind in 1790, and the empress of
Russia found means of confirming him in his visionary projects. Moreover
his means were exhausted, and he therefore lent a favourable ear to the
proposal of Galvez, the Spanish ambassador, who began to mediate for a
peace between Sweden and Russia.

This peace, concluded at Varela on the Kimmene on the 14th of August,
1790, served to show how empty all Gustavus’ splendour was, and how
unreal and inefficient were all the efforts he had made. It was now seen
that all the blood had been shed to no purpose, and all the treasures of
his very poor kingdom mischievously squandered, for everything remained
on the footing on which it had been in the spring of 1788.


PROGRESS OF THE AUSTRO-RUSSIAN WAR WITH TURKEY

We now return to the war in which Austria and Russia were jointly engaged
against Turkey. The whole Austrian army was ready to take the field at
the end of the year 1787: it formed an immense cordon stretching from
the mountains on the coast of the Adriatic Sea to the Carpathians, and
consisted of a main body and five divisions. Unhappily, the emperor
Joseph was desirous of commanding the main army in person, under the
unskilful direction of Lacy, his military Mentor, who, like his pupil
Mack, was a good drill-sergeant, but no general. The main body consisted
of 25,000 infantry and 22,000 horse, and the whole of the troops together
amounted to 86,000 cavalry and 245,000 foot, accompanied by 898 pieces of
artillery.

In February, 1788, Russia and Austria had simultaneously declared war
against the Turks; but in August of that year England and Prussia
entered into an alliance, the main object of which was to place Prussia
in a situation to prevent the aggrandisement of Austria, if necessary,
by force of arms. This, however, was superfluous in 1788, because the
diversion effected by the king of Sweden prevented the Russians from
proceeding with their usual rapidity, and the emperor Joseph by his
presence with the army frustrated the effect of his immense armaments.
The dissatisfaction with the whole conduct of the war became so general
that Joseph was at length obliged earnestly to entreat Laudon, who had
been the popular hero of the Austrians since the time of the Seven Years’
War, and whom the emperor had hitherto neither employed nor consulted, to
assume the command of the army in Croatia.


_Successes of Laudon (1788 A.D.)_

Laudon, having made an express stipulation that the emperor was not to
interfere with his plans marched against the Turks, defeated them under
the walls of Dubitza the very day after he joined the army, and reduced
that fortress; then, pushing into the heart of Bosnia, he compelled
Novi to surrender, whilst the emperor himself was obliged to hasten to
the aid of the army in the Bannat, which was very hard pressed by the
Turks. The division under Wartensleben, which should have supported it,
had been driven back by the Turks, who succeeded, in consequence of
an incomprehensible neglect on the part of the Austrians, in getting
complete possession of the rocky bed through which the Danube has forced
a passage at a distance of six-and-twenty miles above New Orsova. The
pass, which is not more than a pistol-shot in width, is commanded by a
fortified cleft in the rock, called Veterani’s Hole, and this post the
Austrians should and could have maintained when the main body of the
Turks appeared at Old Orsova on the 7th of August; this, however, they
neglected to do. The Austrian general suffered himself to be defeated and
lost thirteen pieces of cannon, and as his communications with the main
army were cut off, he was obliged to retreat so far that the garrison
of this important post was left to its fate. The Turks sacrificed great
numbers of men in order to seize this fastness, by the possession of
which they immediately became masters of the whole navigation of the
Danube as far down as Belgrade. As soon as the Danube was lost, the
imperial army found itself threatened in the rear.

Nothing but disaster attended the operations of Joseph and Wartensleben.
The army under the prince of Coburg was somewhat less unfortunate.
Khotin, which the Russians had captured in the last war without firing a
shot, was reduced by it after a most heroic resistance of three months;
and this was the last exploit of a campaign in which thirty thousand
Austrians fell in desultory skirmishes, and forty thousand were swept off
by pestilence--losses but poorly compensated by the capture of Szabatch,
Khotin, Dubitza, and Novi. Circumstances, however, afterwards proved more
favourable. Jassy was taken; in October, the Russians were in possession
of five districts of Moldavia and of several passes in Wallachia, and
the main army was again able to extend the limits of its operations.
Wartensleben sat down with a part of the army before Mahadia; and the
emperor kept possession of the country from Pantchova to Semlin.


_Victories of Suvarov (1788-1789 A.D.)_

After the massacre perpetrated by Suvarov upon the Turks on the
promontory of Kinburn, the Russians had remained for a long time quiet;
but by their possession of the coasts they effectually prevented the
Turks from landing any troops, and by the capture of the island of
Beresam wholly excluded them from the mouth of the Dnieper. It was not
till late in the year 1788 that Potemkin summoned Suvarov from Kinburn
to conduct the siege of Otchakov, where, however, he was wounded, and
after his return to Kinburn the siege made very little progress. The
avarice of Potemkin deprived the soldiers of the necessary supplies; and
the dreadful cold and disease proved far more injurious to them than the
attacks of their enemies.

At length the frost became so intense that the men were obliged to
excavate pits for dwellings, but the same frost also opened up a means of
attacking the fortress and reducing it after the Russian fashion, that
is, without regard to the sacrifice of thousands of men, a few weeks
earlier than they could otherwise have done. The city is completely
protected on the side towards the Black Sea by a marshy lake called
Liman; and now that the lake was frozen, Potemkin issued orders to storm
the fortress from the sea side, where it was weakest. The Russians were
cruelly sacrificed: one regiment was no sooner mowed down than another
was compelled to advance, and above four thousand men were slain before
the storming of Otchakov was effected (December 16th), an exploit which
was afterwards extolled to heaven. The Russians, having at length borne
down all resistance and forced their way into the city, were compensated
for their losses and sufferings during the siege by three days’ murder
and pillage; they put citizens and soldiers, men, women, and children to
the sword without mercy or distinction. It is said that twenty thousand
Turks perished in this massacre; but this piece of Russian heroism, which
was not performed by Potemkin himself but by others at his command, was
also rewarded after the Russian fashion. Every soldier who had taken
part in the siege received a medal of honour, whilst Potemkin, who had
contributed nothing to its success, derived the only real advantage. The
empress had previously deprived Razumovski of the office of hetman, which
she now conferred upon Potemkin, who received in addition a present of
100,000 rubles, besides what he had appropriated to himself out of the
moneys destined for the besieging army, and what he had seized out of the
rich booty which fell into his hands after the capture of the city.

The death of the sultan Abd-el-Habed in April, 1789, made no change in
the relations between the Turks and Russians. His successor, Selim,
continued to prosecute the war, and Suvarov having recovered from the
effects of his wound again joined Potemkin’s army, and was put at the
head of the division which was to co-operate with the Austrians. Laudon
had now the command of the whole Austrian army; the prince of Coburg,
however, retained that of the division which was to keep open the
communications with the Russians; and again he gave such numerous proofs
of his incapacity to conduct any great undertakings, or even to help
himself out of trifling difficulties, that the history of the campaign of
1789 alone ought to have prevented the emperor Leopold from entrusting
him with the command against the French, who possessed generals and
soldiers of a very different kind from those of the Turks. Selim III
had succeeded in getting on foot a very considerable force which was
destined to operate on the extreme point of Moldavia, where that country
touches upon Transylvania, and is separated from Wallachia by a small
river, which also divides the little town of Fokshani into two parts, one
belonging to Moldavia, and the other to Wallachia. Coburg was advancing
thither slowly and methodically, when the Turkish army encamped in the
neighbourhood of the town turned suddenly upon him, and filled him with
such apprehensions of being completely shut in that, instead of boldly
doing what Suvarov afterwards did, he anxiously besought that general’s
speedy assistance.

Suvarov’s army was lying at Belat in Moldavia; when the news reached him
he at once began a march of between forty and fifty miles in a direct
line over mountains, across ravines and pathless wilds, and in less than
thirty-six hours reached the Austrians on the 30th of July, at five
o’clock in the evening. At eleven that night he sent the plan of the
attack upon the Turks, which was to commence at two in the morning, to
the astonished prince, who had never heard of such rapidity of movement,
or seen it equalled even on parade. The bewildered prince went three
times to Suvarov’s quarters without having seen him; in the battle he
made no claim to the supreme command, which should have belonged to
him as the eldest general, but submitted as a subordinate to Suvarov’s
orders. The Turks, to the number of between fifty and sixty thousand men,
were in position at Fokshani when the Russians and Austrians with forty
thousand men passed the river Purna and stormed their fortified camp,
mounting the ramparts and driving them in at the point of the bayonet,
as if they were assaulting ordinary field-works. The camp was taken in
an hour, with the loss of about eight hundred men; the whole body of the
Turkish infantry fell into disorder, their cavalry galloped off, were
scattered in all directions, and pursued for some miles with the greatest
impetuosity and vehement zeal. The whole of the baggage and artillery,
all the stores collected in Fokshani, a hundred standards and seventy
pieces of cannon, fell into the hands of the victors; the Austrians
exhibited the same zeal, perseverance, and courage as the Russians, and
had they possessed such a commander as Suvarov, they would have reaped
immense fruits from the victory, but they became sensible, as early as
August, that they were in want of a proper leader.

Suvarov returned to Moldavia; Coburg looked quietly on whilst the Turks
were collecting a new army, and suffered the grand vizir to advance
without obstruction in Wallachia. The Turks directed Hassan Pasha, who
lay in Ismail, to make an expedition against Repnin, whilst the grand
vizir was to march against Prince Coburg, who had taken up a position at
Martinesti, on the river Rimnik. The news of this fresh attack no sooner
reached the Austrian camp than Coburg, instead of attempting to help
himself, again had recourse to Suvarov, who had already drawn nearer to
Coburg from Belat. The grand vizir’s army, which had been estimated at
one hundred thousand men, pushed forward rapidly by Braila (Ibrahil),
and compelled the advanced posts of the prince to retire into their
camp. Suvarov received the prince’s letter on the 16th of September,
immediately gave orders to march, and two days afterwards succeeded in
forming a junction with the Austrians, at the very moment in which they
were to have been attacked by the Turks.


_Austrian and Russian Valour; Austria’s Withdrawal (1789-1790 A.D.)_

The Austrians then proved anew that they were not to be surpassed when
not commanded as usual by princes and privileged persons, who become
generals whilst they sleep. Coburg, as he had previously done at
Fokshani, totally relinquished the command at Martinesti to Suvarov,
who immediately availed himself of the oversight of the Turks in not
fortifying their camp before they offered battle, and attacked them by
storm in their unfinished trenches. The issue was as glorious as it had
been on the 31st of July at Fokshani; the contest, however, was more
obstinately maintained. On this occasion the Russians formed the left
wing, whilst the centre and right were occupied by the Austrians, whose
admirably served artillery scattered the Turkish cavalry, which had made
an attempt to surround and cut off the small body of the Russians. The
victory in this dangerous and hard-fought battle was gained not merely by
the courage, activity, and bayonets of the Austrian and Russian infantry,
but especially by the great military skill of the commander. His orders
to avoid the village of Bochsa, and first to drive the Turks out of the
woods by which they were covered before commencing the main attack, have
been greatly admired, and above all his prudence in not sacrificing the
infantry in a blind storm, which was the more remarkable in a general
accustomed to bring everything to a rapid determination.

The victory was splendid, the booty immense, the Turkish army a second
time utterly dispersed--a necessary consequence of the nature of its
composition--and the number of killed and wounded much greater than at
Fokshani. Prince Coburg, on account of this victory, in which he was
entitled to little share, was created a field-marshal; Suvarov received
the dignity of a count of the empire from the emperor Joseph, and the
empress of Russia for once gave an honourable surname to a man who had
really earned it by his personal services; she raised him to a level with
her Tchesmian Orlov and her Taurian Potemkin, and called him Rimnikski,
from the name of the river on the banks of which he had been victorious.

The victory of Rimnik and the capture of Belgrade by Laudon on the 9th
of October were the harbingers of greater success. Hassan Pasha, the
Turkish high-admiral and celebrated conqueror of Egypt, whose confidence
in his good fortune had encouraged him to assume the command of an army,
was totally defeated at Tobak, in Bessarabia, by Prince Potemkin, and
his discomfiture was followed by the surrender of Bender, Akerman, Kilia
Nova, and Isatza, and by the investment of Ismail. At the same time
the prince of Coburg took Bucharest and Hohenlohe, forcing the passes
which lead into Wallachia, made himself master of Rimnik and Krajova.
Laudon also reduced Semendria and Kladova, and blockaded Orsova, which,
being situated in an island of the Danube, was inaccessible to regular
attacks. By these conquests the allies became masters of the whole line
of fortresses which covered the Turkish frontier; the three grand armies,
originally separated by a vast extent of country, were rapidly converging
to the same point, and threatened, by their united force, to overbear all
opposition, and in another campaign to complete the subversion of the
Ottoman empire in Europe.

[Illustration: AUSTRIANS ENTERING BELGRADE

(From the painting by Karl von Blaas in the Ruhmeshalle of the Arsenal in
Vienna)]

But in the midst of this successful career, the increasing ferment in
the hereditary states of Austria, the rebellion in the Netherlands,
and, still more, the interposition of the maritime powers and Prussia,
checked the hopes of Joseph at the very moment when his projects of
aggrandisement seemed hastening to their completion. Justly alarmed at
the successes of the two imperial courts, the three combined powers
incited Poland to throw off the yoke of Russia, delivered the king
of Sweden from Danish invasion, and laid the foundation of a general
alliance for reducing the overgrown power of Austria and Russia. The king
of Prussia even encouraged the rising discontents in Hungary, fomented
the troubles which the impolitic innovations of Joseph had excited in the
Netherlands, and, in the beginning of 1790, opened a negotiation with
the Porte for the conclusion of an offensive alliance, intended not only
to effect the restoration of the dominions conquered during the existing
war, but even of the Crimea, and the territories dismembered by the two
imperial courts from Poland.

The only power to which Joseph might have turned as a counterpoise to
this combination was France, from whose recent change of system he had
flattered himself with hopes of a cordial support, and from which he had
even received private largesses to a considerable amount. But now France
was in the throes of her great revolution, and Joseph was left without
a resource. Worn down by innumerable calamities and disease, he died
in February, 1790; and his successor, Leopold, was fortunate enough to
conclude a separate peace with the Porte.


_Russia Prosecutes the War; the Storm of Ismail (1790 A.D.)_

Russia continued to prosecute the war against the Turks without the aid
of Austria. Ismail still held out, and Potemkin, who had been besieging
it for seven months, began to grow impatient. Living in his camp like
one of those satraps whom he even surpassed in luxury, he was surrounded
by a crowd of courtiers and ladies, who exerted every effort to amuse
him. One of these ladies, pretending to read the decrees of fate in the
arrangement of a pack of cards, predicted that he would take the town
at the end of three weeks. Potemkin answered, with a smile, that he had
a method of divination far more infallible. He instantly sent orders
to Suvarov to come from Galatz and take Ismail in three days. Suvarov
arrived and took such measures as would seem to indicate that he designed
a renewal of the regular siege; he drew together the scattered divisions
of the troops, formed them into a large besieging army of about forty
thousand men, and ordered the small Russian fleet to come into the
neighbourhood of the city; but his real design was to follow the course
he had successfully pursued before Otchakov, take advantage of the frost,
and reduce the fortress by storm.

Had not Ismail, according to ancient usage, been built without advanced
works, even a general like Suvarov would scarcely have ventured on such
an attack, which in the actual condition of the defences was attended
by such murderous consequences. On the 21st of September the city was
twice summoned, and on both occasions the garrison and inhabitants were
threatened with the fate of Otchakov. The Turks, however, did not suffer
themselves to be terrified into submission, and the fearful storm was
commenced on the 22nd, at four o’clock in the morning. The wall was not
mounted till eight o’clock, after an unexampled slaughter; but still the
hottest part of the struggle took place in the city itself. Every street
was converted into a fortress, every house became a redoubt, and it was
twelve o’clock before the Russians, advancing through scenes of carnage
and desperate resistance, reached the market-place, where the Tatars of
the Crimea were collected. The Tatars fought for two hours with all the
energy of despair, and after they had been all cut to pieces the struggle
was still carried on by the Turks in the streets. Suvarov at length
opened a passage for his cavalry through the gates into the devoted city;
they charged through the streets, and continued to cut down and massacre
the people till four o’clock in the afternoon. At the conclusion of
this dreadful butchery the Russians received the reward which had been
promised them when they were led to the storm and to certain death,--the
city was given up for three days to the mercy of the victorious troops.

[Sidenote: [1791 A.D.]]

Suvarov himself, in his official report of this murderous enterprise,
states that in the course of four days 33,000 Turks were either slain
or mortally wounded, and 10,000 taken prisoners. He rates the loss of
the Russians at 2000 killed and 2500 wounded: a number which seems
to us as improbably small as the usual accounts, which assign 15,000
as the Russian loss, seem exaggerated. There were two French émigrés
present at this storm, one of whom afterwards became celebrated as a
Russian governor-general and French minister, and the other as a Russian
general in the war against his countrymen. The first was the duke de
Richelieu, or as he was then called de Fronsac, and the second the count
de Langeron. Kutusov also served in this affair under Suvarov and led the
sixth line of attack.


_European Intervention; the Treaty of Jassy (1792 A.D.)_

About this time the whole diplomacy and aristocracy of Europe were
busily employed in endeavouring to rescue the Turks, in order to check
the dangerously rapid progress of the French and Polish revolutionists.
There speedily grew up such a general desire as the English wished to
promote--of two evils to choose the least--to secure and uphold the
empire of the Turks and to let the nationality of Poland perish. Russia,
however, declined the proffered mediation of England in the war with the
Turks, as she had resolved for this time to give up her conquests in
Turkey in order to indemnify herself in Poland: she accepted merely the
intervention of the friendly Danes.

Potemkin and the empress were not unthankful for Suvarov’s servility,
since he threw himself and all his services at their feet, and ascribed
everything to them alone. Repnin, whom Potemkin left at the head of the
army when he went to St. Petersburg in October, 1790, pursued a very
different course, doing more in two months than Potemkin had done in
three years. He crossed the Danube with his army, pushed forward into
Bulgaria, and caused the whole Turkish army to be attacked and beaten
near Badadagh by Kutusov, after Gudovitch, the brother of him who had
been the faithful aide-de-camp of Peter III, had completely put down
the Tatars in the Kuban in January, 1791. At the head of forty thousand
Russians, Repnin then advanced against one hundred thousand Turks, under
the command of the same vizir, Yussuf, who had fought with such success
against the emperor Joseph in the Bannat.

Potemkin eager to appropriate the impending victory, started with great
expeditiousness from St. Petersburg when both armies were ready for
battle (July, 1791). He took it for granted that Repnin would certainly
await his arrival at the army; but he did no such thing. He offered
battle before the arrival of Potemkin, whose custom it was to enjoy the
fruits in the gathering of which he had no share. The victory which
Repnin gained over the great Turkish army in July at Matchin led to a
violent altercation between him and Potemkin, who came too late to have
any participation in the honours of the day; Repnin, however, still
remained in command of the army. Potemkin afterwards did everything
in his power to prevent the peace for which Repnin was to negotiate,
although he clearly saw that the course of events required the Russians
to give up this wholesale conquest of Turkish provinces. Happily, his
death left Repnin’s hands free, and a treaty was concluded at Jassy
on the 9th of January, 1792, between Russia and the Porte, by which
the former acquired nothing more than the fortress of Otchakov, the
surrounding territory from the Dniester to the Bug, and the protectorate
of Georgia.


THE DEATH OF POTEMKIN (1792 A.D.); SÉGUR’S CHARACTERISATION

[Sidenote: [1792 A.D.]]

Not long after Potemkin’s arrival at Jassy, where his headquarters or,
to speak more properly, his capital and his court were established, he
was seized with a malignant fever, and presumed to treat it with the same
haughty contempt with which he had long been used to treat his fellow
men: he laughed at his physicians, and ate salt meat and raw turnips. His
disease growing worse, he desired to be conveyed to Otchakov, his beloved
conquest, but had not travelled more than a few miles before the air of
his carriage seemed to stifle him. His cloak was spread by the road-side;
he was laid on it, and there expired in the arms of his favourite niece
Branicka. Catherine fainted three times when she heard of his death: it
was necessary to bleed her; she was thought to be dying. She expressed
almost as much grief as at the death of Lanskoi; but it was not the lover
she regretted: it was the friend whose genius assimilated with her own,
whom she considered as the support of her throne and the executor of her
vast projects. Catherine, holding her usurped sceptre, was a woman and
timid: she was accustomed to behold in Potemkin a protector whose fortune
and glory were intimately connected with her own. The character of this
Russian vizir has been thus sketched by Count Ségur, who, as ambassador
to St. Petersburg, lived long in habits of intimacy with him:

“Prince Gregory Alexandrovitch Potemkin was one of the most extraordinary
men of his times; but in order to have played so conspicuous a part, he
must have been born in Russia and have lived in the reign of Catherine
II. In any other country, in any other time, with any sovereign, he would
have been misplaced; and it was a singular stroke of chance that created
this man for the period that tallied with him, and brought together and
combined all the circumstances with which he could tally.

“In his person were collected the most opposite defects and advantages
of every kind. He was avaricious and ostentatious, despotic and
popular, inflexible and beneficent, haughty and obliging, politic and
confiding, licentious and superstitious, bold and timid, ambitious and
indiscreet. Lavish of his bounties to his relations, his mistresses,
and his favourites, yet frequently paying neither his household nor
his creditors. His consequence always depended on a woman, and he was
always unfaithful to her. Nothing could equal the activity of his mind
or the indolence of his body. No dangers could appal his courage; no
difficulties force him to abandon his projects. But the success of an
enterprise always brought with it disgust. He wearied the empire by the
number of his posts and the extent of his power. He was himself fatigued
with the burden of his existence; envious of all that he did not do, and
sick of all that he did. Rest was not grateful to him, nor occupation
pleasing. Everything with him was desultory--business, pleasure, temper,
carriage. In every company he had an embarrassed air, and his presence
was a restraint on every company. He was morose to all that stood in awe
of him, and caressed all such as accosted him with familiarity.

“Ever promising, seldom keeping his word, and never forgetting anything,
none had read less than he--few people were better informed. He had
talked with the skilful in all professions, in all the sciences, in every
art. None better knew how to draw forth and appropriate to himself the
knowledge of others. In conversation he would have astonished a scholar,
an artist, an artisan, or a divine. His information was not deep, but it
was very extensive. He never dived into a subject, but he spoke well on
all subjects.

“The inequality of his temper was productive of an inconceivable oddity
in his desires, his conduct, and his manner of life. One while he formed
the project of becoming duke of Courland; at another he thought of
bestowing on himself the crown of Poland. He frequently gave intimations
of an intention to make himself a bishop or even a simple monk. He built
a superb palace, and wanted to sell it before it was finished. One day he
would dream of nothing but war; and only officers, Tatars, and Cossacks
were admitted to him: the next day he was busied only with politics; he
would partition the Ottoman Empire, and put in agitation all the cabinets
of Europe. At other times, with nothing in his head but the court,
dressed in a magnificent suit, covered with ribbons presented to him
by every potentate, displaying diamonds of extraordinary magnitude and
brilliance, he was giving superb entertainments without any cause.

“He was sometimes known for a month, and in the face of all the town, to
pass whole evenings at the apartments of a young woman, seeming to have
alike forgotten all business and all decorum. Sometimes also, for several
weeks successively, shut up in his room with his nieces and several men
whom he honoured with his intimacy, he would lounge on a sofa, without
speaking, playing at chess, or at cards, with his legs bare, his shirt
collar unbuttoned, in a morning gown, with a thoughtful front, his
eyebrows knit, and presenting to the view of strangers, who came to see
him, the figure of a rough and squalid Cossack. These singularities often
put the empress out of humour, but rendered him more interesting to her.
In his youth he had pleased her by the ardour of his passion, his valour,
and his masculine beauty. Being arrived at maturity, he charmed her
still by flattering her pride, calming her apprehensions, confirming her
power, and caressing her fancies of oriental empire, the expulsion of the
barbarians, and the restoration of the Grecian republics.

“Potemkin began everything, completed nothing, disordered the finances,
disorganised the army, depopulated his country, and enriched it with
other deserts. The fame of the empress was increased by his conquests.
The admiration they excited was for her; and the hatred they raised, for
her minister. Posterity, more equitable, will perhaps divide between them
both the glory of the successes and the severity of the reproaches. It
will not bestow on Potemkin the title of a great man; but it will mention
him as an extraordinary person; and, to draw his picture with accuracy,
he might be represented as the real emblem, as the living image of the
Russian Empire. For, in fact, he was colossal like Russia. In his mind,
as in that country, were cultivated districts and desert plains. It also
partook of the Asiatic, the European, the Tatar, and the Cossack; the
rudeness of the eleventh century, and the corruption of the eighteenth;
the surface of the arts, and the ignorance of the cloisters; an outside
of civilisation, and many traces of barbarism.”[j]


THE QUESTION OF THE IMPERIAL SUCCESSION

Some time before the death of Potemkin, Catherine had begun proceedings
intended to bar the czarevitch Paul from the imperial succession.[a]
She was by no means the cruel, heartless mother that many writers
are inclined to represent; but she knew her son thoroughly well, and
foreseeing how destructive of all good his reign would be she could not
think without fear of how the empire, which under her rule had made
such rapid strides in the path of prosperity, glory, and civilisation,
would after her remain without any guarantee for the stability and
durability of its existence. With the intention of preserving the country
from such a misfortune, Catherine wished to make over the throne to
the grand duke Alexander Pavlovitch and therefore the setting aside of
the czarevitch appeared in her eyes a state necessity. Meanwhile it is
sufficiently well known that Catherine had long been accustomed to place
the interests of the state above everything and to sacrifice to them
all other considerations and feelings; therefore the difficulties with
which so daring an administrative step was doubtless accompanied could
not stop the creator of the changes of the year 1762. “Obstacles are
created in this world,” Catherine once wrote, “in order that persons of
merit may set them aside and thus add to their reputation; that is the
meaning of obstacles.” Circumstances were also favourable to this new
change contemplated by Catherine, for at that time no law existed that
exactly established the order of succession to the throne. The statute
of Peter the Great of the year 1722 was still maintained in full power,
and by this statute the reigning Russian sovereigns had the right of
naming anyone they liked as their successors to the throne according to
their own judgment, without being restrained by any ancient right of
primogeniture; and in cases where the heir already designated showed
himself incapable, he could be removed from the throne.

The diary of Krapovitski can serve as a proof that in the year 1787,
after Catherine’s return from her travels in the south of Russia, the
question as to the necessity of changing the succession to the throne
had already matured in the mind of the empress; she entered upon the
historical study of the matter and read “the right of will of monarchs.”
On the 20th of August, in connection with this same question, Catherine
discussed with her secretary the extent to which the misfortunes of the
czarevitch Paul Petrovitch had been caused by the false opinion that as
eldest son the throne must belong to him. Further, on the 25th of August,
Krapovitski writes: “Ukases as to the heirs to the throne, named since
the time of Catherine I, have been asked for, and in the explanations a
sort of displeasure was manifested.” To what conclusions the historical
study of the measures taken by Peter the Great led Catherine may be seen
from the context of the following remarks, written by the empress’ own
hand:

“It must be acknowledged that the parent is unhappy who sees himself
obliged for the safeguard of the public good to remove his offspring.
This is a condition which accompanies or is joined to the autocratic and
parental power. And thus I esteem that the most wise monarch Peter I had
doubtlessly the strongest reasons for the removal of his ungrateful,
disobedient, and incapable son, who was filled with hatred, malice, and
viperous envy against him. He sought to find some particle of evil in his
father’s deeds and actions which were conceived in the spirit of good, he
listened to flatterers, shut his ears to the truth, and nothing was so
pleasing to him as to hear his most glorious father defamed and spoken
evil of. He himself was a sluggard, a coward, double-faced, unstable,
gloomy, timid, drunken, passionate, obstinate, bigoted, ignorant man, of
most mediocre intelligence and of weak health.”

Independent of these remarks, Catherine’s ideas are even more clearly
expressed in other rough draughts concerning the Greek project and
written in her own hand. She writes as follows: “Should the successes
of the war give Russia the means and occasion to drive out completely
the enemies of the name of Christ from the European frontiers, then
Russia, in return for such an entirely Christian service rendered to the
human race, would reserve to herself the restoration on the ruins of
the barbaric power, of the ancient Greek Empire. Russia would promise
to leave such an empire incomplete independence, to entrust and give
it up to the young Russian grand duke Constantine Pavlovitch, who must
then give his promise not to make in any case any hereditary or other
pretensions to the succession of all the Russias, as equally his brother
must do in regard to the Greek succession.” All these writings clearly
testify that at the time of the second Turkish war the empress Catherine
had definitively come to the conclusion that the welfare of the state
required the setting aside from the succession of the czarevitch Paul
Petrovitch and his replacement by the grand duke Alexander Pavlovitch.

Meanwhile the czarevitch on his part did all that was possible to
justify in the eyes of Russia Catherine’s intentions to exclude him
from the throne. A contemporary who was in close relations with him,
T. V. Rostopschin writes as follows: “It is impossible to see without
shuddering and pity what the grand duke’s father does; it is as if he
sought for every means of inspiring hatred and disgust. He has taken it
into his head that disrespect and neglect are shown to him; therefore for
this reason, he catches and cavils at everything and punishes without
distinction. Every day one only hears of violence, of quarrels about
trifles of which any private individual would be ashamed. He sees a
revolution everywhere; he sees Jacobite in everything.”

Catherine’s correspondence shows that already in the year 1791 the plan
of excluding the czarevitch Paul from the throne was no secret to those
who were in her intimacy. On the 1st of September, 1791, the empress in
a letter to Grimm expresses herself quite definitely on the matter; in
relating her supposition as to the consequences of the French Revolution,
she writes: “But this will not be in my time and, I hope, not in the
time of Alexander.” Finally on the 14th of August, 1792, Catherine
communicates to Grimm considerations which allow the nomination of
Alexander as heir to be regarded as a matter settled. “Why should the
coronation be hurried on?” writes she; “in the words of Solomon there
is a time for everything. First we will marry Alexander, and then we
will crown him with all possible ceremonies, solemnities, and popular
festivities. Oh, how happy he will be himself, and how happy others will
be with him!” The following letter addressed by Catherine to Count V. P.
Mussin-Pushkin on the 14th of September, 1792, written by the empress’
own hand, is characteristic of the relations which subsisted at that time
between the czarevitch Paul Petrovitch and his mother:

    COUNT VALENTINE PLATONOVITCH:

    I herewith enclose a copy of Kushilev’s letter to the governor
    of this town in which he says that the czarevitch has been
    pleased to order that more than half of the Alexandrovski
    square, as the plan sent by him to the governor indicates,
    should be given up to a certain merchant. The order itself is a
    mad one and of the greatest insolence. Tell Kushilev to come to
    you and tell him in my name that if he again dares to send such
    letters anywhere I will send him where the ravens will not have
    to seek for his bones; and tell the grand duke that in future
    he is not to send any orders by you at anyone’s request.

    September 17th, 1793.

                                                          CATHERINE.

    Find out beforehand if this was certainly written by the grand
    duke.

In the year 1794 the empress had recourse to decisive measures for the
accomplishment of the projected change and notified to the council her
intention of setting aside her son Paul as her successor giving as
reasons his character and his incapacity. The entire council was ready to
submit to this decision, but was stopped by Count V. P. Mussin-Pushkin,
who said that the character and instincts of the heir might change when
he became emperor; these remarks put a stop to Catherine’s intention of
declaring her grandson Alexander as her successor, and for a time the
matter rested there. But the opposition that Catherine met with in the
council naturally did not stop her in the pursuit of the aim she had in
view. As has already been observed, obstacles, in her opinion, are only
created in order that they may be set aside by persons of merit; guided
by such principles, the empress remained true to herself and to the
matter that was so close to her heart and continued to seek for fresh
ways of carrying through her intentions.[k] Nevertheless all her efforts
failed in the end, and, as we shall see, Catherine’s son succeeded her in
due course.[a]


THE LAST OF THE FAVOURITES

Plato Zubov, the twelfth and last of Catherine’s avowed favourites,
succeeded in some degree to the position which Potemkin had held as a
sort of vice-emperor. Zubov had superseded Momonov, who, soon wearying of
the faded charms of a mistress of sixty, became enamoured of the young
princess Sherbatov, and had the courage to avow it and ask permission to
marry her. Catherine had pride and generosity enough to grant his request
without any reproaches. She saw him married at court to the object of
his affection, and sent him to Moscow loaded with presents. But it was
currently reported that Momonov was so imprudent as to mention to his
wife some particulars of his interviews with the empress, and that she
divulged them with a levity which Catherine could not forgive. One night,
when the husband and wife were gone to rest, the master of the police at
Moscow entered their chamber; and, after showing them an order from her
majesty, left them in the hands of six women, and retired to an adjoining
room. Then the six women, or rather the six men dressed as women, seized
the babbling lady, and having completely stripped her, flogged her
with rods in the presence of Momonov, whom they forced to kneel down
during the ceremony. When the chastisement was over, the police-master
re-entered the room and said: “This is the way the empress punishes a
first indiscretion. For the second, people are sent to Siberia.”

It was in the spring of 1789, when the empress was at Tsarskoi Selo,
that Momonov was married and dismissed. Lieutenant Zubov commanded the
detachment of horse-guards in attendance, and being the only young
officer in sight he owed his preferment to that fortunate circumstance.
Nicholas Soltikov, to whom he was distantly related, and who was at that
time in high credit, took pains to promote his interest, hoping to find
in him a protector against Potemkin, whom he heartily disliked. After
some secret conferences in presence of the Mentor, Zubov was approved,
and sent for more ample information to Mademoiselle Protasov and the
empress’ physician. The account they gave must have been favourable, for
he was named aide-de-camp to the empress, received a present of a hundred
thousand roubles (£10,000) to furnish him with linen, and was installed
in the apartment of the favourites with all the customary advantages.

The next day this young man was seen familiarly offering his arm to his
sovereign, equipped in his new uniform, with a large hat and feather
on his head, attended by his patron and the great men of the empire,
who walked behind him with their hats off, though the day before he had
danced attendance in their ante-chambers. His own were now filled with
aged generals and ministers of long service, all of whom bent the knee
before him. He was a genius discerned by the piercing eye of Catherine;
the treasures of the empire were lavished on him, and the conduct of the
empress was sanctioned by the meanness and the shameful assiduities of
her courtiers.


_Debaucheries at Catherine’s Court_

The new favourite was not quite five-and-twenty years old, the empress
was upwards of sixty. Yet even at this advanced period of her life she
revived the orgies and lupercalia which she had formerly celebrated with
the brothers Orlov. Valerian, a younger brother of Zubov, and Peter
Soltikov, their friend, were associated in office with the favourite.
With these three young libertines did the aged Catherine spend her days,
while her armies were slaughtering the Turks, fighting the Swedes, and
ravaging Poland; while her people were groaning in wretchedness and
famine, and devoured by extortioners and tyrants.

It was at this time she formed a more intimate society, composed of her
favourites and most trusty ladies and courtiers. This society met two or
three times a week, under the name of the Little Hermitage. The parties
were frequently masqued, and the greatest privacy prevailed. They danced,
played at forfeits, joked, romped and engaged in all sorts of frolics
and gambols. Leov Narishkin acted the same part there as Roquelaure at
the court of Louis XIV; and a fool by title, Matrona Danilovna, seconded
him. This was an old gossip, whose wit consisted only in uttering the
most absurd vulgarities; and as she was allowed the common right of
fools, that of saying anything, she was loaded with presents by the lower
order of courtiers. Such foreign ministers as enjoyed the favour of the
empress were sometimes admitted to the Little Hermitage. Ségur, Cobenzl,
Stedingk, and Nassau chiefly enjoyed this distinction; but Catherine
afterwards formed another assembly, more confined and more mysterious,
which was called the Little Society. The three favourites of whom we have
just been speaking, Branicka, Protasov, and some confidential women and
valets-de-chambre, were its only members. In this the Cybele of the north
celebrated her most secret mysteries. The particulars of these amusements
are not fit to be repeated.

[Sidenote: [1793 A.D.]]

Catherine survived Potemkin but four years. The last ten years of her
reign carried her power, her glory, and her political crimes to their
highest pitch. When the great Frederick, dictator of the kings of Europe,
died, she remained the eldest of the crowned heads of the continent; and
if we except Joseph, all those heads together were unequal to her own.
If Frederick was the dictator of these kings, Catherine became their
tyrant. The immense empire which she had subjected to her sway; the
inexhaustible resources she derived from a country and a people as yet in
a state of infancy; the extreme luxury of her court, the barbarous pomp
of her nobility, the wealth and princely grandeur of her favourites, the
glorious exploits of her armies, and the gigantic views of her ambition
threw Europe into a sort of fascination; and those monarchs who had
been too proud to pay each other even the slightest deference felt no
abasement in making a woman the arbiter of their interests, the ruling
power of all their measures.


THE SUBJUGATION AND FINAL PARTITION OF POLAND (1796 A.D.)

The annihilation of Poland, long meditated, was now resolved on. The
empress could never forgive that nation either for the act of the diet
in 1788, which abrogated the constitution dictated by violence in 1775,
or the alliance of Prussia accepted in contempt of her own, or, above
all, the constitution decreed at Warsaw on the 3rd of May, 1791. Big with
these ideas of revenge, she gave orders to Bulgakov, her minister at
Warsaw, to declare war against Poland.

The diet being assembled received this declaration with a majestic
calmness, which was rapidly succeeded by the generous enthusiasm of a
nation roused to self-defence. The king himself pretended to share the
feelings that animated his people; and the Poles had the weakness to
believe that, having abandoned his former servility to Russia and his
customary indolence, he was becoming the defender of their freedom. An
army was collected in haste, and the command of it given to the king’s
nephew, Joseph Poniatowski, an inexperienced young man, all of whose
efforts were obstructed or misdirected by his traitorous uncle.

The Poles could have opposed the designs of Catherine with an army of
fifty thousand men; but they never yet could be brought to unite their
forces; and their different corps were soon after pressed between an
army of eighty thousand Russians, who fell back from Bessarabia upon the
territory which extends along the Bug, another of ten thousand collected
in the environs of Kiev, and a third of thirty thousand, which had
penetrated into Lithuania.

We shall not here attempt to draw the picture of the various battles that
drenched the plains of Poland with blood, and which, notwithstanding some
advantages obtained by the Poles, consumed the greater part of their
troops. It was then that the illustrious Kosciuszko, who as yet was
nothing more than one of the lieutenants of young Joseph Poniatowski,
displayed qualities that justly obtained him the confidence of the
nation, the hatred of the Russians, and the esteem of Europe.

During all this time Catherine, not trusting alone to the power of her
own arms, had been negotiating with unremitted assiduity. She proposed
the definitive partition of Poland to Frederick William, who was
undoubtedly no less desirous of it than herself. She secretly won over to
her views the two brothers Kassakovski, the hetman Branicki, Rejevuski,
and particularly Felix Potocki, who, while flattering himself perhaps
with the hopes of mounting the throne of Poland, became only the slave of
Russia. She even insisted that Stanislaus Augustus should make a public
declaration that it was necessary to yield to the superiority of the
Russian arms. He submitted to this indignity; but was not on that account
treated by the empress with greater indulgence.

In 1793 the confederation of the partisans of Russia assembled at Grodno,
where the Russian general proudly seated himself under the canopy of the
throne he was about to overturn. The Russian minister Sievers, at the
same time, published a manifesto (April 9th) in which he declared that
his sovereign would incorporate with her dominions all the territory of
Poland which her arms had conquered. The king of Prussia, in concert with
Catherine, had already marched an army into Poland.

The Russians, dispersed about the provinces of that kingdom, committed
depredations and ravages of which history furnishes but few examples.
Warsaw became likewise the theatre of their excesses. The Russian general
Igelström, who governed that city, connived at the disorders of his
soldiers, and made the wretched inhabitants feel the whole weight of his
arrogance and barbarity. The defenders of Poland had been obliged to
disperse. Their property was confiscated; their families were reduced
to servitude. Goaded by so many calamities, they once more took the
resolution to free their country of the Russians. Some of them assembled,
and sent an invitation to Kosciuszko to come and put himself at their
head. That general had retired to Leipsic, with Hugh Kolonti, Zajonchek,
and Ignatius Potocki, a man of great knowledge and sagacity, a sincere
friend to his country, and in all respects the opposite of his cousin
Felix. These four Poles joined eagerly in the resolution adopted by their
honest countrymen: but they were sensible that, in order to succeed, they
must begin by giving liberty to the peasants, who till then had been
treated in Poland like beasts of burden.

Kosciuszko and Zajonchek repaired, with all expedition, to the frontiers
of Poland. The latter proceeded to Warsaw, where he had conferences
with the chiefs of the conspirators. A banker named Kapustas, a bold
and artful man, made himself responsible for the inhabitants of the
capital. He saw likewise several officers, who declared their detestation
of the Russian yoke. All, in short, was ripe for an insurrection, when
the Russian commanders, to whom Kosciuszko’s presence on the frontiers
had given umbrage, forced him to postpone it for a time. To throw the
Russians off their guard, Kosciuszko went into Italy, and Zajonchek to
Dresden, whither Ignatius Potocki and Kolonti had retired, but all at
once Zajonchek appeared again at Warsaw. The king himself impeached him
to the Russian general Igelström, who had a conference with him, and
ordered him to quit the Polish territory. No alternative now remained for
him but to proceed immediately to action, or to abandon the enterprise
altogether. Zajonchek resolved on the former.

[Sidenote: [1794 A.D.]]

In 1794 Kosciuszko was recalled from Italy, and arrived at Cracow, where
the Poles received him as their deliverer. In spite of the orders of
the Russians, Colonel Madalinski pertinaciously refused to disband his
regiment. Some other officers had joined him. Kosciuszko was proclaimed
general of his little army, amounting to three thousand foot and twelve
hundred horse; and the act of insurrection was almost immediately
published on the 24th of March. Three hundred peasants, armed with
scythes, ranged themselves under the standard of Kosciuszko. That general
soon found himself faced by seven thousand Russians, who were put to
flight after a vigourous resistance.

On hearing at Warsaw of the success of Kosciuszko, the Russian general
Igelström caused all those to be arrested whom he suspected to have any
concern in the insurrection; but these measures served only the more to
irritate the conspirators. The insurrection broke out on the 18th of
April. Two thousand Russians were put to the sword. Their general, being
besieged in his house, requested permission to capitulate; and profiting
by the delay that was granted him, he escaped to the Prussian camp, which
lay at a little distance from Warsaw. Vilna, the capital of Lithuania,
followed the example of Warsaw; but the triumph of the insurgents was
there less terrible. Colonel Iazinski, who was at their head, conducted
himself with so much skill, that he took all the Russians prisoners,
without shedding a drop of blood. The inhabitants of the cantons of Chelm
and of Lublin declared themselves also in a state of insurrection, and
were imitated by three Polish regiments who were employed in the service
of the Russians. Some of the principal partisans of Russia, the hetman
Kassakovski, the bishop his brother, Zabiello, Ozarovski, and Ankvitch
were sentenced to be hanged, the first at Vilna, and the others at
Warsaw.

Kosciuszko exerted himself to the utmost to augment his army. He got
recruits among the peasants; and to inspire them with more emulation he
wore their dress, ate with them, and distributed encouragements among
them; but those men too long degraded in Poland were not yet deserving of
the liberty that was offered them. They distrusted the intentions of the
nobles, who, on their side, for the most part lamented the loss of their
absurd prerogatives. Stanislaus Augustus and his partisans augmented
still further the ill-will of the nobles, by representing to them the
intentions of Kosciuszko as disastrous to their order, and by caballing
continually in favour of Russia.

[Sidenote: [1795 A.D.]]

In the mean time, the empress, not satisfied with augmenting the number
of her troops in Poland, had sent her best generals thither. After
several battles, in one of which Frederick William, who had advanced
to support the Russians, fought at the head of his troops against
Kosciuszko, who was striving to prevent the junction of the Russian
generals, Suvarov and Fersen, the Polish commander was attacked by the
latter at Macziewice on the 4th of October. His talents, his valour,
and his desperation were unable to prevent the Poles from yielding to
numbers. Almost the whole of his army were cut to pieces or obliged to
lay down their arms. He himself, covered with wounds, was taken prisoner,
ejaculating, “_Finis Poloniæ!_”

All who were able to escape from the conquerors went and shut themselves
up in Praga, the eastern suburb of Warsaw, where 26,000 Poles and 104
heavy cannon and mortars defended the bridges over the Vistula and the
approach to the capital. Suvarov was soon before the gates with an
effective force of but 22,000 men and 86 field pieces; but even with
such odds against him he resolved to do as he had done at Ismail, and
carry the Polish lines at the point of the bayonet. After cannonading the
defences for two days he gave the order for the assault at daybreak on
the 4th of November. The trenches were carried after a desperate fight of
five hours; the Russians swept into the town, murdering all before them,
old men, women, and children; the wooden houses were speedily on fire;
the bridges were broken down, so that the helpless crowds who attempted
to escape into the city were remorselessly driven into the Vistula.
Besides 10,000 Polish soldiers, 12,000 citizens of every age and sex
perished in this wanton butchery.

Warsaw itself capitulated on the 5th of November, and was delivered up to
the Russians on the 6th. Poland was now annihilated. One division of its
troops after another was disarmed, and all the generals and officers who
could be seized were carried off. The king, however, who could be induced
to do anything if his comforts were spared, was used as an instrument to
give to power the impress of right. He was again set nominally at the
head of the kingdom till the robbers had agreed upon the division of the
spoil, and had no longer need of him. Suvarov held a splendid military
court for a year in Warsaw, far eclipsing the king, till at length the
city was given up to the Prussians.

The whole of the year 1795 was spent in negotiations with Prussia, and
the last treaty for the partition of Poland was not signed till the 24th
of October, 1795. In December, Suvarov travelled from Warsaw to St.
Petersburg, where the empress appropriated the Taurian palace for his
residence, and nominated a special household for his service. On the
1st of January, 1796, Warsaw was first given up to the Prussians, and
negotiations were carried on till the 21st of October, 1796, respecting
the boundaries of the palatinates of Warsaw and Cracow. By virtue of this
partition, first finally arranged in October, 1796, Austria obtained the
chief parts of the waiwodeship of Cracow, the palatinates of Sendomir and
Lublin, together with a portion of the district of Chelm and portions
of the waiwodeships of Brzesc, Podalachia, and Massovia, which lie
along the left bank of the Bug. All these districts contain about 834
German square miles. Prussia received those portions of Massovia and
Podalachia which touch upon the right bank of that river, in Lithuania
those parts of the palatinates of Troki and Samogitia which lie to the
left of the Niemen, and, finally, a district in Little Poland which
belonged to the waiwodeship of Cracow, making in all about one thousand
German square miles. Russia received the whole of what had hitherto
been Polish Lithuania as far as the Niemen, and to the frontiers of the
waiwodeships of Brzesc and Novogrodek, and thence to the Bug, together
with the greater part of Samogitia. In Little Poland she obtained that
part of Chelm which lies on the right bank of the Bug and the remainder
of Volhinia, in all about two thousand German square miles. During the
negotiations for the partition, Russia caused Stanislaus Augustus to lay
down the crown. The three partitioning powers ensured him a yearly income
of 200,000 ducats, and promised to pay his debts.


THE ANNEXATION OF COURLAND (1795 A.D.)

Catherine had now conquered, either by her arms or by her intrigues,
almost one-half of Poland, the Crimea, the Kuban, and a part of the
frontiers of Turkey. But she had no need of armaments and battles for
usurping another rich and well-peopled country. Courland and Semigallia,
where still reigned Duke Peter, the feeble son of the famous Biren, had
long been prepared for that annexation, which was now effected almost
without an effort. The flattering reception given to the Courish nobles
in St. Petersburg by the empress, distinctions, honours, posts, and
pleasures, rendering their abode in the imperial residence far preferable
to continuing in Mittau, and made them desirous of being under the sway
of the sovereign of a vast empire, rather than live in obedience to
a duke the obscurity of whose origin they could not forget, and whom
they regarded as their inferior. To bring the people to the same way of
thinking as the nobles, Catherine artfully embroiled them with their
neighbours, and created for them reasons of alarm.

She began by instigating the inhabitants of Livonia to insist upon the
fulfilment of an ancient convention, by which the Courlanders were
obliged to bring all their merchandises to Riga: certainly a very strange
and hard condition, by which a nation, that had on its coasts excellent
harbours happily situated, should be obliged to go, at a great expense,
to embark the products of its soil in a foreign city. The quarrel between
the Livonians and the Courlanders was not yet terminated, when the
empress sent engineers into Courland, to mark out a canal, to facilitate
the transport of the merchandises of that country into Livonia. The
Courlanders seeing this, and fearing lest they should be soon forced
to make use of this canal, thought it better for them to be protected
than oppressed by the empress, and to be her subjects rather than her
neighbours.

Catherine, being informed of these dispositions, called the duke of
Courland to her, under the pretence of conferring with him on matters of
importance. No sooner was that prince at the foot of the throne of the
autocratrix of the north, than the states of Courland held an assembly,
wherein it was proposed to put the country under the supremacy of Russia.
The principal members of the grand council faintly opposed this motion,
observing, that before they proceeded to a resolution it would be
expedient to wait the return of the duke. The oberburgraf Hoven rose up,
and spoke a long time in favour of Russia. Some councillors expressed
themselves of his opinion; others reproached him with treason. The
dispute grew warm on both sides; challenges were reciprocally given and
swords were about to be drawn, when the Russian general Pahlen appeared
in the assembly. His presence restored tranquillity. No one presumed
to raise his voice against Russia; and the proposal of the nobles was
adopted.

The next day, March 18th, 1795, the act was drawn up, by which
Courland, Semigallia, and the circle of Pilten made a formal surrender
of themselves to the empress of Russia; and it was carried to St.
Petersburg, where the duke of Courland learned, from the mouth of his own
subjects, that they themselves had deprived him of his dominions. The
empress immediately sent a governor thither. Some discontent, however,
remained in Courland; discontent brought on proscription, and the
possessions of the proscribed were given to the courtiers of Catherine.
The favourite, Plato Zubov, and his brother Valerian obtained a great
part of those rich and shameful spoils.[j]


LAST YEARS AND DEATH OF CATHERINE

[Illustration: CATHERINE II

(1729-1796)]

Before the breaking out of the French Revolution the governments of
Louis XVI and Catherine II had entered into active negotiations for
the formation of a quadruple alliance that should include Austria,
Russia, and the two houses of Bourbon, and should have for its object
the checking of England’s maritime pretensions and the encroachments of
Prussia. After the taking of the Bastille Catherine realised that she
could no longer count upon the support of France, since that country
was exclusively occupied with its own interior transformation. She
kept anxious watch, however, upon the course of events in Paris, and
manifested the liveliest antipathy to the new principles, falling ill
at the news of the king’s execution on the 21st of January. Led by fear
into a violent reaction, the correspondent of Voltaire and Diderot set
a close watch upon all Russians suspected of liberalism. She destroyed
a tragedy of Kniaznin and exiled to Siberia Radichtchev, the author of
a curious book entitled _Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow_, in
which were many sharp reflections on serfdom; Novikov was confined at
Schlüsselburg, his printing houses were closed and all his enterprises
ruined. She dismissed Genêt, the French ambassador, refused to recognise
either the constitution of 1791 or the French Republic, issued an ukase
announcing the rupture of diplomatic relations with France, refused to
the tri-colour admission to Russian parts, expelled all French subjects
who refused to swear allegiance to the monarchical principle, extended a
warm welcome to French refugees, and lost no time in acknowledging Louis
XVIII.

In 1792 she published her famous note on the restoration of royal power
and aristocratic privileges in France, asserting that only ten thousand
men would be necessary to effect a counter-revolution. She encouraged
Gustavus III, who was assassinated by his nobles at a masked ball (March
16th, 1792), to place himself at the head of a crusade against democracy.
She further urged England to assist the count d’Artois in a descent he
had planned upon the French coast, and stimulated the zeal of Austria
and Prussia. Notwithstanding this, though she had repeatedly negotiated
treaties for subsidies and promised troops, she took care never to become
involved in a war with the west. “My position is taken,” she said, “my
part assigned; I shall watch the movements of Turkey, Poland, and Sweden.”

The latter country became reconciled to France after the death of
Gustavus III. The punishment of the Jacobins of Warsaw and Turkey was an
easier and more lucrative piece of work. We should also take into account
an admission that she made to her vice-chancellor Ostermann in 1791: “Am
I wrong? I cannot avow all to the courts of Berlin and Vienna, but I wish
to keep them engaged in these affairs so that I may have freedom to carry
on my unfinished enterprises.” She excused herself for not taking part in
the anti-revolutionary crusade by alleging the war with Turkey; then when
in consequence of the revolution of the 3rd of May she was obliged to
hasten the Peace of Jassy, she made the Polish war her excuse; and when
this was ended she affected to excite Suvarov and his soldiers against
the atheists of the west, but in reality thought only of gaining her own
ends in the east. Muhammed, the new king of Persia, had recently invaded
Georgia and burned Tiflis, the capital of Heraclius, a protégé of the
empress. Catherine summoned to her court an exiled brother of Muhammed’s
and charged Valerian Zubov with the conquest of Persia. [His armies were
actually under way when the death of Catherine led to the abandonment of
the enterprise.]

[Sidenote: [1796 A.D.]]

Without being aware of it Catherine II really performed greater service
to France than to the coalition. By her intervention in Poland and her
projects against the east she had excited the jealousy and suspicion of
Prussia and Austria. She took care to pit them against each other; made
the second partition with Frederick William in spite of Austria, and
effected the third with Francis II to the extreme dissatisfaction of
Prussia. She contributed indirectly to weaken and dissolve the coalition,
being herself prevented from joining it by the Polish insurrection that
received so much encouragement from France. She died on the 17th of
November, 1796, at the age of sixty-seven. Since Ivan the Terrible no
monarch had extended the limits of the empire by such vast conquests.
Catherine made the Niemen, the Dniester, and the Black Sea the boundaries
of Russia.[d]


A RUSSIAN ESTIMATE OF CATHERINE

The personality of the empress was as though created for a throne. We do
not meet in history with any other woman so fitted to rule. On all and
each she produced a profound impression. No one has spoken more harshly
and disadvantageously of the empress’ qualities than Masson, yet this
pamphleteer-writer observes that during the space of ten years, having
had occasion to see Catherine once or twice a week, he was always struck
by her unusually attractive personality, by the dignity with which she
held herself, and by the amiability of her behaviour to everyone.

In her _Memoirs_[g] Catherine herself has left a detailed narrative of
the course of her development, of her aspirations after power, and of her
unscrupulousness in the means she used to attain her aims. The empress’
frankness in this respect amounts almost to cynicism. In maturity she at
last became an autocratic sovereign. After the terrible humiliations, the
bitter trials she had endured in her youth, her delight when she found
herself in the enjoyment of unbounded power was all the greater. The
fact that the fundamental change in her surroundings, the rapid passage
from entire dependency to entire potency, did not in any wise awaken
in her any despotic inclinations testifies to the goodness inherent in
her nature; when her son was subjected in his turn to a like change in
outward circumstances his despotism knew no bounds.

We have seen that the unfavourable circumstances in which Catherine
found herself until the year 1762 exercised a baneful influence upon
her character; whereas the power and preponderance which she later
acquired had an ennobling effect upon her nature. Until then she had been
necessarily obliged often to have resource to mean and trifling measures
to better her position and to revenge herself on her opponents; when she
was able to exert full power, to enjoy the advantages of her position,
the respect of her contemporaries, the adoration of the persons that
surrounded her, she no longer needed to employ those means which are
generally made use of by the weak in their struggle against the strong.
At the time when a sharp watch was kept over her, when she was not
trusted by either Elizabeth or Peter, she understood how to dissemble,
to play the hypocrite, to feign humility and modesty, whilst in her soul
she was filled with arrogance and contempt for mankind. Now that she had
surrounded herself entirely with persons devoted to her she could act
openly and nobly. The grand duchess in her isolation had been remarkable
for her coldness, her mistrust of mankind, her suspiciousness; the
empress on the contrary gave full scope to the development of feelings
of benevolence, condescension, indulgence, and sincere attention to the
interests of the persons that surrounded her. It was not without reason
that Peter and Elizabeth had mistrusted Catherine and been suspicious of
her character; it was not without reason, either, that in after times
many people highly esteemed Catherine’s kindheartedness.

The history of the court under Peter I, under the empress Anna, and under
Elizabeth is full of examples of tyranny, cruelty, and arbitrariness;
all Catherine’s contemporaries were astonished at the mildness of her
behaviour to those around her and rejoiced at the absence of stiff
formalities and hard measures in her intercourse with her subordinates.
In spite of her quick temper and impulsiveness, Catherine had complete
control over herself, and in her intercourse with her fellow creatures
she was governed by principles of humanity. “I like to praise and reward
loudly, to blame quietly,” she once justly remarked in conversation
with Ségur; she sought to avoid occasions of offending anyone, and was
particularly careful in her intercourse with servants; “I will live to
make myself not feared,” she once said, observing that the stove-heater,
who had deserved reproof for some neglect, avoided meeting her. Often
when Catherine had given an order she would make excuses for the trouble
and labour it occasioned. Krapovitski gives instances of such solicitude
on her part; more than once the empress, when impatient or irritated,
having expressed herself somewhat sharply, afterwards acknowledged her
hastiness and endeavoured to repair her fault.

It is said that Catherine, who awoke early and usually rose at six in
the morning, so valued the tranquillity of her servants that without
requiring assistance she dressed herself, lit the fire, and without
disturbing anyone sat down to her books and papers. Various anecdotes
are to be found in the narratives of contemporaries testifying to her
indulgence to her servants and her want of sufficient severity in her
intercourse with them. When she was in a passion she turned up her
sleeves, walked about the room, drank a glass of water, and deferred
judgment. Her capacity for removing any misunderstanding that might
have arisen between herself and others was particularly remarkable. In
her letters to various great lords we meet with frequent exhortations
not to give way to despair but to take courage, to believe in their own
capacities, and to hope for success. In moments of danger she knew how to
raise the spirits of those around her, inspiring them with firmness and
courage.

The distinguishing features of Catherine’s character were gaiety, humour,
and an inclination for fun and amusements. She once remarked: “As to the
gaiety of character of Frederick the Great, it must be observed that
it proceeded from his superiority: was there ever a great man who was
not distinguished by his gaiety and who did not possess in himself an
inexhaustible store of it.” She took the greatest pleasure in going to
masquerades and, while preserving the strictest incognito, talking to
various people; she herself related in detail how she had once gone to a
masquerade in male attire and had made a declaration of love to a young
girl who never suspected that it was the empress talking to her. It must
not be regarded as a matter of chance or an act of complaisance that such
a multitude of anecdotes testifying to the magnanimity of Catherine have
been preserved; many contemporaries who do not unconditionally praise
her maintain however that she was capable of listening to unpleasing
truths, of recognising her faults and deficiencies, and of restraining
her anger. Such assertions are to be met with in Razumovski, Derjavin,
Mussin-Pushkin, and Teplov.

Of course traits are not wanting which show her obstinacy, self-will,
and arrogance. Derjavin cites several circumstances to prove that in
her actions Catherine was often governed by personal considerations and
desires rather than the real good of the state and strict justice. It
is also not without reason that she is reproached with the fact that,
while protesting against the use of tortures and corporal punishment,
she allowed full scope to the cruelties of Sheshkovski who frequently
with his own hand tortured accused persons in the most atrocious manner;
we cannot however determine how far the empress was cognisant of his
barbarous treatment. Referring to some instances of arbitrariness and
infringement of the law, Prince Sherbatov remarks that the empress held
herself above the law and that she thus herself set a pernicious example
to the great noblemen and dignitaries who imitated her in this respect.

As to Catherine’s piety, Frederick II plainly accused her of hypocrisy
and bigotry. We bear in mind that it was not easy for her to adopt the
orthodox faith, but that when she had adopted it she used outward piety
as a means of strengthening her position in Russia. By strictly observing
the rules of the church, and conscientiously fulfilling her religious
duties, she endeavoured to produce a certain impression on her subjects.
At the same time she remained true to the principles of toleration
preached in the literature of enlightenment. When Voltaire reproached
her, saying that she humiliated herself by kissing the priest’s hand,
she justified herself by replying that it was only an outward observance
which would little by little become obsolete. There is no doubt that
Catherine’s piety did not spring from any deep feeling. In her letters to
Grimm, sallies against Luther and the Lutherans are to be met with more
than once; she despised Lutherans for their intolerance and several times
praised the orthodox faith as the best in the world; she compared it to
an oak tree with deep roots.

Side by side with such remarks we meet with bold sallies both from the
lips and in the letters of the empress against excessive piety and
fanaticism; such are certain caustic remarks referring to Maria Theresa
and the queen of Portugal. In certain _jeux d’esprit_ which she allowed
herself in connection with questions of the church and religion in her
letters to Grimm, the same rationalism is to be observed as that which
distinguished the votaries of French literature of the time. Catherine
praised the works of Nicholas Sebaldus Nothanker, especially, because
hypocrisy was condemned in them. Deep religious and philosophical
questions she did not like; her chief characteristic was a certain
worldliness. Her point of view was optimistic and her principal rule
of earthly wisdom, gaiety. She did not like to meditate on sad events,
to give way to grief, to dwell upon gloomy subjects; and this partly
explains her esteem for Voltaire, whom she called the “god of gaiety.”
This playfulness and vivacity, this freshness and gaiety she preserved to
the end of her life.[h]


FOOTNOTES

[54] The Swedes were not aware of the fortuitous advantage then offered
them by a singular incident. Just before the Russian admiral received
orders to weigh, the empress had given the command of a ship to the
famous Paul Jones. As soon as the British officers in the Russian service
heard of this appointment, they repaired in a body to the admiralty, and
announced their determination to quit the squadron to which that pirate
had been attached. By this act on their part seven or eight ships were
left without officers, until the empress, smothering her resentment,
withdrew Paul Jones from the squadron, under pretence of sending him to
the Black Sea; but, fearing a repetition of so unpleasant a scene, she
contrived to get rid of the daring adventurer altogether.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER IX. RUSSIA IN THE NAPOLEONIC EPOCH

    Perhaps no sovereign since the days of the Antonines ever
    was called to higher destinies, or more worthily filled an
    important place in the theatre of the world, than the emperor
    Alexander I. Placed at the head of the most powerful and
    rising empire in existence, stationed midway between ancient
    civilisation and barbaric vigour, he was called to take the
    lead in the great struggle for European freedom; to combat
    with the energy and enthusiasm of the desert the superiority
    of advanced information, and meet the condensed military force
    of a revolution, which had beaten down all the strength of
    continental power, with the dauntless resolution and enduring
    fortitude which arise in the earlier ages of social existence.
    Well and nobly he fulfilled his destiny. Repeatedly defeated,
    never subdued, he took counsel, like his great predecessor
    Peter, from misfortune, and prepared in silence those
    invincible bands which, in the day of trial, hurled back the
    most terrible array which ambition had ever marshalled against
    the liberties of mankind.--ALISON.[f]


EARLY MEASURES OF THE REIGN OF PAUL I

[Sidenote: [1796-1815 A.D.]]

The emperor Paul I, Catherine’s successor, had been long known for
his singularities, his great dislike of the French, and to everything
which Catherine had done. He appeared desirous of proceeding directly
on the very opposite course to that which she had followed. She had
chiefly directed her attention to foreign relations and affairs, whilst
he appeared to occupy his mind solely with the internal state of his
dominions. His very first act was a proof that he was quite ready to
go in opposition to all the ordinary rules of political prudence, and
when under the influence of his humour to follow his views, reckless
of consequences. He caused splendid funeral honours and services to be
performed for his murdered father, and forced the audacious and godless,
though clever criminals, who had helped to place his mother on the
throne, to be publicly exposed to the gaze of the people. Notwithstanding
this, he suffered them to remain in possession of their honours and
estates, whilst he designated them as murderers, and reminded the people
that his mother had taken part in the murder of his father. The body of
Peter III, which had been deposited in the convent of Alexander Nevski,
was by his orders placed beside that of his wife; and it was notified by
an inscription in the Russian language that, though separated in life, in
death they were united.

[Sidenote: [1796 A.D.]]

Alexis Orlov and Prince Baratinski, two of the murderous band, were
compelled to come to St. Petersburg to accompany the funeral procession
on foot, but they were not so treated as to prevent them afterwards from
doing further mischief. Alexis obtained permission to travel in foreign
countries. Baratinski was ordered never again to show himself at court;
which, under existing circumstances, could not to him be otherwise than
an agreeable command. Single proofs of tender feeling, of a noble heart,
and touching goodness, nay even the emperor’s magnanimous conduct towards
Kosciuszko and his brethren in arms, combined with his sympathy with the
fate of Poland, could not reconcile a court, such as that of Russia under
Catherine II had become, and a city like that of St. Petersburg, to the
change of the court into a guard-room, and to the daily varying humours
of a man of eccentric and half-deranged mind. Even the improvements in
the financial affairs of the country were regarded as ruinous innovations
by those who in times past had profited by the confusion. The whole of
Russia, and even the imperial family, were alarmed and terrified; a
complete flood of decrees, often contradictory, and mutually abrogatory,
followed one another in quick succession; and the mad schemes of the
emperor, who was, nevertheless, by no means wicked or insensible to what
was good and true, reminded all observers of the most unhappy times of
declining Rome.[b]


_Imperial Eccentricities_

The guards, that dangerous body of men who had overturned the throne of
the father, and who had long considered the accession of the son as the
term of their military existence, were rendered incapable of injuring him
by a bold and vigourous step, and treated without the least deference
from the first day. Paul incorporated in the different regiments of
guards his battalions that arrived from Gatshina, the officers of which
he distributed among the various companies, promoting them at the same
time two or three steps; so that simple lieutenants or captains in
the army found themselves at once captains in the guards, a place so
important and hitherto so honoured, and which gave the rank of colonel,
or even of brigadier. Some of the old captains of the first families in
the kingdom found themselves under the command of officers of no birth,
who but a few years before had left their companies, as sergeants or
corporals, to enter into the battalions of the grand duke. This bold
and hasty change, which at any other time would have been fatal to its
author, had only the effect of inducing a few hundreds of officers,
subalterns and others, to retire.

Paul, alarmed and enraged at this general desertion, went to the
barracks, flattered the soldiers, appeased the officers, and endeavoured
to retain them by excluding from all employ, civil and military, those
who should retire in future. He afterwards issued an order that every
officer or subaltern who had resigned, or should give in his resignation,
should quit the capital within four-and-twenty hours, and return to
his own home. It did not enter into the head of the person who drew up
the ukase that it contained an absurdity; for several of the officers
were natives of St. Petersburg, and had families residing in the city.
Accordingly, some of them retired to their homes without quitting the
capital, not obeying the first part of the order, lest they should be
found guilty of disobedience to the second. Arkarov, who was to see
it put in force, having informed the emperor of this contradiction,
directed that the injunction to quit St. Petersburg should alone be
obeyed. A number of young men were consequently taken out of their houses
as criminals, put out of the city, with orders not to re-enter it, and
left in the road without shelter, and without any furred garments, in
very severe weather. Those who belonged to very remote provinces, for
the most part wanting money to carry them thither, wandered about the
neighbourhood of St. Petersburg, where several perished from cold and
want.

The finances of the empire, exhausted by the prodigalities and still more
by the waste of Catherine’s reign, required a prompt remedy; and to this
Paul seemed at first to turn his thoughts. Partly from hope, partly from
fear, the paper money of the crown rose a little in value. It was to be
supposed that the grand duke of all the Russias, who for thirty years had
been obliged to live on an income of a hundred thousand rubles (£10,000)
per annum, would at least have learned economy per force; but he was soon
seen to rush into the most unmeasured sumptuosity, heap wealth upon some,
and lavish favours upon others, with as much profusion as his mother, and
with still less discernment. The spoils of Poland continued to add to
the riches of men already too wealthy. All he could do towards restoring
a sort of equilibrium between his receipts and disbursements was to lay
an exorbitant tax on all the classes of his slaves. The poll-tax of the
wretched serfs was doubled, and a new tax was imposed upon the nobles,
which, however, the serfs would ultimately have to pay. After the first
impressions which his accession caused in the heart of Paul, punishments
and disgraces succeeded with the same rapidity and profusion with which
he had lavished his favours. Several experienced the two extremes in a
few days. It is true that most of these punishments at first appeared
just; but then it must be allowed that Paul could scarcely strike any but
the guilty, so corrupt had been all who were about the throne.

[Illustration: PAUL I

(1754-1801)]

A whim which caused no little surprise was the imperial prohibition of
wearing round hats, or rather the sudden order to take them away or
tear them to pieces on the heads of those who appeared in them. This
occasioned some disgraceful scenes in the streets, and particularly
near the palace. The Cossacks and soldiers of the police fell on the
passengers to uncover their heads, and beat those who, not knowing the
reason, attempted to defend themselves. An English merchant, going
through the street in a sledge, was thus stopped, and his hat snatched
off. Supposing it to be a robbery, he leaped out of his sledge, knocked
down the soldier, and called the guard. Instead of the guard, arrived an
officer, who overpowered and bound him; but as they were carrying him
before the police, he was fortunate enough to meet the coach of the
English minister, who was going to court, and claimed his protection. Sir
Charles Whitworth made his complaint to the emperor; who, conjecturing
that a round hat might be the national dress of the English as it was
of the Swedes, said that his order had been misconceived, and he would
explain himself more fully to Arkarov. The next day it was published
in the streets and houses that strangers who were not in the emperor’s
service, or naturalised, were not comprised in the prohibition. Round
hats were now no longer pulled off; but those who were met with this
unlucky headdress were conducted to the police to ascertain their
country. If they were found to be Russians, they were sent for soldiers;
and woe to a Frenchman who had been met with in this dress, for he would
have been condemned as a Jacobin.

A regulation equally incomprehensible was the sudden prohibition of
harnessing horses after the Russian mode. A fortnight was allowed for
procuring harness in the German fashion; after the expiration of which,
the police were ordered to cut the traces of every carriage the horses of
which were harnessed in the ancient manner. As soon as this regulation
was made public, several persons dared not venture abroad, still less
appear in their carriages near the palace, for fear of being insulted.
The harness-markers availed themselves of the occasion to charge
exorbitant prices. To dress the _ishvoshtshki_, or Russian coachmen, in
the German fashion, was attended with another inconvenience. Most of them
would neither part with their long beards, their kaftans, nor their round
hats; still less would they tie a false tail to their short hair, which
produced the most ridiculous scenes and figures in the world. At length
the emperor had the vexation to be obliged to change his rigorous order
into a simple invitation to his subjects gradually to adopt the German
fashion of dress, if they wished to merit his favour. Another reform with
respect to carriages: the great number of splendid equipages that swarmed
in the streets of St. Petersburg disappeared in an instant. The officers,
even the generals, came to the parade on foot, or in little sledges,
which also was not without its dangers.

It was anciently a point of etiquette for every person who met a Russian
autocrat, his wife, or son, to stop his horse or coach, alight, and
prostrate himself in the snow or in the mud. This barbarous homage,
difficult to be paid in a large city where carriages pass in great
numbers, and always on the gallop, had been completely abolished under
the reign of the polished Catherine. One of the first cares of Paul was
to re-establish it in all its rigour. A general officer, who passed on
without his coachmen’s observing the emperor riding by on horseback,
was stopped, and immediately put under arrest. The same unpleasant
circumstance occurred to several others, so that nothing was so much
dreaded, either on foot or in a carriage, as the meeting of the emperor.

The ceremony established within the palace became equally strict, and
equally dreaded. Woe betide him who, when permitted to kiss the hand of
Paul, did not make the floor resound by striking it with his knee as
loud as a soldier with the butt-end of his firelock. It was requisite,
too, that the salute of the lips on his hand should be heard, to
certify the reality of the kiss, as well as of the genuflection. Prince
George Galitzin, the chamberlain, was put under arrest on the spot by
his majesty himself, for having made the bow and kissed the hand too
negligently.

If this new reign was fatal to the army and to the poor gentry, it was
still more so to the unhappy peasantry. A report being spread that Paul
was about to restrict the power of masters over their slaves, and give
the peasants of the lords the same advantages as those of the crown, the
people of the capital were much pleased with the hopes of this change. At
this juncture an officer set off for his regiment, which lay at Orenberg.
On the road he was asked about the new emperor, and what new regulations
he was making. He related what he had seen, and what he had heard; among
the rest, mentioning the ukase which was soon to appear in favour of
the peasants. At this news, those of Tver and Novgorod indulged in some
tumultuous actions, which were considered as symptoms of rebellion. Their
masters were violently enraged with them; and the cause that had led them
into error was discovered. Marshal Repnin was immediately despatched at
the head of some troops against the insurgents; and the officer who had
unwittingly given rise to this false hope, by retailing the news of the
city on his road, was soon brought back in confinement. The senate of
St. Petersburg judged him deserving of death, and condemned him to be
broken, to undergo the punishment of the knout, and if he survived this,
to labour in the mines. The emperor confirmed the sentence. This was
the first criminal trial that was laid before the public; and assuredly
it justified but too well those remains of shame which had before kept
secret similar outrages.

The most prominent of Paul’s eccentricities was that mania which, from
his childhood, he displayed for the military dress and exercise. This
passion in a prince no more indicates the general or the hero than a
girl’s fondness for dressing and undressing her doll foretokens that
she will be a good mother. Frederick the Great, the most accomplished
soldier of his time, is well known to have had from his boyhood the
most insuperable repugnance to all those minutiæ of a corporal to which
his father would have subjected him; this was even the first source of
that disagreement which ever subsisted between the father and the son.
Frederick, however, became a hero; his father was never anything more
than a corporal. Peter III pushed his soldato-mania to a ridiculous
point, fancying he made Frederick his model. He loved soldiers and arms,
as a man loves horses and dogs. He knew nothing but how to exercise a
regiment, and never went abroad but in a captain’s uniform.

Paul, in his mode of life when grand duke, and his conduct after his
accession, so strongly resembled his father that, changing names and
dates, the history of the one might be taken for that of the other.
Both were educated in a perfect ignorance of business, and resided at a
distance from court, where they were treated as prisoners of state rather
than heirs to the crown; and whenever they presented themselves appeared
as aliens and strangers, having no concern with the royal family. The
aunt of the father (Elizabeth) acted precisely as did the mother of the
son. The endeavours of each were directed to prolong the infancy of their
heirs, and to perpetuate the feebleness of their minds. The young princes
were both distinguished by personal vivacity and mental insensibility, by
an activity which, untrained and neglected, degenerated into turbulence;
the father was sunk in debauchery, the son lost in the most insignificant
trifles. An unconquerable aversion to study and reflection gave to both
that infatuated taste for military parade, which would probably have
displayed itself less forcibly in Paul had he been a witness of the
ridicule they attached to Peter. The education of Paul, however, was much
more attended to than that of his father. He was surrounded in infancy by
persons of merit, and his youth promised a capacity of no ordinary kind.
It must also be allowed that he was exempt from many of the vices which
disgraced Peter; temperance and regularity of manners were prominent
features of his character--features the more commendable, as before his
mother and himself they were rarely to be found in a Russian autocrat.
To the same cause, education, and his knowledge of the language and
character of the nation, it was owing that he differed from his father in
other valuable qualities.

The similarity which, in some instances, marked their conduct towards
their wives, is still more striking; and in their amours, a singular
coincidence of taste is observable. Catherine and Marie were the most
beautiful women of the court, yet both failed to gain the affections
of their husbands. Catherine had an ambitious soul, a cultivated mind,
and the most amiable and polished manners. In a man, however, whose
attachments were confined to soldiers, to the pleasures of the bottle,
and the fumes of tobacco, she excited no other sentiment than disgust
and aversion. He was smitten with an object less respectable, and less
difficult to please. The countess Vorontzov, fat, ugly in her person
and vulgar in her manners, was more suitable to his depraved military
taste, and she became his mistress. In like manner, the regular beauty
of Marie, the unalterable sweetness of her disposition, her unwearied
complaisance, her docility as a wife, and her tenderness as a mother were
not sufficient to prevent Paul from attaching himself to Mademoiselle
Nelidov, whose disposition and qualities better accorded with his own,
and afterwards to a young lady of the name of Lopukhin, who, it is
believed, rejected his suit. To the honour of Paul it is related that he
submitted to that mortifying repulse with the most chivalric patience and
generosity. Nelidov was ugly and diminutive, but seemed desirous, by her
wit and address, to compensate for the disadvantages of her person; for a
woman to be in love with Paul it was necessary she should resemble him.

On their accession to the throne, neither the father nor the son were
favourites with the court or the nation, yet both acquired immediate
popularity and favour. The first steps of Paul appeared to be directed,
but improved, by those of Peter. The liberation of Kosciuszko and other
prisoners brought to public recollection the recall of Biron, Munich,
and Lestocq, with this difference--that Peter III did not disgrace these
acts of clemency and justice by ridiculous violences, or by odious and
groundless persecutions. Both issued ukases extremely favourable to the
nobility, but from motives essentially different, and little to the
honour of the son. The father granted to the Russian gentry those natural
rights which every man ought to enjoy; while the son attempted the folly
of creating a heraldic nobility in Russia, where that Gothic institution
had never been known. In the conduct which he observed towards the
clergy, Paul, however, showed himself a superior politician. Instead
of insulting the priests, and obliging them to shave their beards, he
bestowed the orders of the empire on the bishops, to put them on a
footing with the nobility, and flattered the populace and the priesthood
by founding churches, in obedience to pretended inspiration.

In his military operations, however, his policy appears to have abandoned
him, because here he gave the reins to his ruling passion. The quick and
total change of discipline he introduced in his armies created him nearly
as many enemies as there were officers and soldiers. In the distrust and
suspicions which incessantly haunted him, his inferiority to his father
is also evident. One of the first acts of Peter III was to abolish the
political inquisition established by Elizabeth; whereas Paul prosecuted
no scheme with greater alacrity than that of establishing a system of
spies, and devising means for the encouragement of informers. The blind
confidence of the father was his ruin, but it flowed from a humanity
of disposition always worthy of respect. The distrust of the son did
not save him; it was the offspring of a timorous mind, which by its
suspicions was more apt to provoke than to elude treason.[k]


_Paul’s Foreign Policy_

In regard to foreign matters Paul’s initial policy was one of peace. He
put a stop to the levying of recruits after the manner adopted by his
mother--that is, in the proportion of three men to every five hundred
souls--recalled his army from Persia, and left Georgia to take care of
itself. He showed compassion for the Poles, recalled the prisoners from
Siberia, transferred King Stanislaus from Grodno to St. Petersburg,
visited Kosciuszko at Schlüsselburg and released him in company with the
other prisoners. He bade Kolitchev, envoy extraordinary at Berlin, inform
the king that he, Paul, wished neither conquest nor aggrandisement. He
dictated to Ostermann a circular directed to the foreign powers, in
which he declared that of all the countries of the world Russia alone
had been constantly engaged in war since 1756; that forty years of
warfare had reduced the population; that the emperor’s humanity would
not allow him to withhold from his beloved subjects the peace for which
they longed; that though on account of these considerations Russia could
take no active part in the struggle against France, the emperor would
“nevertheless remain closely united with his allies, and would use every
means to oppose the rise of the mad French Republic which threatened
all Europe with upheaval by the destruction of its laws, privileges,
property, religion, and customs.” He refused all armed assistance to
Austria, which was alarmed at Napoleon’s victories in Italy, and recalled
the fleet that Catherine had adjoined to the English fleet for the
purpose of blockading the coasts of France and Holland. He even received
overtures made by Caillard, the French envoy to Prussia, and caused him
to be informed that the emperor “did not consider himself at war with
the French, that he had never done anything to harm them, but was rather
disposed to keep peace with them, and would induce his allies to hasten
the conclusion of war, to which end he offered the mediation of Russia.”

It was not long, however, before relations again became strained between
France and Russia. By the Treaty of Campo Formio the Ionian Isles had
been given to the French, who thus acquired a threatening position in
the East and increased power over the Divan. The Directory authorised
Dombrowski to organise Polish legions in Italy. Panin, at Berlin,
intercepted a letter from the Directory to the French envoy, which
spoke of a restoration of Poland under a prince of Brandenburg. Paul,
on his side, took into his pay the troops of the prince of Condé, and
established ten thousand émigrés in Volhinia and Podolia. He offered an
asylum to Louis XVIII after his flight from Brunswick, and installed
him in the ducal palace at Mitau with a pension of 200,000 rubles. The
news that a French expedition was being secretly organised at Toulon
made him fear for the security of the coasts of the Black Sea, which
were immediately put in a state of defence. The abduction of Zagurski,
the Russian consul at Corfu, the capture of Malta by Napoleon, the
arrival at St. Petersburg of the banished knights who offered Paul the
protectorate of their order and the title of grand master, the invasion
of Helvetian territory by the Directory, the expulsion of the pope and
the proclamation of the Roman Republic--all were events that precipitated
the rupture.

Paul concluded an alliance with Turkey which had been disturbed by
an Egyptian invasion, also with England, Austria, and the kingdom of
Naples. Thus, by the double aggression of Bonaparte against Malta and
Egypt, Russia and Turkey were led, contrary to all traditions, to make
common cause. Paul pledged himself to unite his fleet with the Turkish
and English squadron, and to furnish one body of troops for a descent
on Holland, another for the conquest of the Ionian Isles, and a grand
auxiliary army for the campaigns in Italy and Switzerland.

In the autumn of 1798 a Turkish-Russian fleet captured the French
garrisons in the Ionian Isles. The king of Naples invaded the territory
of the Roman Republic, but Championnet brought the Neapolitan troops back
on to their own ground, and after making a triumphal entry into Naples
proclaimed the Parthenopean Republic.


THE CAMPAIGNS OF KORSAKOV AND SUVAROV (1798-1799)

[Sidenote: [1798-1799 A.D.]]

The Russian army in Switzerland was placed under the command of
Rimski-Korsakov, that of Holland under the orders of Hermann; while
Austria, at the suggestion of England, requested that the victor
of Fokshani and of the Rimnik should receive the command of the
Austro-Russian army. Flattered by this mark of deference, Paul I recalled
Suvarov from exile in his village. “Suvarov has no need of laurels,”
wrote the czar, “but the country has need of Suvarov.”[c]

A few days after the battle of Magnano, Suvarov arrived on the Mincio
with the first division of his forces, twenty thousand strong, and took
the command of all the allied troops in Italy. The jealousy of the
Austrian generals was naturally excited and they called a council of war,
in order to examine his plans. The members of the council, beginning at
the youngest, proposed their several schemes. Suvarov quietly heard them
all, and when they had done, took a slate, drew two lines, and said,
“Here, gentleman, are the French, and here the Russians; the latter will
march against the former and beat them.” So saying, he rubbed out the
French line, and added, “This is all my plan; the council is concluded.”

Suvarov kept his word, and in less than three months swept the French
entirely out of Lombardy and Piedmont. Thrusting himself between the
three French armies of Switzerland, northern Italy, and the Parthenopean
Republic, it was his purpose, in concert with the archduke Charles of
Austria, to penetrate into France on its most defenceless side, by the
Vosges and the Jura, the same quarter on which the great invasion of 1814
was afterwards effected. The campaign opened on the 25th of April, on the
steep banks of the Adda, behind which Moreau had posted his diminished
force of twenty-eight thousand men in three divisions. The passage was
forced with immense loss to the French, who were compelled to abandon
Milan, which Suvarov entered in triumph on the 29th.

After a week’s delay, during which all the principal places of Lombardy
surrendered to the allies, Suvarov followed Moreau’s retreat, and
endeavoured to dislodge him from his advantageous position on the Po. Not
succeeding in this attempt as rapidly as suited his impetuous habits, the
Russian general suddenly changed his purpose, and advanced against Turin,
whilst Moreau at the same moment had resolved to retire to Turin and the
crests of the Apennines, in order to preserve his communications with
France. On the 27th of May, Vukassovitch, who commanded the advance guard
of the Russians, surprised Turin, and forced the French to take refuge
in the citadel, leaving in the hands of the victors nearly three hundred
pieces of artillery, sixty thousand muskets, and an enormous quantity of
ammunition and military stores. Moreau’s army, thus deprived of all its
resources, was saved from destruction only by the extraordinary ability
of its commander, who led it safely towards Genoa by a mountain path,
which was rendered practicable for artillery, in four days. With the
exception of a few fortresses, nothing now remained to the French of all
Napoleon’s conquests in northern Italy; they had been lost in less time
than it had taken to make them.

[Sidenote: [1799 A.D.]]

Exulting in the brilliant success of his arms, Paul bestowed another
surname, Italienski, or the Italian, on his victorious general, and
ordered by an express ukase that Suvarov should be universally regarded
as the greatest commander that had ever appeared. Meanwhile the results
of his skill and vigour were neutralised by the selfish policy of the
Austrian court, which had become by the Treaty of Campo Formio, and the
acquisition of Venice, in some degree an actual accomplice with the
aggressors against whom it was in arms. Suvarov was compelled to submit
to the dictation of the emperor Francis I, and deeply disgusted he
declared that he was no longer of any use in Italy, and that he desired
nothing so ardently as to be recalled.

The disasters of the French in upper Italy were fatal to their ascendancy
in the south, and Macdonald received orders to abandon the Parthenopean
Republic, and unite his forces with those of Moreau. His retreat was
exposed to great dangers by the universal insurrection of the peasants;
but he accomplished it with great rapidity and skill. The two French
commanders then concerted measures to dislodge the allies from their
conquests--a project which seemed not unlikely to be fulfilled, so
obstinately had the Aulic council adhered to the old system of dispersing
the troops all over the territory which they occupied. Though the
allies had above a hundred thousand men in the field, they could hardly
assemble thirty thousand at any one point; and Macdonald might easily
have destroyed them in detail could he have fallen upon them at once;
but the time he spent in reorganising his army in Tuscany, and in
concerting measures with Moreau, was well employed by Suvarov in promptly
concentrating his forces. Macdonald advanced against him with an army
of thirty-seven thousand men, taking Modena on his way, and driving
Hohenzollern out of it after a bloody engagement. The two armies met on
the Trebbia, where a first and indecisive action took place on the 17th
of June; it was renewed on each of the two following days, and victory
finally remained with the Russians. In this terrible battle of three
days, the most obstinately contested and bloody that had occurred since
the beginning of the war, the loss on both sides was excessive; that of
the French was above twelve thousand in killed and wounded, and that of
the allies not much less. But nearly equal losses told with very unequal
severity on the respective combatants; those of the allies would speedily
be retrieved by large reinforcements, but the republicans had expended
their last resources, were cut off from Moreau, and had no second army to
fall back upon. Macdonald with infinite difficulty regained the positions
he had occupied before the advance to the Trebbia, after losing an
immense number of prisoners.

The fall of the citadel of Turin on the 20th of June was of great
importance to the allies; for besides disengaging their besieging force
it put into their hands one of the strongest fortresses in Piedmont,
and an immense quantity of artillery and ammunition. This event, and
Suvarov’s victory on the Trebbia, checked the successful operations of
Moreau, and compelled him to fall back to his former defensive position
on the Apennines. Again, contrary to Suvarov’s wishes, the allied forces
were divided for the purpose of reducing Mantua and Alexandria, and
occupying Tuscany. After the fall of those two fortresses, Suvarov laid
siege to Tortona, when Joubert, who had meanwhile superseded Moreau,
marched against him at the head of the combined forces of the French. On
the 15th of August, another desperate battle was fought at Novi, in which
Joubert was killed, but from which neither side derived any particular
advantage. The French returned to their former positions, and the Italian
campaign was ended.

Suvarov now received orders to join his forces with those under Korsakov,
who was on the Upper Rhine with thirty thousand men. The archduke Charles
might, even without this fresh reinforcement, have already annihilated
Massena had he not remained for three months, from June to August, in
complete inactivity; at the very moment of Suvarov’s expected arrival,
he allowed the important passes of the St. Gotthard to be again carried
by a coup-de-main by the French, under General Lecourbe, who drove the
Austrians from the Simplon, the Furka, the Grimsel, and the Devil’s
Bridge. The archduke, after an unsuccessful attempt to push across the
Aar at Dettingen, suddenly quitted the scene of war and advanced down
the Rhine for the purpose of supporting the English expedition under the
duke of York against Holland. This unexpected turn in affairs proceeded
from Vienna. The Viennese cabinet was jealous of Russia. Suvarov played
the master in Italy, favoured Sardinia at the expense of the house of
Habsburg, and deprived the Austrians of the laurels and the advantages
they had won. The archduke, accordingly, received orders to remain
inactive, to abandon the Russians, and finally to withdraw to the
north; by this movement Suvarov’s triumphant progress was checked, he
was compelled to cross the Alps to the aid of Korsakov, and to involve
himself in a mountain warfare ill-suited to the habits of his soldiery.

Korsakov, whom Bavaria had been bribed with Russian gold to furnish with
a corps one thousand strong, was supported solely by Kray and Hotze with
twenty thousand men. Massena, taking advantage of the departure of the
archduke and the non-arrival of Suvarov, crossed the Limmat at Dietikon
and shut Korsakov, who had imprudently stationed himself with his whole
army in Zurich, so closely in that, after an engagement that lasted two
days, from the 15th to the 17th of September, the Russian general was
compelled to abandon his artillery and to force his way through the
enemy. Ten thousand men were all that escaped. Hotze, who had advanced
from the Grisons to Schwyz to Suvarov’s rencontre, was, at the same time,
defeated and killed at Schanis. Suvarov, although aware that the road
across the St. Gotthard was blocked by the Lake of Lucerne, on which
there were no boats, had the temerity to attempt the passage. In Airolo,
he was obstinately opposed by the French under Lecourbe, and, although
Shveikovski contrived to turn this strong position by scaling the
pathless rocks, numbers of the men were, owing to Suvarov’s impatience,
sacrificed before it.

On the 24th of September, 1799, he at length climbed the St. Gotthard,
and a bloody engagement, in which the French were worsted, took place
on the Oberalpsee. Lecourbe blew up the Devil’s Bridge, but, leaving
the Urnerloch open, the Russians pushed through that rocky gorge, and,
dashing through the foaming Reuss, scaled the opposite rocks and drove
the French from their position behind the Devil’s Bridge. Altorf on the
lake was reached in safety by the Russian general, who was compelled,
owing to the want of boats, to seek his way through the valleys of
Schächen and Muotta, across the almost impassable rocks, to Schwyz. The
heavy rains rendered the undertaking still more arduous; the Russians,
owing to the badness of the road, were speedily barefoot; the provisions
were also exhausted. In this wretched state they reached Muotta on the
29th of September and learned the discouraging news of Korsakov’s defeat.
Massena had already set off in the hope of cutting off Suvarov, but had
missed his way. He reached Altorr, where he joined Lecourbe on the 29th,
when Suvarov was already at Muotta, whence Massena found on his arrival
that he had again retired across the Bragelburg, through the Klönthal. He
was opposed on the lake of Klönthal by Molitor, who was, however, forced
to retire by Auffenberg, who had joined Suvarov at Altorf and formed his
advanced guard, Rosen, at the same time, beating off Massena with the
rearguard, taking five cannon and one thousand of his men prisoners. On
the 1st of October, Suvarov entered Glarus, where he rested until the
4th, when he crossed the Panixer Mountains through snow two feet deep
to the valley of the Rhine, which he reached on the 10th, after losing
the whole of his beasts of burden and two hundred of his men down the
precipices; and here ended his extraordinary march, which had cost him
the whole of his artillery, almost all his horses, and a third of his men.

The archduke had, meanwhile, tarried on the Rhine, where he had taken
Philippsburg and Mannheim, but had been unable to prevent the defeat of
the English expedition under the duke of York by General Brune at Bergen,
on the 19th of September. The archduke now, for the first time, made a
retrograde movement, and approached Korsakov and Suvarov. The different
leaders, however, did nothing but find fault with each other, and the
czar, perceiving his project frustrated, suddenly recalled his troops,
and the campaign came to a close.

Paul’s anger fell without measure or reason on his armies and their
chiefs. All the officers who were missing, that is to say who were
prisoners in France, were broken as deserters, and Suvarov, instead
of being well received with well merited honours, was deprived of
his command and not suffered to see the emperor’s face. This unjust
severity broke the veteran’s heart. He died soon after his return to St.
Petersburg; and no Russian courtier, nor any member of the diplomatic
body except the English ambassador, followed his remains to the grave.


PAUL RECONCILED WITH FRANCE (1800 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1800 A.D.]]

Frustrated in the objects for which he had engaged in war, Paul was now
in a mood easily to be moved to turn his arms against the allies who had
deceived his hopes. He had fought for the re-establishment of monarchy in
France, and of the old _status quo_ in Europe; and the only result had
been the aggrandisement of Austria, his own immediate neighbour, of whom
he had much more reason to be jealous than of the remote power of France.
The rapid steps, too, which Bonaparte was taking for the restoration
of monarchical forms in that country were especially calculated to
conciliate Paul’s good-will towards the first consul. The latter and his
able ministers promptly availed themselves of this favourable disposition
through the connections they had made in St. Petersburg. Fouché had such
confidential correspondence even with ladies in the Russian capital, that
he afterwards received the earliest and most correct intelligence of the
emperor’s murder. Two persons at the court of St. Petersburg were next
gained over to France, or rather to Bonaparte’s rising empire; these were
the minister Rostoptchin, and the emperor’s favourite, the Turk Kutaisov,
who had risen with unusual rapidity from the situation of the emperor’s
barber to the rank of one of the first Russian nobles. He was also nearly
connected by relationship with Rostoptchin.

Rostoptchin first found means to send away General Dumourier from St.
Petersburg, whither he had come for the purpose of carrying on his
intrigues in favour of the Bourbons. He next sought to bring Louis
Cobenzl also into discredit with the emperor, and he succeeded in this,
shortly before the opening of the campaign in Italy in 1800, when the
cabinet of Vienna was called upon to give a plain and direct answer to
the questions peremptorily put by the emperor of Russia. Paul required
that the cabinet should answer, without if or but, without circumlocution
or reserve, whether or not Austria would, according to the terms of the
treaty, restore the pope and the king to their dominions and sovereignty.
Cobenzl was obliged to reply that if Austria were to give back Piedmont
to the king of Sardinia it must still retain Tortona and Alessandria; and
that it never would restore the three legations and Ancona. The measure
of the emperor’s indignation was now full; he forbade Count Cobenzl the
court, and at a later period not only ordered him to leave the country,
but would not even allow an embassy or chargé-d’affaires to remain.

The emperor proceeded more deliberately with regard to the English. At
first he acted as if he had no desire to break with them; and he even
allowed the Russians, whom they had hired for the expedition against
Holland, to remain in Guernsey under Viomesnil’s command, in order to
assist their employers in an expedition against Brittany. The English
government, however, at length provoked him to extremities. They refused
to redeem the Russians who had been made prisoners in their service,
by giving in exchange for them an equal number of French, of whom
their prisons were full; they refused to listen to any arrangements
respecting the grand mastership of the knights of Malta, or even as to
the protectorate of the order, and gave the clearest intimations that
they meant to keep the island for themselves. Bonaparte seized upon this
favourable moment for flattering the emperor, by acting as if he had
really more respect for Paul than the two powers for whom he had made
such magnanimous sacrifices. Whilst the English refused to redeem the
Russians made prisoners in their service by exchange, Bonaparte set them
free without either exchange or ransom.

The emperor of Germany had broken his word, and neither restored the pope
nor the king of Sardinia, whilst Bonaparte voluntarily offered to restore
the one and give compensation to the other. He assailed the emperor in
a masterly manner on his weak side, causing the six or seven thousand
Russians, whom the English refused to exchange, to be provided with new
clothing and arms, and he wrote a letter to Panin, the Russian minister,
in which he said that he was unwilling to suffer such brave soldiers
as these Russians were to remain longer away from their native land on
account of the English. In the same letter he paid another compliment
to the emperor, and threw an apple of mortal strife between him and
England. Knowing as he did that his garrison in Malta could not hold out
much longer, he offered to place the island in the hands of the emperor
Paul, as a third party. This was precisely what the emperor desired; and
Sprengporten, who was sent to France to bring away the Russians, and to
thank the first consul, was to occupy Malta with them. The Russians were
either to be conveyed thither by Nelson, who up to this time had kept the
island closely blockaded, and was daily expecting its surrender, or at
least he was to be ordered to let them pass; but both he and the English
haughtily rejected the Russian mediation.

