1829.) 
past? Itis, therefore, a matter of neces- 
sity for the major part of us to have to learn 
only in masses the political and philosophi- 
cal progress of great nations, down to the 
period at which we live.”” Though the rea- 
son assigned for this epitomizing iS calcu- 
lated for France, it is not inapplicable for 
ourselves, and especially as to what relates 
to foreign history; but, generally, the 
masses are for foreigners, and the details 
for natives. 
To facilitate the general view, which is 
all he thus aims at, of the early history of 
Russia, he distributes it into five periods ; 
the first extending to 1054, which presents, 
as the chief objects of consideration, the ter- 
ritorial conquests, and five distinguished 
princes—Rurick, the founder of the em- 
pire; Oleg, the conqueror; Olga, the re- 
gent; Vladimir, the Christian; and Yras- 
lof, the legislator. The second, extending 
to 1236, is wholly occupied with internal 
discords and tumults, offering only two men 
of any mark—Vladimir Monomachus, and 
Andrew—and terminating in perfect sub- 
+ jugation to the Tartars. The third, the 
__ period of foreign servitude, reaches to 1460, 
exhibiting, through its obscure but tumul- 
tuous scenes, the deeds and struggles of 
three memorable personages—St. Alexander 
Nevsky, a great man, in every sense of that 
emphatic word—the able Ivan the First— 
and Dmitry Donskoy, the first who de- 
feated the Tartars: this third period con- 
cludes with the final rescue of the empire 
from the grasp of the Tartars. The fourth, 
which may be characterized as the period of 
deliverance and of despotism, extends to 
1613, and presents, as the most conspicuous 
and influential princes, Ivan, the Third 
and Fourth—the one styled the Autocrat, 
the other the Terrible. The death of the 
“ Terrible”’ was followed by fearful scenes : 
the throne was usurped by his ininister, a 
Tartar, and the country exposed to the in- 
vasions of the west, chiefly the Poles, under 
which the empire sunk for fifteen years, 
till it was reinvigorated by the election of a 
new dynasty—that of the Romanoffs, ori- 
ginally a Prussian family, but settled in 
Russia for more than two centuries, and 
covered, as Ségur after his fashion phrases 
it, by Russian soil and native laurels. 
From that decisive period, the career of 
Russia has been one of comparative calm 
and regularity, advancing from barbarism, 
step by step—sometimes slowly, sometimes 
 rapidly—towards civilization. Mikhail, the 
_ first of the family, reigned till 1645, and 
__ Was eminently distinguished for moderation 
and love of peace—for the creation, at the 
7a time, of a regular army, which re- 
stored tranquillity, and paved the way for 
indispensable conquests. The reign of his 
son Alexis lasted till 1675, and might well, 
in the language of historians, have been 
deemed illustrious, had it not been eclipsed 
by the wild but splendid superiorities of his 
son, Peter the Great. He was a formidable 
M.M. New Series,—Vou. VI. No.42. 
Domestic and Foreign. 
657 
warrior, who recovered from the Poles the 
provinces which had by them been torn from 
her—he was a legislator, who strove to ame- 
liorate the laws—a ruler, who knew how to 
discover and repair his faults—who invited 
foreign arts, founded manufactories, opened 
the copper and iron mines, constructed the 
first two vessels—the sight of which was 
said to have awakened the genius of his son 
—summoned the chiefs to consult on public 
interests, and shewed himself, on numerous 
occasions, clement, pious, and faithful. 
This Alexis left three sons: Feodore, the 
eldest, succeeded and died in 1682; Ivan 
was passed over as an idiot. The crown 
thus fell to Peter, then only ten years old; 
and Sophia, the sister, was appointed re~ 
gent. Sophia intrigued with her favourite 
Golitzin to exclude young Peter from reap- 
ing the succession, and removed him to a 
distant and obscure village. In the hope of 
prolonging her own authority, indefinitely, 
she had the wretched Ivan married; but 
the native and early energies of Peter baffled 
all her schemes ; and, in 1689, when only 
seventeen, he succeeded in wrenching the 
empire from her grasp. 
From this period, Peter reigned alone the 
autocrat of his country; and one half of 
Ségur’s very interesting and stirring volume 
is occupied with sketching—the whole is 
but a succession of sketches—the main ob- 
jects of his indefatigable labours for five- 
and-thirty years.. For the details of his 
conduct—for the concatenation of events— 
the reader must look elsewhere; but no- 
where will he find a more vivid representation 
of the characteristics of the man—nowhere 
will he find better and more fairly displayed 
the definiteness of his views—the force and 
efficiency of his measures, sticking, it is 
true, at nothing to accomplish them—the 
flexibility, nevertheless, and perseverance 
which he turned to all quarters, and varied 
his means—the dexterity with which he 
baffled his enemies, at home and abroad— 
the energy, and indomitable perseverance, 
by which he roused and raised his country, 
to take its seat in the synod of European 
powers. 
Thus forcibly he concludes his view of 
Peter :-— 
Historians of the nineteenth century! while we 
detest the violent acts of the prince, why should 
we be astonished at his despotism? Who was 
there that could then teach him, that to be truly 
liberal or moral is the same thing? But of what 
consequence is it, that he was ignorant that mo- 
rality calls for the establishment of liberty, as 
being the best possible means of securing the ge- 
neral welfare? All that he did for that welfare, 
or, in other words, for the glory, the instruction, 
and the prosperity of his empire, was it not bene- 
ficial to that liberty, which neither himself nor 
his people were yet worthy? Thus, without be- 
ing aware of it, Peter the Great did more for 
liberty than all the dreams of liberalism have 
since fancied that he ought to have done. His 
people are indebted to him for their first and most 
4P 
