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