Paul now came to a complete breach with England. First of all he recalled
his Russian troops from Guernsey, but on this occasion he was again
baffled. It was of great importance to the English cabinet that Bonaparte
should not immediately hear of the decided breach which had taken
place between them and the emperor, and they therefore prevailed upon
Viomesnil, an émigré, who had the command of the Russians in Guernsey,
to remain some weeks longer, in opposition to the emperor’s will. Paul
was vehemently indignant at this conduct; Viomesnil, however, entered
the English service, and was provided for by the English government in
Portugal.

Lord Whitworth was next obliged to leave Russia, as Count Cobenzl
had previously been. Paul recalled his ambassadors from the courts
of Vienna and London, and forthwith sent Count Kalitchev to Paris to
enter into friendly negotiations with Bonaparte. In the meantime, the
English had recourse to some new subterfuges, and promised, that in
case Malta capitulated, they would consent to allow the island to be
administered, till the conclusion of a peace, by commissioners appointed
by Russia, England, and Naples. Paul had already named Bailli de la
Ferrette for this purpose; but the English refused to acknowledge his
nominee, and even to receive the Neapolitans in Malta. Before this took
place, however, the emperor had come to issue with England on a totally
different question.

The idea of a union among the neutral powers, in opposition to the right
alleged by England, when at war with any power whatsoever, to subject
the ships of all neutral powers to search, had been relinquished by
the empress Catherine in 1781, to please the English ambassador at her
court; Paul now resumed the idea. Bonaparte intimated his concurrence,
and Paul followed up the matter with great energy and zeal, as in this
way he had an opportunity of exhibiting himself in the character of an
imperial protector of the weak, a defender of justice and right, and as
the head of a general alliance of the European powers. Prussia also now
appeared to do homage to him, for the weak king was made to believe,
that by a close alliance between Russia and France, he might be helped
to an extension of territory and an increase of subjects, without danger
or cost to himself, or without war, which he abhorred beyond everything
else. The first foundation, therefore, for an alliance between Russia and
France, was laid in Berlin, where Beurnonville, the French ambassador,
was commissioned to enter into negotiations with the Russian minister Von
Krüderer. Beurnonville promised, in Bonaparte’s name, that the Russian
mediation in favour of Naples and Sardinia would be accepted, and that,
in the question of compensations for the German princes particular regard
would be had to the cases of Baden and Würtemberg.


THE ARMED NEUTRALITY (1800 A.D.)

As to the armed neutrality by sea against England, Prussia could easily
consent to join this alliance, because she had in fact no navy; but it
was much more difficult for Sweden and Denmark, whose merchant ships were
always accompanied by frigates. In case, therefore, the neutral powers
came to an understanding that no merchant vessels which were accompanied
by a ship of war should be compelled to submit to a search, this might
at any time involve them in hostilities with England. In addition to
Denmark, Sweden, and Prussia, which, under Paul’s protectorate, were to
conclude an alliance for the protection of trading vessels belonging
to neutral powers against the arrogant claims of England, Bonaparte
endeavoured to prevail upon the North Americans to join the alliance.
They were the only parties who, by a specific treaty in 1794, had
acknowledged as a positive right what the others only submitted to as
an unfounded pretension on the part of England. On that occasion the
Americans had broken with the French Republic on the subject of his
treaty, and Barras and Talleyrand had been shameless enough to propose
that the Americans should pay a gratuity, in order to effect a renewal of
their old friendship with France, which proposal, however, the Americans
treated with contempt.

On the 30th of September, 1800, their ambassadors concluded an agreement
at Bonaparte’s country seat of Morfontaine, which referred especially to
the resistance which all the neutral powers under the protectorate of the
emperor of Russia were desirous of making to the pretensions and claims
of England. The Americans first of all declared that neutral flags should
make a neutral cargo, except in cases where the ship was actually laden
with goods contraband of war. It was afterwards precisely defined what
were to be considered goods contraband of war. By the fourth article it
was determined that neutral ships must submit to be detained, but that
the ships of war so detaining a merchantman with a view to search should
remain at least at the distance of a cannon-shot, and only be allowed
to send a boat with three men to examine the ship’s papers and cargo;
and that in all cases in which a merchantman should be under convoy of a
ship of war, no right of search should exist, because the presence of the
convoy should be regarded as a sufficient guarantee against contraband.
Inasmuch as England and Denmark were at open issue concerning this last
point, the Americans would have been inevitably involved in the dispute
had they immediately ratified the treaty of Morfontaine: they were,
however, far too cunning to fall into this difficulty; and they did not
therefore ratify the treaty till the Russian confederation had been
dissolved.

Sweden and Denmark had come to issue with England concerning the right of
search in 1798 and 1799, when four frigates, two Swedish and two Danish,
were captured and brought into English ports. True, they were afterwards
given up, but without any satisfaction, for the English still insisted
upon the right of search. The dispute became most vehement in the case of
the Danish frigate _Freya_, which, together with the merchantmen under
her convoy, were brought into an English port, after a sharp engagement
on the 25th of July, 1800; and the English, aware of the hostile
negotiations which were going on in the north, at once despatched an
expedition against Denmark.

Sixteen English ships of war suddenly appeared before Copenhagen, and
most unexpectedly threatened the harbour and city with a destructive
bombardment, if Denmark did not at once acknowledge England’s right of
search at sea. Had this acknowledgment been made, Bonaparte’s and the
emperor’s plan would have been frustrated in its very origin; but Denmark
had the good fortune to possess, in its minister Bernstorff, the greatest
diplomatist of the whole revolutionary era, who contrived for that time
to save Copenhagen without the surrender of any rights. It was quite
impossible to resist by force, but he refused to enter upon the question
of right or wrong; and in the agreement which he signed with Lord
Whitworth on the 25th of August, 1800, he consented that in the meantime
all occasion for dispute should be avoided, and thus the difficulty
be postponed or removed. Denmark bound herself no longer to send her
merchantmen under convoy--whereupon the _Freya_, and the vessels by which
she was accompanied, were set at liberty. On this occasion the emperor
Paul offered himself as arbitrator; and when Lord Whitworth rejected his
interference or arbitration, he immediately laid an embargo on all the
English ships in Russian ports.

The news of the agreement entered into at Copenhagen, however, no sooner
reached St. Petersburg, than this first embargo was removed, and the
dispute carried on merely in a diplomatic manner. At last the emperor
Paul put an end to this paper war, when Vaubois, who had defended
Malta since July, 1798, against the English, Russians, Neapolitans,
and sometimes also the Portuguese, at length capitulated, on the 5th
of September, 1800. The island was taken military possession of by the
English without any reference whatever to the order, to Naples, to the
promise which they had made to the emperor, or to Bailli de la Ferrette,
whom Paul had named as the representative of the order. As soon as this
news reached St. Petersburg, Paul’s rage and indignation knew no bounds.
On the 7th of November, he not only laid an embargo upon three hundred
English ships then in his ports, but sent the whole of their crews into
the interior of Russia, and allowed them only a few kopecks a day for
their support.

Lord Carysfort, the English ambassador in Berlin, was unable for six
weeks to obtain any answer from the Prussian government with respect to
its connection with the northern confederation, although he insisted
strongly upon it; and yet Stedingk, the Swedish minister, and Rosenkranz,
the Danish minister, had signed the agreement for an armed neutrality
in the form of that of 1780 as early as the 17th of December, 1800, in
St. Petersburg, and the Prussian minister, Von Luft, in the name of his
king, had signified his acceptance of the alliance on the 18th. When
Lord Carysfort at length obtained an answer on the 12th of February to
his demands, so long and repeatedly urged in vain, Haugwitz had drawn it
up equivocally both in form and contents. The emperor of Russia was so
indignant at the ambiguity that he not only expressed his feelings on the
subject warmly, but also took some hostile measures against Prussia.

On the other hand, the emperor invited Gustavus IV to St. Petersburg
where he was received with the greatest splendour. He arrived at St.
Petersburg at Christmas, 1800, and immediately, as if to insult the
English, a grand meeting of the order of Malta was held; the king himself
was loaded with marks of honour of every possible description, and at
the end of December he signed a new agreement, by which the objects
of that of the 16th of the same month were greatly enlarged. In the
former alliance defensive operations alone were contemplated; but now
offensive measures were also agreed upon, with the reservation, indeed,
if they should become necessary. Paul took measures to refit his fleet,
and an army was equipped which was to be placed under the commands of
Soltikov, Pahlen, and Kutusov; the Danish fleet was in good condition;
the Russian minister in Paris appeared to regard the circumstances as
very favourable for gaining Hanover to his master without danger or risk;
and Pitt himself considered the state of affairs so unfavourable, that
he seriously contemplated the propriety of retiring and making way for a
new ministry, in order to render a peace possible. This close confederacy
against England was, however, dissolved at the very moment in which the
first consul appeared to be disposed to favour Naples and Sardinia, in
order to gratify the wishes of the emperor of Russia.


ASSASSINATION OF PAUL (1801 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1801 A.D.]]

The catastrophe in St. Petersburg is easily explained by the continually
changing humours of the emperor, by his mental derangement, which had
been constantly on the increase for several months previous to his
murder, by the acts of violence and injustice which he suffered himself
to commit, and by the dreadful apprehension which prevailed among all
classes of society, from the empress and the grand duke down to the
very lowest citizen. The emperor’s sober and rational intervals became
progressively rarer, so that no man was sure for an instant either of his
place or his life; thousands of persons completely innocent were sent to
Siberia, and yet goodness and mildness alternated with cruel severity.
The emperor one while exhibited the most striking magnanimity, at another
the meanest vindictiveness.

The beautiful and virtuous empress had patiently submitted to her
husband’s preference for the plain Nelidov, who at least treated her
with honour and respect; but she was obliged also to submit to his
attachment to Lopukhin, who continually provoked strife. She endured
these things patiently, lived on good terms with the emperor, slept
immediately under his chambers, and yet neither she nor her sons,
Alexander and Constantine, were able to escape the suspicions of his
morbid mind. It was whispered, by persons in the confidence of the court,
that the emperor had said he would send the empress to Kalamagan, in
the government of Astrakhan, Alexander to Shlüsselburg, and Constantine
to the citadel of St. Petersburg. It is not worth while to inquire what
truth there may have been in these reports; everyone felt that the time
had arrived to have recourse to the only means which can be employed
in despotic kingdoms for effecting a complete change in the measures
of government. This means is the murder of the despot, which in such
circumstances was usually effected in the Roman Empire by the Pretorians,
in Constantinople by the Janizaries, or by a clamorous and infuriated
mob, in St. Petersburg by a number of confederated nobles; and in all
these cases was regarded as a sort of necessary appendage to the existing
constitution.

Rostoptchin, the minister, who had long possessed the emperor’s
confidence, was dismissed and in disgrace; and Count Pahlen, who was at
the head of the emperor’s dreadful police, was suddenly and excessively
favoured. He, too, observed, when he had reached the highest pinnacle,
that he began to be suspected. The count was an Esthonian by birth, a man
of a cold, deep, and faithless disposition, and the instrument of all the
cruelties and severities which had been exercised by the emperor. He was
also commander-in-chief of all the troops in the capital, and since the
10th of March had become a member of the ministry for foreign affairs.
Up to this period he had been successful in discovering and frustrating
all the real or pretended attempts at dethroning the emperor, but he now
formed a conspiracy against him, because he knew that Paul had called to
his aid two formidable assistants, to use them against himself in case
of necessity. The emperor had previously sent away from St. Petersburg
and now recalled Lindner and Araktcheiev, two of his most dreadful
instruments of violence, the latter of whom played a fearful part in
Russia even during the reign of the mild and clement emperor Alexander.
Pahlen had previously taken his measures in such a manner that a number
of those to whom the murder of an emperor was no novelty were at that
time collected in St. Petersburg, and only waited for a hint, either with
or without Pahlen, to fall upon the emperor, who had personally given
them mortal offence.

Valerian, Nicholas, and Plato Zubov had first been publicly affronted
by the emperor like the Orlovs, and afterwards dismissed; they remained
under compulsory absence in Germany till they found a medium for
securing the favour of the only person who had any influence over the
emperor. This medium was the French actress, Chevalier, who ruled the
Turk Kutaisov (formerly a _valet de chambre_, but now adorned with all
possible titles, honours, and orders, with the broad ribbon and stars of
Europe), and through him ruled the emperor. Chevalier obtained permission
for the Zubovs to return to the court, and Plato held Kutaisov bound
by his expressed intention of marrying the Turk’s daughter. Plato had
been previously commander-in-chief of the army, and could, in case of
need, reckon upon it with the greater certainty, as it had been made
discontented by the gross and ridiculous treatment of the generals of the
whole army, and even of such a man as Suvarov.

Participators in a plan for setting aside the emperor were easily found
among the nobles, as soon as it became certain that there was nothing
to fear. It was necessary, however, to obtain the consent of the two
eldest grand dukes; but not a word was said of the murder, but merely
of the removal of their father from the government. Alexander was not
easily prevailed upon to acquiesce in the deposition of his father, as,
however numerous Alexander’s failings in other respects may have been,
both he and his mother were persons of gentle hearts. Pahlen undertook
the business of persuading the prince, for which he was by far the best
fitted, inasmuch as he knew all the secrets of the court, and combined
all power in himself; he therefore succeeded in convincing the imperial
family of the dangers with which they themselves were threatened, and of
the necessity of deposing the emperor. He appears to have prevailed with
Alexander by showing that he could only guard against a greater evil by
consenting to his father’s dethronement. Certain it is at least, that
Alexander signed the proclamation, announcing his own assumption of the
reins of government, two hours before the execution of the deed by the
conspirators.

The emperor with his family lived in the Mikhailov palace; the 23rd of
March, 1801, was chosen for the accomplishment of the deed, for on that
day the Semenovski battalion of guards was on duty at the palace. The
most distinguished men among the conspirators were the Zubov, General
Count Benningsen, a Hanoverian, who had distinguished himself in the
Polish wars under Catherine, Tchitchakov, Tartarinov, Tolstoi, Iashvel,
Iesselovitch, and Uvarov, together with Count Pahlen himself, who did not
accompany the others into the emperor’s bedchamber, but had taken his
measures so skilfully that, if the enterprise failed, he might appear
as his deliverer. Very shortly before the execution of the deed, Pahlen
communicated the design to General Talitzin, colonel of the regiment of
Preobrajenski guards, to General Deporadevitch, colonel of the Semonovski
guards, together with some fifty other officers whom he entertained on
the night on which the murder was committed.

On the evening before his death Paul received, when sitting at supper
with his mistress, a note from Prince Mechereki, warning him of his
danger, and revealing the names of the conspirators. He handed it
unopened to Kutaisov, saying he would read it on the morrow. Kutaisov put
it in his pocket, and left it there when he changed his dress next day to
dine with the emperor. He turned to get it, but Paul growing impatient
sent for him in a hurry, and the trembling courtier came back without
the letter on which so much depended. On the night of the 3rd Paul went
early to bed; soon afterwards the conspirators repaired to his apartment,
the outer door of which was opened to them in compliance with the demand
of Argamakov, an aide-de-camp, who pretended that he was come to make
his report to the emperor. A Cossack who guarded the door of the bedroom
offered resistance and was cut down. The conspirators rushed in and found
the bed empty. “He has escaped us,” cried some of them. “That he has
not,” said Benningsen. “No weakness, or I will put you all to death.”
Putting his hand on the bed-clothes and feeling them warm, he observed
that the emperor could not be far off, and presently he discovered him
crouching behind a screen. The conspirators required him to sign his
abdication. He refused, a conflict ensued; a sash was passed round his
neck, and he was strangled after a desperate resistance.

Alexander was seized with the most passionate grief when he learned at
what a price he had acquired the crown. He had supped with his father
at nine o’clock, and at eleven he took possession of the empire, by
a document which had been drawn up and signed two hours and a half
previously. The most dreadful thing of all, however, was that he was
obliged not only to suffer the two chief conspirators, Zubov and Pahlen,
to remain about his person, but to allow them to share the administration
of the empire between them. It was a piece of good fortune that those
two thoroughly wicked men were of very different views, by which means
he was first enabled to remove Pahlen, and afterwards Zubov also. Their
associates, however, remained, and at a later period we shall find Count
Benningsen at the head of the army which was to deliver Prussia after the
battle of Jena.

Paul was twice married: by his first wife, Nathalie Alexeievna, princess
of Hesse Darmstadt, who died in 1776, he had no family; by his second,
Marie Feodorovna, princess of Würtemberg, who died in 1828, he had ten
children, the eldest of whom, Alexander by name, now succeeded to the
imperial throne.


THE ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER I (1801 A.D.); HIS EARLY REFORMS

The accession of Alexander was hailed with sincere and universal delight,
not only as an escape from the wretched and extravagant reign of Paul,
but as the opening fulfilment of the expectations which had long been
anxiously fixed on his heir. The new monarch was twenty-five years of
age, of majestic figure and noble countenance, though his features were
not perfectly regular. He possessed an acute mind, a generous heart, and
a most winning grace of manner. “Still,” says M. Thiers, “there might
be discerned in him traces of hereditary infirmity. His mind, lively,
changeable, and susceptible, was continually impressed with the most
contrary ideas. But this remarkable prince was not always led away by
such momentary impulses; he united with his extensive and versatile
comprehension a profound secretiveness which baffled the closest
observation. He was well-meaning, and a dissembler at the same time.”
Napoleon said of him at St. Helena, “The emperor of Russia possesses
abilities, grace, and information; he is fascinating, but one cannot
trust him; he is a true Greek of the Lower Empire; he is, or pretends to
be, a metaphysician; his faults are those of his education, or of his
preceptor. What discussions have I not had with him! He maintained that
hereditary right was an abuse, and I had to expend all my eloquence and
logic during a full hour to prove that hereditary right maintains the
repose and happiness of nations. Perhaps he wished to mystify me; for he
is cunning, false, and skilful.”

In the beginning of Alexander’s reign reform succeeded reform, and all
Europe applauded. He quickly put a stop to the system of terror and
to the absurd vexations which Paul had introduced. He disgraced the
instruments who had worked out the will of that poor maniac; he repaired
the crying injustice which had been committed; he once more abolished
the terrible secret inquisition, but, as we already said, it was again
established by his successor. He instituted a permanent council, and
contemplated the complete reorganisation of the administration of the
interior. He relaxed the rigour of the censorship of the press, and
granted permission to introduce foreign works. He reduced the taxes and
the expenditure of the court; and in the first year of his reign he
abstained from exacting the recruits for his army, an exaction odious
to those whom it affects, and therefore often accompanied with fearful
violences.

He applied himself most diligently to affairs, and laboured almost as
much as his grandmother, who had devoted three hours to the concerns
of the state when her ministers came to confer with her. He required
detailed reports from all the higher officers of state; and having
examined them, caused them to be published, a thing never before heard of
in Russia. He abolished punishment by torture; forbade the confiscation
of hereditary property; solemnly declared that he would not endure the
habit of making grants of peasants, a practice till then common with
the autocrats, and forbade the announcement in public journals of sales
of human beings. He applied himself to the reform of the tribunals;
established pecuniary fines for magistrates convicted of evading or
violating their duties; constituted the senate a high court of justice,
and divided it into seven departments in order to provide against the
slowness of law proceedings; and re-established the commission which had
been appointed by Catherine for the compilation of a code. He applied
himself to the protection of commerce; made regulations for the benefit
of navigation, and extended and improved the communication in the
interior of his empire. He did much to promote general education, and
established several new universities with large numbers of subsidiary
schools. He permitted every subject of his empire to choose his own
avocation in life, regardless of restraints formerly imposed with respect
to rank, and removed the prohibition on foreign travel which had been
enacted in the last reign. He permitted his nobles to sell to their
serfs, along with their personal freedom, portions of land which should
thus become the _bona fide_ property of the serf purchaser--a measure by
which he fondly hoped to lay the basis of a class of free cultivators. It
was under his auspices that his mother, Marie Feodorovna, founded many
hospitals and educational institutes, both for nobles and burghers, which
will immortalise her name.

One of the first acts of Alexander’s reign was to give orders that
the British sailors who had been taken from the ships laid under
sequestration, and marched into the interior, should be set at liberty
and carefully conducted at the public expense to the ports from which
they had been severally taken. At the same time all prohibitions against
the export of corn were removed--a measure of no small importance to
the famishing population of the British Isles, and hardly less material
to the gorged proprietors of Russian produce. The young emperor shortly
after wrote a letter with his own hand to the king of England, expressing
in the warmest terms his desire to re-establish the amicable relations
of the two empires; a declaration which was received with no less joy
in London than in St. Petersburg. The British cabinet immediately sent
Lord St. Helens to the Russian capital, and on the 17th of June a treaty
was concluded, which limited and defined the right of search, and which
Napoleon denounced as “an ignominious treaty, equivalent to an admission
of the sovereignty of the seas in the British parliament, and the slavery
of all other states.” In the same year (October 4-8) Alexander also
concluded treaties of peace with France and Spain; for between Russia
and the former power there had previously existed only a cessation of
hostilities, without any written convention.


THE INCORPORATION OF GEORGIA

The incorporation of Georgia with the empire, an event long prepared
by the insidious means habitually employed by Russia, was consummated
in this year. The people of Georgia have always had a high reputation
for valour, but at the end of the seventeenth century they suffered
immensely from the Tatars and the Lesghians. Russia supported Georgia,
not sufficiently indeed to prevent the enemy from destroying Tiflis,
but quite enough to prove to the country that, once under the Russian
rule, it would be safe from the Mussulmans. Alexander’s manifesto of
the 12th of September, 1801, says that he accepts the weight of the
Georgian throne, not for the sake of extending the empire, already so
large, but only from humanity! Even in Russia very few could believe
that the Georgians surrendered themselves to the czar from a spontaneous
acknowledgment of the superiority of the Russian rule, and of its ability
to make the people happy; to disabuse themselves of any such notion,
they had but to look at the queen of Georgia, Maria, who was detained at
St. Petersburg, in the Tauric palace--a name that might well remind her
of the treacherous acquisition of another kingdom. She rode through the
streets in one of the court carriages, and her features expressed great
affliction. The covering which she wore on her head, as usual in Georgia,
prevented the people from seeing the scars of the sabre wounds she had
received before she quitted the country. Her consort, George XIII, had
bequeathed the kingdom to the Russians, but she protested against the
act; and when the Russian colonel Lazarev came to carry her away to St.
Petersburg, she refused to go with him. He was about to use violence,
but the queen took out a poniard from her bosom and stabbed him. The
interpreter drew his sabre and gave her several cuts on the head, so that
she fell down insensible.


RUSSIA JOINS THE THIRD COALITION

[Sidenote: [1803 A.D.]]

Concurrently with his domestic reforms, Alexander occupied himself
in an extensive series of negotiations, having for their object the
general settlement of Europe upon such new bases as the results of the
last war had rendered necessary. In particular, he was engaged as joint
arbiter with Bonaparte in the matter of the indemnifications to be made
to those princes who had lost a part or the whole of their possessions
by the cession of the left bank of the Rhine. Alexander was secretly
dissatisfied with the part he was made to play in these transactions,
for the authority which he shared in appearance with Bonaparte, was
in reality monopolised by the latter. He abstained, however, from
remonstrating, contenting himself for the present with the outward show
of respect paid to his empire, and with a precedent which, added to that
of Teschen, established in future the right of Russia to mix itself up in
the affairs of Germany. The Peace of Amiens between France and England
was broken, and a war was declared on the 18th of May, 1803, between
the two powers, which was ultimately to involve the whole of Europe.
Meanwhile, many cases were arising to increase Alexander’s displeasure
against Bonaparte.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER I

(1777-1825)]

The relations between Russia and France were at this time of such a
nature that the Russian chancellor, Vorontzov, said plainly, in a note
of the 18th of July, that if the war were to be prolonged between France
and England, Russia would be compelled finally to take part in it.
Before this declaration on the part of Russia, Bonaparte had a scene
with Markov, which alone might well have caused a rupture. He addressed
the Russian ambassador, in a public audience, so rudely and violently
that even Bignon, who is disposed to worship Bonaparte as a demi-god, is
obliged to confess that his hero entirely lost his dignity, and forgot
his position.

[Sidenote: [1803-1805 A.D.]]

When Markov withdrew in November, he left his secretary of legation,
D’Oubril, as acting ambassador in his place. Everyone, however, foresaw a
breach at no very distant period; and Russia had already, in the autumn
of 1803, when nothing was to be done with Prussia, entered into a closer
connection with England. Negotiations were also commenced with Austria,
and a union with Sweden and Denmark, for the purpose of liberating
Hanover, was spoken of. This was the state of affairs at the beginning of
1804: the murder of the duke d’Enghien brought matters to a crisis. The
mother of the Russian emperor had been all along hostile to everything
proceeding from Bonaparte; and the mild and gentle spirit of the emperor,
like that of all persons of good feeling in Europe, was deeply wounded
by the fate of the duke. From the beginning of 1804, he had no further
political reasons for keeping up a friendly relation with France; he
therefore gave himself up entirely to his natural feelings on hearing of
the catastrophe at Vincennes.

By the declarations interchanged between the courts of St. Petersburg
and Berlin (May 3rd and 24th, 1805), it was agreed that they should not
allow the French troops in Germany to go beyond the frontier of Hanover;
and that should this happen, each of the two powers should employ 40,000
men to repel such an attempt. A convention was also signed between Russia
and Austria before the end of the year, and they agreed to set on foot
an army of 350,000 men. England, under the administration of William
Pitt, added her strength to these combinations, and united the several
powers in a third coalition for the purpose of wresting from France the
countries subdued by it since 1792, reducing that kingdom within its
ancient limits, and finally introducing into Europe a general system of
public right. The plan was the same as that which ten years afterwards
was executed by the Grand Alliance; it failed in 1805, because the
participation of Prussia, on which the allies had reckoned, was, from the
most ignoble motives withheld.

The negotiations of the several treaties connected with the coalition,
occupied the greater part of the year 1805. By the Treaty of St.
Petersburg (August 11th), between Great Britain and Russia, it was agreed
that Alexander should make another attempt for arranging matters with
Bonaparte, so as to prevent the war. The Russian minister Novosiltzov was
sent to Paris by way of Berlin, where he received the passports procured
for him from the French cabinet by that of Prussia; but at the same time,
orders reached him from St. Petersburg, countermanding his journey.
The annexation of the Ligurian Republic to France, at the moment when
the allies were making conciliatory overtures to Napoleon, appeared to
the emperor too serious an outrage to allow of his prosecuting further
negotiations. War was consequently resolved on.


THE CAMPAIGN OF AUSTERLITZ (1805 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1805 A.D.]]

Napoleon seemed to be wholly intent on his design of invading England.
Part of his troops had already embarked (August 27th), when on a sudden
the camp of Boulogne was broken up, and the army put in march towards
the Rhine, which river it passed within a month after. Austria had set
on foot three armies. The archduke Charles commanded that of Italy; his
brother John was stationed with the second army on the Tyrol; and the
third was commanded nominally by the archduke Frederick, the emperor’s
cousin, but in reality by General Mack. The first Russian army under
Kutusov had arrived in Galicia, and was continuing its march in all
haste. It was followed by another under Michelson. The Russian troops in
Dalmatia were to attempt a landing in Italy.

Mack having crossed the Inn (September 8th), and entered Swabia,
Napoleon’s plan was to cut him off from the army of Kutusov, which
was marching through Austria. In this he succeeded by a violation of
the Prussian territory. Marmont, who had marched by way of Mainz, and
Bernadotte, who had conducted an army into Franconia, where they were
joined by the Bavarians, traversed the country of Anspach, and thus came
on the rear of the Austrian army (October 6th). From that date, scarcely
a day passed without a battle favourable to the French. Several Austrian
divisions were forced to lay down their arms. Mack, who had thrown
himself into Ulm, lost all resolution, and capitulated with 25,000 men
(October 19th). Mack’s army was thus totally dissipated, except 6000
cavalry, with which the archduke Ferdinand had opened himself a passage
through Franconia, and 20,000 men, with whom Kienmayer had retired to
Braunau, where he was met by the vanguard of Kutusov. The two generals
continued their retreat. The Russians repassed the Danube near Grein
(November 9th), and directed their march towards Moravia. A few days
after (November 13th), Vienna fell into the hands of the French. The
Austrians had renounced the design of defending their capital, but
decided that the passage of the river should be disputed.

Vienna is situated at some distance from the Danube, which flows to
the right of the city between wooded islands. The Austrians had placed
explosive materials under the floorings of the wooden bridge which
crosses the several arms of the river, and were ready to blow it up
the moment the French should show themselves. They kept themselves
in readiness on the left bank, with their artillery pointed, and a
corps of 7000 or 8000 men, commanded by Count Auersberg. The French,
nevertheless, got possession of the bridge by stratagem. Murat, Lannes,
Belliard, and their staff, leaving their troops behind them, crossed the
bridge, told the Austrians that an armistice was agreed on, and asked
to see their general. He was sent for. Meanwhile, the French officers
kept the Austrian gunners in conversation, and gave time for a column
of French grenadiers to come up unseen, under cover of the woods, seize
the cannon, and disarm the artillerymen. The Austrian commander who had
come to the spot just at the critical moment, fell completely into the
trap. He himself led the French column over the bridge, and ordered the
Austrian troops to be drawn up on parade to receive them as friends.
The possession of the bridge afforded the French troops the means of
reaching Znaim sooner than Kutusov, and thus preventing his junction with
Buxhövden.

Meanwhile, Alexander had gone to Berlin, to exert his personal influence
over the timorous king, and prevail on him to abandon his wretched
neutral policy, in which there was neither honour, honesty, nor safety.
Alexander was warmly seconded by the beautiful queen of Prussia, and by
the archduke Anthony, who arrived at the same time on a special mission
from Vienna. French influence rapidly declined in Berlin; Duroc left it
on the 2nd of November, without having been able to obtain an audience,
for some days previously, either from the king or the emperor; and on the
following day a secret convention was signed between the two monarchs for
the regulation of the affairs of Europe, and the erection of a barrier
against the ambition of the French emperor.

The Prussian minister Haugwitz, who had signed this convention only to
gain time, and with a secret determination to elude its provisions, was
to be entrusted with the notification of it to Napoleon, with authority,
in case of its acceptance, to offer a renewal of the former friendship
and alliance of the Prussian nation; but in case of refusal, to declare
war, with an intimation that hostilities would begin on the 15th of
December--when they would be too late. Before that day came, Prussia
relapsed into her old temporising habits; her armies made no forward
movement towards the Danube, and Napoleon was permitted to continue
without interruption his advance to Vienna, while 80,000 disciplined
veterans remained inactive in Silesia; a force amply sufficient to have
thrown him back with disgrace and disaster to the Rhine.

A characteristic scene took place at Potsdam during Alexander’s visit.
The king, the queen, and the emperor went one night by torchlight into
the vault where lay the coffin of Frederick the Great. They knelt before
it. Alexander’s face was bathed in tears; he pressed his friend’s hands,
he clasped him in his arms, and together they swore eternal amity: never
would they separate their cause or their fortunes. Tilsit soon showed
what was the value of this oath, which probably was sincere for the
moment when it was taken.

During the retreat of the Austrians and Russians under Kienmayer and
Kutusov from Passau to Krems, the imprudence of Mortier, who had crossed
to the left bank of the Danube at Linz, gave occasion to engagements at
Stein and Dirnstein, in which the French lost more men than they ever
acknowledged. Mortier’s army of 30,000 men consisted of three divisions,
under Generals Gazan, Dupont, and Dumonceau. This army had positive
orders to keep always near to the main body, which was pursuing its march
along the right bank, and never to advance beyond it. Kutusov had long
retreated on the right bank; but on the 9th of November he crossed to
the left at Grein, as before mentioned, and lay in the neighbourhood of
Krems, when Mortier’s troops advanced. The French divisions maintained
the distance of a whole day’s march one from another, because they
thought they were following a fleeing army; but between Dirnstein and
Stein they fell in with the whole Russian army, 20,000 strong, at a place
where the French were obliged to pass through a frightful ravine. On
the 11th of November, Mortier ventured to make an attack with Gazan’s
division alone; but near Dirnstein (twenty hours from Vienna), he got
into a narrow way, enclosed on both sides by a line of lofty walls, and
there suffered a dreadful loss. When the French, about noon, at length
supposed themselves to have gained some advantage, the Russians received
reinforcements, outflanked the French, cut them off, and would have
annihilated the whole division, had not Dupont’s come up at the decisive
moment. The latter division had also suffered severely on the same day.
Whilst Kutusov was sharply engaged with Mortier, whose numbers were being
rapidly diminished, and his cannon taken, the Austrian general Schmidt
attacked Dupont at Stein, where the contest was as murderous as at
Dirnstein, till Schmidt fell, and the French forced their way out.

Kutusov, on his march to Znaim, was overtaken by the van of the French,
under Belliard, near Hollabrunn; and everything depended on detaining
the latter so long as might enable Kutusov to gain time for getting
in advance. For this purpose, Bagration, with about six thousand men,
took up a position in the rear of the main body. Nostitz served under
Bagration, and had some thousand Austrians and a number of Russians
under his immediate command. He occupied the village of Schöngraben,
in the rear of the Russians, and in the very centre of their line of
march. Belliard ought to have attacked him first; but as his corps was
not superior in number to that of Bagration, he had again recourse to
the expedient which he had already tried, with such signal success, at
the bridge of Vienna. He entered into a parley; declared that peace with
Austria was already concluded, or as good as concluded; assured them
that hostilities henceforth affected the Russians alone; and by such
means induced Nostitz to be guilty of a piece of treachery unparalleled
in war. Nostitz, with his Austrians, forsook the Russians, even those
whom he had under his own command; and they being unable to maintain the
village of Schöngraben, it was taken possession of without a shot; and
Bagration and Kutusov seemed lost, for Murat’s whole army was advancing
upon them.

In the meantime the Russians at Hollabrunn extricated themselves from
their difficulty; for they were not so stupidly credulous as the
Austrians, but knew how to deceive the Gascons, by whom they were
pursued, as Belliard had deceived the Austrians. For this purpose,
they availed themselves of the presence in Kutusov’s camp of Count von
Winzingerode, the adjutant-general of the emperor of Russia, who had been
employed in all the last diplomatic military negotiations in Berlin.
Murat having sent his adjutant to call upon Kutusov, whose line of
march had come into the power of the enemy, in consequence of Nostitz’s
treachery in capitulating, the Russian general assumed the appearance
of being desirous to negotiate, and Winzingerode betook himself to the
French camp. Belliard and Murat, without taking the trouble to inquire
what powers the count and Kutusov had to conclude a treaty which should
be generally binding, came to an agreement with Winzingerode, by virtue
of which all the Russians, within a certain number of days, were to
evacuate every part of the Austrian territory. This capitulation was
to be sent to the emperor Napoleon, at Schönbrunn, for confirmation;
and to this condition there was necessarily attached another, for the
sake of which Kutusov had commenced the whole affair. There was to be a
suspension of hostilities till the arrival of Napoleon’s answer; and it
was agreed that in the meantime both parties should remain in their then
positions.

Bagration, with seven or eight thousand Russians, complied with this
condition, and remained in his position at Hollabrunn, because he
could be observed by the French; but Kutusov, with all the rest of the
army, which lay at a greater distance, quietly continued his route to
Znaim; and this, with a full knowledge of the danger of Bagration being
afterwards overwhelmed by a superior force. On being made acquainted with
the capitulation, Napoleon was enraged, for he immediately perceived how
grievously his brother-in-law had suffered himself to be deceived; and he
ordered an immediate attack. This was indeed made; but eighteen hours had
been irreparably lost, and Kutusov gained two marches on Murat; the whole
French army, above thirty thousand strong, therefore fell upon Bagration.

Bagration, who had still with him the Austrian regiment of hussars of the
crown-prince of Homburg, commanded by Baron von Mohr, offered a vigorous
resistance to the whole French army with his seven or eight thousand
men. The Russian bombs set fire to the village in which was stationed
the corps which was to fall upon Bagration’s flank; the consequence was,
that this corps was thrown into confusion, and the Russians opened up a
way for themselves at the point of the bayonet. The Russian general, it
is true, was obliged to leave his cannon in the hands of his enemy, and
lost the half of his force; it must, however, always be regarded as one
of the most glorious deeds of the whole campaign, that, after three days’
continued fighting, he succeeded in joining the main body under Kutusov,
at his headquarters at Wischau, between Brünn and Olmütz, and, to the
astonishment of all, with one-half of his little army. Even the French
admit that the Russians behaved nobly, that they themselves lost a great
number of men, and that, among others, Oudinot was severely wounded.

On the same day on which Bagration arrived in Wischau, a junction had
been formed by Buxhövden’s army, with which the emperor Alexander was
present, with the troops under Kutusov, who thenceforward assumed the
chief command of the whole. Napoleon himself came to Brünn, and collected
his whole army around him, well knowing that nothing but a decisive
engagement could bring him safely out of the situation in which he then
was, and which was the more dangerous the more splendid and victorious it
outwardly appeared to be. It is beyond a doubt that the precipitation and
haughtiness of the Russians, who were eager for a decisive engagement,
combined with the miserable policy of the Prussian cabinet and the
cowardice of the king, as well as the fears and irresolution of the poor
emperor Francis, and the want of spirit among his advisers, contributed
more to the success of Napoleon’s plans respecting Prussia, Germany, and
Italy, than his victories in the field.

A glance at the situation of affairs at the time of the battle of
Austerlitz will show at once how easily he might have been stopped in his
career. There was nothing Napoleon feared more than that the Russians
should march either to Hungary or to Upper Silesia, and avoid a decisive
engagement; he therefore took means to ascertain the characters and
views of the personal attendants and advisers of the emperor Alexander;
and when he had learned that young men of foolhardy dispositions had
the preponderance in his councils, he formed his plans accordingly. He
first advanced from Brünn to Wischau, and afterwards retired again into
the neighbourhood of Brünn, as if afraid to venture upon an attack. The
emperor of Germany, as well as Napoleon, appeared seriously desirous
of a peace; but the former was obliged to propose conditions which the
latter could not possibly accept; and Napoleon wished first completely
to set the emperor Francis free from the Russians, his allies and from
Prussia, before he came to an agreement with him. As Count Stadion, who
came to the headquarters of the French on the 27th of November, with
Giulay, as ambassadors to treat for peace, was a sworn enemy of Napoleon,
and remained so till 1813, and had, moreover, been very instrumental in
founding the whole coalition, and in maturing their plans, his appearance
on this occasion was of itself no good omen for the favourable issue of
the mission.

The proposals made as the basis of a peace were the same as had been
contemplated in the event of a victory on the part of the allies--the
French were to evacuate Germany and Italy. When Napoleon sent Savary
(afterwards duke of Rovigo), the head of his gendarmerie police, under
pretence of complimenting the emperor Alexander, it was indisputably a
great part of this envoy’s object, as appears from the 30th bulletin, to
make himself thoroughly acquainted with the prevailing opinions and the
leading characters during the three days of his sojourn in the emperor’s
camp. Savary was very well received, and sent away with every courtly
attention by Alexander; but it was intimated that it was intended to make
common cause with Prussia, and that it was expected that Novosiltzov,
whom the emperor Alexander wished to send to Napoleon, would meet
Haugwitz in Brünn. The hint was sufficient to induce Savary to decline
the company of Novosiltzov.

When Savary informed the emperor of the illusion of the Russian generals,
and of their belief that fears were entertained of the Russians, and that
on this account embassies were sent to seek for peace--Napoleon very
cunningly took care to strengthen the fools in their folly. Savary was
sent again to the enemy’s camp to propose an interview between Napoleon
and the emperor of Russia. The interview was declined; but Prince
Dolgoruki was sent to propose conditions to Napoleon. The latter did not
allow him to come into his camp, but received him at the outposts.

If it be asked why the Russians, with whom there were only some twenty
thousand Austrians, did not wait for their third army, under Bennigsen,
or reduce Bonaparte to the greatest perplexity, by taking up a strong
position in Hungary or Upper Silesia, or remaining quietly upon the
heights of Pratzen, the reply is, that the whole system of supplies was
bad, and that want had reached so great a pitch, that it would have
been impossible for them to remain. Certain it is that they suffered
themselves to be drawn down from the heights, and away from Austerlitz,
near Brünn, where the talents of their generals were unable to devise any
plan of battle which Napoleon could not immediately oversee; it would
have been otherwise in the mountains. The French allege, that Napoleon
had long before fixed upon the very place in which the Russians offered
him battle at Austerlitz, on the 2nd of December, as his battle-field,
and laid all his plans accordingly. The possession of the heights of
Pratzen was regarded by those skilled in strategy as the key of this
battle-field. The Russians were in full possession of these heights, with
all their force, on the 1st of December; on the 2nd they descended from
them, when Bonaparte drew back one of the wings of his army. He had long
calculated on gaining the victory by the possession of these heights,
and thus rendering the retreat of the Russians impossible. He did not,
therefore, fail, in the very opening of the battle, to seize upon them.

A column of the third Russian army, under Bennigsen, commanded by
Michelson, just arrived at the decisive moment when Napoleon had also
called to his aid Bernadotte’s corps, and when the Bavarians were on
their march from Budweis to Moravia; but none of their leaders could
lay any claim to the reputation of a commander of genius. Napoleon’s
proclamation to his army shows his full confidence in his own
superiority, as well as in that of his generals and soldiers; and this
confidence was fully realised on the bloody field of Austerlitz on the
2nd of December.


THE CAMPAIGN OF EYLAU AND FRIEDLAND (1806-1807 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1806 A.D.]]

After the defeat at Austerlitz the emperor made an attempt, whether
sincere or not is uncertain, for a reconciliation with Napoleon. He sent
D’Oubril to Paris, who, after a negotiation of ten days, concluded a
treaty with the French plenipotentiary, General Clarke (July 20th, 1806).
But Alexander refused to ratify the treaty, upon the very questionable
allegation that his ambassador had exceeded his powers.

Prussia now suffered the just consequences of her policy. Disappointed
in her hopes of acquiring Hanover, the reward for which she crouched to
Napoleon, she imprudently provoked him to war without waiting for the
arrival of the aid due to her by Russia. The campaign was decided in one
day by the two terrific defeats of Jena and Auerstadt (October 14th,
1806). Prussia was hopelessly ruined before the Russian armies, ninety
thousand strong, under Bennigsen and Buxhövden, could arrive to save her.
The Russians entered Prussia in November, and on the 26th of December
the battle of Pultusk was fought with great obstinacy and loss of blood
on both sides. The French spent the whole of a December night without
covering; rain and snow fell incessantly; they waded up to their knees
in marshes, spent twelve hours in making an advance of eight miles, and
were obliged to pay dearly for their passage over the Narev. During the
battle, Marshal Lannes and other generals were several times obliged to
put themselves at the head of single regiments and battalions, and yet
no decisive advantage was gained. The French, indeed, boasted of the
victory; because the Russians, after having maintained their ground on a
part of the field, retreated the next day.

If the victory at Pultusk, of which Bennigsen boasted, and on account
of which he was afterwards rewarded by his emperor, and appointed
commander-in-chief, was very doubtful, on the other hand, Prince Galitzin
completely defeated the French at Golymin, on the very day on which
they were to attack Buxhövden, at Ostrolenka. This victory, too, was
the more glorious, inasmuch as the Russians were less numerous than
their opponents. The French, however, had not been able to bring up
their artillery; and the superiority of the Russians in this particular
decided the event. The weather and the time of the year rendered
active operations impossible for some weeks. Bennigsen retired to
Ostrolenka, and afterwards still farther; whilst the French, under Ney
and Bernadotte, were scattered in the country on the farther side of the
Vistula, in which Ney at length pushed forward as far as Heilsberg.

[Sidenote: [1807 A.D.]]

In January, 1807, Bennigsen and Napoleon came, almost simultaneously,
upon the idea of changing the seat of war from the extreme east to
the west. In the east, the struggle was afterwards carried on by two
particular corps--a Russian, under Essen, and a French, first under
Lannes, and then under Savary. This bloody struggle, however, had no
influence on the issue of the war. Bennigsen no sooner learned that Ney
had scattered his troops widely over the country on the farther side
of the Vistula, than he broke up his quarters, and resolved to attack
him, before Bernadotte, who was near, could come to his relief; but he
was too late. Ney had already retreated when Bennigsen arrived; whether
it was as the French allege, because Napoleon, who had seen the danger
with which he was threatened, sent him orders to retreat, which arrived
on the very day on which he was to be attacked by the Russians, or that
General Markov was at first too eager, and Bennigsen afterwards too
irresolute. Ney luckily marched from Heilsberg, nearer to the Vistula,
and Bennigsen followed him hesitatingly, so that Bernadotte was able to
keep him employed for some days till Napoleon came up. On receiving news
of Bennigsen’s march, the French emperor had sent orders to all his corps
to renew the campaign on the 27th, and he had so taken his measures, that
before the Russians had any suspicion of an attack, the main army of
the French would fall upon their left flank, whilst they were on their
march. For this purpose, Bernadotte was to allure Bennigsen quite to the
Vistula; and then to advance again as soon as Napoleon had outflanked the
left of the Russians.

The despatch containing these orders for Bernadotte fell into the hands
of the Russians, through the inexperience of the officer entrusted with
it, who failed to destroy the document at the right time. Thus warned
of the impending danger, and finding themselves pressed on all sides,
they allowed their stores and heavy baggage, at various places, to fall
into the hands of the enemy, and thereby escaped being surrounded. After
considerable sacrifices, they succeeded, on the 6th of February, in
reaching the Prussian town of Eylau, which is only nine hours’ distance
from Königsberg. Soult attacked their rear, on the low hills behind the
town, on the 7th, and drove them in; on the following day a general
engagement took place. The honour of the victory is probably due to the
Russians, as even Savary admits, who shared in the battle. It is not less
certain, however, that the whole advantage accrued to the French, who,
indeed, admit that the battle was one of the most dreadful recorded in
history. The French accuse Bernadotte of having, by his delay, prevented
the victory from being complete; whilst the Russians are just enough
to admit that Lestocq, with his Prussians, saved their wing from utter
defeat. The number of deaths in the battle, and on the day preceding it,
was immense. Great numbers fell, not by the sword, but by cold, want, and
excessive exertion. Whole battalions and regiments of the French--as,
for example, that of Colonel Sémelé--were literally annihilated. Few
prisoners were made, because the whole battle was fought with the bayonet.

The royal family of Prussia was placed in a very melancholy position by
the issue of the battle, for they were obliged, in the middle of winter,
to flee to Menel, where they found themselves among Russians, of whom
their own emperor alleged, that, notwithstanding his despotic power,
he was not able to restrain their barbarity, or to put a stop to their
rapacity. Here, in the farthest corner of Prussia, they received news
every month of the fall of one fortress after another, or of forced
contributions levied upon their people.

The French army also retired after the battle of Eylau as well as the
Russians. Bennigsen marched towards Königsberg, and although Berthier,
on the morning of the 7th, wrote to the empress that they would be
in Königsberg with their army on the following day, the French,
nevertheless, drew off nearer to the Vistula. Nothing important was
undertaken by either party for some months, but vigorous preparations
were made for a new struggle; whilst new means were tried to prevent
Prussia from taking any energetic measures--that is, from forming a close
union with England and Russia. The king hesitated between the bold advice
of Hardenberg and his friends, and the unconditional submission to the
will of Napoleon, which was recommended by von Zastrov. The Russians were
thoroughly dissatisfied with the English, and complained of being very
badly supported by them; they suffered want of all kinds, were worse
treated in many places in Prussia than the French, and even borrowed
660,000 dollars in coin from the king of Prussia.

Hardenberg, who accompanied his master to Tilsit, succeeded in having
a new treaty entered into at Bartenstein between Russia and Prussia.
Its principle was the same as that of the agreement made on the 12th of
October, of the preceding year, at Grodno, by virtue of which the emperor
bound himself to support the cause of the king with all his forces. In
this treaty, it was not only promised, just as if they were before Paris,
that Prussia should receive back all that had been lost, but it was
formally determined what was to be done with the conquests wrested from
France, and how even the left bank of the Rhine was to be partitioned
among the allies.

About this time Bennigsen was appointed commander-in-chief of the
Russian armies; but he is generally accused of incapacity, and fearful
descriptions are given of the disorders, fraud, and embezzlement which
prevailed, and of the plunder and barbarity which they practised against
unfortunate Prussia. The emperor Alexander, as soon as he arrived at
the army, did everything in his power to restore order; he was able,
however, only to remedy single abuses; even Nicholas, who manifests a
degree of severity from which Alexander shrank back, is not able to
reach the source of the evil. Towards the end of May, Bennigsen thought
his troops already sufficiently reinforced to make an attack upon the
French, and drive them across the Vistula; whilst the combined army of
English, Swedes, and Prussians, were to make an attack from Pomerania.
The French army, lying from Dantzic to the Narev, was brought, before the
beginning of June, when the campaign commenced, to 150,000 men, whose
pay and sustenance were drawn from the requisitions and contributions
imposed on Prussia. In April, 1807, the French senate passed a decree
levying 80,000 conscripts, 60,000 of whom were to be immediately sent to
the army; and the Poles, too, deceived by the hope of the restoration of
their nationality, raised a body of between 25,000 and 30,000 men, among
whom were whole regiments recruited by the Polish nobility, or formed
exclusively of nobles who volunteered their service, although Napoleon
limited all the expectations of the Poles to the country on this side of
the Vistula.

As soon as Bennigsen, in the beginning of June, made a serious movement
in advance towards the Vistula, a series of murderous engagements began,
similar to those which preceded the battle of Eylau; on the 9th, the
main body of both armies came in sight of each other at Heilsberg, and
on the 10th the French made an attempt to drive the Russians from their
position. The united corps of Soult and Lannes, supported by the cavalry
under Murat, made repeated attempts to force the Russians to give way;
they, however, kept their ground.

Bennigsen afterwards heard, at Wehlau, that the French had separated into
two divisions, and he resolved on the 13th, instead of continuing his
route on the farther side of the Alle, to wheel about before Wehlau, and
attack the French. By this step, as all writers admit, he gave himself
into the hands of his great opponent, who never suffered his enemy to
commit a fault with impunity. The position taken up by Bennigsen was
such as to leave him no alternative between victory and destruction, for
he had the Alle in his rear, and a marsh on one flank. Napoleon took
advantage of this mistake, as usual; and the orders which he issued
before the battle prove that he was sure of the victory. About five
o’clock in the evening of the 14th of June, a battery of twenty guns
gave the signal for the fight; it was bravely maintained on both sides,
and both armies suffered great loss. The French accounts exaggerate the
number of the Russians who were led into the battle of Friedland, as
well as the number of prisoners: certain it is, however, that seventeen
thousand Russians were either killed or wounded.

After the battle of Friedland, there was no longer any account to be
taken of the Prussians: and it was a piece of great good fortune that
such a sovereign as Alexander reigned in Russia, otherwise Prussia would
have been wholly lost. Lestocq, with his Prussians, was obliged hastily
to cross the Haff to Memel; and their magazines, considerable stores of
powder and ammunition, together with one hundred thousand muskets, which
the English had sent by sea to Königsberg, fell, with the town, into the
hands of the French. Bennigsen was not very closely pursued on the other
side of the Alle; he passed the Niemen on the 19th, and burned down the
bridge behind him; immediately afterwards, Bonaparte arrived in Tilsit.
Of all the Prussian fortresses, Colberg alone might have been able to
maintain itself for some weeks, and Graudenz was saved merely by the
peace. The treaty with England, which the Prussian minister signed in
London on the 17th of June, and by which £1,000,000 sterling was promised
in subsidies, came too late.

Schladen informs us that all those who were about the king of Prussia had
so completely lost courage, that Von Hardenberg, Von Stein, Von Schladen
himself, and many others who recommended perseverance, found none upon
whom they could reckon. With respect to the Russians, he informs us that
there was a party who assumed a threatening aspect--that the army was
dissatisfied with the war--that the grand duke Constantine behaved often
very rudely towards the Prussians, and allowed himself to be used as an
instrument for working on the fears of his brother Alexander. On the 7th
of June, the emperor manifested a disposition altogether contrary to
the agreements and partition-projects of the convention of Bartenstein.
He was dissatisfied with England, and perceived that the Austrians had
no other object than to fish in troubled water, and he was, therefore,
desirous, as much as possible, to withdraw from the whole affair. He
proposed a truce for himself, with a clause that the Prussians also
should obtain a cessation of hostilities; but the Russians and Prussians
were to negotiate each for themselves respecting the conditions.
Napoleon having entertained the proposal, Russia agreed, that during the
continuance of the truce, the French should retain possession of the
whole of Poland, except the circle of Bielostok. The agreement was signed
on the 21st, and a four weeks’ notice of the renewal of hostilities
was reserved. By the terms of the truce granted to Prussia, the French
remained in possession of the whole kingdom; and the few fortresses which
were not yet reduced were not to be supplied either with new works,
ammunition, or provisions. Blücher, who commanded the Prussian auxiliary
forces in Pomerania, was to leave the king of Sweden to his fate. The
peace was to be negotiated at Tilsit, and for that purpose one half of
the town was to be declared neutral.[k]


_Meeting of Alexander and Napoleon at Tilsit (1807 A.D.)_

Napoleon desired, as far as means and powers would allow, to give all
possible pomp and solemnity to the interview with his mighty adversary.
With this object, in the middle of the Niemen, opposite Tilsit, a raft
was constructed, on which were two pavilions, covered in white cloth. The
one which was destined for the two monarchs was of vaster dimensions and
was adorned with all possible luxury; the other and smaller one was for
their suites. On the frontals of the pavilions were painted in green, on
the Russian side, an enormous A, and on the side turned towards Tilsit
an N of equal size. To the annoyance of the Prussians, the monogram of
Frederick William III was absent from the decorations of the Niemen raft.
The French guards were ranged in lines, fronting the river. “All this
army,” writes an eye-witness, “awaited the appearance of their invincible
leader, their thunder-bearing semi-divinity, in order to greet him at the
moment of his swift passage to the wharf.” Thousands of the inhabitants
of Tilsit and French soldiers covered the high left bank of the Niemen.

The emperors got into the boats simultaneously. When both boats put off,
the grandeur of the spectacle, the expectation of an event of world-wide
importance took the ascendency over all other feelings. Universal
attention was concentrated upon the boat that carried that wonderful man,
that leader of armies, the like of whom had never been seen or heard
of since the times of Alexander the Great and Julius Cæsar. Napoleon
stood on the boat in front of his suite, solitary and silent, his arms
folded on his breast as he is represented in pictures. He wore the
uniform of the Old Guard and the ribbon of the Legion of Honour across
his shoulder, and on his head that little historical hat, the form of
which has become famous throughout the world. Reaching the raft somewhat
sooner than Alexander, Napoleon rapidly got onto it, and hastened to
meet the emperor. The rivals embraced and silently entered the pavilion,
accompanied by the joyful acclamations of the troops and the inhabitants,
who were witnesses of a world-wide event--the reconciliation of Russia
and France. At that moment a large boat put off from the left bank of the
Niemen, having on it about twenty armed soldiers--and remained between
the raft and the Russian shore. Evidently Napoleon did not hesitate
to take open measures of safeguarding against any possible unforeseen
occurrences.

That day the king of Prussia did not assist at the interview: Napoleon
did not wish to see him, and Frederick William remained on the right bank
of the Niemen. “In that fateful hour, whilst the destiny of his monarchy
was being decided, his gaze was constantly fixed and his ear directed
towards the raft, as though he desired to listen to the conversation
between the two emperors. Once he went down to the edge of the river and
only stopped when the water was up to his horse’s middle.” The first
interview between Alexander and Napoleon lasted an hour and fifteen
minutes. “I detest the English no less than you do,” were the first words
of the emperor Alexander, “and I am ready to support you in everything
that you undertake against them.” “If such is the case,” answered
Napoleon, “then everything can be arranged and peace secured.”

Taking advantage of Alexander’s inimical disposition towards Great
Britain, Napoleon entered upon a terrible philippic against the perfidy
of Albion, representing it as a greedy, extortionate nation ever ready to
sacrifice everyone, even its most faithful allies, for its own profit.
In further conversation Napoleon strove to instil into Alexander that
he was victimised by his allies, that he was mistaken in protecting the
Germans, those ungrateful and envious neighbours, and in supporting the
interests of a set of greedy merchants who showed themselves to be the
representatives of England; all this was occasioned, according to him, by
a feeling of generosity carried to excess, and by doubts which arose from
the incapacity or corruption of ministers. After this Napoleon began to
praise the valour and bravery of the Russian troops, with which he had
been much struck at Austerlitz, Eylau, and Friedland; he considered that
the soldiers on both sides had fought like veritable Titans and was of
the opinion that the united armies of Russia and France might dominate
the world, and give to it prosperity and tranquillity. Up till now Russia
had squandered her forces, without having any recompense in view; by
an alliance with France she would acquire glory, and in any case reap
substantial advantages. Of course Russia was bound by certain obligations
to Prussia, and in that respect it was indispensable that the honour of
the emperor Alexander should be carefully guarded. In conclusion Napoleon
expressed his intention of restoring to Prussia sufficient territory
honourably to rid the emperor of his ally; after that, he affirmed, the
Russian cabinet would be in a position to pursue a fresh line of policy
similar in everything to that of the great Catherine. Only such a policy,
in Napoleon’s opinion, could be possible and advantageous for Russia.

Having flattered Alexander as emperor, Napoleon in order to complete the
charm proceeded to flatter him as a man. “We shall come to an agreement
sooner,” said he, “if we enter upon negotiations without intermediaries,
setting aside ministers, who frequently deceive or do not understand us;
we two together shall advance matters more in a single hour than our
intermediaries in several days. Nobody must come between you and me; I
will be your secretary and you shall be mine,” added Napoleon. Upon this
basis he proposed to the emperor Alexander for convenience’s sake to
transfer the negotiations to Tilsit, declaring the position of the town
to be a central one. The emperor gladly accepted Napoleon’s invitation,
and it was settled that negotiations should at once be entered upon in
order to come to a definitive agreement[55] on the matter.[g]


RUSSIA DECLARES WAR AGAINST ENGLAND (1807 A.D.)

The English government, alleging that in the secret articles of the
treaty of Tilsit, of which they had possessed themselves, they had proof
of Napoleon’s design to seize the Danish fleet, fitted out an expedition
against Denmark with extraordinary celerity. Copenhagen was bombarded
for three days, and a great part of the city destroyed. The Danes then
capitulated (September 7), and surrendered their fleet to the English,
with all their naval stores in their arsenals and dockyards.

The expedition against Copenhagen was soon followed by a declaration of
war on the part of Russia against England. In the manifesto published
on this occasion (September 16th), Alexander complained bitterly of the
bad faith of England, as manifested especially in the little aid she had
afforded to the allies who had taken up arms in a cause in which she was
more directly interested than any other power, and in the robber-like
act of aggression she had committed against Denmark. He annulled all
former conventions between Russia and England, especially that of 1801;
proclaimed anew the principle of the armed neutrality; and declared that
there should be no communication between the two powers until Denmark had
received just compensation, and peace was concluded between France and
England. In consequence of this declaration, an embargo was laid on all
the English vessels in Russian ports, and Prussia was compelled to follow
this example.


THE CONQUEST OF FINLAND (1807 A.D.)

It was not till the 6th of October that a formal demand was made upon
Sweden to close the ports of the Baltic against English ships and trade.
The king persevered in his alliance with England; and finally, because
the emperor of Russia had conferred upon Napoleon the order of St.
Andrew, he sent back his insignia; whereupon Alexander not only returned
his Swedish order, but quietly adopted measures to take possession of
Finland, whilst the Danes were preparing, in concert with the French,
to invade the western provinces of Sweden. Although in the months of
November and December, Gustavus repeatedly declined the proposals of the
Russians for a union against England, everything went on in Sweden as in
times of the most profound peace; and even when the Russian forces were
collected on the very frontiers of Finland, the unfortunate king adopted
no measures of defence whatever. On the 21st of January he was, for the
last time, called upon to declare war against England; he replied by
concluding a new alliance with her on the 8th of February. On the 21st,
the Russians invaded Finland, without any specific declaration of war,
and on the 14th of March, 1808, Denmark declared war against Sweden.
The whole of Finland as far as Vasa, the island of Åland, and even the
islands of Gotland, Åbo, Sveaborg, and all the fortresses, were taken
possession of by the Russians even before the Swedish army and fleet were
prepared. It was not till the end of April and beginning of May that a
Swedish army under Klingspor and Aldercreutz, supported by a Swedish
fleet, appeared in the field, and fought with various success.

We have lately seen Alexander take military possession of the Danubian
provinces as a “material guarantee,” whilst affecting not to be at war
with Turkey. This was in exact conformity with Russian precedents.
Finland, as we have said, was occupied without a declaration of war; but
manifestoes were issued by General Buxhövden, one of which contained the
following passage: “Good neighbours, it is with the greatest regret that
my most gracious master, the emperor of all the Russias, sees himself
forced to send into your country the troops under my orders. But his
majesty the king of Sweden, whilst withdrawing more and more from the
happy alliance of the two greatest empires in the world, draws closer
his connections with the common enemy, whose oppressive system and
unparalleled conduct towards the most intimate allies of Russia and of
Sweden herself cannot be coolly endured by his imperial majesty. These
motives, as well as the regard which his imperial majesty owes to the
safety of his own states, oblige him to place your country under his
protection, and to take possession of it in order to procure by these
means a sufficient guarantee in case his Swedish majesty should persevere
in the resolution not to accept the equitable conditions of peace that
have been proposed to him, etc.”

When the Russians took possession of Finland, the king gave them a
pretence for incorporating it with their empire, which, however, they
would no doubt have done in any case. He caused Alopeus, the Russian
ambassador, to be arrested. This took place on the 3rd of March, and
on the 25th a declaration was published on the part of the emperor of
Russia, announcing to all the powers that “from that moment he regards
the part of Finland hitherto reputed Swedish, and which his troops had
only been able to occupy after divers battles, as a province conquered by
his arms, and that he unites it forever to his empire.”

It was easy to anticipate that the superior force of the Russians must in
the end prevail; although the Russian garrison in Gotland, and that in
the island of Åland, were at first taken prisoners, the island occupied,
and the Russians beaten by land at Vasa on the 26th of July, and by sea
at Roggerwick on the 26th of August. The Swedes lost all the advantages
they had thus gained by the bloody battle fought at Ormais on the 14th
of September, and by the defeat at Lokalar on the 18th. The Russian
generals, probably in order to give courage to the malcontents, who were
very numerous in Sweden, issued orders not to receive any letters or
any flags of truce which were sent in the king’s name, and carried on
negotiations with the Swedish generals alone, for a suspension of arms,
which was concluded for an indefinite time, on the 20th of September,
but only continued till the 27th of October, when the Russians resumed
hostilities, and the Swedes were driven to the north, across the
Kemistrom. On the 20th of November a new truce was agreed upon between
the Swedish general Adlercreutz and the Russian general Kamenskoi, with
the reserve of fourteen days’ notice before renewal of operations. By the
conditions of this agreement the Swedes were to evacuate the whole of
Uleåborg, and to retire completely behind the Kemistrom, with all their
artillery, arms, and stores.

On the 13th of March in the following year a revolution was effected
in Sweden, by which Gustavus was deposed; his uncle, the duke of
Södermanland, became regent, and was afterwards proclaimed king (June 5,
1809) under the title of Charles XIII. At Stockholm the people flattered
themselves that the dethronement of Gustavus would speedily bring
peace to Sweden; but it was not so. Alexander refused to treat with a
government so insecure as a regency, and hostilities continued. General
Knorring who had passed the Gulf of Bothnia on the ice with twenty-five
thousand Russians, took possession of the Åland islands, and granted the
Swedes a cessation of hostilities, to allow them time to make overtures
of peace. Apprised of this arrangement, Barclay de Tolly, who had crossed
the gulf with another body of Russians towards Vasa, and taken possession
of Umeå, evacuated west Bothnia, and returned to Finland. A third Russian
army, under Shuvalov penetrated into west Bothnia by the Torneå route,
and compelled the Swedish army of the north under Gripenberg to lay down
their arms (March 25th). This sanguinary affair occurred entirely through
ignorance; because in that country, lying under the 66th degree of north
latitude, they were not aware of the armistice granted by Knorring. On
the expiry of the truce, hostilities began again in May, and the Russians
took possession of the part of west Bothnia lying north of Umeå.

The peace between Russia and Sweden was signed at Frederikshamm on the
17th of September. The latter power adhered to the continental system,
reserving to herself the importation of salt and such colonial produce as
she could not do without. She surrendered Finland, with the whole of east
Bothnia, and a part of west Bothnia lying eastward of the river Torneå.
The cession of these provinces, which formed the granary of Sweden and
contained a population of 900,000 souls, was an irreparable loss to that
kingdom which had only 2,344,000 inhabitants left. In the following year
Bernadotte, prince of Ponte Corvo, was elected crown prince of Sweden,
and eventual successor to the throne, under the name of Charles John.

The loss of Finland had been but slightly retarded by some advantages
gained over the Russian fleet by the combined squadrons of England and
Sweden. The Russian vessels remained blockaded on the coast of Esthonia,
but in an unassailable position, from which they were at last delivered
by the weather and the exigencies of navigation in those dangerous seas.
Another Russian fleet under Admiral Siniavin, which sailed to Portugal to
co-operate with the French against the English, was obliged to surrender
to Admiral Cotton after the convention of Cintra. It was afterwards
restored to Russia. The war declared by that power against England in
1807, was little more than nominal, and was marked by no events of
importance.


WAR WITH PERSIA AND WITH TURKEY

The annexation of Georgia to Russia, effected as we have seen, in the
beginning of Alexander’s reign, drew him into a war with Persia, which
did not terminate until 1813. The principal events of that war were the
defeat of the Persians at Etchmiadzin by Prince Zitzianov (June 20,
1804); the conquest of the province of Shirvan by the same commander
(January, 1806); the taking of Derbent by the Russians (July 3rd); and
the defeat of the Persians by Paulucci, at Alkolwalaki (September 1st,
1810).

About 1805 the condition of the Ottoman Empire, badly organised and worse
governed, was such that everything presaged its approaching dissolution.
Everywhere the sultan’s authority was disregarded. Paswan Oglu, pasha of
Widdin, was in open revolt. Ali Pasha of Janina was obedient only when it
suited his convenience. Djezzar, the pasha of Syria, without declaring
himself an enemy to the Porte, enjoyed an absolute independence. The
sect of the Wahhabees was in possession of Arabia. After the departure
of the English from Egypt, first the beys, and afterwards Muhammed Ali
reigned over that country, and only paid their yearly tribute to the
sultan when they pleased. In Servia, Czerni George was making himself
independent prince of the Slavonians of the Danube. Ipsilanti and Morusi,
both Greeks, by the permission, or rather by the command of Russia,
were appointed hospodars of Moldavia and Wallachia, for seven years at
least, and were therefore rather subjects of the Russians than of the
Turks. Selim III, who had reigned since 1789, convinced that the Porte
could never re-establish its authority except by better organising the
army, had endeavoured to model it on the European system. This attempt
afterwards cost him his throne.

The English and Russian ambassadors ruled either alternately or together
in Constantinople. But for their interference the old friendship between
France and the Porte would most likely have been restored in July,
1802. At the time of the foundation of the empire in France, the sultan
hesitated long whether he would lean upon the English and Russian, or
upon the French influence, for he felt a great want of confidence in
Napoleon, since he had been informed by the English of the language
which fell from the emperor in conversation with Lord Whitworth. He
was reported to have taken the partition of Turkey for granted--as a
thing unavoidable; and that on such partition the province of Egypt
ought necessarily to fall to the share of France. This conversation was
printed, in 1803, among the documents connected with the renewal of the
war between England and France, and was communicated to the sultan. The
French, indeed, in their official journals, contradicted the allegation;
but who ever put any faith in their official journals?

On this ground we must explain the fact that the Turks favoured the
Russians in the war which they were carrying on with the Persians;
suffered them to sail up the Rion (ancient Phasis), and even to build
a fort at its mouth. They were even desirous of renewing the friendly
alliance formed with Russia in 1798, which renewal, indeed, the emperor
of Russia was afterwards unwilling to confirm, because the English had
taken care to have the inviolability of the Turkish Empire incorporated
in the treaty of 1798. Had, therefore, the emperor of Russia ratified
the alliance, he would have guaranteed to the Turks the actual condition
of their empire in Europe, which he did not wish to do. This excited the
suspicion of the Turks, who inclined more and more towards the French,
and did not suffer themselves to be frightened by the threats of the
English and Russians. Immediately after the Peace of Presburg, the Turks,
who had previously acknowledged Napoleon’s empire, sent a new ambassador
to Paris. In return, Napoleon sent engineers, officers, artillerymen,
workmen, and materials, in order to enable the sultan to improve his
army, artillery, and the bulwarks of his empire; whilst, on the other
hand, the Russian ambassador, Italinski, and the English ambassador,
Arbuthnot, threatened war if the alliance with the French was not
relinquished; and Italinski’s threats fell with a double weight because a
corps of Russians were ready for action on the Bug.

About the time at which Napoleon adopted the resolution of attacking
Prussia also, and therefore foresaw a war with Russia, a Turkish army
was assembled to take the field against the Russians on the Turkish
frontiers, and Napoleon clearly saw how advantageous to him a war between
the Russians and the Turks would be. He therefore sent General Sébastiani
as ambassador extraordinary to Constantinople. Sébastiani arrived there
in August, 1806; and soon gained so great an influence that for some time
the Divan was entirely under his direction. At his instance it refused
to renew the treaty of alliance with England, which was on the point of
expiring; and it dismissed Ipsilanti and Morusi, as creatures of Russia,
from their offices. In consequence of the threatening language held by
Arbuthnot, the English ambassador, they were reinstated; but when this
took place hostilities had already begun. The emperor Alexander had
ordered General Michelson to enter Moldavia and Wallachia. The Porte then
declared war against Russia (December 30th); but deviating for the first
time from a barbarous custom, it allowed Italinski, the Russian minister,
to depart unmolested.

A few days afterwards, Arbuthnot quitted Constantinople, after having
repeatedly demanded the renewal of the alliance and the expulsion of
Sébastiani. On the 19th of February, 1807, an English fleet, commanded
by Vice-Admiral Duckworth, forced the passage of the Dardanelles, and
appeared before Constantinople. Duckworth demanded of the Divan that the
forts of the Dardanelles and the Turkish fleet should be surrendered
to him; that the Porte should cede Moldavia and Wallachia to Russia,
and break off alliance with Napoleon. But instead of profiting by the
sudden panic which his appearance had excited, he allowed the Turks time
to put themselves in a posture of defence. Encouraged and instructed by
Sébastiani, they made their preparations with such energy and success
that in the course of eight days the English vice-admiral found that he
could not do better than weigh anchor and repass the Dardanelles.

Shortly afterwards Admiral Siniavin appeared in the Archipelago, and
incited the Greek islanders to throw off the Turkish yoke; whilst
Duckworth sailed to Egypt upon a fruitless expedition in favour of the
mameluke beys against Muhammed Ali. Siniavin defeated the Turkish fleet
on the 4th of April, captured several ships, and took possession of some
islands. The bad condition of his ships, however, compelled him to give
up the blockade of the Dardanelles, and to retire, in order to refit,
after having another time defeated the Turkish fleet. Meanwhile, Selim
had been deposed. His successor, Mustapha IV, declared that he would
continue to prosecute the war with England and Russia. But Siniavin,
before he retired to refit, met the Turkish fleet off Lemnos, on the 1st
of July: the Turks were beaten, lost several ships, and a great many men.

The campaign of the Russians on the Danube, in 1807, was not productive
of any decisive result, as General Michelson received orders to detach
the third army corps to oppose the French in Poland, Czerni George,
the leader of the revolted Servians, took Belgrade, Shabatz, and Nish,
penetrated into Bulgaria, where he was reinforced by some Russian troops,
and gained divers signal advantages. The war was conducted with more
success on the frontiers of the two empires in Asia. The seraskier of
Erzerum was entirely defeated by General Gudovitch (June 18); and that
victory was the more important, as it prevented the Persians from making
a bold diversion in favour of the Turks.

The emperor Alexander had agreed by the public articles of the Treaty
of Tilsit (July, 1807) to evacuate Moldavia and Wallachia; but this was
only a collusion between the two contracting parties. The Russians not
only aimed at the permanent possession of the two provinces, but regarded
all the Slavonians of the Danube as allies or subjects of the czar. When
the Turks, on the 14th of July, concluded a peace with Czerni George,
whereby Servia became in some measure independent--and Czerni George
afterwards called himself prince of Servia--a Russian general guaranteed
the treaty by his signature, as one of the parties to the agreement. In
the following year Radovinikin, a Russian envoy, repaired to Belgrade
to establish the new principality; called an assembly of the nobles;
drew up a sketch of a constitution for Servia, and tried to organise the
administration.

The French general, Guilleminot, was sent to the Turkish camp to
negotiate a truce on the terms ostensibly laid down in the Treaty of
Tilsit: namely, that the Russians should evacuate Moldavia and Wallachia,
but that the Turks should not occupy the two provinces until after
the conclusion of a definitive peace. But Guilleminot’s instructions
contained a direct command to use the whole weight of the French
influence in favour of the Russians and against the Turks; even one of
Napoleon’s greatest admirers, although owning occasional republican
scruples, admits that their tone was very equivocal. In fact, it very
soon became obvious that the whole mission of the general was a mere
piece of diplomatic imposture and treachery. A congress was held at
Slobozia, in the neighbourhood of Giurgevo, on the 24th of August, 1807,
and a truce was signed, which, it was said, was to continue till the 30th
of April, 1808. The Russians were to withdraw; the fortresses of Ismail,
Braila, and Giurgevo to be given up to the Turks, whose troops, however,
were to evacuate Moldavia and Wallachia in thirty-five days. Everything,
however, which afterwards took place in consultation between the French
and Russians, in reference to Turkey, bore upon a scheme of partition.

The Russians at length, on the 7th of August, had left Cattaro and the
other strong places in Dalmatia to the French; their emperor, on the
9th, had ceded all his rights as protector of the republic of the seven
united islands to Napoleon, and the latter was busy making preparations
thence to extend his operations and his dominion further to the east.
Marmont, who administered the province of Dalmatia, received orders to
fortify Ragusa more strongly, and to make a report on the best plan to
be adopted in case it should be desirable to send an army quickly from
Corfu, through Albania, Macedonia, and Thrace. The Russians continued
to be quiet observers of all this, and in the mean time made firm their
footing in the provinces on the Danube. They made a pretence of the
conduct of the Turks on the occupation of Galatz, and their ill-treatment
of the inhabitants of Moldavia, for not fulfilling the agreement entered
into at Slobozia. The Russian troops, who, according to the terms of the
treaty, were already retiring, received contrary orders; and the Turks,
again driven out of the two provinces, occupied Galatz anew.

The conduct of the negotiation respecting the division of the Turkish
booty, was committed to the chief of Napoleon’s secret police, who had
been actively engaged in the murder of the duke d’Enghien. He now held
a princely rank as the duke of Rovigo, and was sent to St. Petersburg
with this and similar commissions. In the Russian capital the emperor
Alexander and the duke acted as rivals in the art of dissimulation; the
emperor loaded him with civilities of all kinds, as some compensation
for the coolness and contempt with which he was at first treated, to a
surprising extent, by the empress-mother and the Russian nobility. He
was, indeed, soon consoled, for the slaves of the czar were as zealous
in showing respect in the presence of their master, as they were gross
in their insolence when not under his observation. The accounts which
Savary gives us of the political principles of the pious emperor and his
chancellor, and their complete agreement with Napoleon’s morality and
his own, would be quite incredible to us, did he not literally quote
their words. Savary’s secret report to the emperor Napoleon, partly
written in the form of a dialogue, is to be found among the fragments of
Napoleon’s unprinted correspondence. A contempt for public agreements,
and the plunder of Sweden, even before the declaration of war, astonish
us less than Romanzov’s audacious contempt of the opinion of all Europe;
he thought it not worth a moment’s consideration; and this was quite
in accordance with the language held by his master in speaking on the
subject of Turkey. Thibaudeau has given so correct an opinion of both the
emperors--of the nature of their consultations--of Savary and Romanzov
that we cannot do better than refer the reader to the words of that
writer.

Turkey would at that time undoubtedly have been partitioned, had Austria
been willing to follow the numerous gentle hints to join the alliance of
the emperors, who imagined themselves able to make their will the right
and law of all nations; or if Napoleon had not found it inconsistent with
his plans to bring on at an unfavourable moment a new war with Austria,
which he clearly foresaw in 1808. The Russians, in the mean time,
remained, throughout the whole of the year 1808, in quiet possession of
the provinces which had been previously evacuated by them, and ruled
not only in them, but extended their dominion as far as Belgrade, for
the new prince of Servia was likewise under Russian protection. The
army under the command of the grand vizir, which lay at Adrianople
during the winter of 1807-1808, dwindled, during the continuance of
the truce of Slobozia, to a few thousand men, because, according to
ancient custom, the janissaries returned to their homes in winter; it
again increased, however, in the beginning of summer. Bairaktar’s army,
which was organised on the new European principle, was computed at
from twenty to thirty thousand men; it remained on the Danube till its
leader, at length, resolved to put an end to the anarchy prevailing in
Constantinople. He deposed Mustapha IV, who supported the faction of the
janissaries, and placed his brother, Mahmud, on the throne. Bairaktar
perished, however, in an insurrection (November 14th), and Mahmud, too,
would have been murdered, had he not been the last scion of the imperial
family. But he was compelled entirely to change his ministry, and to
resign the government into the hands of those who enjoyed the favour of
the ulemas and the janissaries.

During the disturbances in the internal affairs of the Turkish Empire,
the foreign relations continued the same as they were in the year 1807,
immediately after the truce of Slobozia. When Napoleon’s plan of removing
the negotiations respecting a peace between the Russians and the Turks
to Paris failed of success, he found it advisable, in consequence of
an impending war with Austria, to give the Turks into the hands of the
Russians. One of the chief causes of the war between France and Austria
in 1809 was the close union between the latter power and England in
reference to Turkish affairs, which appeared in the co-operation of
Lord Paget and Baron von Stürmer, the English and Austrian ambassadors
in Constantinople. It was the Austrians who mediated the peace
between England and the Porte of the 5th of January, 1809, after the
conclusion of which the Turks refused to cede Moldavia and Wallachia
to the Russians, at the congress of Jassy, as they had formerly done
at Bucharest. This led to a new war, of which we shall have to speak
hereafter.


CONGRESS OF ERFURT (1808 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1808 A.D.]]

In consequence of the complete stoppage of trade which followed the
declaration of war in 1807, Russia suffered much more severely than
England, and the Russian magnates, supported by the aversion of the
emperor’s mother to Napoleon, were very far from showing that good-will
to the French which their emperor manifested for Napoleon and his
representatives. This was soon experienced by Savary, duke of Rovigo,
who, though overloaded with marks of politeness by the emperor, in
reality proved unable to make any way at the court of St. Petersburg.
Caulaincourt, duke of Vicenza, was afterwards deceived for some years
by appearances, and by Alexander’s masterly art of dissimulation; but
Napoleon soon came to experience in Spain that the personal proofs of
friendship exhibited by the emperor were by no means always in accordance
with the Russian policy. The emperor Alexander himself, for example, on
the urgent request of Caulaincourt, acknowledged Joseph Bonaparte as king
of Spain; whilst Strogonov, the Russian ambassador in Madrid, alleged
that he had no instructions to that effect, and corresponded with the
insurgents. In the same way, Admiral Siniavin, who, on the breaking out
of war with England, had taken refuge in Lisbon with nine ships of the
line and a frigate, not only refused to render any assistance to Marshal
Junot, who was threatened in that city by the English, but even to make a
demonstration as if he were prepared to assist him. The manner in which
he afterwards capitulated, on the 3rd of September, 1808, to Admiral
Cotton, who caused his ships to be taken to England, might indicate a
very different disposition, especially as the ten ships were afterwards
given back.

There was, indeed, no want of interchange of civilities between the two
emperors. Whoever compares the attentions and marks of regard which
have been recorded as shown by the one to the other with the secret
intrigues which they were at the same moment weaving against each other
in Turkey and Spain, and with the open enmity which was shown as early
as 1811, will learn from such a comparison what is the real worth of
diplomatic and princely friendships. The emperor of Russia made presents
to his imperial brother of vessels and ornaments of malachite and other
precious stones, which the latter exhibited in the Salon du Prix in the
Tuileries, in order to be able to boast of the friendship of the emperor
of Russia in presence of the circles of the faubourg St. Germain. Busts
of Alexander were manufactured in the imperial porcelain manufactory
at Sèvres, and were everywhere to be seen in the palace and rooms of
the imperial family. All who had access to the court, or wished to make
themselves agreeable to the emperor, found it necessary to purchase
these ornaments, and place them conspicuously in their houses. The
friendship was so intimate that one of the emperor of Russia’s adjutants
accompanied the emperor of the French when he went to Bayonne to set
aside the whole reigning family of Spain. This adjutant, however, was
the same Tchernitchev who was engaged in constantly travelling backwards
and forwards between St. Petersburg and Paris, who surrounded Napoleon,
in spite of all his police, with a net of Russian espionage, and bribed
all the employés who were venal in order to obtain papers. He intrigued
with ladies to elicit secrets from them; and finally, in 1812, he even
purchased a copy of the plan of operations for the war, when it was too
late to change it.

Napoleon knew that Austria was thinking of taking advantage of the
general discontent and the secret associations in Germany to frustrate
the plans of France and Russia with respect to Poland and Turkey; he
was, therefore, very desirous of assuring himself once more of the
Russian emperor before his journey to Spain. This design was a cause
of great anxiety to the very numerous partisans of the English and
Prussian policy at the Russian court, when the question was raised of
a conference between the two emperors in Erfurt. Von Schladen, the
friend of the minister von Stein, therefore presented a memorial to the
emperor of Russia, shortly before his departure to Erfurt on the 7th of
September, 1808, in which Alexander was forewarned of all that would take
place there. From this it may be seen that the emperor of Russia was
continually receiving secret counsel and warning from the enemies of the
French, and that he played his part in Erfurt more ably than Napoleon,
from whom he separated, as even the French writers report, with all the
outward signs of indescribable friendship and esteem, but inwardly full
of distrust. Von Schladen says very freely to the emperor, that he had
given him the advice laid down in his memorial, “in order that he might
see through the sophisms, falsehoods, and deceptions which were prepared
for him by Napoleon, and awaited him in Erfurt.”

On his way to the congress, the emperor visited the king and queen of
Prussia in Königsberg, and arrived on the 26th of September in Weimar,
where his brother Constantine had been staying since the 24th. On the
27th Napoleon entered Erfurt, and at one o’clock drove out a distance
of several miles from the town to meet the emperor of Russia, who was
coming from Weimar. Our modest object does not permit us to incorporate
in our prose the poetry of the subsequent festivities, nor in glowing
language to extol the skill displayed by the masters of the ceremonies.
That splendour enough was exhibited in Erfurt may be sufficiently
gathered from the fact that the four vassal-kings of the confederation
of the Rhine, thirty-four princes, twenty-four ministers of state, and
thirty generals, were by express command to summon up for the occasion
everything which imagination could suggest in the way of courtly
splendour and extravagance. Talma and the Parisian company of actors had
been sent to Erfurt, to act, as Napoleon said, before a pit of kings.
Two armchairs were placed for the two emperors, whilst the other rulers
sat behind them on common chairs. We know not what truth there was in
the story, which was at that time in every mouth, and related in all
the French works written for effect, that the emperor Alexander, whilst
Talma was being applauded on the stage, played his own part with Napoleon
in the pit in quite as masterly a manner. The latter, amidst applause,
pronounced the following line:

    The friendship of a great man is a favour of the gods.

when the emperor seized Napoleon’s hand, made a profound bow, and
feelingly exclaimed: “That I have never more truly felt than at the
present moment.” The festivities continued from the 27th of September
till the 14th of October, and furnished to the Germans the most
melancholy spectacle of their princes and nobles conducting themselves
publicly, not only as slaves of Napoleon, but even as servants and
flatterers of all his generals and courtiers.

In order to flatter the emperor of Russia, Napoleon acted as if he had
been influenced by Alexander’s application in favour of Prussia; but in
reality, oppressed the king and his subjects afterwards just as before.
He profited by Alexander’s admiration and friendship to make a show of
his pretended willingness to conclude a peace with England. Though he
had written three times directly to the king of England, and had always
been referred to the minister, he nevertheless prevailed upon Alexander
to unite with him in signing another letter addressed to King George. The
result was such as might have been foreseen; the object, however, was
attained: the letters and answers were printed, and officially commented
upon in the journals.

The negotiations were carried on personally in Erfurt between the two
emperors themselves, and much was agreed upon which neither the one nor
the other intended to observe. A written treaty of alliance was besides
concluded by Romanzov and Champagny, which was calculated with a view
to a new war with Austria. The substance of the agreement consists in
a closer alliance of the two powers against England, and the cession
of Moldavia and Wallachia to Russia. Hitherto Napoleon had only been
willing to concede this last point on conditions which referred to
Silesia. In the fifth article of the Treaty of Erfurt, which was kept
strictly secret, the two emperors agreed to conclude a peace with England
on condition only that that country should acknowledge Moldavia and
Wallachia as a part of the Russian Empire. Then follow several articles
on the cession of those Turkish provinces. In the eleventh article it
is stated, that further negotiations were to be carried on respecting a
further partition. It was agreed, too, that the treaty was to be kept
secret for ten years. Buturlin boasts, with reason, that the emperor
Alexander in Erfurt, by his Greco-Slavonian arts of deception, gained a
victory over the Italo-Gallic talents of Napoleon; and, in fact, the very
highest triumph is to outwit the deceiver.

Even as early as this Napoleon is said to have thrown out the idea of a
marriage with Catherine Pavlovna, Alexander’s sister, which inferred,
of course, a previous separation from the empress Josephine. Alexander,
on his part, is said to have raised difficulties on the question of
religion, and to have referred the matter to his mother, who very
speedily had the princess betrothed to Duke Peter of Oldenburg. Moreover,
the reception of the duke of Oldenburg into the confederation of the
Rhine was one of the results of the meeting in Erfurt.

[Sidenote: [1809-1810 A.D.]]

The war which broke out in April, 1809, between France and Austria, put
the sincerity of the Russo-French alliance to a practical test. Russia
complied with the letter of her engagements to the one belligerent power
by declaring war against the other; but Prince Galitzin, who was to have
made a powerful diversion in Galicia, came so late into the field and
his movements were so dilatory that it was evident he had no desire to
contribute to the success of his sovereign’s ally. There was no longer
any show of cordiality in the diplomatic intercourse between France
and Russia; but both parties found it convenient for the present to
dissemble their mutual alienation. By the Treaty of Schönbrunn, signed
by vanquished Austria (October 14th, 1809), that power ceded, partly to
France and partly to the confederation of the Rhine, several towns in
Germany and Italy, with their dependencies; she was despoiled, in favour
of the duchy of Warsaw, of all western Galicia and the city of Cracow;
and surrendered to Russia a territory whose population was estimated at
400,000 souls. The emperor of Austria, moreover, recognised the rights
which Napoleon arrogated over the monarchies of the south of Europe,
adhered to his continental system, and renounced all the countries
comprised under the name of the Illyrian Provinces. But the house of
Habsburg, true to the adage, _Tu, felix Austria, nube_, retrieved its
fortunes at the expense of its pride, by bestowing a daughter in marriage
on the conqueror.


RENEWED WAR WITH TURKEY (1810 A.D.)

Immediately after Alexander’s return from Erfurt orders were given to
open negotiations with the Turks. The conference took place at Jassy;
but it was immediately broken off after the Russian plenipotentiaries
had demanded, as preliminary conditions, the cession of Moldavia and
Wallachia, and the expulsion of the British minister from Constantinople.
Hostilities were then resumed. The Russians were commanded by Prince
Prosorovski, and after his death by Prince Bagration. With the exception
of Giurgevo, all the fortresses attacked by them fell into their hands,
until they encountered the army of the grand vizir, near Silistria, and
being defeated with a loss of ten thousand men (September 26th), were
compelled to evacuate Bulgaria. The grand vizir, without taking advantage
of his victory, retired to winter quarters.

In May, 1810, the Russian main army, under Kamenskoi, again crossed the
Danube at Hirsova, passed through the Dobrudja, and marched straight
against the Turkish main army to Shumla and Varna. At the same time, the
corps of Generals Langeron and Sacken proceeded to blockade Silistria
and Rustchuk. The Turks could nowhere keep the field. At Kavarna they
were routed; at the storming of Bazardjik they lost ten thousand men; at
the storming of Rasgrad three thousand. Silistria was reduced in seven
days by Langeron. So far everything was favourable for the Russians. If
they had added to their advantages the conquest of Rustchuk, the passes
of Tirnova and of Sophia towards Adrianople would have been open, the
fortress of Shumla would have been avoided, and the main army of the
enemy would have been manœuvred out of it. The taking of Rustchuk, and
above all the sparing of the troops, was consequently the next problem
for General Kamenskoi. Instead of doing this, the Russians attempted to
storm almost simultaneously the fortifications of Varna, Shumla, and
Rustchuk, were repulsed from these three places, the defence of which
was conducted by English officers, and suffered so enormously, that
the Turks felt themselves strong enough to come out from behind their
intrenchments, and attack the Russian camp before Shumla. They failed,
however, in their attempt to storm it.

[Sidenote: [1810-1811 A.D.]]

To relieve Rustchuk, the grand vizir sent Mukhtar Pasha with picked
troops, by way of Tirnova, to the Danube. But if the Turks with their
united forces were too weak to force the Russians to abandon the
intrenchments before Shumla, they could certainly not expect with a part
of their army to rout the enemy near Rustchuk, where he stood with his
united forces between their separate wings. Only in case Mukhtar Pasha,
who had increased his forces to forty thousand men, entered Wallachia at
Turna, and marched against Giurgevo, could the offensive have a meaning,
or any influence, upon the siege of Rustchuk, because here it met with
the weak point of the enemy. But to enter upon the offensive with an
army in Wallachia, whilst the Russians stood before the fortresses of
the Danube in Bulgaria, never came into the heads of the Turks. Mukhtar
Pasha intrenched himself at the mouth of the Yantra to cover the passes
of Tirnova and Sophia. On the 7th of September he was attacked in front,
flank, and rear, held out with his best troops till the next morning,
and then surrendered with five thousand men, and all his artillery.
After this Sistovo and Cladova capitulated, and on the 27th of September
Rustchuk and Giurgevo surrendered.

The road to Adrianople was now open for the Russians, but their enormous
losses, caused by their own folly, would have prevented their assuming
the offensive beyond the Balkan for this year, even if the season had
not been so far advanced. Reinforcements for the next year could not be
expected, as Napoleon was preparing to attack Russia, and therefore they
began to negotiate. Another insurrection of the janissaries interrupted
these negotiations, but did not induce the grand vizir to profit by this
opportunity, and fall with his whole force upon the Russians, who, at
this time, were scattered over the country from Widdin to Sophia and
thence as far as Varna. Not until Czerni George, in February, 1811, had
placed the principality of Servia under the protection of Russia, did
the grand vizir awake from his apathy in Thrace, and cross the Balkan,
with only fifteen thousand men. He, however, proceeded so slowly that
Kamenskoi had time enough to assemble sufficient forces.

They met at Lofteh on the Osma; the Turks were defeated, and lost three
thousand men. Achmed Pasha, however, a violent and sturdy soldier,
without any higher military education, led fifty thousand fresh troops to
Shumla, and insisted upon their taking the offensive. The Russians had
received no reinforcements, but Kutusov had taken the command. Without
any considerable losses, he concentrated his small army at Silistria
and Rustchuk, and abandoned Bulgaria as far as the latter place, after
having rased the fortresses. In the battle before Rustchuk, on the 4th of
July, the Turks were driven back, but on the 7th, they forced the twenty
thousand Russians who stood on the right bank of the Danube to give up
Rustchuk also, though not until its works had been rased.

Instead of crossing the river from the Dobrudja, and operating with a
superior force upon the Russian lines of communication, the grand vizir
allowed himself to be induced, by the retreat of Kutusov, to cross the
Danube at Rustchuk, without a fortress in his rear. Arrived on the
left bank with his main army, a Russian flotilla barred his retreat,
while Russian corps recrossed the Danube above and below Rustchuk, and
took possession of the town (no longer fortified) and of the Turkish
camp (September 7th). The grand vizir fled, but his main army, still
consisting of 25,000 men and 56 pieces of artillery, was forced to
surrender in the vicinity of Giurgevo. A few days afterwards Count St.
Priest took Shirtov, with the whole of the Turkish flotilla on the
Danube. Nicopoli and Widdin next surrendered, so that by the end of the
campaign the Russians were masters of the whole right bank of the Danube.
The Servians, also, aided by a body of Russians, had wrested from the
Turks the last fortresses they held in the principality.

The grand vizir asked for a suspension of arms, with a view to
negotiating a peace; but the terms now demanded by the victorious
Russians were such as the Porte would not accede to. The war was
continued in 1811, but always to the disadvantage of the Turks. Resolved
on a last desperate effort, they assembled a formidable army whilst the
conference at Bucharest was still pending. At last, the rupture between
France and Russia changed the aspect of affairs, and compelled the
latter power to abandon the long-coveted prey when it was already in its
grasp. The Russian minister, Italinski, contented himself with requiring
that the Pruth should for the future form the boundary between the two
empires. The sultan regarded even this concession as disgraceful; but the
Russians carried their point by bribery, and the Treaty of Bucharest was
concluded. Its chief provisions were these:

Article 4. The Pruth, from the point where it enters Moldavia to its
confluence with the Danube, and thence the left bank of the latter to its
embouchure on the Black Sea at Kilia, shall be the boundary between the
two empires. Thus the Porte surrendered to Russia a third of Moldavia,
with the fortresses of Khoczim and Bender, and all Bessarabia, with
Ismail and Kilia. By the same article, the navigation of the Danube is
common to the subjects of Russia and Turkey. The islands enclosed between
the several arms of the river below Ismail are to remain waste. The
rest of Moldavia and Wallachia are to be restored to the Turks in their
actual condition. Article 6. The Asiatic frontier remains the same as
it was before the war. Article 8 relates to the Servians, to whom the
Porte grants an amnesty and some privileges, the interpretation of which
offers a wide field for the exercise of diplomatic subtlety. Article 13.
Russia accepts the mediation of the Porte for the conclusion of a peace
with Persia, where hostilities had begun anew, at the instigation of the
English ambassador.


WAR WITH NAPOLEON

Notwithstanding all the demonstrations to the contrary made since the
Peace of Tilsit, England, Russia, Prussia, and also Austria partially,
always continued to maintain a certain mutual understanding, which was,
however, kept very secret, and somewhat resembled a conspiracy. The most
distinguished statesmen both in Russia and Prussia felt how unnatural
was an alliance between Napoleon, Alexander, and Frederick William III,
and directed attention to the subject. This was also done on the part of
England, and it is certain that the emperor Alexander, as early as the
meeting in Erfurt in 1808, expressed his doubts respecting the duration
of his alliance with France. The conduct of Russia in the campaign
against Austria, in 1809, first shook Napoleon’s confidence in his ally.
Mutual complaints and recriminations ensued; but neither party thought it
advisable to give any prominence to their disunion, and Napoleon, even
when he had entered, through Thugut, upon the subject of an Austrian
marriage, still continued to carry on negotiations for an alliance with a
Russian princess.

The enlargement of the territory of the duchy of Warsaw, extorted by
Napoleon at the Peace of Schönbrunn, at length led to an exchange of
diplomatic notes, which tended strongly to a war. The Poles naturally
expected from Napoleon and his advisers that he would in some way give
new life and currency to the name of Poland; against this the emperor of
Russia earnestly protested. The whole of the diplomatic correspondence
between Russia and France in the years 1810 and 1811 turns upon the use
of the words Poles and Polish, although Russia had again obtained by the
Peace of Schönbrunn a portion of Austrian Poland, as it had previously
obtained a part of Prussian Poland by the Peace of Tilsit. Seeing that
the whole of western Galicia, Zamoisk, and Cracow had been united to
the duchy of Warsaw by the Peace of Schönbrunn, Russia called upon the
emperor of the French to bind himself expressly by treaty not to revive
the names of Pole and kingdom of Poland.

Before the end of 1809 many notes were exchanged concerning this point,
apparently so insignificant, but in reality so important for the peace
and safety of the Russian Empire. Napoleon agreed to give the assurance
so earnestly desired by Alexander, and Caulaincourt, the French
ambassador in St. Petersburg, signed a regular concession of the Russian
demand in January, 1810. By the first two articles of this agreement it
was laid down that the word Poland, or Polish, was not to be used when
any reference was made to the enlargement of the duchy of Warsaw. By the
third article the two emperors bound themselves not to revive or renew
any of the old Polish orders. In the fifth, the emperor of the French
agreed not further to enlarge the duchy of Warsaw by the addition of
provinces or cities belonging to the former state of Poland.

