Evolution of Russian Government 331 



disasters to his own ; when Paul, cynic 

 and half mad, flouted the church and 

 betrayed the national cause, the cup of 

 wrath was full. It matters little that 

 the executioners who struck them down 

 were self-appointed, and, no better than 

 hired assassins, held no mandate for 

 regicide. In the line of Russian auto- 

 crats those two stand out with a shame- 

 ful preeminence. 



Not all the sovereigns since Michael 

 Romanoff have been great. More than 

 one has been deficient in private virtue. 

 In some there flowed not a drop of 

 Slavic blood. But they all bore the test 

 of being supremely Russian, only Rus- 

 sian, at the core. Save the execrated 

 two, each down to the accession of Nic- 

 olas II, in 1894, contributed his full 

 share to Russian power and prestige, 

 both at home and abroad. Like the 

 concentric rings of an oak tree were the 

 territorial accretions of the Russian Em- 

 pire. Each larger ring indicated a later 

 reign. 



In other lands there have been other 

 autocrats, but always alike in this : each 

 has fallen or stood according to his ul- 

 timate military failure or success. 



Had the mass of the people on whom 

 his power rested really desired equal 

 rights and personal liberty and self-gov- 

 ernment, the autocrat would not have 

 been tolerated for an hour. The fore- 

 most autocrat of all time is the great Na- 

 poleon, child of the French Revolution. 



" He was a despot — granted ! 

 But the avtos of his autocratic mouth 

 Said yea i' the people's French ; he magnified 

 The image of the freedom he denied : 



And if they asked for rights, he made reply, 

 ' Ye have my glory ! ' and so, drawing round 

 them 



His ample purple, glorified and bound them 

 In an embrace that seemed identity. 

 He ruled them like a tyrant — true ! but none 

 Were ruled like slaves : each felt Napoleon." 



Thus was it while Marengo, and Aus- 

 terlitz, and Jena, and Friedland, and 

 Wagram studded like stars his victo- 



rious name. The march to Moscow, 

 the retreat from L,eipsic, the catastro- 

 phe at Waterloo, could have no other 

 meaning than St Helena. 



Since February 6, 1904, the on-look- 

 ing world has beheld an unexampled 

 spectacle. It has seen Russia stagger- 

 ing under such humiliation from a foe, 

 once despised, as no other European 

 nation ever endured at the hand of an 

 Asiatic. In the monotonous story of a 

 dozen months there is not a single alle- 

 viating feature to salve Russian pride 

 except the admirable working of the 

 trans-Siberian railway and the stolid, 

 unbroken valor with which the Russian 

 soldier has faced continuous defeat. 



The diplomacy of Russia, before and 

 during the war, has been as deplorable 

 as her generalship. Her state papers, 

 whether in the form of protestsorof com- 

 munication with other powers, have been 

 querulous and almost puerile. Her wily 

 and unscrupulous enemy, equipped with 

 all the appliances of the West and all 

 the subtlety of the East, has so excelled 

 at every point as to render haughty Rus- 

 sia an object of pity and derision. 



All this detail the common Russian 

 does not know. He does know that, 

 despite hundreds of millions lavished 

 and thousands of men sacrificed, the 

 blackness has not been relieved by a 

 single victory, and that the total has 

 been defeat, retreat, and surrender. 

 The dull ache of unspeakable humilia- 

 tion is in his soul. Marvelous is it that 

 in fury, blind as Samson's, the whole 

 nation has not already risen as one man 

 to pull down the pillars of the state. 

 Strikes and riots there have been, and 

 massacres by infuriated men, but neither 

 revolution nor rebellion, no universal 

 outburst commensurate with the hid- 

 eous tragedy in the East. 



There are many voices, but, as in the 

 crowd before the temple, some cry one 

 thing and some another. The only 

 audible sounds breathe indignation and 

 rage. 