This agreement, signed by Caulaincourt, still required the confirmation
of the emperor of the French: and Napoleon had given instructions to his
ambassador only to agree to such an arrangement on condition that the
agreement was drawn up in the usual diplomatic manner: that is to say, in
employing words and phrases so chosen as to be capable of any subsequent
interpretation which may best suit the parties. This was not done. The
articles were very brief, the language so clear and definite as to be
incapable of mistake or misrepresentation. Without directly refusing his
sanction to the treaty, Napoleon required that it should be couched in
different language, and caused a new draft of it to be presented in St.
Petersburg. The Russians saw at once through his purpose, and Alexander
expressed his displeasure in terms which plainly indicated to the French
ambassador his belief that Napoleon was really meditating some hostile
measures against him, and was only seeking to gain time by the treaty.

This occurred in February, 1810; in the following months both Romanzov
and Caulaincourt took the greatest possible pains to bring the question
to a favourable issue, and negotiations continued to be carried on
respecting this subject till September. They could not agree; and
after September there was no more talk of the treaty, much less of
its alteration. The relation between the two emperors had undergone a
complete change in the course of the year.

The cupidity of Russia, far from being glutted by the possession of
Finland, great part of Prussian and Austrian Poland, Moldavia, and
Bessarabia, still craved for more. Napoleon was, however, little inclined
to concede Constantinople and the Mediterranean to his Russian ally
(to whose empire he assigned the Danube as a boundary), or to put it
in possession of the duchy of Warsaw. The Austrian marriage, which was
effected in 1809, naturally led Russia to conclude that she would no
longer be permitted to aggrandise herself at the expense of Austria, and
Alexander, seeing that nothing more was to be gained by complaisance to
France, consequently assumed a threatening posture, and condescended to
listen to the complaints of his agricultural and mercantile subjects. No
Russian vessel durst venture out to sea, and a Russian fleet had been
seized by the British in the harbours of Lisbon. At Riga lay immense
stores of grain in want of a foreign market. On the 31st of December,
1810, Alexander published a fresh tariff permitting the importation of
colonial products under a neutral flag (several hundred English ships
arrived under the American flag), and prohibiting the importation of
French manufactured goods. Not many weeks previously, on the 13th of
December, Napoleon had annexed Oldenberg to France. The duke, Peter, was
nearly related to the emperor of Russia, and Napoleon, notwithstanding
his declared readiness to grant a compensation, refused to allow it to
consist of the grand-duchy of Warsaw, and proposed a duchy of Erfurt, as
yet uncreated, which Russia scornfully rejected.

[Sidenote: [1811-1812 A.D.]]

The alliance between Russia, Sweden, and England was now speedily
concluded. Sweden, which had vainly demanded from Napoleon the possession
of Norway and a large supply of money, assumed a tone of indignation,
threw open her harbours to the British merchantmen, and so openly carried
on a contraband trade in Pomerania, that Napoleon, in order to maintain
the continental system, was constrained to garrison Swedish Pomerania
and Rügen and to disarm the Swedish inhabitants. Bernadotte, upon this,
ranged himself entirely on the side of his opponents, without, however,
coming to an open rupture, for which he awaited a declaration on the part
of Russia. The expressions made use of by Napoleon on the birth of the
king of Rome at length filled up the measure of provocation. Intoxicated
with success, he boasted, in an address to the mercantile classes, that
he would, in despite of Russia, maintain the continental system, for he
was lord over the whole of continental Europe; and that if Alexander had
not concluded a treaty with him at Tilsit, he would have compelled him
to do so at St. Petersburg. The pride of the haughty Russian was deeply
wounded, and a rupture was nigh at hand.

Russia had, meanwhile, anticipated Napoleon in making preparations for
war. As early as 1811, a great Russian army stood ready for the invasion
of Poland, and might, as there were at that time but few French troops in
Germany, easily have advanced as far as the Elbe. It remained, however,
in a state of inactivity. Napoleon instantly prepared for war and
fortified Dantzic. His continual proposals of peace, ever unsatisfactory
to the ambition of the czar, remaining at length unanswered, he declared
war.[k]

But, to get within reach of Russia, it was necessary for Napoleon to pass
beyond Austria, to cross Prussia, and to conciliate Sweden and Turkey; an
offensive alliance with these four powers was therefore indispensable.
Austria was subject to the ascendency of Napoleon, and Prussia to his
arms: to them, therefore, he had only to declare his intentions; Austria
voluntarily and eagerly entered into his plans, and Prussia he easily
prevailed on to join him.

Austria, however, did not act blindly. Situated between the two giant
powers of the north and the west, she was not displeased to see them
at war: she looked to their mutually weakening each other, and to the
increase of her own strength by their exhaustion. On the 14th of March,
1812, she promised France thirty thousand men, but she prepared prudent
secret instructions for them. She obtained a vague promise of an increase
of territory as an indemnity for her share of the expenses of the war,
and the possession of Galicia was guaranteed to her. She admitted,
however, the future possibility of a cession of part of that province
to the kingdom of Poland, but in exchange for that she would have
received the Illyrian Provinces. The sixth article of the secret treaty
establishes this fact.

The success of the war, therefore, in no degree depended on the cession
of Galicia, or the difficulties arising from the Austrian jealousy
respecting that possession. Napoleon consequently might, on his entrance
into Vilna, have publicly proclaimed the liberation of the whole of
Poland, instead of betraying the expectations of her people, confounding
and rendering them indifferent by expressions of doubtful import. This
was one of those decisive issues which occur in politics as well as in
war, and which determine the future. No consideration ought to have made
Napoleon swerve from his purpose. But whether it was that he reckoned
too much on the ascendency of his genius, or the strength of his army
and the weakness of Alexander; or that, considering what he left behind
him, he felt it too dangerous to carry on so distant a war slowly and
methodically; or whether, as we shall presently be told by himself, he
had doubts of the success of his undertaking, certain it is that he
either neglected or could not yet venture to proclaim the liberation of
that country whose freedom he had come to restore. Yet he had sent an
ambassador to her diet; and when this inconsistency was remarked to him
he replied that that nomination was an act of war, which only bound him
during the war, while by his words he would be bound both in war and
peace. Thus it was that he made no other answer to the enthusiasm of the
Lithuanians than evasive expressions, at the very time he was following
up his attack on Alexander to the very capital of his empire.

He even neglected to clear the southern Polish provinces of the feeble
hostile armies which kept the patriotism of their inhabitants in check,
and to secure, by strongly organising their insurrection, a solid basis
of operation. Accustomed to short methods and to rapid attacks, he wished
to do as he had done before, in spite of the difference of places and
circumstances; for such is the weakness of man that he is always led
by imitation, either of others or of himself, which in the latter case
is habit, for habit is nothing more than the imitation of one’s self.
Accordingly, it is by their strongest side that great men are often
undone![h]


_Napoleon Invades Russia (1812 A.D.)_

[Sidenote: [1812 A.D.]]

On the 24th of June, 1812, Napoleon crossed the Niemen, the Russian
frontier, not far from Kovno. The season was already too far advanced. It
may be that, deceived by the mildness of the winter of 1806 to 1807, he
imagined it possible to protract the campaign without peril to himself
until the winter months. No enemy appeared to oppose his progress.
Barclay de Tolly, the Russian commander-in-chief, pursued the system
followed by the Scythians against Dairus, and perpetually retiring before
the enemy gradually drew him deep into the dreary and deserted steppes.
This plan originated with Scharnhorst, by whom General Lieven was
advised not to hazard an engagement until the winter, and to turn a deaf
ear to every proposal of peace. General Lieven, on reaching Barclay’s
headquarters, took into his confidence Colonel Toll, a German, Barclay’s
right hand, and Lieutenant-Colonel Clausewitz, also a German, afterwards
noted for his strategical works.

General Pfül, another German, at that time high in the emperor’s
confidence, and almost all the Russian generals opposed Scharnhorst’s
plan, and continued to advance with a view of giving battle: but on
Napoleon’s appearance at the head of an army greatly their superior in
number, before the Russians had been able to concentrate their forces,
they were naturally compelled to retire before him; and, on the
prevention, for some weeks, of the junction of a newly levied Russian
army under Prince Bagration with the forces under Barclay, owing to the
rapidity of Napoleon’s advance, Scharnhorst’s plan was adopted as the
only one feasible.

Whilst the French were advancing, a warm and tedious discussion was
carried on so long in the imperial Russian council of war at Vilna,
whether to defend that city, or adopt the plan of Barclay de Tolly, the
minister of war and commander-in-chief, that they were at length obliged
to march precipitately to the Dvina with the sacrifice of considerable
stores, and to take possession of a fortified camp which had been
established at Drissa. As late as the 27th the emperor Alexander and the
whole of his splendid staff and court were assembled at a ball, at the
castle of Zacrest, near Vilna, belonging to General Bennigsen, so that
the French found everything on the 28th just as it had been prepared for
the reception of the emperor of Russia. They plundered the castle, and
carried off the furniture as booty; the Russians were even obliged to
leave behind them considerable quantities of ammunition and provisions.

In this way the line of the Russian defences was broken through; and
even a portion of their army under Platov and Bagration would have been
cut off, had the king of Westphalia obeyed the commands of his brother
with the necessary rapidity. The difficulties of carrying on war in such
an inhospitable country as Lithuania and Russia became apparent even at
Vilna; the carriages and wagons fell behind, the cannon were obliged
to be left, discipline became relaxed, above ten thousand horses had
already fallen, and their carcases poisoned the air. General Balakov
could scarcely be considered serious in the proposals which he then made
for peace in the name of the emperor of Russia, because the Russians
required as a preliminary to all negotiation that the French army should
first retire behind the Niemen. The mission of a general, who had been
minister of police, and had therefore had great experience in obtaining
information, had no doubt a very different object in view from that of
making peace at such a moment.

Napoleon, in the hope of overtaking the Russians, and of compelling them
to give battle, pushed onwards by forced marches; the supplies were
unable to follow, and numbers of the men and horses sank from exhaustion,
owing to over-fatigue, heat, and hunger. On the arrival of Napoleon in
Witepsk, of Schwarzenberg in Volhinia, of the Prussians before Riga, the
army might have halted, reconquered Poland, have been organised, the
men put into winter quarters, the army have again taken the field early
in the spring, and the conquest of Russia have been slowly but surely
completed. But Napoleon had resolved upon terminating the war in one
rapid campaign, upon defeating the Russians, seizing their metropolis,
and dictating terms of peace. He incessantly pursued his retreating
opponent, whose footsteps were marked by the flames of the cities and
villages and by the devastated country to their rear. The first serious
opposition was made at Smolensk, whence the Russians, however, speedily
retreated after setting the city on fire. On the same day, the Bavarians,
who had diverged to one side during their advance, had a furious
encounter at Polotsk with a body of Russian troops under Wittgenstein.
The Bavarians remained stationary in this part of the country for the
purpose of watching the movements of that general, whilst Napoleon,
careless of the peril with which he was threatened by the approach of
winter and by the multitude of enemies gathered to his rear, advanced
with the main body of the grand army from Smolensk across the wasted
country upon Moscow, the ancient metropolis of the Russian empire.

Russia, at that time engaged in a war with Turkey, whose frontiers were
watched by an immense army under Kutusov, used her utmost efforts, in
which she was aided by England, to conciliate the Porte in order to turn
the whole of her forces against Napoleon. By a master-stroke of political
intrigue, the Porte was made to conclude a disadvantageous peace at
Bucharest on the 28th of May, as we have already related. A Russian army
under Tchitchakov was now enabled to drive the Austrians out of Volhinia,
whilst a considerable force under Kutusov joined Barclay. Buturlin, the
Russian historian of the war, states that the national troops opposed
to the invaders numbered 217,000 in the first line, and 35,000 in the
second. Chambray, whose details are very minute, after deducting the men
in hospital, gives the number of those present under arms as 235,000 of
the regular army, without reckoning the garrisons of Riga, etc. This
computation exceeds that of Buturlin, under the same circumstances, by
17,000. M. de Fezensac allows 230,000 for the total of the two armies of
Barclay de Tolly and Bagration, but adds the army of Tormassov on their
extreme left, 68,000, and that defending Courland, on the extreme right,
34,000, to make up the Russian total of 330,000 men.

Had the Russians at this time hazarded an engagement, their defeat was
certain. Moscow could not have been saved. Barclay consequently resolved
not to come to an engagement, but to husband his forces and to attack
the French during the winter. The intended surrender of Moscow without a
blow was, nevertheless, deeply resented as a national disgrace; the army
and the people raised a clamour. Kutuzov, though immeasurably inferior
to Barclay, was nominated commander-in-chief, took up a position on the
little river Moskva near Borodino, about two days’ journey from Moscow.
A bloody engagement took place there on the 7th of September, in which
Napoleon, in order to spare his guards, neglected to follow up his
advantage with his usual energy, and allowed the defeated Russians, whom
he might have totally annihilated, to escape. Napoleon triumphed; but at
what a price!--after a fearful struggle, in which he lost forty thousand
men in killed and wounded, the latter of whom perished, almost to a man,
owing to want and neglect.[k]


_The Abandonment of Moscow_

On his birthday, which was the 30th of August (11th of September of the
Russian calendar), the emperor Alexander received a report from Prince
Kontonzov of the battle that had taken place at Borodino on the 26th of
August, and which as the commander-in-chief wrote, “had terminated by the
enemy not gaining a single step of territory in spite of their superior
forces.” To this Kutuzov added that after having spent the night on the
field of battle, he had, in view of the enormous losses sustained by the
army, retreated to Mozhaisk. The losses on either side amounted to forty
thousand men. As Ermolov very justly expressed it, “the French army was
dashed to pieces against the Russian.” Although the emperor Alexander
was not led into any error as to the real signification of the battle
of Borodino, yet wishing to maintain the hopes of the nation as to the
successful termination of the struggle with Napoleon and their confidence
in Kutuzov, he accepted the report of the conflict of the 26th of August
as the announcement of a victory. Prince Kutuzov was created general
field-marshal and granted a sum of 100,000 rubles. Barclay de Tolly
was rewarded with the order of St. George of the second class, and the
mortally wounded Prince Bagration with a sum of 50,000 rubles. Fourteen
generals received the order of St. George of the third class, and all
the privates who had taken part in the battle were given five rubles each.

Prince Kutuzov’s despatch of the 27th of August to the emperor Alexander
was read by Prince Gortchakov at the Nevski monastery before a
thanksgiving service which took place in the presence of their majesties,
and was printed in the _Northern Post_. But the following lines were
omitted from the report: “Your imperial majesty will deign to agree that
after a most sanguinary battle, which lasted fifteen hours, our army and
that of the enemy could not fail to be in disorder. Moreover, through the
losses sustained this day the position has naturally become incompatible
with the depleted number of our troops--therefore, all our aims being
directed to the destruction of the French army, I have come to the
decision to fall back six versts, that is, beyond Mozhaisk.”

A moment of anxious expectation approached in St. Petersburg. Meanwhile
Kutuzov, retreating step by step, led the army to Moscow, and on the 1st
of September he assembled a council of war at the village of Filiakh.
There was decided the fate of the first capital of the empire. After
prolonged debates Kutuzov concluded the conference by saying: “I know
that I shall have to pay the damage, but I sacrifice myself for the good
of my country. I give the order to retreat.”

It was already towards nightfall when Rostoptchin received the following
letter from Kutuzov: “The fact that the enemy has divided his columns
upon Zvenigorod and Borovsk, together with the disadvantageous position
now occupied by our troops, oblige me to my sorrow to abandon Moscow. The
army is marching on the route to Riazan.” It was thus that Rostoptchin
received the first definite information of Kutuzov’s intention to leave
Moscow a few hours before the French were in sight of the capital; under
these circumstances the Moscow commander-in-chief did all that was
possible on his side and took all measures for setting the town on fire
at the approach of the army. Rostoptchin departed unhindered in a droshky
by the back gates.

When on the 2nd of September Napoleon reached the Dragomilovski barriers,
he expected to find there a deputation, begging that the city might be
spared; but instead of that he received the news that Moscow had been
abandoned by its inhabitants. “Moscow deserted! What an improbable event!
We must make sure of it. Go and bring the boyars to me,” said he to Count
Darn, whom he sent into the town. Instead of the boyars a few foreigners
were collected who confirmed the news that Moscow had been abandoned by
nearly all its inhabitants. Having passed the night on the outskirts of
the city, on the morning of the 3rd of September Napoleon transferred his
headquarters to the Kremlin. But here a still more unexpected occurrence
awaited him. The fires, which had already commenced the eve, had not
ceased burning; and on the night between the 3rd and the 4th of September
the flames, driven along by a strong wind, had enveloped the greater
part of the town. At midday the flames reached the Kremlin, and Napoleon
was forced to seek a refuge in the Petrovski palace, where he remained
until the 6th of September, when the fire began to abate.[56] Nine tenths
of the city became the prey of the flames, and pillage completed the
calamities that overtook the inhabitants who had remained in it.

It was only on the 7th of September that the emperor Alexander received
through Iaroslav a short despatch from Count Rostoptchin to the effect
that Kutuzov had decided to abandon Moscow. The next day, the 8th of
September, the fatal news of Napoleon’s occupation of the capital of the
empire was confirmed by a despatch from the field-marshal dated the 4th
of September and brought in by Colonel Michaud. Kutuzov wrote from the
village of Jilin (on the march to the Borovsk bridge) as follows:

“After the battle of the 26th of August, which in spite of so much
bloodshed resulted in a victory for our side, I was obliged to abandon
the position near Borodino for reasons of which I had the honour to
inform your imperial majesty. The army was completely exhausted after the
combat. In this condition we drew nearer to Moscow, having daily greatly
to do with the advance guard of the enemy; besides this there was no near
prospect of a position presenting itself from which I could successfully
engage the enemy. The troops which we had hoped to join could not yet
come; the enemy had set two fresh columns, one upon the Borovsk route
and the other on the Zvenigorod route, striving to act upon my rear from
Moscow: therefore I could not venture to risk a battle, the disadvantages
of which might have as consequences not only the destruction of the army
but the most sanguinary losses and the conversion of Moscow itself to
ashes.

“In this most uncertain position, after taking counsel with our first
generals, of whom some were of contrary opinion, I was forced to
decide to allow the enemy to enter Moscow, whence all the treasures,
the arsenal, and nearly all property belonging to the state or private
individuals had been removed, and in which hardly a single inhabitant
remained. I venture most humbly to submit to your most gracious majesty
that the entry of the enemy into Moscow is not the subjection of Russia.
On the contrary, I am now moving with the army on the route to Tula,
which will place me in a position to avail myself of the help abundantly
prepared in our governments. Although I do not deny that the occupation
of the capital is a most painful wound, yet I could not waver in my
decision.

“I am now entering upon operations with all the strength of the line, by
means of which, beginning with the Tula and Kaluga routes, my detachments
will cut off the whole line of the enemy, stretching from Smolensk to
Moscow, and thus avert any assistance which the enemy’s army might
possibly receive from its rear; by turning the attention of the enemy
upon us, I hope to force him to leave Moscow and change the whole line of
his operations. I have enjoined General Vinzengerode to hold himself on
the Tver route, having meanwhile a regiment of Cossacks on the Iaroslav
route in order to protect the inhabitants against attacks from the
enemy’s detachments. Having now assembled my forces at no great distance
from Moscow I can await the enemy with a firm front, and as long as the
army of your imperial majesty is whole and animated by its known bravery
and our zeal, the yet retrievable loss of Moscow cannot be regarded
as the loss of the fatherland. Besides this, your imperial majesty
will graciously deign to agree that these consequences are indivisibly
connected with the loss of Smolensk and with the condition of complete
disorder in which I found the troops.”

This despatch from Prince Kutuzov was printed in the _Northern Post_ of
the 18th of September, with the exception of the concluding words of the
report: “and with the condition of complete disorder in which I found the
troops.” The sorrowful news brought by Colonel Michaud did not, however,
shake the emperor Alexander in his decision to continue the war and not
to enter into negotiations with the enemy. When he had finished listening
to Michaud’s report, he turned to him with the following memorable words:
“Go back to the army, and tell our brave soldiers, tell all my faithful
subjects, wherever you pass by, that even if I have not one soldier left,
I will put myself at the head of my dear nobles, of my good peasants,
and will thus employ the last resources of my empire; it offers more to
me than my enemies think for, but if ever it were written in the decrees
of divine providence that my dynasty should cease to reign upon the
throne of my ancestors, then, after having exhausted every means in my
power, I would let my beard grow and go to eat potatoes with the last of
my peasants, rather than sign the shame of my country and of my beloved
people whose sacrifices I know how to prize. Napoleon or I--I or he; for
he and I can no longer reign together. I have learned to know him; he
will no longer deceive me.”

“The loss of Moscow,” wrote Alexander to the crown prince of Sweden on
the 19th of September, “gives me at least the opportunity of presenting
to the whole of Europe the greatest proof I can offer of my perseverance
in continuing the struggle against her oppressor, for after such a wound
all the rest are but scratches. Now more than ever I and the nation at
the head of which I have the honour to be, are decided to persevere. We
should rather be buried beneath the ruins of the empire than make terms
with the modern Attila.”

The letter that Napoleon addressed to the emperor from Moscow, dated
the 8th of September, in which he disclaimed the responsibility of the
burning of the capital, was left unanswered. In informing the crown
prince of it, the emperor Alexander added: “It contains, however, nothing
but bragging.”


_The Retreat of the Grand Army_

At length the sorrowful days which the emperor Alexander had lived
through passed by, and the hope of better things in the future manifested
itself. On the 15th of October Colonel Michaud arrived in St. Petersburg
from the army, for the second time; but on this occasion he was the
bearer of the joyful intelligence of the victory of Tarontin, which had
taken place on the 6th of October. The envoy also informed the emperor of
the army’s desire that he should take the command of it in person. The
emperor replied as follows:

“All men are ambitious, and I frankly acknowledge that I am no less
ambitious than others; were I to listen to this feeling alone, I should
get into a carriage with you and set off to the army. Taking into
consideration the disadvantageous position into which we have induced
the enemy, the excellent spirit by which the army is animated, the
inexhaustible resources of the empire, the numerous troops in reserve,
which I have lying in readiness, and the orders that I have despatched to
the army of Moldavia--I feel undoubtingly sure that the victory must be
inalienably ours, and that it only remains for us, as you say, to gather
the laurels. I know that if I were with the army all the glory would be
attributed to me, and that I should occupy a place in history; but when I
think how little experience I have in the art of war in comparison with
my adversary, and that in spite of my good will I might make a mistake,
through which the precious blood of my children might be shed, then
setting aside my ambition, I am ready willingly to sacrifice my glory
for the good of the army. Let those gather the laurels who are worthier
of them than I; go back to headquarters, congratulate Prince Michael
Larionovitch with his victory, and tell him to drive the enemy out of
Russia and then I will come to meet him and will lead him triumphantly
into the capital.”

[Illustration: RETREAT OF NAPOLEON FROM THE BURNING CITY OF MOSCOW

(Painted for THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD by Thure de Thulstrup)]

At that time the fate of the _grande armée_ was already definitively
decided. Having lost all hope of the peace he so desired, Napoleon began
to prepare for retreat. The defeat of his vanguard at Tarontin on the
6th of October hastened the departure of the French from Moscow; it began
in the evening of the same day. Napoleon’s intention was first to move
along the old Kaluga road, to join Murat’s vanguard, and then go on to
the new Kaluga road; the emperor thus hoped to go round the Russian army
and open a free access for himself to Kaluga. But the partisan Seslavin,
who had boldly made his way through on to the Borovsk route discovered
Napoleon’s movements. Standing behind a tree in the road, he saw the
carriage in which was the emperor himself, surrounded by his marshals and
his guards. Not satisfied with this exploit, Seslavin besides caught a
non-commissioned officer of the Old Guard, who had got separated from the
others in the thickness of the wood, bound him, and throwing him across
his saddle, galloped off with him.

The intelligence obtained by Seslavin had for consequences the
immediate move of Dokhtorov’s corps to Malo-Iaroslavetz; at the same
time Kutuzov decided to follow from Tarontin with the whole army, and
these arrangements led, on the 12th of October, to the battle near
Malo-Iaroslavetz. The town passed from the hands of one side to the
other eight times, and although after a conflict of eighteen hours it
was finally given up to the French, yet Kutuzov succeeded in opportunely
concentrating the whole army to the south of it, at a distance of two and
one-half versts.

Here, as Ségur justly remarks, was stopped the conquest of the
universe, here vanished the fruits of twenty years of victory and
began the destruction of all that Napoleon had hoped to create. The
author of this success, Seslavin, writes: “The enemy was forestalled at
Malo-Iaroslavetz; the French were exterminated, Russia was saved, Europe
set free, and universal peace established: such are the consequences of
this great discovery.”

The field-marshal had now to decide the question whether a general
battle should be attempted for the annihilation of the French army, or
whether endeavours should be made to attain this object by more cautious
means. The leader stopped at the latter decision. “It will all fall
through without me,” said Kutuzov, in reply to the impatient partisans of
decisive action. He expressed his idea more definitely on this occasion
to the English general Wilson, who was then at the Russian headquarters:
“I prefer to build a ‘golden bridge,’ as you call it, for my adversary,
than to put myself in such a position that I might receive a ‘blow on
the neck’ from him. Besides this, I again repeat to you what I have
already several times told you--I am not at all sure that the complete
annihilation of the emperor Napoleon and his army would be such a great
benefit to the universe. His inheritance would give the continent not to
Russia or any other power, but to that power which now already rules the
seas; and then her predominance would be unbearable.” Wilson replied: “Do
what you ought, come what may.” The Russian army began to depart on the
night between the 13th and 14th of October for Detchina.[g]


_Napoleon on the Road to Smolensk_

When, on the 14th of October, Kutuzov and his army approached Detchina,
Napoleon turned again from Gorodni in the direction of Malo-Iaroslavetz.
Half-way there, a report was brought to him which announced that the
Russian outposts had quitted this latter town. Napoleon stopped, and,
seating himself near a fire which had been lighted in the open: “What
design,” he said, “had Kutuzov in abandoning Malo-Iaroslavetz?” He was
silent for a moment and then added: “He wants to stop our road to the
south.” And, determined as he was not to fight, Napoleon ordered the
army to return along the Smolensk road, preferring to contend with want
of provisions rather than find himself on the other track, under the
necessity of using force in order to pursue the direction he had intended
to take when he quitted Moscow. Thus the whole plan of campaign was
thwarted and the fortune of Napoleon compromised. From Malo-Iaroslavetz
to Waterloo Napoleon’s career presents nothing but a series of defeats,
rarely interrupted by a few victories. It was in profound silence
and with dejection painted on every visage that the French army, as
though under the presentiment of its fatal destiny, retraced the way
to Smolensk. Napoleon marched pensive in the midst of his downcast
regiments, reckoning with Marshal Berthier the enormous distances to be
traversed and the time it must take him to reach Smolensk and Minsk, the
only towns on the Vilna road where food and ammunition had been prepared.

Kutuzov, learning on the 14th of October that Napoleon had left
Malo-Iaroslavetz, immediately advanced his army on the Miadin road in
the direction of some linen factories, and detached Platov with fifteen
Cossack regiments and some flying squadrons, that they might inform him
of Napoleon’s movements. The next day he received from these squadrons
the assurance that the latter was indeed effecting his retreat by the
Smolensk route. Thus the manœuvres of Kutuzov were crowned with complete
success. Thus it happened that just two months after the 17th of August,
the day on which he had assumed command of the armies, the conqueror’s
eagles were flying with all speed towards the place whence they had
taken flight. The movement carried out on the enemy’s left flank as far
as Malo-Iaroslavetz, and thence to the linen factories, disconcerted
all Napoleon’s plans, closed to him the road to Kaluga and Iukhnov, and
forced him to follow a route which two months before had been ruined
from end to end, and which led across deserts that Napoleon seemed to
have prepared for himself. The enemy’s army, which still amounted to one
hundred thousand men, continued to bear a threatening aspect, but the
want of provisions and the attacks it had to repulse must diminish its
forces and hasten its disorganisation. Hunger, like a gnawing worm, was
exhausting the enemy, while Russian steel completed his destruction.
The nearest French magazines were at Smolensk, eight hundred versts
away. To cross this distance with the little food he possessed, to
suffer an immense loss, and, in addition, to be continually exposed to
attacks--such were the exploits now before Napoleon and such was the
position in which Kutuzov had placed him.

The question was: How is Napoleon to be pursued? What direction shall the
army take in order to derive all the advantage possible from the retreat
of the French? To follow the enemy’s steps in columns was impossible
without exposing the army to the pangs of hunger. “I think,” said
Kutuzov, “that I shall do Napoleon most harm by marching parallel with
him and acting on the way according to the movements he may execute.”
This happy idea seemed to be a basis for the manœuvres which Kutuzov
subsequently effected. He gave orders to the army to march on Viazmabi
Kussov, Suleïka, Dubrova, and Bikov; to Miloradovitch to direct his way,
with two corps of infantry and two of cavalry, between the army and the
route to Smolensk, and to approach this route in the neighbourhood of
Gzhatsk, and then, proceeding in the direction of Viazma, along the same
road, to take advantage of every favourable opportunity of attacking
the enemy; to Platov, who had been reinforced by Paskevitch’s division,
to follow the French in the rear; and finally to the guerilla corps
to fall on the enemy’s columns in front and in flank. In ordering
these dispositions Kutuzov addressed the following order of the day
to the army: “Napoleon, who thought only of ardently pursuing a war
which has become national, without foreseeing that it might in one
moment annihilate his whole army, now finding in every inhabitant a
soldier ready to repulse his perfidious seductions, and seeing the firm
resolution of the whole population to present, if need be, their breasts
to the sword directed against their beloved country--Napoleon, in fine,
after having attained the object of his vain and foolhardy thoughts,
namely that of shaking all Russia by rendering himself master of Moscow,
has suddenly made up his mind to beat a retreat. We are at this moment in
pursuit of him, whilst other Russian armies occupy Lithuania anew and are
ready to act in concert with us to complete the ruin of the enemy who has
ventured to menace Russia. In his flight he abandons his caissons, blows
up his projectiles, and covers the ground with the treasures carried off
from our churches. Already Napoleon hears murmurs raised by all ranks
of his army; already hunger is making itself felt, while desertion and
disorder of every kind are manifested amongst the soldiers. Already the
voice of our august monarch rings out, crying to us, ‘Extinguish the fire
of Moscow in the blood of the enemy. Warriors, let us accomplish that
task, and Russia will be content with us--a solid peace will be again
established within the circle of her immense frontiers! Brave soldiers of
Russia, God will aid us in so righteous an achievement!’”

Immediately, as Kutuzov had ordered, a general movement of the army began
in the enemy’s rear. The French left on the road sick, wounded--all
this might delay the march of the retiring troops. The cavalry began
no longer to show themselves in the rearguard. For lack of food and
shoeing the horses became so enfeebled that the cavalry were outdistanced
by the infantry, who continued to hasten their retreat. Speed was the
enemy’s only means of escaping from the deserts in which no nourishment
could be procured, and of reaching the Dnieper, where the French
counted on finding some corn magazines, and forming a junction with
the corps of Victor and St. Cyr and the battalions on the march, the
various columns which were there at the moment, the depots, and a great
number of soldiers who had fallen off from the army and were following
it. Convinced of the necessity of hurrying their steps, all, from the
marshals down to the meanest soldiers, went forward at full speed.

But the temperature grew daily more rigorous. The cold wind of autumn
rendered bivouacs insupportable to the enemy, and drove him thence in
the morning long before daybreak. He struck camp in the darkness, and
lighted his way along the road by means of lanterns. Each corps tried to
pass the other. The passage of the rivers, on rafts or bridges, was made
in the greatest disorder, and the baggage accumulated so as to arrest
the movements of the army. The provisions which the soldiers had laid in
at Moscow, and which they carried on their backs, were quickly consumed,
and they began to eat horseflesh. The prices of food and of warm clothes
and footgear became exorbitant. To stray from the road for the purpose of
procuring food was an impossibility, for the Cossacks who were prowling
right and left killed or made prisoners all who fell into their hands.
The peasants from the villages bordering on the route, dressed in cloaks,
shakos, plumed helmets, and steel cuirasses which they had taken from the
French, often joined the Don Cossacks or Miloradovitch’s advance guard.
Some were armed with scythes, others with thick, iron-shod staves, or
halberds, and a few carried firearms. They came out of the forests in
which they had taken refuge with their families, greeted the Russian
army on its appearance, congratulated it on the flight of the enemy, and
by way of farewells to the latter took a just vengeance upon it. With the
enemy the fear of falling into the hands of the Cossacks and peasants
triumphed over the sense of hunger and deterred them from plundering.
The French began to throw away their arms. The first to set the example
were the regiments of light cavalry, to whom infantry muskets had been
distributed at Moscow. The regiments being mixed together, they shook
off all discipline. The disarmed men were at first few in number, and as
they trailed along in the wake of the army they agglomerated them like
snowballs.

The sick and those overcome by fatigue were abandoned on the road without
the least pity. In fear of losing their flags the leaders of regiments
removed them from their staves and gave them in keeping to the strongest
and most tried soldiers, who hid them in their haversacks or under their
uniforms, or wrapped them round their bodies. When Napoleon had passed
Gzhatsk, he no longer rode on horseback in the midst of his troops, but
drove in a carriage, wrapped himself in a green velvet cloak lined with
sable furs, and put on warm boots and a fur cap.


_The Battle of Viazma; Smolensk is Found Evacuated_

The retreat was performed so rapidly, that Miloradovitch could not begin
the pursuit of the enemy till he had arrived at Viazma. On the 22nd of
October, he attacked the French near this town and beat them. Three guns
and two flags were taken from them and two thousand of them were made
prisoners. When Viazma had been passed, Kutuzov ordered Miloradovitch
to follow in the enemy’s track and to press him as much as possible,
and Platov to get ahead of his right, and attack it in front, as Orlov
Denissov was to do on his left; the guerillas had orders to march quickly
on Smolensk. He exhorted the whole army to harass the French day and
night. Kutuzov with the main body proceeded on the left, on a level
with Miloradovitch, to be able to reach Orscha by the shortest road, in
case Napoleon should effect his retreat on that town; but, if he took
the direction of Mohilev, to stop his way and cover the district whence
the Russian army drew its provisions. Kutuzov was inflexible in the
resolution he had taken to keep Napoleon on the Smolensk road, which was
so completely wasted, and to force him to die of hunger there rather than
allow him to penetrate into the southern governments, where he might
have obtained provisions. Anxious to know if Napoleon would not bear to
the left towards Ielna and Mstislavl, and thence to Mohilev, Kutuzov did
not confine himself to insisting on personally directing his army on the
road, whence he could prevent this movement, but he ordered the Kaluga
militia, reinforced by Cossacks and some regular cavalry regiments, to
advance rapidly from Kaluga and Roslavl on Ielna; that of Tula to march
on Roslavl, that of Smolensk on Ielna, and that of Little Russia to do
its utmost promptly to occupy Mohilev.

Such were, in outline, the directions which Kutuzov gave to the army
after the battle of Viazma, when the enemy found itself under the
stern necessity of struggling with a new calamity which it had not yet
experienced--namely, severe cold. The winds raged and thick snow fell for
five days; it blinded the soldiers and lay so thick as to arrest their
march. The French horses, not being rough-shod, fell under the guns,
under the carts, and under their riders; men were lying on the route,
dead or dying, dragging themselves along like reptiles, in villages
reduced to ashes and round overturned wagons and caissons which the
powder had blown to pieces. Many among them were seized with madness. It
was in this state that, on the 31st of October, Napoleon led his army
back to Smolensk, which he hastened to reach as the promised land, never
doubting that he would be able to halt there. The thought of wintering
in Smolensk supported soldiers exhausted by fatigue and warmed those
overcome by the cold; each one collected his remaining strength to reach
the town where their misfortunes were to end. On catching sight of the
distant summits of Smolensk, the enemy rejoiced and forgot hunger and
thirst. Arrived at the town they rushed into it by thousands, stifling
and killing each other in its narrow gates, ran for the provisions they
believed themselves sure of finding, and seeking for warm habitations;
but it was in vain; for soon like a thunderclap the news was echoed that
there was in Smolensk neither food nor refuge; that it was impossible to
stay there; that they must go on. Twenty degrees of cold came to crown
their misfortunes, but this suddenly ceased--the next day it thawed;
otherwise the sudden extinction of the enemy would have been inevitable.

Smolensk presented a horrible spectacle. From the Moscow gate to the
line of the Dnieper, the ground was strewn with corpses and dead horses.
Fire had turned the Moscow suburb into a desert; in it and on the snow
which covered the ice on the Dnieper were to be seen wagons, caissons of
ammunition, ambulances, cannon, pontoons, muskets, pistols, bayonets,
drums, cuirasses, shakos, bearskins, musical instruments, ramrods,
swords, and sabres. Amongst the corpses on the banks appeared a long file
of wagons, not yet unharnessed but whose horses had fallen down and whose
drivers lay half dead in their seats. In other places horses were lying
with the entrails protruding from their bodies. Their bellies were split
open, for the soldiers had tried to warm their frozen limbs there, or to
appease their hunger. Where the river banks ended, along the road which
skirted the walls of the town, were seen five versts away six or more
ranks of caissons of ammunition and projectiles, calashes from Moscow,
carriages, droshkies, travelling forges. The French, frozen with cold,
ran hither and thither, wrapped in priests’ cassocks, in surplices, in
women’s cloaks, with straw wound about their legs, and hoods, Jews’ caps,
or mats on their heads; nearly all cursed Napoleon, emitted volleys
of blasphemies, and, calling upon Death in their despair, bared their
breasts and fell under his inexorable scythe.


_Kutuzov’s Policy_

Kutuzov, who had reduced Napoleon to this horrible situation, and who,
by means of his flying squadrons, was kept aware of his every step, had
succeeded in hiding all his own movements. Napoleon believed, as we
see by the orders he gave his marshals, that Kutuzov was not marching
parallel with the French army, but behind it; and yet Kutuzov continued
his side movement round Smolensk, daily receiving reports of defeats of
the enemy.

Already, between Moscow and Smolensk, one hundred pieces of cannon
had been taken from the French and 10,000 men made prisoners. In
congratulating the army on its successes, Kutuzov said in an order of
the day: “After the brilliant success which we obtain every day and
everywhere over the enemy, it only remains for us to pursue him speedily,
and perhaps the soil of that Russia which he sought to subjugate
will enclose all his bones within her breast; let us then pursue him
without pause. Winter declares itself, the frost increases, the snow is
blinding. Is it for you, children of the North, to fear all these harsh
inclemencies? Your iron breasts resist them as they resist the rage of
enemies. They are the ramparts, the hope of our country, against which
everything is broken. If momentary privations should make themselves
felt, you will know how to support them. True soldiers are distinguished
by patience and courage. The old will set an example to the young. Let
all remember Suvarov; he taught us to endure hunger and cold where
victory and the honour of the Russian people were concerned. Forward,
march! God is with us! The beaten enemy precedes us; may calm and
tranquillity be restored behind us.”[i]

Kutuzov did not allow himself to be tempted by the disastrous position
of his adversary and remained faithful to the cautious policy he had
adopted, sparing as far as possible the troops entrusted to him. He never
once altered his ruling idea, and remained true to it until the very end
of the campaign. To those who were in favour of more energetic measures
he replied: “Our young folks are angry with me for restraining their
outbursts. They should take into consideration that circumstances will
do far more for us by themselves than our arms.” Kutuzov’s indecision
at Viazma and Krasnoi, Tchitchagov’s mistakes, and Count Wittgenstein’s
caution, however, gave Napoleon’s genius the possibility of triumphing
with fresh brilliancy over the unprecedented misfortunes that pursued
him: on the 14th of November began the passage of the French across the
Beresina at Stondianka, and then the pitiful remains of the _grande
armée_, amounting to nine thousand men, hurriedly moved, or it would be
more correct to say fled to Vilna, closely pursued by the Russian forces.
The frost, which had reached thirty degrees, completed the destruction of
the enemy; the whole route was strewn with the bodies of those who had
perished from cold and hunger. Seeing the destruction of his troops and
the necessity of creating a fresh army in order to continue the struggle,
Napoleon wrote from Molodechno on the 21st of November his twenty-ninth
bulletin, by which he informed Europe of the lamentable issue of the war,
begun six months previously, and after transferring the command of the
army to the king of Naples, Murat, he left Smorgoni for Paris on the 23rd
of November.

As the remains of Napoleon’s army approached the frontiers of Russia,
the complicated question presented itself to the emperor Alexander as
to whether the Russian forces should stop at the Vistula and complete
the triumph of Russia by a glorious peace or continue the struggle with
Napoleon in order to re-establish the political independence of Germany
and the exaltation of Austria. The emperor inclined to the latter
decision--that is, to the prolongation of the war; such an intention was
in complete accordance with the conviction he had previously expressed:
“Napoleon or I--I or he; but together we cannot reign.” At the end
of the year 1812 the final object of the war was already marked out
by the emperor Alexander. This is evident from his conversation with
Mademoiselle Sturdza not long before his departure for Vilna, in which
the sovereign shared with her his feelings of joy at the happy results of
the war. Alexander referred in their colloquy to the extraordinary man
who, blinded by fortune, had occasioned so many calamities to mankind.
Speaking of the enigmatical character of Napoleon, he called to mind
how he had studied him during the negotiations at Tilsit; in reference
to this the emperor said: “The present time reminds me of all that I
heard from that extraordinary man at Tilsit. Then we talked a long while
together, for he liked to show me his superiority and lavishly displayed
before me all the brilliancy of his imagination. ‘War,’ said he to me
once, ‘is not at all such a difficult art as people think, and to speak
frankly it is sometimes hard to explain exactly how one has succeeded in
winning a battle. In reality it would seem that he is vanquished who is
afraid of his adversary and that the whole secret lies in that. There is
no leader who does not dread the issue of a battle; the whole thing is to
hide this fear for the longest time possible. It is only thus that he can
frighten his opponent, and then there is no doubt of ultimate success.’ I
listened,” continued the emperor, “with the deepest attention to all that
he was pleased to communicate to me on the subject, firmly resolving to
profit by it when the occasion presented itself, and in fact I hope that
I have since acquired some experience in order to solve the question as
to what there remains for us to do.” “Surely, Sire, we are forever secure
against such an invasion?” replied Mademoiselle Sturdza. “Would the enemy
dare again to cross our frontiers?” “It is possible,” answered Alexander,
“but if a lasting and solid peace is desired it must be signed in Paris;
of that I am firmly convinced.”

Kutuzov was of an entirely opposite opinion; he considered that Napoleon
was no longer dangerous to Russia, and that he must be spared on account
of the English, who would endeavour to seize upon his inheritance to the
detriment of Russia and other continental powers. All the thoughts of the
field-marshal were directed to the salvation of the fatherland, and not
that of Europe, as those English and German patriots would have desired,
who were already accustomed to look upon Russia as a convenient tool
for the attainment and consolidation of their political aims. Kutuzov’s
opinions, as might have been expected, were strongly censured by those
around Alexander and in general by persons who judged of military
movements from the depths of their studies.

The frame of mind of such persons is best described in the correspondence
of Baron Ampheldt, who devoted the following witty lines to this burning
question: “Our affairs might even go still better if Kutuzov had not
taken upon himself the form of a tortoise, and Tchitchagov that of
a weather-cock, which does not follow any plan: the latter sins by
a superfluity of intellect and a want of experience, the former by
excessive caution. I suppose, however, that after his passage across the
Niemen Bonaparte has not a very large company left; cold, hunger, and
Cossack spears must have occasioned him some difficulties. Meanwhile,
as long as the man lives, we shall never be in a condition to count on
any rest; and therefore war to the death is necessary. Our good emperor
shares these views, in spite of the opinion of those contemptible
creatures who would have wished to stop at the Vistula. But this is not
the desire of the people, who, however, alone bear the burden of the war
and in whom are to be found more healthy good sense and feeling than in
powdered heads ornamented with orders and embroideries.”

On the 28th of November the Russian forces occupied Vilna, after having
taken 140 guns, more than 14,000 prisoners, and vast quantities of
stores. Prince Kutuzov arrived on the 30th of November; he came to a
place with which he was already well acquainted, having formerly filled
the position of Lithuanian military governor. The population, forgetting
Napoleon and their vanished dreams of the re-establishment of the kingdom
of Poland, welcomed the triumphant leader with odes and speeches, and
on the stage of the theatre Kutuzov’s image was represented with the
inscription: “The saviour of the country.”

After the evacuation of Vilna the enemy fled, without stopping to Kovno;
but on the 2nd of December Platov’s Cossacks made their appearance in
the town, which was quickly cleared of the French. The piteous remainder
of that once brilliant army crossed the Niemen; only 1,000 men with nine
guns and about 20,000 unarmed men were left of it. “God punished the
foolish,” wrote the emperor Nicholas twenty-seven years later in his
order of the day to the troops, on the occasion of the unveiling of the
Borodino monument; “the bones of the audacious foreigners were scattered
from Moscow to the Niemen--and we entered Paris.”[g]


CAMPAIGNS OF THE GRAND ALLIANCE (1813-1814 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1813 A.D.]]

Rallying with amazing promptitude from the tremendous blow he had
suffered in Russia, Napoleon raised a fresh army of 300,000 men in
the beginning of 1813, in order to crush the insurrection in which
all northern Germany had joined, with the exception of Saxony, after
Prussia had openly adhered to the Russian alliance. By the Treaty of
Kalish, which established that alliance, Alexander engaged not to lay
down his arms until Prussia had recovered the territory it possessed
before the war of 1800. Great efforts were now made by the cabinets
of St. Petersburg and Berlin to detach Austria from France; and so
strongly were the national feelings declared in favour of that policy,
that Metternich had the utmost difficulty in withstanding the torrent,
and evading the hazard of committing his government prematurely.
Temporising with consummate art, he offered the mediation of his
government between the hostile parties, and at the same time prosecuted
his military preparations on such a scale as would enable Austria to act
no subordinate part on the one side or the other in the coming struggle.
Meanwhile, hostilities began; the Russians and Prussians were defeated by
Napoleon at Lützen and at Bautzen, where Alexander commanded the allied
armies in person; and they were fortunate in concluding an armistice with
him at Pleisswitz on the 4th of June, 1813. They availed themselves of
this truce to reinforce their armies, and more than sixty thousand fresh
troops reached the seat of war from the south and the middle of Russia.

On the 27th, Austria signed a treaty at Reichenbach, in Silesia,
with Russia and Prussia, by which she bound herself to declare war
with France, in case Napoleon had not, before the termination of the
armistice, accepted the terms of peace about to be proposed to him. A
pretended congress for the arrangement of the treaty was again agreed
to by both sides; but Napoleon delayed to grant full powers to his
envoy, and the allies, who had meanwhile heard of Wellington’s victory
at Vittoria and the expulsion of the French from Spain, gladly seized
this pretext to break off the negotiations. Meanwhile, Metternich, whose
voice was virtually to decide Napoleon’s fate, met him at Dresden with
an offer of peace, on condition of the surrender of the French conquests
in Germany. Napoleon, with an infatuation only equalled by his attempts
to negotiate at Moscow, spurned the proposal, and even went the length
of charging Count Metternich with taking bribes from England. The
conference, which was conducted on Napoleon’s part in so insulting a
manner, and at times in tones of passion so violent as to be overheard
by the attendants, lasted till near midnight on the 10th of August, the
day with which the armistice was to expire. The fatal hour passed by,
and that night Count Metternich drew up the declaration of war, on the
part of his government, against France. Austria coalesced with Russia and
Prussia, and the Austrian general, Prince Schwarzenberg, was appointed
generalissimo of the whole of the allied armies.

The plan of the allies was to advance with the main body under
Schwarzenberg, 190,000 strong, through the Hartz mountains to Napoleon’s
rear. Blücher, with 95,000 men, was meanwhile to cover Silesia, or in
case of an attack by Napoleon’s main body to retire before it and draw
it further eastward. Bernadotte, crown prince of Sweden, was to cover
Berlin with 90,000 men, and in case of a victory was to form a junction,
rearward of Napoleon, with the main body of the allied army. A mixed
division under Wallmoden, 30,000 strong, was destined to watch Davout
in Hamburg, whilst the Bavarian and Italian frontiers were respectively
guarded by 25,000 Austrians under Prince Reuss, and 40,000 Austrians
under Hiller. Napoleon’s main body, consisting of 250,000 men, was
concentrated in and around Dresden.

The campaign opened with the march of a French force under Oudinot
against Berlin. This attack having completely failed, Napoleon marched
in person against Blücher, who cautiously retired before him. Dresden
being thus left uncovered, the allies changed their plan of operations,
and marched straight upon the Saxon capital. But they arrived too late,
Napoleon having already returned thither, after despatching Vandamme’s
corps to Bohemia, to seize the passes and cut off Schwarzenberg’s
retreat. The allies attempted to storm Dresden, on the 26th of August,
but were repulsed after suffering a frightful loss. On the following day
Napoleon assumed the offensive, cut off the left wing of the allies, and
made an immense number of prisoners, chiefly Austrians. The main body
fled in all directions; part of the troops disbanded, and the whole must
have been annihilated but for the misfortune of Vandamme, who was taken
prisoner, with his whole corps, on the 29th. It was at the battle of
Dresden that Moreau, who had come from his exile in America to aid the
allies against his old rival Napoleon, was killed by a cannon ball whilst
he was speaking to the emperor Alexander.

At the same time (August 26th) a splendid victory was gained by
Blücher, on the Katzbach, over Macdonald, who reached Dresden almost
alone, to say to Napoleon, “Your army of the Bober is no longer in
existence.” This disaster to the French arms was followed by the
defeat of Ney at Dennewitz by the Prussians and Swedes on the 6th of
September. Napoleon’s generals were thrown back in every quarter, with
immense loss, on Dresden, towards which the allies now advanced again,
threatening to enclose it on every side. Napoleon manœuvred until the
beginning of October, with the view of executing a _coup de main_ against
Schwarzenberg and Blücher, but their caution foiled him, and at length
he found himself compelled to retreat, lest he should be cut off from
the Rhine, for Blücher had crossed the Elbe, joined Bernadotte, and
approached the head of the main army under Schwarzenberg. Moreover, the
Bavarian army under Wrede declared against the French on the 8th of
October, and was sent to the Main to cut off their retreat. Marching
to Leipsic, the emperor there encountered the allies on the 16th of
October, and fought an indecisive action, which, however, was in his
case equivalent to a defeat. He strove to negotiate a separate peace
with the emperor of Austria, as he had before done with regard to the
emperor of Russia, but no answer was returned to his proposals. After
some partial engagements on the 17th, the main battle was renewed on the
18th; it raged with prodigious violence all day, and ended in the defeat
of Napoleon; Leipsic was stormed on the following day, and the French
emperor narrowly escaped being taken prisoner. He had lost 60,000 men in
the four days’ battle; with the remainder of his troops he made a hasty
and disorderly retreat, and after losing many more in his disastrous
flight, he crossed the Rhine on the 20th of October with 70,000 men. The
garrisons he had left behind gradually surrendered, and by November all
Germany, as far as the Rhine, was freed from the presence of the French.

In the following month the allies simultaneously invaded France in
three directions: Bülow from Holland, Blücher from Coblentz, and
Schwarzenberg, with the allied sovereigns, by Switzerland and the Jura;
whilst Wellington also was advancing from the Pyrenees, at the head of
the army which had liberated the peninsula. In twenty-five days after
their passage of the Rhine the allied armies had succeeded, almost
without firing a shot, in wresting a third of France from the grasp of
Napoleon. Their united forces stretched diagonally across France in a
line three hundred miles long, from the frontiers of Flanders to the
banks of the Rhone. On the other hand, the French emperor, though his
force was little more than a third of that which was at the command
of the allies, had the advantage of an incomparably more concentrated
position, his troops being all stationed within the limits of a narrow
triangle, of which Paris, Laon, and Troyes formed the angles. Besides
this, there was no perfect unanimity among his enemies. Austria,
leaning on the matrimonial alliance, was reluctant to push matters to
extremities, if it could possibly be avoided; Russia and Prussia were
resolute to overthrow Napoleon’s dynasty; whilst the councils of England,
which in this diversity held the balance, were as yet divided as to the
final issue. There was a prospect, therefore, that the want of concert
between the allies would afford profitable opportunities to the military
genius of the French emperor.

[Sidenote: [1814 A.D.]]

On the 29th of January, 1814, Napoleon made an unexpected attack on
Blücher’s corps at Brienne, in which the Prussian marshal narrowly
escaped being made prisoner. But not being pursued with sufficient
vigour, and having procured reinforcements, Blücher had his revenge at
La Rothière, where he attacked Napoleon with superior forces and routed
him. Still Schwarzenberg delayed his advance and divided his troops,
whilst Blücher, pushing rapidly forward on Paris, was again unexpectedly
attacked by the main body of the French army, and all his corps, as
they severally advanced, were defeated with terrible loss, between the
10th and 14th of February. On the 17th, Napoleon routed the advanced
guard of the main army at Nangis, and again on the 18th he inflicted a
heavy defeat on them at Montereau. Augereau, meanwhile, with an army
levied in the south of France, had driven the Austrians under Bubna into
Switzerland, and had posted himself at Geneva, in the rear of the allies,
who became so alarmed as to resolve on a general retreat, and proposed an
armistice. Negotiations for peace had been in progress for several weeks
at Châtillon, and the allies were now more than ever desirous that the
terms they offered should be accepted. But so confident was Napoleon in
the returning good fortune of his arms, that he would not even consent to
a suspension of hostilities while the conferences for an armistice were
going on. As for the conference at Châtillon, he used it only as a means
to gain time, fully resolved not to purchase peace by the reduction of
his empire within the ancient limits of the French monarchy.

Blücher became furious on being informed of the intention to retreat, and
with the approval of the emperor Alexander, he resolved to separate from
the main army, and push on for Paris. Being reinforced on the Marne by
Winzingerode and Bülow, he encountered Napoleon at Craon on the 7th of
March. The battle was one of the most obstinately contested of the whole
revolutionary war; the loss on both sides was enormous, but neither could
claim a victory. Two days afterwards the emperor was defeated at Laon;
but Blücher’s army was reduced to inactivity by fatigue and want of food.

Napoleon now turned upon the grand army, which he encountered at
Arcis-sur-Aube; but after an indecisive action, he deliberately
retreated, not towards Paris but in the direction of the Rhine. His plan
was to occupy the fortresses in the rear of the allies, form a junction
with Augereau, who was then defending Lyons, and, with the aid of a
general rising of the peasantry in Alsace and Lorraine, surround and
cut off the invaders, or, at least, compel them to retreat to the Rhine.
But this plan being made known to the allies by an intercepted letter
from Napoleon to the empress, they frustrated it by at once marching with
flying banners upon Paris, leaving behind only ten thousand men, under
Winzingerode, to amuse Napoleon, and mask their movement. After repulsing
Mortier and Marmont, and capturing the forces under Pacthod and Amey, the
allies defiled within sight of Paris on the 29th. On the 30th they met
with a spirited resistance on the heights of Belleville and Montmartre;
but the city, in order to escape bombardment, capitulated during the
night; and on the 31st, the sovereigns of Russia and Prussia made a
peaceful entry. The emperor of Austria had remained at Lyons.[k]


ALEXANDER I AT THE CAPITULATION OF PARIS (1814 A.D.)

The success at Paris was dearly bought; on the day of the battle the
allies lost 8,400 men, of whom 6,000 were Russians. The magnitude of
the losses is explained by the absence of unity in the operations of
the allies and the consequent want of simultaneousness in the attacks
from all parts of the allied army. However, the success of the day dealt
a direct and decisive blow at the very strongest part of the enemy’s
position. While negotiations were being carried on with the French
marshals for the surrender of Paris, the emperor Alexander made the tour
of the troops, which were disposed near Belleville and Chaumont, and
congratulated them on the victory; he then raised Count Barclay de Tolly
to the rank of field-marshal. After that he returned to Bondy.

Meanwhile negotiations for the capitulation of Paris were being carried
on in a house occupied by Marshal Marmont. There a large company had
assembled anxiously awaiting the decision of the fate of Paris. At the
head of those present was Talleyrand. An agreement between the French and
the representatives of the allied armies was at last arrived at, and at
the third hour after midnight the capitulation of Paris, composed by M.
F. Orlov, was signed; the victors, however, had to give up their original
stipulation that the French troops which had defended Paris should retire
by the Brittany route. In the concluding 8th article of the capitulation,
specially referring to the approaching occupation of Paris by the allies,
it was said that the town of Paris was recommended to the generosity of
the allied powers.

Orlov told Marshal Marmont that the representatives of the town of
Paris could unrestrainedly express their desires in person to the
emperor Alexander. A deputation from the town was therefore assembled
which should proceed without delay to the headquarters of the allies;
it consisted of the prefect of police Pasquier, the prefect of the
Seine Chabrolles, and a few members of the municipal council and
representatives of the garde nationale. At dawn the deputies set off in
carriages for Bondy accompanied by Colonel Orlov, who led them through
the Russian bivouacs.

On their arrival at headquarters the French were taken into a large
room in the castle. Orlov ordered that his arrival should be announced
to Count Nesselrode, who went to meet the deputies whilst Orlov went
straight to the emperor, who received him lying in bed. “What news do you
bring?” asked the emperor. “Your majesty, here is the capitulation of
Paris,” answered Orlov. Alexander took the capitulation, read it, folded
the paper, and putting it under his pillow, said, “I congratulate you;
your name is linked with a great event.”

At the time when the above described events were taking place before
Paris, Napoleon had made the following arrangements. When Winzingerode’s
division reached Saint-Dizier Napoleon moved from Doulevant to
Bar-sur-Aube. In order to ascertain the real intentions of the allies
he ordered increased reconnoitering, which led to the combat at
Saint-Dizier, and Winzingerode was thrown back on Bar-le-Duc. From the
questions addressed to prisoners Napoleon was convinced that only the
cavalry division was left against him and that the chief forces of
the allies were directed towards Paris. “This is a fine chess move! I
should never have thought that a general of the coalition would have
been capable of it!” exclaimed Napoleon. Without delaying, on the 27th
of March, Napoleon directed the forces he had at his disposal towards
Paris by a circuitous route through Troyes and Fontainebleau. On the
30th of March, at daybreak, when the allies were already before Paris
and were preparing to attack the capital, Napoleon and his vanguard had
hardly reached Troyes (150 versts from Paris). In the hope that at least
by his presence he might amend matters in Paris, the emperor left the
troops behind and galloped off to Fontainebleau; arriving there at night,
he continued his journey without stopping to Paris. But it was already
late, and on the night of the 31st of March, at twenty versts from Paris,
Napoleon met the fore ranks of the already departing French troops, from
whom he learned of the capitulation concluded by Marmont. At six in the
morning Napoleon returned to Fontainebleau.

It was about the same time, on the morning of the 31st of March, that
the deputation from Paris was received by the emperor Alexander at
Bondy. Count Nesselrode presented the members by name to the emperor;
after which Alexander addressed to them a discourse which Pasquier has
reproduced in his Mémoires in the following manner: “I have but one enemy
in France, and that enemy is the man who has deceived me in the most
shameless manner, who has abused my trust, who has broken every vow to
me, and who has carried into my dominions the most iniquitous and odious
of wars. All reconciliation between him and me is henceforth impossible,
but I repeat I have no other enemy in France. All other Frenchmen are
favourably regarded by me. I esteem France and the French, and I trust
that they will enable me to help them. I honour the courage and glory
of all the brave men against who I have been fighting for two years and
whom I have learned to respect in every position in which they have found
themselves. I shall always be ready to render to them the justice and the
honour which are their due. Say then, gentlemen, to the Parisians, that I
do not enter their walls as an enemy, and that it only depends on them to
have me for a friend, but say also that I have one sole enemy in France,
and that with him I am irreconcilable.” Pasquier adds that this thought
was repeated in twenty different tones and always with the expression of
the utmost vehemence, the emperor meanwhile pacing up and down the room.


THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF PARIS

Then entering into details as to the occupation of Paris, the emperor
Alexander consented to leave the preservation of tranquillity in the
capital to the national guard, and gave his word that he would require
nothing from the inhabitants, beyond provisions for the army; it was
decided that the troops should be bivouacked. Having dismissed the
deputation, the emperor Alexander ordered Count Nesselrode to set off
immediately for Paris to Talleyrand and concert with him as to the
measures to be taken in the commencement; the count entered the town
accompanied by a single Cossack.

“The boulevards were covered with well-dressed crowds of people,”
writes Count Nesselrode in his Mémoires. “It seemed as if the people
had assembled for a holiday rather than to assist at the entry of the
enemy’s troops. Talleyrand was at his toilet; his hair only half-done;
he rushed to meet me, threw himself into my arms and bestrewed me with
powder. When he was somewhat tranquillised he ordered certain persons
with whom he was conspiring to be called. They were the duke of Dalberg,
the abbe de Pradt, and Baron Louis. I transmitted the desires of the
emperor Alexander to my companions, telling them that he remained firmly
determined upon one point--not to leave Napoleon on the throne of
France; that later on the question as to what order of things must from
henceforth reign would be decided by his majesty, not otherwise than
after consultation with the prominent personages with whom he would be
brought into relations.”[57]

The emperor Alexander had intended to stop at the Élysée palace (Élysée
Bourbon), but, having received information that mines had been laid
under the palace, he sent the communication on to Count Nesselrode; when
Talleyrand heard of it he would not believe the truth of the information,
but, from excess of caution, he proposed that the emperor should stay
with him until the necessary investigations should be made. In all
probability the alarm raised had been prepared by the dexterity of Prince
Bénévent himself, who thus made sure of the presence of the head of the
coalition in his house.

After Count Nesselrode’s departure for Paris, Colencourt made his
appearance at Bondy, being sent to the emperor Alexander by Napoleon
with proposals for the conclusion of immediate peace on conditions
similar to those exacted by the allied powers at Châtillon. The emperor
told the duke of Vicenza that he considered himself bound to secure the
tranquillity of Europe, and that therefore neither he nor his allies
intended to carry on negotiations with Napoleon. It was in vain that
Colencourt endeavoured to shake Alexander’s decision, representing to
him that the allied monarchs, by deposing from the throne a sovereign
whom they had all acknowledged, would show themselves upholders of the
destructive ideas of the revolution. “The allied monarchs do not desire
the overthrow of thrones,” replied Alexander, “they will support not any
particular party of those dissatisfied with the present government but
the general voice of the most estimable men of France. We have decided
to continue the struggle to the end, in order that it may not have to be
renewed under less favourable circumstances, and we shall combat until we
attain a solid and durable peace, which it is impossible to look for from
the man who has devastated Europe from Moscow to Cadiz.” In conclusion
Alexander promised to receive Colencourt at any time in Paris.

“The subjection of Paris has shown itself to be an indispensable
inheritance for our chroniclers. Russians could not open the glorious
book of their history without shame if after the page on which Napoleon
is represented standing amidst Moscow in flames did not follow that where
Alexander appears in the midst of Paris.”

As he left Bondy, Napoleon’s envoy saw the horse prepared for Alexander
to ride on his approaching entry into Paris; it was a light-grey horse
called Eclipse which had formerly been presented to the emperor when
Colencourt was ambassador in St. Petersburg. About eight o’clock in the
morning Alexander left Bondy. “All were prepared to meet a day unexampled
in history,” writes an eye-witness.

After he had ridden about a verst, the emperor met the king of Prussia
and the guards; letting the Russian guard and his own guard’s light
cavalry pass in front, as they were to head the troops entering Paris,
Alexander followed after them with the king of Prussia and Prince
Schwarzenberg, accompanied by a suite of more than a thousand generals
and officers of various nationalities. After them came the Austrian
grenadiers, the Russian grenadier corps, the foot-guards, and three
divisions of cuirassiers with artillery. The most superb weather favoured
the triumph of this memorable day.

What were the feelings which then filled the soul of Alexander? Of what
was the sovereign thinking that had lived through the painful experiences
of Austerlitz, the glitter of Tilsit, changing to the defeat of Friedland
and the burning of Moscow? In entire humility he was prepared to repay
the evil and mortification he had endured by a magnanimity unheard of
in history. Actually there appeared in the midst of Paris a victor who
sought for no other triumph but the happiness of the vanquished. Even
at Vilna, in December, 1812, the emperor Alexander had said: “Napoleon
might have given peace to Europe. He might have--but he did not! Now
the enchantment has vanished. Let us see which is best: to make oneself
feared or beloved.” In Paris a noble field awaited the emperor for
changing into action these generous thoughts and aspirations after the
ideal.

The streets were crowded with people, and even the roofs of the houses
were covered with curious spectators. White draperies hung from the
windows and the women at the windows and on the balconies waved white
handkerchiefs. Henri Houssaye has very justly defined the frame of mind
of the Parisian population on the day of the 31st of March: “They did
not reason, they breathed.” Answering graciously to the greetings of the
populace, the emperor said in a loud voice: “I do not come as an enemy.
I come to bring you peace and commerce.” The emperor’s words called
forth acclamations and exclamations of “_Vive la paix!_” A Frenchman who
had managed to push his way right up to the emperor said: “We have been
waiting for you a long time.” “It is the fault of the bravery of your
troops if I have not come sooner,” answered Alexander. “How handsome the
emperor Alexander is, how graciously he bows. He must stay in Paris or
give us a sovereign like himself,” said the French to each other.

The allied troops were met with joyful exclamations of “Long live
Alexander! Long live the Russians! Long live the allies!” As the allies
approached the Champs-Élysées, the enthusiasm grew and began to assume
the character of a demonstration against the government of Napoleon;
white cockades made their appearance on hats and the exclamations
resounded: “Long live the Bourbons! Down with the tyrant!” All these
manifestations did not, however, arouse the least sympathy among the
people for the Bourbons, who were unknown to it; the movement was purely
superficial and partly artificial. The French, seeing the white bands
on the Russian uniforms, imagined that Europe had taken up arms for the
Bourbons, and in their turn showed the colour for which in their hearts
they had no sympathy.


ALEXANDER I AND THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA (1815 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1815 A.D.]]

The restoration of the French Empire hastened the settlement of the
disputed points at the congress of Vienna. On the 3rd of May, 1815,
treaties were signed between Russia, Austria, and Prussia which
determined the fate of the duchy of Warsaw; it was forever united to the
Russian Empire, with the exception of Posen, Bromberg, and Thorn, which
were given to Prussia; Cracow was declared a free town, and the salt
mines of Weliczka were returned to Austria, together with the province
of Tarnopol, which had belonged to Russia since 1809. Alexander took
the title King of Poland and reserved to himself the right of giving
to this kingdom, which was destined to have a social government, that
“interior extension” which he judged right. In general it was proposed
to give to the Russian as well as the Austrian and Prussian subjects the
right of national representation and national government institutions
in conformity with the form of political states which each government
would consider most advantageous and most fitted to the sphere of
its possessions. On the same day a treaty was concluded between the
plenipotentiaries of Prussia and Saxony, according to the conditions of
which the king of Saxony ceded to Prussia almost all Lusatia and a part
of Saxony. Finally, more than a month later, on the 8th of June, 1815,
the act of the German alliance was signed, and on the following day, the
9th of June, the chief act of the congress of Vienna.

Upon the basis of the conditions of the treaty of 1815, Russia increased
her territory to the extent of about 2,100 square miles with a population
of more than three millions; Austria acquired 2,300 square miles with
the million inhabitants, and Prussia 2,217 square miles with 5,362,000
inhabitants. Thus Russia, who had borne all the three years’ war with
Napoleon, and made the greatest sacrifices for the triumph of the
interests of Europe, received the smallest reward.

A few days before the signing of the treaties that determined the fate
of the duchy of Warsaw, which had so long remained in an indefinite
position, the emperor Alexander informed the president of the Polish
senate, Count Ostrovski, of the approaching union of the kingdom of
Poland to the Russian empire. In this letter, amongst other things, it
was said: “If in the great interest of general tranquillity it could not
be permitted that all the Poles should become united under one sceptre,
I have at least endeavoured as far as possible to soften the hardships
of their separation and to obtain for them everywhere all possible
enjoyment of their nationality.” Following upon this came the manifesto
to the inhabitants of the kingdom of Poland granting them a constitution,
self-government, an army of their own, and freedom of the press.

On the 21st of May, 1815, the solemnity of the restoration of the
kingdom of Poland was celebrated in Warsaw. In his letter to the emperor
Alexander, Prince Adam Czartoriski expressed the conviction that the
remembrance of that day would be for the generous heart of the sovereign
a reward for his labours for the good of humanity. All the functionaries
of the state assembled in the Catholic cathedral church, where, after
divine service had been celebrated, were read the act of renunciation
of the king of Saxony, the manifesto of the emperor of all the Russias,
king of Poland, and the basis of the future constitution. The council
of the empire, the senate, the officials, and the inhabitants then took
the oath of allegiance to the sovereign and the constitution. Then the
Polish standard with the white eagle was raised over the royal castle
and on all government buildings, whilst in all the churches thanksgiving
services were celebrated, accompanied by the pealing of bells and firing
of cannon. After this all the state dignitaries set off to wait on the
czarevitch, Constantine Pavlovitch. The troops were assembled in the
plain near Wola, where an altar had been erected; there, in the presence
of the august commander-in-chief of the Polish army, the soldiers took
the oath in battalions. The cannonades and salvoes of artillery which
concluded the solemnity were interrupted by the loud exclamations of the
people: “Long live our king Alexander!”

Prince Adam Czartoriski, who had been sent by the emperor from Vienna,
occupied a place in the council. On the 25th of May Alexander wrote to
him as follows: “You have had occasion to become acquainted with my
intentions as to the institutions that I wish to establish in Poland,
and the improvements that I desire to carry on in that country. You
will endeavour never to lose sight of them during the deliberations of
the council and to direct the attention of your colleagues to them in
order that the course of government and the reforms, which are confided
to them to bring into execution, may be in accordance with my views.”
A committee was formed for the framing of a constitution, composed of
Polish dignitaries under the presidency of Count Ostrovski.

But this benign condition of affairs in the newly created kingdom was
not of long duration, and on the 29th of July, 1815, Prince Czartoriski
had to complain to the emperor of the czarevitch, and expressed his
conviction that no enemy could occasion greater injuries to Alexander.
It was, he said, as though he wished to bring matters to a rupture. “No
zeal, no submission can soften him,” wrote Prince Adam to the emperor.
“Neither the army, nor the nation, nor private individuals can find
favour in his sight. The constitution in particular gives him occasion
for ceaseless, bitter derision; everything of rule, form, or law is
made the object of mockery and laughter, and unfortunately deeds have
already followed upon words. The grand duke does not even observe the
military laws which he himself has established. He absolutely wishes
to bring in corporal punishments and gave orders yesterday that they
should be brought into force, in spite of the unanimous representations
of the committee. Desertion, which is already now considerable, will
become general; in September most of the officers will ask for their
discharge. In fact, it is as if a plan were laid to oppose the views
of your majesty, in order to render the benefits you have conferred
void, in order to frustrate from the very beginning the success of your
enterprise. His imperial highness in such a case would be, without
himself knowing it, the blind instrument of this destructive design,
of which the first effect would be to exasperate equally both Russians
and Poles and to take away all power from your majesty’s most solemn
declarations. What would I not give for it to be possible to here satisfy
the grand duke and fulfil the desires of your majesty in this respect!
But this is decidedly impossible, and if he remains here I on the
contrary foresee the most lamentable consequences!”

Indeed, as we look more closely into the state of affairs in Warsaw in
the year 1815, it remains an unsolved enigma how the emperor Alexander,
knowing as he did the indomitable character of his brother, could resolve
to confide the destiny of the kingdom he had newly created to the wilful,
arbitrary hands of the czarevitch, whose personality as the probable
heir to the throne of Russia had disturbed the Poles since the time of
the termination of the war of 1812. Prince Czartoriski’s letter did not
alter Alexander’s determination: the czarevitch remained in Warsaw, and
continued his impolitic course of action, the lamentable results of which
were revealed by subsequent events.

On the 21st of May in Vienna the emperor signed the manifesto calling
upon all the powers who observed the laws of truth and piety to take up
arms against the usurper of the French throne. In the same manifesto the
annexation to Russia of the greater part of the former duchy of Warsaw
was announced: “Security is thus given to our frontiers, a firm defence
is raised, calumnies and inimical attempts are repulsed, and the ties of
brotherhood renewed between races mutually united by a common origin. We
have therefore considered it advantageous to assure the destiny of this
country by basing its interior administration upon special regulations,
peculiar to the speech and customs of the inhabitants and adapted to
their local position. Following the teaching of the Christian law, whose
dominion embraces so vast a number of people of various races, but at the
same time preserves their distinctive qualities and customs unchanged,
we have desired in creating the happiness of our new subjects, to plant
in their hearts the feeling of devotion to our throne and thus for ever
efface the traces of former misfortunes arising from pernicious discord
and protracted struggles.” Without waiting for the termination of the
congress the emperor Alexander left Vienna on the 25th of May; he desired
to be nearer the Rhine until the arrival of the Russian troops and in
closer proximity to the seat of the approaching military action.[g] The
Russians, however, who were to have formed the army of the middle Rhine,
were unable, though making forced marches, to arrive in time to take part
in the brief campaign which terminated Napoleon’s reign of the hundred
days.[k]


ALEXANDER’S RELIGIOUS MYSTICISM; BARONESS KRÜDENER

When he had left Vienna, the emperor Alexander stopped for a short time
at Munich and Stuttgart, and on the 4th of June he arrived at Heilbronn,
which had been chosen for the Russian headquarters. Here took place his
first meeting with Baroness Juliane Krüdener.

Baroness Krüdener (born Vietinghov), the author of the famous novel
_Valérie_, had already long since been converted from a vain woman
of the world, and had entered upon the path of mystical pietism. Her
acquaintance with the Moravian brethren and in particular with Johann
Jung had definitely confirmed her ideas in a pious philanthropic
direction. With the exaltation that was natural to her she became more
and more persuaded that a great work lay before her, that God himself
had entrusted her with a lofty mission, to turn the unbelieving to the
path of truth. As her biographer observes, she was ready to affirm in
imitation of Louis XIV that “_Le ciel c’est moi_” (Heaven is I). In 1814
Baroness Krüdener became intimate with the maid of honour Mlle. R. S.
Sturdza, and through her penetrated to the empress Elizabeth Alexievna.

But, according to her own words, an inward voice told her that the matter
was not to end there; the final aim of her aspiration was a friendship
with the emperor Alexander, whose spiritual condition at that time was
fully known to her from her conversations with Mademoiselle Sturdza as
well as after the emperor’s interviews with Johann Jung which took place
during his majesty’s stay at Bronchsaal. During the congress of Vienna
Juliane Krüdener kept up an active correspondence with Mademoiselle
Sturdza; in it she referred to the emperor Alexander and the great and
beautiful qualities of his soul. “I have already known for some time that
the Lord will grant me the joy of seeing him,” wrote Baroness Krüdener;
“if I live till then, it will be one of the happiest moments of my life.
I have a multitude of things to tell him, for I have investigated much on
his behalf: the Lord alone can prepare his heart to receive them; I am
not uneasy about it; my business is to be without fear and reproach; his,
to bow down before Christ, the truth.” With these spiritual effusions
were artfully mixed mysterious prophecies, such as: “The storm draws
nigh, the lilies have appeared only to vanish.”

Mademoiselle Sturdza was struck by these mysterious prognostications
and showed the letter to the emperor Alexander; he commissioned her
to write to Baroness Krüdener that he would esteem it a happiness to
meet her. The correspondence was further prolonged in the same spirit
and finally the “prince of darkness” appeared on the scene, preventing
her conversing with Alexander, that instrument of mercy, of heavenly
things. “But the Almighty will be stronger than he,” wrote Baroness
Krüdener; “God, who loves to make use of those who in the eyes of the
world serve as objects of humiliation and mockery, has prepared my heart
for that submission which does not seek the approval of men. I am only a
nonentity. He is everything, and earthly kings tremble before Him.” The
emperor Alexander’s first religious transport, in the mystical sense, had
manifested itself in the year 1812, when heavy trials fell upon Russia
and filled his soul with alarm. His religious aspirations could not be
satisfied with the usual forms and ceremonies of the church; in the
matter of religion he sought for something different. Having separated
himself, under the influence of fatal events, from those humanitarian
ideals which to a certain degree had animated him in his youth he had
adopted religious conventions; but here, also, by the nature of his
character, he was governed by aspirations after the ideal, without,
however, departing from the sentimental romanticism that was peculiar
to him. Under such conditions Alexander must necessarily have been
impressionable to the influence of pietists and mystics.

When he came to Heilbronn he was overwhelmed with weariness and sadness
after the pompous receptions at the courts of Munich and Würtemberg,
and his soul thirsted for solitude. During the first interview Baroness
Krüdener lifted the veil of the past before the eyes of Alexander and
represented to him his life with all its errors of ambition and vain
pride; she proved to her listener that the momentary awakening of
conscience, the acknowledgment of weaknesses, and temporary repentance do
not constitute a full expiation of sins, and do not yet lead to spiritual
regeneration. “No, your majesty,” said she to him, “you have not yet
drawn near to the god man, as a criminal begging for mercy. You have not
yet received forgiveness from him, who alone has the power to absolve
sins upon earth. You are still in your sins. You have not yet humbled
yourself before Jesus, you have not yet said, like the publican, from the
depths of your heart: ‘God, I am a great sinner; have mercy upon me!’ And
that is why you do not find spiritual peace. Listen to the words of a
woman, who has also been a great sinner, but who has found pardon of all
her sins at the foot of the cross of Christ.” Baroness Krüdener talked to
Alexander in this strain for nearly three hours. Alexander could only say
a few broken words, and bowing his head on his hands, he shed abundant
tears. All the words he heard, were, as the Scripture expresses it, like
a two-edged sword, piercing to the very depths of the soul and spirit,
and trying the feelings and thoughts of his heart. Finally, Baroness
Krüdener, alarmed by the agitated state into which her words had thrown
Alexander, said to him: “Sire, I beg you to pardon the tone in which I
have spoken. Believe that in all sincerity of heart and before God I have
said to you truths which have never before been said to you. I have only
fulfilled a sacred duty to you.” “Do not be afraid,” answered Alexander,
“all your words have found a place in my heart: you have helped me to
discover in myself what I had never before observed; I thank God for it,
but I must often have such conversations, and I ask you not to go away.”

From that day such conversations became a spiritual necessity to the
emperor Alexander and a moral support in the pathway upon which he
from thenceforth stood. According to the opinion of Prince Galitzin,
Alexander’s conversations with Baroness Krüdener were of a spiritual
tendency, and perhaps only in part touched upon contemporary events.
“There is no doubt,” says Prince Galitzin, “that Baroness Krüdener, who
lived by faith, strengthened the development of faith in the emperor by
her disinterested and experienced counsels; she certainly directed the
will of Alexander to still greater self-sacrifice and prayer, and perhaps
at the same time revealed to him the secret of that spiritual, prayerful
communion which, although designed by God as an inheritance for all
mortals, is unfortunately the portion of a very few chosen ones.” From
that time it only remained for Prince Galitzin to experience a lively
feeling of satisfaction as he observed, “with what giant strides the
emperor advanced in the pathway of religion.”

If the moral sphere in which Alexander began to move awakened the entire
sympathy of Prince Galitzin, others looked upon the matter from another
point of view.

In accordance with the course he had adopted during the campaigns of
1813 and 1814, the emperor desired to remain at the centre of military
operations. This intention was not to the taste of the Austrians, and
from their headquarters at Heidelberg they sent a notification that
it was difficult to find suitable premises in such a small place and
that his majesty would be far more tranquil if he prolonged his stay
at Heilbronn. The emperor ordered an answer to be sent to the effect
that he requested that only one or two houses should be allotted for
his occupation in Heidelberg, and that his headquarters should be
established in the neighbouring villages. After this, on the 6th of June,
Alexander removed to Heidelberg and finally took up his abode outside
the town, upon the banks of the Necker, in the house of an Englishman,
named Pickford, and here remained until the 10th of June, awaiting
the approach of his army to the Rhine. The Baroness Krüdener also did
not delay removing to Heidelberg; she settled not far from the house
occupied by the emperor. He spent most of his evenings with her and,
listening to her instructions, in confidential intercourse he told her
of the griefs and passions which had darkened his sorrowful life. In
these conversations, the fellow traveller and collaborator of Baroness
Krüdener, Empaitaz, also took part. Baroness Krüdener did not flatter
Alexander, she possessed the gift of speaking the truth without giving
offence. According to the opinion of her admirers she might have become a
beneficent genius for Russia, but this was hindered by the hypocrisy of
various unworthy persons, who took advantage of this new frame of mind of
the emperor, using it as a means for the attainment of aims which were
not at all in accordance with Alexander’s lofty sentiments and intentions.

Becoming more and more convinced of the power of repentance and prayer,
the emperor once said to Empaitaz: “I can assure you that when I find
myself in awkward situations I always come out of them through prayer. I
will tell you something which would greatly astonish everyone if it were
known: when I am in counsel, with ministers, who are far from sharing my
principles, and they show themselves of opposite opinions, instead of
disputing, I lift up an inward prayer, and little by little they come
round to principles of humanity and justice.”

Alexander had adopted the habit of daily reading the Holy Scriptures and
began to seek in them immediate answers to his doubts. “On the 7th of
June,” relates Empaitaz, “he read the 35th psalm; in the evening he told
us that this psalm had dispersed all remaining anxiety in his soul as to
the success of the war; thenceforth he was convinced that he was acting
in accordance with the will of God.”


ALEXANDER’S HOLY ALLIANCE (1815 A.D.)

The conclusion of the Holy Alliance belongs to this period (1815). In
conceiving the idea of it, the emperor Alexander intended, independently
of ordinary political negotiations, to strengthen the common bond
between monarchies by an act based on the immutable truths of the divine
teaching, to create an alliance which should bind together monarchies and
nations by ties of brotherhood, consecrated by religion, and should be
for them, like the Gospel, obligatory by conscience, feeling and duty.
The emperor Alexander said one day to Baroness Krüdener: “I am leaving
France, but before my departure I want by a public act to give due praise
to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the protection he
has shown us, and to call upon the nations to stand in obedience to the
Gospel. I have brought you the project of this act and ask you to look
over it attentively, and if you do not approve any of the expressions
used to indicate them to me. I desire that the emperor of Austria and the
king of Prussia should unite with me in this act of adoration, in order
that people may see that we, like the eastern magi, confess the supreme
power of God the Saviour. You will unite with me in prayer to God that my
allies may be disposed to sign it.”

Alexander wrote out the draft of the Act of the Holy Alliance with his
own hand, and Mademoiselle Sturdza and Count Vapadistria took part in the
wording of it. The latter ventured to observe that no such act was to be
met with in the annals of diplomacy and that his majesty might express
the ruling idea of the act in a declaration or manifesto. Alexander
replied that his decision was unchangeable, that he took it upon himself
to obtain the signature to it of his allies, the emperor of Austria and
the king of Prussia. As to France, England, and other courts--“that,”
said the emperor to him, “will already be your concern.”

The treaty of the Christian brotherly alliance, imagined by Alexander and
called the Holy Alliance, consisted of three articles according to which
the allies bound themselves: (1) to remain united by the indissoluble
ties of brotherly friendship, to show each other help and co-operation,
to govern their subjects in the same spirit of fraternity in order
to maintain truth and peace; (2) to esteem themselves members of one
Christian people, placed by providence to rule over three branches of
one and the same family; and (3) to invite all the powers to acknowledge
these rules and to enter the Holy Alliance. The sovereigns who signed
the treaty were bound, “both in ruling over their own subjects and in
political relations with other governments, to be guided by the precepts
of the holy Gospel, which, not being limited in their application to
private life alone, should immediately govern the wills of monarchs and
their actions.”

King Frederick William willingly declared his consent to become a member
of the Holy Alliance, conceived in the same spirit as the scene that
had once taken place at night at the tomb of Frederick the Great in the
garrison church at Potsdam, and appearing to be the realisation of the
thought expressed by the sovereigns after the battle of Bautzen: “If the
Lord blesses our undertakings,” said they, “then will we give praise to
him before the face of the whole world.”

The emperor Francis, however, received with greater reserve the proposal
to join the Holy Alliance; he was in general incapable of letting himself
be carried away by fantastic ideas and romanticism or of being subject
to enthusiastic impulses of any kind. He consented to sign the treaty
only after Metternich had tranquillised him with the assurance that the
project should only be regarded as inoffensive chatter. But although
in his narrative of the formation of the Holy Alliance Metternich
contemptuously calls it “this empty, sonorous monument,” he passes over
one point in silence: by joining this treaty Austria obtained a valuable
instrument for placing Russia at the head of the reactionary movement
in Europe, and Metternich did not hesitate to take advantage of this
circumstance with inimitable art in order to attain the political aims he
had traced out. Only two sovereigns did not receive invitations to join
the Holy Alliance: the pope and the sultan. The prince regent limited
himself to a letter in which he expressed his approval of the context of
the treaty, but on account of parliamentary considerations the English
government did not join the alliance.

The Act of the Holy Alliance concluded in Paris with the emperor of
Austria and the king of Prussia remained secret for some time, as the
emperor Alexander did not desire to make it generally known. Christmas
Day (December 25th, 1815) (January 6th, 1816) was the occasion chosen
for the publication of the treaty. In the manifesto issued, it is said:
“Having learned from experiences and consequences calamitous to the
whole world that the course of former political relations between the
European powers was not based on those principles of truth through which
the wisdom of God, made known in his revelation, assures the peace and
prosperity of nations, we have, conjointly with their majesties, the
Austrian emperor Francis I and the king of Prussia, Frederick William,
entered upon the establishment of an alliance between ourselves (inviting
other Christian powers to take part in the same), by which we are
mutually bound, both between ourselves and in relation to our subjects,
to take for the sole means of attaining our ends the rule drawn from the
words and teaching of our Saviour Jesus Christ, enjoining men to live as
brothers, not in enmity and malice, but in peace and love. We desire and
pray to the most High that he may send down his grace upon us, that he
may confirm this Holy Alliance between all the powers, to their common
welfare, and may no one venture to hinder unanimity by falseness to our
compact. Therefore, adding to this a transcript of the alliance, we
command that it shall be made public and read in all churches.”

The most holy synod, in its turn, ordered that the treaty of the Holy
Alliance should be printed and placed on the walls of churches or affixed
to boards, and also that ideas should be borrowed from it for preaching.
And thus, from the year 1816 Russia entered upon a new political path--an
apocalyptic one; from thenceforth in diplomatic documents relating
to the epoch, instead of clearly defined and political aims, we meet
with obscure commentaries concerning the spirit of evil, vanquished by
Providence, the word of the Most High, the word of life.[58] The ideal of
the government administrators of that period, who stood at the head of
affairs, became a sort of vague theological, patriarchal monarchy. Over
Europe was lowered the dark veil of continuous and close reaction.[g]

The real significance of European history during the next period is best
understood by studying the development of the alliances formed against
the power of Napoleon, like the one under consideration, and which
endured being renewed from time to time as occasion demanded. At first
these were directed towards a definite object, but they gradually assumed
wider scope, and in a spirit quite foreign to the “Holy Alliance,”
endeavoured to arrest and stem the aspirations of the period, whether
legitimate or degenerate. The partly stationary, partly retrograde
attitude of all, or most, of the European governments, which afterward
became general, had its inception at this time. The spirit of absolutism,
in short, found expression in the Holy Alliance. That this mystic
Alliance was not suitable for any practical purpose was proved on the
spot.[59]

It was quite apparent and recognised by all that France could not be left
to herself, for it had been determined to leave an allied army of 150,000
men under the Duke of Wellington in possession of the French fortresses.
For what purpose and under what conditions this was to take place,
naturally had to be decided by some explicit treaty. On the same day on
which peace with France was signed--20th November--the four powers which
had signed the Treaty of Chaumont, England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia
concluded among themselves a new Alliance of real and far-reaching
significance. The new treaty confirmed the compacts made at Chaumont,
and on the 25th of March, of the current year 1815, the allies expressed
their conviction that the peace of Europe depended upon the consolidation
of the restored order of things in France, on the maintenance of
the royal authority and of the constitutional charter; they pledged
themselves to reinforce the garrison troops in France, if necessary
by 60,000 men from each of the four Powers, or if required by their
combined army, in order to exclude Bonaparte and his family for ever
from the French throne, but to support the sovereignty of the Bourbons
and the Constitution. They further agreed, after the time fixed for the
investment of France by the allied troops had elapsed, to adopt measures
for the maintenance of the existing order of things in France and of the
peace of Europe. In order to facilitate the execution of these duties and
to consolidate the friendly relations of the four powers, it was arranged
that from time to time, at certain fixed intervals, meetings of the
sovereigns in person or of their ministers--congresses in fact--should
take place, to consult concerning the great and common interests of the
allies, and the measures that might be considered necessary at the time
to promote the welfare and peace of the nations and of Europe.

It was this treaty which founded and introduced the Congress policy of
the next decade, and it is well to note that France although a member of
the Holy Alliance was excluded from this league, as was to be expected,
and that England which had remained outside the Holy Alliance, here stood
at the head of affairs. The true position and significance of things are
thereby made clear.[j]


FOOTNOTES

[55] [For the terms of the treaty, see volume XII.]

[56] Gazing from the Kremlin on Moscow in flames, Napoleon said,
“This forebodes the greatest calamity for us.” _Journal du Maréchal
Castellane_, Paris, 1895.

[57] From the Russian State Archives.

[58] The letter written by Emperor Alexander on the 18th of March,
1816, to Count Sieven, Ambassador in London, upon the occasion of the
publication of the treaty of the Holy Alliance and preserved in the
Russian State Archives, affords a clear instance of the direction of
politics at that time.

[59] [Skrine[l] says, however: “For nearly half a century the Holy
Alliance was the keystone of the edifice erected at Vienna, the hidden
chain which linked Russia with the other military powers.”]

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER X. ALEXANDER I, MYSTIC AND HUMANITARIAN

    Heaven grant that we may one day attain our aim of making
    Russia free and of preserving her from despotism and
    tyranny. This is my unique desire, and I willingly sacrifice
    all my labours and my life to the aim that is so dear to
    me.--ALEXANDER I.


THE COMPLEX CHARACTER OF ALEXANDER I

[Sidenote: [1801-1825 A.D.]]

In the preceding chapter, we followed the history of the external affairs
of Russia during fourteen years of the reign of Alexander I. Now we shall
witness the incidents of that monarch’s later years, and, in particular,
shall consider the internal condition of Russia during the reign of
one of the most interesting of sovereigns. Clearly to appreciate the
complex character of the reigns, we may follow Shilder, partly by way of
recapitulation, in dividing it into three periods, each of which seems to
represent a phase of the mental evolution of Alexander.[a]

The first period embraces the time between the years 1801 and 1810, and
is usually designated as the epoch of reforms, but as we penetrate more
deeply into the spirit of that period, we come to the conclusion that
it might more justly be termed the epoch of vacillations. Actually, at
this time, that is from 1801 to 1810, ceaseless vacillations took place
in the governmental life of Russia, both in regard to the outward as
well as the inward policy of the empire; throughout every branch of the
administration of the state an entire instability of views and brusque
changes from one political system to another were to be observed. All
these manifestations were conditional exclusively on the personality
of the emperor Alexander, who possessed the characteristic of not
unfrequently vacillating at short intervals between two entirely opposed
frames of mind, without reference to the direction he had elected to
follow.

The second period is continued from 1810 to 1816 and in its inner
signification is entirely concentrated in the struggle with France. This
period in contrast to the preceding, is distinguished by the pursuit
of one ruling idea, carried out with remarkable consecutiveness to the
end, an instance which is almost unique in the whole reign of Alexander.
Unexpectedly to all, to the astonishment of the whole world, in 1812,
he showed himself immovable and decided to be or not to be. Meanwhile
Napoleon, preparing himself for the invasion of Russia, had based
his political and military calculations upon the imaginary weakness
of Alexander’s character, and in this respect the conqueror’s hidden
thoughts corresponded with the secret calculations of his allies,
Metternich and Hardenburg. All these three enemies of Russia were however
destined to experience complete disenchantment. The ruling idea of
Alexander, which he then steadfastly followed, consisted in the overthrow
of Napoleon. [These two periods we have covered in the preceding chapter,
but we shall have occasion to revert to certain phases and incidents of
their development.]

The third period, beginning from the year 1816, finishes with the death
of the emperor Alexander in 1825. Historians usually call it the period
of congresses and of the preservation of order in Europe established by
them. It would be more exact and nearer to the truth to call this last
decade the period of reaction.

After the overthrow of Napoleon the emperor Alexander appears as a weary
martyr, wavering between the growing influence of Araktcheiev and his
own personal convictions which he had adopted in the days of his youth.
Amongst the reactionary measures which commenced in 1816 there can still
be traced bright gleams of the enthusiasms and dreams of his youth. The
speech pronounced in 1818 by the emperor at the opening of the Polish
diet testifies to this. But from the year 1820 a complete vanishing of
all the previous ideals to the realisation of which he had once aspired
with sincere enthusiasm, is to be observed. To this moral condition
was also united an incurable weariness of life, the signs of which had
already been observed in the emperor Alexander by Metternich at the
congress of Verona in 1822.

As we enter upon a closer analysis of the three periods into which
we have divided this reign, we remark another curious feature in the
development of Alexander. Metternich calls this phenomenon that of the
periodic evolutions of the emperor’s mind (_les évolutions périodiques de
son esprit_). The phenomenon was repeated with striking regularity about
every five years of his reign. Assimilating to himself any idea with
which he was inspired, Alexander gave himself up to it, unhesitatingly
and with full enthusiasm. The incubation required about two years, during
which the idea acquired for him the importance of a system; the third
year he remained faithful to the system chosen, he became more and more
attached to it, he listened with real enthusiasm to its upholders and
at such a time was inaccessible to any influence that might shake the
justness of the views he had adopted. The fourth year he grew disturbed
at the consequences which might possibly arise; the fifth year there
became observable a medley of the old and vanishing system with some new
idea which was beginning to take birth in his mind. This idea was usually
diametrically opposed to the one that had left his horizon. After that,
when he had assimilated the new convictions, he did not preserve any
remembrance of the ideas he had abandoned, beyond the obligations which
bound him to the various representatives of the former views.[b]


MINISTERIAL INFLUENCES; SPERANSKI AND ARAKTCHEIEV

[Sidenote: [1801-1815 A.D.]]

From 1806 to 1812 the preponderating influence over Alexander I was
that of Speranski. Son of a village priest, educated in a seminary, and
afterwards professor of mathematics and philosophy in the seminary of
Alexander Nevski, Speranski became preceptor to the children of Alexis
Kurakin, thanks to whom he quitted the ecclesiastical for a civil
career, and became secretary to Trochtchinski, who was then chancellor
of the imperial council. Later, after he had become director of the
department of the interior under Prince Kotchubei, Speranski rose to
the position of secretary of state and gained the complete confidence
of the emperor. The favourites of the preceding period had all been
imbued with English ideas; Speranski, on the contrary, loved France
and manifested a particular admiration for Napoleon. These French
sympathies, shared at the time by Alexander I, formed a new bond between
the prince and the minister which was not severed until the rupture with
Napoleon. “We know,” said Monsieur Bogdanovitch, “Alexander’s fondness
for representative forms and a constitutional government, but this taste
resembles that of a dilettante who goes into ecstacies over a fine
painting. Alexander early convinced himself that neither Russia’s vast
extent nor the constitution of civil society would permit the realisation
of his dream. From day to day he deferred the execution of his utopian
ideas, but delighted to discourse with his intimates upon the projected
constitution and the disadvantages of absolutism. To please the emperor,
Speranski ardently defended the principles of liberty, and by so doing
exposed himself to accusations of anarchy and of having conceived
projects dangerous to institutions that had received the consecration
of time and custom.” Painstaking, learned, and profoundly patriotic and
humane, he was the man best able to realise all that was practicable in
the ideas of Alexander.

Speranski presented to the sovereign a systematic plan of reform. The
imperial council received an extension of privileges. Composed as it
was of the chief dignitaries of the state, it became in a measure the
legislative power, and had the duty of examining new laws, extraordinary
measures, and ministerial reports; it was in reality a sketch of a
representative government. After the interview at Erfurt, during which
Napoleon had showed him marked attention, Speranski entered into
relations with the French legal writers, Locré, Legras, Dupont de
Nemours, and made them correspondents of the legislative commission of
the imperial council. The Code Napoleon was not adapted to any but a
homogeneous nation emancipated from personal and feudal servitude, with a
population whose members all enjoyed a certain equality before the law.
Thus to Speranski the emancipation of the serfs was the corner-stone
of regeneration. He dreamed of instituting a third estate, of limiting
the number of privileged classes, and of forming the great aristocratic
families into a peerage similar to that of England. He encouraged Count
Stroinovski to publish his pamphlet, _Rules to be Observed between
Proprietors and Serfs_. As early as 1809 he had decided that the holders
of university degrees should have the advantage over all others in
attaining the degrees of the _tchin_. Thus a doctor would at once enter
the eighth rank, a master of arts the ninth, a candidate the tenth, and a
bachelor the twelfth.

Like Turgot, the minister of Louis XVIII, and the Prussian reformer,
Stein, Speranski had aroused the hostility of everyone. The nobility
of court and ante-chamber, and all the young officials who wished to
rise by favour alone were exasperated by the ukase of 1809; proprietors
were alarmed at Speranski’s project for the emancipation of the serfs;
the senators were irritated by his plans for reorganisation which would
reduce the first governing body of the empire to the position of a
supreme court of justice; and the high aristocracy was incensed at the
boldness of a man of low condition, the son of a village priest. The
people themselves complained at the increase in taxation, all those whose
interests had been set aside united against the upstart; he was accused
of despising the time-honoured institutions of Moscow and of having
presented as a model to the Russians the Code Napoleon when the country
was on the eve of war with France. The ministers Balachev, Armfelt,
Guriev, Count Rostoptchin, Araktcheiev, and the grand duchess Catherine
Pavlovna, sister of the emperor, influenced Alexander against him.
Karamzin, the historian, addressed to the emperor an impassioned memoir
on _New and Old Russia_, in which he stepped forth as the champion of
serfdom, of the old laws, and of autocracy. Speranski’s enemy even went
to the length of denouncing him as a traitor and an accomplice of France.
In March, 1812, he was suddenly sent from the capital to Nijni-Novgorod
and afterwards deported to a distant post where he was subjected to
close surveillance. He was recalled in 1819, when passions had somewhat
cooled, and was appointed governor of Siberia. In 1821 he returned to St.
Petersburg, but did not recover his former position.

A new epoch now set in. The adversaries of Speranski, Armfelt, Schichkov,
and Rostoptchin attained high positions, but the acknowledged favourite
was Araktcheiev, the rough “corporal of Gachina,” born enemy to progress
and reform and apostle of absolute dominion and passive obedience. He
gained the confidence of Alexander, first by his devotion to the memory
of Paul, next by his punctuality, his unquestioning obedience, his
disinterestedness and habits of industry, and lastly by his ingenuous
admiration for the “genius of the emperor.” He was the most trustworthy
of servitors, the most imperious of superiors, and the most perfect
instrument for a reaction. His influence was not at once exclusive. After
having conquered Napoleon, Alexander looked upon himself as the liberator
of nations. He had set Germany free; he dealt leniently with France and
obtained for it a charter; he granted a constitution to Poland, with the
intention of extending its benefit to Russia. Though the censorship of
the press had recently forbidden the _Viestnik slovesnosti_ to criticise,
“the servants of his majesty,” Alexander had not entirely renounced his
utopian ideas. English Protestant influence succeeded to the influence of
France; French theatres were closed and Bible societies opened.

Nevertheless, this first period of favour for Araktcheiev soon became an
epoch of sterility; though reaction had not yet set in there had at least
come a decided pause. The reforms interrupted by the war of 1812 were not
to be again resumed. The code of Speranski had come to an end and all
efforts to compile one better suited to Russian traditions were of no
avail.[f]


EDUCATIONAL ADVANCES; THE LYCÉE AND THE LIBRARY

On the 23rd of January of the year 1811 was promulgated the statute of
the lycée of Tsarskoi Selo, which had been definitely worked out by
secretary of state Speranski. The aim of the establishment of the lycée
was the education of young men, and chiefly of those who were destined
to fill the most important posts of the government service. The following
circumstance was the primary cause of the foundation of this higher
educational establishment: although the emperor did not interfere in the
matter of the education of his younger brothers, the grand dukes Nicholas
and Michael Pavlovitch, which was entirely left to the empress, Marie
Feodorovna, a case soon presented itself where the emperor recognised
the necessity of departing from the rule he had established. The widowed
empress desired to send her sons to the university of Leipsic for the
completion of their studies; this was, however, firmly opposed by the
emperor, and instead he had the idea of establishing a lycée at Tsarskoi
Selo, where his younger brothers could assist at the public lectures.
A wing of the palace connected by a gallery with the chief building,
was adapted to this purpose, and the solemn opening of the Tsarskoi
Selo lycée took place on the 31st of October, 1811, in the presence of
the emperor Alexander. It commenced with a thanksgiving service in the
court chapel of Tsarskoi Selo, after which those present accompanied
the clergy who made the tour of the edifice, sprinkling it with holy
water. At the conclusion of the ecclesiastical ceremony, the imperial
charter given to the lycée was read in the hall of the building, and
the speeches began. Amongst them that of the adjunct professor Kunitzin
earned the special approbation of the emperor for the art with which it
avoided generalisations and dwelt on the beneficence of the founder. In
conclusion, Alexander inspected the premises allotted to the students,
and was present at their dinner table.

[Illustration: TOWER OF IVAN VELIKA, MOSCOW]

The year 1811 was also signalised by the completion of the building
of the Kazan cathedral, the first stone of which had been laid by the
emperor Alexander on the 8th of September, 1801. The constructor of the
cathedral was the Russian architect Andrew Nikivorovitch Voroniknin.
The building committee was under the direction of the president of the
Academy of Arts, Count Alexander Stroganov. The building of the cathedral
took ten years, and on the 27th of September, 1811, on the anniversary of
the emperor’s coronation, the solemn consecration of the new cathedral
took place in the presence of the emperor. Count Stroganov was that day
elevated to the dignity of actual privy councillor of the first rank. He
was not destined to enjoy for long the completion of his work: ten days
later he died.

In the very thick of the preparations for war, and amidst such agitating
political circumstances as had been unknown till then, the emperor
Alexander continued to labour for the enlightenment of his subjects.
Notable among his acts at this time was the foundation of a public
library. Catherine II’s idea of founding in the capital a library for
general use, and of rendering it accessible to all, was only brought to
fulfilment by Alexander. A special edifice was built with this object;
its construction had been already commenced during Catherine’s reign.
By 1812 all the preliminary work in the building of this library was
completed, and on the 14th of January the emperor honoured the newly
constructed library with a visit, and examined in detail all its
curiosities. Following on this the “draft of detailed rules for the
administration of the Imperial Public Library” was ratified by his
majesty on the 7th of March.

The events of 1812, however, deferred the actual opening of the library:
soon measures had to be thought of to save its treasures. The opening
ceremony took place, therefore, two years later, in 1814, on the 14th
of January, the anniversary of the day on which the emperor Alexander
made his gracious visit to the library, on the memorable occasion of its
founding.

A great many festivities took place at the Russian court upon the
occasion of the marriage of the grand duke Nicholas Pavlovitch with the
princess Charlotte of Prussia (July 13th, 1817). About the same time
(July 31st, 1817), a modest festival was celebrated at Tsarskoi Selo--the
first distribution of prizes to students of the lycée. On that day the
emperor Alexander, accompanied by Prince A. N. Galitzin, was present
in the conference hall of the institution he had founded; he himself
distributed the prizes and certificates to the pupils, and after having
announced the awards to be given to them and their teachers he left,
bidding a fatherly farewell to all. The poet Pushkin was amongst the
students who took part in the festival.


EXPULSION OF THE JESUITS FROM ST. PETERSBURG

The year 1815, which had been filled with a series of unexpected events,
terminated with an important administrative measure which no one had
foreseen. On the 18th of January, 1817, an imperial ukase was issued
ordering the immediate expulsion of all the monks of the order of Jesuits
from St. Petersburg, and at the same time forbidding their entry into
either of the two capitals. In the middle of the night they were provided
with fur cloaks, and warm boots, and despatched in carts to the residence
of their brethren at Polotsk.[60] It was enjoined in this ukase that the
Catholic church in St. Petersburg should be “placed on the same footing
that had been established during the reign of the empress Catherine
II and which had endured up to the year 1800.” This expulsion put an
end to the pedagogical activity of the Jesuits in St. Petersburg. The
words of N. J. Turgeniev, spoken in the year 1812 and addressed to his
successor Gruber, the Berezovski Jesuit, were, in fact, realised for
the order in the most unpleasant way. He said: “This is the beginning
of the end; you will now do so much that you will be sent away.” The
government was compelled to have recourse to decisive measures in view
of cases of conversion to Catholicism amongst the orthodox pupils of the
Jesuit school in St. Petersburg; besides which the influence of Jesuit
propaganda was spreading in a remarkable way amongst the ladies of the
high society of St. Petersburg.

This measure, however, did not put a limit to the misfortunes that
descended upon the Jesuits during the reign of Alexander. A few years
later (on the 25th of March, 1820) the order was given that the Jesuits
should be expelled finally from Russia, adding that they were not under
any aspect or denomination to be allowed to return; and at the same time
the Polotsk academy was suppressed, as well as all the schools depending
on it.


LIBERATION OF THE PEASANTS OF THE BALTIC PROVINCES (1816-1818 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1816-1818 A.D.]]

The nobility of Esthonia had in 1811 announced their desire of giving
up their rights of servitude over their peasants. In the year 1816
this intention led to the confirmation of the establishment of the
Esthonian peasants upon a new footing, according to which the individual
right of servitude was abolished. The nobility kept the land as their
property, and the relations between the peasants and the landowners were
from thenceforth based upon mutual agreement by free will contracts
conformable with rules determining essential conditions; a period of
transition was appointed for bringing in the new order of things. After
the first trial, the individual, landless liberation of the peasants
spread throughout the Baltic provinces and in other governments--namely,
in Courland in 1817 and in Livonia in 1819. The introduction of the
new order of things was everywhere accomplished without any particular
difficulty.

In expressing to the Livonian nobility his satisfaction upon the occasion
of the reform effectuated, the emperor Alexander said: “I rejoice that
the Livonian nobility has justified my expectations. Your example
deserves imitation. You have acted in accordance with the spirit of the
times and have understood that liberal principles alone can serve as
a basis for the happiness of nations.” From these words it is evident
that the emperor entertained, according to Shishkov’s expression, an
unfortunate prejudice against the right of servitude in Russia, and
it appeared to many that in other parts of the empire words would be
followed by deeds.[61]

From the year 1816, the peasant question began to occupy society. The
aide-de-camp of his majesty, Kisselev, even presented a memoir to the
emperor which bore the title _Of the Gradual Abolition of Slavery
in Russia_. The memoir began with the words: “Civic liberty is the
foundation of national prosperity. This truth is so undoubted that I
consider it superfluous here to explain how desirable it is that the
lawful independence of which serfs and agriculturists, are unjustly
deprived, should be established for them throughout the empire. I
consider this measure the more needful now that the progress of
enlightenment and our closer contact with Europe, which hourly increases
the fermentation of minds, indicate to the government the necessity of
averting the consequences which may follow, and whose menace it would be
already difficult or impossible to deny. The blood in which the French
Revolution was steeped bears witness to this.” In what manner the emperor
Alexander regarded the memoir presented by his aide-de-camp, and what
fate overtook this production of his pen has remained unknown.

P. D. Kisselev was not the only nobleman who recognised the urgent
necessity of the government’s occupying itself with the peasant question.
The following circumstance serves as a proof of this: in this same year,
1816, many of the richest landowners of the government of St. Petersburg,
knowing the emperor’s moral aspirations to better the lot of the peasant
serfs, decided to turn them into obligatory settlers upon the basis
of the then existing regulations. The act was drawn up and signed by
sixty-five landowners; it only remained to take it to be ratified by the
emperor, and for this purpose the general aide-de-camp J. V. Vasiltchikov
was chosen. Those who had taken part in the signature of the act supposed
that the emperor knew nothing of the meetings that had taken place on
the occasion and were convinced that he would receive graciously a
proposition, which was in accordance with his manner of thinking. But the
emperor Alexander was aware of the determination of the nobles and hardly
had Vasiltchikov, after requesting permission to present himself to his
majesty, begun to speak of the matter, when Alexander, interrupting
him, inquired: “To whom, in your opinion, does the legislative power
belong in Russia?” And when Vasiltchikov replied: “Without doubt to your
imperial majesty as an autocratic emperor,” Alexander, raising his voice,
said, “Then leave it to me to promulgate such laws as I consider most
beneficial to my subjects.”

The emperor’s reply gave little hope of a favourable solution of this
important question. In the then existing state of affairs, the matter
could not avoid passing through the hands of Araktcheiev. This indeed
actually happened. In February, 1818, before the departure of the emperor
Alexander from Moscow for Warsaw to open the first Polish diet, Count
Araktcheiev announced that his majesty had deigned to issue an edict for
the liberation of landowners’ peasants from the condition of serfdom,
with the stipulation that the edict should not in any of its measures be
oppressive to the landowners, and especially that it should not present
anything of a violent character in its accomplishment on the part of
the government: but, on the contrary, that it should be accompanied by
advantages for the landowners and awaken in them a desire to co-operate
with the government in the abolition of the conditions of serfdom in
Russia, an abolition corresponding to the spirit of the times and the
progress of education, and indispensable for the future tranquillity of
the possessors of serfs.


THE EMPEROR AND THE QUAKERS

In 1814, at the time of the emperor Alexander’s stay in London, the
famous philanthropist Quakers, De Grelle de Mobillier,[62] and Allen, had
been inspired with the idea of taking advantage of a favourable occasion,
and instilling into the minds of the allied sovereigns the conviction
that the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of justice and truth. With this
object they first set off to visit the king of Prussia, who received
them and praised the Quakers living in his dominions, but expressed his
conviction that war is indispensable for the attainment of peace. The
emperor Alexander showed them more sympathy; he visited a Quaker meeting
and received a deputation. The emperor assured the Quakers that he was in
agreement with the greater part of their opinions, and that although on
account of his exceptional position his mode of action must be other than
theirs, yet he was in union with them in the spiritual worship of Christ.
In taking leave of the Quakers, Alexander invited them to come to see him
in Russia and said: “I bid you farewell as a friend and brother.”

Grelle and Allen arrived in St. Petersburg in November, 1818, during
the emperor’s absence. They went to Prince A. N. Galitzin, of whom
Grelle wrote: “He is a man penetrated by a truly Christian spirit.”
Galitzin received the Quakers with an open heart and informed them that
the emperor had sent him a letter telling him of their coming to Russia
and requesting that they might be received as his friends. After various
questions upon religious matters the Quakers, together with Prince
Galitzin, gave themselves up to silent, inward meditation, and this
method, writes Grelle, “did not appear at all unknown to the prince.
Inspired by the love of Christ, we felt in ourselves, after silent,
heartfelt prayer, the beneficent moving of grace. In taking leave of the
prince, he offered us free access to all that could interest us--to the
prisons, to reformatory institutions, and to refuges for the poor.”

Their visit to the St. Petersburg prisons deeply agitated the pious
Quakers; according to Grelle’s observations, some of them were very
dirty and overrun with vermin; the odour was unbearable and the air
contaminated to such a degree that it affected the heads and lungs of the
visitors. The Quakers also inspected a few refuges and schools.

On a subsequent evening the emperor Alexander received the Quakers alone.
He called them his old friends, made them sit beside him on the sofa, and
called to mind with inward emotion their interview in London in 1814,
saying that it had given him the spirit of courage and firmness amidst
all the difficult circumstances in which he was then placed. “The emperor
then,” writes Grelle, “suggested to us some questions upon religious
matters, thus showing his sincere desire to progress in the saving
knowledge of truth. He further questioned us as to what we had seen and
done in Russia. We took advantage of the opportunity to relate to him
the distressing condition of the prisons; and in particular we directed
his attention to the wretched state of the prison in Åbo, and told him
about an unfortunate man who had been kept in irons there for nineteen
years. The emperor was touched by our narrative and said, ‘This ought not
to be; it shall not occur again.’” The Quakers also informed the emperor
how deeply grieved they had been to see, upon inspecting one of the
schools, that the pupils were given books to read that were pernicious
to their morals; after which they showed him a specimen of extracts they
had made from the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools. The emperor
remained wrapped in thought for a moment, and then turning to his
companions, he observed: “You have done precisely what I much desired. I
have often thought that schools might serve as a powerful instrument for
the furtherance of the kingdom of Christ, by leading the people to the
knowledge of the Saviour and the principles of true piety. Send me as
soon as possible all that you have succeeded in preparing.”

The conversation then touched on Daniel Villers, also a Quaker, whom the
emperor had called to St. Petersburg to drain the marshes; Alexander said
that he regarded his presence in Russia as a blessing to the people.
“It was not the draining of the marshes,” added the emperor, “nor any
other material necessity that was the cause of my inviting some of your
‘friends’ to come here; no, I was guided by the wish that their true
piety, their probity, and other virtues might serve as an example for my
people to imitate.”

In conclusion the emperor said, “Before we separate, let us try to spend
some time in common prayer.” “We willingly consented,” writes Grelle in
regard to this matter, “feeling that the Lord with his beneficent power
was near us. Some time passed in silent, inward contemplation; our souls
were humbled, and a little later I felt within me the heavenly breathing
of the spirit of prayer and compunction; enfolded by the spirit, I bent
my knees before the greatness of God; the emperor knelt beside me. Amidst
the inward outpourings of the soul we felt that the Lord had consented
to hear our prayers. After that we spent a little while longer in silence
and then withdrew. In bidding us farewell the emperor expressed the
desire to see us again before we left. We spent two hours with him.”

After this remarkable audience, which so graphically expresses the
religious-idealistic frame of mind of the emperor Alexander, the Quakers
visited under the patronage of the widowed empress the female educational
establishments, the young pupils of which aroused much sympathy in them.
Grelle found that some of them had hearts open for receiving evangelical
inspiration. These visits were followed by the reception of the Quakers
by the empress Marie Feodorovna. They told the empress that they were
much pleased at the condition of the institutions under her patronage,
but at the same time they could not be otherwise than grieved to see how
little attention was paid in St. Petersburg, and in general throughout
Russia, to the education of children of the lower classes; they also
spoke to the empress of the unsatisfactoriness of the then existing
prison accommodations for women, and indicated how advantageous it would
be if the prisons were visited by women capable of instructing and
consoling the unfortunate prisoners. The empress entirely agreed with
these ideas.

[Illustration: RUSSIAN PRIEST]

Soon the emperor again invited the Quakers to come and see him. “He again
received us in his private apartments,” writes Grelle, “to which we
were taken by a secret way, avoiding the guard and the court servants.
Nobody seemed surprised to see us keeping our heads covered. The emperor,
as before, received us with sincere affability. He began by informing
us that the chains in which we had seen the prisoners at Åbo had been
taken off, that the unfortunate man of whom we had told him had been
set at liberty, and that orders had been given that the other prisoners
were to be better treated. He then asked us to relate to him openly
all that we had noticed in the prisons during our stay in Russia. The
governor-general (Count Miloradovitch) had informed him of the changes
and improvements which he considered it advantageous to carry out in the
gaols, and the emperor entirely approved of the changes that had already
been made. He further told us that the widowed empress had spoken to
him with pleasure of our visit to her; that she had taken to heart what
we had said of the extreme neglect of the education of children of the
poorer classes, and that she was occupying herself in searching for the
most effectual measures of remedying this defect as soon as possible. The
emperor added that he had named a certain sum of money to be used for
the establishment of six schools for poor children in the capital, and
that the children were to receive there a religious and moral education.
He further told us that he had attentively perused the books we had
prepared and was delighted with them; that if we had only come to Russia
to do this, we had already accomplished a very important work, and that
he intended to bring our books into use throughout all the schools of his
empire.”

Before their departure for Moscow the emperor received his old friends
a third time, and on this occasion he related to them various details
of how he had himself been educated under the supervision of his
grandmother, the empress Catherine. “The persons attached to me,” said
he, “had some good qualities, but they were not believing Christians and
therefore my primary education was not united with any profound moral
impressions; in accordance with the customs of our church, I was taught
formally to repeat morning and evening certain prayers I had learned; but
this habit, which did not in any wise satisfy the inward requirements of
my religious feelings, soon wearied me. Meanwhile it happened more than
once that, when I lay down to rest, I had a lively feeling in my soul of
my sins, and of the various moral deficiencies of my mode of life; thus
penetrated by heartfelt repentance I was moved by a desire to rise from
my bed and in the silence of the night to throw myself upon my knees and
with tears ask God for forgiveness and for strength to preserve greater
watchfulness over myself in future. This contrition of heart continued
for some time; but little by little, in the absence of moral support
on the part of the persons who surrounded me, I began to feel more
seldom and more feebly these salutary movings of grace. Sin, together
with worldly distractions, began to reign more and more within my soul.
Finally, in 1812, the Lord in his love and mercy, again called to me, and
the former movings of grace were renewed with fresh strength in my heart.
At that period a certain pious person[63] advised me to take to reading
the Holy Scriptures and gave me a Bible, a book which until then I had
never had in my hands. I devoured the Bible finding that its words shed
a new and never previously experienced peace in my heart, and satisfied
the thirst of my soul. The Lord in his goodness granted me his Spirit to
understand what I read; and to this inward instruction and enlightenment
I owe all the spiritual good that I acquired by the reading of the divine
Word; this is why I look upon inward enlightenment or instruction from
the Holy Ghost as the firmest support in the soul--saving knowledge of
God.”

The emperor then related to his companions how deeply his soul was
penetrated with the desire to abolish forever wars and bloodshed upon
earth. “He said,” writes Grelle, “that he had passed many nights without
sleep in strained and intense deliberation as to how this sacred desire
could be realised, and in deep grief at the thought of the innumerable
calamities and misfortunes that are occasioned by war. At that time
when his soul was thus bowed down in ardent prayer to the Saviour the
idea arose in him of inviting the crowned heads to unite in one holy
alliance, before the tribunal of which all future disagreements that
should arise should be settled, instead of having recourse to the sword
and to bloodshed. This idea took such possession of him that he got up
from his bed, expounded his feelings and aspirations in writing with such
liveliness and ardour that his intentions were subjected on the part of
many to unmerited suspicion and misinterpretation--‘Although,’ added
he with a sigh, ‘ardent love for God and mankind was the sole motive
that governed me.’ Thoughts of the formation of the Holy Alliance again
arose in him during his stay in Paris. After we had spent some time in
conversing on this important subject, the emperor said to us: ‘And thus
we part, in this world, but I firmly trust that we, being separated by
space, will however remain by the goodness of the spirit of God forever
united through inward spiritual fellowship, for in the kingdom of God
there are no limitations of space. Now, before we part, I have one
request to make to you: let us join in silent prayer and see if the Lord
will not consent to manifest his gracious presence to us, as he did the
last time.’

“We gladly consented to fulfil his desire. A solemn silence followed
during which we felt that the Lord was amongst us; our souls were
reverently opened before him and he himself was working within us through
his grace. Somewhat later, I felt, through the breathing of the love of
Christ, the lively desire of saying a few words of approbation to our
beloved emperor in order to encourage him to walk with firm steps in
the Lord’s way and to put his whole trust, unto the end of his earthly
journeyings, in the efficaciousness of the divine grace; in general I
felt the necessity of guarding him from evil and strengthening him in his
good intention of ever following the path of truth and righteousness. The
words that I said produced a profound impression upon the emperor and
he shed burning tears. Then our dear Allen, kneeling, raised a fervent
prayer to God for the emperor and his people. The emperor himself fell
on his knees beside him and remained a long while with us in spiritual
outpourings before the Lord. Finally we solemnly and touchingly took
leave of each other.”


SECRET SOCIETIES UNDER ALEXANDER I

[Illustration: A VALDAI WOMAN]

After the year 1815, when the emperor Alexander already appeared as a
weary martyr, immersed in mystic contemplation and wavering between
the evergrowing influence of Count Araktcheiev and the convictions he
had himself formed in the days of his youth, the events of 1812 were
reflected in a totally different manner upon the movement of social ideas
in Russia. The war of the fatherland was accompanied in Russia by an
unusual rising of the spirit of the nation and a remarkable awakening of
the public conscience. The continuation of the struggle with Napoleon
beyond the frontiers of Russia had led Alexander’s troops to Paris. This
enforced military exploit widened the horizon of the Russian people; they
became acquainted with European manners and customs, were in closer
contact with the current of European thought, and felt drawn towards
political judgment. It was quite natural that the Russian people should
begin to compare the order of things in their own country with political
and public organisation abroad. An unrestrainable impulse to criticise
and compare was awakened; thenceforth it was difficult to become
reconciled to the former status of Russian life and the traditional order
of things.

It will be asked what abuses presented themselves to the gaze of the
Russian conquerors, who had liberated Europe, upon their return to their
country. An entire absence of respect for the rights of the individual
was patent; the forcible introduction of monstrous military settlements,
the exploits of Magnitski and others of his kind in the department of
public instruction were crying shames; and, finally, the cruelties
of serfdom were in full activity. The subtile exactions which then
prevailed in service at the front completed the development of general
dissatisfaction amongst military circles. There is, therefore, nothing
astonishing in the fact that the misfortunes which then weighed upon the
Russian people should have found an answering call in the hearts of men
who were at that time in the grip of a violent patriotic revival.

The natural consequence of this joyless condition of affairs in Russia
was a hidden protest, which led to the formation of secret societies.
Under the then existing conditions there was no possibility of carrying
on reformatory deliberations with the cognisance of the government. Thus
a remarkable phenomenon was accomplished; on the one hand Russian public
thought was seeking for itself an issue and solution of the questions
that oppressed it; while on the other the emperor Alexander, disenchanted
with his former political ideals and standing at the head of the European
reaction, had become the unexpected champion of aspirations which had
nothing in common with the ideas of which he had been the representative
during the best period of his life. This circumstance made a break in
the interior life of Russia, which imperceptibly prepared the ground for
events until then unprecedented in Russian history. “What has become of
liberalism?” is a question that one of the contemporaries of that epoch
sets himself. “It seems to have vanished, to have disappeared from the
face of the earth; everything is silent. And yet it is just at this
instant that its hidden forces have begun to grow dangerous.” The time
had come when secret societies were in full bloom. The masonic lodges,
which had been allowed by the government, had long since accustomed the
Russian nobility to the form of secret societies. Officers’ circles,
in which conversations were carried on about the wounds of Russia, the
obduracy of the people, the distressing position of the soldier, the
indifference of society to the affairs of the country, imperceptibly
changed into organised secret societies.

It happened that yet another time the emperor Alexander expressed the
conviction that the interior administration of Russia ought to be thought
of, that it was necessary that means should be taken for remedying the
evil; but the sovereign did not pass from words to deeds. In reference to
this, the ideas expressed by Alexander to the governor of Penza, T. P.
Lubianovski, on the occasion of his visit to that town in 1824 are worthy
of attention. The emperor had inspected the second infantry corps there
assembled; the manœuvres had deserved particular praise. Observing signs
of weariness on the emperor’s face, Lubianovski ventured to remark that
the empire had reason to complain of his majesty.

“Why?” “You will not take care of yourself.” “You mean to say that I am
tired?” replied the emperor. “It is impossible to look at the troops
without satisfaction; the men are good, faithful and excellently trained;
we have gained no little glory through them. Russia has enough glory; she
does not require more; it would be a mistake to require more. But when I
think how little has been as yet done in the interior of the empire, then
the thought lies on my heart like a ten-pound weight. That is what makes
me tired.”

The profoundly true thought that fell from the lips of the sovereign in
his conversation with Lubianovski was not, however, put into application.
At that period it was impossible to count upon the amendment of the state
edifice through the administrations of the government. The dim figure of
Araktcheiev had definitively succeeded in screening Russia from the gaze
of Alexander, and his evil influence was felt at every step. Therefore
in the main everything led to the sorrowful result that the emperor, as
Viguel expressed it, was like a gentleman who, having grown tired of
administering his own estate, had given it over entirely into the hands
of a stern steward, being thus sure that the peasants would not become
spoiled under him.

A few words remain to be said of the fate that overtook the secret
societies after the closing of the Alliance of the Public Good.
Benkendorf’s[64] supposition that a new and more secret society would be
formed after this, which would act under the veil of greater security,
was actually justified. The more zealous members of the alliance only
joined together more closely, and from its ruins arose two fresh
alliances--the Northern and the Southern.

The leaders of the Northern Alliance in the beginning were Muraviev and
Turgeniev. Later on, in 1823, Kondratz Bileiev entered the society, of
which he became the leader. The aspirations of the Northern Alliance
were of a constitutional-monarchic character. In the Southern Alliance,
chiefly composed of members of the second army, the principal leader was
the commander of the Viatka infantry regiment, Colonel Paul Pestel, son
of the former governor-general of Siberia. Thanks to Pestel’s influence
the Southern Alliance acquired a preponderating republican tendency; he
occupied himself with the composition of a work which he called _Russian
Truth_, in which he expounded his ideas on the reconstruction of Russia.
Many members of this society inclined to the conviction that the death of
the emperor Alexander and even the extermination of the entire imperial
family were indispensable to the successful realisation of their proposed
undertakings; at any rate there is no doubt that conversations to this
effect were carried on amongst the members of the secret societies.
Soon the active propaganda of the members of the Southern Society
called another society into existence--the Slavonic Alliance or the
United Slavonians. In it was chiefly concentrated the radical element
from the midst of the future Dekabrists. The members of this society
proposed insane and violent projects and insisted chiefly on the speedy
commencement of decisive action, giving only a secondary importance to
deliberations on the constitutional form of government. Sergei Nuraviev
Apostol called them mad dogs chained.

There yet remained a better means for strengthening the designs of the
secret societies--this was to enter into relations with the Polish secret
societies. Negotiations with the representative of the Polish patriotic
alliance, Prince Tablonovski, were personally carried on by Pestel; but
the details of this agreement are even now little known. Such was the
dangerous and fruitless path into which many of the best representatives
of thinking Russia were drawn: each year the crisis became more and
more inevitable; and meanwhile the government became more decisively
confirmed than ever in the pathway of reaction, thus indirectly giving
greater power to secret revolutionary propaganda.


_Closing of the Masonic Lodges_

In August, 1822, a rescript was issued in the name of the minister of the
interior, ordering the closing of all secret societies, under whatever
name they might exist--masonic lodges or others--and forbidding their
establishment in future. All members of these societies had to pledge
themselves not to form any masonic lodges or other secret societies in
the future; and a declaration was required from all ranks of the army
and from the civil service that neither soldiers nor officials should
thenceforth belong to such organisations: “If any person refuses to make
such a pledge, he shall no longer remain in the service.”

All the measures drawn up by the rescript of August were, however, put
into effect only with regard to the closing of the masonic lodges. As
to the secret societies, which had undoubtedly a political aim, they
continued to develop in all tranquillity. “At that time,” writes a
contemporary, “there was a triple police in St. Petersburg--namely, the
governor general, the minister of the interior, and Count Araktcheiev;
but that it did not bring forth any advantages is proved by the events of
1825.”

According to the remarks of the same contemporary, card-playing had then
spread in St. Petersburg society to an incredible degree. “Certainly
in ninety houses out of a hundred they play,” writes Danilevski, “and
although the circle of my acquaintances has become very vast this year
and I go out a great deal yet I never see people doing anything else
than playing at cards. If one is invited to an evening party, it means
cards, and I have hardly made my bow to the hostess before I find the
cards in my hand. When one is asked out to dinner one sits down to
whist before the meal is served. Card-playing occupies not only elderly
people but young ones also. I think this has arisen partly from a
defect in education which is in general observable in Russia--for when
education finishes at seventeen, what store of ideas and knowledge, what
passion for science can one expect to find in adults? This condition is
further exaggerated by the fact that all political matters are banished
from conversation: the government is suspicious, and spies are not
unfrequently to be met with in society. The greater part of them are,
however, known; some belong to old noble families, are decorated with
orders, and wear chamberlains’ keys.”

The closing of the masonic lodges called forth the following
deliberations from Danilevski: “As far as I know, masonry had no other
object in Russia beyond benevolence and providing an agreeable way of
passing time. The closing of the lodges deprived us of the only places
where we assembled for anything else besides card-playing, for we have
no society where cards do not constitute the principal or rather the
only occupation. We are as yet so unversed in political matters that it
is absurd for the government to fear that such subjects would furnish
conversation at the masonic lodges. With us, notable persons have rarely
been masons; at least none such have visited our lodge, which is usually
full of people of the middle class, officers, civil-service employees,
artists, a very few merchants, and a large percentage of literary men.”[b]

These of course are the words of a partisan and must be taken with
a certain allowance. The same remark applies with full force to the
testimony of the historian Turgeniev, whose association with the secret
unions has already been mentioned, and whose comments on the subject,
despite a certain bias, are full of interest. Turgeniev is speaking of
the period just following that in which the government had taken action
against the societies.[a]


_Turgeniev’s Comment on the Secret Societies._

The government contributed much [he declares] by its suspicions and
precautions, to strengthen the reports which were afloat concerning
secret societies: to them all was suspect. A species of insurrection
having broken out in a regiment of the guards, of which the emperor was
head, the government thought they could trace it to the action of some
society, whereas it was caused by the brutal and ridiculous conduct of a
new colonel they had placed in command. That such was their conviction
there was no doubt, because two of the officers of the insurrectionary
companies were traduced before a council of war, and condemned, not only
without any proof but with no specification of the crime or fault with
which they were charged, whereas in reality neither the one nor the other
officer had ever belonged to a secret society.

A rash Englishman took it into his head to go round the world and publish
an account of his travels. He arrived at St. Petersburg, went over
Russia, and thence to Siberia. There he was taken for a spy, and soon an
order came from St. Petersburg to conduct him to the frontier. Even pious
Protestant missionaries, propagating with their accustomed zeal Christian
morals among savage peoples, were suspected by the government. They were
hindered in the holy warfare they desired to carry on in the farthest
and least civilised regions of the empire. The powers only saw in them
emissaries of European liberalism.

The public for their part did not fail to take appearances for reality.
That is the common propensity of the crowd in every country. How many
times, before and after this epoch, might not men have been seen
addressing themselves to those who were supposed to be at the head of
such societies, and insistently asking to be admitted. In the army
subalterns thus addressed their chiefs, and old generals sought their
young subordinates to obtain the same favour. It might have been said
with equal truth to both parties that no secret societies existed. Men’s
minds, however, were all on the strain for political events. It was
thought that some great change was to come soon, and everyone wanted
to get an inkling of it. Restless curiosity was not the worst of the
inconveniences caused to such associations. Doubtless, the evil was less
due to societies than to persons who judged them after their deceitful
appearances. Perhaps it was the fault of the political order which made
secret societies necessary or, at any rate, inevitable; but it was
nevertheless a serious matter which only publicity could remedy. The
strong energy of a free man would advantageously replace the trickery and
restlessness of a slave.

However, at the epoch of which we now speak, individuals were able to
agitate in various ways, but without the least result. But if such a
thing as an organised secret society did exist, how is it I did not know
of it--I who knew many of those called liberals? I will give convincing
proof of what I here maintain; I quote the words of Pestel, a man sent
to the scaffold by the government not because he had committed some
political crime but because he was considered as the most influential of
those who were supposed to belong to secret associations. Pestel was in
St. Petersburg just as my departure was decided on. He came to see me
and spoke with regret of the dissolution of the Bien Public Society. “As
for us” (the 2nd army), he said, “we have not observed the dissolution.
It would be too disheartening. We are believed to be strong and numerous;
I encourage the delusion. What would be said were it known that we are
but five or six who form the association?” He ended by advising me to
renounce my journey, or, at any rate to return as soon as possible and
take up the abandoned work again. “I see quite well,” he said, “there is
absolutely nothing left here of the old society, but at your house and a
few others one can always believe in the existence of the society. Your
departure will weaken this belief.”

[Illustration: A TATAR WOMAN]

I explained that my health forced me to leave my affairs, and that,
furthermore, I had little faith in the efficacy of secret societies. He
seemed impressed by my reasoning and even agreed that I might be right on
this last point.

His attention was much occupied with certain social theories that he
and some of his friends had formulated. They thought to find in me one
proselyte more. But they were disappointed, and Pestel was much surprised
and disconcerted. These theories, which so many ardent imaginations had
adopted, were no doubt excellent in intention, but they hardly promised
great results. The genius, or something akin to it, in a Fourier, the
zeal of an Owen, the utopianism of many others, might make proselytes
and excite admiration; but the dreams of such men remained but dreams
although they sometimes touched on the sublime. Only, in default of
possible realisation, these theories might help humanity by directing the
attention and effort of serious men towards certain things of which they
had sufficiently appreciated the importance and utility. But to ensure
that result more imagination was required. One of the fundamental points
in the theory of Pestel and his friends was a universal distribution
of territory, its cultivation to be determined by a supreme authority.
At least they wanted to divide vast crown lands among those who had no
property. What Elizabeth had guaranteed to all Englishmen--the right
of being supported by the poor rates in default of other means of
subsistence--they wanted to guarantee by means of the possession or at
least the enjoyment of a certain quantity of land free for cultivation.

I tried to the best of my power to refute their arguments. It was not
easy. The refutation of certain theories is difficult, and there are some
whose very absurdity makes them unassailable. At last I came to think
that Pestel and his friends were far more discontented with my opposition
to their social theories than with my opinions on secret societies.[d]


LITERARY ACTIVITY OF THE PERIOD

The awakening of the Russian spirit was not manifested in political
conspiracies alone. In science, in letters, and in art the reign of
Alexander was an epoch of magnificent achievement. The intellectual like
the liberal movement no longer bore the exotic and superficial character
that had been apparent during the reign of Catherine; it penetrated to
the deepest layers of society, gained constantly in power and extent,
carried away the middle classes, and was propagated in the remotest
provinces. The movement started in 1801 had not yet ceased, although
the government failed to support the efforts it had itself aroused,
and Alexander, embittered and disillusioned, had come to mistrust all
intellectual manifestations. The increased severity of the censorship
had not availed to prevent the formation of learned societies; literary
journals and reviews continued to multiply.

During this period the Besieda, a literary club representing the
classical tendencies, was formed, and the romanticists, Jukovski,
Dachkov, Ouvarov, Pushkin, Bludov, and Prince Viazemski founded the
Arzamas. At St. Petersburg appeared the _Northern Post_, the _St.
Petersburg Messenger_, the _Northern Messenger_, the _Northern Mercury_,
the _Messenger of Zion_, the _Beehive_, and the _Democrat_, in which
latter Kropotkov inveighed against French customs and ideas, and in the
_Funeral Orison of my Dog Balabas_ congratulated the worthy animal on
never having studied in a university, or read Voltaire.

Literary activity was, as usual, greatest at Moscow, where Karamzine
was editing the _European Messenger_, Makarov the _Moscow Mercury_, and
Glinka the _Russian Messenger_. In his journal Glinka endeavoured to
excite a national feeling by first putting the people on their guard
against all foreign influence, but more particularly that of France,
and then arming them against Napoleon, teaching them the doctrine of
self-immolation, and letting loose the furies of the “patriotic war.”
When the _Russian Messenger_ went out of existence after the completion
of its task, the _Son of the Soil_, edited by de Gretch, took up the
same work and carried the war against Napoleon beyond the frontiers.
“Taste in advance,” it cried to the conqueror, “the immortality that you
deserve; learn now the curses that posterity will shower on your name!
You sit on your throne in the midst of thunder and flame as Satan sits in
hell surrounded by death, devastation, and fire!” The _Russian Invalide_
was founded in 1813 for the benefit of wounded and infirm soldiers.
Even after the war-fever had somewhat subsided, and considerations less
hostile to France were occupying the public mind, the literary movement
still continued.

Almost all the writers of the day took part in the crusade against
Gallomania and the belief in Napoleon’s omnipotence. Some had fought
in the war against France and their writings were deeply tinged with
patriotic feeling. Krilov, whose fables rank him not far below La
Fontaine, wrote comedies also. In the _School for Young Ladies_ and the
_Milliner’s Shop_ he ridiculed the exaggerated taste for everything
French. Besides his classical tragedies Ozerov wrote _Dmitri Donskoi_,
in which he recalled the struggles of Russia against the Tatars, and in
a measure foretold the approaching conflict with a new invader. In the
tragedy named after Pojarski, the hero of 1812, Kriukovski made allusions
of the same order. The poet Jukovski put in verse the exploits of the
Russians against Napoleon in 1806 and 1812, and Rostoptchin did not await
the great crisis before opening out on the French the vials of his wrath.

Viewed in general, the literature of Alexander’s period marked the
passage from the imitation of ancient writers and French classicists to
the imitation of French and English masterpieces. The Besieda and the
Arzamas were the headquarters of two rival armies which carried on in
Russia a war similar to that waged in Paris by romantic and classical
schools. Schiller, Goethe, Byron, and Shakespeare were as much the
fashion in Russia as in France, and created there as close an approach
to a literary scandal. While Ozerov, Batiuchkov, and Derjavine upheld
the traditions of the old school, Jukovski gave to Russia a translation
of Schiller’s _Joan of Arc_ and of Byron’s _Prisoner of Chillon_; and
Pushkin published _Ruslan and Liudmilla_, _The Prisoner of the Caucasus_,
_Eugene Oniegin_, the poem _Poltava_, and the tragedy _Boris Godunov_.

As in France the romantic movement had been accompanied by a brilliant
revival of historical studies, so in Russia a fresh impulse was given
to letters, and dramatists and novelists were inspired with a taste for
national subjects by Karamzin’s _History of the Russian Empire_, a work
remarkable for eloquence and charm [as our various extracts testify]
though deficient in critical insight. Schlötzer had recently edited
Nestor, the old annalist of Kiev and father of Russian history.[f]


_Alexander I as a Patron of Literature_

Protection and encouragement were shown to literature by Alexander
I. Storck[i] writes as follows: “Rarely has any ruler shown such
encouragement to literature as Alexander I. The remarkable literary
merits of persons in the government service are rewarded by rises in the
official ranks, by orders and pensions, whilst writers who are not in the
government service and whose literary productions come to the knowledge
of the emperor not unfrequently receive presents of considerable value.
Under the existing conditions of the book trade, Russian authors cannot
always count on a fitting recompense for large scientific works, and in
such cases the emperor, having regard to these circumstances, sometimes
grants the authors large sums for the publication of their works. Many
writers send their manuscripts to the emperor, and if only they have
a useful tendency he orders them to be printed at the expense of the
cabinet and then usually gives the whole edition to the author.”

In view of the desire manifested by Karamzin to devote his labours to
the composition of a full history of the Russian Empire, the emperor by
a ukase of the 31st of October, 1803, bestowed upon him the title of
historiographer and a yearly pension of 2,000 rubles.

During the reign of the emperor Paul, Alexander, in a letter to Laharpe
dated September 27th, 1797, expressed his conviction of the necessity
of translating useful books into the Russian language, in order “to
lay a foundation by spreading knowledge and enlightenment in the minds
of the people.” When he came to the throne, Alexander did not delay in
accomplishing the intention he had already formed when he was czarevitch,
and actually during the epoch of reforms a multitude of translations of
works appeared, which had the evident object of inspiring interest in
social, economic, and political questions and of communicating to Russian
society the latest word of western science upon such questions.

In the establishment of the ministries the question of censorship was not
overlooked; it was transferred to the ministry of public instruction.
In consequence of this arrangement a special statute was issued (July
9th, 1804), “not in order to place any restraint,” as is stated in
the minister’s report, “upon the freedom of thought and of writing,
but solely so as to take requisite measures against the abuse of such
freedom.” The entire statute contained forty-seven paragraphs--a
circumstance worthy of attention if we take into consideration the fact
that the censorship statute presented in the year 1826 by A. S. Shishkov
had grown to 230 paragraphs. According to the statute of Alexander I the
censorship was designed chiefly to “furnish society with books and works
contributing to the true enlightenment of minds and to the formation of
moral qualities, and to remove books and works of contrary tendencies.”
The censorship was entrusted to the university, constituting in its
general jurisdiction the then newly organised department of the ministry
of public instruction, which had the chief direction of schools. The
basis of the functions of the censorship thus constituted was found in
the three provisions following:

(1) Watchfulness that in the books and periodicals published, and in
the pieces represented on the stage “there shall be nothing against
religion, the government, morality, or the personal honour of any
citizen.” (2) Care that in the prohibition of the publication or issue
of books and works the committee shall be “guided by a wise indulgence,
setting aside all biased interpretation of the works or of any part of
them which might seem to merit prohibition; and wisdom to remember that
when such parts seem subject to any doubt or have a double meaning, it
is better to interpret them in the manner most favourable to the author
than to prosecute him.” (3) “A discreet and wise investigation of truths
concerning faith, mankind, the position of the citizen, the law, and
all branches of the administration, are to be treated by the censorship
not only in the most lenient manner, but should enjoy entire liberty of
publication, as contributing to the progress of enlightenment.”

Such was the aspect of the censorship and statute which remained
unchanged for more than twenty years, that is during the whole reign
of the emperor Alexander. It was only from the year 1817, from
the establishment of the ministry of public worship and of public
instruction, that the censorship acquired a particularly irksome tendency
which was in opposition to the liberal spirit of the statute: the most
complete intolerance, fanaticism, and captiousness, which had been absent
at the commencement of Alexander’s reign, then made their appearance.

In January, 1818 the emperor Alexander came for a short time to St.
Petersburg, and Karamzin took advantage of his stay in order to present
to him the eight volumes of the _History of the Russian Empire_ which he
had just published. “He received me in his private apartments, and I had
the happiness of dining with him,” wrote Karamzin to his friend I. I.
Dmitriev. “On the 1st of February my _History of the Russian Empire_ was
on sale; the edition was of three thousand copies, and in spite of the
high price at which the work was sold (55 rubles, paper money, per copy),
a month later not a copy was left at the booksellers.”[b]


FAILURE OF THE POLISH EXPERIMENT

The constitution granted to Poland in 1815, based the government on a
tripartite division of power; the three estates of the realm being the
king, a senate, and a house of representatives--the latter two being
comprehended under the name of a diet. The executive was vested in the
king, and in functionaries by him appointed. The crown was hereditary;
it was the prerogative of the king to declare war, convoke, prorogue, or
dissolve the diet. He was empowered to appoint a viceroy, who, unless a
member of the royal family, was to be a Pole. The king or viceroy was
assisted by a council of state and five responsible ministers, their
several departments being instruction, justice, interior and police, war,
finance. These five ministers were subordinate to the president of the
council. Considering the exhaustion, humiliation, and misery to which
Poland had been reduced, such a constitution was apparently a great boon,
for it guaranteed civil, political, and religious freedom; but by the
very nature of things it was foredoomed to destruction.

The first Polish diet assembled at Warsaw on the 27th of March, 1818.
The grand duke Constantine, commander-in-chief of the Polish army, was
elected a deputy by the faubourg of Praga, and during the session was
obliged to renounce his privilege as a senator, because, by the terms of
the constitution, no person could sit in both houses. He was elected by
a majority of 103 votes to 6, an evident proof that the new reign had
excited the liveliest hopes. The emperor arrived at Warsaw on the 13th
of March; he devoted himself laboriously to the examination of state
affairs, and on the 27th he opened the diet in person with a speech in
the French language. He said, “the organisation which existed in vigorous
maturity in your country permitted the instant establishment of what I
have given you, by putting into operation the principles of those liberal
institutions which have never ceased to be the object of my solicitude,
and whose salutary influence I hope by the aid of God to disseminate
through all the countries which He has confided to my care. Thus you
have afforded me the means of showing my country what I had long since
prepared for her, and what she shall obtain when the elements of a work
so important shall have attained their necessary development.”

[Illustration: HOUSE OF THE ROMANOV CZARS]

There is no reason to doubt that Alexander cherished these intentions in
his own sanguine but impractical way. The enfranchisement of the serfs
of Esthonia, undertaken in 1802 and completed in 1816, and that of the
serfs of Courland in 1817, exhibit the same principles. And when in 1819
the deputies of the Livonian nobility submitted to the approbation of
the emperor a plan to pursue the same course with the serfs of their
province, the following was his remarkable reply: “I am delighted to see
that the nobility of Livonia have fulfilled my expectations. You have set
an example that ought to be imitated. You have acted in the spirit of our
age, and have felt that liberal principles alone can form the basis of
the people’s happiness.”

“Such,” says Schnitzler, “was constantly, during nearly twenty years,
the language of Alexander. He deeply mourned the entire absence of all
guarantees for the social well-being of the empire. His regret was
marked in his reply to Madame de Staël, when she complimented him on the
happiness of his people, who, without a constitution, were blessed with
such a sovereign: ‘I am but a lucky accident.’” After 1815 he was no
longer even that.

A year had hardly elapsed from the time when Alexander had addressed
the words we have quoted to the diet at Warsaw, ere the Poles began
to complain that the constitution was not observed in its essential
provisions; that their viceroy Zaionczek had but the semblance of
authority, whilst all the real power was in the hands of the grand
duke Constantine, and of Novosiltzov the Russian commissioner. The
bitterness of their discontent was in proportion with the ardour of their
short-lived joy. Russian despotism reverted to its essential conditions;
the liberty of the press was suspended; and in 1819 the national army was
dissolved. On the other hand, the spirit of opposition became so strong
in the diet, that in 1820, a measure relating to criminal procedure,
which was pressed forward with all the force of government influence, was
rejected by a majority of 120 to 3. Thenceforth there was nothing but
mutual distrust between Poland and Russia.


CONSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS

The institutions which Alexander had given to Poland worked no happy
results, and those which he designed for Russia would have been little
better. He failed to accomplish even the good which he might have
effected without organic changes. But he felt himself arrested by
innumerable difficulties. He often wanted instruments to carry out his
will, oftener still the firmness to support them against court cabals.
The immense distances to be traversed, which, according to Custine, the
emperor Nicholas feels to be one of the plagues of his empire, presented
the same obstacle to Alexander. Again, his desire to exercise European
influence distracted his attention from his proper work at home, and the
empire sank back into its old routine. Discouraged at last, and awakening
as he grew older from some of the illusions of his youth, he gave way to
indolence more and more. He saw himself alone, standing opposed to an
immense festering corruption; in despair he ceased to struggle against
it; and in the latter portion of his reign he grievously neglected the
care of his government.

The helm thus deserted by the pilot passed into the hands of General
Araktcheiev, a shrewd, active man, devoted to business, perhaps also
well-intentioned, but a Russian of the old school, without the necessary
enlightenment, without political probity--arbitrary, imperious, and
enthralled by qualities and notions inimical to progress; governed,
moreover, by unworthy connections of a particular kind. Under the rule
of Araktcheiev the censorship became more severe than ever. Foreign
books were admitted with difficulty, and were subject to tyrannical
restrictions; many professors of the new university of St. Petersburg
were subjected to a despotic and galling inquisition; others were
required most rigidly to base their course of instructions upon a
programme printed and issued by the supreme authority. Freemasonry
was suppressed. Foreign travellers were surrounded with troublesome
and vexatious formalities. Many rigorous regulations, which had been
long disused and almost forgotten, were revived. In short, Araktcheiev
exercised with intolerable severity a power which he derived from a
master who carried gentleness to an extreme of weakness--who loved to
discuss the rights of humanity, and whose heart bled for its sufferings.


THE MILITARY COLONIES (1819 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1819 A.D.]]

It was by the advice of Araktcheiev that military colonies were
established in Russia in 1819. The system was not new, for Austria had
already adopted it on some of her frontiers; but its introduction into
Russia was a novelty from which great results were expected, and which
neighbouring states regarded with much uneasiness. The plan was to
quarter the soldiers upon the crown-peasants, build military villages
according to a fixed plan, apportion a certain quantity of field to every
house, and form a statute-book, according to which these new colonies
should be governed. The plan at once received the approbation of the
czar. It was the intention of Araktcheiev, by means of these colonies,
to reduce the expense entailed by the subsistence of the army, and to
compel the soldier to contribute to his own maintenance by cultivating
the soil; to strengthen the ranks by a reserve picked from among the
crown-peasants, equal in number to the colony of soldiers; to furnish
the soldier with a home, in which his wife and children might continue
to dwell when the exigencies of war called him away; and to increase the
population, and with it the cultivation of the soil, in a land where
hands only are wanting to change many a steppe into a garden, many a
scattered village into a thriving town.

Russian colonies were thus established in the governments of Novgorod,
Mohilev, Kharkov, Kiev, Podolia, and Kherson; that is to say, in the
neighbourhood of Poland, Austria, and Turkey. Political and military
considerations had combined to fix the choice of localities for these
colonies. In consequence of the vast dimensions of the Russian Empire,
troops raised in the north and west can only reach the southern provinces
after long intervals; and if, on any emergency, Russia should wish to
concentrate a large part of her forces in the neighbourhood of the
southern and western frontiers, such a concentration, it was thought,
would be greatly facilitated by the fact of military colonies, with
a large population, being already on the spot. The villages destined
for the reception of military colonies were all to be inhabited by
crown-peasants; these people were now relieved from the duties they had
been accustomed to pay to the government, in consideration of their
quartering men in their houses. All peasants more than fifty years of
age were selected to be so-called head colonists, or master-colonists.
Every master-colonist received forty acres of land, for which he had to
maintain a soldier and his family, and to find fodder for a horse, if a
corps of cavalry happened to be quartered in the village. The soldier,
on his part, was bound to assist the colonist in the cultivation of
his field and the farm labours generally, whenever his military duties
did not occupy the whole day. The soldier, who in this way became
domiciliated in the family, received the name “military peasant.” The
officers had the power of choosing the soldiers who were to be quartered
upon the master-colonists. If the colonist had several sons, the oldest
became his adjunct; the second was enrolled among the reserve; the third
might become a military peasant; the others were enrolled as colonists
or pupils. Thus, in the new arrangements, two entirely different elements
were fused together, and one population was, so to speak, engrafted upon
another.

The labour of these agricultural soldiers is of course dependent upon
the will of the officers, for they can only attend to agricultural work
when freed from military duty. The man himself continues half peasant,
half soldier, until he has served for five-and-twenty years, if he be
a Russian, or twenty years if he be a Pole. At the expiration of this
time he is at liberty to quit the service, and his place is filled
up from the reserve. Beside the house of each master-colonist stands
another dwelling constructed in exactly the same manner, and occupied by
the reserve-man, who may be regarded as a double of the soldier. He is
selected by the colonel of the regiment from among the peasants, and is
generally a son or relation of the master-colonist. The reserve-man is
instructed in all the duties appertaining to the soldier’s profession,
and is educated in every particular, so that he may be an efficient
substitute. If the agricultural soldier dies, or falls in battle, his
reserve-man immediately takes his place. The colonist now takes the
place of the reserve-man, who in his turn is succeeded by the pupil.
The master-colonist, peasant-soldier, and reserve-man, may all choose
their wives at pleasure, and they are encouraged to marry. The women,
on the other hand, are allowed to marry within the limits of their
colony, but not beyond it. The sons of the master-colonists, soldiers,
or reserve-men, between the ages of thirteen and seventeen, are called
“cantonists.” They are drilled like soldiers, and occasionally attend
schools. The children between the ages of eight and thirteen visit the
school of the village in which their parents dwell, and are exercised
in the use of arms on alternate days. Like the cantonists, they wear
uniforms, and are looked upon as future soldiers. All male children
are sent to school, where, by the method of reciprocal education, they
are taught to read, write, and cipher, alternately with their military
studies. They are taught to recite a kind of catechism, setting forth the
duties of the soldier; they learn the use of the sabre; are practised
in riding, and, when they have attained the age of seventeen years, are
mustered in the headquarters of the regiment, and divided into corps,
those who distinguish themselves by attention and diligence being
appointed officers. The several component parts of a colony are as
follows:

1. The head colonist--the master of the house and possessor of the
estate. 2. His assistant, who joins him in the cultivation of his farm.
3. The military peasant, who likewise takes part in agricultural labour.
4. The reserve-man, who supplies the place of the soldier in case of
need. 5. The cantonist, between the ages of thirteen and seventeen. 6.
The boys, from eight to thirteen years old. 7. Male children under the
age of eight years. 8. The female population. 9. The invalids.

The colonies in the south of Russia comprise 380 villages in the
provinces of Kherson, Kharkov, and Iekaterainoslav. The crown has here
30,000 peasants. Every village contains two or three squadrons, according
to its size; thus they contain altogether 80,000 men. These military
districts, as the regions are called in which the colonies occur, are so
strictly divided from the remaining portions of the provinces, that no
man can enter them without a special passport, granted by the military
authorities. Their constitution is entirely military, even the postal
service being executed by soldiers. At every station a subaltern receives
the order for post-horses and inspects it; another soldier harnesses
the horses; a third greases the wheels; and a fourth mounts the box as
coachman. As soon as the military coat appears in sight, every peasant
on the high-road stops, plants his hands stiffly against his sides, and
stands in a military attitude of “attention.”

The laws are administered in the first instance by a detachment from
every squadron, one of the officers acting as president. From the
decision of this tribunal an appeal can be made to the regimental
council, which is composed of the colonel, two captains, and six deputies
from among the colonists. The judgments of this court are laid before
the commandant-in-chief of the colonies, against whose decision neither
soldiers nor colonists may protest, officers alone having the privilege
of appealing to the emperor. In the headquarters of every regiment a
copy of the code of laws is kept, and in most military villages churches
are to be found, where a priest, who belonged to the church before the
village was transformed into a military colony, performs the service.

The success of the military colonies in Russia fell far short of the
expectations of their founders. To the unfortunate crown serfs they
brought an intolerable aggravation of their wretchedness, by making them
feel their slavery even in their homes and their domestic affections. The
consequence was seen in the madness of their revenge on several occasions
when they broke out into rebellion, as for instance at Novgorod, in 1832.
“Nothing,” says Dr. Lee, “could be sold without the knowledge of the
officers in these military colonies. It is said that when a hen lays an
egg, it is necessary to make an entry of the fact in a register kept for
this and other equally important purposes. I was told that when a priest
was speaking to some of these peasants about the punishments of hell,
they answered they dreaded them not, because a worse hell than that in
which they were doomed to pass their whole lives here, could not possibly
exist.

“The military colonies,” Lee continues, “please one at first sight from
the order and cleanliness everywhere prevailing in them; but their
population is said to be wretched in the highest degree. When the emperor
Alexander was here, some years ago, he went round visiting every house;
and on every table he found a dinner prepared, one of the principal
articles of which consisted of a young pig roasted. The prince Volkhonski
suspected there was some trick, and cut off the tail of the pig and put
in his pocket. On entering the next house the pig was presented, but
without the tail, upon which Prince Volkhonski said to the emperor, ‘I
think this is an old friend.’ The emperor demanded his meaning, when
he took out the tail from his pocket and applied it to the part from
which it had been removed. The emperor did not relish the jest, and
it was supposed this piece of pleasantry led to his disgrace. A more
effectual, though bold and dangerous method of exposing to the emperor
the deceptions carried on throughout the military colonies under Count
Araktcheiev could not have been adopted than that which Prince Volkhonski
had recourse to on this occasion. From that time Count Araktcheiev became
his bitter enemy.”


ALEXANDER AND THE GREEK UPRISING

[Sidenote: [1822 A.D.]]

We have now touched upon all that is worthy of note in Alexander’s home
policy during the last ten years of his reign. That portion of his life
was spent in perpetual motion and perpetual agitation to little or
no good purpose, whilst his proper functions were delegated to Count
Araktcheiev, whose name was a word of terror to everyone in Russia.
Absorbed by affairs foreign to the interests of his empire, Alexander
was consistent or persevering in nothing but his efforts to enforce the
dark, stagnant policy of Austria, which had become that of the Holy
Alliance. He was present at the congresses of Aix-la-Chapelle, Troppau,
Laibach, and Verona, and zealously participated in all the repressive
measures concerted there. He was the soul of the deliberations held at
the latter place in 1822, and whilst he refused aid to the Greeks in
their rebellion against their “legitimate sovereign,” the sultan, he was
all but inclined to use constraint to his ally, France, to compel her, in
spite of the opposition of England, to take upon herself the execution
of the violent measures resolved on in behalf of the execrable Ferdinand
of Spain. A speech made at this congress to Châteaubriand, the French
plenipotentiary, has been praised by some of the emperor’s biographers
for its “noble sentiments.” To us it seems well worthy of record for its
unconscious sophistry and signal display of self-delusion.

“I am very happy,” said the emperor to Châteaubriand, “that you came to
Verona, because you may now bear witness to the truth. Would you have
believed, as our enemies are so fond of asserting, that the alliance is
only a word intended to cover ambition? That might have received a colour
of truth under the old order of things, but now all private interests
disappear when the civilisation of the world is imperilled. Henceforward
there can be no English, French, Russian, Prussian, or Austrian policy;
there can only be a general policy, involving the salvation of all,
admitted in common by kings and peoples. It is for me, the first of
all, to declare my appreciation of the principles on which I founded
the Holy Alliance. An opportunity presents itself; it is the Greek
insurrection. Certainly no event appeared more adapted to my personal
interests, to those of my subjects, and to the feelings and prejudices of
the Russians, than a religious war against Turkey; but in the troubles
of the Peloponnesus I saw revolutionary symptoms, and from that moment
I held aloof. What has not been done to dissolve the alliance? Attempts
have been made by turns to excite my cupidity, or to wound my self-love;
I have been openly outraged; the world understood me very badly if it
supposes that my principles could be shaken by vanities, or could give
way before resentment. No, no; I will never separate myself from the
monarchs with whom I am united. It should be permitted to kings to form
public alliances, to protect themselves against secret associations.
What temptations can be offered to me? What need have I to extend my
empire? Providence has not placed under my command eight hundred thousand
soldiers to satisfy my ambition, and to conserve those principles of
order on which society must repose.”

This was not the language of “noble sentiment,” but of an intellect
narrowed by sinister influences, perverted to the views of a most sordid
policy, and flattering itself on its own debasement with the maudlin cant
of philanthropy.

We may well conceive that it was not without inward pain and
self-reproach that the benevolent Alexander stifled in his heart the
voice that rose in favour of the Greeks, and resisted the wishes of his
people, who were animated by a lively sympathy for their co-religionists.
That sympathy was manifested as strongly as it could be under this
despotic government, where every outward demonstration is interdicted,
unless when specially commanded or permitted by authority. They could not
see without surprise the head of the so-styled orthodox church enduring
the outrages of the infidels, and looking on unmoved whilst one of her
chief pastors was hung at the porch of his church, and multitudes of
her children were massacred. These Greeks had of late been regarded
as under the protection of Russia; she was their old ally--nay, more,
their accomplice, who had more than once instigated them to break their
chains. The supineness of the emperor under such circumstances mortified
the nobility, shocked the clergy, and was a subject of sincere affliction
to the people, for whom, in their debased condition, religious sentiments
held the place of political emotions.

High and low obeyed, however; murmurs were suppressed; but the Russians
failed not to attribute to the wrath of God the misfortunes which befel
Alexander, amongst which was the malady with which he was afflicted in
1824. It began with erysipelas in the leg, which soon spread upwards,
and was accompanied with fever and delirium. For a time his life was in
danger, and the people, who sincerely loved him, believed that they saw
in this a punishment from on high because he had abandoned an orthodox
nation.


THE GREAT INUNDATION OF 1824

[Sidenote: [1824 A.D.]]

Another misfortune was a frightful calamity which befel St. Petersburg
in 1824. The mouth of the Neva, opening westward into the gulf of
Finland, is exposed to the violent storms that often accompany the
autumnal equinox. They suddenly drive the waters of the gulf into the
bed of the river, which then casts forth its accumulated floods upon
the low quarters on both its banks. It may be conceived how terrible is
the destruction which the unchained waters make in a city built upon a
drained marsh, on the eve of a northern winter of seven months’ duration.
There were terrific inundations in 1728, 1729, 1735, 1740, 1742, and in
1777, a few days before the birth of Alexander; but the worst of all was
that which occurred on the 19th of November, 1824, a year before his
death. A storm blowing from the west and southwest with extreme violence,
forced back the waters of the Neva, and drove those of the gulf into
it.[e]

At eight o’clock in the morning the waters began to rise rapidly and had
soon submerged all the lower parts of the town. On the Nevski Prospect
the water had reached the Troitski Perenlok, and by twelve three parts
of the town were submerged, owing to a southwesterly wind which rose
to a violent tempest. At a quarter to three the waters began suddenly
to subside. The emperor was profoundly moved by the awful calamity
which took place before his eyes, and in the gloomy frame of mind that
had possession of him he regarded it as a punishment for his sins. As
soon as the water had so far subsided as to make it possible to drive
through the streets he set off for the Galernaia (in the lower part of
the town). There a terrible picture of destruction was unfolded before
him. Visibly affected he stopped and got out of the carriage; he stood
for a few moments without speaking, the tears flowing down his cheeks:
the people, sobbing and weeping, surrounded him: “God is punishing us
for our sins,” said someone in the crowd. “No, for mine,” answered the
emperor sorrowfully, and he himself began to give orders about arranging
temporary refuge and affording assistance to the sufferers. On the
next day, the 8th (20th) of November, Count Araktcheiev, Alexander’s
favourite, wrote the following letter to the emperor:

“I could not sleep all night, knowing what your state of mind must be,
for I am convinced how much your majesty must be now suffering from the
calamity of yesterday. But God certainly sometimes sends such misfortunes
in order that His chosen ones may show in an unusual degree their
compassionate care for the unfortunate. Your majesty will of course do so
in the present case. For this money is necessary and money without delay,
in order to give assistance, not to the well-to-do but to the poorest.
Your subjects must help you, and therefore I venture to submit my idea to
you.

“The wise dispositions that you made, _batushka_,[65] with regard to my
insignificant labours have constituted a tolerably considerable capital.
In my position I have not required to use any of this capital even as
table money, and now I ask as a reward that a million may be separated
from the capital and employed in assisting the poor people. God will
certainly give his help in this matter to the benefit of the country
and the glory of your majesty, and bring about a still better means
for its accomplishment. Batushka, order that a committee may be formed
of compassionate people, in order that they may without delay occupy
themselves with the relief of the poorest. They will glorify your name,
and I, hearing it, shall thus enjoy the greatest pleasure on earth.”

The emperor answered Count Araktcheiev the same day in a few gracious
lines, full of heartfelt gratitude: “We are in complete agreement
in our ideas, dear Alexis Andreivitch. Your letter has comforted me
inexpressibly, for it is impossible that I should not be deeply grieved
at the calamity of yesterday, and especially at the thought of those who
have perished or who mourn for relatives. Come to me to-morrow so that we
may arrange everything. Ever your sincerely affectionate Alexander.”

The emperor sent a note of the following content to Adjutant-General
Diebitsch: “In order to afford effectual relief to the sufferers from
the inundation of the 7th of November, and on account of the destruction
of the bridges and the difficulties of communication between the various
parts of the town, the following military governors are temporarily
appointed under the direction of the military governor-general, Count
Miloradovitch: for Vasili Oetroo, Adjutant-General Benkendorv; for the
St. Petersburg side, Adjutant-General Komarovski; and for the Viboz side,
Adjutant-General Depreradovitch.”

[Illustration: TVERSKI GATE, MOSCOW]

On the 8th of November the emperor sent for the newly appointed military
governors and declared his will to them--that the most speedy and
effectual assistance should be given to the unfortunate sufferers from
the awful catastrophe. Count Komarovski, in describing the reception
given to him and the other military governors, says that tears were
observed in the emperor’s eyes. “I am sure that you share my feelings
of compassion,” continued Alexander; “here are your instructions, which
have been hastily drawn up--your hearts will complete them. Go from here
straight to the minister of finance who has orders to give each of you
100,000 rubles to begin with.” According to Komarovski the emperor spoke
with such feeling and eloquence that all the assembled governors were
deeply touched.

At the time of the inundation in a space of five hours about 5,000
persons perished and 3,609 domestic animals; 324 houses were destroyed
or carried away, and 3,581 damaged; besides this pavements, foot ways,
quays, bridges, etc., were either destroyed or damaged. Considerable
destruction and damage was also occasioned in the environs of the
capital, on the Petershov road, in old Petershov, Oranienbaum, and
Kronstadt, along the northern shore. More than 100 persons perished in
these places, while 114 buildings were destroyed and 187 damaged.

On the 22nd of November the emperor assisted at a requiem service in the
Kazan cathedral for those who had perished during the inundation. The
historian Karamzin writes that the people as they listened to the requiem
wept and gazed at the czar.[b]


THE CLOSE OF ALEXANDER’S REIGN

The czar, deeply affected by the sad spectacles he had witnessed, never
recovered from the shock. This increased his disgust of life and the
heavy melancholy that had of late being growing upon him. The whole
aspect of Europe gave fearful tokens that the policy of the Holy Alliance
was false and untenable; it was everywhere the subject of execration, and
its destruction was the aim of an almost universal conspiracy, extending
even into Alexander’s own dominions. Poland inspired him with deep alarm,
and his native country, notwithstanding her habits of immobility, seemed
ripe for convulsions. Thus his public life was filled with disappointment
and care, and his private life was deeply clouded with horrors.

The diet of Warsaw had become so refractory, that in 1820 Alexander had
found it necessary to suspend it, in violation of the constitution given
by himself; and though he opened a new diet in 1824, he did so under such
restrictions, that the Poles rightly considered it a mere mockery of
representative forms.

Russia herself was by no means tranquil. In the year 1824 insurrections
of the peasants occurred in several governments, and especially in that
of Novgorod, in dangerous vicinity to the first-founded of the military
colonies. The latter themselves shared the general discontent, and
threatened to become a fearful focus of rebellion, as was actually the
case in 1832. There existed also in Russia other centres of disaffection,
the existence of which might have been long before known to Alexander,
but for his culpable habit of allowing petitions to collect in heaps in
his cabinet without even breaking their seals. He, however, learned the
fact on his last journey into Poland in June, 1825, or immediately after
his return.[66] He then received the first intimation of the conspiracy
which had for many years been plotting against himself and against
the existing order of things in Russia--a conspiracy which, as many
believe, involved the perpetration of regicide. It is a curious fact,
but one by no means unparalleled, that in a country where the police is
so active, such a plot should have remained for years undetected. In
1816, several young Russians who had served in the European campaigns of
the three preceding years, and who had directed their attention to the
secret associations which had so greatly contributed to the liberation
of Germany, conceived the idea of establishing similar associations in
Russia; and this was the origin of that abortive insurrection which broke
out in St. Petersburg on the day when the troops were required to take
the oath of allegiance to Alexander’s successor.

These details would be sufficient of themselves to account for the
melancholy that haunted Alexander in the later years of his reign, and
which was painfully manifest in his countenance. But he had to undergo
other sufferings.

[Sidenote: [1825 A.D.]]

He was not more than sixteen years of age when his grandmother, Catherine
II, had married him to the amiable and beautiful princess Maria of Baden,
then scarcely fifteen.[67] The match was better assorted than is usually
the case in the highest conditions of life, but it was not a happy one.
It might have been so if it had been delayed until the young couple
were of more mature years, and had not the empress unwisely restricted
their freedom after marriage, and spoiled her grandson as a husband by
attempting to make him a good one in obedience to her orders. Moreover,
the tie of offspring was wanting which might have drawn the parents’
hearts together, for two daughters, born in the first two years of their
union, died early. Alexander formed other attachments, one of which with
the countess Narishkin, lasted eleven years, until it was dissolved by
her inconstancy. She had borne him three children; only one was left,
a girl as beautiful as her mother, who was now the sole joy of her
father’s sad heart. But the health of Sophia Narishkin was delicate, and
he was compelled to part with her, that she might be removed to a milder
climate. She returned too soon, and died on the eve of her marriage, in
her eighteenth year. The news was communicated to Alexander one morning
when he was reviewing his guard. “I receive the reward of my deeds,” were
the first words that escaped from his agonised heart.

Elizabeth, whose love had survived long years of neglect, had tears to
shed for the daughter of her rival, and none sympathised more deeply than
she with the suffering father. He began to see in her what his people
had long seen, an angel of goodness and resignation; his affection for
her revived, and he strove to wean her from the bitter recollections
of the past by his constant and devoted attention. But long-continued
sorrows had undermined Elizabeth’s health, and her physicians ordered
that she should be removed to her native air. She refused, however, to
comply with this advice, declaring that the wife of the emperor of Russia
should die nowhere else than in his dominions. It was then proposed to
try the southern provinces of the empire, and Alexander selected for her
residence the little town of Taganrog, on the sea of Azov, resolving
himself to make all the arrangements for her reception in that remote
and little frequented spot. A journey of 1800 versts, after the many
other journeys he had already made since the opening of the year, was
a fatigue too great for him to sustain without injury, suffering as he
still was from erysipelas; but he was accustomed to listen to no advice
on the subject of his movements, and two or three thousand versts were
nothing in his estimation; besides, on this occasion, in the very fatigue
of travelling he sought his repose: he would fulfil a duty which was to
appease his conscience. He quitted St. Petersburg in the beginning of
September, 1825, preceding the empress by several days. His principal
travelling companions were Prince Volkhonski, one of the friends of his
youth of whom we have already heard; his aide-de-camp general, Baron
Diebitsch, a distinguished military man who had been made over to him
by the king of Prussia; and his physician, Sir James Wylie, who had
been about his person for thirty years, and was at the head of the army
medical department.

The journey was prosperous, and was accomplished with Alexander’s
usual rapidity in twelve days, the travellers passing over 150 versts
a day; but his mind was oppressed with gloomy forebodings, and these
were strengthened by the sight of a comet; for though brought up by a
philosophic grandmother, and by a free-thinking tutor, he was by no
means exempt from superstition. “Ilia,” he called out to his old and
faithful coachman, “have you seen the new star? Do you know that a comet
always presages misfortune? But God’s will be done!” A very favourable
change having taken place in the empress’s health in Taganrog, Alexander
ventured to leave her early in October, for a short excursion through
the Crimea. On the 26th of that month Dr. Robert Lee, family physician
to Count Vorontzov was one of the emperor’s guests at Alupka. He relates
that at dinner Alexander repeatedly expressed how much he was pleased
with Orianda, where he had been that day, and stated that it was his
determination to have a palace built there as expeditiously as possible.
“To my amazement,” says Dr. Lee, “he said after a pause, ‘When I give
in my demission, I shall return and fix myself at Orianda, and wear the
costume of the Taurida.’ Not a word was uttered when this extraordinary
resolution was announced, and I thought that I must have misunderstood
the emperor; but this could not have been, for in a short time, when
Count Vorontzov proposed that the large open flat space of ground to
the westward of Orianda should be converted into pleasure-grounds for
his majesty, he replied: ‘I wish this to be purchased for General
Diebitsch, as it is right that the chief of my état-major and I should be
neighbours.’”

During the latter part of his tour in the Crimea, Alexander had some
threatenings of illness, but peremptorily refused all medical treatment.
He returned to Taganrog on the 17th of November, with evident symptoms
of a severe attack of the bilious remittent fever of the Crimea. He
persisted in rejecting medical aid until it was too late, and died on the
1st of December. For a long time the belief prevailed throughout Europe
that he had been assassinated; but it is now established beyond question
that his death was a natural one. The empress survived him but five
months.

Alexander’s last days were embittered by fresh disclosures brought to
him by General Count de Witt, respecting the conspiracy by which, if
the official report is to be believed, he was doomed to assassination.
From that time he declared himself disgusted with life. Once when Sir
James Wylie was pressing him to take some medicine, “My friend,” said
Alexander, “it is the state of my nerves to which you must attend; they
are in frightful disorder.”--“Alas!” rejoined the physician, “that
happens more frequently to kings than to ordinary men.”--“Yes,” said
the emperor, with animation, “but with me in particular there are many
special reasons, and at the present hour more so than ever.” Some days
afterwards, when his brain was almost delirious, the czar gazed intently
on the doctor, his whole countenance manifesting intense fear. “Oh, my
friend,” he exclaimed, “what an act, what a horrible act! The monsters!
the ungrateful monsters! I designed nothing but their happiness.”[e]

“It is difficult to represent the condition of St. Petersburg during the
last years of the reign of the emperor Alexander,” writes a contemporary.
“It was as though enveloped in a moral fog; Alexander’s gloomy views,
more sad than stern, were reflected in its inhabitants. Many people
said: What does he want more? He stands at the zenith of power. Each one
explained after his own fashion the inconsolable grief of the emperor.
For a man who must live to all eternity, who was famed as the friend
of liberty, and who had out of necessity become her oppressor, it was
grievous to think that he must renounce the love of his contemporaries
and the praise of posterity. Many other circumstances and some family
ones also weighed on his soul. The last years of Alexander’s life,”
writes in conclusion the eye-witness of these sorrowful days, “may be
termed a prolonged eclipse.”


_The Death of Alexander I_

On the 1st of December, 1825, a truly great misfortune fell upon Russia:
the best of European sovereigns had ceased to exist. When he vanished
from the political arena, only the finer side of his life came into view;
the remainder was given over to oblivion. A contemporary who was at the
same time a poet writes: “You see arising before you that beautiful
spirit that was welcomed with such joy in 1801; you see that glorious
czar to whom Russia owes the years 1813 and 1814; you see the comforter
of the people after last year’s inundation; you see that gracious,
benevolent man who was so amiable in personal intercourse,” and who, in
the words of Speranski, will ever remain a true charmer. There was much
that was ideally beautiful in his soul, he sincerely loved and desired
good, and attained to it. There was indeed cause for grief, particularly
in view of the uncertainty of the future that awaited Russia, which,
according to the picturesque expression of a Russian writer after the
death of Alexander, had, as it were, to enter a cold, uninviting passage
to a long dark tunnel. This was a feeling that was shared by many
contemporaries.

Independently of the grief which fell upon all Russia, for the persons
who had surrounded the deceased monarch at his death a truly tragic
moment had approached. Far from the capital and from all the members
of the imperial family, in an isolated town (Taganrog) of the Russian
empire, at two thousand versts from the centre of government the
terrible question arose: Who would now be emperor, to whom was the oath
of allegiance to be taken, and by whom in future would orders issue?
Moreover, it was amidst the ramifications of a vast conspiracy and a
universal fermentation that these questions presented themselves.

“The sphinx, undivined even to the grave,” as the poet justly called
Alexander, had not revealed his royal will, and even in view of the
inevitable end he had not considered it necessary to refer by a single
word or hint to the question that was of such crucial interest to the
welfare of Russia. On the contrary, during the last days of his life
Alexander had as though consciously set aside all earthly matters and
died like a private individual who has closed his accounts with the
world. Therefore it is not surprising that he failed to indicate the
successor he had chosen; being satisfied with the dispositions he had
previously made in secret, he seemed to think: “After my death they will
open my will and testament and will learn to whom Russia belongs.”

During the life of Alexander no one knew of the existence of the act
naming the grand duke Nicholas Pavlovitch heir to the throne except three
state dignitaries: Count Araktcheiev, Prince A. N. Galitzin, and the
archbishop of Moscow, Philaret. By a fatal concurrence of circumstances,
not one of them was present at the decease of the emperor at Taganrog. Of
the three persons of confidence who were with Alexander, Adjutant-general
Prince Volkonski, Baron Diebitsch, and Tchernichev, not one was aware
that the elder brother’s right to the succession of the throne had been
transferred to the second. Adjutant-general Diebitsch afterwards said to
Danilevski: “The emperor, who had confided many secrets to me, never,
however, told me a word of this. Once we were together at the settlement,
and he, directing the conversation to the grand duke Nicholas Pavlovitch,
said, “You must support him.” I concluded from these words only that,
judging from the age of the grand duke, he might be expected to outlive
the emperor and the czarevitch, in which case he would naturally be their
successor.”

Such were the limits of the knowledge that Diebitsch had at his disposal
in Taganrog as the question of the succession. Nor did Prince Volkonski
know anything about the matter. Even the empress Elizabeth Alexievna
was in the same ignorance regarding the rejection of the grand duke
Constantine Pavlovitch.

“When the illness of Alexander at Taganrog no longer gave any hopes
of recovery,” relates Diebitsch, “Prince Volkonski advised me to ask
the empress to whom, in case of the emperor’s death, I as chief of his
majesty’s general staff must address myself, for my position was one
of very great difficulty; I was left chief of the army at a time when
instances of a conspiracy were being disclosed. I could not decide upon
personally proposing such a question to the empress, fearing to distress
her, besides which, although I enjoyed her favour, yet it was not to such
a degree as Prince Volkonski, who was the friend of the imperial family;
therefore I urgently requested him to take upon himself this explanation
with the empress. He only consented under the condition that I should
be present. We went together into the room where the emperor was lying
unconscious, and Prince Volkonski, going up to Elizabeth Alexievna said
to her that I, as chief of the staff, requested her to say to whom, in
case of misfortune, I was to address myself? ‘Is the emperor then so ill
that there is no hope?’ asked the empress. ‘God alone can help and save
the emperor: only the tranquillity and security of Russia demand that the
traditional forms should be observed,’ answered the prince Volkonski.

“‘Of course in case of an unhappy event the grand duke Constantine
Pavlovitch must be referred to,’ said the empress. The words plainly
proved the empress’ ignorance as to who was named heir to the throne.
Prince Volkonski and I supposed that the late emperor Alexander had
made a will, for he had an envelope with a paper in it always with him,
which never left him. When we opened it after his death we found that it
contained some written-out prayers.”

Such being the position of affairs it only remained for Adjutant-general
Diebitsch to inform the czarevitch Constantine Pavlovitch in Warsaw
of the melancholy event, as the person who, according to the law of
succession, had become emperor of all the Russias. It was then that
Diebitsch wrote a letter to the empress Marie Feodorovna in which he
said in conclusion: “I humbly await the commands of our new lawful
sovereign, the emperor Constantine Pavlovitch.” The act of the decease
of the emperor Alexander was drawn up in Taganrog, annexed to the report
of Baron Diebitsch, dated December 1st, 1825, and sent to the emperor
Constantine.[b]


ALISON’S ESTIMATE OF ALEXANDER I

Majestic in figure, a benevolent expression of countenance, gave
Alexander I that sway over the multitude which ever belongs to physical
advantages in youthful princes; while the qualities of his understanding
and the feelings of his heart secured the admiration of all whose talents
fitted them to judge of the affairs of nations. Misunderstood by those
who formed their opinion only from the ease and occasional levity of his
manner, he was early formed to great determinations, and evinced in the
most trying circumstances, during the French invasion and the congress
of Vienna, a solidity of judgment equalled only by the strength of his
resolution. He had formed, early in life, an intimacy with the Polish
prince, Czartorinski, and another attachment, of a more tender nature,
to a lady of the same nation; and in consequence he considered the
Poles so dear to him, that many of the best informed patriots in that
country hailed his accession to the throne as the first step towards
the restoration of its nationality. A disposition naturally generous
and philanthropic, moulded by precepts of Laharpe, had strongly imbued
his mind with liberal principles, which shone forth in full and perhaps
dangerous lustre when he was called on to act as the pacificator of the
world after the fall of Paris. But subsequent experience convinced him
of the extreme danger of prematurely transplanting the institutions of
one country into another in a different stage of civilisation; and his
later years were chiefly directed to objects of practical improvement,
and the preparation of his subjects, by the extension of knowledge and
the firmness of government, for those privileges which, if suddenly
conferred, would have involved in equal ruin his empire and himself.[g]


SKRINE’S ESTIMATE OF ALEXANDER I

Of Alexander I it may be truly said that no monarch ever wielded
unlimited power with a loftier resolve to promote the happiness of his
people. And not theirs alone; for he sympathised with all the myriads
doomed to suffering by false ideals and effete institutions. In him men
saw the long-expected Messiah who was to give peace to a distracted
world. But his nature had an alloy of feminine weakness, unfitting him to
bear the reformer’s cross. He was too sensitive of impressions derived
from without; too easily led by counsellors who gained his confidence
but were not always worthy of it. In youth he was swayed by noble
infatuations and enamoured of the most diverse ideas in turn. But when he
stood confronted with a crisis in his country’s fortunes he rose superior
to vacillation and kept a great design steadily in view. The will-power
thus developed, and the resources at his command, made him for a brief
period the leading figure in the civilised world. Despondency came with
the inevitable reaction which followed the effort. He was drawn into the
mazes of German illuminism, which lessened his capacity for persistent
resolve. Its effect was heightened by his failure to pierce the dense
phalanxes of ignorance around him, and by the unvarying ingratitude which
requited his efforts for the public weal. Increasing physical weakness
hastened the death of his generous illusions. An excessive devotion to
duty exhausted his flagging powers and he became unequal to the task of
governing all the Russias. As a dying tree is strangled by parasitical
growths, so was Alexander in his decadence attacked by the enemies of
human progress. When Metternich and Araktcheiev gained the mastery, all
hope of domestic reform and consistent foreign policy disappeared. But
despite the shadows which darkened his declining years, Alexander I of
Russia will stand out in history as one of the few men born in the purple
who rightly appraised the accident of birth and the externals of imperial
rank; who held opinions far in advance of his age, and never wittingly
abused his limitless powers; who displayed equal firmness in danger and
magnanimity in the hour of triumph.[h]


FOOTNOTES

[60] In the year 1812 Alexander had granted a charter to the Jesuit
College of Polotsk, raising it to the rank of an “academy” and giving
it rights and privileges equal to those of the university; he was then
probably governed by political considerations concerning Poland, and
in the charter he refers to the college as “affording great advantages
for the education of youth” and trusts that the “Jesuits will labour in
Poland _dans le bon sens_” (along the right lines.)

[61] Much earlier, in 1807, the emperor had expressed himself to General
Savari upon this question in the following words: “I want to bring the
country out of the state of barbarism in which this traffic in men leaves
it. I will say more--if civilisation were more advanced, I would abolish
this slavery even if it were to cost me my head.”

[62] Étienne de Grelle Mobillier was born in France in 1760 and was
brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. At the beginning of the French
Revolution he went to America and there entered the society of Friends
or Quakers. He subsequently repeatedly visited Europe with various
philanthropic aims, mainly in order to strengthen the principles of a
morally religious life amongst mankind.

[63] [Prince A. N. Galitzin.]

[64] General-adjutant, chief of the guards staff.

[65] [“Little father,” a title sometimes given to the Russian sovereigns
by their subjects.]

[66] The informer was an inferior officer of lancers. His name was
Sherwood, and he was of English origin.

[67] She took the name of Elizabeth Alexievna.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER XI. THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I

    Nicholas Pavlovitch triumphed over two military revolts;
    then, as if the twelve days’ interregnum had not existed, he
    dated his reign from the 1st of December, 1825, the day of
    Alexander’s death. During the first ten or twelve years of his
    reign embarrassments of every kind, followed hard upon one
    another. These embarrassments were foreign war, first with
    Persia, and next with Turkey; the enmity of Austria whilst this
    latter struggle was going on; the abandonment of the Russian
    alliance by France, in consequence of the revolution of July,
    1830; the insurrection of Poland; the epidemic of Asiatic
    cholera in 1831 and the popular riots to which this scourge
    gave rise, especially in St. Petersburg; a revolt in the heart
    of the military colonies; a famine which desolated the southern
    provinces during the years 1834 and 1835; the fires at Åbo,
    Tula, Kazan, and at last (December, 1837) at the emperor’s own
    residence, the Winter Palace. But all these cruel trials did
    not daunt the courage of the new autocrat; they served only to
    bring out the firmness of his mind and the strong cast of his
    character.--SCHNITZLER.[c]


THE INTERREGNUM

[Sidenote: [1825-1855 A.D.]]

After the 24th of November, 1825, Adjutant-general Diebitsch had begun to
send information to Warsaw of the illness of the emperor Alexander, by
means of letters addressed to General Kuruta. The first courier, bearing
this alarming news, arrived at Warsaw on the 1st of December in the
evening of the very day of the emperor Alexander’s death.

The czarevitch Constantine Pavlovitch did not conceal the painful
presentiment that took possession of him, and wrote to Baron Diebitsch
the same day in the following terms: “In spite of all the consolations
expressed in your letter, I cannot rid myself of the painful impression
it has produced on me. I tell you frankly that if I were to obey the
dictates of my heart I should set off and come to you. But unfortunately
my duties and my position do not permit me to give way to these natural
sentiments.”

The grand duke Michael Pavlovitch was at that time at Warsaw, and
the czarevitch hid even from him and Princess Lovitch the alarming
letters that he received from Taganrog. “I do not speak to you of the
condition of mind in which I now find myself,” wrote the czarevitch to
Adjutant-general Diebitsch on the 5th of December, “for you know only too
well of my devotion and sincere attachment to the best of brothers and
monarchs to doubt them. My position is rendered all the more painful
from the fact that, the emperor’s illness is only known to me and my old
friend Kuruta and my doctor; the news has not yet reached here, so that
in society I have to appear calm, although there is no such calmness in
my soul. My wife and brother do not suspect anything, so that I had to
invent an explanation for the arrival of your first messenger, which I
shall have to do again to-day. If I were to obey only the suggestions of
my heart of course I should have been with you long ago, but you will
naturally understand what hinders me.”

[Sidenote: [1825 A.D.]]

Meanwhile couriers continued to follow upon each others’ heels and
finally on December 7th, at seven in the evening, the czarevitch received
the fatal intelligence of the death of his brother. The report of
Adjutant-general Diebitsch did not shake the czarevitch’s decision as to
the question of the succession to the throne, and he then said to the
grand duke Michael Pavlovitch, “Now the solemn moment has come to show
that my previous mode of action was not a mask, and to terminate the
matter with the same firmness with which it was commenced. My intentions
and my determinations have not changed one iota, and my will to renounce
the throne is more unchangeable than ever.”

Summoning the persons of his entourage and informing them of the loss
that had overtaken Russia, the czarevitch read them his correspondence
with the emperor Alexander in 1822 and ordered that letters to the
empress Marie Feodorovna, and to the grand duke Nicholas Pavlovitch,
should be prepared, stating that he ceded his rights to the succession
to the throne to his younger brother, by virtue of the rescript of the
emperor Alexander of the 14th of February, 1822. The czarevitch here used
the expression “cede the throne to the grand duke Nicholas Pavlovitch,”
because he knew nothing of the existence of the state act which as long
ago as 1824 had invested this cession with the power of a law. Such were
the misapprehensions with which was accompanied Alexander’s secret and
evasive manner of action in regard to the question of the succession.

Meanwhile what was taking place in St. Petersburg? The news of the death
of the emperor Alexander was received in the capital only on December
9th, during prayers which were being said for the recovery of the emperor
in the church of the Winter Palace. The circumstances are thus narrated
by the empress Elizabeth Alexievna herself:

On the 9th inst. at the termination of the liturgy, when prayers for the
health of the emperor had already commenced, his highness was called out
from the sacristy by Count Miloradovitch and informed by him that all
was over. His imperial highness became faint, but recovering himself
he returned with Doctor Rule to the sacristy. The empress was on her
knees and being already prepared by the grand duke’s prolonged absence,
and guessing her lot from his face she grew faint; meanwhile the priest
presented the cross to her, and as she kissed it she lost consciousness.

His imperial highness, turning to his wife, said to her “Take care of our
mother, and I will go and do my duty.” With these words he entered the
church, ordered that a reading desk should be brought in, and took the
oath of allegiance to his beloved brother and emperor, Constantine, which
he ratified by his signature; some others who happened to be there also
subscribed to the same: they were the minister of war Tatistchev, General
Kutusov, the general in waiting Potapov, and all the others who were
present.

Then he presented himself before the Preobrajenski regiment that was
on guard in the palace (the company of his majesty’s grenadiers),
and informed them of the emperor’s death and proclaimed Constantine
emperor. The grenadiers received the announcement with tears, and
immediately took the oath of allegiance. After this his imperial highness
commissioned the general in waiting, Potapov, to inform the chief and all
the other guards of what had taken place and to bring them from their
posts to take the oath, which was done without delay and with sorrow and
zeal; meanwhile General Neitgart was sent to the Nevski monastery, where
were all the general officers of the guards’ corps, with the proposal to
General Voinov to do the same throughout all the regiments of the guards.
Finally similar announcements and instructions were sent to all the
regiments and detachments in both the city and its environs.

Meanwhile the council of the state had assembled and opened its sitting
by the proposal to break the seals of the envelope which contained the
will of the late emperor. Some discussion arose, and finally it was
decided to unseal the packet, in order to learn the last will of the czar.

In the act was drawn up the renunciation of the throne by the czarevitch
and the nomination of the grand duke Nicholas as the emperor’s heir.
Some discussion again arose upon this question, but it was cut short by
the suggestion that his highness should be invited into the presence of
the council. Count Miloradovitch replied that his highness had already
taken the oath and that in any case he considered it unfitting that his
highness should be called, or should come to the council, but offered to
bring all this to his knowledge and to ask that they might be allowed to
come to him in order to report all that had taken place; this was done
and the grand duke replied that he could not hinder their coming.

[Illustration: NICHOLAS I

(1796-1855)]

When the members of the council presented themselves before the grand
duke he informed them that the contents of the act had long been known
to him, namely since July 25th, 1819, but that in no case would he dare
to occupy the place of his elder brother, from whose supreme will his
lot depended, and that holding it as a sacred obligation most humbly to
obey him in all things, he had therefore taken the oath and felt entirely
certain that the council, having in view the welfare of the state, would
follow his example.

The council followed his highness into the church and at his request took
the oath before him; they were then introduced by him into the presence
of the empress mother, who was pleased to inform them that the act and
its content were known to her, and were made with her maternal consent,
but that she also was enthusiastic over her son’s conduct. Confirming
all his actions she requested the council by their united endeavours to
preserve the tranquillity of the empire.

In accordance with the measures taken, by three o’clock in the afternoon
the troops as well as all grades of officials in the government service
had taken the oath confirming the accession to the throne of the emperor
Constantine. During the whole time tranquillity and order were preserved.
It is easy to imagine the astonishment and vexation of the czarevitch
when, instead of receiving the expected commands of the new emperor,
he was informed that all Russia had taken the oath of allegiance to him
as lawful sovereign, and that the will of the late emperor had not been
fulfilled.

Meanwhile early in the morning of December 15th the grand duke Michael
Pavlovitch arrived in St. Petersburg with letters from the czarevitch.
To the amazement of the court and the inhabitants, the grand duke did
not follow the general example of swearing fidelity to the emperor
Constantine. He did not conceal his regret at what had taken place in
St. Petersburg, nor the apprehension with which the necessity of a new
oath filled him. He dwelt on the difficulty of explaining to the public
why the place of the elder brother to whom allegiance had already been
sworn should suddenly be taken by the younger. The grand duke Nicholas
in answer to his brother repeated what he had already said, that he
could not have acted otherwise in such a position as that in which he
was placed by his ignorance of the sacred acts of the late emperor, and
that neither his conscience nor his reason reproached him. “Everything,
however,” added he, “might yet be amended and take a more favourable turn
if the czarevitch himself were to come to St. Petersburg; his obstinacy
in remaining at Warsaw may occasion disasters, the possibility of which I
do not deny, but of which in all probability I shall myself be the first
victim.”

After long deliberation the grand duke Nicholas decided to write a fresh
persuasive letter to the emperor Constantine, in which he asked him to
decide finally what his fate was to be; and in conclusion he wrote, “In
God’s name, come.” The empress Marie Feodorovna added her persuasions to
those of her son, and not satisfied with these measures it was decided a
few days later to despatch the grand duke Michael to Warsaw to convince
the czarevitch of the necessity of his presence in St. Petersburg.

An answer from the czarevitch to the grand duke Nicholas’ letter
dated the 14th of December was brought to St. Petersburg by Lazarev,
aid-de-camp to Nicholas: “Your aide-de-camp, dear Nicholas, on his
arrival here, confided your letter to me with all exactitude. I read
it with the deepest grief and sorrow. My decision is unalterable and
consecrated by my late benefactor the emperor and sovereign. Your
invitation to come quickly cannot be accepted by me, and I must tell you
that I shall remove myself yet further away, if all is not arranged in
accordance with the will of our late emperor. Your faithful and sincere
friend and brother for life.” But even this letter did not decide the
matter; the return of Belussov from Warsaw with the answer to the grand
duke Nicholas’ letter of December 15th had yet to be awaited.

A new complication remained to be added to all these difficulties. On
December 24th there came to St. Petersburg and presented himself to the
grand duke Nicholas, Colonel Baron Fredericks of the Izmailovski Life
Guards, who had fulfilled the functions of commandant in Taganrog. He
brought to the grand duke a packet from Baron Diebitsch addressed to his
imperial majesty, to be given into his own hands. To the question as to
whether he knew of the contents of the packet, Fredericks replied in the
negative, but added that as the place of residence of the emperor was
unknown in Taganrog, exactly the same paper had been sent also to Warsaw.

Nothing therefore remained for Nicholas to do but to open the mysterious
packet and “at the first rapid glance over its contents,” writes Baron
Korv, “an inexpressible horror took possession of him.” It was on reading
the report contained in this packet that the grand duke first learned of
the existence of secret societies formed with the object of destroying
to the very roots the tranquillity of the empire. The existence of
these societies had been carefully hidden from him by the late emperor
Alexander.

Almost immediately thereafter the courier Belussov returned from
Warsaw with the czarevitch’s decisive answer, which put an end to the
interregnum. Nicholas Pavlovitch was emperor. At nine o’clock in the
evening the emperor sent the following postscript to Adjutant-general
Diebitsch:

    The decisive courier has returned; by the morning of the day
    after to-morrow I shall be emperor or else dead. I sacrifice
    myself for my brother; happy if as a subject I fulfil his
    will. But how will it be with Russia? What about the army?
    General Tolle is here and I shall send him to Mohilev to bear
    the news to Count Saken. I am looking out for a trustworthy
    person for the same commission to Tultchin and to Ermolov. In
    a word, I hope to be worthy of my calling, not in fear and
    mistrustfulness, but in the hope that even as I fulfil my
    duty so will others fulfil their duty to me. But if anywhere
    anything is brewing and you hear of it, I authorise you to go
    at once where your presence is necessary. I rely entirely upon
    you and give you leave beforehand to take all the measures
    you deem necessary. The day after to-morrow if I am alive I
    will send you, I do not know by whom, information as to how
    matters have passed off; on your part do not leave me without
    news of how everything is going on around you, especially with
    Ermolov. I again repeat that here until now everything is
    incomprehensibly quiet, but calm often precedes a storm. Enough
    of this, God’s will be done! In me there must only be seen the
    vicar and executor of the late emperor’s will and therefore
    I am ready for everything. I shall ever be your sincere well
    wisher,

                                                           NICHOLAS.


THE ACCESSION OF NICHOLAS

The czarevitch’s decisive answer was brought by Belussov, not through
Riga, but by the Brest-Lithuani road; and therefore the grand duke
Michael Pavlovitch was still in ignorance of the events at Nennal. The
emperor Nicholas immediately sent an express after him commanding him to
hasten to St. Petersburg. The return of the grand duke to the capital
where his presence was of urgent necessity was thus by chance delayed.

Nicholas had now to occupy himself with the composition of his manifesto;
the inexplicable had to be explained and it presented a task of no
little difficulty: Karamzin and Speranski were set to work upon it.
The emperor Nicholas signed the manifesto on the 25th of December, but
dated it the 24th, as the day on which the question of his accession had
been definitely settled by the czarevitch. It was proposed to keep the
manifesto secret until the arrival of the grand duke Michael, but it was
decided that the troops should take the oath of allegiance on the 26th of
December; meanwhile notifications were sent to the members of the council
of state, calling upon them to assemble on Sunday, December 25th, at
eight in the evening, for a general secret meeting.

When the council of state had assembled at the hour designated, Prince
Sopukhin announced that the grand duke Michael would be present at the
sitting. The hours passed in anxious expectation; midnight approached
and the expected arrival of the grand duke did not take place. Then
Nicholas decided to be present at the sitting alone. Taking the place of
the president, Nicholas himself began to read the manifesto announcing
his acceptance of the imperial dignity in consequence of the persisted
rejection of it by the czarevitch Constantine Pavlovitch. Then the
emperor ordered that the czarevitch’s rescript, addressed to Prince
Sopukhin, president of the council, should be read. The 26th of December,
1825, had come. Commands had been issued that on that day all persons
having access to the court should assemble at the Winter Palace for a _Te
Deum_; eleven o’clock was the hour first named, but this was afterwards
changed to two. Circumstances arose, however, which postponed the _Te
Deum_ to a still later hour. The members of the secret society decided
to take advantage of the end of the interregnum and the approach of the
new oath of allegiance in order to incite the troops to rebellion and to
overthrow the existing order of things in Russia. The secrecy in which
the negotiations with Russia had been enveloped had given occasion for
various rumours and suppositions, and for the spread of false reports
which occasioned alarm in society and especially in the barracks: all
this favoured the undertakings and designs of the conspirators.

The only issue from the position that had been created by Nicholas in
a moment of chivalrous enthusiasm “undoubtedly noble, but perhaps not
entirely wise,” would have been the arrival of the grand duke Constantine
in the capital with the object of publicly and solemnly proclaiming his
renunciation of the throne. But the czarevitch flatly refused to employ
this means of extricating his brother from the difficult position in
which he placed himself; Constantine considered that it was not for him
to suffer from the consequences of an imprudence which was not his, and
the danger of which might have been averted if matters had not been
hurried on, and if he had been previously applied to for advice and
instructions. Thus led into error, some of the lower ranks of the guards’
regiments refused to take the oath of allegiance to Nicholas Pavlovitch,
and assembled at the Pelrovski square, before the senate buildings,
appearing as though they were the defenders of the lawful rights of the
czarevitch Constantine to the throne.

Meanwhile distinguished persons of both sexes began to drive up to the
Winter Palace. Amidst the general stir and movement going on in the
palace, there sat isolated and immoveable three magnates, “like three
monuments,” writes Karamzin: Prince Lopukhin, Count Araktcheiev, and
Prince A. B. Kurakin. At the time when the military men had already
gone out on the square, Count Araktcheiev, as might have been expected,
preferred to remain in the palace. “It was pitiful to look at him,”
writes V. R. Martchenko in his _Mémoires_.

The rioters were stubborn for a long time and would not yield to
exhortation; Count Miloradovitch fell mortally wounded. It began to grow
dusk. Then the emperor Nicholas, at last convinced of the impossibility
of pacifying the rioters without bloodshed, gave orders with a breaking
heart for the artillery to fire. A few grape-shot decided the fate of the
day; the rioters were dispersed, and tranquillity at once reigned in the
capital.

The _Te Deum_ announced could take place only at half past six. The
troops bivouacked round the palace. “Dear, dear Constantine,” wrote the
emperor the same evening to the czarevitch, “your will is fulfilled: I
am emperor, but at what price, my God!--at the price of the blood of my
subjects.” Arrests were made during that night and investigations pursued
to discover the leaders of the revolt. And thus in the troubles of the
26th of December, the 1st of December, 1825, was terribly recalled.
“The day was one of misfortune for Russia,” writes Prince Viasenski,
“and the epoch which it signalised in such a bloody manner was an awful
judgment for deeds, opinions, and ideas, rooted in the past and governing
the present.” According to the words of Karamzin, on that day Russia
was saved from a calamity “which, if it had not destroyed her, would
certainly have torn her to pieces.” “If I am emperor even for an hour, I
will show that I was worthy of it”; thus spoke Nicholas on the morning of
December 26th to the commanders of the guard regiments assembled at the
Winter Palace; and on that awful day he triumphantly justified his first
and impressive words.


TRIAL OF THE CONSPIRATORS (1826 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1826 A.D.]]

The emperor Nicholas gave all possible publicity to the proceedings
against the secret societies, the Southern, Northern, the United
Slavonians, and the Polish; then the whole matter was transferred to
the supreme criminal court, which had to pronounce sentence on the
principal participators in the conspiracy. Of the accused, Rileeks,
Muraviev-Alostob, Bestuzhev-Riumin, Pesteb, and Kakhovski were condemned
to death, and the remaining members of the secret societies brought
before the court were exiled to Siberia or other places of incarceration.

No one had expected such a termination to the affair. During the whole
of Alexander’s reign there had not been one case of capital punishment,
and it was looked upon as entirely abolished. “It is impossible to
describe in words the horror and despair which have taken possession of
all,” writes a contemporary and eye witness of the events of 1826 in
Moscow. This frame of mind was reflected in the coronation ceremonies.
The emperor Nicholas appeared extremely gloomy; the future seemed more
sad and fuller of anxiety than ever; all was in sharp contrast to the
enthusiasm and hopes that had accompanied the coronation of Alexander in
1801.


THE CORONATION OF NICHOLAS (1826 A.D.)

Immediately after the termination of the trial of the Dekabrists, the
court proceeded to Moscow for the approaching coronation, which took
place on the 3rd of September. Previously the emperor was rejoiced at the
unexpected arrival of the grand duke Constantine Pavlovitch. According
to Benkendorf “the czarevitch’s appearance was a brilliant public
testimony of his submission to the new emperor and of his conscientious
renunciation of the throne; it was at the same time a precious pledge of
the harmony which bound together all the members of the reigning family,
a harmony conducive to the peace of the empire. The public was delighted
and the _corps diplomatique_ completely astounded. The people expressed
their satisfaction to the czarevitch by unanimous acclamations, whilst
the dignitaries of the state surrounded him with marks of respectful
veneration.”

The day of the coronation was signalised by an important reform in
the administration of the court; the ministry of the imperial court
was created, and confided to Prince P. M. Volkonski. Thus the old and
tried companion of the emperor Alexander I again occupied the post
of a trusty dignitary by the side of his successor. Prince Volkonski
remained minister of the court until his decease, which took place in
1852. Amongst the favours and the mitigations of punishments which were
granted on the 3rd of September, the state criminals who had lately
been condemned were not forgotten; by special ukases the sentences of
all those sent to the galleys, to penal settlements, and hard labour
were mitigated. Those who had been sent to the Siberian, Orenburg, and
Caucasian garrisons, both with and without deprivation of the rights of
nobility, were enrolled in the regiments of the Caucasian corps.

During the emperor’s stay in Moscow, the poet Pushkin, who had been
banished to the village of Mikhailovski, was recalled. From that moment
he regained his lost liberty, besides which the emperor Nicholas said to
him: “In future you are to send me all you write--henceforth I will be
your censor.”


CHANGES IN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION

On the 18th of October, 1826, the emperor Nicholas returned to St.
Petersburg; although his accession to the throne did not constitute the
opening of a new era for Russia, yet certain changes were made in the
system of administration which had prevailed during the last decade of
the reign of Alexander I. After Count Araktcheiev had been relieved of
the management of the general affairs of the state, it was to be foreseen
that he would not remain long at the head of the direction of the
military settlements. And thus it turned out. In the spring of 1826 Count
Araktcheiev, on account of illness, was given leave to go abroad. In the
report presented by him on this occasion to the emperor he announced
to him economies of more than 32,000,000 rubles made on the military
settlements, and concluded his epistle by observing, “Those impartial
judges--posterity and the future--will pronounce a just sentence on all
things.”

On the return of Count Araktcheiev in the autumn from his travels abroad
he did not again take up his duties. In accordance with a ukase which
then followed, the staff office of the military settlements was united
to the general staff of his imperial majesty, under the jurisdiction
of its adjutant-general Baron Diebitsch. At the same time the Novgorod
military settlement passed under the entire direction of General Prince
Schahovski, who was nominated commander of the grenadier corps; the
Kherson and Iekaterinoslav settlements were put under the supervision of
their chief, Count Vitt (who was also commander of a separate corps),
while the settlements in the villages of the Ukraine and Mohilev
governments remained under the jurisdiction of their former chiefs, who
bore the rank of commanders of divisions. Count Araktcheiev, when he
had finally bidden adieu to his administrative career, settled on his
Georgian estates, where he died in 1834.

Having delivered Russia from the administrative guardianship of Count
Araktcheiev, the emperor Nicholas, in addition, delivered Russian
instruction from the influence of Michael Leontievitch Magnitzki. On
the 18th of May, 1826, a ukase was issued in which it was stated that
“the curator of the University of Kazan and of its educational district,
the actual councillor of state Magnitzki, is by our command relieved
of his functions and of his position as member of the administration
of schools.” But the matter was not limited to this ukase. Magnitzki
continued to live in Kazan and in accordance with his character he
continued to intrigue as usual and indirectly to influence the university
he had left. General Jeltukhin, who had been commissioned to make a
detailed revision of the Kazan University, brought this fact to the
emperor’s knowledge. Nicholas’ reply was rapid and decisive; a courier
was sent with orders to the governor to arrest Magnitzki and send him to
Revel under the surveillance of the commandant. Magnitzki lived there six
years, having given his promise not to absent himself.

An equally sad fate overtook the champion and imitator of Magnitzki,
Dmitri Pavlovitch Runitch, who had filled the office of curator of the
St. Petersburg educational district. By a ukase of the 7th of July, 1826,
Runitch was deprived of his functions and of the position of member of
the chief administration of schools, for his incompetence in the matter
of the direction of the St. Petersburg educational district. The requital
experienced by Runitch for his educational labours was a terrible one; he
languished beneath the consequences for sixteen years and died in 1860 in
the conviction that he had formerly saved Russia, and was suffering for
the good work he had accomplished in the University of St. Petersburg.


_Reforms in the Administration of Justice_

The lamentable condition of the administration of justice in Russia was
one of the first subjects to which the careful attention of the emperor
Nicholas was directed. In a speech pronounced by the sovereign many years
later, in 1833, before the council of state, Nicholas Pavlovitch thus
expressed himself:

“From my very accession to the throne I was obliged to turn my attention
to various administrative matters, of which I had scarcely any notion.
The chief subject that occupied me was naturally legislation. Even
from my early youth I had constantly heard of our deficiencies in this
respect, of chicanery, of extortion, of the insufficiency of the existing
laws or of their admixture through the extraordinary number of ukases
which were not infrequently in contradiction to one another. This incited
me from the very first days of my reign to examine into the state of the
commission appointed for the constitution of the laws. To my regret, the
information presented to me proved to me that its labours had remained
almost fruitless. It was not difficult to discover the cause of this: the
deficient results proceeded chiefly from the fact that the commission
always directed its attention to the formation of new laws, when in
reality the old ones should have been established on a firm foundation.
This inspired me above all with a desire to establish a definite aim
towards which the government must direct its actions in the matter of
legislation; from the methods proposed to me I selected one in entire
opposition to the former methods of reform. Instead of drawing up new
laws, I commanded that first those which already existed should be
collected and set in order, whilst I took the matter itself, on account
of its great importance, under my own immediate direction and closed the
previous commission.”

[Illustration: MARRIED WOMAN OF VALDAI]

With this object was formed and opened on the 6th of May, 1826,
the “second section of his imperial majesty’s own chancery.” M. A.
Balongianski was appointed chief of the second section, but in reality
the work itself was confided to Speranski. The emperor’s choice rested
on the latter, out of necessity, as he did not find anyone more capable
around him. When Balongianski was appointed chief of the second section,
the emperor, in conversing with his former tutor, said to him, speaking
of Speranski: “See that he does not play any pranks, as in 1810.”
Nevertheless, in proportion to Speranski’s successful accomplishment
of the work confided to him, the emperor Nicholas’ prejudices against
him gradually softened and finally gave way to sincere favour and full
confidence. All the accusations and calumnies directed against Speranski
were, in accordance with the emperor’s own expression, “scattered like
dust.”

Thus the emperor Nicholas in his almost involuntary choice was favoured
by a peculiarly fortunate chance and could hardly have found a person
better fitted for the accomplishment of the work he had planned. The
results of Speranski’s fresh efforts, under completely different
circumstances from those against which he had formerly contended, were
the “complete collection of laws,” and a systematic code.

Even before the termination of the trial of the Dekabrists, the emperor
Nicholas took another important measure, which left an imprint on all the
succeeding years of his reign and is directly connected with the events
of the 26th of December. On the 15th of July, 1826, a supreme edict was
issued in the name of the minister of the interior Lanskoi, by which the
private chancery of that ministry was abolished and transformed into the
third section of his imperial majesty’s own chancery. In fulfilment of
this ukase, it was prescribed that the governors of provinces, in matters
which entered within the sphere of the former division, should no longer
present their reports to the ministry of the interior, but should submit
them directly to his majesty.

[Illustration: A WOMAN (SAILOR) OF THE NOGAI TRIBE]

Some days before, on the emperor Nicholas’ birthday, the 6th of July, a
supreme order appeared naming the chief of the first cuirassier division,
Adjutant-general Benkendorf, chief of the gendarmerie and commandant
of the emperor’s headquarters; to him was confided the direction of
the third section. Adjutant-general Benkendorf explains in his memoirs
in the following manner the reasons for establishing the institution
confided to his direction: “The emperor Nicholas aimed at the extirpation
of the abuses that had crept into many branches of the administration,
and was convinced by the sudden discovery of the conspiracy which had
stained the first moments of the new reign with blood, of the necessity
of a universal and more diligent surveillance. The emperor chose me to
organise a higher police, which should protect the oppressed and guard
the nation against conspiracies and conspirators. Never having thought
of preparing myself for this sort of service, I had hardly the most
superficial understanding of it; but the noble and beneficent motives
which inspired the sovereign in his creation of this institution and the
desire to be of use to him, forbade me to evade the duty to which his
high confidence had called me. I set to work without delay and God helped
me to fulfil my new duties to the satisfaction of the emperor and without
setting general opinion against me. I succeeded in showing favours to
many, in discovering many conspiracies, and averting much evil.” With the
creation of the new third section, the committee of the 13th of January,
1807, established by the emperor Alexander, became superfluous; and on
the 29th of January a ukase was issued closing it.

The disturbances of the year 1825 did not pass without leaving traces
on the peasant population; a momentary confusion ensued, freedom was
talked of, and disorders arose in some provinces--a phenomenon often
seen in previous times. The movement amongst the peasants incited the
emperor Nicholas to publish, on the 24th of May, 1826, a manifesto in
which it was declared that all “talk of exempting the villagers in the
state settlements from paying taxes and of freeing landowner’s peasants
and menials from subjection to their landowners are false rumours,
imagined and spread by evil intentioned persons out of mere cupidity
with the object of enriching themselves through these rumours at the
expense of the peasants, by taking advantage of their simplicity.” It
was further said in the manifesto that all classes throughout the empire
must absolutely submit to the authorities placed over them, and that
disturbers of the public tranquillity would be prosecuted and punished in
accordance with the full severity of the laws. It was commanded that the
manifesto should be read in all the churches and at the markets and fairs
during a space of six months; the governors of provinces were sternly
admonished to be watchful in anticipating disorders.

If, however, the emperor Nicholas was forced by circumstances to
promulgate this punitive manifesto, he also issued two rescripts in
the name of the minister of the interior, enjoining upon the nobility
behaviour towards their peasants, which should be in accordance with the
laws of Christianity, thus clearly expressing his desire to protect the
peasant against the arbitrariness and tyranny of the landowners. “In all
cases,” wrote the emperor: “I find it, and shall ever find it, better to
prevent evil, than to pursue it by punishment when it has already arisen.”

Finally the solicitude of the emperor Nicholas for the peasant classes
manifested itself by yet another action. On the 18th of December, 1826, a
special secret committee was formed to which was confided the inspection
of the entire state organisation and administration, with the order
to represent the conclusions it arrived at as to the changes deemed
necessary; the labours of the committee were to be directed also to the
consideration of the peasant question. Besides this the emperor did not
leave without attention what had been said by the Dekabrists, during the
time of their examination before a committee of inquiry, in regard to the
internal conditions of the state in the reign of Alexander I. The emperor
ordered a separate memorandum of these opinions to be drawn up for him
and often perused this curious document, from which he extracted much
that was pertinent.[b]


WAR WITH PERSIA (1826-1828 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1826-1828 A.D.]]

The shah of Persia thought he saw in the change of rulers and the
troubles by which it was accompanied circumstances favourable to the
recovery of the provinces ceded to Russia by the Treaty of Gulistan. In
August, 1826, he ordered his troops to move forward. The solemnity of
his coronation, which was then being celebrated and whose splendour was
enhanced by the presence of the czarevitch, did not prevent Nicholas from
promptly organising the defence of the empire. A few weeks afterwards
General Paskevitch defeated the Persians at Ielisavetpol, and in the
following year, transferring the theatre of war to the enemy’s territory,
he seized the celebrated convent of Etchmiadzine, the seat of the
Armenian patriarch, and Erivan, one of the great towns of Armenia; he
moreover penetrated as far as Tauris, capital of the Azerbaijan and
residence of the prince royal, Abbas Mirza. Then the shah asked for
peace. It was signed at Turkmantchaï, the 22nd of February, 1828, and
advanced Russia as far as the line of the Araxes, by giving up to her the
provinces of Erivan and Nakhitchevan.


WAR WITH TURKEY (1828-1829 A.D.)

This treaty was concluded, to the great regret of Persia, when the war
with Turkey broke out. This war had been threatening for years; for,
deeply affected by the violences to which the Greeks in the Ottoman
Empire had been exposed ever since the hetaerist insurrection of 1821,
and by the martyrdom which the Greek patriarch had been made to suffer,
Alexander left the sword in its sheath only out of deference to the
members of the Holy Alliance. His successor was thoroughly determined
no longer to subordinate the direction of his cabinet’s policy to the
interested views of these princes and to their fears, though it is true
that the latter were well founded. The Divan, by signing the Treaty of
Akerman (October 6th, 1826), had momentarily averted the storm which
was ready to burst; but still more irritating disputes had afterwards
arisen. The conclusion of the Treaty of London of the 6th of July,
1827, in virtue of which France, England, and Russia gave existence to
a Christian kingdom of Greece placed under their common protection, was
shortly followed by the naval battle of Navarino, fought on the 20th of
October of the same year by the combined fleets of the three powers,
against Ibrahim Pasha, commander-in-chief of the Egyptian forces in the
Morea; and in this memorable conflict, expected by no one, but a subject
of joy to some whilst judged untoward by others, the whole of the navy
which the Porte still had at its disposal was destroyed. Very soon Mahmud
II, yielding to the national desire, let it be understood that he had
never had any intention of lending himself to the execution of a treaty
in virtue of which Moldavia, Wallachia, and Servia were almost as much
the czar’s vassals as his own. This was the beginning of a rupture, and
Nicholas answered it by a declaration of war, which appeared June 4th,
1828, when his army had already crossed the Pruth.

The campaign of 1828, which accomplished nothing more than the taking of
Braila and Varna, did not give a high idea of the strength of Russia;
and when the emperor made up his mind to take part in it in person,
his presence wrought no change in the feebleness of the results. But
it was not the same with the campaign which followed. Not only did the
Russians again pass the Danube, but after having beaten the grand vizir,
Reschid Pasha, at Koulevtcha, on the 11th of June, Diebitsch marched
them across the Balkans for the first time, a feat which won him the
name of _Sabalkanski_, and proceeded straight to Adrianople, where he
was scarcely more than two hundred kilometres (about 125 miles) from the
Ottoman capital. At the same time Paskevitch took Erzerum in Asia, and
the two generals would doubtless have joined hands in Constantinople but
for the efforts of diplomacy and the fear of a general conflagration.
For Russia was already too powerful; she had been allowed more than
was compatible with the policy of the system of balance, no doubt from
the fear of incurring a grave responsibility by troubling the peace
of Europe. But a prospect like that of the occupation by Russia of
Constantinople and the Straits silenced this fear.

[Sidenote: [1829 A.D.]]

Austria was ready to send her troops to the help of the Turks, and
the English also seemed likely to declare for the vanquished. It was
therefore necessary to come to a halt. Russia reflected that, after
all, “the sultan was the least costly governor-general she could have
at Constantinople,” and lent an ear to moderate conditions of peace.
Nevertheless, if the Treaty of Adrianople, signed September 14th, 1829,
delivered nothing to her in Europe save the mouths of the Danube, in
itself a very important point, it enlarged her territories in Asia by
a part of the pashalik of Akhalzikh, with the fortress of that name,
besides abandoning to her those of Anapa and Pothi on the Black Sea; it
considerably strengthened Muscovite influence in the principalities,
and still further weakened Turkey, not only morally but also materially
by the great pecuniary sacrifices to which she had to subscribe. That
power, once so formidable, was henceforth at the mercy of her northern
neighbour, the principal instrument of her decay.


THE POLISH INSURRECTION (1830-1831 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1830 A.D.]]

But Russia was in her turn rudely shaken by the insurrection in Poland,
always her mortal enemy after she had ceased to be her rival.[c]

It was in Moscow that the emperor Nicholas received news of the further
progress of the Belgian revolution, in consequence of which the king
of the Netherlands found himself obliged to ask for the assistance of
his allies by virtue of the existing treaties. The emperor at once
despatched orders to Count Tchernishev, Field-marshal Saken, and the
czarevitch to place the army on a war footing. The czarevitch was not
pleased at the martial turn given to the diplomatic negotiations; still
more dissatisfied was the Polish Society of that time, which sympathised
with the revolution of July; neither was the army in sympathy with the
approaching campaign, which would bring it into armed collision with
France in the name of the principles of the Holy Alliance. Although
tranquillity apparently reigned in Warsaw, yet the secret societies
continued to carry on their destructive work with success.

[Illustration: COUNT DIEBITSCH-SABALKANSKI

(1785-1831)]

Various ominous signs of the approaching catastrophe were not, however,
wanting; but the czarevitch continued to lull himself with impossible
hopes that all was peaceful and tranquil and would remain so. As to the
European powers allied to Russia, they did not enter into the matter with
such decided zeal. In the present case it was the Russian autocrat alone
who was ready with entire disinterestedness to take up the defence of
the infringed lawful order. The other powers found it incomparably more
expedient to have recourse to the co-operation of diplomatic remedies;
the result was that, instead of an armed intervention, a general European
conference for the settlement of the Belgian question by peaceful means
took place in London.

Count Diebitsch was still in Berlin awaiting the termination of the
negotiations confided to him, when they were suddenly broken off by an
event upon which the field-marshal had not in the least calculated at
the given moment. On the 3rd of December, 1830, Diebitsch received from
the Prussian minister, Count Berastorf, news of the revolution which had
taken place in Warsaw on the 29th of November: the Polish army, forming a
prepared coalition, had taken up arms against Russia. There remained but
one thing for Diebitsch to do and that was to hasten to St. Petersburg
as quickly as possible. Meanwhile in St. Petersburg the emperor Nicholas
had received only the report of the czarevitch concerning the rising of
the troops and of inhabitants of Warsaw on the evening of the 7th of
December, 1830.

On the next day a parade of the Preobrajenski regiment was appointed
to take place, and as usual the emperor came to the riding school. At
first everything proceeded in the usual manner; there were even no
traces of inward agitation manifest upon the handsome face with its
regular, classic profile, which preserved its habitual expression of
majestic nobility. At the termination of the parade the emperor rode into
the middle of the riding school, called the officers around him, and
personally communicated to them the intelligence of the Warsaw rebellion:
“I have already made arrangements that the troops designated by me
should move on Warsaw, and if necessary you too shall go, to punish the
traitors and re-establish order and the offended honour of Russia. I know
that under every circumstance I can rely upon you,” said the emperor. A
unanimous outburst of indignation momentarily seized upon all present and
then enthusiastic cries resounded: “Lead us against the rebels: we will
revenge the offended honour of Russia.” They kissed the emperor’s hands
and feet and the hem of his garment with shouts and cheers. The outburst
of indignation was so violent that Nicholas considered it necessary to
moderate it, and with the majesty that was natural to him he reminded
the officers surrounding him that not all the Poles had broken their
oath; that the ringleaders of the insurrection must be punished, but that
vengeance must not be taken on the people: that the repentant must be
pardoned and hatred not allowed.

From the subsequent reports of the grand duke the emperor learned that
the czarevitch had permitted the portion of the Polish army that remained
with him to return to Warsaw; in exchange for this the deputies who came
to the czarevitch promised him and the Russian detachment a free passage
to the frontiers of the empire. It was decided that a sufficient number
of troops should be concentrated in the Polish frontier to allow of
decisive measures being taken against the insurgents. Count Diebitsch was
appointed commander-in-chief of the acting army, whilst the office of
chief of the staff was filled by Count Tolle.

When the czarevitch reached the Russian frontier he wrote as follows to
the emperor Nicholas: “And now the work of sixteen years is completely
destroyed by a set of ensign-bearers, young officers, and students. I
will not further enlarge on the matter, but duty commands me to bear
witness to you that the landed proprietors, the rural population, and in
general all holders of property of any kind are up in despair over this.
The officers and generals as well as the soldiers are unable to keep from
joining the general movement, being carried away by the young people
and ensign-bearers who led everyone astray. In a word, the position of
affairs is extremely bad, and I really do not know what will come of it.
All my measures of surveillance have led to nothing, in spite of the fact
that everything was beginning to be discovered. Here are we Russians at
the frontier, but great God in what a condition!--almost barefoot, for we
all came out as if at the sound of an alarm, in the hopes of returning
to barracks, whilst instead awful marches have had to be made. The
officers have been deprived of everything and have almost nothing with
which to clothe themselves. I am broken hearted; at the age of fifty-one
and a half years I never thought to finish my career in this lamentable
manner after thirty-five and a half years of service. I pray to God that
the army to which I have devoted sixteen years of my life may be brought
to reason, and return to the path of duty and honour, acknowledging its
previous errors, before coercive measures have to be taken. But this is
too much to expect from the age in which we live, and I greatly doubt the
realisation of my desires.”

Any agreement with Poland became daily more impossible and both sides
prepared for war. On the 17th of December the emperor Nicholas’
proclamation to the Polish army and nation was issued, and on the 24th
a manifesto was published offering means of reconciliation to all those
who returned to their duty. Meanwhile General Chlopicki was installed
as dictator in Warsaw, but he was unable to save Poland from a rupture
with Russia. Two deputies were sent to St. Petersburg to enter into
negotiations with the emperor Nicholas; they were the minister of
finance, Prince Lubetzki and a member of the diet, Count Ezerski. But
neither could these negotiations avert the bloody events of the year
1831. “It is hard to foresee the future,” wrote the emperor to the
czarevitch; “but weighing the relative probabilities of success, it is
difficult to suppose that the new year will show itself more distressing
for us than the year 1830; God grant that I may not be mistaken.
I should like to see you peacefully settled in your Belvedere and
order re-established throughout; but how much there yet remains to be
accomplished before we are in a condition to attain to this! Which of the
two must perish--for it appears inevitable that one must perish, Russia
or Poland? Decide for yourself. I have exhausted all possible means in
order to avert such a calamity--all means compatible with honour and my
conscience--but they are exhausted. What remains for me to do?”

[Sidenote: [1831 A.D.]]

Soon the diet assembled in Warsaw took a decision which completed the
rupture between Poland and Russia. On the 25th of January, 1831, the diet
declared the Romanov dynasty to be deprived of the throne of Poland. The
Poles themselves thus unbound the hands of the emperor, and the duel
between Russia and Poland became inevitable. The emperor replied to the
challenge by a manifesto in accordance with which the Russian troops
crossed the Polish frontier, and on the 25th of February a decisive
battle took place before Prague at Grokhov, by which the Polish army was
obliged to retreat to Warsaw with a loss of twelve thousand men.

But Count Diebitsch did not recognise the possibility of taking advantage
of the victory gained, and which would have been inevitably completed by
the occupation of the Polish capital; and Sabalkanski was not fated to
become prince of Warsaw. The Polish troops retreated unhindered across
the only bridge to Warsaw; the new Polish commander-in-chief Skrjinetzski
set out to reorganise the army, the rising spread even to the Russian
governments, and the campaign, against all expectations, dragged on for
six months. Meanwhile it was a war upon which depended, according to the
expression used by the emperor, “the political existence of Russia.”

On the 26th of May Diebitsch gained a second victory over the Polish
army, which also terminated by the favourable retreat of the latter;
and on the 13th of June, the emperor found occasion to write to his
field-marshal: “Act at length so that I can understand you.” The letter
was however not read by Count Diebitsch, for on the 10th of June the
field-marshal suddenly died of cholera in the village of Kleshov near
Pultiusk. He was replaced by Field-marshal Count Paskevitch-Erivanski,
who was as early as April, 1831, called by the emperor from Tiflis to St.
Petersburg. It was decided to cross the lower Vis-Suta and move towards
Warsaw. The czarevitch Constantine outlived Count Diebitsch only by a few
days. He also died suddenly of cholera at Vitebsk, in the night between
the 26th and 27th of June of the year 1831.

[Illustration: FIELD-MARSHAL PASKEVITCH

(1782-1856)]

The Polish insurrection from that time daily grew nearer to its
definitive conclusion; it was determined by the two days’ storming
of Warsaw, which took place on the 7th and 8th of September. Finally
Field-marshal Paskevitch was able to communicate to the emperor the news
that “Warsaw is at the feet of your imperial majesty.” Prince Suvorov,
aide-de-camp of the emperor, was the bearer of this intelligence to
Tsarskoi Selo on the 16th of September.

Nicholas wrote as follows to his victorious field-marshal: “With the help
of the all-merciful God, you have again raised the splendour and glory
of our arms, you have punished the disloyal traitors, you have avenged
Russia, you have subdued Warsaw--from henceforth you are the most serene
prince of Warsaw. Let posterity remember that the honour and glory of the
Russian army are inseparable from your name, and may your name preserve
for everyone the memory of the day on which the name of Russia was again
made glorious. This is the sincere expression of the grateful heart of
your sovereign, your friend, and your old subordinate.”

After the fall of Warsaw the war still continued for a while, but not
for long. The chief forces of the Polish army, which had retired to
Novogeorgievsk, finished by passing into Prussian territory at the end of
September, and on the 21st of October the last fortress surrendered. The
Polish insurrection was at an end. But the peace, attained by such heavy
sacrifice, was accompanied by a new evil for Russia; in Europe appeared
the Polish emigration, carrying with it hatred and vociferations against
Russia and preparing the inimical conditions of public opinion in the
west against the Russian government.


THE OUTBREAK OF CHOLERA AND THE RIOTS OCCASIONED BY IT (1830 A.D.)

The emperor had hardly returned to St. Petersburg from opening the
diet in Warsaw, when suddenly a new care occupied the attention of the
government. The cholera made its appearance in the empire. This terrible
illness, until then known to Russia only by name and by narratives
describing its devastations, brought with it still greater fear, because
no one knew or could indicate either medical or police measures to
be taken against it. General opinion inclined, however, towards the
advantages to be derived from quarantine and isolation, such as had
been employed against the plague, and the government immediately took
necessary measures in this direction with the activity that the emperor’s
strong will managed to instil into all his dispositions. Troops were
without delay stationed at various points and cordons formed from them
and the local inhabitants, in order to save the governments in the
interior and the two capitals from the calamity.

In spite of all precautions, however, a fresh source of grief was added
to all the cares and anxieties that pressed upon the emperor at that
period. Since the 26th of June the cholera had appeared in St. Petersburg
and in a few days had attained menacing dimensions. This awful illness
threw all classes of the population into a state of the greatest terror,
particularly the common people by whom all the measures taken for the
preservation of the public health--such as increased police surveillance,
the surrounding of the towns with troops, and even the removal of
those stricken with cholera to hospitals--were at first regarded as
persecutions. Mobs began to assemble, strangers were stopped in the
streets and searched for the poison they were supposed to carry on them,
while doctors were publicly accused of poisoning the people. Finally, on
the 4th of July, the mob, excited by rumours and suspicions, gathered
together at the Hay Market and attacked the house in which a temporary
cholera hospital had been established. They broke the windows, threw the
furniture out into the street, wounded and cast out the sick, thrashed
the hospital servants, and killed several of the doctors. The police were
powerless to restore order and even the final appearance of the military
governor-general Count Essen did not attain the necessary result. A
battalion of the Semenov regiment forced the people to disperse from the
square into the side streets, but was far from putting a stop to the
disturbance.

The next day the emperor Nicholas went on a steamer from St. Petersburg
to Elagium Island. When he had heard the reports of various persons as to
the state of the town he got into a carriage with Adjutant-general Prince
Menshikov and drove to the Preobrajenski parade-ground in the town, where
a battalion of the Preobrajenski regiment was encamped. When he had
thanked the troops, the emperor continued his way along the carriage road
where he threatened with his displeasure some crowds and shopkeepers;
from there he drove to the Hay Market where about five thousand people
had assembled. Standing up in his carriage and turning to the mob, the
emperor spoke as follows: “Misdeeds were committed yesterday, public
order was disturbed; shame on the Russian people for forgetting the
faith of their fathers and imitating the turbulence of the French and
Poles! They have taught you this: seize them and take those suspected to
the authorities; but wickedness has been committed here, here we have
offended and angered God--let us turn to the church, down on your knees,
and beg the forgiveness of the Almighty!”

The people fell on their knees and crossed themselves in contrition; the
emperor prostrated himself also, and exclamations of “We have sinned,
accursed ones that we are!” resounded throughout the air. Continuing his
speech to the people, the emperor again admonished the crowd: “I have
sworn before God to preserve the prosperity of the people entrusted to
me by providence; I am answerable before God for these disorders: and
therefore I will not allow them. Woe be to the disobedient!”

At this moment some men in the crowd raised their voices. The emperor
then replied: “What do you want--whom do you want? Is it I? I am not
afraid of anything--here I am!” and with these words he pointed to his
breast. Cries of enthusiasm ensued. After this the emperor, probably as
a sign of reconciliation, embraced an old man in the crowd and returned,
first to Elagium and afterwards to Peterhov. The day afterwards the
emperor again visited the capital. Order was re-established, but the
cholera continued to rage. Six hundred persons died daily, and it was
only from the middle of July that the mortality began to diminish.

Far more dangerous in its consequences was the revolt that arose in
the Novgorod military settlements. Here the cholera and rumours of
poisoning only served as a pretext for rebellion; the seed of general
dissatisfaction among the population belonging to this creation of Count
Araktcheiev continued to exist in spite of all the changes introduced by
the emperor Nicholas into the administration of the military settlements.
A spark was sufficient to produce in the settlements an explosion of
hitherto unprecedented fury, and the cholera served as the spark. Order
was however finally re-established in the settlements and then the
emperor Nicholas set off for them quite alone and presented himself
before the assembled battalions, which had stained themselves with the
blood of their officers and stood awaiting, trembling and in silence the
judgment of their sovereign.[b]


THE WAR IN THE CAUCASUS (1829-1840 A.D.)

The possession of the Caucasus is a question vitally affecting the
interests of Russia in her provinces beyond that range of mountains,
and her ulterior projects with regard to the regions of Persia and
Central Asia. Here are the terms in which this subject is handled in a
report printed at St. Petersburg, and addressed to the emperor after the
expedition of General Emmanuel to Elbruz in 1829:

“The Circassians (Tsherkessians) bar out Russia from the south, and may
at their pleasure open or close the passage to the nations of Asia.
At present their intestine dissensions, fostered by Russia, hinder
them from uniting under one leader; but it must not be forgotten that,
according to traditions religiously preserved amongst them, the sway of
their ancestors extended as far as to the Black Sea. They believe that
a mighty people, descended from their ancestors, and whose existence
is verified by the ruins of Madjar, has once already overrun the fine
plains adjacent to the Danube, and finally settled in Panonia. Add to
this consideration their superiority in arms. Perfect horsemen, extremely
well armed, inured to war by the continual freebooting they exercise
against their neighbours, courageous, and disdaining the advantages of
our civilisation, the imagination is appalled at the consequences which
their union under one leader might have for Russia, which has no other
bulwark against their ravages than a military line, too extensive to be
very strong.”

For the better understanding of the war which Russia has been so long
waging with the mountaineers, let us glance at the topography of the
Caucasus, and the respective positions of the belligerents.

The chain of the Caucasus exhibits a peculiar conformation, altogether
different from that of any of the European chains. The Alps, the
Pyrenees, and the Carpathians are accessible only by the valleys, and
in these the inhabitants of the country find their subsistence, and
agriculture developes its wealth. The contrary is the case in the
Caucasus. From the fortress of Anapa on the Black Sea, all along to the
Caspian, the northern slope presents only immense inclined plains, rising
in terraces to a height of 3,000 or 4,000 yards above the sea level.
These plains, rent on all directions by deep and narrow valleys and
vertical clefts, often form real steppes, and possess on their loftiest
heights rich pastures, where the inhabitants, secure from all attack,
find fresh grass for their cattle in the sultriest days of summer. The
valleys on the other hand are frightful abysses, the steep sides of which
are clothed with brambles, while the bottoms are filled with rapid
torrents foaming over beds of rocks and stones. Such is the singular
spectacle generally presented by the northern slope of the Caucasus. This
brief description may give an idea of the difficulties to be encountered
by an invading army. Obliged to occupy the heights, it is incessantly
checked in its march by impassable ravines, which do not allow of the
employment of cavalry, and for the most part prevent the passage of
artillery. The ordinary tactics of the mountaineers is to fall back
before the enemy, until the nature of the ground or the want of supplies
obliges the latter to begin a retrograde movement. Then it is that they
attack the invaders, and, intrenched in their forests behind impregnable
rocks, they inflict the most terrible carnage on them with little danger
to themselves.

On the south the character of the Caucasian chain is different. From
Anapa to Gagri, along the shores of the Black Sea, we observe a secondary
chain composed of schistous mountains, seldom exceeding 1000 yards in
height. But the nature of their soil, and of their rocks, would be enough
to render them almost impracticable for European armies, even were they
not covered with impenetrable forests. The inhabitants of this region,
who are called Circassians, are entirely independent, and constitute one
of the most warlike peoples of the Caucasus.

The great chain begins in reality at Gagri, but the mountains recede from
the shore, and nothing is to be seen along the coast as far as Mingrelia
but secondary hills, commanded by immense crags, that completely cut off
all approach to the central part of the Caucasus. This region, so feebly
defended by its topographical conformation, is Abkhasia, the inhabitants
of which have been forced to submit to Russia. To the north and on the
northern slope, westward of the military road from Mozdok to Tiflis,
dwell a considerable number of tribes, some of them ruled by a sort of
feudal system, others constituted into little republics. Those of the
west, dependent on Circassia and Abadja, are in continual war with the
empire, whilst the Nogaians, who inhabit the plains on the left bank of
the Kuma, and the tribes of the great Kabarda, own the sovereignty of
the czar; but their wavering and dubious submission cannot be relied
on. In the centre, at the foot of the Elbruz, dwell the Suanetians, an
unsubdued people, and near them, occupying both sides of the pass of
Dariel, are the Ingutches and Ossetans, exceptional tribes, essentially
different from the aboriginal peoples. Finally we have, eastward of the
great Tiflis road, near the Terek, little Kabarda, and the country of the
Kumicks, for the present subjugated; and then those indomitable tribes,
the Lesghians and Tchetchens, of whom Schamyl is the Ab del Kadir, and
who extended over the two slopes of the Caucasus to the vicinity of the
Caspian.

In reality, the Kuban and the Terek, that rise from the central chain,
and fall, the one into the Black Sea, the other into the Caspian, may
be considered as the northern political limits of independent Caucasus.
It is along those two rivers that Russia has formed her armed line,
defended by Cossacks, and detachments from the regular army. The Russians
have, indeed, penetrated those northern frontiers at sundry points,
and have planted some forts within the country of the Lesghians and
Tchetchens. But those lonely posts, in which a few unhappy garrisons
are surrounded on all sides, and generally without a chance of escape,
cannot be regarded as a real occupation of the soil on which they stand.
They are, in fact, only so many pickets, whose business is only to watch
more closely the movements of the mountaineers. In the south, from Anapa
to Gagri, along the Black Sea, the imperial possessions never extended
beyond a few detached forts, completely isolated, and deprived of all
means of communication by land. A rigorous blockade was established on
this coast; but the Circassians, as intrepid in their frail barks as
among their mountains, often passed by night through the Russian line
of vessels, and reached Trebizond and Constantinople. Elsewhere, from
Mingrelia to the Caspian, the frontiers are less precisely defined, and
generally run parallel with the great chain of the Caucasus.

[Sidenote: [1835 A.D.]]

Thus limited, the Caucasus, including the territory occupied by the
subject tribes, presents a surface of scarcely 5000 leagues; and it is in
this narrow region that a virgin and chivalric nation, amounting at most
to 2,000,000 of souls, proudly upholds its independence against the might
of the Russian empire, and has for upwards of twenty years sustained one
of the most obstinate struggles known to modern history.

The Russian line of the Kuban, which is exactly similar to that of the
Terek, is defended by the Cossacks of the Black Sea, the poor remains
of the famous Zaparogians, whom Catherine II subdued with so much
difficulty, and whom she colonised at the foot of the Caucasus, as a
bulwark against the incursions of the mountaineers. The line consists
of small forts and watch stations; the latter are merely a kind of
sentry-box raised on four posts, about fifty feet from the ground. Two
Cossacks keep watch in them day and night. On the least movement of the
enemy in the vast plain of reeds that fringe both banks of the river, a
beacon fire is kindled on the top of the watch box. If the danger becomes
more pressing, an enormous torch of straw and tar is set fire to. The
signal is repeated from post to post, the whole line springs to arms, and
500 or 600 men are instantly assembled on the point threatened. These
posts, composed generally of a dozen men, are very close to each other,
particularly in the most dangerous places. Small forts have been erected
at intervals with earthworks, and a few pieces of cannon; they contain
each from 150 to 200 men.

But notwithstanding all the vigilance of the Cossacks, often aided by the
troops of the line, the mountaineers not unfrequently cross the frontier
and carry their incursions, which are always marked with massacre and
pillage, into the adjacent provinces. There are bloody but justifiable
reprisals. In 1835 a body of fifty horsemen entered the country of the
Cossacks, and proceeded to a distance of 120 leagues, to plunder the
German colony of Madjar and the important village of Vladimirovka, on
the Kuma, and what is most remarkable they got back to their mountains
without being interrupted. The same year Kisliar, on the Caspian, was
sacked by the Lesghians. These daring expeditions prove of themselves how
insufficient is the armed line of the Caucasus, and to what dangers that
part of southern Russia is exposed.

The line of forts until lately existing along the Black Sea was quite as
weak, and the Circassians there were quite as daring. They used to carry
off the Russian soldiers from beneath the fire of their redoubts, and
come up to the very foot of their walls to insult the garrison. Hommaire
de Hell relates that, at the time he was exploring the mouths of the
Kuban, a hostile chief had the audacity to appear one day before the
gates of Anapa. He did all he could to irritate the Russians, and abusing
them as cowards and woman-hearted, he defied them to single combat.
Exasperated by his invectives, the commandant ordered that he should be
fired on with grape. The horse of the mountaineer reared and threw off
his rider, who, without letting go the bridle, instantly mounted again,
and, advancing still nearer to the walls, discharged his pistol almost at
point-blank distance at the soldiers, and galloped off to the mountains.

As for the blockade by sea, the imperial squadron has not been expert
enough to render it really effectual. It was only a few armed boats,
manned by Cossacks, that gave the Circassians any serious uneasiness.
These Cossacks like those of the Black Sea, are descended from the
Zaparogians. Previously to the last war with Turkey they were settled
on the right bank of the Danube, where their ancestors had taken refuge
after the destruction of their Setcha. During the campaigns of 1828-29,
pains were taken to revive their national feelings, they were brought
again by fair means or by force under the imperial sway, and were then
settled in the forts along the Caucasian shore, the keeping of which was
committed to their charge. Courageous, enterprising, and worthy rivals
of their foes, they waged a most active war against the skiffs of the
mountaineers in their boats, which carry crews of fifty or sixty men.

The treaty of Adrianople was in a manner the opening of a new era in
the relations of Russia with the mountaineers; for it was by virtue of
that treaty that the czar, already master of Anapa and Sudjuk Kaleh,
pretended to the sovereignty of Circassia and of the whole seaboard of
the Black Sea. True to the invariable principles of its foreign policy,
the government at first employed means of corruption, and strove to
seduce the various chiefs of the country by pensions, decorations, and
military appointments. But the mountaineers, who had the example of the
Persian provinces before their eyes, sternly rejected all the overtures
of Russia, and repudiated the clauses of the convention of Adrianople;
the political and commercial independence of their country became their
rallying cry, and they would not treat on any other condition. All
such ideas were totally at variance with Nicholas’ schemes of absolute
dominion; therefore he had recourse to arms to obtain by force what he
had been unable to accomplish by other means.

Abkhasia, situated on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, and easily
accessible, was the first invaded. A Russian force occupied the country
in 1839, under the ordinary pretence of supporting one of its princes,
and putting an end to anarchy. In the same year General Paskevitch,
then governor-general of the Caucasus, for the first time made an armed
exploration of the country of the Circassians beyond the Kuban; but he
effected absolutely nothing, and his expedition only resulted in great
loss of men and stores. In the following year war broke out in Daghestan
with the Lesghians and the Tchetchens. The celebrated Kadi Mulah, giving
himself out for a prophet, gathered together a considerable number of
partisans; but unfortunately for him there was no unanimity among the
tribes, and the princes were continually counteracting each other. Kadi
Mulah never was able to bring more than 3,000 or 4,000 men together;
nevertheless, he maintained the struggle with a courage worthy of a
better fate, and Russia knows what it cost her to put down the revolt
of Daghestan. As for any real progress in that part of the Caucasus,
the Russians made none; they did no more than replace things on the old
footing. Daghestan soon became again more hostile than ever, and the
Tchetchens and Lesghians continued in separate detachments to plunder
and ravage the adjacent provinces up to the time when the ascendancy of
the celebrated Schamyl, the worthy successor of Kadi Mulah, gave a fresh
impulse to the warlike tribes of the mountain, and rendered them more
formidable than ever.

After taking possession of Anapa and Sudjuk Kaleh, the Russians thought
of seizing the whole seaboard of Circassia, and especially the various
points suitable for the establishment of military posts. They made
themselves masters of Guelendchik and the important position of Gagri,
which commands the pass between Circassia and Abkhasia. The Circassians
heroically defended their territory; but how could they have withstood
the guns of the ships of war that mowed them down whilst the soldiers
were landing and constructing their redoubts? The blockade of the coasts
was declared in 1838, and all foreign communication with the Caucasus
ostensibly intercepted. During the four following years Russia suffered
heavy losses; and all her successes were limited to the establishment of
some small isolated forts on the sea-coast. She then increased her army,
laid down the military road from the Kuban to Guelendchik, across the
last western offshoot of the Caucasus, set on foot an exploration of the
enemy’s whole coast, and prepared to push the war with renewed vigour.

In 1837 the emperor Nicholas visited the Caucasus. He would see for
himself the theatre of a war so disastrous to his arms, and try what
impression his imperial presence could make on the mountaineers. The
chiefs of the country were invited to various conferences, to which
they boldly repaired on the faith of the Russian parole; but instead
of conciliating them by words of peace and moderation, the emperor
only exasperated them by his threatening and haughty language. “Do you
know,” said he to them, “that I have powder enough to blow up all your
mountains?”

[Sidenote: [1839 A.D.]]

During the three following years there was an incessant succession
of expeditions. Golovin, on the frontiers of Georgia, Grabe on the
north, and Racivski on the Circassian seaboard, left nothing untried to
accomplish their master’s orders. The sacrifices incurred by Russia were
enormous; the greater part of her fleet was destroyed by a storm, but all
efforts failed against the intrepidity and tactics of the mountaineers.
Some new forts erected under cover of the ships, were all that resulted
from these disastrous campaigns. “I was in the Caucasus in 1839,” says
Hommaire de Hell, “when Grabe returned from his famous expedition against
Shamyl. When the army marched it had numbered 6000 men, 1,000 of whom,
and 120 officers, were cut off in three months. But as the general had
advanced further into the country than any of his predecessors, Russia
sang pæans, and Grabe became the hero of the day, although the imperial
troops had been forced to retreat and entirely evacuate the country
they had invaded. All the other expeditions were similar to this one,
and achieved in reality nothing but the burning and destruction of a
few villages. It is true the mountaineers are far from being victorious
in all their encounters with the Russians, whose artillery they cannot
easily withstand; but if they are obliged to give way to numbers, or to
engineering, nevertheless they remain in the end masters of the ground,
and annul all the momentary advantages gained by their enemies.”

The year 1840 was still more fatal to the arms of Nicholas. Almost all
the new forts on the seaboard were taken by the Circassians, who bravely
attacked and carried the best fortified posts without artillery. The
military road from the Kuban to Guelendchik was intercepted, Fort St.
Nicholas, which commanded it, was stormed and the garrison massacred.
Never yet had Russia endured such heavy blows. The disasters were such
that the official journals themselves, after many months’ silence,
were at last obliged to speak of them; but the most serious losses,
the destruction of the new road from the Kuban, the taking of Fort St.
Nicholas, and that of several other forts, were entirely forgotten in the
official statement.

On the eastern side of the mountain the war was fully as disastrous
for the invaders. The imperial army lost four hundred petty officers
and soldiers, and twenty-nine officers in the battle of Valrik against
the Tchetchens. The military colonies of the Terek were attacked and
plundered, and when General Golovin retired to his winter quarters at the
end of the campaign, he had lost more than three-fourths of his men.

The great Kabarda did not remain an indifferent spectator of the
offensive league formed by the tribes of the Caucasus; and when Russia,
suspecting with reason the unfriendly disposition of some tribes, made
an armed exploration on the banks of the Laba in order to construct
redoubts, and thus cut off the subjugated tribes from the others, the
general found the country, wherever he advanced, but a desert. All the
inhabitants had already retired to the other side of the Laba to join
their warlike neighbours.[d]


THE EMPEROR’S CONSERVATIVE PATRIOTISM

However, in spite of all these disastrous campaigns, Nicholas had not
lost sight of his most important task--that of consolidating internal
order by reforms. His attention had been directed above all to the
administration, from the heart of which he had sought especially to
exterminate corruption with a severity and courage proportioned to the
immensity of the evil. Then he had announced his firm desire to perfect
the laws, and had charged Count Speranski to work at them under his
personal direction. The digest (_svod_) promulgated in 1833 was the
first fruit of these efforts and was followed by various special codes.
Finally, turning his attention to public instruction, he had assigned to
it as a basis the national traditions and religion and charged Uvarov,
president of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, a man of learning and
talent, to animate it with this spirit, so hostile to the ideas of the
west, but--let us say it at once--better suited to the real needs of the
country.

Nicholas, allowing himself to be ruled by this spirit, plunged further
and further into a system which, though contrary to that of Peter the
Great, we do not pretend absolutely to condemn on that account, and which
the marquis de Custine[e] has highly extolled in his celebrated book,
_La Russie en 1839_. “The emperor Nicholas,” he said, “thought that the
day of mere seeming was past for Russia, and that the whole structure of
civilisation was to remake in that country. He has relaid the foundations
of society. Peter, called the Great, would have overturned it a second
time in order to rebuild it: Nicholas is more skilful. I am struck
with admiration for this man who is secretly struggling, with all the
strength of his will, against the work of Peter the Great’s genius. He
is restoring individuality to a nation which has strayed for more than a
century in the paths of imitation.”

Without ceasing to borrow diligently from Europe her inventions and arts,
her progress in industry, in administration, in the conduct of land and
sea armies--in a word, all the material improvements which she devises
and realises, he endeavoured to close Russia to her ideas on philosophy,
politics, and religion. He condemned exotic tendencies as pernicious
to his states, and, without depriving himself of the services of the
Germans, the principal depositaries of superior enlightenment in that
country, as yet only imperfectly moulded to civilisation, he relied by
preference on the party of the old Russians, which included the clergy,
whom he treated with respect in spite of the inferiority of their
position. Nationality, autocracy, orthodoxy--these three words, taken as
the national watchword, sum up the ideas to which he subordinated his
internal policy. The expression, _Holy Russia_, which has been the object
of such profound astonishment to the Latin world, reflects also this
spirit.

He surrounded with great solemnity those acts which he performed in
his quality of head of the church in his own country, and posed as the
protector of all his co-religionists in Moldavia, Wallachia, Servia,
Montenegro, and other countries. Like his ancestors of preceding
dynasties, he adorned himself on solemn occasions with a gold cross which
he wore diagonally on his breast. This bias was summed up in the new
word _cæsaropapism_. He regarded with special enthusiasm that one act
on account of which, the accusation of religious intolerance was fixed
upon him--an accusation justified by many of his deeds. In consequence of
the decisions of the council of Florence, and up till 1839, there were
in Russia 1,500,000 United Greeks, subjected to the papal obedience.
At their head was the archbishop, sometimes the metropolitan, of White
Russia, and the bishop, or archbishop, of Lithuania. In 1839 these two
prelates, having met in conjunction with a third, at Polotsk, the seat
of the first of these eparchies, had signed a document in which they
expressed the wish to unite, they and their church, with the national
and primitive church, and prayed the emperor to sanction this union.
Nicholas referred the matter to the holy synod, and, the latter having
with great eagerness signified its approval of the act, he sanctioned
it in his turn, adding these words beneath his signature: “I thank God
and I authorize it.” It is well known to what complaints on the part of
the pope this suppression of the uniate Greek church soon afterward gave
rise.[c]


UNVEILING OF THE MONUMENT AT BORODINO

The emperor Nicholas was fond of great gatherings of the troops, and an
occasion for such was afforded in 1839 by the unveiling of the monument
erected on the battle-field of Borodino. The thought of this muster of
the troops had already occupied the emperor’s mind since 1838, but at
that time he had in view not merely the participation of the troops in
manœuvres and exercises, but the immortalisation of the tradition of the
valorous exploits of the Russian army in the defence of the fatherland
against the invasion of Napoleon. On the day of the unveiling of the
Borodino monument, August 26th, 120,000 men were gathered around it.
The emperor invited to take part in the solemnities all the surviving
comrades of Kutuzov and many foreign guests.

On the anniversary of the battle of Borodino a great review of all the
troops assembled on this historic spot took place. In the morning, before
the review began, the following order of his imperial majesty, written by
the emperor’s hand, was read to the troops:

“Children. Before you stands the monument which bears witness to the
glorious deeds of your comrades. Here, on this same spot, 27 years ago,
the arrogant enemy dreamed of conquering the Russian army which fought
in defence of the faith, the czar and the fatherland. God punished the
foolish: the bones of the insolent invaders were scattered from Moscow
to the Niemen--and we entered Paris. The time has now come to render
glory to a great exploit. And thus, may the eternal memory of the emperor
Alexander I be immortal to us: for by his firm will Russia was saved; may
the glory of your comrades who fell as heroes be also everlasting, and
may their exploits serve as an example to us and our further posterity.
You will ever be the hope and support of your sovereign and our common
mother Russia.”

This order aroused the greatest enthusiasm amongst the troops, but it was
highly displeasing to the foreigners; it appeared to them strange and
almost offensive, they considered that “in reality it was nothing but
high sounding phrases.”

Three days later the emperor Nicholas had the battle of Borodino
reproduced. After the unveiling of the Borodino monument the laying of
the first stone of the cathedral of Christ the Saviour took place in
Moscow. This solemnity brought to a close the commemoration of the year
1812 which had delivered Russia from a foreign invasion and was the dawn
of the liberation of Europe.

The year 1839 was remarkable for yet another important event: the reunion
of the Uniates.[68]


DEATH OR RETIREMENT OF THE OLD MINISTERS

Little by little the workers in the political arena of Alexander’s reign
had disappeared. Count V. P. Kotchulzi, who had been president of the
senate since 1827 and afterwards chancellor of the interior, died in 1834
and had been replaced by N. N. Novseltsev as president of the senate.
After his death the emperor Nicholas appointed to that office Count I. V.
Vasiltchikov, who remained at his post until his death, which took place
in 1847.

The emperor was above all grieved at the death of Speranski in the
year 1837. He recognised this loss as irreparable, and in speaking of
him said: “Not everyone understood Speranski or knew how to value him
sufficiently; at first I myself was in this respect perhaps more in
fault than anyone. I was told much of his liberal ideas; calumny even
touched him in reference to the history of December 26th. But afterwards
all these accusations were scattered like dust, and I found in him the
most faithful, devoted and zealous servant, with vast knowledge and vast
experience. Everyone now knows how great are my obligations and those
of Russia to him--and the calumniators are silenced. The only reproach
I could make him was his feeling against my late brother; but that too
is over”.... The emperor stopped without finishing his thought, which
probably contained a secret, involuntary justification of Speranski.

In 1844 died another statesman who was still nearer and dearer to the
emperor Nicholas; this was Count Benkendorv of whom the emperor said: “He
never set me at variance with anyone, but reconciled me with many.” His
successor in the direction of the third section was Count A. F. Orlov;
he remained at this post during all the succeeding years of the emperor
Nicholas’ reign.

In that same year Count E. F. Kankrin who had been minister of finance
even under Alexander I was obliged on account of ill health to leave
the ministry of which he had been head during twenty-two years. As his
biographer justly observes Kankrin left Russia as an heritage: “Well
organised finances, a firm metal currency, and a rate of exchange
corresponding with the requirements of the country. Russia was in
financial respects a mighty power whose credit it was impossible to
injure. And all this was attained without any considerable loans, and
without great increase in taxes, by the determination, the thrift and
the genius of one man, who placed the welfare of the nation above all
considerations and understood how to serve it.”

But at the same time it must not be forgotten that all these brilliant
results were attainable only because behind Count Kankrin stood the
emperor Nicholas. The enemies of the minister and of his monetary
reforms were many; but the snares they laid were destroyed before
the all powerful will of a person who never wavered. This time that
inflexible will was directed in the right path, and the results showed
unprecedented financial progress, in spite of the three wars which it had
been impossible for Russia to avoid, despite the ideally peace-loving
disposition of her ruler; and to these calamities must be added also
the cholera and bad harvests. Kankrin’s resignation was accompanied by
important consequences; he was replaced by the incapable Vrontchenko,
while Nicholas took the finances of the empire into his own hands, as he
had previously acted regarding the other branches of the administration
of the state.

Among the old-time servitors of Alexander I, Prince P. M. Volkonski
remained longest in office. He lived until he attained the rank of
field-marshal and died in 1852, having filled the office of minister of
the court during twenty-five years.

One of the younger workers of the Alexandrine period, P. D. Kisselev,
former chief of the staff of the second army, attained to unusual
eminence in the reign of the emperor Nicholas. In 1825 his star nearly
set forever, but soon it shone again with renewed brilliancy and on his
return from the Danubian provinces, which he had administered since 1829,
Kisselev was created minister and count. “You will be my chief of the
staff for the peasant department,” said the emperor to him, and with this
object, on the 13th of January, 1838 there was established the ministry
of state domains, formed from the department which had until that time
been attached to the ministry of finance.


GREAT FIRE IN THE WINTER PALACE

A disastrous fire at the Winter Palace began on the evening of the 29th
of December, 1837, and no human means were able to stay the flames; only
the Hermitage with its collection of ancient and priceless treasures was
saved. The ruins of the palace continued to burn during three days and
nights. The emperor and the imperial family took up their abode in the
Anitchkov palace.

The rebuilding of the Winter Palace upon its previous plan was begun
immediately; the palace was consecrated on the 6th of April, 1839 and the
emperor and his family were installed there as previously. As a token of
gratitude to all those who had taken part in the rebuilding of the palace
a medal was struck with the inscription: “I thank you.”--“Work overcomes
everything.”

On the last day of the Easter holidays the emperor Nicholas resolved to
allow visitors access to all the state rooms, galleries, etc.; and in
that one day as many as 200,000 persons visited the palace between the
hours of six in the evening and two in the morning.

Twice the emperor and his family passed in all directions through the
palace that was thronged with the public. An eye-witness writes that
“the public by prolonging their visitation for seven hours so filled the
palace with damp, steamy, suffocating air that the walls, the columns,
and carvings on the lower windows sweated, and streams of damp poured
down on to the parquet flooring and spoiled everything, while the marble
changed to a dull yellowish hue.” 35,000 paper rubles were required to
repair the damage. But the matter did not terminate with this; during one
night that summer, fortunately while the imperial family were staying
at Peterhov, the ceiling in the saloon of St. George fell down with the
seventeen massive lustres depending from it.


THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CORONATION OF NICHOLAS I (1851 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1851 A.D.]]

In August 1851, upon the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary
of his coronation the emperor Nicholas left St. Petersburg for
Moscow, accompanied by his family. For the first time the journey was
accomplished by the newly completed Moscow railway, constructed in
accordance with the will of the emperor, and in opposition to the desires
of many of his enlightened contemporaries. The opening of the railway to
the public followed only on the 13th of November. In Moscow the emperor
was met by Field-marshal Paskevitch, prince of Warsaw. On the eve of
the festivities in honour of the anniversary of the coronation Nicholas
visited the field-marshal, and addressed the following memorable words to
him:

“To-morrow will complete twenty-five years of my reign--a reign which
you, Ivan Feodorovitch, have made illustrious by your valiant service
to Russia. It was under sorrowful prognostications that I ascended
the throne of Russia and my reign had to begin with punishments and
banishments. I did not find around the throne persons who could guide
the czar--I was obliged to create men; I had none devoted to me. Affairs
in the east required the appointment there of a man of your intellect,
of your military capacity, of your will. My choice rested on you.
Providence itself directed me to you. You had enemies: in spite of all
that was said against you, I held fast to you, Ivan Feodorovitch. You
proved, commander, that I was right. Hardly had affairs in the east
quieted down when my empire was overtaken by a public calamity--the
cholera. The people ascribe every misfortune to the person who governs.
God knows how much suffering this national affliction cost me. The war
with Poland was another grievous trial. Russian blood was shed because
of our errors or because of chastisement sent from above. Our affairs
were in a bad way. And again I had resource to you, Ivan Feodorovitch, as
the only means of salvation for Russia; and again you did not betray my
trust, again you exalted my empire. By your twenty years’ administration
of the Polish land you have laid the foundation for the happiness of
two kindred yet hostile elements. I hope that the Russian and the Pole
will constitute one Russian Empire--the Slavonic Empire; and that your
name will be preserved in history beside the name of Nicholas. It is
not so long ago--when western Europe was agitated by aspirations after
wild, unbridled freedom; when the people overthrew lawful authority and
thrones; when I decided to give a helping hand to my brother and ally,
the monarch of Austria--that you, commander, led my soldiers to a new
warfare: you tamed the hydra of rebellion. In six weeks you had finished
the war in Hungary, you supported and strengthened the tottering throne
of Austria, Ivan Feodorovitch. You are the glory of my twenty-five years’
reign. You are the history of the reign of Nicholas I.”


THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS’ VIEWS ON LOUIS NAPOLEON

When Prince Louis Napoleon had accomplished his _coup d’état_ of the
2nd of December, 1851, and the restoration of the second empire was to
be expected, the emperor Nicholas, judging by a letter which he had
received from Frederick William IV, said: “Before the end of next year
Louis Napoleon will become our colleague. Let him become what he likes,
even the great mufti, if it pleases him, but to the title of Emperor or
King I do not think he will be so imprudent as to aspire.” According to
the emperor’s opinion, as soon as Louis Napoleon desired to make himself
emperor he would become a usurper, because he did not possess the divine
right--he would be emperor in fact but never by right; in a word, “a
second Louis Philippe, less the odious character of that scoundrel.”

[Sidenote: [1853 A.D.]]

When the French diplomatic representatives in St. Petersburg and Warsaw
evidenced an intention to celebrate the 15th of August, the emperor
Nicholas drew up the following resolution: “A public church service
for Napoleon cannot be allowed, because he ceased to be emperor, being
banished and confined to the island of St. Helena. There is no propriety
in celebrating the birthday of the late Napoleon in our country, whence
he was despatched with befitting honour.” The Napoleonic empire had
already transcended the limits which the emperor Nicholas would at one
time have allowed; it was in direct contradiction to the stipulations
of the congress of Vienna, which formed the basis of the national law
of Europe. The emperor’s allies, however, looked on the matter somewhat
differently. Austria and Prussia recognised Napoleon III; it therefore
only remained to the emperor Nicholas, against his will, to follow their
example; but still he departed from the usually accepted diplomatic
forms, and in his letter to Napoleon III he did not call him brother, but
“_le bon ami_” (good friend). Soon on the political horizon appeared the
Eastern question, artfully put forward with a secret motive by Napoleon
III; his cunning calculations were justified without delay; the Russian
troops crossed the Pruth in 1853, and occupied the principality, as
a guarantee, until the demands presented to the Ottoman Porte by the
emperor Nicholas were complied with. Austrian ingratitude opened a safe
path for the snares of Anglo-French diplomacy. The Eastern War began, at
first upon Turkish territory and afterwards concentrated itself in the
Crimean peninsula around Sebastopol; France, England, and afterwards,
in 1855, little Sardinia, in alliance with Turkey, took up arms against
Russia; on the side of the allies lay the sympathy of all neutral Europe,
which already dreamed of wresting Russia’s conquests from her.[b]


EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE CRIMEAN WAR

The revolution of July, 1830, by threatening Europe with the ideas then
triumphing in France, had tightened the bonds, previously a little
relaxed, between the czar and the two great German powers, Austria and
Prussia. Independently of diplomatic conferences, the three monarchs had
frequent interviews for the purpose of adopting measures to oppose the
invasion of the revolutionary principle. Even whilst affecting to abandon
the west to the dissolution towards which he felt it was marching, and to
regard it as afflicted with approaching senility, Nicholas by no means
lost sight of its development. But the East, then in combustion, remained
the true mark of Russian policy. A movement was on foot for the overthrow
of the declining Ottoman power, and its substitution by an Arab power,
inaugurated by Muhammed Ali, the pasha of Egypt. France regarded this
movement with no unfriendly eye, but Russia entered a protest. By giving
the most colossal proportions to this Eastern Question, which extended
as far as the countries of central Asia, the situation created grave
embarrassments for the British government. For, to begin with, when, in
1833, Ibrahim Pasha, at the head of the Egyptian army, was ready to cross
the Taurus and march on Constantinople, within two months the northern
power (summoned to aid by that very sultan whom Russia had hitherto
so greatly humiliated) landed on the Asiatic coast of the Bosporus a
body of fifteen thousand men in readiness to protect that capital;
then the secret treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi (July 8th, 1833) granted her,
as the price of an offensive and defensive alliance with the Porte,
the withdrawal in her exclusive favour of the prohibition forbidding
armed vessels of foreign nations to enter the waters of Constantinople;
finally, by the conclusion of the Treaty of London July 15th, 1840, which
left France, still obstinately attached to the cause of Muhammed Ali,
outside the European concert, she had the joy of causing the rupture of
the _entente cordiale_ between that country and Great Britain--but only
momentarily, for a new treaty, concluded the 13th of July, 1841, likewise
in London, readmitted the French government to the concert.

The events of the year 1848, by bringing back the Russians into Moldavia
and Wallachia, afforded Europe new apprehensions relative to the
preservation, growing daily more difficult, of the Ottoman Empire and
the political balance, the latter of which was seriously threatened
if not destroyed by the colossus of the north, with its population
now increased to as much as sixty-five million souls. But Germany was
absorbed by the serious situation of her own affairs, to which the czar
was far from remaining a stranger; and the latter linked himself by new
ties to Austria, in whose favour he had already renounced his share in
the protectorate over the republic of Cracow, when at the request of the
Vienna cabinet he marched against insurgent Hungary (June, 1849) an army
which beat the insurrectionary forces, compelled them to submission,
and thus closed the abyss in which one of the oldest monarchies of
Christendom was about to be engulfed. Then, in 1850, chosen as arbiter
between Austria and Prussia, who were on the point of a rupture, the
czar turned the scale in favour of Austria, and kept Prussia in check by
threats.

“Austria will soon astonish the world by her immense ingratitude”: this
famous prophetic saying of Prince Felix of Schwarzenberg, prime minister
of the young emperor Francis Joseph, was not slow of accomplishment. The
ingratitude was a necessity which the history of Austria explains; for
in her case, as for the rest of Europe, the continued and immoderate
aggrandisement of Russia was the greatest of dangers. This leads us, in
finishing this general glance over the history of the period, to say a
word on the complications which, at the moment of the empire’s attaining
its apogee, commenced for it a new phase.

We have elsewhere explained the final cause of the decay of Turkey. That
decay was consummated in favour of the northern neighbour who followed
with attentive gaze the progress of what she called the death struggle.
Certain words pronounced by the autocrat on this subject, and consigned
to diplomatic despatches, had, not long ago, a great circulation. But
the influence of Russia was counterbalanced by that of France and that
of Great Britain. The cabinets of Paris and Vienna obtained important
concessions, we might say diplomatic triumphs, from Constantinople--the
one in relation to the Holy Places, the other on the subject of
Montenegro. Russian jealousy immediately awoke. According to the czar,
Turkey had a choice between two things only: she must regard Prussia
as either her greatest friend or her greatest enemy. To remind her of
this, and to neutralise the embassy of the prince of Linanges on behalf
of Austria, Nicholas sent Prince Menshikov, one of his ministers and
confidants, to Constantinople. Arriving February 28th, 1853, Menshikov
exhibited a haughty and irritable demeanour; and, after astonishing the
Divan by his noisy opposition, put forward pretensions relative to the
Holy Places which were only designed to lull the vigilance of England,
but were soon followed by others more serious and exorbitant; for
they amounted to nothing less than the restoration to the czar of the
protectorate over all the sultan’s subjects professing the Græco-Russian
worship--that is to say the great majority of the inhabitants of Turkey
in Europe.


OUTBREAK OF THE CRIMEAN WAR (1853 A.D.)

In vain the Divan protested; in vain the friendly powers interceded.
Unable to obtain the satisfaction he was demanding with the extreme of
violence, the Russian ambassador extraordinary quitted the Bosporous
with menace on his lips. And, in effect, on the 2nd of July, the czar’s
troops crossed the Pruth to occupy, contrary to all treaty stipulations,
the two Danubian principalities. Nicholas was not prepared for war and
did not expect to be obliged to have recourse to that last appeal; he
hoped to triumph over the Divan by audacity. Moreover, he did not think
the western powers were in a position to come to an understanding and
to act in common. He was mistaken: Turkey’s death struggle did not
prevent her from making a supreme effort to sell her life dearly, if it
were impossible for her to save it; and on the 26th of September the
sultan declared war on the aggressor. Hostilities began in the course
of the month of October, first on the Danube and afterwards in Asia,
where a surprise made the Turks masters of the little maritime fort of
St. Nicholas or Chefketil. The Porte was not long abandoned to its own
resources, for the time of political torpor in regard to the territorial
aggrandisement of the Muscovite colossus had gone by; the eyes of all
were at last opened and a European crisis was inevitable. At that moment,
the fleets of France and England were already at the entrance of the
Dardanelles; and even before the end of October these fine naval armies
passed the straits under the authority of a firman, and approached
Constantinople. In consequence of the position taken up by these two
states, the autocrat broke off relations with them in the beginning of
February, 1854. On the 21st of the same month he informed his subjects of
the fact in a manifesto, recalling to some extent, by its tone, by its
biblical references, and its exalted language, the Treaty of the Holy
Alliance. It may be worth while to reproduce here the following passage:

“Against Russia fighting for orthodoxy England and France enter the lists
as champions of the enemies of Christianity. But Russia will not fail in
her sacred vocation; if the frontier is invaded by the enemy we are ready
to resist him with the energy of which our ancestors have bequeathed us
the example. Are we not to-day still the same people whose valour was
attested by the memorable displays of the year 1812? May the Most High
aid us to prove it by our deeds. In this hope, and fighting for our
oppressed brothers who confess the faith of Christ, Russia will have but
one heart and voice to cry: ‘God, our Saviour! whom have we to fear? Let
Christ arise and let his enemies be scattered!’”


FRANCE, ENGLAND, AND TURKEY IN ALLIANCE

[Sidenote: [1854 A.D.]]

Thus, by an almost miraculous concourse of circumstances, an alliance was
formed between France and England, those two ancient and ardent rivals.
Preceded by a formal alliance with the Porte (March 12th), it was signed
in London, April 10th, 1854. This was not all: this memorable document
was immediately submitted to the governments of Austria and Prussia and
sanctioned by a protocol signed at Vienna by the four powers, by which
the justice of the cause sustained by those of the west was solemnly
proclaimed. Austria and Prussia laid down the conditions of their
eventual participation in the war in another treaty, that of Berlin,
of the 20th of April, 1854, to which the Germanic Confederation on its
side gave its adhesion. Finally at Baïadji-Keui, on the 14th of June,
1854, the great Danubian power also concluded a treaty with the Ottoman
Porte, in virtue of which she was authorised to enter into military
occupation of the principalities, whether she should have previously
expelled the Russian army or whether the latter should of its own will
have decided to evacuate them. Russia was in the most complete isolation;
the Scandinavian states, who had hitherto been her allies, declared
themselves neutral; an insurrection in her favour, which was preparing in
Servia, was prevented; that of the Greeks, openly favoured by King Otto,
was stifled. The Turks, thus effectively protected, were able to turn
all their forces on the frontiers, and to prove by heroic acts that they
had not lost all the bravery of their ancestors. In return for Europe’s
efforts in favour of the integrity of his empire, and in order to ward
off the reproach they might incur by supporting the cause of the crescent
against a Christian state, the sultan as early as the 6th of June, 1854,
published an edict or _irade_, by which he improved in a notable manner
the condition of the rayas, and prepared for their civil freedom, as well
as for a complete remodelling of the laws which, governing up to that
day the internal government of the Ottoman Empire, seemed to render its
preservation almost impossible.

Thus that movement of expansion to which Russia had been impelled during
four centuries, and which by conquest after conquest, due either to
diplomacy or the sword, had made Russian power the bugbear of Europe,
finds itself suddenly arrested. “Republican or Cossack,” was the famous
prognostic of Napoleon.[c]

The immense superiority of the marines belonging to the allies made it
possible to attack Russia on every sea. They bombarded the military port
of Odessa on the Black Sea (April 22nd, 1854), but respected the city
and the commercial port; the Russian establishments in the Caucasus had
been burned by the Russians themselves. They blockaded Kronstadt on
the Baltic, landed on the islands of Åland, and took the fortress of
Bomarsund (August 16th, 1854).[f]


THE TAKING OF BOMARSUND

This fight had lasted from four in the morning until four in the
evening, when the allies saw a white flag over the tower battlements.
The commander asked an armistice of two hours, which was granted. He
recommenced firing before the interval was over. The French batteries
overthrew the armaments, whilst the Vincennes _chasseurs_ acting as
free-shooters attacked the cannoneers. Resistance ceased towards evening
and the tower yielded at three o’clock in the morning. One officer
and thirty men were made prisoners. On Monday no notice was taken of
provocation from the fortress, but preparations were made for the morrow.

On the morning of August 15th the English attacked the north tower.
In six hours three of their large cannon had been able to pierce the
granite and make a breach of twenty feet. The north tower was not long
in surrendering; four English and two French vessels directed their fire
on the large fortress. A white flag was hoisted on the rampart nearest
the sea. Two officers of the fleet were sent to the governor, who said,
“I yield to the marine.” This officer had only a few dead and seventy
wounded, but smoke poured in through the badly constructed windows, bombs
burst in the middle of the fortress, without mentioning the carbine fire
of the free-shooters. A longer resistance was useless.[g]

In 1855 the Russians bombarded Sveaborg. The allies attacked the
fortified monastery of Solovetski, in the White Sea, and in the sea of
Okhotsk they blockaded the Siberian ports, destroyed the arsenals of
Petropavlovsk, and disturbed the tranquillity of the Russians on the
river Amur.

Menaced by the Austrian concentration in Transylvania, and by the landing
of English and French troops at Gallipoli and Varna, the Russians made
a last and vain attempt to gain possession of Silistria, which they
had held in a state of siege from April to July at the cost of a great
number of men. In the Dobrudja an expedition directed by the French was
without result from a military point of view, the soldiers being thinned
out by cholera and paludal fevers. The Russians decided to evacuate the
principalities, which were at once occupied by the Austrians in accord
with Europe and the sultan. The war on the Danube was at an end.


THE SEAT OF WAR TRANSFERRED TO THE CRIMEA (1854 A.D.)

The war in the Crimea was just about to commence.[f] Siege-trains were
ordered from England and France, transports were prepared, and other
preparations were gradually made. But the cholera attacked both the
armies and the fleets, which for two months lay prostrate under this
dreadful scourge.

In the Black Sea, meantime, the preparations for the Crimean expedition
were pressed forward with greater energy in proportion as the cholera
abated. But many successive delays occurred. Originally the invading
force was to have sailed on the 15th of August; then the 20th was the
day; then the 22nd; then the 26th; then the 1st of September (by which
time the French siege-train would have arrived at Varna); then the 2nd
of September. At length all was ready; and 58,000, out of 75,000 men,
cavalry, infantry, and artillery, were embarked at Baltjik on the 7th.
The French numbered 25,000, the English the same; and there was a picked
corps of about 8,000 Turks. In a flotilla of between two and three
hundred vessels, this first and much larger part of the united army were
transported up the coast to Fidonisi, or the Island of Serpents; from
which point to Cape Tarkhan, in the Crimea, they would make both the
shortest and the most sheltered passage. Being reviewed and found all
ready at Fidonisi, the armada took its second departure on the 11th, and
reached without accident the destined shore on the 14th. On that day
the troops were landed prosperously at “Old Fort,” some twenty miles
beyond Eupatoria, or Koslov, within four or five easy days’ march from
Sebastopol. Upon this great fortress the columns were at once directed;
while the transports returned in haste to fetch the reserves, amounting
to about 15,000 men.

Contrary to the expectation of the allies, Prince Menshikov, who
commanded in the Crimea, had resolved not to oppose their landing, but to
await them on the left, or southern, bank of the river Alma. The nature
of his position may be gathered from Lord Raglan’s despatch. He says:

“In order that the gallantry exhibited by her majesty’s troops, and the
difficulties they had to meet, may be fairly estimated, I deem it right,
even at the risk of being considered tedious, to endeavour to make you
acquainted with the position the Russians had taken up.

“It crossed the great road about two miles and a half from the sea,
and is very strong by nature. The bold and almost precipitous range of
heights, of from 350 to 400 feet, that from the sea closely border the
left bank of the river, here ceases and formed their left, and turning
thence round a great amphitheatre or wide valley, terminates at a salient
pinnacle where their right rested, and whence the descent to the plain
was more gradual. The front was about two miles in extent. Across the
mouth of this great opening is a lower ridge at different heights,
varying from 60 to 150 feet, parallel to the river, and at distances
from it of from 600 to 800 yards. The river itself is generally fordable
for troops, but its banks are extremely rugged, and in most parts steep;
the willows along it had been cut down, in order to prevent them from
affording cover to the attacking party, and in fact everything had been
done to deprive an assailant of any species of shelter. In front of the
position on the right bank, at about 200 yards from the Alma, is the
village of Burliuk, and near it a timber bridge, which had been partly
destroyed by the enemy. The high pinnacle and ridge before alluded
to was the key of the position, and consequently, there the greatest
preparations had been made for defence. Half-way down the height and
across its front was a trench of the extent of some hundred yards, to
afford cover against an advance up the even steep slope of the hill. On
the right, and a little retired, was a powerful covered battery, armed
with heavy guns, which flanked the whole of the right of the position.
Artillery, at the same time, was posted at the points that best commanded
the passage of the river and its approaches generally. On the slopes of
these hills (forming a sort of table land) were placed dense masses of
the enemy’s infantry, whilst on the height above was his great reserve,
the whole amounting, it is supposed, to between 45,000 and 50,000 men.”

It was against this fortress--for it was little less--the British,
French, and Turkish forces were led, having broken up their camp at
Kimishi on the 19th of September. The way led along continual steppes,
affording no shelter from the burning heat of the sun, nor water to
assuage the intolerable thirst suffered by all. The only relief was
afforded by the muddy stream of Bulganak, which the men drank with
avidity. That day an insignificant skirmish took place between a body of
Cossacks and the light division. On passing over the brow of a hill, the
former were discovered drawn up in order. A slight fire was opened, which
wounded three or four of the allies, but a gun drove up and threw a shell
with such wonderful precision in the midst of the enemy that above a
dozen were knocked over by this one projectile, and the Cossacks speedily
disappeared.[d]


THE BATTLE OF THE ALMA (1854 A.D.)

The allies’ plan of aggression was quite as simple as the Russian plan
of defence. It consisted in turning the enemy’s two wings and then
overwhelming them by a front attack. On the extreme right General
Bosquet, in advance of the rest of the army, was to approach rapidly the
Alma, cross it at a point not far from its mouth, ascend the slopes at
all costs, then fall suddenly on the Russians’ left, surround them, and
throw them back on the centre. This movement carried out, Canrobert’s and
Prince Napoleon’s divisions, supported by a portion of the English army,
would cross the river, climb the heights between Almatamak and Burliuk,
and make the grand attack. At the same moment the English army at the
left of the French lines would endeavour to turn the enemy’s right, and
thus secure the day. Forey’s division would remain in reserve ready to
help either the weaker columns or those in immediate danger, as the
case might be. On the evening of the 19th of September Field-Marshal
Saint-Arnaud had sent to each division a tracing of the proposed order of
battle. The plan was so simple that the soldiers had already anticipated
and guessed it. At nightfall they gathered round the camp fires and
discussed the chances of the plan with gleeful excitement. They pointed
out to each other the Russian camp fires, scintillating dots of light
shining out on the hill sides, and tried to reckon up the enemy’s number
by the number of lights. A good deal of imagination mingled with their
calculations, but the results did not frighten them, they were convinced
that the following day they would rest victorious on the plateau.

At the first sounds of the reveille the troops of Bosquet’s division were
a-foot and ready to start, very proud of the place assigned them by the
confidence of the commander-in-chief. The fog having somewhat lifted,
at seven o’clock they left the banks of the Bulganak and marched off
in quick time towards the Alma. They were not more than two kilometres
distant from it when one of the field-marshal’s aides-de-camp arrived
hot-foot with orders to halt, as the English were not ready. Obedience
was yielded with some degree of unwillingness, which grew to impatience
as the halt was prolonged. It was already half-past eleven when the
march was resumed. The division was formed into two columns; Autemarre’s
brigade marched towards Almatamak, where the French scouts had just
discovered a ford; the other brigade, under Bouat, turned towards the
sea, so as to cross the river near its mouth by a sand bank shown them by
a steam pinnace. From their dominating positions the Russians could see
this manœuvre, but they paid no attention to it, judging that nature had
provided sufficient defence for them on that side. They looked upon the
whole of this movement as merely a diversion, and concentrated all their
watchfulness on the main body of the army, which had hitherto remained
motionless three kilometres to the rear of the Alma.

In the mean time Autemarre’s brigade, close on Almatamak and hitherto
hidden from the enemy by the escarpments of the neighbouring cliff,
began to cross the Alma. The 3rd zouaves were the first over the ford,
and began with amazing “go” to climb the plateau. This ascent, which
the Russians, heavily equipped and accustomed to the level, believed
impossible, was relatively easy for men accustomed time out of mind to
the foot-tracks of African mountains. It was wonderful to see these
strong, agile soldiers springing up the slopes, giving a helping hand
to one another, clinging to tufts of grass and scrub, and profiting by
the smallest foothold. The Algerian sharp-shooters followed, then the
50th foot. The most difficult matter was to get the artillery over,
and the boldest faltered before such a task. By a sheer miracle of
stout-heartedness and energy they managed to hoist several pieces the
whole length of the escarpments. Suddenly the zouaves appeared at the
top of the hill, before the very eyes of the astonished Russians, and by
a brisk fire drove off the enemy’s vedettes. In another moment Algerian
sharp-shooters and men of the 50th foot climbed the last slopes in their
turn; then the field guns, dragged up to the heights, were placed in
line. At this identical moment Bouat’s brigade, which had been delayed in
crossing the bar, appeared on the extreme right and began to scale the
cliffs nearest the sea. Only the second battalion of the Minsk infantry
occupied this position, which had hitherto been held impregnable.
Debouching from the little village of Aklese they ran forward; but
confused by the fantastic aspect of this unexpected enemy, flurried by
the gaps made in their ranks by the French long-range guns, they wasted
no time over doubling back. Soon, running away altogether, they threw
themselves on the Russian reserves, followed by the shots of French
artillery and by the missiles thrown on to the plateau by the fleet at
anchor near the shore.

Saint-Arnaud, from his position in the rear of the Alma, had watched
the zouaves climb the hill. When they had disappeared over the crest,
he had listened anxiously for the sharp-shooters to open fire. Soon
the roar of cannon was heard, but it was difficult to believe that the
artillery was already engaged. “Are they French guns or Russian guns?”
asked the staff-officers grouped round the commander-in-chief. But the
field-marshal joyfully cried: “I assure you it is Bosquet’s cannon; he
has reached the heights.” Then searching the distance with his glasses:
“I can see red trousers. Ah! there I recognise my African veteran
Bosquet!” Summoning his generals, Saint-Arnaud gave then the final
instructions. The sound of the guns had revived his failing strength; his
voice was as strong as in his palmiest days, and his face was lighted up
with confidence, a last and touching reflection of his warrior spirit. By
a gesture he indicated to his officers the course of the river and the
hills which shut in the horizon: “Gentlemen,” he said, “this battle will
be known as the battle of the Alma.”

It being now one o’clock in the afternoon, the front attack was
immediately begun. The first division, under command of General
Canrobert, held the right; to the left was drawn up the 3rd division
commanded by Prince Napoleon. Following the common plan, the latter was
to attach itself to the English right, but it did so only imperfectly,
on account of the slowness of the allies. Set in motion simultaneously,
the two French divisions marched towards the Alma. This time the Russians
had anticipated the attack and were ready to repulse it. Sheltered by
clumps of trees, enclosing walls, and the gardens bordering the river,
innumerable sharp-shooters directed a well-sustained fire against the
enemy, and, in addition, a battery established on the edge of the plateau
covered the plain with missiles. Overwhelmed by this murderous fire the
French troops halted. But the artillery of the 1st and 3rd divisions
shelled the ravines, compelling the Russian sharp-shooters to retreat
against a high bank on the left, and by thus diverting their attention
enabled the rest of the French army to advance as far as the Alma. Laying
down their knapsacks the soldiers themselves sounded the river with
branches of trees and boldly crossed wherever it appeared practicable.
Towards two in the afternoon the 3rd division effected a crossing not far
from Burluk. As to Canrobert’s division, it had, almost entirely, already
found a footing on the left bank a little above Almatamak. His first
battalions had already reached the heights and slanted off to the right
so as to join hands with Bosquet’s division.

It was quite time. When Prince Menshikov was informed of the appearance
of Bosquet on the heights near the mouth of the Alma, he at first refused
to believe the news and only the roar of the cannon had convinced him.
Realising the greatness of the danger, the Russian commander-in-chief
immediately hurried to reinforce his left flank, which in his excess of
confidence he had left almost uncovered. As the brigades of Autemarre
and Bouat took up a position, fresh Russian troops debouched on the
western side of the plateau. First a battery of light artillery, which
arrived before the infantry it was summoned to support, lost half its
number in a few moments; then four battalions of the Moscow infantry
regiment supported by another battery. Shortly after this occurred,
Prince Menshikov, having himself visited the scene of action, decided
to make a fresh attempt. By his orders three battalions of the Minsk
regiment, four squadrons of hussars and two batteries of Cossacks were
drawn from the reserve to afford active support to the troops already
engaged. Happily for the French these troops arrived only in driblets,
so that their impact was weakened by being broken up. Even so their
little main body, launched on the plateau with no retreat possible,
found itself in a position almost as critical as it was glorious. If it
continued to penetrate into the Russian flank victory was assured, but
if it faltered it had no other prospect than to be brought to bay on
one escarpment after another and routed in the valley, beyond hope of
salvation. The Russian troops were not more numerous than the French, but
the twelve guns of the latter could scarcely hope to hold out against the
forty pieces which the Russians had brought into this part of the field.
On receiving overnight the commander-in-chief’s instructions, General
Bosquet had replied: “You can count on me, but remember I cannot hold out
for more than two hours.”

The general weariness was great and moreover the ammunition was giving
out. With growing anguish Bosquet turned his gaze towards the plain,
waiting for the general attack which was to lighten his task. His joy may
be imagined when he heard on the left, above Almatamak, the sharp crack
of the zouaves’ rifles, and saw appearing over the edge of the plateau
General Canrobert’s first battalions.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER SERGEVITCH MENSHIKOV

(1787-1869)]

Help was at hand, and with help the almost certainty of victory. At that
very moment a happy inspiration of Saint-Arnaud’s rendered assurance
sure. Judging that the moment had arrived for calling on his reserves, he
sent orders to General Forey to bring up one of his brigades to succour
Bosquet, and with the other to support General Canrobert. From that
moment the tide of battle set steadily against the Russians. Surrounded
on their left wing, outflanked in their centre, threatened by the French
reserves, they yielded step by step, no doubt with fearful reprisals, but
finally they retired. It was in vain that the Minsk and Moscow regiments,
retreating obliquely, tried to resist both Bosquet’s and Canrobert’s
divisions; these brave endeavours only prolonged the resistance without
affecting the result. After losing the greater number of their leaders
they were compelled to retreat behind the heights and to retire to a
tower for telegraphic communication which marked the enemy’s centre.
There a final bloody engagement took place. At last the flags of the 3rd
zouaves and the 39th foot were hoisted on the top of the tower, signal of
the victory which the Russians thenceforward never disputed.[h]

The part taken by the British troops in the final assault is thus
described by the special correspondent of the _Times_:

“The British line was struggling through the river and up the heights
in masses, firm, indeed, but mowed down by the murderous fire of the
batteries and by grape, round shot, shell, canister, case shot, and
musketry, from some of the guns of the central battery, and from an
immense and compact mass of Russian infantry. Then commenced one of
the most bloody and determined struggles in the annals of war. The 2nd
division, led by Sir De L. Evans in the most dashing manner, crossed the
stream on the right. The 7th Fusiliers, led by Colonel Yea, were swept
down by fifties. The 55th, 30th, and 95th, led by Brigadier Pennefather,
who was in the thickest of the fight, cheering on his men, again and
again were checked indeed, but never drew back in their onward progress,
which was marked by a fierce roll of Minié musketry; and Brigadier Adams,
with the 41st, 47th, and 49th, bravely charged up the hill, and aided
them in the battle. Sir George Brown, conspicuous on a grey horse, rode
in front of his light division, urging them with voice and gesture.
Gallant fellows! they were worthy of such a gallant chief. The 7th,
diminished by one-half, fell back to re-form their columns lost for the
time; the 23rd, with eight officers dead and four wounded, were still
rushing to the front, aided by the 19th, 33rd, 77th, and 88th. Down went
Sir George in a cloud of dust in front of the battery. He was soon up
and shouted, ‘23rd, I’m all right. Be sure I’ll remember this day,’ and
led them on again, but in the shock produced by the fall of their chief
the gallant regiment suffered terribly while paralysed for a moment.
Meantime the Guards, on the right of the light division, and the brigade
of Highlanders were storming the heights on the left. Their line was
almost as regular as though they were in Hyde Park. Suddenly a tornado of
round and grape rushed through from the terrible battery, and a roar of
musketry from behind thinned their front ranks by dozens. It was evident
that we were just able to contend against the Russians, favoured as they
were by a great position. At this very time an immense mass of Russian
infantry were seen moving down towards the battery. They halted. It was
the crisis of the day. Sharp, angular, and solid, they looked as if they
were cut out of the solid rock. It was beyond all doubt that if our
infantry, harassed and thinned as they were, got into the battery they
would have to encounter again a formidable fire, which they were but ill
calculated to bear. Lord Raglan saw the difficulties of the situation.
He asked if it would be possible to get a couple of guns to bear on
these masses. The reply was, ‘Yes,’ and an artillery officer (Colonel
Dixon) brought up two guns to fire on the Russian squares. The first shot
missed, but the next, and the next, and the next cut through the ranks
so cleanly, and so keenly, that a clear lane could be seen for a moment
through the square. After a few rounds the square became broken, wavered
to and fro, broke, and fled over the brow of the hill, leaving behind it
six or seven distinct lines of dead, lying as close as possible to each
other, marking the passage of the fatal messengers. This act relieved our
infantry of a deadly incubus, and they continued their magnificent and
fearful progress up the hill. The duke encouraged his men by voice and
example, and proved himself worthy of his proud command and of the royal
race from which he comes. ‘Highlanders,’ said Sir C. Campbell, ere they
came to the charge, ‘don’t pull a trigger till you’re within a yard of
the Russians!’ They charged, and well they obeyed their chieftain’s wish;
Sir Colin had his horse shot under him, but his men took the battery at
a bound. The Russians rushed out, and left multitudes of dead behind
them. The Guards had stormed the right of the battery ere the Highlanders
got into the left, and it is said the Scots Fusilier Guards were the
first to enter. The second and light division crowned the heights. The
French turned the guns on the hill against the flying masses, which the
cavalry in vain tried to cover. A few faint struggles from the scattered
infantry, a few rounds of cannon and musketry and the enemy fled to the
southeast, leaving three generals, three guns, 700 prisoners, and 4,000
wounded behind them. The battle of the Alma was won. It is won with
a loss of nearly 3,000 killed and wounded on our side. The Russians’
retreat was covered by their cavalry, but if we had had an adequate
force we could have captured many guns and multitudes of prisoners.”

It appears from papers found in Prince Menshikov’s carriage, that he had
counted on holding his position on the Alma for at least three weeks.
He had erected scaffolds from which his ladies might view the military
exploits during the period of obstruction he had provided for the
invading force, but he was hurried away in the midst of a flying army, in
a little more than three hours.


THE SEIZURE OF BALAKLAVA (1854 A.D.)

Without sufficient cavalry, and having exhausted the ammunition of the
artillery, the allies did not pursue the defeated foe; but rested for
a couple of days, to recruit the able-bodied, succour the wounded, and
bury the dead. Then they went forward towards Sebastopol. A change now
took place, as remarkable an incident as any in the campaign. Learning
that the enemy had established a work of some force on the Belbek, and
that this river could not readily be rendered a means of communication
with the fleet, and calculating that preparations would be made for
the defence of Sebastopol chiefly on the north side, the commanders
resolved to change the line of operations, to turn the whole position
of Sebastopol, and establish themselves at Balaklava. After resting
for a couple of days, they started on the march, turned to the left
after the first night’s bivouac, and struck across a woody country,
in which the troops had to steer their way by compass; regained an
open road from Bagtcheserai to Balaklava; encountered there at Khutor
Mackenzia (Mackenzie’s Farm) a part of the Russian army, which fled
in consternation at the unexpected meeting; and were in possession of
Balaklava on the 26th--within four days after leaving the heights above
the Alma. Thus an important post was occupied without a blow.

Balaklava is a close port, naturally cut by the waters in the living
rock; so deep that the bowsprit of a ship at anchor can almost be
touched on shore, so strong that the force possessing it could retain
communication with the sea in spite of any enemy. It is a proof of
Menshikov’s want of foresight, or of his extreme weakness after the
battle of the 20th, that Balaklava was left without effectual defence.
The change of operations reminds one of Nelson’s manœuvre at the Nile, in
attacking the enemy on the shore side, where the ships were logged with
lumber and unprepared for action.

By this date, however, the allies were destined to sustain a grave loss,
in the departure of Marshal Saint-Arnaud. The French commander-in-chief
had succeeded in three achievements, each one of which would be
sufficient to mark the great soldier. He had thrown his forces into
the battle on the Alma with all the ardour of which his countrymen are
capable, but with that perfect command which the great general alone
retains. He had succeeded in exciting the soldierly fire of the French,
and yet in preserving the friendliest feelings towards their rivals
and allies, the English. He had succeeded in retaining his place on
horseback, notwithstanding mortal agonies that would have subdued the
courage, or at least the physical endurance, of any other man. Many can
meet death, numbers can sustain torture; but the power of holding out
in action against the depressing and despairing misgivings of internal
maladies, is a kind of resolution which nature confers upon very few
indeed, and amongst those very few Marshal Saint-Arnaud will be ranked
as one of the most distinguished. He was succeeded in the command of the
French army by General Canrobert, and died at sea on the 29th. By this
event Lord Raglan became commander-in-chief of the allied forces in the
Crimea.


THE ADVANCE ON SEBASTOPOL

Had Marshal Saint-Arnaud lived, it is hardly to be doubted that he would
have attempted to take Sebastopol by the summary process of breaching and
storming instead of the slower one of a regular siege. The former plan
might have been successful, for it is now known, upon the authority of
the Russians themselves, that when the allies first broke ground before
the fortress its preparations for resistance were very incomplete. On
the other hand, events have too painfully demonstrated that the force
with which the siege was undertaken was totally inadequate, both in
numbers and weight of metal. It was not sufficient to invest the place on
every side, or to hinder the garrison of one of the strongest fortresses
in the world from receiving unlimited reinforcements and supplies of
all kinds. Hence, to use General Peyronnet Thompson’s homely but very
apt illustration, the operations before Sebastopol have hitherto been
like the work of drawing a badger out of one end of a box, with an
interminable series of badgers entering at the other.

The position occupied by the English before Sebastopol was to the right
of the French, at a distance of six miles from their ships. They held the
summit of a ridge, whence at long range, they could fire with some effect
on the Russian outworks; but as they descended the slope, their force
was broken in two or three parts, while they were exposed to a fire like
that which destroyed so many brave men at the Alma. The French, on the
left, rested on Cape Chersonesus, and were within three miles of their
ships, in a position where, though they might suffer from the fire of
the garrison, they were protected from the attacks of the Russian army
in the field. The attack on the place by the land batteries and by the
ships began on the 17th of October. The Russians had closed the entrance
to the harbour by sinking two ships of the fine and two frigates (they
subsequently sank all the rest of their fleet), and the fire of the
allied ships at long range produced so very little effect, whilst the
casualties sustained by them were so disproportionate to the damage they
inflicted, that the experiment was not repeated.

Eight days afterwards the Russians in turn became the assailants. A large
reinforcement having been received under Liprandi, that general was
detached to the Tchernaia with some 30,000 troops to attack our rear. The
peculiarity of the position of the allied army facilitated its efforts.
It has already been explained that Balaklava is at some distance from the
lines of the besiegers. The road connecting the two runs through a gorge
in the heights which constitute the rear of the British position, and
which overlook the small grassy plain that lies to the north of the inlet
of Balaklava. The possession of the port and the connecting road are
essential to the success of the siege. To defend them, Lord Raglan had
placed a body of marines and sailors with some heavy guns on the heights
above the village and landing place of Balaklava; beneath the heights
he had stationed the 93rd Highlanders, under Sir Colin Campbell, who
barred the road down to the village. The plain running northward towards
the Tchernaia is intersected by a low, irregular ridge, about two miles
and a half from the village, and running nearly at right angles to the
rear of the heights on the northwestern slopes of which lay the British
army. This ridge in the plain was defended by four redoubts, intervening
between the Tchernaia and the British cavalry encamped on the southern
part of the plain; and the rising ground in their rear was held by the
zouaves, who had entrenched themselves at right angles with the redoubts.
The extreme right of our position was on the road to Kamara; the centre
about Kadakoi, with the Turkish redoubts in front; the left on the
eastern slopes of the high lands running up to the Inkerman ravine.


THE BATTLE OF BALAKLAVA

The object of the Russians was to turn the right and seize Balaklava,
burn the shipping in the port, and, cutting off our communication with
the sea, establish themselves in our rear. To accomplish this, General
Liprandi gathered up his troops behind the defiles at Tchorgun on the
Tchernaia. Here, having previously reconnoitred our position, he divided
his forces on the morning of the 25th of October, directing one body by
the great military road, the other by Kamara, and debouching upon the
plain near the Turkish redoubts. The redoubts were armed with two or
three heavy ship-guns, and each manned by about 250 Turks. The Russians
coming on with the dawn, some 12,000 strong, with from thirty to forty
field-guns, attacked the redoubts with horse artillery, and carried them
in succession; the Turks firing a few shots, and then flying in disorder
under a fire of artillery and the swords of the Cossacks. Sir Colin
Campbell, aroused by the firing, instantly drew up the 93rd in front of
the village of Kadakoi; and the affrighted Turks rallied for a moment
on the flanks of that “living wall of brass,” to use the language of
a French writer, presented by the Highlanders. But the redoubts being
taken, the enemy’s artillery advanced and opened fire; and the cavalry
came rapidly up. As the 93rd was within range, Sir Colin Campbell drew
them a little backward behind the crest of the hill. The British cavalry
lay to the left of the Highlanders, and a large body of Russian cavalry
menaced both. The larger section went towards the encampment of the
British cavalry, and were met at once by the heavy brigade, under General
Scarlett. A brief but brilliant encounter followed: for a moment the
Greys and Enniskillens in the first line seemed swallowed up, in another
they reappeared victorious. The long, dense line of the Russian horse had
lapped over their flanks; but the second British line, consisting of the
4th and 5th Dragoons, charging, the Russians were broken and rapidly made
off. While this was proceeding, a body of some 400 cavalry rode at the
Highlanders, who, not deigning to form square, mounted the crest of the
hill, behind which they had taken shelter, fired in line two deep, and
sent the enemy flying.

But the fighting was not yet over. Seven guns taken in the redoubts yet
remained in the possession of the enemy; and Lord Raglan sent an order to
Lord Lucan to prevent the enemy from carrying off the guns, if possible.
The order was wrongly interpreted as a peremptory order to _charge_, and
in that sense it was repeated by Lord Lucan to Lord Cardigan, who obeyed
it and charged into the very centre of the enemy’s position, with a
desperate sacrifice of men, but not without inflicting severe blows upon
the enemy. Nor was the loss of life entirely a waste. To the Russians the
incident proved the unmeasured daring of the foe they had to face; to the
British troops it showed the lengths to which discipline and fidelity can
be carried. The light cavalry brigade mustered 607 sabres that morning;
in the twenty minutes occupied by the charge and the return, they lost
335 horses, and had nearly as many officers and men killed or wounded.
The heavy dragoons and the Chasseurs d’Afrique covered the retreat of
the bleeding remnant of this daring band. It was now nearly noon: the
fourth division, under Sir George Cathcart, and the first division, under
the Duke of Cambridge, had come up; and the Russians abandoned all the
redoubts, except the furthest one to the right. Nothing more was done
that day. Looking to the extent of the position previously occupied.
Lord Raglan determined to contract his line of defence to the immediate
vicinity of Balaklava and the steeps in the right rear of the British
army.

Next day the enemy sallied forth from Sebastopol, 7000 or 8000 strong,
and attacked the right flank of the British army; but, steadily met by
the second division under Sir De Lacy Evans, supported by the brigade of
Guards, a regiment of Rifles, two guns from the light division, and two
French battalions, the Russians were gallantly repelled, and then chased
down to the slope, with a loss of some 600 killed and wounded, and 80
prisoners.


THE BATTLE OF INKERMAN (NOVEMBER 5TH, 1854)

Another fierce engagement, the most important of all in which the
belligerents have yet been engaged, took place on the 5th of November.
For some days previously, the Russians, who already possessed a large
force in the prolonged fortifications, and others to the rear of the
allies in the neighbourhood of Balaklava, had been observed to receive
large reinforcements, which, added to Liprandi’s corps on the Russian
left, of 30,000 or more, and the garrison, would probably justify Lord
Raglan’s estimate of 60,000 men arrayed against the allies on the
memorable 5th of November. To augment the weight of the force brought
down to crush the besiegers, the now useless army of the Danube had been
withdrawn from Moldavia, leaving Bessarabia still defended by its special
army, but not, it is supposed, entirely exhausting the reinforcements
to be brought from the interior. The effort of Menshikov to throw his
strength into a succession of powerful and, if possible, decisive blows,
is shown by the advance of Dannenberg’s army in the very lightest order,
augmenting the numbers about Sebastopol without much regard either to
their equipment or provision. The aim was to bear down by accumulated
pressure; and it was with such a view that the batteries resumed the
bombardment of the allies in their besieged camp, a strong force from
the garrison moved out to act with Dannenberg’s army, and Liprandi made
a feint, that might have been, had it succeeded, a penetrating attack
towards the rear; and as it was, it did busy a portion of the British and
French forces. Thus the allies were to be occupied all round, while the
weak, unintrenched, and unfortified point in their position towards the
valley of the Inkerman was to be penetrated by a force of great weight
and momentum.[d]

The English encampments were established between Karabelnaia and the
valley of the Tchernaia, on a plateau called Inkerman, which two ravines
narrowed at the south in a way which made it a kind of isthmus. Two
strong Russian columns, consisting together of thirty-six thousand men,
converged in this direction. The first came out from Karabelnaia; the
second descended from the heights on the opposite bank of the Tchernaia
and crossed that river near its mouth in the bay.

They had to join in order to turn the English camp and take it from
the back. Their movements were badly planned; each acted on its own
initiative instead of joining. However, the English were in extreme
danger. The Karabelnaia column surprised one of their divisions and
nearly overwhelmed it by force of numbers. With a small reinforcement the
English disputed every inch of ground with desperation and the struggle
was prolonged through rain and fog, till the Russian general Soimonov was
mortally wounded; fear struck his battalions: they ceased to advance,
then retreated, not receiving any orders, and did not return to the
combat.

The column which came from the opposite side of the Tchernaia, and which
General Pavlov commanded, had in the meantime commenced its attack on
the other part of the English camp. Here were furious shocks and long
alternations of success and defeat. Although the English right had been
joined by their left, having got rid of the Karabelnaia column, the
inequality of numbers was still great. The English had driven back the
advance guard of Pavlov’s column to the valley of the Tchernaia; but the
greater part of this column, supported by an immense artillery (nearly
one hundred guns) pushed forward its closely serried battalions with
such violence that in the end they were masters of an earthwork, which
protected the right side of the English camp (a battery of sand bags).

Had the Russians remained in this position, the allies would have lost
the day. Till then the English had made it their pride to keep up the
struggle without the help of the French. There was not a moment to lose;
two of their generals were killed, several no longer able to fight; the
soldiers were exhausted. Lord Raglan called the French, who were awaiting
the signal.

General Bosquet, who commanded the corps nearest the English, sent out
the first two battalions he had at hand. It would have been too late if
the enemy had passed the fortification they had seized and had extended
beyond the isthmus. The Russians had been less active than brave. The
French foot soldiers renewed the marvellous charge of the English cavalry
at Balaklava. In their vehemence, they drove the greater number of the
Russians far behind the battery of sand bags; they were repulsed in
their turn by the mass of the enemy; but the movement of the latter had
nevertheless been checked. The Russian leaders were not able to manœuvre
promptly enough to place themselves, as they might have done, between the
English and the new reinforcements of French.

The French battalions arrived in double quick time with that agility
already shown at Alma by the soldier trained in African wars. The
Russians repulsed a second attack; they succumbed under a third made
with more reinforcements. One of their regiments was precipitated by the
French zouaves and turcos from the summit of the rocks into a deep ravine
where it was shattered. The rest of the Russian troops made a slow and
painful retreat under the terrible fire of the French artillery.

This sanguinary day cost the Russians twelve thousand men, killed,
wounded, or missing. The English lost about twenty-six hundred men, the
French seventeen to eighteen hundred. Beside their decisive intervention
on the plateau of Inkerman, the French troops had repulsed a sortie of
the garrison at Sebastopol.

According to military historians, the check of the Russians was due,
to a great extent, to their want of mobility and their incapacity for
manœuvring; the pedantic and circumstantial tactics imposed on them by
Nicholas only served to hinder them in presence of the enemy.

The allies, victorious, but suffering after such a victory, suspended the
assault and decided to keep on the defensive until the arrival of new
forces. They completed the circumvallation which protected the plateau
of Chersonesus, from Inkerman to Balaklava; the Russians had retired
completely; the French protected themselves on the town side by a line of
contravallation.[i]

While the allies were occupied in digging trenches, laying mines, and
increasing the number of their batteries, the Russians, directed by
the able Tottleben, strengthened those defences of the city that were
already in existence and under the fire of the enemy erected new ones.
The allies, in spite of the sufferings incident to a severe winter,
established themselves more and more securely, and on a strip of sandy
coast prepared to defy all the forces of the empire of the czar.

On the 26th of December, 1825, Nicholas had been consecrated by the blood
of conspirators as the armed apostle of the principle of authority,
the destroying angel of counter-revolution. This was a part that he
played not without glory for thirty years, having put down the Polish,
Hungarian, and Rumanian revolutions and prevented Prussia from yielding
to the seductions of the German revolution. He had obstructed if not
destroyed the French Revolution in all its legal manifestations, the
monarchy of July, the republic, and the empire. He had saved the Austrian
Empire and prevented the creation of a democratic German empire. Like
Don Quixote he was chivalrous, generous, disinterested, but represented
a superannuated principle that was out of place in the modern world. Day
by day his character as chief of a chimerical alliance became more of
an anachronism; particularly since 1848 aspirations of the people had
been in direct contradiction to his theories of patriarchal despotism.
In Europe this contradiction had diminished the glory of the czar, but
in Russia his authority remained unimpaired owing to his successes in
Turkey, Persia, Caucasus, Poland, and Hungary. All complaints against
the police were forgotten as well as the restrictions laid on the press,
and all efforts to control the government in matters of diplomacy, wars,
and administration were relinquished; it was believed that the laborious
monarch would foresee everything and bring all affairs of state to a
fortunate conclusion. Indeed the success of this policy was sufficient
to silence the opposition offered by a few timid souls, and to furnish
justification for blind confidence in the existing government.

The disasters in the East were a terrible awakening; invincible as the
Russian fleet had hitherto been considered, it was obliged to take
refuge in its own ports or to be sunk in the harbour of Sebastopol.
The army had been conquered at Alma by the allies and at Silistria by
the despised Turks; a body of western troops fifty thousand strong was
insolently established before Sebastopol, and of the two former allies
Prussia was neutral and Austria had turned traitor. The enforced silence
of the press for the last thirty years had favoured the committal of
dishonest acts by employés, the organisation of the army had been
destroyed by administrative corruption. Everything had been expected
of the government, and now the Crimean War intervened and threatened
complete bankruptcy to autocracy; absolute patriarchal monarchy was
obliged to retreat before the Anglo-French invasion. The higher the
hopes entertained for the conquest of Constantinople, the deliverance
of Jerusalem and the extension of the Slavonic empire, the more cruel
the disappointment. At this moment a prodigious activity manifested
itself throughout Russia, tongues were unloosed, and a great manuscript
literature was passed secretly from hand to hand, bringing audacious
accusations against the government and all the hierarchy of officials:

“Awake, O Russia!” exhorted one of these anonymous pamphlets; “awake from
your deep sleep of ignorance and apathy. Long enough we have been in
bondage to the successors of the Tatar khans; rise to your full height
before the throne of the despot and demand of him a reckoning for the
national disaster. Tell him plainly that his throne is not God’s altar
and that God has not condemned our race to eternal slavery. Russia, O
czar, had given into your hands the supreme power, and how have you
exerted it? Blinded by ignorance and passion, you have sought power for
its own sake and have forgotten the interests of the country. You have
consumed your life in reviewing troops, in altering uniforms, and in
signing your name to the legislative projects of ignorant charlatans.
You have created the detestable institution of press-censorship that you
might enjoy peace and remain in ignorance of the needs and complaints of
your people. You have buried Truth and rolled a great stone to the door
of her sepulchre, and in the vanity of your heart you have exclaimed,
‘For her there shall be no resurrection!’ Notwithstanding, Truth rose on
the third day and left the ranks of the dead. Czar, appear before the
tribunal of history and of God! You have trodden truth under foot, and
refused to others liberty while you were yourself a slave to passion. By
your obstinacy and pride you have exhausted Russia and armed the rest
of the world against her. Bow your haughty head to the dust and implore
forgiveness, ask advice. Throw yourself upon the mercy of your people;
with them lies your only hope of safety!”[f]


DEATH OF THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS I

[Sidenote: [1855 A.D.]]

The chivalrous soul of the Emperor Nicholas could not reconcile itself to
the complete wreck of all its political and spiritual ideals. Nicholas
fell a sacrifice to his persistent pursuit of traditions bequeathed to
him by the Alexandrine policy of the last decade.

On the 2nd of March, 1855, Russia, and all European nations, were
dismayed by the unexpected news of the sudden death of the emperor
Nicholas.[b] “Serve Russia!” were his last words to his son and heir. “I
wished to overcome all national afflictions, to leave you a peaceful,
well-organized and happy empire.... Providence has ordained otherwise!”[j]


SKRINE’S ESTIMATE OF NICHOLAS

Nicholas I died as grandly as he had lived, in the firm assurance that
he had done his duty. The nations of Europe watched him shining as a
pillar of fire amid the clouds of anarchy which beset the dawn of his
reign. They stood aghast at his aggressions on Turkey and the relentless
severity with which he crushed the Polish and Hungarian rebellions. For
a generation he was the sword drawn against revolution. He saved Austria
from dismemberment, and checked the premature creation of a democratic
German Empire. Diplomatists styled him the “Don Quixote of politics”; and
his chivalrous spirit had much in common with that of Cervantes’ immortal
hero. While he ruled his subjects with a rod of iron, he was ever ready
to serve them with an unselfishness which has no parallel in history. But
his attempt to stereotype the existing order of things failed because it
infringed the law of nature which decrees that all organisms must advance
or decay. As the nineteenth century wore on, bringing with it inventions
which linked mankind in closer bonds and stimulated the exchange of
thought, the czar of all the Russias became an anachronism.

Nicholas’s conceptions of his duties as a ruler were equally based on
illusions. He strove to cut Russia adrift from Europe, to place her
in quarantine against the contagion of western ideals. Here, again,
he essayed the impossible. Thought defied his custom’s barriers, his
censorship, his secret police; and Russia was already too deeply
impregnated with foreign influences to take the bias which the autocrat
sought to give her energies. But, despite the calamities which it brought
on his people, Nicholas’s reaction served as a corrective to the cardinal
vice of Peter the Great’s reforms--their tendency to denationalise. The
world saw in him a despot of the most unmitigated type. When the storm of
hatred in which he went down to his grave had passed away, his bitterest
foes were fain to admit that he had given to all the peoples of his
empire the germs of a sense of brotherhood, a robust faith in Russia,
which is the surest guarantee of a splendid and prosperous future. Nor
were his subjects slow to recall his many admirable qualities. He was
steadfast and true, devoted to the Fatherland, inexorable to himself
even more than to others. He despised feudalism and privileges--those
quicksands which engulphed the French monarchy and threaten the existence
of others as venerable. When Metternich took exception to the grant of
the highest Russian order to Field-Marshal Radetzki, on the score of the
veteran’s humble origin, Nicholas replied that he valued a man, not for
his ancestors but solely for his deserts. In the private relations of
life--as a husband, father and friend, he shone with the serenest light,
and conferred undying obligations on the empire. Before his reign men
spoke of an imperial dynasty; they now allude to the house of Romanov as
a “family”; and the domestic joys in which succeeding czars have sought
relief from the cares of state find a counterpart in millions of Russian
homes.[k]


FOOTNOTES

[68] [The Uniate is a part of the Greek church which has submitted to the
supremacy of the pope.]

[Illustration]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER XII. ALEXANDER II, THE CZAR LIBERATOR

    In recalling to memory all that the Russian nation passed
    through during the reign of the emperor Alexander II, and
    comparing the position and condition of Russia at the end
    of the reign with what they were in the beginning, it is
    impossible not to marvel at the beneficent change which took
    place throughout all the branches of national life during
    that short space of time. The liberation of the peasants from
    the dependence of serfdom, which had weighed on them for
    some centuries, and the organisation of their existence, the
    abolition of shameful and cruel corporal punishments, the
    introduction of provincial and territorial institutions, of
    the self-government of towns, the new tribunals and general
    military service, without mentioning other less important
    reforms, innovations and improvements accomplished by the
    will of the Czar Liberator, had an immeasurable influence
    upon the intellectual and moral regeneration of the people,
    and, it may be said, gave to Russia a complete inward
    revival.--SCHUMACHER.[d]


[Sidenote: [1855-1881 A.D.]]

Born in 1818, Alexander came to power at the age of thirty-seven under
circumstances of the greatest difficulty both at home and abroad. “Your
burden will be a heavy one,” his father had said to him when dying.
Alexander’s first care was to terminate under honourable conditions the
war that was exhausting Russia. At the news of the death of Nicholas
the value of stocks and bonds rose in every exchange in Europe; and the
general peaceful mood was not disturbed by the new emperor’s proclamation
that he would “endeavour to carry out the views of his illustrious
predecessors, Peter, Catherine, the beloved Alexander, and our father of
imperishable memory.” A new conference took place at Vienna between the
representatives of Austria, Russia, and the two western powers. France
demanded the neutralisation of the Black Sea, or the limitation of
the naval powers that the czar might place there. “Before limiting our
forces,” replied Gortchakov and Titov, the representatives of Russia,
“take from us Sebastopol!”

[Sidenote: [1855 A.D.]]

The siege continued. Sardinia in its turn sent 20,000 men to the East.
Austria agreed to defend the principalities against Russia, and Prussia
agreed to support Austria. On the 16th of May Pélissier succeeded
Canrobert as general-in-chief of the French forces. During the night
of the 22nd of May the Russians made two sorties, which were repulsed;
all the allied forces occupied the left bank of the Tchernaia, and an
expedition was sent out which destroyed the military posts of Kertch and
Jenikale, occupied the Sea of Azov, and bombarded Taganrog, leaving the
Russians no route by which to receive supplies save that of Perekop. The
Turks occupied Anapa and incited the Circassians to revolt.

Pélissier had announced that he would gain possession of Sebastopol, and
on the 7th of June he took by storm the Mamelon Vert (Green Hillock) and
the Ouvrages Blancs (White Works), on the 18th he sent the French to
attack Malakov and the English to lay siege to the great Redan, but both
expeditions were repulsed with a loss of 3,000 men. On the 16th of August
the Italian contingent distinguished itself in the battle of Traktir on
the Tchernaia. The last day of Sebastopol had arrived. Eight hundred
and seventy-four cannon directed their thunder against the bastions and
the city; and the Russians, who displayed a stoical intrepidity that
nothing could shake, lost 18,000 men from the effects of the bombardment
alone. A million and a half of projectiles were thrown upon the city. The
French had dug 80 kilometres of trenches and sunk 1,251 metres of mines
before the Mast bastion alone, and their parallels had been extended to
within thirty metres of Malakov. Under a terrible fire, the noise of
which could be heard at a distance of a hundred kilometres, the Russian
bastions crumbled away, and their artillerists and reserve soldiers fell
by thousands. Korinlov, Istomin, and Nakhimov succumbed. The besieged had
not even time to substitute good cannon for those that had been damaged,
and could scarcely accomplish the burial of their dead. The very eve of
the crisis that was to end all had arrived.[b]

During the protracted siege of Sebastopol death had claimed Marshal
Saint-Arnaud; the French commander general Canrobert succeeded him and he
was now superseded by General Pélissier. Lord Raglan had fallen a victim
to cholera, and General Simpson was now in command of the English army.

In these weary months of waiting there had been many sanguinary
encounters both by day and by night, and repeated bombardments. But it
was not until September the 8th, 1855, that the grand assault was made.[a]


THE FALL OF SEBASTOPOL

At half-past eleven in the morning (September 8) all the trenches before
the Karabel faubourg were occupied by the attacking force. Pélissier,
surrounded by his staff, was installed on the Green Mamelon. In the sixth
parallel was Bosquet, attentive to everything and influencing everyone
around him by his calm energy. The troops, excited, eager, with their
clothes loosened so as to fight the better, filled beforehand with the
rage of battle (for the long siege had tried their patience), impatiently
awaited the signal. From time to time bayonets showed above the parapets.
“Down with the bayonets,” shouted Bosquet, who feared to reveal to the
enemy the position of the French: then he added more gently: “Have
patience! the time will come.” It had as a fact almost come, being now
on the stroke of noon. “Forward!” cried Bosquet, and immediately his
colours as commandant were planted on the parallel. The order flew from
mouth to mouth; drums beat, trumpets sounded; the officers with naked
swords led their troops out of the trenches.

The Malakov garrison at that time was composed of 500 artillery, certain
militiamen or workmen, and 1400 infantry belonging to the Modlin, Praga
and Zamosc regiments. After being prepared for an attack at daybreak the
garrison was no longer upon the alert. Only the gunners remained by their
guns, with a few riflemen along the ramparts. All the rest were hidden
in their bomb-proof shelters and were about finishing their dinner.
Having become accustomed to alarms, they were resting at comparative
ease, and, yielding to that lassitude which often overtakes the mind
and will after a night of anxious watching. They did not move except to
salute the commandant of the fort, General Bessau, who was making an
examination of the casemates and bestowing the cross of St. George on
the most deserving. Suddenly, on the stroke of noon, the sharp crack of
the French rifles rent the air, and the zouaves in their brilliantly
coloured uniforms were seen bounding up the Malakov slopes. “The French
are upon us! We are attacked!” cried the guard. Before the defenders
of the bastion had even had time to pick up their arms, the zouaves
had thrown themselves on the work. They cleared the fosse, and without
waiting for ladders scaled the escarp and precipitated themselves through
the embrasures. The Russian gunners stood to their guns, defending
themselves with stones, pickaxes, and sponges. Meantime the men of the
Modlin regiment rushed from their shelters and massed themselves towards
the front of the fort. There took place one of those hand-to-hand fights,
so rare in the history of battles, a desperate, merciless fight, full of
terrible episodes. But the Russians were hampered by their long cloaks;
the assailants, more active than they, dodged the blows of their enemies,
surrounded them, closed with them, and little by little gained ground.
The number of assailants momentarily increased. Immediately following the
zouaves, almost side by side with them, appeared a battalion of the 7th
line regiment, supporting the African troops with energy and bravery.
General Bessau fell, mortally wounded, nearly all the other Russian
leading officers were killed. Pressed and outflanked on every side the
besieged fell back, surrendering the terre-plein, and retiring beyond the
first traverses, and the colours of the 1st zouaves were hoisted on the
captured redoubt. The battle had lasted only half an hour.

During this same space of time Dulac’s division had invaded the Little
Redan and driven back the riflemen as far as the second enceinte;
whilst La Motterouge’s division took possession of the curtain between
the Malakov and the Little Redan. From this post of observation the
commander-in-chief had seen the French eagle planted on the Malakov; he
had also witnessed the triumphant passage of Dulac’s and La Motterouge’s
divisions. Immediately he hoisted the queen’s colours on the Green
Mamelon. This was the signal for which the English were waiting.

At the sight of it they poured out of their trenches; with the intrepid
coolness characteristic of their temperament and their country. First
came their rifles, next the men with scaling ladders, then the attacking
columns composed of the light division and the 2nd division. In making
their attack our allies were at a double disadvantage; in the first place
the Russians were on the alert throughout the length of their line of
defence, and, secondly, a distance of 200 yards lay between them and the
Great Redan. A murderous fire greeted them, and before they could reach
the work the ground was strewn with their red coats. They continued to
advance notwithstanding, doubled to the fosse, scaled it, drew up their
ladders, reached the now almost demolished salient-angle and routed the
battalions of the Vladimir regiment. Before them stretched a great space,
open and exposed; beyond it were the bomb-proof shelters from which
the Russians kept up their hottest and best directed fire. Vainly the
attacking party strove to push their undertaking further: vainly even did
they strain every nerve to maintain the ground they had gained. After an
hour and a half of futile attempts they fell back on their trenches.

Whilst the English were being foiled at the Great Redan, Levaillant’s
division approached the central bastion at about two o’clock and met
with no better fate. At first Couston’s brigade succeeded in getting
possession of the Schwartz redoubt, to the left of the bastion; it even
fought a battle in the gully known as the Town Gully. But the commanding
officer was wounded, reinforcements arrived for the enemy, and it was
brought back to the foremost parallels. To the right of the bastion
Trocher’s brigade had invaded the Bielkine lunette and gained the bastion
itself, but could no longer maintain its advantage. Like General Couston,
General Trocher was wounded, and the Russian reprisals shattered his
unhappy regiments. A second attempt was not more happy, and orders came
from the commander-in-chief forbidding a continuance of such bloody
efforts.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER II

(1818-1881)]

And indeed where was the use of persisting against the town when the
principal engagement had been fought in the Karabel faubourg, an
engagement which, according to whether it succeeded or failed, would save
or compromise everything else?

At the Little Redan fortune had made the French columns pay dearly for
their early success. Barely mistress of the bastion, Dulac’s division had
been assailed by a heavy fire from the batteries of the _Maison-en-Croix_
and of the three vessels moored in the roads. Moreover the Russians had
brought up a large number of field-pieces to all the more favourable
points, whilst a considerable number of reserve troops debouched from the
Uchakov gully. Outnumbered; crushed by showers of missiles, and finally
compelled to evacuate a redoubt filled with their dead, our troops had
retired to their place-of-arms. At the curtain La Motterouge’s division
had itself given way before the attacks of the enemy. New columns were
formed from the débris of Saint-Pol’s brigade, which had already lost its
general, de Marolles’ brigade, and the guards division. A little later
arrived at full gallop two batteries of the Lancaster artillery which, by
the hotness of their fire, strove to work havoc in the enemy’s columns,
and, above all, to disperse the fog. The Little Redan was taken, lost,
retaken, abandoned. The bloodshed was terrific. General de Marolles was
killed, Generals Bourbaki, Bisson, Mellinet and de Pontevès wounded,
the latter mortally; the trenches were so heaped with dead that it was
almost impossible to move in them. Atop of all this General Bosquet was
wounded in the right side by the bursting of a shell. He was obliged to
relinquish his command, and a rumour even got about that he was dying.
Shortly after a loud report was heard from the direction of the curtain.
A powder-magazine had exploded, claiming fresh victims; General de la
Motterouge was among the wounded. So many casualties, the loss of so many
officers, the difficulty of fighting in a narrow space choked up with
dead and dying, even extreme exhaustion, all combined to dissuade from
a renewed attack on the Little Redan. Only a portion of La Motterouge’s
division partially held its own on the ramparts.

It was now three o’clock. Judging only by the results as a whole the
allies had to count more disappointments than successes. The English
had been beaten back at the Great Redan. The central bastion withstood
all attacks. And finally, in the Karabel faubourg the Little Redan,
already carried, had just slipped from our grasp. But, notwithstanding,
there was more joy than depression amongst those surrounding the
commander-in-chief. All eyes were turned obstinately towards the Malakov.
Were the Malakov safely held, not only would the other checks be made
good but the advantage of the day would rest with the allied army;
for the occupation of this dominant position would render all further
resistance impossible. Now, according to all accounts MacMahon was
keeping safe hold of his prize and strengthening himself there.

He had maintained his position, God only knows at what cost of valour. We
have related how the terre-plein fell into the hands of the allies, and
how this brilliant success had determined the great attack. But inside
the work, fortified and improved with so much care during the long days
of siege, the Russians had thrown up a multitude of traverses beneath
which were their bomb-proof shelters, which formed all over the fort
so many trenches easy of defence. The salient-angle once occupied, it
would be necessary to carry one by one these traverses behind which were
drawn up what remained of the Modlin regiment and the Praga and Zamosc
battalions. Happily General MacMahon had recalled the 2nd, Vinoy’s,
division. Thanks to these reinforcements he had been enabled to force
back the enemy, dislodge them from their positions and drive them towards
the gorge of the redoubt.

There an engagement had taken place more terrible than any throughout the
day. Driven to bay at the extremity of the work, the Russians had, by
a series of heroic rushes, attempted to retake the fort, the veritable
palladium of their city. Whilst MacMahon hastily ordered up Wimpfen’s
brigade, and the zouaves of the guard, in short all the reserves, the
Muscovite officers sacrificed themselves one after the other in their
efforts to avert a total defeat. First it was General Lisenko with a few
remnants of the Warsaw, Briansk and Ieletz regiments; then General Krulov
with four battalions of the Ladoga regiment, lastly General Iuverov
with the same men newly led on to battle. Lisenko was mortally wounded,
Krulov dangerously so, Iuverov killed. In the end the Malakov gorge was
ours. The engineers began at once to put it in a state of defence: the
capitulation of the little garrison of the tower, isolated in the midst
of the fort, completed the victory. A supreme effort made a little later
by General de Martinau with the Azov and Odessa regiments only served to
demonstrate the powerlessness of our enemies to wrest the magnificent
prize from us.

And magnificent it certainly was. The corpses heaped around the fortress
showed plainly enough the Russians’ obstinate intention to defend or
recapture it. Notwithstanding the fact that our triumph was complete the
fusilade had not ceased. There were still certain volunteers risking
their lives around the Mamelon, meditating some desperate stroke. “Give
us cartridges,” they cried: “Let someone lead us again to battle.” But
nearly all their officers were either dead or in the ambulances, and
the remainder scarcely troubled to answer them. Not that they were
indifferent to so crushing a defeat, but after such desperate fighting an
immense weariness had overtaken them, and, having done all they could to
avert their fate they now submitted to it impassively.

Towards four o’clock Prince Gortchakov arrived on these scenes of
confusion and woe. On receiving the first intelligence of the assault
he had crossed the roads and had been able to follow all the varying
chances of the fight. For a long time he surveyed the Karabelnaia, as if
to gauge the defensive strength of the faubourg; for a yet longer time
he contemplated the Malakov, so lately the pride of the Russians and
now lost to them. Neither the still hot firing which killed one of his
officers at his side, nor the time which pressed availed to cut short
this searching examination.

At last, judging that the town was no longer tenable he decided on
consummating the sacrifice. The moment seemed to him a favourable one,
for two reasons: the success gained at the Great and Little Redans
and at the safeguarded central bastion, had established the honour
of the Muscovite arms; whereas the extreme weariness of the allies
guaranteed that the remainder of the day and the ensuing night would be
allowed by them to pass without further offensive action. The Russian
commander-in-chief therefore resolved to evacuate Sebastopol and to make
all his troops cross over to the northern bank. The idea once conceived
he hurried to the Nicholas battery to secure the immediate execution of
his orders.

At his post of observation on the Green Mamelon, Pélissier had learnt
of MacMahon’s signal success, and this great advantage, somewhat
counterbalanced it is true by the checks received in other engagements,
filled all hearts with hope. Nevertheless, by reason of this multitude of
engagements, victory appeared to be, though probable, still uncertain.
Would MacMahon be able to maintain his position at the Malakov? Might not
some exploding mine change the triumph into a catastrophe? Would not the
defeated Russians defend themselves from behind their second enceinte,
in their streets, in their houses even? And would not the battle of
September 8 have a yet more bloody morrow? No answer was forthcoming to
these questions, and faces that had begun to brighten grew troubled.

Things were at this stage when, towards the end of the day, General
Martimprey turning his glasses towards the town thought he detected an
unaccustomed movement on the great bridge spanning the roads. Glasses
were passed from hand to hand and, despite the first shades of evening,
long processions of soldiers, waggons, carriages, guns, could be
distinctly seen wending their way towards the northern bank. The bridge
gave under the weight, and shaken by a high wind swayed beneath the swell
which from time to time submerged and almost swamped it. In spite of this
hindrance the march continued, whilst ferry-boats filled with people
crossed to the northern bank, and then returned empty to fetch other
passengers. The rapidly falling darkness prevented further observation,
but the spectators felt no doubt that they were watching the retreat of
the Russians.

[Illustration: PRINCE A. M. GORTCHAKOV

(1798-1883)]

They had not all retreated, however. At this supreme moment Gortchakov
bethought himself of Moscow. Several volunteer corps and several
detachments of sappers and marines were left behind, not to give battle
to an already victorious enemy, but to level to the dust the city it
was no longer possible to defend. As night fell the work of devastation
was begun. Powder-magazines were blown up. The cannon and siege trains
that could not be removed were sunk in the bay. All that remained of the
North Sea squadron was sunk; even the _Empress Marie_ was not spared,
that splendid vessel which was commanded by the glorious Nahkimov at
the battle of Sinope. Only the war steamers were saved and taken across
to the northern bank. The blowing up of the Paul battery completed the
work of destruction. When all was finished the great bridge was broken
up. Then the executors of those savage orders departed in boats for the
further shore. With them went the generals who up to that moment had
remained at Sebastopol to guard the retreat. Of this number was Count
Osten-Sacken, governor of the town, who was one of the last to leave, as
a captain abandons his burning ship only when all the hands have left.

The explosions of that terrible night had kept the allies on the alert
in their camp, and had triumphed over their immense fatigue. At daybreak
on the 9th of September, Sebastopol, already nearly deserted, appeared
to them as an immense heap of ruins from which shot up tongues of
flame kindled by the incendiaries. For a long time French and English
contemplated with a mixture of joy and horror those ruins which attested
the greatness of their triumph and also the tenacity of their enemies.
Beyond the roadstead, on the northern heights, appeared the Russians,
vanquished but still menacing.

On the morrow, September 10th, 1855--after 332 days of siege, three set
battles, and three assaults more bloody even than the battles--Pélissier,
as marshal of France, in the name of the emperor, planted his country’s
flag among the smoking ruins.[e]

With the fall of Sebastopol the war was practically at an end.
Hostilities continued for some time longer, but neither side won any
material advantage. The allies were not in complete accord on the
question of the continuance of the war, England being inclined to push
matters to a complete overthrow of Russia, while France was ready to talk
about terms of peace. Lord Palmerston himself was a strenuous opponent
of peace, and declared that Russia had not been sufficiently humbled. At
this juncture Prince A. M. Gortchakov, the Russian ambassador at Vienna,
taking advantage of the divided councils of the allies, urged Austria to
act as peacemaker. The emperor Francis Joseph thereupon took the occasion
to press upon Russia an acceptance of the four conditions on which Turkey
was prepared to make peace, backing the communication with an implied
threat of war in case of denial. On January 16th, 1856, the czar, much
against his will, signified his acceptance of Austrian intervention. The
preliminaries of peace were signed on February 1st and on the 25th of
the same month representatives of the great powers assembled at Paris
to settle the details of the peace. Negotiations proceeded for over a
month, France and Russia drawing together and Austria insisting upon the
maximum of Russian cessions.[a]

[Sidenote: [1856 A.D.]]

Under the Treaty of Paris, March 30th, 1856, the powers bound themselves
not to intervene singly in the administration of Turkey, to respect her
independence and territorial status, and to treat disputes between any
of them and the Porte as matters of general interest. A Hatti-sherif,
or ordinance, had been obtained by England from the sultan before the
congress opened, which guaranteed equal religious privileges to all
his subjects. This was set forth as an article in the treaty. Russia
renounced her claims to a protectorate over Turkish Christians. She
abandoned similar pretensions with regard to the Danubian principalities,
which were in future to be governed by hospodars elected under European
control. She surrendered to Moldavia the southern portion of Bessarabia,
which had been ceded under the Treaty of Bucharest, retaining however
the principal trade-routes southwards and the fortress of Khotin. The
navigation of the Danube was declared free to all nations, and placed
under an European commission.

A clause, through which Russia drew her pen as soon as an opportunity
presented itself, declared the Black Sea neutral and closed it to
men-of-war of all nations. Russia surrendered Kars to Turkey, but
regained the portion of the Crimea in the allies’ occupation. By a
separate act she undertook not to fortify the Åland Isles or to make them
a naval station. Thanks to the astuteness of her diplomacy, she scored
a decided success against England in securing the insertion of articles
which limited the scope of naval warfare. The Treaty of Paris abolished
privateering, and provided that a neutral flag should protect the enemy’s
goods, while neutral property, even under a hostile flag, was exempted
from capture. “Contraband of war” was indeed excepted, but no attempt was
made to define the meaning of this ambiguous phrase. The recognition of a
blockade by neutrals was to be conditional on its effectiveness.[g]


AMELIORATION IN THE CONDITION OF THE SOLDIER

On the 26th of August, 1856, the emperor Alexander Nikolaivitch placed
on his head, in the cathedral of the Assumption at Moscow, the imperial
crown and received the sacrament of anointing with the Holy Chrism.
The sacred day of the coronation was one of rejoicing and hitherto
unprecedented favours and therefore left the most joyful remembrance in
the hearts of the people.

When he had taken upon himself the imperial crown, the emperor Alexander
II immediately set about the preparation of those great administrative
reforms, which were so full of humanity and justice, which made his reign
illustrious and which immortalised his name.

Solicitous for the welfare of his people, the emperor first of all
directed his attention to the improvement of the condition of the
soldier and entered upon a series of reforms in the organisation and
administration of that army, which was so dear to his heart, with the
object of raising the moral spirit of the troops, of arousing the lower
ranks to the consciousness of their dignity and in general of placing the
military profession upon its proper elevated footing.

As the preserver of order in the state during times of peace and the
defender of the country in time of war, the soldier is justly proud of
his profession; he should not be given cause for mortification by finding
beside him in the service men condemned to the ranks as punishment for
vicious behaviour. Yet in previous times men were frequently made
soldiers by way of punishment for some crime instead of being banished
to the settlements: fugitives, vagabonds, horse stealers, thieves,
swindlers, and such vicious persons found a place in the ranks of the
army.

[Sidenote: [1860 A.D.]]

The emperor Alexander II put an end to this shameful state of things: by
the imperial manifesto of 1860 the enrolment of soldiers as a punishment
for crimes and offences, an abuse which had attained vast dimensions,
was abolished and replaced by other forms of punishment. But the czar’s
chief care was to bring to fulfilment his most sacred idea, one which
he cherished day and night: to give liberty to the peasants who were
dependent as serfs upon the landowners; to abolish the law of serfdom.
Amongst the great administrative reforms accomplished during the reign
of the emperor Alexander II, the liberation of the peasants occupies
incontestably the first place and served as the chief foundation for
all the reforms that followed. All further changes were directly or
indirectly called forth by the abolition of the law of serfdom. This
glorious accomplishment which gave new life to Russia, which breathed a
new soul into the millions of Russian peasantry, was the most important
of all the great deeds of the emperor Alexander II, and the brightest
jewel in the crown of his glory.


THE EMANCIPATION OF THE SERFS (1861 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1861 A.D.]]

[Illustration: A PEASANT COSTUME]

The predecessors of Alexander II had already felt all the evils of
the law of serfdom and had not unfrequently aimed, if not directly at
its abolition, at least at the amelioration of the position of the
peasant serfs and their gradual preservation against the arbitrariness
of the landowners’ authority. But all these beneficent measures were
insufficient for the abolition of the firmly established order; they
only limited the rights of serfdom, put a certain restraint upon it, but
did not abolish the right of the possession of serfs. The glory of the
complete emancipation of the peasants from the dependency of serfdom,
the great and difficult initiative of the entire abolition of the law of
serfdom in Russia belongs wholly to the emperor Alexander II.

The question of the abolition of the law of serfdom constituted the chief
care of the emperor Alexander II during the first years of his reign;
all the course of the work in connection with the matter of the peasants
testified to what firmness of will, immovable convictions and persistency
were brought by the emperor himself into this matter which he regarded
as “sacred and most vital” for Russia.

The emperor spoke many times in public on the peasant question during
the time when the measure was under discussion. The sovereign’s speeches
all displayed his firm, inflexible intention of bringing the work he had
conceived to a successful termination; they had kept up the courage of
those labouring for the peasantry reforms, attracted the wavering, kept
opponents in check, and thus had an enormous influence both on public
opinion and on the course of local and general work in the matter of
peasant reforms.

The solution of the peasant question, which was of such vital importance
to Russia, presented many difficulties. Of course it would have been far
easier to master the problem if the emperor had desired to solve it as
it had already been solved in some kingdoms of western Europe, where the
peasants had been at one time in the same position as the Russian serfs;
there the peasants had only been declared individually free, the land
remained the property of the landowner. But such was not the will of the
emperor Alexander II. He desired that the interests of the landlords
should be as far as possible guarded, and also that the emancipated
peasants should be endowed with a fixed quantity of land; not converted
into homeless, landless labourers.

Much labour had to be expended over this great problem before an issue
was found for its successful solution. The chief executor of the
emperor’s preconceived plans in the matter of the peasant question was
Adjutant-General J. T. Rostovtsev, in whom Alexander found an enlightened
and boundlessly devoted assistant. In his turn Rostovtsev found a most
zealous and talented collaborator in the person of N. A. Milutin, who
warmly took up the cause of the emancipation of the peasants and who,
after the death of Rostovtsev in 1860, became the chief director of all
the work upon this question. The emperor attentively followed the course
of the preparatory labours on the peasant reforms and without giving any
serious heed to the wiles and opposition of the obstinate partisans of
the law of serfdom, he firmly and unwaveringly directed these labours to
the object marked out.

But of course it was impossible to accomplish so vast a work at once.
Four years passed in the indispensable preparatory work. The thoughts of
the sovereign were full of this administrative measure; his heart must
have been frequently overwhelmed with anxieties and fears in regard to
the successful solution of the peasant question. But the czar’s will
never weakened, his love for his people was never exhausted, and the
great, holy work of the emancipation of the rural population of Russia
from the bondage of serfdom, and the organisation of this population into
a new form of existence was at last brought to a successful conclusion.

On the 19th of February, 1861, in the sixth year of the reign of the
emperor Alexander II, all doubts were resolved. On that memorable day,
which can never be forgotten in Russia, was accomplished the greatest
event in the destinies of the Russian people: the emperor Alexander II,
after having fervently prayed in solitude, signed the imperial manifesto
for the abolition of the right of serfdom over the peasants living on
the landlords’ estates and for granting to these peasants the rights
of a free agricultural status. Through the initiative and persistent
efforts of their czar more than twenty-two million Russian peasants were
liberated from the burden of serfdom, which had weighed on them and their
forebears for nearly three centuries. They obtained their freedom and
together with it the possibility of enjoying the fruits of their free
labour, that is, of working for themselves, for their own profit and
advantage and of governing themselves and their actions according to
their own will and discernment. Freedom was given to the Russian peasant
by the emperor Alexander II himself; it was not given under him, but
by him; he personally maintained the right of his people to freedom,
personally broke the chains of serfdom; the initiative of this great
work, its direction and its execution belong wholly to the emperor.
We repeat, the laws of serfdom crumbled away at his royal word alone.
Together with the imperial manifesto of the 19th of February, 1861, were
promulgated in both capitals and afterwards throughout all Russia, laws
for the organization of the liberated peasants into the social order,
entitled “General regulations concerning the peasants issuing from the
dependence of serfdom.” Upon the basis of these laws and in particular
by virtue of the reforms that followed, the liberated peasants were thus
granted personal, social, and individual rights which placed them almost
on a footing of equality with the other classes of the state.


_Laws and Social Rights Granted to the Peasants_

In conferring upon the liberated peasants the individual rights,
common to all citizens of the empire, the czar was solicitous for the
establishment of laws actually conducive to the security and amelioration
of their condition, indissolubly bound up as it had been with the use and
enjoyment of the land. With this object in view it was established that
the peasant should have a share in the perpetual enjoyment of the farm
settlements and arable land, in accordance with the qualities of the land
of each locality and with local requirements. But as the peasants had not
means to give the landowner at once all the value due for their share
of the land, and on the other hand as the prospect of receiving the sum
allotted, in small proportions during a period of thirty to forty years,
was not an alluring one for the landowner, the state took upon itself the
office of intermediary between the landowners and the liberated peasants
and paid the landowner in redeemable paper all the sums due to him and
inscribed them as long term debts against the peasants, who were under
the obligation of paying them off by yearly instalments.

Together with the reservation of individual and property rights to the
emancipated peasants, a special peasant government was established
for them. The peasants received the right of disposing independently
of their agricultural and public work, and of choosing from amongst
themselves the wisest and most reliable persons for conducting their
affairs under the direction of peasant assemblies. And as in the life of
the Russian peasants many ancient customs and rules are preserved which
are esteemed and observed as sacred, being the product of the experience
of their forefathers, the emperor granted them also their own district
peasant tribunals which decide upon purely local questions and arbitrate
according to the conscience and traditions of these communities.

The imperial manifesto was, as has already been said, signed on the
19th of February, 1861, but it was universally proclaimed only on the
5th of March of the same year; the news of the emancipation evoked an
indescribable enthusiasm, a touching gratitude in the people towards
their liberator throughout the whole length of the Russian land,
beginning with the capital and finishing with the last poor little
hamlet.[d]

Having thus summarised the results achieved by this remarkable manifesto,
we give below a literal translation of the full text of the document
itself.[a]


_Text of the Imperial Proclamation_

               Manifesto of the Emancipation of the Serfs:
                           By the Grace of God
                        We, Alexander the Second,
                           Emperor and Autocrat
                           Of All the Russias,
                  King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland,
                     et cætera, et cætera, et cætera,
                 Make known to all Our faithful subjects.

Having been called by God’s Providence and the sacred law of succession
to the throne of our forefathers and All the Russias, We have in
accordance with this calling vowed to comprehend in Our royal love and
care all Our faithful subjects of every calling and condition, from him
who nobly wields the sword in the defence of the fatherland to the modest
worker with the tools of the artisan, from him who serves in the highest
service of the state to him who draws the furrow over the field with the
plough.

[Illustration: A STREET VENDER]

Upon examining into the position of the various callings and conditions
of the state structure, We have observed that the legislation of the
state, while organising actively and well the higher and middle classes
by determining their duties, rights and privileges, has not attained to
an equal activity in regard to the people bound to the soil and called
serfs because they, partly through ancient laws, partly from custom, are
hereditarily settled under the authority of the landowners, upon whom
at the same time the obligation lies to provide for their welfare. The
rights of the landowners have been until now extensive and not defined
with any exactitude by the law, the place of which has been taken instead
by tradition, custom and the good will of the landowner. In the most
favourable cases there have proceeded from this state of things kind,
patriarchal relations of sincere and true guardianship and beneficence
on the part of the landlord, and good tempered obedience on the part of
the peasant. But with the increasing complexity of manners and customs,
with the increasing diversity of relations, the lessening of direct
intercourse between the landowners and peasants, the occasional falling
of the landowner’s rights into the hands of persons who only seek their
own profit, these good relations have weakened, and a path has been
opened for an arbitrariness which is burdensome to the peasants and
unfavourable to their welfare, and to which the peasants have responded
by insensibility to improvement in their own existence.

These matters were observed also by Our ever to be remembered
predecessors and they took measures to effect a change for the better in
the position of the peasants; but these measures were indecisive. In many
cases they depended on the co-operation of the landowners; in others they
concerned only particular localities and were instituted to meet special
requirements or else as experiments. Thus the emperor Alexander I issued
a regulation concerning the freedom of agriculturists, and Our deceased
parent Nicholas I, who rests in God, a regulation as to the obligations
of peasants. In the western governments inventory rules have defined the
distribution of the peasants by the land and their obligations. But the
regulations concerning the freedom of agriculturists and the obligations
of peasants have been carried out only to a very limited extent.

Thus, We have become convinced that the amelioration of the condition
of the serfs or people bound to the soil, is for us a testament of
Our predecessors and a lot appointed to Us, through the course of
circumstances, by the hand of Providence.

We have entered upon this work by an act showing Our confidence in the
Russian nobility, Our confidence in their devotion to the throne, which
has been proved by great trials, and in their readiness to make large
sacrifices for the good of the country. We left the nobility, at its own
request, responsible for the new legislation in behalf of the peasantry.
It thus became the duty of the nobles to limit their rights over the
peasants and to take up the difficulties of the reformation; and this
involved a sacrifice of their own interests. But Our confidence has been
justified. In the government committees, invested with the confidence of
the nobility of each government, the nobility has voluntarily renounced
its rights over the persons of the serfs. In these committees when the
necessary information had been collected, propositions were drawn up for
the new code regulating the conditions of persons bound to the soil, and
their relations to the landowners.

These propositions, which, as might have been expected from the nature
of the matter, were very various, have been compared, brought into
harmony, arranged in a regular form, amended and completed in the higher
commission appointed for this matter; and the new propositions thus
constituted in the interests of landowners, peasants, and menials have
been examined in the council of state.

Calling upon God to assist us, We have decided to bring this work to its
accomplishment.

In virtue of the new regulations, the serfs will receive at the proper
time the full rights of free villagers.

The landowners while preserving the rights of property over all the
land belonging to them, will leave the peasants, in return for the dues
established, in perpetual enjoyment of their farm settlements; Moreover,
in order to ensure the security of their existence and the fulfilment of
their obligations before the Government, the quantity of arable land and
other necessaries allotted will be determined by regulation.

Thus profiting by a share of the land, the peasants are in return obliged
to pay in to the landowner certain dues determined by the regulations.
In this condition which is transitory the peasants are denominated as
temporarily bound to work for the landlords.

Together with this they are given the right to buy their farm
settlements, and with the consent of the landlords they can acquire
as property the arable land and other appendages, allotted for their
perpetual enjoyment. By such acquisitions of certain determined
quantities of land, the peasants are freed from any obligations to the
landowners on the land purchased and enter into the position of free
peasant-proprietors.

By special regulation in regard to menials or domestic servants, a
transitory position is determined for them adapted to their occupations
and requirements; after the expiration of a space of two years from the
day of the issue of this regulation, they will receive full emancipation
and exemption from taxes.

These are the chief principles by which are determined the future
organisation of the peasants and the menials. They indicate in detail the
rights granted to the peasants and menials and the duties laid upon them
in respect to the government and the landlords.

Although these regulations, general, local and special as well as
supplementary rules for certain particular localities, for the estates
of small landed proprietors, and for peasants working in their
landlords’ manufactories are as far as possible adapted to the economic
requirements, yet in order to preserve the usual order, We leave to the
landlords the option of making a voluntary agreement with the peasants
regarding land and dues.

As the new system, on account of the inevitable multitude of changes it
involves, cannot be at once introduced, but requires time for adjustment,
therefore in order to avoid disturbance in public and private affairs,
the order existing until now shall be preserved for two years, when,
after the completion of the necessary preparations, the new laws shall go
into force.

[Illustration: A WOMAN OF KAMCHATKA]

For the lawful attainment of this, We have considered it well to command
that:

1. In every government a government council on peasant affairs shall
be opened, having the supreme direction of the affairs of the peasant
societies installed on the landowners’ territories.

2. Arbiters of peace are to be nominated in the districts, and district
assemblies formed from them in order to investigate on the spot into any
misunderstandings and disputes which may arise in the fulfilment of the
regulations.

3. Besides this, communal councils are to be established on the
landowners’ estates, in order that, while leaving the village communities
in their present formation, _Volost_[69] councils should be opened in the
principal villages, uniting the smaller village communities under one
_Volost_ administration.

4. A charter shall be drawn up in each village specifying, on the
basis of the local regulations, the quantity of land appointed for
the perpetual enjoyment of the peasants, and the dues to be paid the
landowner.

5. These charters shall be executive, and brought into operation within a
space of two years from the day of the issue of this manifesto.

6. Until the expiration of this term, the peasants and menials are to
remain in their previous condition of subjection to the landlords and
indisputably to fulfil their former obligations.

7. The landowners are to see that order is maintained on their estates,
and preserve the right of the dispensation of justice until the formation
and opening of the _Volost_ tribunals.

In contemplating the inevitable difficulties of the reform, We first
of all lay Our trust in God’s most gracious Providence, which protects
Russia.

After this We rely on the valiant zeal of the Honourable body of the
Nobility, to whom We cannot but testify the gratitude it has earned
from Us and from the whole country for its disinterested action in the
realisation of Our preconceived plans. Russia will not forget that it has
voluntarily, incited only by respect for the dignity of man and Christian
love for its neighbour, renounced serfdom and laid the foundation of the
new agricultural future of the peasant. We believe unquestioningly that
it will continue its good work by ensuring the orderly accomplishment
of the new regulations, in the spirit of peace and benevolence; and
that each landowner will complete within, the limits of his own
estate, the great civic movement of the whole body, by organising the
existence of the peasants settled on his lands, and that of his domestic
servants, upon conditions advantageous to both sides, thus setting the
rural population a good example, and encouraging it in the exact and
conscientious fulfilment of the state regulations.

The examples that We have in view of the generous solicitude of the
landlords for the welfare of the peasants, and the gratitude of the
peasants for the beneficent solicitude of the landlords, confirm in Us
the hope that mutual, spontaneous agreement will solve the greater number
of difficulties; difficulties which are inevitable in the adaptation
of general rules to the diversity of conditions existent in separate
estates; and that by this means the transition from the old order to the
new will be facilitated, and that for the future, mutual confidence,
good understanding and unanimous striving for the common welfare will be
consolidated.

For the more convenient accomplishment of those agreements between the
landlords and peasants, by which the latter will acquire property,
together with the farms and agricultural appendages, assistance will also
be afforded by the government, on the basis of special rules, by the
payment of loans, and the transfer of debts lying on the estates.

We rely upon the good sense of Our people. When the government’s idea
of the abolition of serfdom became spread amongst the peasants who were
unprepared for it, it aroused partial misunderstandings. Some thought of
liberty and forgot all about obligations. But the mass of the people did
not waver in the conviction, that by natural reasoning, a society that
freely enjoyed benefits must mutually minister to the welfare of society
by the fulfilment of certain obligations, and that in accordance with
the Christian law, _every soul_ must be _subject unto the higher powers_
(Rom. xiii, 1), must _render therefore to all their dues_, and especially
to whom are due _tribute_, _custom_, _fear_, _honour_ (v. 7); that the
lawfully acquired rights of the landowners cannot be taken from them
without fitting recompense for their voluntary concession; and that it
would be opposed to all justice to avail oneself of the land belonging to
the landlord without rendering certain obligations in return for it.

And now we hopefully expect that the serfs, in view of the new future
opening for them, will understand and gratefully receive the great
sacrifice made by the honourable nobility for the improvement of their
condition.

They will understand, that having received a firmer foundation of
property and greater freedom in the disposition of their agricultural
labours, they have become bound, before society and themselves to
complete the beneficence of the new law by a faithful, well-intentioned
and diligent use of the rights conferred by it upon them. The most
beneficent law cannot make people happy and prosperous, if they do not
themselves labour to establish their felicity under the protection of the
law. Competence and ease are not acquired and increased otherwise than by
unremitting labour, a wise use of powers and means, strict thrift and an
honest, God-fearing life.

The executors of this new system will see that it is accomplished in an
orderly and tranquil manner, so that the attention of the agriculturists
may not be drawn off from their necessary agricultural occupations. May
they carefully cultivate the earth, and gather its fruits in order that
afterwards from well-filled granaries the seed may be taken for sowing
the land that is for their perpetual enjoyment, or that will be acquired
by them as their own property.

Sign yourselves with the sign of the cross, orthodox people, and call
upon God with Us for His blessing on your free labour, on your homes and
on the public welfare.

Given in St. Petersburg, on the nineteenth day of February in the year
one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one from the birth of Christ, and
the seventh of Our reign.

                                                             ALEXANDER.[f]


EFFECTS OF THE NEW CONDITIONS

Let us now turn our attention to the epoch in which this law was
published. As regards the effect of the new law on the mind of the
population, it was soon evidenced, that the cultivated classes, burdened
as they were with sacrifices for the work of reform, expressed their joy
and satisfaction at this great acquisition, far more readily than the
peasants, whom it immediately concerned. The disaffected portion of the
Russian nobility was and remained decidedly in the minority, especially
under the first impression of the great and decided step that had been
taken, and no one ventured to manifest disapproval. Public opinion had
declared itself too decidedly in favour of the government for any one
to venture on opposition. On the contrary, the number was by no means
unimportant, of those among the nobles and officials, who exceeded even
the demands of the government, and who could not suppress their vexation,
that their desire that the lands possessed by the community should be
gratuitously transferred into their property, had been disregarded.
Although these voices were not distinctly audible until a later period,
still from the first they had influence, because they could reckon on
the sympathies of the freed portion of the population. Moreover a great
part of the nobles, at that time, looked for a rich compensation for the
sacrifice they had made; they hoped to be able to excite public opinion
in favour of the embryo demand for the restoration of a constitution,
and by its assistance to reach the desired goal. Thus the disaffected
feelings of the hitherto ruling classes were veiled, and maintained in
one balance, by hopes of the future; at the most a small band of stubborn
adherents to the system of Nicholas grumbled at the liberalism come into
fashion, could not conceal their vexation at the loss of their revenues,
and used every effort to recover their lost influence in the court
circles.

The Russian peasant received the important tidings of the breaking of
his fetters with profound silence; and some time elapsed before he had
made up his mind what position to assume with regard to it. Partly, the
habitual want of freedom had become too inveterate, and was too deeply
rooted, to be at once cast aside; and partly, the attention of the people
was too eagerly directed to the still pending agricultural arrangements
with the proprietors, for the publication of the emancipation edict to
make at once any evident impression. The effect of the emancipation act
was felt most strongly and evidently in the two capitals of the empire;
here there were thousands of serfs living (as merchants, second-hand
dealers, artisans, drivers, servants, etc.) who had been obliged to
purchase with high obroc-payments the right of seeking their gain, and
were always in danger of being recalled by the will of their masters
and constrained to return to the old position of dependence. To these,
the advantages of the newly established arrangement of things were
manifest, and the fruits of it could at once be enjoyed; the emancipation
law limited the duration of their dependence to merely two years, and
fixed an unimportant obroc-sum for this transition period. From these
town-serfs, therefore, proceeded the first exhibitions of thankfulness
and joy, the first ovations to the “liberating czar.” But here also the
weak, womanish character of the Slavonic race did not belie itself; there
was no idea of passionate outbursts. The St. Petersburg descriptions
of those momentous February days tell most characteristically of
intoxicated bands of bearded cab-drivers and artisans, who reeled through
the streets, humming as they went “Volyushka, Volyushka,” (literally,
“beloved freedom”). Truly effective, however, was the shout of rejoicing,
with which the masses of the people received the emperor when he quitted
the winter-palace, on the 19th of February, in order to be present at the
reading of the emancipation-ukase in the Kazan church; and subsequently,
the addresses sent to the emperor by the drivers and lower class of
citizens in the two capitals, who had been freed from serfdom.

Although this law had been published throughout the whole empire on the
same day in all churches, and the peace-mediators (_mirovuye-Posredniki_)
had at once proceeded to regulate the agricultural questions, the first
more important manifestations in the country did not occur until two
months later, in the end of April, 1861. These were manifestations of
dissatisfaction and disappointment, which appeared east of the Volga, and
had the districts of Kazan and Nijni-Novgorod for their principal centre.
In all probability they were revolutionary agitators from the higher and
more cultivated classes who first scattered the seeds of discontent. The
people were persuaded that the true emancipation-ukase of the czar had
been craftily intercepted by the nobles and officials; that the will
of the czar was to consign to the peasants, without compensation or
hindrance, the land they had hitherto cultivated. These doctrines fell
on a soil all the more ready, as the services yielded to the masters
were in the eyes of the people of a purely personal nature, and were
no equivalents for the lands conceded to the communities. “We belong
to the proprietors, but the common land belongs to us,” was the creed
of the peasant; hence the feeling was, that the abolition of personal
servitude was synonymous with the establishment of free property. In
the Kazan district, matters soon reached a pitch of open refusal to
obedience; and when the magistrates interfered, they amounted to attempts
at resistance. Popular discontent assumed at once a genuinely national
stamp; it found a leader in a new Pugatchev, the peasant Anton Petrov,
who personated the czar (who had fled from St. Petersburg, pursued by the
boyars); and within a short time he had gathered round him 10,000 men.
After vain attempts to bring back the infatuated men by gentle means to
obedience, military power was obliged to be employed. Some battalions,
led by Count Apraxin, marched through the insurgent country, and took
the ringleader prisoner; and after Petrov had fallen into their hands,
and had been immediately shot, order was again so completely established,
that in May nothing further was thought of this episode. The peasants
returned to their obedience, and everywhere the arrangements of the
peace-arbitrator were complied with. Yet the idea of the perfect freedom
hoped for, was not yet wholly forgotten; the Volga districts remained for
some time longer the scene of revolutionary experiments, which excited
the people with the hope of a “new freedom” still to be expected and
held fast to the old idea of a gratuitous division of the soil. Under
the title _Zemliyä i Volyä_ (Land and Freedom), there appeared from time
to time secretly published pamphlets, which endeavoured to give the
agrarian question a revolutionary colouring, and which were numerously
circulated, in the eastern districts especially. These manifestations
of a propaganda, secretly inflaming the public mind, we shall meet with
again in other places, and under other forms.

In general, the completion of the arrangement between peasant and lord
was unexpectedly quick, and favourable in its course. Little as it can be
asserted, that the Russian peasant subsequently made a just use of his
newborn liberty, or that agricultural progress exhibited any favourable
influence from it; still it is evident, that the peasant population
manifested in the arrangement good-will, a just insight into the state
of affairs, and great tractableness; and that this matter was justly
conceived and handled by those entrusted with it. The execution of
the law of the 19th of February, 1861, was not placed in the hands of
ordinary magistrates, but was consigned to officials, who were selected
_ad hoc_ from the number of landed proprietors, and were furnished
with extensive authority. It was a happy idea, and one of decided and
lasting importance, that these peace mediators, or arbitrators, as they
were called, were not reckoned in the service of the state, and were
not fettered to the orders of the bureaucratic hierarchy. For the first
time in Russia, men of the most different calling, and social position,
stood side by side with equal right to join hands for the execution of
a patriotic work, which promised neither title, rank, nor advancement.
Generals in command, and mere lieutenants, councillors of the state, and
simple titular councillors, once the choice of their fellow-citizens and
class-equals fell on them, demanded leave of absence from service, in
order to undertake, according to the law, the demarcation between the
estates of the nobles and the lands of the community within definite
districts, and to induce both parties to agree; it was only where this
result could not be attained, that the strict orders of the regulations
were enforced, and the co-operation of higher authority was appealed
to.[h]


ABOLITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (1863 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1863 A.D.]]

The first reform that followed on the abolition of the law of serfdom,
which had been an unsurmountable obstacle to any improvement and reform
in the political organisation of the state, was the abolition of the
cruel and shameful corporal punishments which were formerly allotted for
crimes.

In the beginning of the reign of Alexander II attention had been
directed to the fact that corporal punishment as a punitive measure
did not accomplish the reformation amendment of the criminal, but only
dishonoured the personality of the man, lowered his feeling of honour and
destroyed in him the sense of his manhood.

The emperor began by diminishing the number of offences amenable to
corporal punishment; the new position which had been given to the
peasants by the abolition of serfdom, soon led to the almost total
suppression of corporal punishment for them.

On the 29th of April, 1863, an imperial ukase followed, by which corporal
punishment was entirely abolished as a punitive measure, determined by
the sentence of the public tribunals. By this memorable ukase, which
will ever remain a glorious monument in the legislation of Russia, were
abolished by the will of the czar-liberator, the last traces of slavery
in Russia, the running of the gauntlet, the spur, the lash, the cat, the
branding of the human body, all passed away into eternal oblivion; the
punishment of the rod to which persons belonging to the class not exempt
from corporal punishment had hitherto been subjected was replaced for
them by arrest or confinement in prison, and was preserved only in two or
three cases and then in the most moderate measure.


REFORMS IN THE COURTS OF JUSTICE

Almost simultaneously with the establishment of the provincial and
territorial institutions, the emperor Alexander II recognised it as
indispensable for the welfare of his people, to reform the existing
judiciary system and law proceedings, to render all his subjects equal
before the legal authorities, and to afford them all the same protection
of the tribunals and the law.

Ancient Russian tribunals, as is well known, were far from being
distinguished either by their uprightness or the rapidity of their
procedure. It is hardly necessary to remind readers that justice was
administered in secret, behind closed doors, besides which not merely
outsiders were refused admittance to the courts, but even the persons
implicated and interested in the affair. Such chancery secrecy resulted
in great lack of truth and justice in the tribunals. Taking advantage
of the secrecy of the proceedings, the judges allowed themselves to
commit every possible abuse: they extorted money from the suitors,
behaved unfairly and against their own consciences, distorted facts and
afterwards decided the affair in accordance with their own views and
pleasure, that is, as was most advantageous and convenient to them.
Another great defect in the ancient Russian tribunals was due to the
fact that the entire procedure was carried on in them exclusively on
paper, upon the foundation of notes alone; verbal explanations were not
permitted in the tribunals. This complicated form of written procedure
led to litigations of incredible length; the most trivial lawsuit
sometimes dragged on for years, requiring enormous expenditure and
often in the end ruining the litigants. In a like manner, the accused,
not infrequently innocent people, and only suspected of some crime or
offence, had to languish for years in prison, awaiting the termination of
their affairs before the courts.

The emperor Alexander II was well aware of all these defects and
imperfections in the ancient courts of justice, and as a true friend of
humanity, could not remain indifferent to such an order of things. He
therefore desired that there should be established in Russia a system
of justice that would be “speedy, righteous, merciful, and equitable.”
The reign of truth and mercy in the tribunals could be attained only by
a complete reorganisation of the ancient tribunals, in consequence of
which, by command of the czar, new legal statutes were composed, and
received the imperial confirmation towards the end of November, 1864.

The enormous superiority of the new tribunals over the old ones was at
once evident. The new courts, carrying on their business in public,
punished crimes without respect of persons; all Russian subjects were
recognised as equal before the law and the courts. The appearance of
justices of the peace had a particular importance for the people newly
liberated from the dependence of serfdom; they afforded the hitherto
poor and almost defenceless lower classes a possibility of protecting
themselves against every kind of offence, violence and oppression, and of
claiming their legal rights almost without trouble or expense.


THE POLISH INSURRECTION OF 1863

In spite of his ardent reformatory activity in the interior of the
empire, the emperor Alexander II did not neglect foreign policy.
Although, at the conclusion of the Crimean war, the emperor had
recognised the necessity of a prolonged peace for Russia, and therefore
continually endeavoured to avoid becoming entangled in the affairs of
nations, nevertheless in all cases where the interests of Russia were
affected, he firmly and calmly declared his requirements, and by means of
peaceful persuasions maintained the honour and interests of his country.

The suppression of the Polish rebellion of 1863 is particularly
remarkable in this respect: The amelioration of conditions in Poland had
occupied Alexander II immediately after his accession to the throne, and
he had at once eliminated inequalities of legislation between his Russian
and Polish subjects: all that was granted to Russia was granted also to
the kingdom of Poland.

[Illustration: A MESTCHER COSTUME]

All these favours aroused a feeling of gratitude in the more moderate and
wiser portion of the population. But they were not received in the same
spirit by those Poles who dreamed of the re-establishment of the ancient
Poland with its former frontiers, and of giving entire self-government
to the kingdom by means of its separation from Russia, and the formation
of a separate state. These persons looked with hostility upon all the
actions of the Russian government and, with the design of entering into
an open conflict with Russia, secretly began to incite the people of
Poland to revolt.

In January, 1863, a fresh insurrection burst forth in Poland. But the
revolutionaries were unsuccessful, and the Russian troops defeated them
at every point, taking 300 prisoners and a considerable number of guns.
Being desirous of again trying mild measures, and in the hope of at last
bringing the Poles to reason, the emperor declared that pardon would
be granted to all who laid down their arms by the 13th of May. But the
term allotted expired without good sense having triumphed. Then Count
Birg was appointed viceroy in Warsaw, and Adjutant-General Muraviev,
governor-general of the northwest border. Under the direction of these
two men, the conflict took a more decided character and the suppression
of the rebellion was made effective.

Meanwhile, when the insurrection was already almost put down by the
Russian troops, three great western European powers--England, France and
Austria--expressed their sympathy with the Polish movement and at the
same time gave the Poles hopes of assistance. Having concerted together,
and being besides supported by Turkey, these powers simultaneously sent
the Russian government threatening exactions for concessions to Poland.
Naturally, these pretensions on the part of the powers were offensive
to Russian national honour. A feeling of profound indignation and
wounded dignity took possession of the Russian nation, and readiness
was expressed to sacrifice everything to the defence of the fatherland.
Prince A. M. Gortchakov showed himself a worthy champion of Alexander II
in the resistance shown to the European powers.

[Sidenote: [1864 A.D.]]

Meeting with such decided opposition to their interference, the powers
became convinced that the entire Russian nation stood behind the czar,
and they were obliged to withdraw their exactions. The final suppression
of the Polish insurrection became thenceforth a matter of internal
policy. Complete tranquillity was restored in Poland in the year 1864.

Following on these events a series of measures was undertaken tending to
the gradual union of the kingdom of Poland with the Russian empire. The
most beneficial of all these measures was the ukase of the 2nd of March,
1864, for the reorganisation of the peasantry in the kingdom of Poland.

Strictly speaking, the law of serfdom had been abolished in Poland as
early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, but the freedom the
peasants had then received was no better than servitude; they were
individually free, but had no share in the possession of land. By virtue
of the ukase of the 2nd of March, 1864, the land of which the peasants
had the use became their property, and the compensation to the landowners
was defrayed by the state.

Upon this important measure followed a series of other measures,
contributing to the development of the general welfare of Poland; and
finally in 1869, it was declared by the imperial will that measures
should be taken for the complete union of the kingdom of Poland with the
other parts of the empire, by which the definitive pacification of Poland
was completed.


THE SUBJECTION OF THE CAUCASUS (1864 A.D.)

The subjection of the Caucasus took place in the year after the
suppression of the Polish insurrection.

Of all the nations that populated the Caucasus, only the Georgians and
Armenians had succeeded, some centuries before the birth of Christ, in
establishing independent kingdoms. But being surrounded by powerful and
warlike mountaineers and bounded on the south by the dominions of Persia
and Turkey, the kingdoms of Georgia and Armenia had gradually fallen into
decay, and therefore Georgia itself turned to Russia, as professing the
same religion, with the request to be received into the empire. Yielding
to the urgent request of the unfortunate country, the emperor Paul I, who
was then reigning in Russia, annexed Georgia in 1800 A.D.

After the annexation of Georgia to Russia, the mountain people made
their appearance from the north and south amongst Russian possessions,
but by continuing their previous plundering and incursions into Russian
territory, they hindered relations between the Caucasus and the empire.
Thus, in order to secure the tranquil possession of Georgia nothing
remained but to subject to Russian domination those wild tribes of the
Mohammedan faith which lived in the mountains separating Russia from the
Caucasus. Therefore during the first years of the nineteenth century
there commenced an almost continuously persistent and truly heroic
struggle of the Russian army against the Caucasian tribes, which was
prolonged for more than sixty years until that definitive subjection of
the Caucasus which took place during the reign of Alexander II.


_The Taking of Schamyl_

The struggle against the Caucasian mountaineers was rendered peculiarly
difficult at that time by the appearance of Schamyl as their leader,
uniting as he did all the qualities of a brave and experienced soldier to
his spiritual calling. The possessor of an iron will and an astonishing
skill in ruling over the wild mountain tribes, Schamyl converted them
into an organ of war which he directed against the Russians. Added
to this he fortified the almost impregnable mountains, constructed
excellent fortresses and established powder-works, foundries, etc.
Seeing all this the Russians began to carry on a regular warfare against
the mountaineers. The commander-in-chief in the Caucasus, who also
exercised the functions of Caucasian viceroy, was Adjutant-general Prince
Bariatinski, with whose nomination the war took a decisive turn.

Prince Bariatinski directed his efforts first of all against the eastern
group of the Caucasian mountains. The general aggressive movement of the
Russian army, which was accomplished after mature reflection, soon placed
Schamyl in an embarrassing position which put an end to the fascination
he had exercised over the mountaineers, who had hitherto been blindly
devoted to him. One tribe after another fell away from Schamyl and
declared its submission to Russia. Defeated and pressed on every side,
Schamyl fled to Daghestan, the extreme eastern province of the Caucasus,
on the shores of the Caspian Sea and took refuge with his family and
a little band of adherents in the village of Gunib situated on the
heights of an inaccessible mountain, where he decided to defend himself
to the last. Meanwhile, the Russian troops, which had indefatigably
pursued Schamyl, finally besieged him at Gunib and surrounded the
village itself with a thick chain of soldiers. Upon the proposal of the
commander-in-chief to put an end to the useless defence, and to spare the
village the horrors of an assault, Schamyl, hitherto deemed invincible,
saw his hopeless position, left his refuge, and surrendered himself as
prisoner on the 6th of September, 1859, throwing himself upon the mercy
of the czar. The taking of Schamyl produced an impression of astonishment
on all the mountain tribes: the whole Caucasus trembled with desire for
peace. After the taking of Gunib, and the captivity of Schamyl the whole
eastern portion of the Caucasus submitted to the Russian domination.

After this all the efforts of the Russian troops were immediately
directed towards the western Caucasus, adjoining the eastern shore of the
Black Sea; but the definitive subjection of this part of the Caucasus
required yet four years of uninterrupted and unrelaxed conflicts.
Meanwhile, at the beginning of the year 1863, Field-marshal Prince
Bariatinski was on account of impaired health replaced by a new Caucasian
viceroy in the person of the emperor’s youngest brother, the grand duke
Michael Nikolaivitch, after which the aggressive movements of the Russian
troops proceeded with such rapidity, that the entire conquest of the
western portion of the Caucasus was accomplished in the spring of the
year 1864. Thus ended the costly and bloody Caucasian war, and since then
all the Caucasus has belonged to Russia.


WARS WITH KHOKAND AND BOKHARA

[Sidenote: [1864-1867 A.D.]]

Following on the subjection of the Caucasus, Russia began to settle
accounts with three small neighbouring Mohammedan khanates, those of
Khokand, Bokhara, and Khiva. These khanates were situated amidst the
arid, sandy steppes of central Asia and were populated by half savage
robber tribes who continually made audacious incursions upon Russian
central Asian frontier possessions, attacking Russian mercantile
caravans, and plundering the merchants, either killing or carrying
them into captivity and selling them as slaves. All this greatly
hindered Russian trade with Asia, it destroyed the tranquillity of
Russian frontier possessions and therefore had long been a source of
preoccupation and disquietude on the part of the Russian government.

Therefore, in 1864, two small detachments of Russian troops under the
command of Colonel Tchernaiev and General Verevkine, were despatched from
two sides for the punishment of the hostile tribes and the preservation
of the Russian eastern frontier from their plundering incursions. Colonel
Tchernaiev, by storm, took the Khokand fortress of Auliet, while General
Verevkine seized the Khokand town of Turkestan. In the following year,
1865, General Tchernaiev took by assault one of the most important towns
of the Khokand khanate--Tashkend--after which the khan of Khokand ceased
hostilities and declared his submission to the Russian czar.

Then, however, one of the khanates neighbouring upon that of
Khokand--Bokhara--began to disturb peace on the Russian frontiers and it
became necessary to quiet it. A detachment of Russian troops under the
command of General Romanovski was sent against Bokhara.

The war with Bokhara was as successful as that with Khokand. In the
year 1866 the chief forces of the emir of Bokhara were utterly defeated
and the Russians took some towns and fortresses. But it was only after
the Russian troops had taken the ancient, famous, and wealthy town of
Samarkand, that the emir finally submitted, being bound by a special
treaty to allow the Russian merchants entire liberty to trade in the
Bokharan possessions, and to abolish slavery throughout his dominions.
This greatly raised the prestige of the czar in Asia.

The newly conquered territories in central Asia (in Khokand and Bokhara)
were joined to the Russian possessions, and from them was formed (in
1867) the special government general of Turkestan, with Tashkend for its
chief town.[d]


A GLANCE AT THE PAST HISTORY OF BOKHARA

It may be of interest to recall in a few words the past history of the
somewhat important territory thus acquired by Russia. We have already
become acquainted with Bokhara in ancient history under the name of
Sogdiana; afterwards in Persian history it appears as T̈ransoxania, or
by the Arabic name of Mawarra an-nahr. The country was conquered by the
Arabs in the early part of the eighth century, and towards the end of the
ninth it was conquered by Ismail, the founder of the Samanids dynasty,
who became emir of Bokhara and Kharezm (Khiva) in 893. Towards the end of
the eleventh century the celebrated Seljuk sultan Malik Shah conquered
the country beyond the Oxus, and in 1216 it came for a short time under
the power of the Kharezmian prince, Muhammed Kutbuddin. In about 1220 the
land was subdued by Jenghiz Khan and incorporated into the khanate of
Jagatai. Bokhara remained under the successors of Jenghiz until the whole
country was overrun and conquered by Timur (Tamerlane), who selected
Samarkand as his capital and raised it to a high stage of prosperity.
The descendants of Timur ruled in the country until about the year 1500,
when they were overthrown by the Usbeg Tatars under Muhammed Shaibani,
a descendant of Shaiban, the fifth son of Juji. Muhammed ruled over
T̈ransoxania, Ferghana, Khwarizm and Hissar, but in 1510 he was defeated
and killed by Shah Ismail, the founder of the Persian dynasty of Sufi.

The Shaibani dynasty ruled for nearly a century when it was replaced
by the dynasty of Astrakhan, a house related to the Shaibanis by
marriage. Under two rulers of this family--Iman Kuli Khan and Subhankuli
Khan--Bokhara recovered somewhat of its former glory, and Subhankuli
ruled over Khiva also for a time. In 1740 Bokhara had been so reduced
under weak rulers that it offered its submission to Nadir Shah of Persia,
and after his death the Astrakhan dynasty was overthrown by the house of
Mangit (1784), which is the dynasty at present ruling in the country.
Under the first sovereign of this family, Mir Maasum, Bokhara enjoyed a
certain degree of prosperity, although the ruler was a cruel tyrant and
a bigoted ascetic. He led a curious life of pretended piety, living in
filth and misery although surrounded by wealth. He conquered and almost
exterminated the city of Merv and invaded and devastated Khorassan. At
his death in 1802 he was succeeded by his son Saïd, a weak ruler who
lived until 1826. He was succeeded by one of the worst tyrants who ever
occupied a throne--the emir Nasrullah Bahuder; he was cruel, lustful,
treacherous, hypocritical, ungrateful to friends, whom he rewarded for
service by putting them to death--in short, he appears to have had all
the vices it is possible for a human being to have. It was during his
reign that England and Russia tried to acquire influence in Bokhara.
Two English envoys, Colonel Stoddart and Captain Conolly, were executed
in 1842 after several years’ imprisonment in a loathsome dungeon. The
Russian envoy did indeed come away alive from the court of the tyrant but
he succeeded in gaining no concessions for his country. Nasrullah died
in 1860, his last act being to have his wife killed and her head brought
to his bedside. He was succeeded by his son Mozaffer-eddin, during whose
reign the Russian conquest took place.[a]


THE CONQUEST OF KHIVA (1873 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1873 A.D.]]

After Khokand and Bokhara came the turn of Khiva. In the early spring
of 1873 three detachments of Russian troops marched on Khiva from
different sides under the command of the governor-general of Turkestan,
Adjutant-general V. P. von Kaufmann. Incredible privations and
difficulties had to be borne and overcome by the Russian troops during
this march across the steppes. First they endured frosts and snowstorms,
and then under the sun’s burning rays they courageously accomplished
in the space of one month a thousand versts march across a desert, and
finally reached the borders of the khanate of Khiva in the beginning of
May. In three weeks’ time the entire khanate was subjugated; some of the
towns were taken after a combat, others surrendered without resistance,
and on the 10th of June the capital of the khanate--Khiva--fell. The
Russian troops entered the town in triumph, covered with fresh glory.

After the taking of Khiva by the Russians, the khan of Khiva fled to
the steppes, but he afterwards returned and declared his submission, in
consequence of which he was reinstated on his throne. But in spite of
this a portion of the Khivan possessions fell to Russia. Besides this,
the khan had to acknowledge a partial dependence upon Russia, he was
obliged to reimburse her by a considerable sum of money for the expenses
incurred in the campaign, and to allow the Russian merchants to trade
freely in his dominions; he was pledged to discountenance plundering,
to set at liberty all prisoners and slaves, and to abolish throughout
his possessions forever all traffic in slaves. Thus, through the medium
of the Czar Liberator, freedom was brought into central Asia--the land
of slavery and of arbitrary rule. The complete pacification of a great
country was accomplished.


THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR (1877-1878 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1875-1877 A.D.]]

Besides the wars already enumerated, Russia had, under the reign of the
Czar Liberator, to carry on another war, which entailed innumerable
sacrifices.

In the summer of 1875, the Slavonians of the two Turkish dependencies
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, inhabited by Servian races, rose against
their oppressors, the Turks, and decided to take up arms in defence of
their faith, freedom, and property, and the honour of their wives and
daughters, and to endeavour to obtain equal rights with the Mussulman
subjects of Turkey.

In the summer of 1876 the neighbouring Slavonian principalities of
Montenegro and Servia came to the aid of the Bosnians and Herzegovinians,
and declared war against Turkey. The Montenegrins were under the
leadership of their Prince Nicholas, and the Servian troops under the
command of the Russian General Tchernaiev, the hero of Tashkend, who
volunteered his services to the Slavonians.

Although Montenegro, which was small in the number of its sons, but
mighty by their bravery and their love of freedom, had more than once
defeated the Turkish army, Servia with her few troops could not stand
against the Turkish troops, which definitively overcame the Servian
forces and were about to invade the frontiers of Servia. Russia, however,
did not allow this invasion to take place, and in October, 1876, the
emperor Alexander II required from the Turkish sultan the immediate
cessation of further hostilities against the Servians, and in order to
support these demands he ordered that a portion of the Russian army
should be placed on a war footing. The decisive action of the czar
towards the Turkish government at once stopped the invasion of the
Turkish hordes into Servia, and a two months’ armistice was concluded
between Servia and Turkey.

But in spite of this, the Turks continued their cruelties amongst the
Christians of the Balkans; defenceless Bulgaria in particular suffered
from the fury of the Turks. They traversed the country with fire and
sword, striving to stifle the movement taking place there by the savage
slaughter of thousands of the inhabitants, without distinction of sex or
age.

For a long while Russia endeavoured to avert the situation, without
having recourse to arms, in order--as Alexander II expressed it--“to
avoid shedding the precious blood of the sons of Russia.” But all his
efforts were unsuccessful, all means of arbitration were exhausted and
also the patience of that most peace-loving of monarchs, the emperor
Alexander II. He found himself obliged to declare war against Turkey
and to advance his troops towards the Turkish frontier. On the 19th of
April, 1877, the emperor joined his army at Kishinev, where it had been
commanded to assemble, and on the 24th of the same month, after public
prayers, he informed the troops of their approaching entry upon the
frontiers of Turkey. Thus commenced the Russo-Turkish war, which was
carried on simultaneously in two parts of the world--in Europe and in
Asia.

The commander-in-chief of the Russian troops upon the Asiatic theatre
of the war was the grand-duke Michael Nikolaivitch, governor of the
Caucasus. A few days after the issue of the manifesto declaring war,
the Russian troops had occupied the Turkish fortress of Bajazet without
a struggle (April 30th), and had proceeded to besiege the first class
fortress of Kars, justly regarded as one of the chief points of support
of the Turkish army in Asia Minor, after which at the beginning of
May they took by assault another sufficiently important Turkish
fortress--that of Ardahan.

As to the Danubian army, of which the grand-duke Nicholas Nikolaivitch
was appointed commander-in-chief, on the very day of the declaration
of war it entered into the principality of Roumania, which was subject
to Turkey, and directed its march towards the Danube. At the passage
of the Danube, the problem consisted in diverting the attention of the
Turks from the spot where the chief forces of the Russian army were to
cross. This was accomplished with entire success; complete secrecy was
maintained, and during the night between the 26th and 27th of June the
Russian troops crossed the Danube with the assistance of pontoons and
rafts, at a point where the Turks least expected it, namely from Zimnitzi
(between the fortresses of Rustchuk and Nikopol) to Sistova; the Russian
losses in this great undertaking did not exceed 1,000 men fallen from
the ranks. Having thus crossed the Danube and disembarked on the enemy’s
shores, the Russian troops, without giving their adversaries time to
recover, began to move into the heart of Bulgaria, and took town after
town and fortress after fortress from the Turks.

But in Asia as well as in Europe the first brilliant successes of the
Russians were followed by some serious reverses, which like the victories
were first manifested upon the Asiatic seat of the war. The most serious
reverse of the Russians in Asia was the unsuccessful attack (June 25th)
upon the Turkish stronghold near Zeven, after which the Russian troops
were obliged to raise for a time even the siege of Kars, and to retire
within their own frontiers. But the temporary reverses of the Russian
troops on the European theatre of the war were far more important. The
most serious reverse during the entire period of the Eastern war was the
attack of the Russian troops upon Plevna. Plevna was an insignificant
Bulgarian town. The Russian troops hoped easily to overcome it, and on
the 20th of July a small detachment of them attacked Plevna. But it
turned out that the Turks had already managed to concentrate considerable
forces within the little town, under the command of the best of their
leaders, the gifted and resolute Osman-Pasha, added to which the most
talented European engineers had constructed round Plevna, in the space of
a few days a network of fortifications, rendering Plevna an impregnable
position. In consequence of this the first attack of the Russian troops
on Plevna was repulsed by the Turks; the losses of the Russians amounted
to three thousand killed.

Ten days later (on the 30th of July) the Russian troops made a second
attack against Plevna. But this time again the attack resulted in a like
defeat; the enemy’s forces, which far exceeded those of the Russians,
repelled all the assaults of the Russian troops, added to which this
second attack on Plevna cost the Russians 7,500 men. Following upon this,
with the arrival of fresh reinforcements for the army encamped before
Plevna, a third and final heroic effort was made to take this fortified
position by storm. The chief part in the attack was taken by the brave
young general Skobelev and his detachment. But in spite of his brilliant
action, in spite of the heroism and self-sacrifice displayed by his
soldiers, this assault also was unsuccessful. On the 12th of September,
Skobelev repulsed five furious attacks by the whole mass of Turks, but
not receiving assistance, he was obliged to retreat. This last reverse
cost the Russians as many as 3,000 killed and nearly 10,000 wounded. But
following on these reverses came a rapidly successive series of victories
of the Russian troops over the Turkish, both in Asia and in Europe.

The crowning success of the Russian troops in Asia was the fall on the
18th of November of the terrible stronghold of Kars, which was taken
by General Loris-Melikov, after a heroic assault by night. All Europe
recognised the taking of Kars as one of the greatest and most difficult
of military exploits ever achieved. At the same time, on the European
theatre of the war, on the southern slope of the Balkans a great Turkish
body of troops was concentrated under the command of the talented leader
Suleiman Pasha, with the object of retaking at any cost the Shipka pass,
which was occupied by a small Russian detachment. During the space of
seven days (from the 21st to the 28th of August) the Turks endeavoured to
wrest from the Russians the Shipka pass, and a series of furious attacks
was made with this object. On the first two days a handful of heroes,
who defended the heights of Shipka, repulsed all the desperate efforts
of Suleiman Pasha’s entire army! The echo of the incessant artillery
fire became one endless roll of thunder. The Russian ranks dwindled and
were exhausted from wounds and fatigue. It was at that time that the
Russian gunners, under the command of General Radetzki came to their
assistance, and by the 24th of August fresh reinforcements arrived. The
Turks’ insane attacks still continued during the 25th, 26th and 27th, but
on the evening of the 27th of August all was suddenly quiet; the Turks
had become convinced that they could not overcome the steadfastness and
bravery of the Russian troops defending the Shipka pass, and had retired.

Meanwhile, after the third attempt on Plevna, it was decided not to
renew any more such dearly bought attacks, but to limit operations to
encircling the Turkish positions in order to cut off communication
between Plevna and the surrounding places, and thus to starve the Turks
into surrender.

At the end of October General Gurko’s division, amongst which were
the guards, took Gorni Dubinak, Telisch and a series of other Turkish
strongholds, situated to the southwest of Plevna and protecting the
Sophia road, along which reinforcements and stores had hitherto been
brought into Plevna, and thus to cut off entirely all communications
between that town and the outside. After less than a month’s time all
the provisions that the Turks had in Plevna were definitively exhausted.
On the morning of the 10th of December, Osman Pasha, being desirous of
penetrating through the Russian lines to the Danube, made a violent
attempt to get out of Plevna. He cut his way through, but after some
hours of desperate fighting--during which he was wounded in the leg--he
was thrown back and compelled to surrender, with all his army to the
number of more than 40,000 men. This heated action cost the Russians 600
men killed, and double that amount wounded.

Taking deeply to heart the successes of his valiant army and the holy
work for which it was fighting, the emperor Alexander II had at the end
of May, 1877, at the very commencement, that is, of the war, arrived in
Bulgaria, and in spite of the weak state of his health had remained all
the while amongst the acting army of the Danube, sharing all reverses and
privations of military life on the march.

“I go as a brother of mercy,” said the czar when he set off for the
active army. And actually, leaving to others all the martial glory of
victory over the enemy, the emperor concentrated his attention upon the
sick and wounded soldiers to whom he showed himself not a brother, but a
very father of mercy. Zealously visiting the sick and wounded soldiers in
the hospitals and ambulances, the emperor showed them heartfelt sympathy,
comforted, encouraged, and sustained the sufferers, listened to their
tales with fatherly love, and with his own hand rewarded those who had
distinguished themselves by their services in battle.

[Sidenote: [1877-1878 A.D.]]

The wounded and their families were the object of the emperor Alexander’s
unwearied care. He was rejoiced when the provisions sent out for the
use of the wounded by the empress Marie Alexandrovna arrived from St.
Petersburg. Alexander unfailingly distributed them himself, carefully
inquiring of each soldier what he wanted, what he liked, and strove
to satisfy each sufferer: to the musicians he gave accordions, to the
readers books, to the smokers tobacco pouches, to the non-smokers tea,
dainties, etc. Both soldiers and officers were as pleased as children at
receiving presents from the hand of the royal “brother of mercy,” and
listening to his cordial, gracious words. The soldiers’ love for the
emperor, their joy and rapture at seeing him acted like living water on
the wounded; everyone that could move strove to rise, to stand up, to
take courage; they stretched out their hands to the czar, kissed his
raiment and blessed his name. It was only after the fall of Plevna when
the war clearly inclined to the advantage of the Russians, and further
success was entirely secured that the emperor, bidding farewell to his
troops, left the active army and in the beginning of December, 1877,
returned to Russia.

Immediately after the taking of Plevna it was decided that, without
losing time, the Balkans should be crossed. Meanwhile a severe winter had
already set in and the Turks did not even admit the possibility of the
Russian troops crossing the Balkans at such a time. But here again all
the valour of the Russian army was displayed. To take a whole army across
the Balkans in winter was a work of the very greatest difficulty and
danger; but to cross the Trievna pass had never yet been attempted by any
army in the world. Strictly speaking, the chief part of the Russian army
crossed the Balkans at two other points, but it was part of the Russian
strategy to carry an insignificant portion of the troops across by the
Trievna pass in order that the attention of the Turks should be diverted
from the chief army, and the passage of the latter thus be facilitated.
The accomplishment of this terribly difficult and almost impossible feat
was entrusted to General Kartzov’s division. On the night between the 3rd
and 4th of January the division moved on its road. After having reached
by incredible efforts the very summit of the pass, where a short time
was spent, on the 7th of January General Kartzov’s division stormed the
Turkish redoubt, forced their way into it and drove out the Turks. After
this the Russians had to descend to the so-called Valley of Roses on
the southern slope of the Balkans, which was even much steeper than the
northern. As soon as the Russians had come down from Trievna, the Turks
abandoned their positions at the feet of the Great Balkans, and General
Kartzov’s division entered into communication on one side with General
Gurko’s division, and on the other with the Shipka division of General
Radetzki.

After descending the Balkans to the Valley of Roses, General Radetzki,
together with General Skobelev, who had come to his assistance after the
fall of Plevna, attacked on the 9th of January an army of 40,000 Turks
at Kezanlik, who after a stubborn resistance were defeated and taken
prisoners. After having devastated and scattered the Turkish army of
Shipka and accomplished the feat unexampled in history of the passage
of the Balkans, the Russian army continued its victorious advance;
Adrianople, the second capital of the Turkish empire, was taken without a
struggle and the troops drew near to Constantinople itself. Then, on the
3rd of March, 1878, at a little place called San Stefano, at ten versts
from Constantinople, Turkey signed the conditions of peace offered her by
Russia.

Meanwhile the great European powers required that three conditions of
peace should be submitted to their consideration, and thus the treaty
of San Stefano showed itself to be only a preliminary one; the great
European powers ratified it only after considerable changes. These
altered conditions of peace were signed in 1878 by the plenipotentiaries
of all the great powers at the Congress of Berlin; after which on the
8th of February, 1879, a final treaty of peace, based on these same
conditions, was signed at Constantinople between Russia and Turkey.

The emperor Alexander might certainly with full right have insisted
on the ratification of the treaty of peace of San Stefano without any
alterations; but then Russia would have incurred a fresh war with Europe,
while the emperor deeply felt the necessity of peace. It was time to
give the Russian people rest after they had made such sacrifices in the
struggle for their Slavonian brethren! Pitying his people, the emperor
decided--however painful it might be to him--not to insist on all that
had been gained at the price of Russian blood and confirmed by the treaty
of San Stefano with Turkey, but consented in Berlin to great concessions
which did not, however, in any way interfere with the liberation of the
Christian population of Turkey.

By the treaties of San Stefano and Berlin, that part of Bessarabia was
returned to Russia which, by the Peace of Paris in 1856, had been ceded
to her by Turkey after the Crimean campaign. Thanks to this, Russia again
reached the mouths of the river Danube; in Asia she acquired a portion
of the Turkish possessions, with the port of Batum and the fortress of
Kars, which guaranteed her security and future development. Finally, in
compensating for the military expenditure incurred by Russia, Turkey was
bound to pay her an indemnity of 300 million rubles.

Thus terminated the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878--that decisive
struggle for the liberation of the Slavonians of the Balkan peninsula,
and although in consequence of the interference of Europe Russia was
far from attaining what she had a right to expect after the enormous
sacrifices she had made, and the glorious victories she had gained,
nevertheless the great and sacred object of the war was attained; on the
memorable day of the emancipation of the peasants in Russia, also the
Slavonian nations of the Balkan peninsula were liberated, by the help of
Russia and her great monarch, from the Turkish yoke which had oppressed
them for ages. To the emperor Alexander II, who gave freedom to many
millions of his own subjects, was allotted also the glorious rôle of
liberator of the Balkan Christians, by whom he was a second time named
the Czar Liberator!


SPREAD OF EDUCATION AND CIVILISATION

The new order of things established in Russia, thanks to the great
reforms of Emperor Alexander II, called forth a particular want of
educated, enlightened men. They were necessary to the wise interpretation
and execution of the luminous ideas of the czar-liberator.

Recognising that the spread of education amongst the people is an
indispensable condition of its prosperity, the emperor Alexander II,
who had become convinced by a personal survey of Russia, that one of
the chief obstacles to her progress lay in the ignorance of the people,
wished to give to his subjects the means for the highest degree of
enlightenment. This solicitude was expressed in a radical reform of
all the educational establishments of the empire, beginning with the
university and finishing with the national schools. Properly speaking,
it may be asserted that the primary national schools and village schools
were created during the reign of Alexander II, for until his reign the
primary education of the people was in a sad condition, and amongst them
an almost total ignorance prevailed.

His legislation for the education of the masses should justly be
numbered amongst the most important works of the Czar Liberator. But
many were the other reforms accomplished by him that also had a great
and beneficent signification for the Russian people. During the reign
of the emperor Alexander II the country which had until then but few
means of intercommunication, became covered with a network of railways.
In conjunction with the extraordinarily rapid development of railway
communication, the postal service was perfected, the telegraph made its
appearance, while commerce and trade acquired wide development. Finally,
essential changes and improvements were introduced into the financial
administration of the empire; the police was reorganised and certain
modifications were granted to the press, in consequence of which there
was a powerful awakening in the intellectual life of the people.


THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER II

In studying the wars which took place during the reign of Alexander
II, it is impossible not to remark that they were all entered upon and
carried on, not under the influence of ambition, not with the thirst
for conquest, but exclusively out of a feeling of humanity, in order to
preserve those living on the frontiers of the Russian empire from the
plundering incursions of half savage Asiatic tribes (as was the case
in the subjection of the Caucasus, of Khokand, Bokhara, and Khiva), or
for the deliverance of the oppressed co-religionists of Russia (as, for
example, the deliverance of the Slavonians of the Balkans).

[Illustration: A WINTER COSTUME]

The emperor Alexander II was actively solicitous for the welfare of
his subjects during the twenty-six years of his glorious reign, never
losing sight of the exaltation of the country and the consolidation of
the prosperity of the nation. But in spite of the indefatigable labours
and fatherly care of the emperor Alexander II, in spite of the enormous
services he rendered to the country, of his boundless goodness of heart,
his great clemency and unusual humanity--amongst the Russian people were
to be found those who had more than once tried by violence to shake the
existing state and social organisation of Russia and who did not stop
at any crime for the attainment of their ends. Their boundless audacity
finally reached the last limits, and they dared more than once to make
attempts on the life of the Czar-Liberator.

On the 2nd of March, 1880, the 25th year of the reign of the emperor
Alexander II was accomplished, and this memorable day was celebrated with
heartfelt enthusiasm in both capitals and throughout the whole Russian
Empire. But amongst the millions of joyous Russian hearts, for one man
alone in Russia the festivity was not a festivity. That man was the
czar himself, the creator of the happiness of many millions of Russians
and the cause of the rejoicings. The emperor did not doubt the sincere
affection of the people towards him; he knew and felt that Russia loved
her czar with all her soul; but at the same time he knew and felt, that
in spite of all the glory of his reign, in spite of the great measures he
had accomplished, the Russian land bore a handful of malcontents, whose
designs it was beyond the power of anyone to arrest.

[Sidenote: [1881 A.D.]]

The fatal 13th of March, 1881, came. About one o’clock in the afternoon
the emperor drove in a carriage from the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg,
accompanied by his usual escort, to the Michael riding school to assist
at a grand military parade, appointed to take place that day. Coming
out of the riding school at the end of the parade, at about a quarter
to three, and learning that the grand duke Michael Nikolaivitch, who
was present at the parade intended to visit the grand duchess Catherine
Mikhailovna at the Mikhailovski palace, the emperor proposed to his
brother that they should go together. After spending about half an hour
at the Mikhailovski palace the emperor came out alone, without the grand
duke and told the coachman to “drive home by the same way.” The carriage
set off along the Catherine canal, in the direction of the Theatre bridge.

At three o’clock in the afternoon, at a distance of about 50 sajens from
the corner of the Engineer street, the emperor’s carriage as it drove
along the side of the canal, past the garden of the Mikhailovski palace
came alongside a young man at the footpath of the canal; he afterwards
turned out to be the citizen Nicholas Ivanovitch Rissakov. When he came
on a line with the imperial carriage, Rissakov turned his face towards
it, and before the escort could notice anything, quickly threw beneath
the feet of the horses harnessed to the carriage, something white like
snow, which afterwards turned out to be an explosive instrument wrapped
up in a handkerchief. At the same instant a deafening crash, like a salvo
of artillery, resounded; two Cossacks riding behind the czar’s equipage
fell from their horses wounded, and a fourteen year old peasant boy,
mortally wounded, lay groaning on the pavement; a thick cloud of snow and
splinters filled the air. The emperor’s carriage appeared much damaged
by the explosion, all the four windows and the little glass behind were
broken, the frame of the door was splintered at the side and back, the
side of the carriage was broken and the bottom seriously injured. When he
had thrown the explosive instrument under the carriage, Rissakov began
to run off in the direction of the Nevski Prospect, but at a few sajens
from the spot where the explosion had taken place, he slipped, fell, and
was seized by some soldiers who came up. The emperor himself was entirely
uninjured. He ordered the coachman to stop the horses, opened the left
door, got out of the carriage, and went to the spot where Rissakov was
already surrounded by a crowd of people.

Then, when the emperor, desiring to examine the spot where the explosion
had taken place, had left Rissakov, and had made a few steps along the
pathway of the canal, another man--who turned out to be a Pole named
Grinevetzki--waiting till the emperor was at a distance of two arskins
from him, raised his arms and threw something on the footpath at the
very feet of the emperor. At the same moment, not more than four or
five minutes after the first explosion, another deafening explosion was
heard, after which a mass of smoke, snow and scraps of clothing enveloped
everything for some moments. When the column of smoke dispersed, to the
stricken gaze of the spectators a truly awful sight was presented: about
twenty men more or less severely wounded by the two explosions lay on the
pavement, and amongst them was the emperor. Leaning his back against the
railing of the canal, without his cap or riding cloak, half sitting on
the footpath, was the monarch; he was covered with blood and breathing
with difficulty; the bare legs of the august martyr were both broken, the
blood flowed copiously from them, and his face was covered with blood.
The cap and cloak that had fallen from the emperor’s head and shoulders,
and of which there remained but blood-stained and burnt fragments, lay
beside him.

At the sight of such an unexpected, such an incredible disaster, not
only the uninjured, but also the sufferers from the explosion rushed
to the emperor’s help. Raising the wounded emperor, who was already
losing consciousness, the persons who surrounded him, with the grand
duke Michael, who had arrived on the spot, carried him to the sledge
of Colonel Dvorginski, who had been following the emperor’s equipage.
Leaning over the emperor’s shoulder, the grand duke inquired if he
heard, to which the emperor replied, “I hear,” and then in answer to the
question of how he felt the emperor said: “Quicker ... to the palace,”
and then as if answering the proposal to take him to the nearest house
to get help, the emperor said, “Take me to the palace to die ... there.”
These were the last words of the dying monarch, heard by an eye-witness
of the awful crime of the 13th of March. After this the emperor was
placed in Colonel Dvorginzki’s sledge and transported to the Winter
Palace. When the palace was reached the emperor was already unconscious,
and at 25 minutes of 4 o’clock Alexander II was no more.

The emperor Alexander II was great not only as the czar of a nation of
many millions, but by a life devoted to the welfare of his subjects;
he was great as the incarnation of goodness, love and clemency. The
autocratic monarch of one of the vastest empires of the world, this czar
was governed in all his actions by the dictates of his loving heart.
Showing himself a great example of self-sacrificing human love, he lived
only in order to exalt the land of Russia, to alleviate the necessities
and consolidate the welfare of his people.[d]


FOOTNOTES

[69] [A district containing several villages.]




[Illustration]




CHAPTER XIII. REACTION, EXPANSION, AND THE WAR WITH JAPAN


[Sidenote: [1881-1904 A.D.]]

In the history of Russia the period extending from 1882 to 1902 was much
less eventful than the thirty years immediately preceding. The reign of
Alexander II had been a time of important administrative reforms and
of great economic, social, and intellectual changes in the life of the
nation. Serfage had been abolished, the emancipated peasantry had been
made communal proprietors of the soil, a democratic system of rural and
municipal self-government for local affairs had been introduced, the
tribunals of all degrees had been radically reorganised, means had been
taken for developing more energetically the vast natural resources of
the country, public instruction had received an unprecedented impetus, a
considerable amount of liberty had been accorded to the press, a liberal
spirit had been suddenly evoked and had spread rapidly among all sections
of the educated classes, a new imaginative and critical literature
dealing largely with economic, philosophical, and social questions
had sprung into existence, and for a time the young generation fondly
imagined that Russia, awakening from her traditional lethargy, was about
to overtake, and soon to surpass, on the paths of national progress, the
more advanced nations of western Europe.

These sanguine expectations were not fully realised. The economic and
moral condition of the peasantry was not much improved, and in many
districts there were signs of positive impoverishment and demoralisation.
Local self-government, after a short period of feverish and not always
well-directed activity, showed symptoms of organic exhaustion. The
reformed tribunals, though incomparably better than their predecessors,
did not give universal satisfaction. In the imperial administration the
corruption and long-established abuses which had momentarily vanished
began to reappear. Industrial enterprises did not always succeed.
Education produced many unforeseen and undesirable practical results.
The liberty of the press not unfrequently degenerated into license.
The liberal spirit, which had at first confined itself to demanding
feasible reforms, soon soared into the region of socialistic dreaming and
revolutionary projects.

In short, it became only too evident that there was no royal road to
national prosperity, and that Russia, like other nations, must be content
to advance slowly and laboriously along the rough path of painful
experience. In these circumstances sanguine enthusiasm naturally gave way
to despondency, and the reforming zeal of the government was replaced by
tendencies of a decidedly reactionary kind. Already in the last years
of the reign of Alexander II, these tendencies had found expression in
ukases and ministerial circulars, and zealous liberalism was more and
more discountenanced in the official world. Partly from a feeling of
despondency, and partly from a conviction that the country required
rest in order to judge the practical results of the reforms already
accomplished, the czar refrained from initiating any new legislation of
an important kind, and the government gave it to be understood that the
period of radical reforms was closed.

[Sidenote: [1881 A.D.]]

In the younger ranks of the educated classes this state of things
had produced much dissatisfaction, which soon found expression in
revolutionary agitation. At first the agitation was of an academic
character, and was dealt with by the press censure, but it gradually
took the form of secret associations, and the police had to interfere.
There were no great, well-organised secret societies, but there were
many small groups, composed chiefly of male and female students of the
universities and technical schools, which worked independently for a
common purpose. That purpose was the overthrow of the existing régime and
the reorganisation of society on collectivist principles. Finding that
the walls of autocracy could not be overturned by blasts of revolutionary
trumpets, the young enthusiasts determined to seek the support of the
masses, or, as they termed it, “to go in among the people” (_idti v
narod_). Under the guise of doctors, midwives, teachers, governesses,
factory hands, or common labourers, they sought to make proselytes among
the peasantry and the workmen in the industrial centres by revolutionary
pamphlets and oral explanations.

For a time the propaganda had very little success, because the uneducated
peasants and factory workers could not easily understand the phraseology
and principles of scientific socialism; but when the propagandists
descended to a lower platform and spread rumours that the czar had given
all the land to the peasants, and that the proprietors were preventing
his benevolent intentions from being carried into effect, there was a
serious danger of agrarian disturbances, and energetic measures were
adopted by the authorities. Wholesale arrests were made by the police,
and many of the accused were imprisoned or exiled to distant provinces,
some by the regular judicial procedure, and others by so-called
“administrative procedure,” without trial. The activity of the police
and the sufferings of the victims naturally produced intense excitement
and bitterness among those who escaped, and a secret body calling itself
the executive committee announced in its clandestinely printed organs
that those who distinguished themselves by endeavouring to suppress the
propaganda would be removed. A number of officials had been condemned to
death by this secret terrorist tribunal, and in some cases its sentences
were carried out. As these terrorist measures had quite the opposite of
the desired effect, repeated attempts had been made on the life of the
emperor. At last, on the 13th of March, 1881, the carefully-laid plans of
the conspirators, [as related in the last chapter], were successful.


THE REACTIONARY POLICY UNDER ALEXANDER III

Finding repressive police measures insufficient to suppress the
revolutionary movement, Alexander II had entertained the idea of giving
a certain satisfaction to moderate liberal opinion without restricting
his autocratic power. With this object in view he had appointed General
Loris-Melikov, who was credited with liberal views, minister of the
interior, and on the morning of his death he had signed a ukase creating
several commissions, composed of high official personages and eminent
private individuals, who should prepare reforms in various branches of
the administration.

His son and successor Alexander III (1881-94), who had never shown much
sympathy with liberalism in any form, entered frankly on a reactionary
policy, which was pursued consistently during the whole of his reign.
He could not, of course, undo the great reforms of his predecessor,
but he amended them in such a way as to counteract what he considered
the exaggerations of liberalism. Local self-government in the village
communes, the rural districts, and the towns was carefully restricted,
and placed to a greater extent under the control of the regular officials.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER III

(1845-1894)]

The reformers of the previous reign had endeavoured to make the
emancipated peasantry administratively and economically independent of
the landed proprietors; the conservatives of this later era, proceeding
on the assumption that the peasants did not know how to make a proper
use of the liberty prematurely conferred upon them, endeavoured to
re-establish the influence of the landed proprietors by appointing from
amongst them “land-chiefs,” who were to exercise over the peasants
of their district a certain amount of patriarchal jurisdiction. The
reformers of the previous reign had sought to make the new local
administration (_zemstvo_) a system of genuine rural self-government and
a basis for future parliamentary institutions; these later conservatives
transformed it into a mere branch of the ordinary state administration,
and took precautions against its ever assuming a political character.
Even municipal institutions, which had never shown much vitality, were
subjected to similar restrictions. In short, the various forms of local
self-government, which were intended to raise the nation gradually to the
higher political level of western Europe, were condemned as unsuited to
the national character and traditions, and as productive of disorder and
demoralisation. They were accordingly replaced in great measure by the
old autocratic methods of administration, and much of the administrative
corruption which had been cured, or at least repressed, by the reform
enthusiasm again flourished luxuriantly.

In a small but influential section of the educated classes there was
a conviction that the revolutionary tendencies, which culminated in
nihilism and anarchism, proceeded from the adoption of cosmopolitan
rather than national principles in all spheres of educational and
administrative activity, and that the best remedy for the evils from
which the country was suffering was to be found in a return to the three
great principles of nationality, orthodoxy, and autocracy. This doctrine,
which had been invented by the Slavophils of a previous generation, was
early instilled into the mind of Alexander III by Pobiedonostsev, who
was one of his teachers, and later his most trusted adviser, and its
influence can be traced in all the more important acts of the government
during that monarch’s reign. His determination to maintain autocracy was
officially proclaimed a few days after his accession. Nationality and
eastern orthodoxy, which are so closely connected as to be almost blended
together in the Russian mind, received not less attention.


THE RUSSIFICATION OF THE PROVINCES.

Even in European Russia the regions near the frontier contain a
great variety of nationalities, languages, and religions. In Finland
the population is composed of Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking
Protestants; the Baltic provinces are inhabited by German-speaking,
Lett-speaking, and Esth-speaking Lutherans; the inhabitants of the
southwestern provinces are chiefly Polish-speaking Roman Catholics and
Yiddish-speaking Jews; in the Crimea and on the middle Volga there are a
considerable number of Tatar-speaking Mohammedans; and in the Caucasus
there is a conglomeration of races and languages such as is to be found
on no other portion of the earth’s surface. Until recent times these
various nationalities were allowed to retain unmolested the language,
religion, and peculiar local administration of their ancestors, but when
the new nationality doctrine came into fashion attempts were made to
spread among them the language, religion, and administrative institutions
of the dominant race. In the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II
these attempts were merely occasional and intermittent; under Alexander
III they were made systematically and with very little consideration
for the feelings, wishes, and interests of the people concerned. The
local institutions were assimilated to those of the purely Russian
provinces; the use of the Russian language was made obligatory in the
administration, in the tribunals, and to some extent in the schools;
the spread of eastern orthodoxy was encouraged by the authorities,
whilst the other confessions were placed under severe restrictions;
foreigners were prohibited from possessing landed property, and in some
provinces administrative measures were taken for making the land pass
into the hands of orthodox Russians. In this process some of the local
officials displayed probably an amount of zeal beyond the intentions of
the government, but any attempt to oppose the movement was rigorously
punished.

Of all the various races the Jews were the most severely treated.
The great majority of them had long been confined to the western and
southwestern provinces. In the rest of the country they had not been
allowed to reside in the villages, because their habits of keeping
vodka-shops and lending money at usurious interest were found to
demoralise the peasantry, and even in the towns their number and
occupations had been restricted by the authorities. But, partly from the
usual laxity of the administration and partly from the readiness of the
Jews to conciliate the needy officials, the rules had been by no means
strictly applied. As soon as this fact became known to Alexander III he
ordered the rules to be strictly carried out, without considering what an
enormous amount of hardship and suffering such an order entailed. He also
caused new rules to be enacted by which his Jewish subjects were heavily
handicapped in education and professional advancement. In short, complete
russification of all non-Russian populations and institutions was the
chief aim of the government in home affairs.


FOREIGN POLICY; THE FRENCH ALLIANCE

In the foreign policy of the empire Alexander III likewise introduced
considerable changes. During his father’s reign its main objects were: in
the west, the maintenance of the alliance with Germany; in southeastern
Europe, the recovery of what had been lost by the Crimean war, the
gradual weakening of the sultan’s authority, and the increase of Russian
influence among the minor slav nationalities; in Asia, the gradual but
cautious expansion of Russian domination. In the reign of Alexander III
the first of these objects was abandoned. Already, before his accession,
the bonds of friendship which united Russia to Germany had been weakened
by the action of Bismarck in giving to the cabinet of St. Petersburg at
the Berlin congress less diplomatic support than was expected, and by the
Austro-German treaty of alliance (October, 1879), concluded avowedly for
the purpose of opposing Russian aggression; but the old relations were
partly re-established by secret negotiations in 1880, by a meeting of the
young czar and the old emperor at Dantzic in 1881, and by the meeting of
the three emperors at Skiernewice in 1884, by which the Three Emperors’
League was reconstituted for a term of three years.

Gradually, however, a great change took place in the czar’s views with
regard to the German alliance. He suspected Bismarck of harbouring
hostile designs against Russia, and he came to recognise that the
permanent weakening of France was not in accordance with Russian
political interests. He determined, therefore, to oppose any further
disturbance of the balance of power in favour of Germany, and when the
treaty of Skiernewice expired in 1887, he declined to renew it. From that
time Russia gravitated slowly towards an alliance with France, and sought
to create a counterpoise against the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria,
and Italy. The czar was reluctant to bind himself by a formal treaty,
because the French government did not offer the requisite guarantees
of stability, and because he feared that it might be induced, by the
prospects of Russian support, to assume an aggressive attitude towards
Germany. He recognised, however, that in the event of a great European
war the two nations would in all probability be found fighting on the
same side, and that if they made no preparations for concerted military
action they would be placed at a grave disadvantage in comparison with
their opponents of the Triple Alliance, who were believed to have already
worked out an elaborate plan of campaign. In view of this contingency the
Russian and French military authorities studied the military questions
in common, and the result of their labours was the preparation of a
military convention, which was finally ratified in 1894. During this
period the relations between the two governments and the two countries
became much more cordial. In the summer of 1891 the visit to Kronstad
of a French squadron under Admiral Gervais was made the occasion for an
enthusiastic demonstration in favour of a Franco-Russian alliance; and
two years later (October, 1893) a still more enthusiastic reception was
given to the Russian admiral Avelan and his officers when they visited
Toulon and Paris. But it was not till after the death of Alexander III
that the word “alliance” was used publicly by official personages. In
1895 the term was first publicly employed by Ribot, then president of the
council, in the chamber of deputies, but the expressions he used were so
vague that they did not entirely remove the prevailing doubts as to the
existence of a formal treaty. Two years later (August, 1897), during the
official visit of President Félix Faure to St. Petersburg, a little more
light was thrown on the subject. In the complimentary speeches delivered
by the president of the French Republic and the czar, France and Russia
were referred to as allies, and the term _nations alliées_ was afterwards
repeatedly used on occasions of a similar kind.

In southeastern Europe Alexander III adopted an attitude of reserve and
expectancy. He greatly increased and strengthened his Black Sea fleet,
so as to be ready for any emergency that might arise, and in June, 1886,
contrary to the declaration made in the Treaty of Berlin (Article 59),
he ordered Batum to be transformed into a fortified naval port, but in
the Balkan Peninsula he persistently refrained, under a good deal of
provocation, from any intervention that might lead to a European war.
The Bulgarian government, first under Prince Alexander and afterwards
under the direction of Stambolov, pursued systematically an anti-Russian
policy, but the cabinet of St. Petersburg confined itself officially to
breaking off diplomatic relations and making diplomatic protests, and
unofficially to giving tacit encouragement to revolutionary agitation.
In Asia, during the reign of Alexander III, the expansion of Russian
domination made considerable progress.[b]


THE CONQUEST OF THE TEKKE-TURCOMANS (1877-1881 A.D.)

Transcaspia is the official name given to the territory east of the
Caspian which was annexed by Russia in 1881 shortly after the accession
of Alexander III. The country was inhabited by the Turcomans--a branch of
the Turkish race--who have been identified with the old Parthians. They
were a brave but wild and lawless people, bands of whom would frequently
sweep down upon a peaceful village, kill the men, and carry off the
women and children to be sold as slaves in Bokhara and Khiva. Whole
villages were sometimes wiped out in this way. The marauding raids of the
Turcomans were a constant menace to the northern frontier of Persia and
we frequently find the Persians engaged in war with them. The great Nadir
Shah was himself a Turcoman. In 1861 the Persians had made a final attack
on the Turcomans or Tekkes, as they are commonly called, and defeated
them.

The Russian conquest of the Central Asian khanates, however, materially
altered the situation of these nomadic robbers; they could no longer sell
slaves in Bokhara, as the Russian laws forbade slavery, neither could
they carry on their depredations in lands guarded by the Russians, hence
they turned to Persia and offered her their allegiance in return for her
support against these civilised intruders. But they were now a serious
obstacle in the way of these same Russians. Caravans from Bokhara and
the East, to reach the Caspian, had to cross the Turcoman desert or else
make a long detour to the north, and these plundering tribes seriously
interfered with commerce.

In 1877 General Lomakin was sent against the Tekkes, but the
Russo-Turkish war intervened before he had accomplished anything. In 1878
Lomakin attacked Dengil Teppe, was defeated by the Tekkes, and forced to
retreat. The natives were greatly encouraged by this victory, their raids
increased, and they tried to stir up the Bokharans and Khivans to revolt.
The Russians now undertook more vigorous measures. General Skobelev was
put in charge of the campaign, a portable railway was started from the
shores of the Caspian towards the Amu Daria, a large force of artillery
was conveyed to the front, and a water distillery--of the greatest
service in this waterless region--was established at Krasnovodsk. Colonel
Kuropatkin, who had been on Skobelev’s staff in the Russo-Turkish war,
came by forced marches to assist his former chief.

The Turcomans were intrenched in three camps--Yangi Kala, Dangil Teppe,
and Geok Teppe. The Russians began the main attack on January 1st, 1881,
charging first upon Yangi Kala. The Tekkes fought with the greatest
bravery, but the Russian artillery forced them to evacuate. The Turcoman
sorties were made usually a little after sunset and the attacks were
exceedingly fierce. The Tekkes had their wives and children in camp
with them, huddled in their felt tents, and their sufferings under the
continual artillery fire must have been terrible. Finally upon January
24th, after three weeks of fighting, the Russians were successful, the
Tekkes were routed with great loss to both Russians and Turcomans. There
are different estimates given as the total number killed.

[Illustration: CATHEDRAL OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL]

Beveridge’s[c] figures, given below, cannot be far from right. He uses
this siege to illustrate the Russian method of conquest. Their method,
he says, “is to wage war while war exists and to employ the methods of
peace only when war is over. Skobelev at Geok Teppe refused to accept
the surrender of the heroic Tekkes who had terrorised Central Asia for
centuries, and he slaughtered more than twenty thousand men, women and
children in twenty days. It seemed quite terrible and was as terrible
as it seemed; but it is hard to see that it is much worse to destroy
20,000 men, women, and children and secure peace for all time than it
is to kill that number during twenty years and in the process increase
the irritation, the disorder, and the feud. For from the red day of
Geok Teppe to this hour, order, law, safety to travellers, security of
commerce and all other things which help to make up civilisation have
existed in Central Asia, as firmly guarded as they are in the United
States. War is bad under any circumstances, but if it must be it should
be thorough, that it may be brief and not fruitless.”

[Sidenote: [1885-1894 A.D.]]

After calling attention to the efficacy of this method in Manchuria
during the Boxer movement, the author continues: “It is worth the
attention of all men that when Russia has once inflicted her punishment
there has seldom been any recurrence of insurrection. Where Russian law
and order and system have been established they have remained, upheld not
by the bayonets of the soldiers who established them, but by the hands
of the very people among whom and against whose resistance they were
planted. Among all the defects of Russian civilisation, its virtues are
striking and elemental, and one of the chief of them is stability.”

The country of the Turcomans thus conquered was annexed to the Russian
Empire, the final annexation of Merv taking place in 1884.[a] Alexander
III then allowed the military authorities to push forward in the
direction of Afghanistan, until in March, 1885, an engagement took place
between Russian and Afghan forces at Penjdeh. Thereupon the British
government, which had been for some time carrying on negotiations with
the cabinet of St. Petersburg for a delimitation of the Russo-Afghan
frontier, intervened energetically and prepared for war; but a compromise
was effected, and after more than two years of negotiation a delimitation
convention was signed at St. Petersburg on July 20th, 1887. The forward
movement of Russia was thus stopped in the direction of Herat, but it
continued with great activity farther east in the region of the Pamir,
until another Anglo-Russian convention was signed in 1895. During the
whole reign of Alexander III the increase of territory in central Asia is
calculated by Russian authorities at 429,895 square kilometres.


ACCESSION OF NICHOLAS II (1894 A.D.)

On November 1st, 1894, Alexander III died, and was succeeded by his
son, Nicholas II, who, partly from similarity of character and partly
from veneration for his father’s memory, continued the existing lines
of policy in home and foreign affairs. The expectation entertained in
many quarters that great legislative changes would at once be made in a
liberal sense was not realised. When an influential deputation from the
province of Tver, which had long enjoyed a reputation for liberalism,
ventured to hint in a loyal address that the time had come for changes
in the existing autocratic régime they received a reply which showed
that the emperor had no intention of making any such changes. Private
suggestions in the same sense, offered directly and respectfully, were no
better received and no important changes were made in the legislation of
the preceding reign. But a great alteration took place noiselessly in the
manner of carrying out the laws and ministerial circulars.

Though resembling his father in the main points of his character, the
young czar was of a more humane disposition, and he was much less of
a doctrinaire. With his father’s aspiration of making holy Russia a
homogeneous empire he thoroughly sympathised in principle, but he
disliked the systematic persecution of Jews, heretics, and schismatics
to which it gave rise, and he let it be understood, without any formal
order or proclamation, that the severe measures hitherto employed would
not meet with his approval. The officials were not slow to take the hint,
and their undue zeal at once disappeared. Nicholas II showed, however,
that his father’s policy of russification was neither to be reversed nor
to be abandoned. When an influential deputation was sent from Finland
to St. Petersburg to represent to him respectfully that the officials
were infringing the local rights and privileges solemnly accorded at
the time of the annexation, it was refused an audience, and the leaders
of the movement were informed indirectly that local interests must be
subordinated to the general welfare of the empire. In accordance with
this declaration, the policy of russification in Finland was steadily
maintained and caused much disappointment, not only to the Finlanders,
but also to the other nationalities who desired the preservation of their
ancient rights.

[Sidenote: [1895-1896 A.D.]]

In foreign affairs Nicholas II likewise continued the policy of his
predecessor, with certain modifications suggested by the change of
circumstances. He strengthened the cordial understanding with France by
a formal agreement, the terms of which were not divulged, but he never
encouraged the French government in any aggressive designs, and he
maintained friendly relations with Germany. In the Balkan Peninsula a
slight change of attitude took place. Alexander III, indignant at what
he considered the ingratitude of the Slav nationalities, remained coldly
aloof, as far as possible, from all intervention in their affairs. About
three months after his death, De Giers, who thoroughly approved of this
attitude, died (January 26th, 1895), and his successor, Prince Lobanov,
minister of foreign affairs from March 19th, 1895, to August 30th, 1896,
endeavoured to recover what he considered Russia’s legitimate influence
in the Slav world.

[Illustration: COUNT LYEFF TOLSTOI

(1828-)]

For this purpose Russian diplomacy became more active in southeastern
Europe. The result was perceived first in Montenegro and Servia, and
then in Bulgaria. Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria had long been anxious
to legalise his position by a reconciliation, and as soon as he got
rid of Stambulov he made advances to the Russian government. They were
well received, and a reconciliation was effected on certain conditions,
the first of which was that Prince Ferdinand’s eldest son and heir
should become a member of the Eastern orthodox church. As another means
of opposing Western influence in southeastern Europe, Prince Lobanov
inclined to the policy of protecting rather than weakening the Ottoman
empire. When the British government seemed disposed to use coercive
measures for the protection of the Armenians, he gave it clearly to be
understood that any such proceeding would be opposed by Russia.

[Sidenote: [1897 A.D.]]

After Prince Lobanov’s death and the appointment of Count Muraviev as
his successor in January, 1897, this tendency of Russian policy became
less marked. In April, 1897, it is true, when the Greeks provoked a
war with Turkey, they received no support from St. Petersburg, but at
the close of the war the czar showed himself more friendly to them;
and afterwards, when it proved extremely difficult to find a suitable
person as governor-general of Crete he recommended the appointment of
his cousin, Prince George of Greece--a selection which was pretty sure
to accelerate the union of the island with the Hellenic kingdom. How far
the recommendation was due to personal feeling, as opposed to political
considerations, it is impossible to say.

In Asia, after the accession of Nicholas II the expansion of Russia,
following the line of least resistance and stimulated by the construction
of the Siberian railway, was effected at the expense of China. As a
necessary basis for a strong foreign policy the army was systematically
strengthened. At one moment the schemes for military reorganisation
involved such an enormous expenditure that the czar conceived the idea of
an agreement among the great powers to arrest the increase of national
armaments. The idea was communicated to the powers somewhat abruptly by
Count Muraviev, Prince Lobanov’s successor in the direction of foreign
affairs, and an international conference was held at the Hague to discuss
the subject; but it had very little practical result, and certainly did
not attain the primary object in view. [Its final act is given in the
appendix to this volume.]

A sketch of the recent history of Russia, however brief, would be
incomplete without some mention of the remarkable industrial progress
made during the period under consideration. Protected by high tariffs and
fostered by the introduction of foreign capital, Russian manufacturing
industry made enormous strides. By way of illustration a few figures may
be cited. In the space of ten years (1887-1897) the number of workers
employed in the various branches of industrial enterprise rose from
1,318,048 to 2,098,262. The consumption of cotton for spinning purposes,
which was only 117 million kilograms in 1886, was 257 millions in 1898,
and the number of spindles, according to the weekly journal _Russia_ of
August 2nd, 1902, was estimated at that date at 6,970,000. Thanks chiefly
to this growth of the cotton industry, the town of Lódz, which was little
more than a big village in 1875, has now a population of over 300,000.
The iron, steel, and petroleum industries have likewise made enormous
progress. Between 1892 and 1900 the estimated value of metallic articles
manufactured in the country rose from 142 millions to 276 millions of
rubles. As is generally the case in such circumstances, protection led to
temporary over-production, which brought about a financial and economic
crisis; but if we may accept certain figures given by Henry Norman,[d]
the crisis could not have been very severe, for he states that “no fewer
than 580 companies declared a dividend during the first nine months of
1901, their total nominal capital being £105,000,000, and the average
dividend no less than 10.1 per cent.” Much of this progress is due to the
intelligence and energy of M. Witte, minister of finance.[b]


KUROPATKIN ON THE RUSSIAN POLICY OF EXPANSION

In connection with the Russian advance in Asia with its climax in the war
with Japan, it may be interesting to notice an address made by General
Kuropatkin to a party of English tourists at Askabad in November, 1897.
Its protestations of peaceful intent will come as a surprise to many who
have seen in the Russian advance only an insatiable land-hunger. General
Kuropatkin, whose fortune it was seven years later to command the Russian
army in the war with Japan, said in part, as quoted in a recent work:[a]

[Illustration: A RUSSIAN CHILD]

“The policy of our government in Central Asia, since the accession of the
late czar, has been eminently one of peace; and recourse has never been
had to arms until every other means of gaining a given object had failed.
The principles which govern the policy of Russia are very simple. They
are the maintenance of peace, of order, and of prosperity in all classes
of the population. The means employed to compass these ends are equally
free from complexity. Those who fill responsible positions are expressly
informed by our government that the assumption of sovereignty over alien
nationalities must not be attempted without very serious deliberation,
inasmuch as such become, on annexation, Russian subjects, children of
the czar, and invested with every privilege enjoyed by citizens of the
empire. His majesty has enjoined on his representatives, as their first
duty, a fatherly care of his Asiatic subjects. In order to prevent the
possibility of internal discord, we have disarmed the natives, and no
pains have been spared to induce them to adopt peaceful pursuits. The
fruits of this action are already visible. A solitary traveller can now
cross central Asia, from the Caspian to the Siberian frontier, without
incurring the smallest risk of attack.

“We may boast with perfect truth that the thirty-five years during which
central Asia has enjoyed the blessings of a firm and civilised rule,
have been years of sustained progress, of daily-increasing strength in
bonds of attachment and good-will, which unite these subject peoples to
the inhabitants of other Russian provinces. Between 1885 and 1888 we
established a stable and logical frontier with the aid of Great Britain;
and in the twelve years which have since elapsed there have been no
expeditions throughout its length of 600 miles bordering on Persia,
and 400 on Afghanistan. The latter country contains much inflammable
material, but we have taken every means in our power to ensure that the
internal disorders of that state shall not react on our frontier. So
scrupulous is our regard for the _status quo_, that whole tribes have
cast themselves on our protection in vain.

“Piruzkuhis, Khezaris, and Jamshidis have crossed our borders in troops
of as many as 1,000 families, but we have always repatriated such
refugees. There have been similar cases in our dealings with Persian
subjects. Turkestan proper has been free from war since the occupation
of Farghana--twenty-one years ago. The Bokhara frontier has remained
intact since the capture of Samarkand in 1868. The last complication on
the Persian border dates from 1829--nearly 70 years ago. Throughout our
frontier conterminous with China we have had no disturbance for more
than a century. I am led to mention these significant facts in order to
show that our policy in Asia is essentially a peaceful one, and that we
are perfectly satisfied with our present boundaries. And I may claim
to speak with authority, apart from my official position, for I have
been personally concerned in all our important military and political
movements in Central Asia since 1868, when, only twenty, I took part in
storming Samarkand.”[e]


RUSSIA IN MANCHURIA

[Sidenote: [1900-1902 A.D.]]

Russian advance in the Far East has been going on so steadily and so
quietly that few realise to what an extent northeastern Asia is becoming
russianised. Russian ships are seen in Chinese and Japanese harbours,
Russian banks are found on Chinese territory, Russian railways are
connecting those remote parts of the world with Europe, and, most
important of all, Russian peasants are being landed in the Far East. The
russification movement is especially active in Manchuria, which province
has become prominent in the last few years. Although on a map of Asia
Manchuria does not look very large, it covers nearly as much space as
France and Germany together. Beveridge[c] recently said of it: “It is
an empire more favourably situated as to its climatic conditions than
any part of Asia. It is in the same latitude as southern Canada and the
northern portion of the United States. Its northern limits are about the
same as the northern limits of Quebec. Its southern limits are about the
same as the southern limits of Maryland. It is bounded on the north by
the richest portions of Siberia, which not many years ago was itself a
part of the dominion of the Manchus; for several hundred miles on the
east by the grain-fields of the Ussuri district of Russian Siberia, also
until recently a part of the Chinese Empire; on the east and south by
Korea, over which the world’s next great war will probably be fought,
and soon; on the west by Mongolia, and on the south by Korea, China, and
the gulfs and extensions of the Yellow Sea, which touches or commands
much of that empire. On these gulfs are two of the finest military and
commercial ports of Asia, or the world--Port Arthur and Talienwan, or, as
the Russians call it, Dalny.”

Russian designs upon Manchuria first became prominent after the
Chino-Japanese war when Russia objected to Japan’s acquiring any
territory in that quarter. During the Boxer uprising in 1900 Russian
troops overran Manchuria and in a convention concluded between Russia and
China at the end of the movement, the civil and military administration
of the province was placed practically under the control of Russia. Owing
to objections on the part of the other powers, however, Russia withdrew
this convention and another was signed in place of it on April 8th, 1902.
According to this Manchuria was to remain “an integral portion of the
Chinese Empire”; China pledged herself to protect the railway and all
Russian subjects and their enterprises in Manchuria, while Russia for
her part agreed to withdraw her troops gradually. This agreement on the
part of Russia remained a promise only. In the meanwhile Manchuria was
rapidly becoming russianised. The important cities along the railway
such as New-Chwang, Mukden, Liauyang and Kirin became centres of Russian
forces. Russian immigrants built and inhabited whole towns laid out like
European cities with all modern improvements. Harbin, which in 1897 was a
collection of mud huts, became a Russian city and a centre of Manchurian
trade.


THE WAR WITH JAPAN

[Sidenote: [1903-1904 A.D.]]

Russia’s policy in the Far East was the cause of friction with England
and the United States, and especially with Japan; relations with the
latter becoming more and more strained until they finally led to a
war which broke out in February, 1904. In April of the preceding year
Russia’s representative at Peking presented certain demands to the
Chinese government which virtually excluded all foreigners--except
Russians--from Manchuria, and were a plain violation of the principle
of the “open door” which Russia had pledged herself to maintain in
that province. Owing to the opposition of the United States and Japan,
however, most of these demands were withdrawn and permission was granted
to open two Manchurian ports, although this was not carried out. In
Korea also Russia opposed Japan, refusing to allow her to open the port
of Wi-ju to foreign trade, and objecting to a Japanese telegraph from
Seul to Fusan, although Russia herself laid a telegraph line on Korean
territory.

In August, 1903, Russia took the important step of establishing a
special vice-royalty in the Amur provinces which had been leased to her
in the Liao-tung peninsula. Vice-admiral Alexiev was appointed as first
Russian viceroy of the Far East, and was invested with civil and military
authority which made him to a great extent independent of St. Petersburg.

In September the Russian ambassador at Peking had announced that
New-Chwang and Mukden would be evacuated on October 8th, but that date
passed and Russian troops were still there, while Russia continued to
strengthen her army and navy in the Far East. Japan demanded that Russia
should evacuate Manchuria in agreement with her promises and that she
should discontinue her aggressive attitude in Korea.

Russia’s answers to Japan’s repeated demands were evasive, and on January
8th, 1904, Japan sent a final note to Russia and, receiving no reply,
withdrew her minister and legation from St. Petersburg on February 6th,
1904. On February 7th both governments issued statements announcing the
severance of diplomatic relations. On February 8th the main Japanese
fleet, under Vice-admiral Togo, opened the war by surprising the Russian
fleet at Port Arthur in a state of unpreparedness, and inflicting much
damage.

The attack was repeated on the following day with a repetition of the
result of the first day’s assault. On the same day Admiral Uriu and a
small Japanese squadron attacked and destroyed two Russian cruisers in
the harbour of Chemulpo. Thus at the very outset the Japanese had secured
a decided advantage over their opponents on the sea. At once the cry
arose in Russia that Japan, by not giving official notice of the proposed
attack had violated international law, but neutral nations generally
saw in Russia’s complaint only an attempt to excuse her defeats, and
held that the severing of diplomatic relations was warning enough. Still
that the Russians were not entirely crippled was shown by the fact that
within a fortnight their squadron of four cruisers at Vladivostok cut its
way out of the ice, which was supposed to hold it captive, and harried
the Japanese coast. But this danger did not hinder the transportation of
Japanese troops to Korea, which began on February 18th. The following
month saw a continuation of Japanese successes and of Russian losses.
Several times Admiral Togo attacked Port Arthur, at one time or another
almost all of the Russian ships of war sustaining more or less serious
damage. Vladivostok was bombarded, and a succession of minor engagements
took place between the outposts of the two opposing armies advancing
toward one another from opposite sides of the Yalu river. On February
24th Admiral Togo made an unsuccessful attempt to “bottle up” the Russian
fleet in the harbour of Port Arthur by sinking five old steam-ships in
the channel. Early in March, General Kuropatkin, the Russian minister
of war, was appointed by the czar to the supreme command of the Russian
armies in Manchuria to succeed Viceroy Alexiev and Admiral Makarov was
at the same time appointed to the command of the fleet. By the end of
the month the Japanese had, on the Manchurian border, in Korea, with
which country they had concluded a close alliance, a force estimated at
eighty thousand, with a base at Ping Yang. This was faced by a Russian
force, slightly smaller, but increased daily by reinforcements which kept
arriving in a continuous stream over the Trans-Siberian and Manchurian
railways. The Japanese successes appeared well nigh to stupefy Russia,
and the demoralisation of the czar’s official advisers seemed complete.
Beside the loss of General Kuropatkin, who was succeeded as minister of
war by General Sakarov, both Count Lamsdorf, minister of foreign affairs,
and M. Witte, the finance minister, retired from the cabinet. On April
13th, the Russian battle-ship _Petropavlovsk_ struck a mine or floating
torpedo near the entrance to Port Arthur harbour and sank with all on
board, including Admiral Makarov and the war artist Vereshchagin.

During the succeeding month war operations of importance or interest were
confined to the land. By the first of May the principal points in the
Japanese military programme had unfolded themselves. The absolute command
of the sea and coast, thus assuring ease and safety in the transportation
of troops and munitions of war, had been secured, and an efficient and
formidable army had been landed on the Asiatic mainland. Korea too had
been thoroughly occupied. The Japanese army, in the last days of April,
began its forward movement under General Kuroki, the purpose being
to cross the Yalu at several points and drive the Russians back into
Manchuria.

On May 1st, after a six days fight on the Yalu near Wi-ju, the Japanese
won their first land victory, and secured a firm footing on the
Manchurian side of the Yalu. During the month of May Kuroki continued
his advance into the interior, but his progress was slow owing to the
difficulty in maintaining communication with the coast and constant
skirmishing with the Cossacks who opposed his advance guard. Kuropatkin
meanwhile proceeded to concentrate his forces at Liauyang on the
Manchurian Railway south of Harbin, with the apparent intention of
leaving Port Arthur to its fate.

It was about the latter place that the activity now centred and against
it a second Japanese army under General Oku advanced. On May 25th Oku
landed a force of some forty thousand men near Kin-chau on the narrowest
point of the Liao-tung peninsula. At this point the Nan-shan hills
extending from Kin-chau, on the western side of the isthmus toward Dalny
on the east afforded the Russians an excellent opportunity for defence
and here they had constructed a strong line of fortifications, mounted a
large number of guns and manned them with the flower of the Port Arthur
army. After a series of tentative attacks, Oku made a grand assault under
cover of fire from warships in the harbour of Kin-chau. In the charge up
the heights he lost over 4,000 men, but drove out the Russians, who lost
2,000 men and 78 cannon. Two days later the Japanese occupied Russia’s
great commercial port, Dalny, finding the docks, piers, and railway yards
uninjured. It was thenceforward the Japanese base.

[Sidenote: [1904-1905 A.D.]]

Port Arthur was now left to its fate, save for the single effort of
General Stakelberg who was detached with 40,000 men to make a dash
southward, but was defeated by Oku at Telissu (Vofangow), eighty miles
north of Port Arthur (June 14-16), and by Kuroki. He made his escape,
having lost some 10,000 men on his vain foray.

Kuropatkin’s tactics were Fabian and his eventual reliance was the
reinforcements which the Siberian railway poured in as fast as possible.
The Japanese forced the attack. Marshal Oyama was in charge of the armies
opposed to Kuropatkin, his subordinates being Nodzu and the brilliant
Kuroki. General Oku also joined Oyama, the Port Arthur siege being
placed in the command of General Nogi. June 26-27 the Japanese took the
well-nigh impregnable position at Fen-shiu-ling pass. Shortly after
Kuroki took the important pass of Motien-ling. On July 17 General Count
Keller made a desperate effort to recapture it, but was repulsed with
heavy loss. July 24 Oku took Tashichiao and forced the Russians back to
the walled city of Hai-cheng. July 29 Kuroki took the Yangtse pass, in
whose defence General Keller was killed. Oku having turned his right
flank, Kuropatkin was forced to evacuate Hai-cheng and retreat to his
base at Liauyang. He was also compelled to give up the important city of
New-Chwang.

The capture of Liauyang was a great problem. The Japanese were not ready
to open battle till August 24, when they began a twelve days’ combat
which takes a permanent place as one of the largest and fiercest battles
in history. The Russians were estimated at 200,000; the Japanese at
240,000. The Japanese confessed a loss of 25,000; the Russian loss was
perhaps still greater, as they were defeated and escaped capture or
annihilation only by Kuropatkin’s ingenuity in retreat.

The Russians retired to Mukden. October 2nd Kuropatkin felt strong enough
to take the offensive, and assailed Oyama on the river Shakhe or the
Sha-ho. A series of battles followed, lasting till October 18, when the
Russians fell back again to Mukden, after a loss of 45,000 men killed and
wounded, according to a Russian staff report. Oyama claimed to have found
13,300 Russians dead on the field, and admitted a loss of 15,800 on his
own side.

Meanwhile Port Arthur was undergoing one of the most important sieges in
history. The siege began on May 26th, when Nan-shan hill was taken and
Dalny occupied, though on August 12th the last of the outlying defences
was taken and the Japanese sat down before the permanent works. They
combined a patient and scientific process of sapping, trenching and
tunnelling, with a series of six grand assaults. The collaboration of
such skill with such reckless heroism had its inevitable result. The
garrison under General Stoessel held out with splendid courage against an
army totalling perhaps 100,000, but the gradual exhaustion of ammunition,
food, and strength, together with the appearance of scurvy, compelled a
surrender. January 3rd, 1905, the Japanese took possession, finding 878
officers, 23,491 men, besides several thousand non-combatants.

The fleet which had made several efforts to escape had been reduced by
loss after loss, and finally, on the capture of 203 Metre Hill, had been
subjected to the fire of the land artillery and completely destroyed.

During the leaguer of Port Arthur and the gradual beating back of
Kuropatkin, other Russian activities kept diplomacy busy. The seizure of
neutral ships in the Red Sea by two vessels that passed the Dardanelles
as merchantmen and then equipped as cruisers, provoked such indignation
in England and Germany that the seizures were discontinued. The
Vladivostok squadron made daring raids upon Japanese and neutral vessels,
but after a long pursuit was caught by Admiral Kamimura, who sank the
Ruric and crippled the other two cruisers.

Much talk was made of sending the powerful Baltic fleet to the aid of
Port Arthur under the command of Admiral Rojestvensky. It set forth
in October after infinite delays. On the night of the 21st, while in
the North Sea, off the Dogger Bank, it met a fleet of British fishing
smacks and fired on it, sinking one boat and killing two fishermen. The
indignation of the English people was intense, an inquiry was demanded,
during the progress of which the Baltic fleet continued on its long
voyage.

The internal condition of Russia was rendered critical by the war, and
by profound commercial distress. June 15th the Governor-General over
Finland, Bobrikov, was assassinated by an opponent of the russification
policy. On July 29th the Czar’s minister of the interior, Von Plehve, was
slain by a bomb thrown at his carriage. Rightly or wrongly, Von Plehve
was considered the special author and adviser of the increasing vigour
and tyranny of the czar’s internal administration. Jews abhorred him as
the man responsible for the Kishinev massacres, and the Finns looked upon
him as the destroyer of their national institutions. He was succeeded
by Prince Peter Sviatopolk-Mirsky, a man of comparatively liberal and
progressive views.

This gave some encouragement to the zemstvos, the farthest step toward
representative government yet taken in Russia. They date only from the
czar’s ukase of January, 1864. Each of the districts in which Russia is
divided is represented by an assembly, elected by the three estates,
communes, municipalities, and landowners. Each district assembly in a
province sends delegates to a general provincial assembly or zemstvo,
which body controls the roads, primary schools, etc. Alexander II meant
that these zemstvos should acquire large power, but after his death they
fell under the sway of provincial governors. November 21st, 1904, the
zemstvos lifted their heads again, and their presidents met in a congress
which, by a majority of 105 to 3, voted to beg the czar to grant Russia a
constitution and a genuine representative government.

The czar, with some asperity of tone, refused a constitution, and while
promising certain reforms, rebuked the zemstvos and forbade their further
discussion of such unsettling topics. Prince Sviatopolk-Mirsky now
resigned, declaring that Russia was on the brink of a great revolution,
and that the bureaucracy must be supplanted by “the freely elected
representatives of the people.” In January, 1905, Sergius de Witte
succeeded to the office of minister of the interior. One of the most
prominent European statesmen, a liberal, and an enemy of Von Plehve, his
first statements were nevertheless disappointing to the believers that
radical reforms alone can save Russia.




[Illustration]




APPENDIX. DOCUMENTS RELATING TO RUSSIAN HISTORY




I

TREATY OF PARIS


GENERAL TREATY BETWEEN THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND IRELAND, THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA, THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH, THE KING
OF PRUSSIA, THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA, THE KING OF SARDINIA, AND THE SULTAN

_Signed at Paris, March 30th, 1856. Ratifications exchanged at Paris,
April 27th_

Art. 1. From the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the present
treaty there shall be peace and friendship between her majesty the Queen
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, his majesty the
Emperor of the French, his majesty the King of Sardinia, his imperial
majesty the Sultan, on the one part, and his majesty the Emperor of
all the Russias, on the other part, as well as between their heirs and
successors, their respective dominions and subjects in perpetuity.

Art. 2. Peace being happily re-established between their said majesties,
the territories conquered or occupied by their armies during the war
shall be reciprocally evacuated.

Special arrangements shall regulate the mode of the evacuation, which
shall be as prompt as possible.

Art. 3. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias engages to restore
to his majesty the Sultan the town and citadel of Kars, as well as the
other parts of the Ottoman territory of which the Russian troops are in
possession.

Art. 4. Their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, the King of Sardinia, and the
Sultan, engage to restore to his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias
the towns and ports of Sebastopol, Balaklava, Kamiesch, Eupatoria,
Kertch, Yenikale, Kinburn, as well as all other territories occupied by
the allied troops.

Art. 5. Their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, the Emperor of all the
Russias, the King of Sardinia, and the Sultan, grant a full and entire
amnesty to those of their subjects who may have been compromised by any
participation whatsoever in the events of the war in favour of the cause
of the enemy.

It is expressly understood that such amnesty shall extend to the subjects
of each of the belligerent parties who may have continued during the war
to be employed in the service of one of the other belligerents.

Art. 6. Prisoners of war shall be immediately given up on either side.

Art. 7. Her majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, his majesty the Emperor of Austria, his majesty the Emperor of
the French, his majesty the King of Prussia, his majesty the Emperor
of all the Russias, and his majesty the King of Sardinia, declare the
Sublime Porte admitted to participate in the advantages of the public
law and system (_concert_) of Europe. Their majesties engage, each on
his part, to respect the independence and the territorial integrity of
the Ottoman empire; guarantee in common the strict observance of that
engagement; and will, in consequence, consider any act tending to its
violation as a question of general interest.

Art. 8. If there should arise between the Sublime Porte and one or more
of the other signing powers any misunderstanding which might endanger
the maintenance of their relations, the Sublime Porte and each of such
powers, before having recourse to the use of force, shall afford the
other contracting parties the opportunity of preventing such an extremity
by means of their mediation.

Art. 9. His imperial majesty the Sultan having, in his constant
solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a _firman_ which,
while ameliorating their condition without distinction of religion or of
race, records his generous intentions towards the Christian population of
his empire, and wishing to give a further proof of his sentiments in that
respect, has resolved to communicate to the contracting parties the said
firman, emanating spontaneously from his sovereign will.

The contracting powers recognise the high value of this communication.
It is clearly understood that it cannot, in any case, give to the said
powers the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in
the relations of his majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in the
internal administration of his empire.

Art. 10. The convention of the 13th of July, 1841, which maintains the
ancient rule of the Ottoman empire relative to the closing of the straits
of the Bosporus and of the Dardanelles, has been revised by common
consent.

The act concluded for that purpose, and in conformity with that
principle, between the high contracting parties, is and remains annexed
to the present treaty, and shall have the same force and validity as if
it formed an integral part thereof.

Art. 11. The Black Sea is neutralised; its waters and its ports,
thrown open to the mercantile marine of every nation, are formally and
in perpetuity interdicted to the flag of war, either of the powers
possessing its coasts or of any other power, with the exceptions
mentioned in Articles 14 and 19 of the present treaty.

Art. 12. Free from any impediment, the commerce in the ports and waters
of the Black Sea shall be subject only to regulations of health,
customs, and police, framed in a spirit favourable to the development of
commercial transactions.

In order to afford to the commercial and maritime interests of every
nation the security which is desired, Russia and the Sublime Porte will
admit consuls into their ports situated upon the coast of the Black Sea,
in conformity with the principles of international law.

Art. 13. The Black Sea being neutralised according to the terms of Art.
11, the maintenance or establishment upon its coast of military-maritime
arsenals becomes alike unnecessary and purposeless; in consequence,
his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and his imperial majesty
the Sultan engage not to establish or to maintain upon that coast any
military-maritime arsenal.

Art. 14. Their majesties the Emperor of all the Russias and the Sultan
having concluded a convention for the purpose of settling the force and
the number of light vessels necessary for the service of their coasts,
which they reserve to themselves to maintain in the Black Sea, that
convention is annexed to the present treaty, and shall have the same
force and validity, as if it formed an integral part thereof. It cannot
be either annulled or modified without the assent of the powers signing
the present treaty.

Art. 15. The act of the Congress of Vienna having established the
principles intended to regulate the navigation of rivers which separate
or traverse different states, the contracting powers stipulate among
themselves that those principles shall in future be equally applied to
the Danube and its mouths. They declare that this arrangement henceforth
forms a part of the public law of Europe, and take it under their
guarantee.

The navigation of the Danube cannot be subjected to any impediment or
charge not expressly provided for by the stipulations contained in the
following articles; in consequence, there shall not be levied any toll
founded solely upon the fact of the navigation of the river, nor any
duty upon the goods which may be on board of vessels. The regulations of
police and of quarantine to be established for the safety of the states
separated or traversed by that river shall be so framed as to facilitate,
as much as possible, the passage of vessels. With the exception of such
regulations, no obstacle whatever shall be opposed to free navigation.

Art. 16. Establishing a temporary international commission for the
control of navigation on the Danube.

Arts. 17-19. Establishing a permanent commission for the improvement and
control of navigation on the Danube.

Art. 20. In exchange for the towns, ports, and territories enumerated
in Art. 4 of the present treaty, and in order more fully to secure the
freedom of the navigation of the Danube, his majesty the Emperor of all
the Russias consents to the rectification of his frontier in Bessarabia.

Art. 21. The territory ceded by Russia shall be annexed to the
principality of Moldavia under the suzerainty of the Sublime Porte. The
inhabitants of that territory shall enjoy the rights and privileges
secured to the principalities; and during the space of three years they
shall be permitted to transfer their domicile elsewhere, disposing freely
of their property.

Art. 22. The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia shall continue
to enjoy, under the suzerainty of the Porte and under the guarantee of
the contracting powers, the privileges and immunities of which they are
in possession. No exclusive protection shall be exercised over them by
any of the guaranteeing powers. There shall be no separate right of
interference in their internal affairs.

Arts. 23-27. Concerning the government, administration, preservation of
order in, and defence of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia.

Art. 28. The principality of Servia shall continue to hold the Sublime
Porte, in conformity with the imperial _hats_ which fix and determine its
rights and immunities, placed henceforward under the collective guarantee
of the contracting powers. In consequence the said principality shall
preserve its independent and national administration, as well as full
liberty of worship, of legislation, of commerce, and of navigation.

Art. 29. The right of garrison of the Sublime Porte, as stipulated by
anterior regulations, is maintained. No armed intervention can take place
in Servia without previous agreement between the high contracting powers.

Art. 30. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and his majesty the
Sultan maintain in its integrity the state of their possessions in Asia,
such as it legally existed before the rupture. A mixed commission for the
verification or rectification of the frontiers is provided for.

Art. 31. The territories occupied during the war by the troops of
their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, and the
King of Sardinia, according to the terms of the conventions signed
at Constantinople on the 12th of March, 1854, between Great Britain,
France, and the Sublime Porte; on the 14th of June, of the same year,
between Austria and the Sublime Porte; and on the 15th of March, 1855,
between Sardinia and the Sublime Porte, shall be evacuated as soon as
possible after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.
The periods and the means of execution shall form the object of an
arrangement between the Sublime Porte and the powers whose troops have
occupied its territory.

Art. 32. Until the treaties or conventions which existed before the war
between the belligerent powers have been either renewed or replaced by
new acts, commerce of importation or of exportation shall take place
reciprocally on the footing of the regulations in force before the war;
and in all other matters their subjects shall be respectively treated
upon the footing of the most favoured nation.

Art. 33. The convention concluded this day between their majesties the
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor
of the French, on the one part, and his majesty the Emperor of all the
Russias on the other part respecting the Åland Islands, is and remains
annexed to the present treaty, and shall have the same force and validity
as if it formed a part thereof.


CONVENTIONS ANNEXED TO THE PRECEDING TREATY

1. _Convention between the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, the King
of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the King of Sardinia, on the one
part, and the Sultan on the other part, respecting the Straits of the
Dardanelles and of the Bosporus._

Art. 1. His majesty the Sultan, on the one part, declares that he is
firmly resolved to maintain for the future the principle invariably
established as the ancient rule of his empire, and in virtue of which it
has at all times been prohibited for the ships of war of foreign powers
to enter the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Bosporus, and that, so
long as the Porte is at peace, his majesty will admit no foreign ship of
war into the said Straits.

And their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, the King of
Prussia, the Emperor of all the Russias, and the King of Sardinia, on the
other part, engage to respect this determination of the Sultan’s, and to
conform themselves to the principle above declared.

Art. 2. The Sultan reserves to himself, as in past times, to deliver
firmans of passage for light vessels under flag of war, which shall be
employed, as is usual, in the service of the missions of foreign powers.

Art. 3. The same exception applies to the light vessels under flag of
war, which each of the contracting powers is authorised to station at the
mouths of the Danube, in order to secure the execution of the regulations
relative to the liberty of that river, and the number of which is not to
exceed two for each power.

2. _Convention between the Emperor of Russia and the Sultan, limiting
their naval force in the Black Sea._

Art. 1. The high contracting parties mutually engage not to have in the
Black Sea any other vessels of war than those of which the number, the
force, and the dimensions are hereinafter stipulated.

Art. 2. The high contracting parties reserve to themselves each to
maintain in that sea six steam-vessels of fifty metres in length at the
line of floatation, of a tonnage of 800 tons at the maximum, and four
light steam or sailing vessels, of a tonnage which shall not exceed 200
tons each.

3. _Convention between her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, and the Emperor of
Russia, respecting the Åland Islands._

Art. 1. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, in order to respond
to the desire which has been expressed to him by their majesties the
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor
of the French, declares that the Åland Islands shall not be fortified,
and that no military or naval establishment shall be maintained or
created there.

_Declaration respecting maritime law, signed by the plenipotentiaries of
Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey,
assembled in congress at Paris, April 16th, 1856._

The plenipotentiaries who signed the treaty of Paris, of the 30th of
March, 1856, being duly authorised, and having come to an agreement, have
adopted the following solemn declaration:--

1. Privateering is, and remains, abolished.

2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of
contraband of war.

3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable
to capture under enemy’s flag.

4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective--that is to say
maintained by force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of
the enemy.

The governments of the undersigned plenipotentiaries engage to bring the
present declaration to the knowledge of the states which have taken part
in the congress of Paris, and to invite them to accede to it.

Convinced that the maxims which they now proclaim cannot but be received
with gratitude by the whole world, the undersigned plenipotentiaries
doubt not that the efforts of their governments to obtain the general
adoption thereof will be crowned with full success.

The present declaration is not and shall not be binding, except between
those powers who have acceded, or shall accede, to it.

Done at Paris, the 16th of April, 1856.

[Here follow the names of the plenipotentiaries of the signatory powers.]




II

TREATY OF BERLIN, 1878


Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
Empress of India, His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia,
His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and King
Apostolic of Hungary, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty
the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and His
Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans, being desirous to regulate with a
view to European order, conformably to the stipulations of the Treaty of
Paris of 30th March, 1856, the questions raised in the East by the events
of late years and by the war terminated by the Preliminary Treaty of San
Stefano, have been unanimously of opinion that the meeting of a Congress
would offer the best means of facilitating an understanding.

[Here follow the names of the ambassadors.]

Who, in accordance with the proposal of the Court of Austria-Hungary, and
on the invitation of the Court of Germany, have met at Berlin furnished
with full powers, which have been found in good and due form.

An understanding having been happily established between them, they have
agreed to the following stipulations:

Art. 1. Bulgaria is constituted an autonomous and tributary Principality
under the suzerainty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan; it will have a
Christian government and a national militia.

Art. 2. The Principality of Bulgaria will include the following
territories:

[Here follows a detailed account of boundaries. These having mainly a
technical interest are omitted here and in other articles of the treaty
of the same nature. Those articles likewise whose importance is purely
local are given in abbreviated form.]

This delimitation shall be fixed on the spot by the European Commission,
on which the Signatory Powers shall be represented. It is understood: 1.
That this Commission will take into consideration the necessity for His
Imperial Majesty the Sultan to be able to defend the Balkan frontier of
Eastern Rumelia. 2. That no fortifications may be erected within a radius
of 10 kilometres from Samakov.

Art. 3. The Prince of Bulgaria shall be freely elected by the population
and confirmed by the Sublime Porte, with the assent of the Powers. No
member of the Reigning Dynasties of the Great European Powers may be
elected Prince of Bulgaria. In case of a vacancy in the princely dignity
the election of a new Prince shall take place under the same conditions
and with the same forms.

Art. 4. An Assembly of Notables of Bulgaria convoked at Tirnovo, shall,
before the election of the Prince, draw up the Organic Law of the
Principality. In the districts where Bulgarians are intermixed with
Turkish, Rumanian, Greek or other populations, the rights and intents
of these populations shall be taken into consideration as regards the
elections and the drawing up of the Organic Law.

Art. 5. Differences of religious creed not to be a bar to office holding
in Bulgaria. Complete freedom of worship assured.

Art. 6. The provisional administration of Bulgaria.

Art. 7. The provisional _régime_ shall not be prolonged beyond a period
of nine months from the exchange of the ratifications of the present
Treaty. When the Organic Law is completed the election of the Prince of
Bulgaria shall be proceeded with immediately. As soon as the Prince shall
have been installed, the new organisation shall be put into force, and
the Principality shall enter into the full enjoyment of its autonomy.

Art. 8. The treaties of commerce and navigation as well as all
conventions and arrangements concluded between Foreign Powers and the
Porte, and now in force are maintained in the Principality of Bulgaria,
and no change shall be made in them with regard to any Power without its
previous consent. No transit duties shall be levied in Bulgaria on goods
passing through that principality. The subjects and citizens of commerce
of all the powers shall be treated in the principality on a footing of
strict equality. The immunities and privileges of foreigners, as well
as the rights of consular jurisdiction and protection as established by
the capitulations and usages, shall remain in full force so long as they
shall not have been modified with the consent of the parties concerned.

Art. 9. Tribute to be paid by Bulgaria to suzerain court, etc.

Art. 10. Railway questions in Bulgaria.

Art. 11. Evacuation and demolition of Bulgarian fortresses.

Art. 12. Land rights of non-resident Moslems and others. Commission to
settle questions of state property. Bulgarians travelling in Turkey
subject to Ottoman laws.

Art. 13. A province is formed south of the Balkans which will take the
name of “Eastern Rumelia,” and will remain under the direct political and
military authority of His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, under conditions
of administrative autonomy. It shall have a Christian Governor-General.

Art. 14. Boundaries of Eastern Rumelia.

Art. 15. His Majesty, the Sultan, shall have the right of providing for
the defence of the land and sea frontiers of the province by erecting
fortifications on those frontiers and maintaining troops there. Internal
order is maintained in Eastern Rumelia by a native gendarmerie assisted
by a local militia. In forming these corps, the officers of which are
nominated by the Sultan, regard shall be paid in the different localities
to the religion of the inhabitants.

His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, undertakes not to employ irregular
troops, such as Bashi-Bazouks and Circassians, in the garrisons of the
frontiers. The regular troops detailed for this service must not in any
case be billeted on the inhabitants. When they pass through the province
they shall not make a stay there.

Art. 16. The governor-general shall have the right of summoning the
Ottoman troops in the event of the internal or external security of the
province being threatened. In such an eventuality the Sublime Porte shall
inform the representatives of the Powers at Constantinople of such a
decision, as well as of the exigencies which justify it.

Art. 17. The governor-general of Eastern Rumelia shall be nominated by
the Sublime Porte, with the assent of the Powers for a term of five years.

Arts. 18 and 19. Creating a European commission for the organisation of
Eastern Rumelia.

Arts. 20 and 21. Concerning foreign relations, religious liberty and
railway administration of Eastern Rumelia.

Art. 22. Regulations concerning Russian occupation of Bulgaria and
Eastern Rumelia. Evacuation of Rumania.

Art. 23. The Sublime Porte undertakes scrupulously to apply, in the
Island of Crete the Organic Law of 1868 with such modifications as may
be considered equitable. Similar laws adapted to local requirements,
excepting as regards the exemption from taxation granted to Crete shall
also be introduced into the other parts of Turkey in Europe, for which no
such organisation has been provided by the present Treaty. The Sublime
Porte shall depute special Commissions, in which the native element
shall be largely represented, to settle the details of the new laws in
each province. The schemes of organisation resulting from these labours
shall be submitted for examination to the Sublime Porte, which, before
promulgating the Acts for putting them into force, shall consult the
European Commission instituted for Eastern Rumelia.

Art. 24. In the event of the Sublime Porte and Greece being unable to
agree upon the rectification of frontiers suggested in the 13th protocol
of the Congress of Berlin, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Great
Britain, Italy, and Russia reserve to themselves to offer their mediation
to the two parties to facilitate negotiations.

Art. 25. The provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be occupied and
administered by Austria-Hungary. The government of Austria-Hungary, not
desiring to undertake the administration of the Sandjak of Novibazar,
which extends between Servia and Montenegro in a southeasterly direction
to the other side of Mitrovitz, the Ottoman administration shall continue
to exercise its functions there. Nevertheless, in order to assure the
maintenance of the new political state of affairs, as well as the freedom
and security of communications, Austria-Hungary reserves the right of
keeping garrisons and having military and commercial roads in the whole
of this part of the ancient Vilayet of Bosnia.

Arts. 26-33. Recognition of the independence of Montenegro and
regulations as to its boundaries, freedom of worship, debt, commerce and
defence.

Art. 34. The High Contracting Parties recognise the independence of
Servia, subject to the conditions set forth in the following Article.

Art. 35. Differences of religious creed to be no bar to officeholding in
Servia; freedom of worship assured.

Art. 36. Boundaries of Servia.

Arts. 37-42. Concerning commercial relations and consular jurisdiction in
Servia; railway administration and property rights.

Art. 43. The High Contracting Parties recognise the independence of
Rumania, subject to the conditions set forth in the two following
Articles.

Art. 44. Differences in religious creed to be no bar to officeholding in
Rumania: freedom of worship assured.

Arts. 45-46. Concerning the cession of Bessarabian territory by Rumania
to Russia and the addition of the Danubian Delta, etc., to Rumania.

Arts. 47-49. Concerning fisheries, transit dues and rights of foreign
consuls in Rumania.

Art. 50. Reciprocity of consular rights between Turkey and Rumania.
Transfer of public works in ceded territory.

Art. 52. In order to increase the guarantees which assure the freedom of
navigation on the Danube, which is recognised as of European interest,
the High Contracting Parties determine that all the fortresses and
fortifications existing on the course of the river from the Iron Gates
to its mouths shall be rased, and no new ones erected. No vessel of war
shall navigate the Danube, below the Iron Gates, with the exception of
vessels of light tonnage in the service of the river police and customs.
The “stationnaires” of the Powers at the mouths of the Danube may,
however, ascend the river as far as Galatz.

Arts. 53-56. Concerning the rights and duties of the European Commission
of the Danube.

Art. 57. Rights of Austria-Hungary on the Danube.

Art. 58. The Sublime Porte cedes to the Russian Empire in Asia, the
territories of Ardahan, Kars, and Batum, together with the latter port,
as well as all the territories comprised between the former Russo-Turkish
frontier and the following line:

[Here follows new boundary line between Russia and Turkey.]

Art. 59. His Majesty the Emperor of Russia declares that it is his
intention to constitute Batum a free port, essentially commercial.

Art. 60. Restoration of Alaschkerd to Turkey: cession of Khotour to
Persia.

Art. 61. The Sublime Porte undertakes to carry out, without further
delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the
provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security
against the Circassians and Kurds.

Art. 62. Pledge of Turkey to maintain the principle of religious liberty.

Art. 63. The Treaty of Paris, of March 30th, 1856, as well as the Treaty
of London, of March 13th, 1871, are maintained in all such of their
provisions as are not abrogated or modified by the preceding stipulations.

Art. 64. The present treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications
exchanged at Berlin, within three weeks, or sooner if possible.

In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed it, and
affixed to it the seal of their arms. Done at Berlin, the thirteenth day
of the month of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight.

                                                             [Signatures.]




III

THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE


[An international conference of representatives of the principal powers
of the world assembled at The Hague, May 18th, 1899, in response to a
call issued by the Czar of Russia with a view to concerted action in
regard to an amelioration of the hardships of war, the furtherance of the
principle of the arbitration of international disputes, the maintenance
of a general peace and the possible reduction of the world’s military and
naval armaments. The states represented were Germany, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, China, Japan, France, Mexico, the United States, Great
Britain, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Russia, Spain, Italy, Servia,
Siam, the Netherlands, Rumania, Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Switzerland,
Luxembourg, Persia and Portugal. Sessions continued until July 29th,
when the delegates embodied the conclusions reached in a final act for
submission to the several states represented. This final act consisted
of three conventions, three formal declarations and a series of six
resolutions. The resolutions embodied an expression of the desire that
certain unsettled points in regard to neutrals, contraband and so forth
might be passed upon by an international tribunal at an early date.
The conventions were (1) For the pacific settlement of international
conflicts; (2) Regarding the laws and customs of war by land; (3) For
the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva
Convention, August 22nd, 1864. The declarations had to do with (1) The
prohibition of launching explosives and projectiles from balloons; (2)
The prohibition of the use of projectiles diffusing poisonous gases;
(3) The prohibition of the use of expanding or flattening bullets. The
Conventions were signed at once by 16 powers, Germany, Great Britain,
Austria-Hungary, Japan, Italy, and several minor powers, withholding
their assent temporarily but finally accepting them.]


A. CONVENTION FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES


_Title I--On the Maintenance of the General Peace_

Art. 1. Agreement of powers to use best efforts to ensure peaceful
settlement of international disputes.


_Title II--On Good Offices and Mediation_

Arts. 2-4. Recommendation of the principle of mediation, the exercise of
which is never to be considered an unfriendly act.

Art. 5. The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is
declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute, or by the mediator
himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not
accepted.

Art. 6. Good offices and mediation, either at the request of the parties
at variance, or on the initiative of powers strangers to the dispute,
have exclusively the character of advice, and never have binding force.

Art. 7. The acceptance of mediation not to hinder preparations for, or
interfere with the prosecution of war.

Art. 8. Concerning special mediation.


_Title III--On International Commissions of Inquiry_

Arts. 9-13. Appointment and procedure of the Commissions of Inquiry.

Art. 14. The report of the International Commission of Inquiry is limited
to a statement of facts, and is in no way the character of an arbitral
award.


_Title IV--On International Arbitration_


CHAPTER I--ON THE SYSTEM OF ARBITRATION

Arts. 15-19. Recognition of the efficacy of arbitration conventions, and
the implied engagement of loyal submission to the award.


CHAPTER II--ON THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION

Art. 20. Undertaking of the signatory powers to organise a permanent
court.

Art. 21. The permanent court shall be competent for all arbitration
cases, unless the parties agree to institute a special tribunal.

Art. 22. An international bureau, established at The Hague, serves as
record office for the court, and the channel for communications relative
to the meetings of the court. It has the custody of the archives and
conducts all the administrative business.

Art. 23. Selection of members of the court.

Art. 24. Arbitrators are to be chosen from the general list of members of
the court. Alternative provisions in case of failure of direct agreement.

Art. 25. Seat of the tribunal to be ordinarily at The Hague.

Art. 26. The jurisdiction of the permanent court may within the
conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes between
non-signatory powers, or between signatory powers and non-signatory
powers if the parties are agreed on recourse to this tribunal.

Art. 27. Reminding powers of the existence of the court not to be
considered an unfriendly act.

Art. 28. Institution and duties of a permanent administrative council to
be composed of the diplomatic representatives of the signatory powers
accredited to The Hague and of the Netherland minister for foreign
affairs, who will act as president.

Art. 29. The expenses of the bureau.


CHAPTER III--ON ARBITRAL PROCEDURE

Arts. 30-31. Regarding agreement to submit to arbitration.

Art. 32. Failing the constitution of the tribunal by direct agreement
between the parties, the following course shall be pursued: Each party
appoints two arbitrators and these latter together choose an umpire. In
case of equal voting the choice of the umpire is entrusted to a third
power, selected by the parties by common accord. If no agreement is
arrived at on this subject, each party selects a different power, and the
choice of the umpire is made in concert by the powers thus selected.

Arts. 33-38. Concerning umpires, seat of tribunal, counsel, and language.

Art. 39. As a general rule the arbitral procedure comprises two distinct
phases; preliminary examination of documents, manuscripts and briefs and
oral discussion of the agreements of the parties.

Arts. 40-51. Concerning procedure as to documents and arguments.

Art. 52. The award, given by a majority of votes, is accompanied by a
statement of reasons. It is drawn up in writing and signed by each member
of the tribunal. Those members who are in the minority may record their
dissent when signing.

Art. 53. Publication of the award.

Art. 54. The award puts an end to the dispute definitively, and without
appeal.

Art. 55. Concerning demand for a revision of the award on account of the
discovery of new evidence.

Art. 56. The award binding only on parties who submitted to arbitration.
Right to intervene of other nations parties to a convention interpreted.

Art. 57. Parties to arbitration to share expenses equally.


GENERAL PROVISIONS

Arts. 58-60. Ratification and notification of ratification and the
adherence of non-signatory powers.

Art. 61. In the event of one of the high contracting parties denouncing
the present Convention, this denunciation would not take effect until a
year after its notification made in writing to the Netherland government,
and by it communicated at once to all the other contracting powers. This
denunciation shall only affect the notifying power.


B. CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

[Here follow the names of the signatory powers and a statement of
the reasons for and the necessities which have led to the following
convention.]

Art. 1. Contracting powers to accept “Regulations” adopted by the present
conference.

Art. 2. Regulations to be binding only in case of war between two
contracting powers, and cease to be binding when a non-contracting power
joins one of the belligerents.

Arts. 3-5. Concerning ratification by contracting powers, the adherence
of non-contracting powers, and denunciation by a contracting power.


ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION

Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.


_Section I--On Belligerents_


CHAPTER I--ON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF BELLIGERENTS

Art. 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to the
armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the
following conditions: I. To be commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates; II. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognisable at a
distance; III. To carry arms openly; and IV. To conduct their operations
in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In countries where
militia or volunteer corps constitute the “army,” or form part of it,
they are included under the term.

Art. 2. The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on
the enemy’s approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading
troops without having time to organise themselves in accordance with
Article I, shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect the laws and
customs of war.

Art. 3. The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of
combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have
a right to be treated as prisoners of war.


CHAPTER II--ON PRISONERS OF WAR

Arts. 4-12. Prisoners of war; their personal property, their
imprisonment, utilisation of their labor, maintenance, recapture of
escaped prisoners and parole.

Art. 13. Individuals who follow an army without directly belonging to it,
such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, sutlers, contractors, who
fall into the enemy’s hands, and whom the latter think fit to detain,
have a right to be treated as prisoners of war, provided they can produce
a certificate from the military authorities of the army they were
accompanying.

Art. 14. A bureau for information relative to prisoners of war to
be instituted, on the commencement of hostilities, in each of the
belligerent states, to answer all inquiries about prisoners of war, to
keep an individual return for each prisoner of war.

Arts. 15-16. Concerning rights and privileges of relief societies and
information bureaus.

Art. 17. Officers taken prisoners may receive, if necessary, the full pay
allowed them in this position by their country’s regulations, the amount
to be repaid by their government.

Arts. 18-20. Right of prisoners to freedom of worship; wills;
repatriation.


CHAPTER III--ON THE SICK AND WOUNDED

Art. 21. The obligations of belligerents with regard to the sick and
wounded are governed by the Geneva Convention of the 22nd of August,
1864, subject to any modifications which may be introduced into it.


_Section II--On Hostilities_


CHAPTER I--ON MEANS OF INJURING THE ENEMY, SIEGES, AND BOMBARDMENTS

Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy
is not unlimited.

Art. 23. Besides the prohibitions provided by special conventions, it
is especially prohibited: (a) To employ poison or poisoned arms; (b) To
kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation
or army; (c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or
having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; (d) To
declare that no quarter will be given; (e) To employ arms, projectiles,
or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury; (f) To make improper
use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and
the enemy’s uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva
Convention; (g) To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such
destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.

Art. 24. Ruses of war and the employment of methods necessary to obtain
information about the enemy and the country, are considered allowable.

Art. 25. Attack or bombardment of undefended towns prohibited.

Art. 26. Providing for warning before bombardment.

Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be
taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art,
science, and charity, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded
are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military
purposes. The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some
particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the
assailants.

Art. 28. Pillage of a town even when taken by assault prohibited.

[Chapters II-V, containing Arts. 29-41, are concerned with Spies, Flags
of Truce, Capitulations, and Armistices.]


_Section III--On Military Authority over Hostile Territory_

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed
under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation applies only to
the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to
assert itself.

Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed
into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in her
power to re-establish and ensure, as far as possible, public order and
safety, while representing, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in
force in the country.

Arts. 44-45. Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to
take part in military operations against its own country or oath to the
hostile powers is prohibited.

Art. 46. Family honours and rights, individual lives and private
property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must be
respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.

Art. 47. Pillage is formally prohibited.

Arts. 48-49. Right of hostile power to levy taxes, dues, and tolls in
occupied territory for the administration of such territory.

Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on
the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot
be regarded as collectively responsible.

Art. 51. No tax shall be collected except under a written order on the
responsibility of a commander-in-chief. For every payment a receipt shall
be given to the taxpayer.

Art. 52. Neither requisitions in kind, nor services can be demanded
from communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army of
occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country,
and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation
of taking part in military operations against their country. These
requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the
commander in the locality occupied. The contributions in kind shall as
far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall
be acknowledged.

Art. 53. An army of occupation can only take possession of the cash,
funds, and property liable to requisition belonging strictly to the
state, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and
generally all movable property of the state which may be used for
military operations. Railway plants, land telegraphs, telephones,
steamers, and other ships, apart from cases governed by maritime law,
as well as depots of arms and, generally, all kinds of war material,
even though belonging to companies or to private persons, are likewise
material which may serve for military operations, but they must be
restored at the conclusion of peace, and indemnities paid.

Art. 54. The plant of railways coming from neutral states whether the
property of those states, or of companies or of private persons, shall be
sent back to them as soon as possible.

Art. 55. The occupying state shall only be regarded as administrator
and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and
agricultural works belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the
occupied country.

Art. 56. The property of the communes, that of religious, charitable,
and educational institutions, and those of arts and science, even when
state property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure of,
and destruction, or intentional damage done to such institutions, to
historical monuments, works of art or science, is prohibited.


_Section IV--On the Internment of Belligerents and the Care of the
Wounded in Neutral Countries_

Arts. 57-60. Concerning the internment, detention and maintenance of
belligerents, and of the sick and wounded of a belligerent in a neutral
country. Application of the Geneva Convention.


DECLARATIONS

(I) The contracting powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years,
the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other
new methods of a similar nature.

(II) The contracting parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets
which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a
hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with
incisions.

(III) The contracting powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles
the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases.

The above declarations are only binding on the contracting powers in the
case of a war between two or more of them. They shall cease to be binding
from the time when in a war between the contracting powers, one of the
belligerents shall be joined by a non-contracting power.

The non-signatory powers can adhere to the above declarations.

In the event of one of the high contracting parties denouncing the
declarations, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after
the notification made in writing to the government of the Netherlands,
and forthwith communicated by it to all the other contracting powers.
This denunciation shall only affect the notifying power.


D. CONVENTION FOR THE ADAPTATION TO MARITIME WARFARE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF AUGUST 22ND, 1854

Arts. 1-5. Military hospital-ships owned either by a state or a private
individual or society not to be considered belligerent.

Art. 6. Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels, having or taking on
board, sick, wounded, or the shipwrecked of the belligerents, cannot be
captured for so doing, but they are liable to capture, for any violation
of neutrality.

Art. 7. Concerning the inviolability of the religious, medical, or
hospital staff of any captured ship.

Art. 8. Sailors and soldiers who are taken on board when sick or wounded,
to whatever nation they belong, shall be protected by the captors.

Art. 9. The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of one of the belligerents who
fall into the hands of the other, are prisoners of war.

Art. 10. Concerning the treatment of the shipwrecked, wounded, or sick,
landed at a neutral port with the consent of the local authorities.

Art. 11. Concerning limitation, ratification, acceptance by a
non-signatory power and denunciation of the above articles.




BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter.]


CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE AND EARLY HISTORY (to 1054 A.D.)

[b] A. LEROY-BEAULIEU, _L’Empire des Tsars et les Russes_.

[c] M. KOVALEVSKI, _Russian Political Institutions_.

[d] PROCOPIUS, _Gothica seu Bellum Gothicum_.

[e] MAURICIUS, _Strategicum_.

[f] LEO, _Tacita seu de re militari_.

[g] T. SCHIEMANN, _Russland, Polen und Livland_.

[h] NESTOR, _Chronicle_.

[i] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.

[j] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.

[k] ROBERT BELL, _History of Russia_.


CHAPTER II. THE PERIOD OF THE PRINCIPALITIES (1054-1224 A.D.)

[b] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.

[c] T. SCHIEMANN, _Russland, Polen und Livland_.

[d] N. M. KARAMZIN, _History of the Russian Empire_.


CHAPTER III. THE TIME OF TATAR DOMINATION (1235-1462 A.D.)

[b] R. N. BESTUZHEV-RIUMIN, _Russian History_.

[c] D. M. WALLACE, _Russia_.

[d] R. BELL, _A History of Russia_.

[e] S. M. SOLOVIOV, _History of Russia from the Earliest Times_.

[f] N. TURGENIEV, _La Russie et les Russes_.

[g] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.

[h] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, _Russian History_.

[i] A. BRÜCKNER, _Geschichte Russlands_.


CHAPTER IV. FROM IVAN THE GREAT TO IVAN THE TERRIBLE (1462-1584 A.D.)

[b] R. N. BESTUZHEV-RIUMIN, _Russian History_.

[c] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, _Russian History_.

[d] P. STRAHL and E. HERMANN, _Geschichte des Russischen Staates_.

[e] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.

[f] N. KARAMZIN, _History of the Russian Empire_.

[g] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.

[h] S. M. SOLOVIOV, _History of Russia from the Earliest Times_.


CHAPTER V. THE CENTURY AFTER IVAN THE TERRIBLE (1584-1682 A.D.)

[b] PROSPER MÉRIMÉE, _Demetrius the Impostor_.

[c] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, _Russian History_.

[d] N. KARAMZIN, _History of the Russian Empire_.

[e] JEAN HENRI SCHNITZLER, _L’Empire des Tsars au point actuél de la
science_.

[f] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.

[g] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.

[h] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.

[i] S. M. SOLOVIOV, _History of Russia from the Earliest Times_.


CHAPTER VI. PETER THE GREAT (1682-1725 A.D.)

[b] VOLTAIRE, _Histoire de Russie_.

[c] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.

[d] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, _Russian History_.

[e] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.

[f] P. STRAHL and E. HERMANN, _Geschichte des Russischen Staates_.

[g] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.

[h] P. SHTCHEBALSKI, _Readings from Russian History_.

[i] S. M. SOLOVIOV, _History of Russia from the Earliest Times_.

[j] AUGUSTE DE HAXTHAUSEN, _The Russian Empire, its People, Institutions
and Resources_.

[k] CLAUDE CARLOMAN DE RULHIÈRE, _Révolution de Pologne_.

[l] C. A. DE LOUVILLE, _Mémoires_.

[m] IVAN GOLIKOV, _The Acts of Peter the Great_.


CHAPTER VII. CATHERINE I TO PETER III (1725-1796 A.D.)

[b] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.

[c] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, _Russian History_.

[d] P. SHTCHEBALSKI, _Readings from Russian History_.

[e] V. A. BILBASSOV, _History of Catherine II_.

[f] A. RAMBAUD, _Historie de la Russie_.

[g] R. NISBET BAIN, _The Daughter of Peter the Great_.


CHAPTER VIII. THE AGE OF CATHERINE II (1769-1796 A.D.)

[b] P. SHTCHEBALSKI, _Readings from Russian History_.

[c] V. A. BILBASSOV, _History of Catherine II_.

[d] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.

[e] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.

[f] ANTOINE DE FERRAND, _Les trois démembrements de la Pologne_.

[g] CATHERINE II, _Memoirs_.

[h] A. BRÜCKNER, _History of Catherine II_.

[i] THEODOR VON BERNHARDI, _Geschichte Russlands und der europäischen
Politik in den Jahren 1814-1831_.

[j] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.

[k] N. K. SHILDER, _The Emperor Alexander I_.


CHAPTER IX. RUSSIA IN THE NAPOLEONIC EPOCH (1796-1815 A.D.)

[b] F. C. SCHLOSSER, _Geschichte des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts_.

[c] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.

[d] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.

[e] R. GOSSIP, _History of Russia_.

[f] A. ALISON, _History of Europe_.

[g] N. K. SHILDER, _The Emperor Alexander I_.

[h] P. DE SÉGUR, _History of the Expedition to Russia_.

[i] A. MIKHAILOVSKI-DANILEVSKI, _Vie du Feld-Maréchal Koutouzoff_.

[j] T. VON BERNHARDI, _Geschichte Russlands und der europäischen Politik
in den Jahren 1814-1831_.

[k] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.

[l] F. H. SKRINE, _The Expansion of Russia, 1815-1900_.


CHAPTER X. ALEXANDER I, MYSTIC AND HUMANITARIAN (1801-1825 A.D.)

[b] N. K. SHILDER, _The Emperor Alexander I_.

[d] N. TURGENIEV, _La Russie et les Russes_.

[e] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.

[f] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.

[g] A. ALISON, _History of Europe_.

[h] F. H. SKRINE, _The Expansion of Russia 1815-1900_.

[i] STORCK, _Russland unter Alexander dem Ersten_.


CHAPTER XI. THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I (1825-1854 A.D.)

[b] N. K. SHILDER, _The Reign of the Emperor Nicholas I_.

[c] J. H. SCHNITZLER, _La Russie, Ancienne et Moderne_.

[d] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.

[e] A. P. DE CUSTINE, _La Russie en 1839_.

[f] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.

[g] T. DELORD, _Histoire du second Empire_.

[h] P. DE LA GORCE, _Histoire du second Empire_.

[i] H. MARTIN, _Histoire de la France depuis 1789 jusqu’à nos jours_.

[j] A. A. SHUMAKR, _The Czar Liberator_.

[k] F. H. SKRINE, _The Expansion of Russia 1815-1900_.


CHAPTER XII. ALEXANDER II, THE CZAR LIBERATOR (1855-1881 A.D.)

[b] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.

[c] D. M. WALLACE, _Russia_.

[d] A. A. SHUMAKR, _The Czar Liberator_.

[e] P. DE LA GORCE, _Histoire du second Empire_.

[f] ALEXANDER II, _Manifesto or Proclamation_.

[g] F. H. SKRINE, _The Expansion of Russia 1815-1900_.

[h] JULIUS ECKHARDT, _Modern Russia_.


CHAPTER XIII. REACTION, EXPANSION, AND THE WAR WITH JAPAN (1881-1904 A.D.)

[b] D. M. WALLACE, article on Russian history in the _New Volumes_ of the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_.

[c] ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE, _The Russian Advance_.

[d] HENRY NORMAN, _All the Russias_.

[e] A. N. KUROPATKIN, quoted in F. H. Skrine and E. D. Ross’s _The Heart
of Asia_.


APPENDIX. DOCUMENTS RELATING TO RUSSIAN HISTORY

These documents, given in a somewhat condensed form, are from the
following sources: The Treaty of Paris, from H. TYRRELL’S _History of the
War with Russia_; The Treaty of Berlin and The Hague Peace Conference,
from SIR EDWARD HERTSLET’S _State Papers_, Vol. CX.




[Illustration]




A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

BASED ON THE WORKS QUOTED, CITED, OR CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE
PRESENT HISTORY; WITH CRITICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES


=Anon.=, La guerre d’Orient en 1877-1878, par un tacticien, Paris, 1880;
Tainy nashei gosudarstvennoi politiki v Polshye. Sbornik sekretnykh
dokumentov (The secrets of our governmental policy in Poland. A
collection of secret documents), London, 1899; Secret Memoirs of the
Court of St. Petersburg, particularly towards the end of the reign of
Catherine II and the commencement of that of Paul I (translated from the
French), London, 1895; The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, published
by the Russo-Jewish Committee, London, 1890; Russia, Its Industries and
Trade (Official report prepared for the Glasgow Exhibition), Glasgow,
1901; Erinnerungen eines Dorfgeistlichen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Leibeigenschaft und ihrer Aufhebung. Aus dem russischen übertragen von
M. Oettingen, Stuttgart, 1894 (Bibliothek russischer Denkwürdigkeiten.
Edited by Th. Schiemann, vol. 5); An early news-sheet. The Russian
Invasion of Poland in 1563. An exact facsimile of a contemporary
account in Latin, published at Douay. Together with an introduction and
historical notes, and a full translation into English, London, 1874; The
French bulletins relating to the war in Russia, London, 1813; Russia’s
March Towards India, by an Indian officer, London, 1893, 2 vols.; Russia
Before and After the War. By the author of “Society in St. Petersburg,”
etc. Translated from the German, with later additions by the author, by
E. F. Taylor, London and New York, 1880; Von Nicolaus I zu Alexander III:
St. Petersburger Beiträge zur neuesten russischen Geschichte, Leipsic,
1881; Russisch-Baltische Blaetter, Beiträge zur Kenntniss Russlands und
seiner Grenzmarken, 4 vol., Leipzig, 1886-1888; Russland vor und nach dem
Kriege; auch “Aus der petersburger Gesellschaft,” Leipsic, 1879; Russland
am Scheidewege: Beiträge zur Kenntniss des Slawophilenthums, Berlin,
1888; Lose Blätter aus dem Geheim-Archive der russischen Regierung; Ein
aktenmässiger Beitrag zur neuesten Geschichte der russischen Verwaltung
und Beamten-Korruption, Leipsic, 1882.--=Abaza=, V. A. Istorya Rossii
(History of Russia), St. Petersburg, 1893.--=Abbott=, J., Narrative of
a Journey from Herat to Khiva, Moscow and St. Petersburg, during the
late Russian invasion of Khiva, London, 1856, 2 vols.--=Adam=, Mme., Le
général Skobélef, Paris, 1886.--=Adelung=, F. von, Kritisch-literarische
Übersicht der Reisenden in Russland bis 1700, St. Petersburg, 1846,
2 vols.--=Alexander II=, Manifest (The proclamation of emancipation)
printed by the Senate, St. Petersburg, 1861.--=Alison=, A., History
of Europe, London and New York, 1849-1850, 14 vols.--=Arnaud=, C.
A. de, The New Era in Russia, Washington, 1890.--=Arnheim=, F., Der
ausserordentliche Finländische Landtag, Leipsic, 1900.--=Avril=, A. d’,
Négociations relatives au traité de Berlin et aux arrangements qui ont
suivi, Paris, 1886.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Bain=, R. N., Charles XII and the Collapse of the Swedish empire
(Heroes of the Nations series) New York, 1895; The Pupils of Peter the
Great. A History of the Russian Court and Empire from 1697 to 1740,
Westminster, 1897; The Daughter of Peter the Great. A History of Russian
Diplomacy and of the Russian Court under the Empress Elizabeth Petrovna
(1741-1762), Westminster, 1899.--=Bakunin=, A., M. =Herzen=, and others,
Sozial-politischer Briefwechsel. Mit einer biographischen Einleitung
von M. Dragomanov. Autorisirte Übersetzung aus dem russischen von B.
Minzer, Stuttgart, 1895. (Bibliothek russischer Denkwürdigkeiten, vol.
6).--=Bantysh-Kamenski=, D. N. Istorya maloi Rossii (History of Little
Russia) Moscow, 1842.

    _Bantysh-Kamenski_ was born in Moscow in 1788. Between 1825
    and 1828 he was governor of Tobolsk, and from 1836 to 1838,
    governor of Vilna. After that he was engaged in the ministry
    of the interior. He died at St. Petersburg in 1850. Besides
    his “History of Little Russia,” which is to this day the
    only complete history in this department, he also wrote a
    biographical dictionary and the lives of a number of Russian
    statesmen and commanders.

=Bantysh-Kamenski=, N., Diplomatitcheskoe sobranie dyel mezhdu Rossiiskim
i Kitaiskim gosudarstvom s 1619 po 1792 god (a collection of diplomatic
papers between the Russian and Chinese empires from 1619 to 1792)
Kazan, 1882; Obzor vnyeshnikh snoshenyi Rossii po 1800 g (a review of
the foreign relations of Russia up to the year 1800, Courland, Livonia,
Esthonia, Poland, and Portugal), Moscow, 1897.--=Bell=, R., Russia
(Cabinet Cyclopædia series), London, 1836, 3 vol.--=Bernhardi=, T.
von, Geschichte Russlands und der europäischen Politik in den Jahren
1814-1831, Leipsic, 1868-1878, 3 vols.--=Bestuzhev-Riumin=, K. N.,
Russkaya istorya (Russian history) St. Petersburg, 1872, 2 vol.

    _Konstantin Nikelaievitch Bestuzhev-Riumin_ was born in 1829.
    From 1865 to 1882 he was a professor at the university of St.
    Petersburg. Besides the History, he has been the author of a
    number of monographs. His method is thorough, painstaking,
    and minute. He insists on a many-sided study of the national
    life, and of the exclusion of all philosophical or general
    theories, and devotes much more space to internal than to
    external history, paying special attention to forms of family
    life, political organisation, law, religion, and literature.
    The introductory chapters give a valuable account of the source
    and authorities of Russian history. At his death, in 1897, he
    left his History a torso. It was translated into German by Dr.
    Schiemann (Mitau, 1873-1875).

=Beveridge=, A. J., The Russian Advance, New York, 1903.--=Bigelow=,
P., The German Emperor and his Eastern Neighbors, New York,
1892.--=Bilbassov=, V. A., Istorya Ekateriny II (History of Catherine
II), London, 1895, 2 vols.--=Bilbassov=, B., Katherina II, Kaiserin von
Russland, im Urtheile der Weltlitteratur. Übersetzt aus dem russischen
mit einem Vorwort von T. Schiemann, Berlin, 1897, 2 vols.; Geschichte
Katharina II. Übersetzt aus dem russischen von M. von Petzold, Berlin,
1893, 2 vols.--=Bodenstedt=, F. von, Die Völker des Kaukasus und ihre
Freiheitskämpfe gegen die Russen, Berlin, 1855, 2 vols.--=Bogdanovitch=,
M. I., Istorya tsarstvovanya imperatora Alexandra I i Rossii v yevo
vremya (History of the reign of Alexander I and of Russia during his
time) St. Petersburg, 1869-1871, 6 vols.--=Bond=, E. A., Russia at
the Close of the 16th Century; comprising the treatise “Of the Russ
Commonwealth,” by G. Fletcher, and the travels of Sir J. Horsey (Hakluyt
Society Publications, vol. 20), London, 1856.--=Bookwalter=, J. W.,
Siberia and Central Asia, New York, 1899.--=Boulger=, D. C., England and
Russia in Central Asia, London, 1873, 5 vols.--=Brodhead=, J. M. N., Slav
and Moslem: historical sketches, Charleston, S. C., 1894.--=Brooks=, C.
W. S., Russians of the South, London, 1854.--=Browning=, O., Charles XII
of Sweden, London, 1899.--=Brueckner=, A. Finanzgeschichtliche Studien:
Kupfergeldkrisen, St. Petersburg, 1867; Kulturhistorische Studien: die
Russen im Ausland: die Ausländer in Russland im 17. Jahrhundert, Riga,
1878; Ivan Possoschkow: Ideen und Zustände in Russland zur Zeit Peters
des Grossen, Leipsic, 1878; Peter der Grosse, in Oncken’s Allgemeine
Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen, Berlin, 1879; Der Zarewitsch
Alexei, Heidelberg, 1880; Katharina II, in Oncken’s Weltgeschichte in
Einzeldarstelungen, Berlin, 1883; Istorya Yekateriny II (History of
Catherine II), St. Petersburg, 1885, 3 vols.; Bilder aus Russlands
Vergangenheit, Leipsic, 1887; Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Russlands
im 17. Jahrhundert, Leipsic, 1887; Die Europäisierung Russlands, Gotha,
1888; Geschichte Russlands: Überblick der Entwicklung bis zum Tode Peters
des Grossen, in Geschichte der europäischen Staaten, Gotha, 1896.

    _Alexander Brueckner_ was born August 5, 1834, at St.
    Petersburg. After engaging for six years in business, he turned
    his attention to the study of history, which he pursued at
    Heidelberg, Jena, and Berlin. After returning to St. Petersburg
    he became professor of history at the Imperial School of law,
    in 1867 professor at the university of Odessa, and in 1872 at
    Dorpat. Owing to his German origin, he was removed in 1891 from
    Dorpat and transferred to the university of Kazan, but at his
    request he was permitted to settle at Jena. Brueckner is, like
    Schiemann and Eckhardt, a German-Russian, and as such has a
    special qualification for the presentation of Russian history
    to a West-European audience. He has written numerous works both
    in Russian and in German, and takes rank with the foremost
    historians of Russia.

=Brueggen=, E. von der, Polens Auflösung, Leipsic, 1878; Wie Russland
europäisch wurde, Leipsic, 1885.--=Bunge=, F. G. von, Geschichtliche
Entwicklung der Standesverhältnisse in Livonia, Esthonia, und Kurland
bis 1561, Dorpat, 1838; der Orden der Schwertbrüder, Leipsic,
1875.--=Burtsev=, V., and S. M. =Kravtchinski=, Za sto lyet (1800-1896).
Sbornik po istorii polititcheskikh i obshtchestvennikh dvizhenyi v Rossii
(One hundred years. Documents Relating to the History of Political and
Social Movements in Russia), London, 1897.--=Buturlin=, Knyaz D. P.,
Histoire militaire de la campagne de Russia en 1812, Paris, 1824, 2 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Cary=, C., The Trans-Siberian Route, New York, 1902.--=Catherine
II=, empress of Russia, Memoirs of the Empress Catherine II, written
by herself, with a preface by A. Herzen, translated from the French,
New York, 1859.--=Celestin=, Fr. J., Russland seit Aufhebung der
Leibeigenschaft, Laibach, 1875.--=Choiseul-Gouffier=, (Tisenhaus),
comtesse de, Historical Memoirs of the Emperor Alexander I and the Court
of Russia. Translated by M. B. Patterson, Chicago, 1901.--=Colquhoun=, A.
R., Russia against India: The Struggle for Asia, New York, 1900.--=Coxe=,
W., An Account of the Russian Discoveries between Asia and America:
added, The Conquest of Siberia, and the history of the transactions
and commerce between Russia and China, London, 1803.--=Crusenstolpe=,
M. I. von, Der russische Hof von Peter I bis auf Nikolaus I, Hamburg,
1855-1859.--=Curzon=, G. N., Russia in Central Asia in 1889 and the
Anglo-Russian Question, London, 1889; Persia and the Persian Question,
London, 1892; Problems of the Far-East: Japan, Corea, China, London,
1894; The Pamirs and the Source of the Oxus, London, 1896.--=Custine=, le
marquis de, La Russie en 1839, Paris, 1844, 4 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Danilevski=, N. Y., Rossiya i Evropa: Vzgliad na kulturnyia i
polititcheskyia otnoshenya slavianskavo mira k germano-romanskomu (Russia
and Europe: a glance at the cultural and political relations of the
Slav world to the German-Romance world), St. Petersburg, 1895.--=Day=,
W. A., The Russian Government in Poland. With a narrative of the Polish
insurrection in 1863, London, 1867.--=De la Gorce=, P., Histoire du
second Empire, Paris, 1894, 4 vols.--=Delord=, T., Histoire du second
Empire, Paris, 1868-1875, 6 vols.--=Deutsch=, L. G., Sixteen Years in
Siberia, New York, 1903.--=De Windt=, H., Finland as It Is, London,
1901.--=Drage=, G., Russian Affairs, New York, 1904.--=Dubrovin=, N.
F., Pugatchev i yevo soobshtchniki (Pugatchev and his accomplices), St.
Petersburg, 1884, 3 vols.; Prisoedinenie Krima k Rossii (The annexation
of the Crimea to Russia), St. Petersburg, 1885-1889, 4 vols.--=Duggan=,
S. P. H., The Eastern Question: A Study in Diplomacy (Columbia studies in
history, economics, and public law), New York, 1902.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Eckardt=, J., Jungrussisch und Altlivländisch. Politische und
culturgeschichtliche Aufsätze, Leipsic, 1871; Distinguished persons
in Russian society (translated from the Author’s Aus der Petersburger
Gesellschaft), London, 1873; Aus der Petersburger Gesellschaft, 5th
edition, Leipsic, 1880; Neue Folge, Leipsic, 1881; Von Nikolaus I zu
Alexander III, Leipsic, 1881; Russische Wandlungen. Neue Beiträge zur
russischen Geschichte von Nikolaus I zu Alexander III, Leipsic, 1882.

    _Julius von Eckhardt_ was born August 1, 1836, at Wolmar
    in Livonia. From 1860 to 1867 he was the secretary of the
    Evangelical-Lutheran Consistory at Riga, one of the editors of
    the Riga _Zeitung_, and an active member of the Liberal-German
    party in the Baltic provinces of Russia. After the leaders of
    this party had been removed from their offices on account of
    their Germanising tendencies, Eckardt emigrated to Germany,
    where he was active first as a journalist, then as secretary
    of the Hamburg senate, and finally as German consul at Tunis,
    Marseilles and Stockholm. Eckardt was the author of numerous
    works and pamphlets, many of which were published anonymously,
    on Russian, Baltic, and German affairs. He was less an
    historian than a publicist and politician; but he had an
    intimate knowledge of the Russia of his own day, the Russia of
    Alexander II and Alexander III, and his works are indispensable
    for an understanding of Russian parties and the vacillations
    of Russian public opinion. His own point of view is that of a
    conservative liberal.

=Edwards=, H. D., Russian Projects against India, London,
1885.--=Engelmann=, J., Peter der Grosse, seine Jugend und seine
Reformen, Dorpat, 1872; Die Leibeigenschaft in Russland, Leipsic, 1884;
Das Staatsrecht Russlands, in Marquardsen’s Handbuch des öffentlichen
Rechts, vol. 4, Freiburg, 1888.--=Engels=, F., Die auswärtige Politik des
russischen Zarenthums, in _Neue Zeit_, Stuttgart, 1890.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Favre=, L., Histoire de la guerre entre la Russie et la Turquie, Niort,
1879.--=Fenton=, F. de, La Russie dans l’Asie-Mineure; ou, Campagnes du
Maréchal Paskewitch en 1828 et 1829, Paris, 1840.--=Ferrand=, A. de,
Les trois démembrements de la Pologne, Paris, 1865, 3 vols.--=Fischer=,
I. E., Sibirskaya istorya s samavo otkrytya (A history of Siberia from
its discovery), St. Petersburg, 1774.--=Fisher=, J. R., Finland and
the Tsars, London, 1899.--=Flerovski=, N., Tri polititcheskya sistemy:
Nikolai I, Alexander II, Alexander III, (Three political systems:
Nicholas I, Alexander II, Alexander III), Geneva, 1897, (German
translation, Berlin, 1898).--=Foster-Fraser=, J., The Real Siberia,
London, 1902.--=Foulke=, W. D., Slav or Saxon: A Study of the Growth
and Tendencies of Russian Civilisation, New York, 1887.--=Fowler=, G.,
History of the War between Turkey and Russia to the End of 1854, London,
1855.--=Fraehn=, C. M., Ibn Fosslans und anderer Araber Berichte über
die Russen älterer Zeit, St. Petersburg, 1823.--=Fraser=, J. F., The
Real Siberia; with an account of a dash through Manchuria, New York,
1902.--=Frederica=, Sophia Wilhelmina, Princess Royal of Russia, Memoirs,
London, 1812, 2 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Galakhov=, A. D., Istorya russkoi slovesnosti (History of Russian
literature), Moscow, 1894, 2 vols.--=Galitsyne=, A., Le faux Pierre III,
trad. de Pouchkine, Paris, 1858.--=George=, H. B., Napoleon’s Invasion
of Russia, New York, 1899.--=Gerebtzov=, N. de, Essai sur l’histoire
de la civilisation en Russie, Paris, 1858, 2 vols.--=Gerrare=, W., The
Story of Moscow (Mediæval Towns series), London, 1900; Greater Russia,
London, 1903.--=Gogol=, N. V., Home Life in Russia, by a Russian
noble; revised by the editor of “Revelations in Siberia,” London,
1854, 2 vols.--=Golovin=, Knyas I, Russia under the Autocrat Nicholas
I, London, 1846, 2 vols.--=Gossip=, R., History of Russia, London,
1800.--=Grigorev=, V. V., Rossya i Azya, Sbornik izslyedovanyi i statey
po istorii, etnografii i geografii (Russia and Asia. Researches in
history, ethnography, and geography), St. Petersburg, 1876.--=Grodekov=,
N. G., A Ride from Samarcand to Herat, translated by C. Marvin, London,
1885.--=Gurowski=, A., Russia As It Is, New York, 1854.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Hagemeister=, I. A., Rozyskanya o finansakh drevney Rossii
(Investigations concerning the finances of ancient Russia), St.
Petersburg, 1833.--=Hakluyt=, R., Discovery of Muscovy (Cassel’s Nat.
Lib.)--=Hamley=, E. R., The Story of the Campaign: a complete narrative
of the war in southern Russia. Written in a tent in the Crimea, Boston,
1855.--=Hanna=, H. B., Indian Problems, Westminster, 1895-1896, 3
vols.--=Hare=, A. J. C., Studies in Russia, London, 1885.--=Haumant=,
E., La guerre du Nord (1655-1660), Paris, 1893.--=Haxthausen=, A. von,
Studien über die inneren Zustände, das Volksleben, und insbesondere die
ländlichen Einrichtungen Russlands, Hanover, 1847-1852, 3 vols.; Die
Kriegsmacht Russlands, Berlin, 1852; Transcaucasia: sketches of the
nations and races between the Black Sea and the Caspian, translated by
J. E. Taylor, London, 1854; Tribes of the Caucasus: with an account
of Schamyl and the Murids, translated by J. E. Taylor, London, 1855;
Transkaukasia, Leipsic, 1856, 2 vols.; The Russian Empire, Its People,
Institutions and Resources, translated by R. Farie, London, 1856, 2
vols.; Die ländliche Verfassung Russlands, Leipsic, 1866.

    _Baron August von Haxthausen_ was born on his father’s estate
    near Paderborn in Westphalia, February 3, 1792. He studied
    in a mining school and took part in the War of Liberation,
    1813-1815. His life was mainly devoted to the study of agrarian
    conditions in eastern Prussia and in Russia. His researches in
    the latter country were undertaken at the request of Nicholas
    I, and he is generally regarded as the discoverer of the _mir_
    or Russian village community. He died at Hanover, January 1,
    1867.

=Hedin=, Sven, Through Asia, New York, 1899, 2 vols.--=Hehn=, V., De
moribus Ruthenorum. Zur Charakteristik der russischen Volksseele.
Edited by Th. Schiemann, Stuttgart, 1892.--=Hellwald=, F. A. H. von,
The Russians in Central Asia, translated from the German by Theo.
Wirgman, London, 1874.--=Herzen=, A. I., Die russische Verschwörung und
der Aufstand vom 14. Dezember 1825, Hamburg, 1858; Russlands soziale
Zustände. Aus dem russischen, Hamburg, 1854; Du développement des idées
révolutionnaires en Russie, par A. Iscander (pseud), Paris, 1851; Le
monde russe et la révolution; mémoires, 1812-1835, traduits par H.
Delaveau, Paris, 1860-1862, 3 vols.--=Himmelstjerna=, S. H. von, Russland
unter Alexander III., Leipsic, 1891, English translation, Russia under
Alexander III., and in the preceding period, New York, 1893; Verlumpung
der Bauern und des Adels in Russland, nach G. I. Uspensky und A. N.
Terpigoriew, Leipsic, 1892.--=Historischer Atlas von Russland, Polen,
etc.=, vom Jahre 1155 bis zum Jahre 1816, Leipsic, 1817.--=Holland=, Th.
E., A Lecture on the Treaty Relations of Russia and Turkey from 1774 to
1853, London, 1877.--=Hourwich=, I. A., The Economics of the Russian
Village (Columbia studies in history, economics, and public law), New
York, 1892.--=Howard=, B., Prisoners of Russia: a personal study of
convict life in Sakhalin and Siberia, New York, 1902.--=Howorth=, H. H.,
History of the Mongols from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century, London,
1876-1880, 4 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Ignatovitch=, I., Pomyeshtchitchi krestyane nakanune osvobozhdenya
(Proprietor’s peasants on the eve of emancipation), in “Russkoe
Bogatstvo,” 1900.--=Ilovaiski=, D. I., Istorya Rossii (History of
Russia), Moscow, 1876-1890, 3 vols.; Smutnoe vremya moskocskavo
gosudarstva (The Troublous Period in the Muscovite Empire), Moscow,
1894.--=Ivanin=, M. L., O voyennom iskustvye i zavoevanyakh Mongolo-Tatar
i srednyeazyatskikh narodov pri Tchingis Khanye i Tammerlanye, (The Art
of War and the Conquests of the Mongol-Tatars and Central-Asian peoples
under Jenghiz Khan and Tamerlane), St. Petersburg, 1875.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Jauffret=, P. E., Catherine II., et son règne, Paris, 1860.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Kapnist=, J., Code d’organisation judiciaire russe, Paris,
1893.--=Karamzin=, N. M., Istorya gosudarstva rossiiskavo (History of the
Russian Empire), St. Petersburg, 1818-1829, 12 vols.

    _Nikolai Mikhailovitch Karamzin_ was born December 12, 1765,
    at the village of Mikhailovka, in the government of Orenburg,
    and died June 3, 1826, at Tsarskoi Selo. His first literary
    efforts consisted of translations of essays and poems from
    foreign languages. In 1789 he undertook a journey to Germany,
    France, Switzerland and England, the literary result of which
    was his _Letters of a Russian Traveller_, elegant, poetical
    and sentimental. These letters were first published in the
    _Moscow Journal_, of which he was the founder, and which he
    edited in 1791-1792. In the same periodical also appeared
    some of his original stories, one of which treats of the
    fall of Novgorod. From 1794 to 1799 he published a number of
    miscellanies, _Aglaia_, _The Aonides_, and the _Pantheon_,
    containing original as well as translated matter. In 1802-1803
    Karamzin edited the _European Messenger_, destined to become
    one of the most important Russian reviews, and of which he was
    the founder. He then turned to the work of his life, the great
    _History of the Russian Empire_, which was to occupy him till
    his death. In this last enterprise he was aided and encouraged
    by the emperor Alexander I, who contributed 60,000 rubles
    to the cost of publication. The history terminates at the
    accession of Michael Romanov in 1613. Karamzin’s work is the
    first great Russian history. Its style is elegant and flowing,
    its erudition large and solid, and it abounds in curious
    information. It is owing to these qualities that the book still
    maintains its place, although much of it has by this time
    become obsolete. The book is especially strong in description
    of battles and analysis of character. Its spirit is frankly
    reactionary. The barbarism of early Russia is glossed over by
    a glittering veil of romanticism, the material, intellectual
    and moral condition of the Russian people is almost entirely
    ignored, and the book has been styled the “epic of despotism.”
    A French translation appeared at Paris in 1819-1820, and a
    German one at Leipsic in 1820-1833.

=Kelly=, W. K., History of Russia, London, 1854, 2 vols.--=Kennan=,
G., Tent Life in Siberia, and Adventures Among the Koraks and Other
Tribes in Kamtchatka and Northern Asia, New York, 1870; Siberia and the
Exile System, New York, 1891, 2 vols.--=Kinglake=, A. W., The Invasion
of the Crimea, London, 1863-1887, 8 vols.--=Klaczko=, J., Études de
diplomatie contemporaine (1861-1864), Paris, 1866; Deux chanceliers
(Gortchakov and Bismarck), Paris, 1877.--=Kleinschmidt=, A., Drei
Jahrhunderte russischer Geschichte (1598-1898), Berlin, 1898.--=Knorr=,
E., Die polnischen Aufstände seit 1830, Berlin, 1880.--=Kohl=, J. G.,
Russia: Travels, London, 1842.--=Kostomarov=, N. I., Istoritcheskya
monografii i izslyedovanya (Historical Monographs and Researches), St.
Petersburg, 1863-1867, 3 vols.; Russkaya istorya v zhiznye opisanyakh
yeya glavnyeisliikh dyeiyatelyei (Russian History in the Biographies of
its Chief Actors), St. Petersburg, 1892-1896, 4 vols.; Smutnoe vremya
moskovskavo gosudarstva v natchalye XVII. stolyetya (The Troublous Period
in the Muscovite Empire at the Beginning of the Seventeenth Century),
St. Petersburg, 1868; Poslyednie gody ryetchi-pospolitoi (The Last Years
of the Polish Republic), St. Petersburg, 1870; Predanya pervonatchalnoi
russkoi lyetopisi (The Traditions of the Earliest Russian Chronicles),
St. Petersburg, 1881; Bogdan Khmelnitski: istoritcheskaya monografia
(Bogdan Khmelnitsky: an Historical Monograph), St. Petersburg, 1884,
3 vols.; Syevernorusskie narodopravstva vo vremya udyelno-vyetchevovo
uklada (Popular Rights in Northern Russia During the Period of
Appanages and Republics. The History of Novgorod, Pskov, and Vyatka),
St. Petersburg, 1886, 2 vols.; Otcherk domashney zhizni i nravov
velikorusskavo Naroda v 16. i 17. stolyetii i starinnye zemskie sbory
(A Sketch of the Domestic Life and Manners of the Great-Russians in
the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries; and the Ancient Provincial
Assemblies), St. Petersburg, 1887; Otcherk torgovli moskovskavo
gosudarstva v 16. i 17. stolyetyakh (A Sketch of the Commerce of the
Muscovite Empire During the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries), St.
Petersburg, 1889.

    _Nikolai Ivanovitch Kostomarov_ was born May 4th, 1817, at
    Ostrogosh, in the government of Voronezh. In 1846 he was
    appointed to a professorship of history in the university of
    Kiev. Owing to his activity for the reviving of Little Russian
    literature he was accused of harbouring separatist tendencies,
    arrested, imprisoned for a whole year, and then banished to
    Saratov and forbidden to teach or publish his writings. On
    the accession of Alexander II he was pardoned, and in 1859 he
    was appointed professor of history at the university of St.
    Petersburg. But in 1862, when the university was closed in
    consequence of students’ disorders, he resigned his post, and
    henceforth devoted himself exclusively to writing. He died at
    St. Petersburg, April 19th, 1885. His poetical works, which
    were written in the Little Russian dialect under the _nom
    de plume_ of Jeremiah Halka, were published collectively at
    Odessa, 1875. Some of them have been translated into German. As
    an historian Kostomarov occupies a very high place in Russian
    literature. His work has assumed the form of monographs, owing
    to his idea that Russian history cannot be understood without
    an exhaustive study of the numerous ethnological elements and
    the separate territorial divisions of which the Russian empire
    is composed. In his own words, “the Russian empire represents
    an integration of parts that once led an independent existence,
    and for a considerable time after unification the life of
    the parts expressed itself in separate tendencies within the
    general political structure. To discover and disclose these
    peculiarities of national life in the divisions that make
    up the Russian empire, was the problem I set before myself
    in my historical labours.” The justification of this view
    lies in the comparative recency of the Russian empire, its
    weakness in the assumption that the national or provincial
    character is unchangeable and immobile. Kostomarov had at his
    command a vigorous, dramatic style and a lively imagination,
    and his books contributed greatly toward the popularisation
    of historical studies in Russia: but he was also possessed
    in a high degree of the critical faculty, and more than one
    historical legend has been demolished in his pages. His
    “Russian History in Biographies” was translated into German and
    published at Leipsic, 1886-1889.

=Kovalevski=, M., Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia, London,
1891; Le Régime économique de la Russie, Paris, 1896; L’Agriculture en
Russie, Paris, 1897; Russian Political Institutions, Chicago, 1902.

    _Maxim Kovalevski_ was born at Kharkov in 1851, of a rich and
    noble family that is remarkable for the number of men--and
    one woman--of science it has given to Russia. He studied at
    Berlin, Paris, and London, and in 1877-1887 he was professor
    of comparative law at the university of Moscow. Owing to his
    liberal views he was compelled to give up his position. Since
    then he has settled at Paris, where he has collected a valuable
    library, and lectured at various seats of learning in Europe
    and America--Stockholm, Oxford, Brussels, Chicago. He has
    written numerous and important works on the history of Russia,
    France, England, the Caucasus, etc., and is a recognised
    authority in the departments of pre-history, public and private
    law, and economic history.

=Koyalovitch=, M. I., Dnyevnik poslyednyavo pokhoda Stefana Batorya
na Rossiyu, 1581-1582. Osada Pskova (A diary of the last campaign of
Stephen Batory against Russia in 1581-1582. The siege of Pskov), St.
Petersburg, 1867; Tchtenya po istorii zapadnoi Rossii (Lectures on the
history of Southern Russia), St. Petersburg, 1884.--=Kravchinski=, S. M.,
(Stepniak). The Russian Peasantry: Their Origin, Condition, Social Life
and Religion, London, 1888, 2 vols.--=Kropotkin=, P. A., Memoirs of a
Revolutionist, Boston, 1899.--=Kulish=, P. A., Istorya vozsoedinenya Rusi
(A history of the unification of Russia), St. Petersburg, 1874.--=Kunik=,
E., Die Berufung der schwedischen Rodsen durch die Finnen und Slawen,
St. Petersburg, 1844-1845.--=Kuropatkin=, Gen. A. N., Les confins
anglo-russe, translated by G. Le Marchand, Paris, 1879; Kashgaria,
translated by Col. W. E. Gore, Calcutta, 1882; Kritische Rückblicke auf
den russisch-türkischen Krieg 1877-1878, Berlin, 1885-1890, 3 vols.

    _Alexei Nikolaievitch Kuropatkin_ was born March 29, 1848.
    In 1866 he joined the army of Turkestan as a lieutenant,
    served with distinction in the expedition of General Kaufman
    in 1867-1868, was sent at the head of a diplomatic-military
    mission to the emir of Kashgar, and studied in 1872-1874
    at the academy of the general staff. He joined the French
    army in Algeria as a volunteer, was active on his return in
    Turkestan, and then became chief of the Asiatic section of the
    general staff. In 1877-1878 he was chief of General Skobelev’s
    staff, under whom he also served in the campaign against
    the Akhal-Tekke Turkomans, 1880-1881. In 1890 he became a
    lieutenant-general and governor of the Transcaspian territory,
    and later minister of war.

    He is the author of two important works on the last
    Russo-Turkish War, which have been translated into French and
    German, and of a book of travels on Kashgar.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Labensky=, A., A Russian’s Reply to the Marquis de Custine’s “Russia in
1839,” London, 1844.--=Laferté=, V., Alexander II: Détails inédits sur
sa vie intime et sa mort, Paris, 1882.--=Lamartine=, A. de, Histoire de
la Russie, Paris, 1855, 2 vols.--=Lansdell=, H., Russian Central Asia,
including Kuldja, Bokhara, Khiva and Merv, Boston, 1885.--=Latham=,
R. G., Native Races of the Russian Empire, London, 1854; Russian
and Turk, from a Geographical, Ethnological and Historical Point of
View, London, 1878.--=Latimer=, Mrs. W. E., Russia and Turkey in the
Nineteenth Century, Chicago, 1893.--=Leger=, L., Cyrille et Méthode,
étude historique sur la conversion de Slaves au christianisme, Paris,
1868; De Nestore rerum russicarum scriptore, Paris, 1868; Traduction
de la chronique de Nestor, Paris, 1884.--=Lehmann=, C. and =Parvus=
(pseud.), Das hungernde Russland, Stuttgart, 1900.--=Lemke=, M., Otcherki
po istorii tsenzuri (Studies in the History of the Russian Censorship),
in “Russkoe Bogatstvo,” 1903.--=Leonov=, R., Documents secrets de la
politique russe en Orient (1888-1890), Berlin, 1893.--=Leroy-Beaulieu=,
A., L’empire des Tsars et les Russes, Paris, 1881-1889, 3 vols.; Un homme
d’état russe: Nicolas Milutin, Paris, 1884; La France, La Russie et
l’Europe, Paris, 1888; Israël chez les nations, Paris, 1893.

    _Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu_ was born in 1842 at Lisieux. Since
    1881 he has been professor of modern history at the _école
    libre de sciences politiques_ in Paris. His chief work,
    “_L’empire des Tsars et les Russes_,” is one of the most
    important works on Russia ever published in western Europe. The
    first two volumes treat of the geography, ethnology, and the
    economic and political institutions, while the third is devoted
    to a study of the Russian church and the sects.

=Leroy-Beaulieu=, P., The Awakening of the East: Siberia, Japan,
China, New York, 1900.--=Lestrade=, Combes de, La Russie économique et
sociale, Paris, 1896.--=Lessar=, P., La Russie et l’Angleterre dans
l’Asie centrale, Paris, 1886.--=Lévesque=, P. C., Histoire de Russie,
Yverdun, 1782, 8 vols., Paris, 1812, 4 vols.--=Livov=, G., Michel
Katkoffet son époque: quelque pages d’histoire contemporaine en Russie
(1855-1887), Paris, 1897.--=Loris-Melikov=, M. T. T., Konstitutsya grafa
Lorisa-Melikova (The Constitution of Count Loris-Melikov), London,
1893.--=Lyaskoronski=, V., Istorya Pereyaslovskoi zemli s drevneyshikh
vremyon do polovinny XIII stolyetya (A History of Pereyaslavl from the
earliest times to the middle of the thirteenth century), Kiev, 1897.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Maggiolo=, A. de, France et Russie; Pozzo di Borgo, 1764-1842, Paris,
1890.--=Maltsev=, A., Die russische Kirche, Berlin, 1893.--=Manstein=,
Baron de, Memoirs of Russia 1727-1744, translated from the original
manuscript, London, 1773.--=Martens=, F. F., Étude historique sur la
politique russe dans la question d’Orient, Gand, 1877; Recueil de traités
et conventions conclus par la Russie avec les puissances étrangères, St.
Petersburg, 1878-1889, 10 vols.; Russia and England in Central Asia,
London, 1879.--=Martin=, H., Histoire de France depuis 1789 jusqu’à
nos jours, Paris, 2nd edition, 1878-1885, 8 vols.--=Marvin=, C., The
Eye Witnesses’ Account of the Disastrous Russian Campaign against the
Akhal-Tekke Turkomans, London, 1880; The Russian Advance Towards India:
conversations with Skobelev, Ignatiev, and other distinguished Russian
generals and statesmen, London, 1882; The Russians at Merv and Herat and
their Power of Invading India, London, 1883; The Russians at the Gates
of Herat, London and New York, 1885.--=Marx=, F., The Pacific and the
Amoor: Naval, military, and diplomatic operations from 1855 to 1861,
London, 1861.--=Marx=, K., The Eastern Question: a reprint of letters
written 1853-1856 dealing with the events of the Crimean War, London,
1897; Secret Diplomatic History of the Eighteenth Century, London, 1899;
Lord Palmerston, London, 1899.--=Massa=, Isaac de Harlem, Histoire des
guerres de Moscovie 1601-1611, Brussels, 1876; Skazanya Massy i Herkmana
o smutnom vremeni v Rossii (The Accounts of Massa and Herkmann of the
Troublous Period in Russia), St. Petersburg, 1874.--=Masson=, C. F.
P., Mémoires secrets sur la Russie pendant les regnes de Catherine II
et de Paul I, (in Bibliothèque des mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de
France pendant le 18ᵉ siècle, vol. 22), Paris, 1859.--=Maxwell=, J. S.,
The Czar, his Court and People, New York, 1849.--=Mechlin=, R., Das
Staatsrecht des Grossfürstenthums Finland, Freiburg, 1889.--=Mérimée=,
P., Les faux Démétrius, Paris, 1852; Épisode de l’histoire de Russie,
Paris, 1854; Les cosaques d’autrefois, Paris, 1865; Mélanges historiques
et littéraires, Paris, 1867; Portraits historiques et littéraires,
Paris, 1874.--=Michelin=, L. H. S., Finland in the Nineteenth Century,
Helsingfors, 1894.--=Milukov=, P. N., Glavnyia tetchenya russkoi
istoritcheskoi mysli (The Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought),
Moscow, 1898; Skizzen russischer Kulturgeschichte. Deutsche vom Verfasser
durchgesehene Ausgabe von E. Davidson, Leipsic, 1898-1901, 2 vols.

    _Milukov_ was born in 1859. From 1886 to 1895 he taught at
    the university of Moscow. But like so many other Russian
    professors of history and social science, he came in conflict
    with the government, and accepted a professorship at the
    university of Sofia, Bulgaria. He is one of the ablest of the
    younger generation of Russian historians, his method being the
    realistic or economic. During several years he was a regular
    contributor of reviews on Russian literature to the London
    _Athenæum_.

=Milutin=, D. A., Istorya voiny Rossii s Frantsieu v tsarstvovanie
imperatora Pavla I v 1799 g. (A History of the War Between Russia and
France During the Reign of the Emperor Paul I in the Year 1799), St.
Petersburg, 1852-1853, 5 vols.

    _Dmitri Alexeievitch Milutin_ was born July 10, 1816, at
    Moscow. In 1833 he entered the army as lieutenant, then served
    in the army of the Caucasus, in which he advanced in 1843 to
    the post of chief of the commissariat department, and in 1856
    to that of chief of the general staff. In 1860 he became first
    adjutant to the war minister, and in 1862 war minister. In this
    capacity he devoted himself toward reorganising the army on
    a modern basis, and in 1874 he introduced universal military
    service. The campaigns of 1877-1878 showed the shortcomings as
    well as the improvements of the army under his administration.
    In 1878 the title of count was conferred on him. In 1881
    he was dismissed by Alexander III owing to his expressed
    dissatisfaction with the reactionary, strictly absolutist
    manifesto of May 11 of that year. He was the author of a number
    of works on military history and science, and his history of
    Souvorov’s campaign in Italy appeared in a German translation,
    at Munich, 1856-1858.

=Moltke=, H. C. B., The Russians in Bulgaria, in 1828-1829, London,
1854.--=Monteith=, W., Kars and Erzeroum: with the campaigns of Prince
Paskiewitch, London, 1856.--=Morane=, P., Finlande et Caucase, Paris,
1900.--=Morfill=, W. R., Russia (Story of the Nations series), New
York, 1891; A History of Russia from the Birth of Peter the Great to
Nicholas II., New York, 1902.--=Motley=, J. L., Peter the Great, London,
1887.--=Munro=, H. H., Rise of the Russian Empire, Boston, 1900.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Nagasee=, H., Die Entwicklung der russischen und englischen
Politik Persien und Afghanistan betreffend bis 1838, Halle, A. S.
1894.--=Nestor=, Prepodobnavo Nestora rossiski lyetopisets (Holy
Nestor’s Russian Chronicle), St. Petersburg, 1767; La chronique de
Nestor, translation by Louis Paris, Paris, 1834, 2 vols.--=Neuburger=,
F., Russland unter Kaiser Alexander III., Berlin, 1895.--=Nicolai=, on
(pseud. of Danielson) Histoire de développment économique de la Russie
depuis l’abolition du servage, Paris, 1899; Die Volkswirthschaft in
Russland nach der Bauernemancipation. Autorisierte Übersetzung aus
dem russischen von Dr. G. Polansky, Munich, 1899.--=Nikitin=, P.,
Istorya goroda Smolenska, (History of the City of Smolensk), Moscow,
1848.--=Nikitski=, A., Otcherk vnutrennei istorii Pskova (Outline of
the Internal History of Pskov), St. Petersburg, 1873.--=Noble=, E., The
Russian Revolt: its causes, condition and prospects, Boston, 1885; Russia
and the Russians, Boston, 1901.--=Norman=, H., All the Russias: travels
and studies in contemporary European Russia, Finland, Siberia, New York,
1902.--=Novikov=, Mme. O. K., Skobelev and the Slavonic Cause, London,
1883; Russia and England from 1876 to 1880: a protest and an appeal: with
a preface by J. A. Froude, London, 1880.

       *       *       *       *       *

=O’Donovan=, E., The Merv Oasis, London, 1882.--=Ordega=, V., Die
Gewerbepolitik Russlands von Peter I bis Katharina II, Tübingen,
1885.--=Oxley=, T. L., Character and Reign of Alexander II, London, 1881.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Palmer=, F. H. E., Russian Life in Town and Country, New York,
1901.--=Parmele=, M. P., A Short History of Russia. New York,
1900.--=Pavlov=, N. M., Russkaya istorya ot drevneyskikh vremyon (Russian
History from the Earliest Times, 862-1362), Moscow, 1896-1899, 2
vols.--=Pekarski=, P. P., Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petrye Velikom
(Science and Literature in Russia at the Time of Peter the Great), St.
Petersburg, 1862, 2 vols.--=Pember=, A., Ivan the Terrible, London,
1895.--=Pfuel=, E. von, Der Rückzug der Franzosen aus Russland, Berlin,
1867.--=Pierling=, P., Rome et Démétrius, Paris, 1878; La Sorbonne et
la Russie, Paris, 1882; Un Nonce du pape en Moscovie: préliminaires de
la trêve de 1582, Paris, 1884; La Saint-Siège, la Pologne et Moscou
(1582-1587), Paris, 1885; Bathory et Possevino, Paris, 1887; Papes et
Tsars (1547-1597), Paris, 1890; La Russie et l’Orient: marriage d’un Tsar
au Vatican, Ivan III et Sophie Paléologue, Paris, 1891; L’Italie et la
Russie au XVI siècle, Paris, 1892.--=Pingaud=, L., Les Français en Russie
et les Russes en France, Paris, 1886.--=Pogodin=, M. P., Izslyedovanya,
zamyetchanya i lektsii o russkoi istorii (Researches, Comments and
Lectures on Russian History), Moscow, 1846-1857, 7 vols.; Nestor:
eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung über den Anfang der russischen
Chroniken. Übersetzt von F. Loewe, (Beiträge zur Kenntniss des russischen
Reiches, vol. 10), St. Petersburg, 1884.--=Popowski=, J., The Rival
Powers in Central Asia, London, 1893.--=Porter=, R. K., Narrative of the
Campaign in Russia During the Year 1812, London, 1814.--=Possevino=,
A., Antonii Possevini missio moscovitica ex annuis litteris Societatis
Jesu excerpta et adnotationibus illustrata curante P. Pierling, Paris,
1882.--=Pozzo Di Borgo=, Ch., Correspondance diplomatique du comte Pozzo
di Borgo, Paris, 1891.--=Pyzyrewsky=, A., Der polnisch-russische Krieg
von 1831, Wien, 1892-1893, 3 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Rafn=, K. C., Antiquités Russes, Copenhagen, 1850-1854, 3
vols.--=Ralston=, W. R. S., The Songs of the Russian People, London,
1872; Russian Folk-tales, London, 1873; Early Russian History, London,
1876.--=Rambaud=, La Russie épique, Paris, 1876; Souvorof, (conférances
de Saint-Cyr), Paris, 1889; Français et Russes, Moscou et Sevastopol,
Paris, 1892; L’armée du tsar Alexandre III, in la Revue Bleue, November
10, 1894; Histoire de la Russie, Paris, 1900; The Expansion of Russia:
Problems of the East and of the Far East, New York, 1904.

    _Alfred Nicolas Rambaud_ was born July 21st, 1842 at Besançon.
    Appointed in 1864 a teacher at the lyceum of Nancy, he
    advanced steadily until his appointment to a professorship in
    the university of Paris in 1882. In 1896 he was minister of
    education in the Méline cabinet. He is the author of many works
    on the history of France, and in conjunction with Lavisse he
    is editing the “Histoire générale du IVᵉ siècle jusqu’à nos
    jours.” His “History of Russia” is regarded as the best of its
    kind that has ever been written by a West-European.

=Ravenstein=, E. G., The Russians on the Amur; its discovery, conquest,
and colonisation and personal accounts of Russian travellers, London,
1861.--=Rawlinson=, H. C., England and Russia in the East; a series
of papers on the political and geographical condition of Central
Asia, London, 1875.--=Reinholdt=, A. von, Geschichte der russischen
Litteratur von ihren Anfängen bis auf die neueste Zeit, in Geschichte der
Weltlitteratur in Einzeldarstellungen, vol. 7, Leipsic, 1886.--=Reinsch=,
P. S., World Politics at the End of the Nineteenth Century, New York,
1900.--=Rivière=, Ch. de la, Catherine II et la révolution française,
Paris, 1895. =Rocca=, F. de, Les assemblées politiques dans la Russie
ancienne, Paris, 1899.--=Rozhkov=, N., Gorod i derevnia v russkoi
istorii: kratki otcherk ekonomitcheskoi istorrii Rossii (City and village
in Russian history; a rapid survey of Russian economical history), in
“Mir Bozhi,” 1902; Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologitcheskoi totchki
zryenya. Tchast pervaya: Kievskaya Rus (A survey of Russian history from
the sociological point of view. Part first: Kievan Russia), in “Mir
Bozhi,” 1903.--=Rulhière=, C. C. de, Révolution de Pologne, Paris, 1862,
3 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Saraw=, Chr. von, Die Feldzüge Karl’s XII, Leipsic, 1881.--=Schiemann=,
Th., Russland, Polen, und Livland bis im XVII. Jahrhundert, in Oncken’s
Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen, Berlin, 1886-1887, 2 vols.;
Die Ermordung Pauls und die Thronbesteigung Nikolaus I: neue Materialien
veröffentlicht und eingeleitet, Berlin, 1902.--=Schlözer=, K. von,
Russlands älteste Beziehungen zu Skandinavien und Konstantinopel, Berlin,
1847.--=Schmucker=, S. M., Memoirs of the Court and Reign of Catherine
the Second, New York, 1855.--=Schnitzler=, J. H., Geheime Geschichte
Russlands unter den Kaisern Alexander und Nikolaus, unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Krisis von 1825, Grimma, 1847, 2 vols., English
translation, Secret History of the Court and Government of Russia Under
the Emperors Alexander and Nicholas, London, 1847, 2 vols.; L’Empire
des Tsars ou point actuél de la science, Paris, 1856-1869, 4 vols.; La
Russie en 1812, Rostopchine et Koutouzof, Paris, 1863; Les institutions
de la Russie depuis les réformes de l’empereur Alexander II, Paris,
1866, 2 vols.; Geschichte des russischen Reiches von der ältesten Zeit
bis zum Tode des Kaisers Nikolaus, Leipsic, 1874.--=Schuyler=, E.,
Turkistan. Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkistan, Khokand, Bokhara,
and Kuldja, London and New York, 1876, 2 vols.; Peter the Great,
London and New York, 1884, 2 vols.--=Ségur=, P. P. Comte de, History
of Russia and Peter the Great, London, 1829.--=Semyovski=, V. I.,
Gornozavodskie krestyane v vtoroi polovinye 18vo vyeka (The Peasants in
Metallurgic Works During the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century), in
“Russkaya Mysl,” 1900.--=Sergeevitch=, V. I., Vetche i knyaz: russkoe
gosudarstvennoe ustroistvo i upravlyenie vo vremena knyazei rurikovitchei
(Folkmote and Prince: the Russian Political System in the Days of the
Rurik Princes), Moscow, 1867.--=Shilder=, N. K., Imperator Alexandr I
(The Emperor Alexander I), St. Petersburg, 1897, 4 vols.; Tsarstvovanie
imperatora Nikolaya I (The Reign of Emperor Nicholas I), St. Petersburg,
1901.--=Shoemaker=, M. M., The Great Siberian Railway, New York,
1903.--=Shpilevski=, S. M., Drevnie goroda i drugie bulgarsko-tatarskie
pamyatniki v Kazanskoi gubernii (Ancient Cities and Other Bulgaro-Tatar
Monuments in the Government of Kazan), Kazan, 1877.--=Shtchebalsky=,
P., La régence de la tzarewna Sophie: épisode de l’histoire de Russie,
1682-1689, translation by Prince S. Galitzine, Carlsruhe, 1857; Tchtenie
iz russkoi istorii (Readings from Russian History), Moscow, 1861, 6
vols.--=Shumakr=, A. A., Tsar-Osvoboditel (The Czar Liberator), St.
Petersburg, 1901.--=Skrine=, F. H., The Expansion of Russia, 1815-1900,
Cambridge, 1903.--=Soloviov=, S. M., Istorya Rossii s drevneyshikh
vremyon (History of Russia from the Earliest Times), Moscow, 1863-1875,
29 vols.

    _Sergei Mikhailovitch Soloviov_ was born May 17th, 1820. In
    1850 he became a professor at the university of Moscow. In
    1877 he came into conflict with the reactionary policy of
    the government toward the universities, and demanded and
    obtained his dismissal. He died October 16th, 1879. Besides his
    monumental _History of Russia_ he was the author of numerous
    monographs. _The Relations Between the Russian Princes of the
    House of Rurik_ was of epoch-making importance in Russian
    historical literature. His _History of the Fall of Poland_ has
    become the standard work on the subject and was translated
    into German (Gotha, 1865). But all his other works are cast
    into the shade by his stupendous _History of Russia from
    the Earliest Times_, in which he proposed to himself a task
    excelling, perhaps, the power of any single human being--the
    presentation of the entire history of his country, based
    exclusively on original research. The result has, therefore,
    been not wholly successful, and the later volumes present
    the appearance of a mere aggregation of materials hastily
    arranged. But the material is of the finest quality and will
    serve as a rich quarry for all future historians. Soloviov’s
    method of presentation is calm and dispassionate, his style
    tranquil and somewhat dry, but admirably clear. From Karamzin
    to Soloviov the gulf is wide indeed, and perhaps it will be
    well to present a few of the latter’s ideas in order to show
    the indebtedness that all modern historians of Russia owe
    to him. Russian society, like all primitive society, was in
    its origin tribal and based on kinship. The introduction of
    Varangian rule represents the beginnings of the dissolution of
    that society and the introduction of political society, based
    on territory. But society was still in a transitional stage.
    The warlike followers of the princes were free to renounce
    their allegiance to one master and to choose another in his
    stead, and the principle of kinship was still dominant within
    the house of Rurik itself, thus counteracting the separatist
    tendencies of the appanages. It was the colonisation of the
    north and east and the removal of the center of Russian life to
    the Volga, that first makes possible, as well as necessary, the
    centralisation of power: for the colonists settle on land that
    belongs to the prince and in cities founded by him, while the
    colonists themselves come from different parts of Russia and
    are unconnected by the bond of kinship. In the struggle that
    follows between the prince and the refractory, unsubmissive
    elements--whether of the common people or of the noble
    followers--the prince is victorious and the irreconcileables
    flee to the forests of the north or to the steppes of the
    south. Thus we have the origin of the robber bands, and of the
    Cossacks--another name for the same thing. But the removal of
    the centre to the Volga also implies the estrangement of Russia
    from European influences, and the Tatar rule plays in this only
    a subordinate and external part. The grand princes of Moscow
    in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are thus seen to be
    the continuators of the policy of the grand princes of Suzdal
    in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, while the episode
    of the period of confusion represents an abortive attempt at
    the establishment of a milder rule by the Cossacks. Ivan III
    and Ivan IV, in their struggle with the foreigner, begin to
    appreciate the superior potency of European civilisation,
    and are the precursors of Peter the Great. But the new
    tendencies work with unceasing force during the intervening
    period, and those who resist the new tendencies become the
    nonconformists or Raskolniki (Old Ritualists). This tendency
    finds its parallel in Western Europe, where the task had been
    accomplished two centuries earlier; but not so the effort
    to reach the sea, which is a peculiar Russian phenomenon.
    Soloviov’s work reaches down to 1774.

=Sorel=, A., Histoire du traité de Paris, Paris, 1873; La question
d’Orient au XVIII. siècle, Paris, 1889.--=Stepniak=, S. (pseudonym of
Kravtchinski, S. M.), Underground Russia, New York, 1883; Russia under
the Tsars. Rendered into English by W. Westall, New York, 1885; King Log
and King Stork, a Study of Modern Russia, London, 1896.

    _Stepniak_, whose real name was Sergius Mikhailovitch
    Kravtchinski, was born in South Russia, in 1852, of a noble
    family. When he left school he became an officer in the
    artillery, but his sympathy with the peasants soon led him into
    the revolutionary agitation, and he became identified with
    the terrorist party. In 1880 he was obliged to leave Russia,
    and after a few years’ stay in Switzerland and Italy he came
    to London, where he lived until 1895, when he was killed by a
    railway engine at a level crossing at Bedford Park, Chiswick.
    He was the author of numerous works on contemporary Russia,
    dealing chiefly with the revolutionary agitation and the
    condition of the peasantry.

=Strahl=, P. and E. =Herrmann=, Geschichte des russischen Staates,
Hamburg, and Gotha, 1832-1866, 7 vols.--=Stevens=, W. B., Through
Famine-Stricken Russia, London, 1892.--=Stumm=, H., Russia in Central
Asia, London, 1885.--=Sugenheim=, S., Russlands Einfluss auf und
Beziehungen zu Deutschland (1689-1855), Frankfort on Main, 1856, 2 vols.;
Geschichte der Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft, St. Petersburg, 1861.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Tatishtchev=, V. N., Istorya Rossii s samykh drevnyeishikh
vremyon (History of Russia from the very Earliest Times), Moscow,
1768.--=Tchitchagov=, L’Admiral, Mémoires de (1767-1849), Leipsic,
1862.--=Tchitcherin=, N., Oblastnyia utchrezhdenya Rossii v 17 vyeke
(The Provincial Institutions of Russia in the Seventeenth Century),
Moscow, 1856.--=Thun=, A., Geschichte der revolutionären Bewegungen in
Russland, Leipsic, 1883; Landwirtschaft und Gewerbe in Mittelrussland,
in Schmoller’s Staats- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschungen,
Leipsic, 1880.--=Thomson=, V. L. P., The Relation Between Ancient
Russia and Scandinavia, and the Origin of the Russian State, London,
1877.--=Tilly=, H. A., Eastern Europe and Western Asia, London,
1864.--=Tissot=, V., Russians and Germans: translated from the French
by S. L. Simon, London, 1882; La Russie et les Russes, Paris, 1884;
Russes et Allemands, New York, 1888.--=Tikhomirov=, L., Russia, Political
and Social, translated from the French by E. Aveling, London, 1888, 2
vols.--=Tolstoi=, L. N., La Famine, Paris, 1893.--=Tooke=, W., Russia;
or a Complete Historical Account of all the Nations which Comprise the
Russian Empire, London, 1780-1783, 4 vols.; The Life of Catherine II,
London, 1800, 3 vols.; A History of Russia from A. D. 862 to 1762,
London, 1806, 2 vols.--=Turgeniev=, N., La Russie et les Russes, Paris,
1847, 3 vols.--=Tugan-Baranovski=, M., Russkaya fabrika v proshlom i
nastoyashtchem (The Russian Factory, Past and Present), St. Petersburg,
1898.--=Tyrrell=, H., History of the (Crimean) War with Russia, London,
n. d. 4 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Ustrialov=, N., Skazanya knyazya Kurbskavo (The Accounts of Prince
Kurbski), St. Petersburg, 1868.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Valikhanov=, =Veniukov= and others, The Russians in Central
Asia, translated from the Russian by J. and R. Mitchell, London,
1865.--=Vambéry=, A., Central Asia and the Anglo-Russian Frontier
Question, London, 1874.--=Vannovski=, P. S., Doklad po povodu
studentcheskikh bezporyadkov 1899 g. (Report on the Students’
Disorders in the Year 1899), Publication of the “Rabotchnoe znamya,”
1900.--=Vereshtchagin=, V., “1812,” Napoleon in Russia, London,
1899.--=Viniarski=, L., Les finances russes (1867-1894), Geneva,
1894.--“=Vladimir=,” (pseud.), Russia on the Pacific and the Siberian
Railway, London, 1899.--=Vogüé=, E. de, La révolte de Pugatchef (Revue
des Deux Mondes, 1879); Spectacles contemporains (Loris-Melikov; Lettres
d’Asie), Paris, 1891.--=Voltaire=, F. M. A. de, Histoire de l’empire de
Russie, sous Pierre le Grand, Paris, 1809.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Waliszewski=, K., Peter the Great, London, 1897, 2 vols.; A History of
Russian Literature, London and New York, 1900. (Short History of the
Literature of the World, vol. 8); L’héritage de Pierre le Grand: règne de
femmes, gouvernements des favoris (1725-1741), Paris, 1900.--=Wallace=,
D. M., Russia, London, 1877, 2 vols.

    _Donald Mackenzie Wallace_ was born November 11th, 1841.
    Studied at the universities of Edinburgh, Berlin, Heidelberg,
    and the École de Droit of Paris. Resided and travelled in
    various foreign countries, chiefly in France, Germany, Russia,
    and Turkey, during the years 1863-1884. From 1884 to 1889
    he was private secretary to Lords Dufferin and Lansdowne
    while they were viceroys of India, and during 1890-1891 he
    accompanied the czarevitch during his tour in India and
    Ceylon. In 1883 he published a work on “Egypt and the Egyptian
    Question.” His work on “Russia” is universally regarded as the
    best book on that country that has ever been issued from the
    pen of an Englishman.

=Westlaender=, A., Russland vor einen Regime-Wechsel: politische
und wirthschaftliche Zustände im heutigen Russland, Stuttgart,
1894.--=Wilson=, R., Brief Remarks on the Character and Composition of
the Russian Army, and a Sketch of the Campaigns in Poland in 1806 and
1807, London, 1810.--=Winckler=, A., Die deutsche Hansa in Russland,
Berlin, 1886.--=Windt=, H. de, The New Siberia, London, 1896.--=Witte=,
S. J., Samoderzhavie i zemstvo (Autocracy and Local Representative
Government. A Confidential Communication by the Minister of Finance, S.
J. Witte, in 1899), Stuttgart, 1901.--=Wolkonski=, Prince S., Pictures of
Russian History and Russian Literature, Boston, 1897.--=Wright=, G. F.,
Asiatic Russia, New York, 1902, 2 vols.

       *       *       *       *       *

=Yozefovitch=, T., Dogovori Rossii s Vostokom, polititcheskie i torgovye
(The Commercial and Political Treaties of Russia with the East), St.
Petersburg, 1869.




[Illustration]




A CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA


    862 The Varangian chieftains =Rurik=, Sineus, and Truvor
    settle at Ladoga, Bielo-ozero and Izborsk. This date is purely
    conventional.

    865 Askold and Dir, two Varangian chieftains who had settled at
    Kiev, lead an unsuccessful expedition against Constantinople.

    879 Rurik dies, leaving the regency of the principality and the
    guardianship of his son Igor to =Oleg=.

    882 Oleg takes possession of Kiev after killing Askold and Dir,
    and makes that city his capital.

    907 Oleg leads an expedition consisting of eighty thousand men
    and two thousand boats against Constantinople. A treaty of
    peace and commerce is concluded.

    911 Oleg renews the treaty with the emperor of Constantinople
    securing valuable trading privileges for the Russians.

    913 Oleg dies, and is succeeded by =Igor=.

    941 Igor leads an expedition against Constantinople. His ships
    are destroyed by the Greek fire, and with great difficulty he
    brings his troops back to Kiev.

    944 Igor leads a second expedition against Constantinople. The
    Byzantines rid themselves of the barbarians by renewing the
    treaty that had been made with Oleg and also paying a ransom.
    The treaty is given in full by Nestor. Of the fifty names
    attached to it three are Slavonic and the rest Norse, which
    shows that the two races, the conquerors and the conquered, are
    beginning to be fused.

    945 Igor is killed by the Drevlians, a Slavonic tribe. His
    wife Olga assumes the regency during the minority of his son
    Sviatoslav.

    955 Olga embraces Greek Christianity. Her subjects, however,
    remain on the whole pagans.

    964 =Sviatoslav= assumes the rule. He is the first of the
    Varangians to bear a Slavonic name.

    968 Sviatoslav, in the pay of the Byzantine emperor Nicephoros,
    leads an army of 60,000 men against the Bulgarians of the
    Danube.

    970 Sviatoslav, after dividing the country among his three
    sons, again marches to Bulgaria, this time on his own account.

    972 Sviatoslav is defeated at Silistria and compelled to
    evacuate the Balkan peninsula.

    973 On his retreat, Sviatoslav is surprised and killed by the
    Petchenegs of the Dnieper.

    977 Rout of Oleg by Iaropolk and his death.

    980 =Vladimir=, after killing Iaropolk, becomes sole ruler.

    988 Vladimir is baptized and makes Greek Christianity the state
    religion. On the day of his baptism he marries a daughter of
    the Byzantine emperor Romanos II.

    1015 Vladimir dies and the country is divided among his eight
    sons and a nephew.

    1019 =Iaroslav=, prince of Novgorod and the youngest son of
    Vladimir, finally becomes grand prince, and removes his capital
    to Kiev.

    1054 Iaroslav dies. The country is divided among his five
    sons, one of whom, Iziaslav, is recognised as grand prince of
    Kiev. The custom, first introduced by Sviatoslav of breaking
    up the country into appanages, has now reached its full
    fruition. Russia has become an extremely loose federation of
    principalities. The central authority has been reduced to a
    nullity, and the period is filled with wars among the petty
    princes. This, of course, weakened the power of Russia for
    resisting foreign invaders, and made it an easy prey to the
    eastern nomadic tribes, from the Polovtsi to the Tatars. The
    chief events during this period are the foundation of Moscow
    (1147), the rise of Suzdal in Vladimir, and the pillaging
    of Kiev (1169) by Prince Andrew Bogoliubski of Suzdal. The
    hegemony of Kiev comes to an end for all time. The principal
    figures during this period are those of Vladimir II, surnamed
    Monomakh (1113-1125), and of Andrew Bogoliubski (1157-1175),
    who strove to re-establish some sort of unity and was
    assassinated by his nobles.

    1068 The people of Kiev liberate Vseslav and make him grand
    prince.

    1069 Iziaslav is restored by Boleslaw the Bold of Poland.

    1073 Iziaslav is again expelled from Kiev by his brothers
    Sviatoslav and Vsevolod. =Sviatoslav= becomes grand prince.

    1076 Death of Sviatoslav. He is succeeded by Vsevolod.

    1077 Iziaslav is again restored to the grand princedom.

    1078 Iziaslav dies and is succeeded by =Vsevolod=.

    1084 Failure of Vsevolod’s attempt to conquer Tmoutorakan
    (Tmutarakan).

    1093 Death of Vsevolod and accession of =Sviatopolk=, the
    second son of Iziaslav. The Polovtsi defeat the Russians in the
    battle of Tripole.

    1097 The congress of princes at Lubetz.

    1100 The congress of princes at Uvetitchi.

    1111 Defeat of the Polovtsi on the Sula.

    1113 Death of Sviatopolk and accession of =Vladimir Monomakh=.

    1125 Death of Monomakh.

    1147 Legendary date for the foundation of Moscow.

    1157 Andrew Bogoliubski becomes prince of Suzdal.

    1169 Kiev is captured and plundered by Andrew Bogoliubski.

    1175 Andrew Bogoliubski is assassinated.

    1221 Nijni-Novgorod is founded by Iuri, grand prince of Suzdal.

    1223 First invasion of Russia by the Mongols under Jenghiz
    Khan. The Russians are defeated on the banks of the Kalka, near
    where it flows into the Sea of Azov and adjoining the present
    site of the town of Mariupol.

    1237-38 The Mongols, under Jenghiz Khan’s grandson, Batu,
    invade northern Russia, burn Moscow, defeat twice the army of
    Suzdal (at Kolomna on the Oku and on the Sit), and plunder
    Riazan, Suzdal, Iaroslavl, and Tver. But Novgorod is spared.

    1239-40 The Mongols ravage southern Russia, burn Tchernigov
    and Kiev, and extend their conquests as far west as Volhinia
    and Galicia. All Russia is now under the yoke of the Mongols,
    except the territory of Novgorod.

    1240 Alexander, prince of Novgorod, defeats the Swedes on the
    Neva; whence his surname Nevski.

    1242 Batu establishes the Golden Horde of Kiptchak, with
    Sarai, on one of the mouths of the Volga, as its capital. It
    constituted one of the five divisions of the great empire of
    Jenghiz Khan.

    1245 Alexander Nevski defeats the German Sword-bearing Knights
    on Lake Peipus, in the “battle of the ice.”

    1260 Novgorod submits to the Mongols and consents to pay
    tribute.

    1263 Death of Alexander Nevski.

    1303 Death of =Daniel Alexandrovitch=, founder of the Moscow
    dynasty.

    1320 Prince Michael of Tver is executed by order of the khan.

    1321 Vladimir in Volhinia is conquered by the Lithuanians. Kiev
    and all west Russia soon become Lithuanian.

    1404 Smolensk is annexed to Lithuania. A son of Alexander
    Nevski, named Daniel, was the founder of the principality
    of Moscow, to which he added the cities of Kolomna and
    Pereiaslavl. He was succeeded by his son =Iuri Danilovitch=
    (1303-1325), who annexed Mozhaisk. In 1313 he marries a sister
    of Usbek Khan. In 1320 he is appointed grand prince in place
    of his murdered rival, Michael of Tver. Iuri is the initiator
    of the Muscovite policy to dominate Russia with the aid of
    the Tatars, for whom the Muscovite princes henceforth act as
    tax collectors. In 1325 he was assassinated by Dmitri, son
    of Michael of Tver, and =Alexander=, Michael’s second son is
    appointed grand prince. But the grand princedom soon reverts to
    Moscow, and Alexander is executed in 1329. Iuri is succeeded
    by his brother =Ivan Kalita= (1328-1340), who receives from
    Usbek Khan Vladimir and Novgorod together with the grand
    princedom, and who also adds Tver to his dominions. He assures
    the pre-eminence of Moscow in the Russian church by inducing
    the metropolitan to reside there, thereby also securing the
    alliance of the all-powerful church in the realisation of
    his political schemes. =Simeon the Proud=, son of Kalita
    (1340-1353), =Ivan II=, (1353-1359), brother of Simeon, and
    =Dmitri Donskoi= (1359-1389), son of Ivan II, continue the
    policy of dominating Russia with the aid of the Tatars, whom
    they conciliate with Russian gold, while they gain the support
    of the nobles by enhancing their power at the expense of the
    princes of appanages. Towards the end of his reign Dmitri feels
    himself strong enough to resist the Tatars, whom he defeats in
    the battle of Kulikovo (1380); but two years later the Mongol
    general, Toktamish, invades Russia, burns Moscow and puts to
    death a great number of the inhabitants. Dmitri was succeeded
    by his son =Vasili= (1389-1425). On the death of the latter,
    first his brother, and then his brother’s son, laid claim to
    the succession; but the direct lineal succession triumphed
    twice in the person of Vasili’s son, known as =Vasili the
    Blind= (1425-1462).


THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

    1407 The river Ugra is made the boundary between Moscow and
    Lithuania.

    1408 Invasion of Moscow by the Tatars, who burn many towns and
    villages, but fail to capture the Kremlin.

    1412 Vasili Dmitrievitch goes to the Horde, pays tribute, and
    the khan confirms to him the grand princedom.

    1435 Vasili Vasilievitch blinds his cousin Vasili Kossoi.

    1446 Vasili Vasilievitch is blinded by Dmitri Shemiaka of
    Galicia.

    1448 The archbishop Jonas is elected metropolitan by an
    assembly of the Russian bishops, without regard to the
    patriarch of Constantinople.

    1453 Dmitri Shemiaka is poisoned.

    1462 =Ivan III=, son of Vasili ascends the throne. He assumes
    the title _gossudar_ (lord, autocrat), and is regarded as the
    founder of autocracy.

    1463 The princes of Iaroslav cede their domain to Moscow.

    1464 Ivan gives the hand of his sister to Vasili, prince of
    Riazan, thus making sure of the approximate annexation of that
    appanage.

    1469 The khanate of Kazan becomes a dependency of Moscow.

    1472 Ivan conquers Perm. Marries the Byzantine princess Sophia,
    niece of the last emperor of Constantinople, Constantine
    Palæologus. Assumes the title of czar and adopts the two-headed
    eagle as the symbol of his authority. In consequence of this
    marriage many Greeks come to Moscow, bringing with them
    Byzantine culture.

    1474 The princes of Rostov sell their domain to Moscow.

    1478 The republic of Novgorod is annexed. The principal
    citizens are brought prisoners to Moscow, their property is
    confiscated, the possessions of the clergy serve to endow the
    boyar followers of Ivan. Ahmed, khan of the Golden Horde, sends
    ambassadors demanding homage. Ivan puts the envoys to death,
    except one, who was to take back the news to his master. The
    reply of Ahmed to this outrage is a declaration of war.

    1479 Ivan issues Sudebnik, or Books of Laws, second Russian
    code after the Russkaia Pravda of Iaroslav. A comparison of
    two codes shows how much the Russian character was lowered by
    Mongol domination; it is in the reign of Ivan that we first
    hear of the use of the knout.

    1480 The Mongols invade Russia. The two armies meet on the
    banks of the Oka and flee from each other in mutual fear. On
    his retreat Ahmed is killed and his army is annihilated by the
    Nogai Tatars.

    1482 Cannon is used for first time at the siege of Fellin in
    Livonia. It was founded by the architect and engineer Aristotle
    Fioraventi of Bologna, the builder of the Kremlin.

    1485 The principality of Tver is annexed to Moscow.

    1485 The last prince of Vereya leaves his domains by will to
    Ivan.

    1489 Viatka, a daughter of the city of Novgorod and Pskov, and
    like them a republic, is annexed.

    1489 Poppel comes to Moscow as the first German ambassador.

    1491 Mines of Petchora discovered. For first time silver and
    copper money is coined at Moscow from produce of Russian mines.

    1492-1503 A large part of Little Russia is reconquered from
    Lithuanians.

    1494 Alexander of Lithuania marries Ivan’s daughter Helen.

    1495 Ivan, considering himself to have been insulted by a
    Hanseatic city, orders all merchants of all the cities of
    that union at Novgorod to be put in chains and their property
    confiscated. This marks the end of Novgorod’s commercial
    greatness.

    1499 The princes of Tchernigov and Novgorod-Seversk come over
    to Moscow.


THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

    1501 Russians routed in the battle of the Siritza, near
    Izborsk, by the grand-master of the Teutonic order, Hermann von
    Plettenberg.

    1503 A treaty is concluded with Lithuania. Moscow retains all
    her conquests, and Ivan is granted the title of sovereign of
    all Russia.

    1505 Death of Ivan. =Vasili=, second son of Ivan, succeeds him.

    1508 The Russian army is defeated by the revolted people of
    Kazan. The victors unite with the Tatars of the Crimea, invade
    Russia and carry their ravages up to the gates of Moscow.
    Vasili pays a large ransom for the safety of his capital, and
    signs a treaty by which he engages to become tributary to
    the khan. Thirty thousand prisoners are carried off by the
    invaders, and sold at Kaffa to the Turks.

    1510 Pskov, last Slavonic republic, annexed.

    1514 Smolensk is taken from the Lithuanians after being held by
    them for 110 years. But in the same year the Lithuanians defeat
    the Russian force at Orsha, on left bank of the Dnieper. Thirty
    thousand Russians are said to have fallen in battle.

    1521 Riazan and Novgorod-Seversk, the last independent
    principalities, are annexed. Crimean Tatars devastate the
    country.

    1523 A second expedition against Kazan, consisting of 150,000
    men, fails of its object; one of its two divisions is almost
    annihilated.

    1530 Third expedition against Kazan. The city is surprised by
    night and 60,000 inhabitants are massacred. But the Russian
    commander, bribed, it is said, by the remaining Kazanians,
    enters into a treaty of peace with them.

    1533 Vasili dies. Regency of his wife, Helena Glinska, 1533-37.
    Supremacy of the Shuiski, 1537-43. Ivan is under the influence
    of the Glinski till 1547, when they were torn in pieces by the
    infuriated Moscow populace. Such was the youth of Ivan the
    Terrible.

    1547 =Ivan= is crowned and takes the title of Czar.

    1550 The Sudebnik of his grandfather Ivan III is revised.

    1551 The Stoglav, or Book of the Hundred Chapters, by which the
    affairs of the church were regulated, is issued.

    1552 Kazan, which had freed itself during his father’s reign,
    is annexed.

    1553 Chancellor arrives at Archangel and proceeds to Moscow.
    The English secure great trading privileges and establish
    factories in the country.

    1556 Astrakhan is annexed. The power of the Mongols is now
    almost completely broken.

    1558 Treaty with Elizabeth of England. A Russian army invades
    Livonia and takes several towns. The Teutonic Order thereupon
    makes an alliance with Poland.

    1564 Ivan, with a few personal friends, retires to
    Alexandrovskoe, near Moscow, and does not return until after
    repeated supplications by his nobles. A printing press
    established at Moscow.

    1571 The Mongols of Crimea invade Russia, burn Moscow, drag
    100,000 Russians into slavery. Next year they make another
    raid, but are defeated.

    1580 Conquest of Siberia by the Cossack Iermak as far as the
    Irtish river.

    1581 Ivan kills his eldest son in a fit of fury.

    1582 Peace of Sapolye. Ivan is forced to surrender to Stephen
    Bathori (Battori) king of Poland all his conquests in Livonia.
    The attempt to open for Russia a passage in the Baltic fails
    for the present.

    1584 Death of Ivan. =Feodor=, his weak-minded son, succeeds
    Ivan. Boris Godunov, Feodor’s brother-in-law, is the real ruler.

    1587 A company of Parisian merchants obtains trading privileges.

    1590 War with Sweden.

    1591 Dmitri, the younger brother of Feodor (Ivan’s son by his
    seventh wife), and the only obstacle to Godunov’s ambition,
    dies at Uglitch. The khan of Crimea makes one of his periodical
    raids against Moscow, but is repulsed with great slaughter.

    1592 Godunov issues a ukase (edict) binding the peasant to the
    soil, thus reducing him to unmitigated serfdom. As a result,
    peasants emigrate in large numbers to the Cossacks in order to
    preserve their freedom.

    1597 An edict is issued prescribing the most vigorous measures
    for the recovery of fugitive serfs.

    1598 Death of Feodor, last of the Ruriks. =Boris Godunov= is
    elected to succeed him, first by the Council of Boyars (douma)
    and then by a General Assembly (Sobór).


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

    1601 A terrible famine, accompanied by pestilence, devastates
    Russia. Boris causes immense quantities of provisions to be
    distributed in Moscow, whither multitudes flock from all the
    provinces. Five hundred thousand are said to have perished in
    Moscow alone, which had become a city of cannibals.

    1604 Dmitri the Impostor invades Russia and is victorious on
    the Desna.

    1605 Dmitri is defeated on the plain of Dobrinitchi, not far
    from Ord. Godunov dies. His son =Feodor= is proclaimed his
    successor. Basmanov, commander of the army, proclaims Dmitri.
    Feodor and his mother are strangled and Dmitri enters Moscow.

    1606 A rebellion breaks out under Vasili Shuiski. Dmitri is
    killed. =Shuiski= is proclaimed emperor.

    1608 A second false Dmitri defeats Shuiski’s army near Volkhov,
    but fails in an attack on the Troitsa monastery, near Moscow.
    He is murdered by one of his followers in 1610.

    1609 The Poles invade Russia and lay siege to Smolensk.

    1610 Shuiski is defeated at Klushino and =Wladislaw=, son of
    the Polish king, is crowned czar.

    1611 Revolt of the patriots led by Minin and Prince Pojarski.

    1612 The Poles are driven out of Moscow.

    1613 =Michael Romanov= is chosen czar.

    1617 Wladislaw appears with an army under the walls of Moscow,
    but is repulsed. The Treaty of Stolbovna is brought about by
    the mediation of England and Holland: the Russians give up
    Kexholm, Karelia and Ingria to Sweden, and receive in return
    Novgorod, which was lost during the Troublous Period.

    1618 Wladislaw consents to abandon his claim to the Russian
    throne, the czar gives up his claims to Livonia, Tchernigov and
    Smolensk, and an armistice is concluded for fourteen years.

    1619 Philarete, the father of Czar Michael, comes back from the
    Polish captivity, is elected patriarch, and becomes his son’s
    associate in the government of the country.

    1627 The Cossacks of the Don conquer Azov, which they offer
    to the czar. After convoking a sobor, which shows little
    enthusiasm for the enterprise, the czar orders the Cossacks to
    evacuate it.

    1633 War with Lithuania.

    1634 Peace of Polianovka: the czar surrenders all claims to
    Livonia and all the country that once belonged to the Order, as
    well as to Smolensk, Tchernigov and Seversk. The Polish king
    abandons his claim to the Russian throne.

    1645 Death of Michael. He is succeeded by =Alexis=.

    1648 Revolt at Moscow against misgovernment of the czar’s
    favorites, particularly Morosov, and depreciation of the
    coinage. This revolt led to a new codification of the laws (the
    Ulozhenie), which was based on the preceding codes of Ivan III
    and IV, and was sanctioned by a sobor convoked at Moscow. A new
    police institution, the “chamber of secret affairs,” is created
    for the prevention and suppression of popular uprisings. The
    Cossacks of the Ukraine revolt from Poland under the leadership
    of Bogdan Chmielnicki.

    1649-50 Khabarov occupies the course of the Amur.

    1654 The Ukraine becomes a Russian protectorate. War with
    Poland.

    1655 Outbreak of war between Sweden and Poland. The Russians
    occupy Vilna and join the Swedes in their march upon Warsaw.

    1656 Truce with Poland. The Russian arms are turned against
    Sweden. At first they were successful, and Narva, Dorpat and
    other places in Esthonia were taken, Livonia was conquered,
    but Riga was besieged in vain, and after many losses all the
    conquests are restored.

    1655-56 The patriarch Nicon calls two councils of the church
    for the purpose of revising the Bible and service-books. In
    consequence of this change a great schism takes place in the
    Russian church. The adherents of the old books are known as
    Raskolniki, and are to this day subjects of persecution.

    1667 Peace of Andrussov with Poland: Little Russia east of
    the Dnieper, including Smolensk, Kiev, Seversk, Vitebsk, and
    Polotsk are acquired by Russia. Thus the territory which had
    been taken by the Lithuanians and annexed to Poland by Treaty
    of Lublin (1569) became Russian again.

    1670 Rebellion of Stenka Kazin. He takes Tzaritzin, Astrakhan,
    Saratov, Samara, Nijni-Novgorod, Tambov, and Penza.

    1671 Stenka Radzin is defeated near Simbirsk and executed at
    Moscow.

    1676 Death of Alexis. He is succeeded by his eldest son,
    =Feodor=. During his reign the books of pedigrees (_razviadnie
    Knigi_), which determines the rank of each family and the
    office to which it was entitled (_mestnichestvo_), were
    destroyed.

    1682 Death of Feodor. After a sanguinary outbreak of the
    Strelitz, which lasted three days, =Ivan= and =Peter= were
    declared joint sovereigns, and their sister Sophia was to act
    as regent during their minority.

    1689 Treaty of Nertchinsk: the fertile region of the Amur,
    conquered by a handful of Cossacks, is restored to the Chinese,
    and the fortress Albazin is rased.

    1696 Peter takes from the Turks the fort of Azov, situated at
    the mouth of the Don, and converts it into a naval port. In its
    vicinity he commences the building of the new town of Taganrog.

    1697-98 Peter makes his first journey through Europe.

    1698 The Strelitz break out into open revolt, which is
    suppressed with great bloodshed. Their corps is dissolved.

    1699 Peter forms a coalition with Poland and Denmark against
    Sweden.

    1700 Beginning of the Northern War. The Russian forces sustain
    a severe defeat at Narva. The beginning of the new Russian year
    is changed from the first of September to the first of January.


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

    1703 Peter begins the building of St. Petersburg.

    1706 The Cossacks of the Don revolt.

    1707 The secret marriage of Peter with Catherine takes place.

    1709 Mazeppa, hetman of the Little-Russian Cossacks, revolts.
    Battle of Pultowa.

    1710 Turkey declares war against Russia.

    1711 The old supreme council of boyars (_douma_) is replaced by
    the senate, into which merit and service might obtain admission
    independently of noble origin. By the terms of the Treaty of
    the Pruth Peter surrenders to the Turks his artillery, gives
    back Azov, and undertakes to rase Taganrog.

    1714 The Russians gain over the Swedes the important naval
    victory of Åland or Hankül. Peter becomes master of Finland.

    1717 Peter makes a second tour through Europe. A general
    police, modelled on that of France, is instituted.

    1718 Peter’s eldest son, Alexis, is executed. The old prikaz is
    replaced by colleges for foreign affairs, finance, justice, and
    commerce.

    1719 The Russians ravage Sweden almost up to the gates of
    Stockholm.

    1720 The Russians renew their devastation of Sweden,
    notwithstanding the presence of an English fleet.

    1721 Treaty of Nystad with Sweden: Peter is left master of
    Livonia, Esthonia, Ingria, and the districts of Viborg and
    Kexholm in Finland. Peter promulgates an ukase (afterwards
    abrogated by Paul) that the sovereign has the right of naming
    his successor. The Patriarchate is abolished and its income
    united to the public revenue. In its place the holy synod is
    established for the supreme direction of church affairs.

    1722 The _tchin_ is established: whoever enters the service of
    that state becomes a gentleman. The exporting of merchandise
    through Archangel is prohibited in favor of St. Petersburg.

    1722-24 War with Persia. The provinces of Ghilan, Mazandaran,
    and Astrabad (Astarabath) are annexed to Russia.

    1725 Death of Peter. He is succeeded by his second wife,
    =Catherine=.

    1726-27 The St. Petersburg Academy of Science founded.

    1727 Death of Catherine. She is succeeded by =Peter II=, son
    of Alexis. Menshikov, who was the real ruler of Russia under
    Catherine, is banished to Siberia.

    1730 Death of Peter II. =Anna=, daughter of Ivan, the brother
    of Peter the Great, is chosen his successor after submitting
    to the terms dictated by the great nobles--terms intended to
    convert the government into an oligarchy.

    1733-35 War of the Polish Succession: Russia intervenes on
    behalf of the elector of Saxony, Augustine III, and defeats the
    French attempt to replace Stanislaus Leszczynski on the throne
    of Poland.

    1735 Russia surrenders her Persian possessions in return for
    extensive trading privileges to Russian merchants.

    1735-39 War with Turkey, in conjunction with Austria. The
    Russians conquer Otchakov at the mouth of the Dnieper and the
    important fortress of Khotin on the same river. But at the
    peace of Belgrade, hastily concluded by the Austrians, they
    retain only Azov.

    1740 Death of Anna. =Ivan VI=, her grand-nephew, succeeds her,
    with Biron, duke of Courland, as regent during his minority.

    1741 A coup d’état, led by Field-marshal Münich deposed Biron
    and raises Princess Anna, mother of Ivan, to the regency. But
    Münich is the real ruler. A palace revolution deposes Ivan,
    sends Münich to Siberia, and raises to the throne =Elizabeth=,
    a daughter of Peter the Great by Catherine. Sweden, urged on by
    France, declares war. The Swedes are defeated at Vilmanstrand.

    1742 Seventeen thousand Swedes surrender at Helsingfors. The
    Armenian churches in both capitals are suppressed by order of
    the holy synod.

    1743 Treaty of Åbo with Sweden; Russia acquires the southern
    part of Finland as far as the river Kymmene.

    1753 The custom-houses of the interior, as well as many toll
    duties, are suppressed.

    1755 The first Russian university is founded at Moscow.

    1756 The first Russian public theatre is established at St.
    Petersburg. Three years later another theatre is established at
    Moscow.

    1757 The Russians under Apraxin defeat at Jägerndorf the
    Prussians under Lewald.

    1758 The Russians under Fermor are defeated by Frederick the
    Great at Zorndorf. The Academy of Fine Arts is established at
    St. Petersburg.

    1759 Saltikov defeats Frederick at Kunersdorf.

    1760 The Russians plunder Berlin.

    1762 Death of Elizabeth. She is succeeded by her nephew, =Peter
    III=, son of her sister Anna. He makes peace with Frederick,
    restores to him east Prussia, which was entirely in the hands
    of the Russians, and orders his army to aid Frederick against
    the Austrians. Peter issues an ukase freeing the nobility
    from the obligation of entering upon some state employment;
    is assassinated and is succeeded by his wife, =Catherine=.
    Catherine recalls the Russian armies from Prussia.

    1764 Assassination of Prince Ivan. Resumption of the
    ecclesiastical lands with their one million serfs by the state.

    1766-68 A great _sobor_ is convened, first at Moscow and then
    at St. Petersburg, for the compilation of a new code. It fails
    of its object.

    1767 An ukaze forbids serfs to bring complaints against their
    masters, who were authorised to send them at will to Siberia or
    to force them into the army.

    1767-74 War with Turkey.

    1768 Massacre of Jews at Uman, in the Government of Kiev, under
    the leadership of the Cossack Gonta.

    1769 The Russians under Galitzin take Khotin.

    1770 Rumiantzev is victorious over the Tatars on the banks of
    the Larga and over the grand vizir at Kagul. Three hundred
    thousand Kalmucks, with their wives and children, their cattle
    and their tents, flee from Russia to China.

    1771 Conquest of the Crimea by Dolgoruki. Annihilation of the
    Turkish fleet at Tchesme.

    1772 The Congress of Fokshani fails to bring about peace and
    the war is renewed. First division of Poland. Russia acquires
    White Russia, including Polotsk, Vitebsk, Orsha, Mohilev,
    Mstislavl, Gomel.

    1773-74 Pugatchev’s revolt.

    1774 Peace of Kutchuk-Kainardji: the sultan acknowledges the
    independence of the Tatars of the Crimea, the Bug and the
    Kuban, and cedes to Russia Azov on the Don, Kinburn at the
    mouth of the Dnieper, and all the fortified places of the
    Crimea.

    1775 The Zaparog military republic of the Cossacks is
    dissolved. The empire is reorganized. Instead of fifteen
    provinces there are created fifty governments subdivided into
    districts.

    1783 Formal annexation of the Crimea and the country of the
    Kuban.

    1787-92 Second war with Turkey in conjunction with Austria.

    1788-89 War with Sweden. The Peace of Varela restores the
    _status quo ante bellum_.

    1788 The storming of Otchakov by Potemkin, accompanied by an
    indiscriminate massacre.

    1789 Suvarov wins the battles of Fokshani and Rimnik. Potemkin
    takes Bender.

    1790 Suvarov takes Ismail. The Austrians sign the Peace of
    Sistova, but the Russians continue the war. Repnin defeats the
    grand vizir at Matchin.

    1792 Treaty of Jassy. The Russians retain only Otchakov and the
    seaboard between the Bug and the Dniester.

    1793 Second division of Poland. Russia obtains an enormous
    extension of territory in Lithuania and absorbs the rest of
    Volhinia, Podolia, and Ukraine.

    1794 Kosciuszko is defeated by Fersen at Maciejowice and
    Suvarov storms Praga, a suburb of Warsaw.

    1795 Third division of Poland. Russia obtains the rest of
    Lithuania, besides other territories which at one time had been
    Russian, while Poland proper is divided between Austria and
    Prussia. The former power also obtains Galicia or Red Russia.
    Courland is annexed by Russia. Its last duke, Peter Biron,
    voluntarily renounces it in return for a yearly revenue.

    1796 Death of Catherine. Accession of her son =Paul=.

    1798 Paul promulgates the line of succession according to
    primogeniture, with precedence in the male line. Russia joins
    the second coalition against France, with England, Austria,
    Naples and Turkey.

    1799 Suvarov defeats Moreau on the Adda, Macdonald on the
    Trebbia, and Joubert at Novi. Korsakov is defeated by Massena
    at Zurich, and Suvarov is forced to make his memorable retreat
    across the Alps.

    1800 Reconciliation with France, chiefly owing to the English
    occupation of Malta.


THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

    1801 Assassination of Paul. His son =Alexander= succeeds him.
    The new emperor concludes treaties of peace with England,
    France, and Spain. Georgia, or Grusia, is formally annexed, and
    a war with Persia follows in consequence.

    1802 Eight ministries are established in place of the colleges
    founded by Peter the Great.

    1804 The Persians are defeated at Etchmiadzin.

    1805 Alexander joins the third coalition with Austria and
    England. Battle of Austerlitz.

    1806 Conquest of the Persian province of Shirvan, and the
    taking of Derbent.

    1806 War with Turkey. Alexander joins fourth coalition, of
    which Prussia is also a member. Battles of Pultusk and Golymin.

    1807 Battles of Eylau and Friedland. Peace of Tilsit. Russia
    acquires Bielostok, a part of Prussian Poland.

    1808 War with Sweden. Finland is overrun by a Russian army.

    1809 By the Treaty of Fredrikshamn Sweden surrenders Finland.
    The Finns are allowed complete autonomy, the czar being its
    grand duke. War with Turkey. The Russians are defeated at
    Silistria.

    1810 The Russians are victorious over the Turks at Batyen on
    the Danube.

    1811 The Russians are victorious at Rustchuk. Twenty thousand
    Turks surrender at Giurgevo.

    1812 By the Treaty of Bukharest Russia acquires Bessarabia and
    a large part of Moldavia, with the fortresses of Khotin and
    Bender. The Pruth becomes its boundary. The district of Viborg,
    which was acquired from Sweden in 1744, is added to Finland.
    Count Speranski, leader of the liberal party, is dismissed.
    Later he was exiled to Peru. Invasion of Russia by Napoleon.
    Battles of Smolensk and Borodino. Firing of Moscow. Napoleon
    orders a retreat (October 18). Battle of Malojaroslavetz
    compels Napoleon to retreat by his old route. The Beresina
    crossed (November 26th-29th).

    1813 By the Treaty of Kalish Alexander engages not to lay down
    his arms until Prussia had recovered all its lost territories.
    The Russians and Prussians are defeated at Lützen and Bautzen.
    The allies are repulsed before Dresden. Battle of Leipsic.
    Peace of Gulistan with Persia. Russia obtains Baku and the
    western shore of the Caspian.

    1814 The Russians invade France together with the allies. At
    the congress of Vienna Alexander insists on the creation of a
    kingdom of Poland under his rule.

    1815 By the Treaty of Vienna Alexander obtains all of Poland,
    except Galicia, Cracow, and Posen. Conclusion of the Holy
    Alliance.

    1816 Abolition of serfdom in Esthonia.

    1817 Abolition of serfdom in Courland.

    1818 Abolition of serfdom in Livonia. In all Baltic provinces
    the emancipated peasants receive no portion of the land,
    which remains in possession of the nobles. A constitution and
    separate administration are granted to the Polish kingdom.

    1819 Establishment of military colonies in the border provinces
    of the north, west and south.

    1825 Death of Alexander. His brother =Nicholas I= succeeds him.
    Revolt of the Dekabrists.

    1826 War with Persia.

    1827 War with Turkey. The Turkish fleet is destroyed at
    Navarino by the combined fleets of England, France, and Russia.

    1828 Peace of Turkmanchai. Persia cedes the provinces of
    Erivan and Nakhitchevan, pays a war indemnity, and grants
    important trading privileges. The Russians invade the Danubian
    principalities and take Varna. Paskievitch takes Kars.

    1829 Diebitsch defeats the Turks at Kluvetchi, takes Silistria,
    crosses the Balkans, and takes Adrianople. Peace of Adrianople.
    Russia gets control of the mouths of the Danube, of a portion
    of Armenia including Erzerum, and receives a war indemnity.

    1830 The new code, a complete collection of the laws of the
    Russian Empire, is promulgated. Polish insurrection. The
    Russians are compelled to evacuate the country.

    1831 Paskievitch takes Warsaw. The building of new Roman
    Catholic churches in Poland is prohibited.

    1832 Poland is incorporated with Russia. The constitution
    granted by Alexander is annulled, and Poland is divided into
    five governments.

    1833 By the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi Russia obtains additional
    rights to meddle in the internal affairs of Turkey.

    1839 A Russian expedition to the khanate of Khiva is compelled
    to return.

    1849 A Russian army is sent into Hungary. Capitulation of
    Görgei at Villagos.

    1853 The Crimean War. The Russians occupy the Danubian
    principalities. Destruction of the Turkish fleet at Sinope.

    1854 France and England join Turkey. Battle of the Alma. Siege
    of Sebastopol. Fall of Bomarsund.

    1855 Sardinia joins the allies. Battles of Balaklava, Inkerman,
    and Tchernaia. Fall of Sebastopol. Bombardment of Sveaborg. The
    Russians take Kars. Nicholas I dies. His son =Alexander II=
    succeeds him.

    1856 Treaty of Paris. Russia relinquishes the mouths of the
    Danube and a portion of Bessarabia, restores Kars, gives up
    the protectorate over the Oriental Christians and the Danubian
    principalities, and agrees to have no war vessels in the Black
    Sea.

    1858 General Muraviev signs the treaty of Aigun with the
    Chinese, by which Russia acquires the entire left bank of the
    Amur.

    1859 Capture of Schamyl.

    1861 Emancipation of the serfs.

    1863 Polish insurrection.

    1864 Final pacification of the Caucasus. Reforms in judicial
    administration. Institution of representative assemblies
    (zemstvos) for governments and districts. By ukase, Polish
    peasants are given in fee-simple the lands which they had
    cultivated as tenants-at-will.

    1865 Tashkend taken from the emir of Bokhara; organisation of
    the province of Turkestan.

    1866 Karakozov fires at the emperor at St. Petersburg.

    1867 Governor-generalship of Turkestan created. Sale of Alaska
    to the United States. A Slavophil congress is held at Moscow.
    The prince of Mingrelia relinquishes his sovereign rights for
    one million rubles. Russian is substituted for German as the
    official language of Livonia, Esthonia, and Courland. Peasants
    are given the ownership of the lands which they occupied as
    tenants.

    1868 Samarkand taken from Bokhara.

    1870 Khiva is stormed by General Kauffman.

    1871 The Pontus Conference, held at London, abolishes paragraph
    11 of the Paris treaty delimiting Russian fortifications and
    naval forces on the Black Sea.

    1873 The right bank of the Amu Daria (Jaxartes) is annexed and
    the rest of Khiva becomes a vassal state.

    1874 Universal compulsory military service is introduced. The
    vice-royalty of Poland is abolished, and its administrative
    fusion with Russia becomes complete.

    1875 Russia cedes to Japan the Kurile islands. Japan gives up
    its claims to the southern part of Sakhalin.

    1876 The khanate of Khokand is absorbed and transformed into
    the province of Ferghana.

    1877 War with Turkey. The Russian advance is beaten back in
    Europe and in Asia. The Shipka pass alone remains in Russian
    hands. Three defeats before Plevna, which is besieged and
    forced to capitulate with 40,000 men. Kars is taken.

    1878 The Russians cross the Balkans. The Shipka army is
    captured, Adrianople taken, the last Turkish army is almost
    annihilated, and the Russians reach the Sea of Marmora. Treaty
    of San Stefano: Treaty of Berlin. Assassination of General
    Trepov at St. Petersburg, and acquittal of Vera Zassulitch.
    Assassination of General Mezentsev, chief of gendarmerie.

    1879 Soloviov fires six shots at the emperor. An attempt is
    made to wreck the train by which the czar was travelling from
    Moscow to St. Petersburg.

    1880 An attempt is made to blow up the Winter Palace.
    Loris-Melikov is placed at the head of a commission with
    dictatorial powers.

    1881 Assassination of the emperor. The Tekke-Turkomans are
    subjected by Skobelev. Anti-Jewish riots in southern Russia.

    1882 The “May laws” of Ignatiev issued against the Jews.
    Agrarian disturbances in the Baltic provinces give the
    government a welcome pretext for additional measures of
    russification.

    1883 =Alexander III= is crowned at Moscow.

    1884 The Turkomans of the Merv oasis make submission to
    Russia. The emperors of Russia, Germany and Austria meet at
    Skierniewice, where they form the Three Emperors’ League for
    the term of three years.

    1885 The Afghans are defeated by General Komarov at Penjdeh.
    The Trans-Caspian railway is begun.

    1886 Contrary to Article 59 of the Treaty of Berlin, Batum is
    transformed into a fortified naval port.

    1887 A convention between England and Russia is signed for the
    delimitation of the Russo-Afghan frontier. The Russian advance
    in the direction of Herat is stopped.

    1888 An army officer named Timoviev makes an attempt on the
    czar’s life. The Trans-Caspian railway is completed. Samarkand
    is linked with the Caspian. The imperial train is derailed at
    Borki. The czar and his family escape injury.

    1890 Three commissions are appointed to prepare plans for
    assimilating the Finnish postal, monetary, and fiscal systems
    with those of the empire.

    1891 A French squadron under Admiral Gervais visits Kronstadt.
    A succession of famines begins. An ukase is issued directing
    the construction of a railway line which should connect the
    European system with the Pacific coast. Work is commenced on
    seven sections simultaneously.

    1893 A Russian squadron under Admiral Avelan visits Toulon.

    1894 A military convention, arranged by the military
    authorities of Russia and France, is ratified. Death of
    Alexander III and accession of =Nicholas II=.

    1895 An Anglo-Russian convention is signed settling the
    disputes as to the Pamirs. Russia, in conjunction with Germany
    and France, forces Japan to revise the terms of the Treaty
    of Shimonoseki by giving up the Liao-tung peninsula. Russia
    obtains the right to carry the Siberian railway across Chinese
    territory from Stretensk to Vladivostok, thus avoiding a long
    detour, besides getting control of North Manchuria.

    1896 Coronation of the czar at Moscow. Catastrophe on the
    Khodinski plain. The emperor visits Germany, Austria, England,
    and France.

    1897 President Faure makes an official visit to St. Petersburg,
    and the term “alliance” is for the first time used in the
    complimentary speeches. Specie payment is established.

    1898 Russia leases Port Arthur and Talienwan, and obtains leave
    to carry a branch of the Trans-Siberian line through Manchuria
    to the sea. An imperial decree declares that the powers of
    the Finnish diet are to be limited to matters of strictly
    local, not imperial, concern. General Bobrikov is appointed
    Governor-general of Finland.

    1899 During the Boxer uprising the Chinese authorities in
    Manchuria declare war against Russia. The Russian authorities
    retaliate with the massacre of Blagovestchensk. Russia assumes
    the civil and military administration of Manchuria. Peace
    Conference held at the Hague.

    1900 The Bank of Persian Loans is founded by the Russian
    government.


THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

    1901 The state monopoly in the manufacture and sale of spirits
    is extended to the whole empire.

    1903 Vice-Admiral Alexiev appointed as first Russian viceroy of
    the Far East.

    1904 Outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war.

[Illustration]

[Illustration: THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE showing the Accessions since Peter the
Great]