>suveinbcr 2U, i()i5- 
LAND AND W A 1 li R 
THE EVOLUTION OF RUSSIA. 
Bv E. Charles Vivian. 
DOUBLE-HEADED EAGLE 
Carved Cen're-piecc on the Ivory Throne presented lo 
Ivan in. Grand Uukc of Miucovy. by By7.«ntiiini. 
on the occasion uf his maniHv. 
THE kick of 
interest in 
Russian history, 
and the lack of 
specnkition on tile 
bc,^innin,i,'s of such 
an empire as 
Russia, must in 
part be credited 
to the fact that 
Russia itself was, 
until ccnipara 
tively recent times, 
entirely shut off 
from intercourse 
with the western 
world, and though 
this shutting off 
was largely due to 
the polic}' of the 
early Russian 
Rulers, it was also 
due in part to 
(ierman fears that 
a powerful state 
might awaken out 
of the turmoil that 
echoed faintly from 
the east. Early in the sixteenth century, Maxmilian 1 wrote 
to the Cirand Master of the Teutonic Knights who ruled 
over Prussia — " Russia's vastness is a danger to us." 
To the absence of Latin influence must be credited 
the late awakening of Russia, though there were many 
other contributory causes. Shut off from westeni Europe 
by the vast marshes and forests that are now Poland, 
Russia missed the colonising influence of Rome, the great 
ci\ilisiiig power of the first centuries of the Christian 
era. When Hastings was fought, when Britain was 
beginning to sh(jw signs of response to the intelk'ctual 
and artistic- stimulus of Roman and Christian iiiHuence, 
and the nations of western Europe seemed set in the path 
of steady progres.s — before the darkness of the middle 
ages fell on Europe — Northern Russia was little better 
than savage, and the south had no light but the glimmer 
that p^'iu'trated from Byzantium, and that solitary gleam 
dimmed by oriental prejudice and stohdity. 
Tile rei)ublican communities of Kiev, Novgorod, and 
their kind, little settlements in a vast wilderness, formed 
the lirst strivings of Russia tovvard civilised entity, and 
ever as the conception of a state aros"e it was shattered 
by the custom of a man's dividing his authority at his 
death among his descendants, instead of vesting it in the 
eldest son or the fittest to rule. This system led to endless 
division and subdivision, instead of unity ; here and 
tluTc! a strong man would arise and win rule over the 
whole, but at his death division came again, with the 
inevitable crop of family and fraternal jealousies. Thus, 
when the Tartar invasion came to pass, it was opposed 
by warring, divided communities, who might collectively 
have stemmed the rush of the Mongol swarms, but, 
separate as they were, fell easily. The influence of that 
in\-asion has persisted almost up to the present day ; 
subtlety, serviUty, cruelty — all tiie worst qualities of 
which Russia as a whole can be accused are fruits of the 
centuries of Mongol and Tartar domination ; as the 
Moorish i)eriod stamped ineradicable traits on the Spanish 
ciiaracter, so the mark of (ienghiz Khan is laid on Russia. 
Food for reHeetion is to be found again in the end of 
the period of anarchy that followed on the fall of the 
Mongol power. Auto.^ratic Russia of to-day owes its exis- 
tence as a power to a butcher and a country scjuire, who 
led the people, evolved order out of cliaos, and made 
possible the inauguration of the Romanoff dynasty. 
\\'ith the coming of that dynasty to power began the 
l^resent system of rule, under which Russia has suffered 
much, but without which Russia of to-day would never 
haw. been. Ihe semi-oriental iiiHueiice of Byzantium, 
combined with tlic follow iiig influence of the Mongols, 
eyoh'ed a race \\Iiich would have respoiuUil to no other 
form of government to produce such results as now 
exist. All the early history of Russia is not so much the 
maintenance of order as the repression of anarchy, and 
for such a people as this stern rule was a necessity. 
.Few countries ha\'e histories more interesting than 
that of I'iussia, in spite of its late development ; the 
unique incident of two armies ileeing from each other, 
each panic stricken, without a blow having been struck, 
Ix'longs to Russian historj- ; the story of the summit of 
Mongol and Tartar power, and that of the fall of the rule 
of the Khans, belong to Russian history, while episode 
after episode has its own peculiar and deep interest. 
A comprehensive introduction, and more than an 
introduction, to the study of Russian history is afforded 
in Mrs. Howe's book.* which treats of the vital incidents 
in a thousand years in concise fashion, and presents the 
salient features and prominent personages of the various 
eras that ha\'e made Russia. From such a book one miay 
not only gather knowledge of history, but — a far more 
important thing — insight to the forces that have gone 
to the moulding of the I^ussian character, and some con- 
cej)tion of Russian ideals. 
* " A Thousand Years of Russian History." By Sonia E. Howe. 
(Williams and Norgate.) 7s. 6d. net. 
BOOKS THAT EXCEL. 
" A Book of Bridges." By Frank Brangwyn, A R.A., and W. Shaw 
Sparrow. (John Lane.) 21s. net. 
Whether the student of art elects to rank among the 
admirers of Brangwyn, or to dislike his work, the fact remains 
that it is impossible to ignore Brangwyn, whose place in 
modern art is as distinct and sure as that of Kipling in modern 
literature. In this book Mr. Brangwyn is at his best ; the 
ruthlessness of liis figure drawing cannot be applied in the 
same way to bridges, and a certain starkness in some of- the 
pictuies reproduced in this volume is pleasing rather than 
otherwise. The subject permits of a study of Brangvyyii at 
liis best, and the production uf the plates in the book" is con- 
sistent with the .(luality of the originals, so that the book 
itself is thoroughly artistic both in matter and in manner. 
The Old War Bridge at Stirling. ' ., 
This as far as the plates and illustrations to the text are 
concerned, which form the main ])art of the work; 
With regard to the text, it is to be doubted whether Mr. 
Shaw Sparrow, admirable critic as he ])roves himself, is at 
one with Mr. Brangwyn. It may be that the author's sweep- 
ing denunciation of Thames bridges, ami especially of the 
Tower bridge, represents the opinion of the artist, but we 
venture to doubt it. Mr. Shaw Sparrow, denouncing the 
bridges of the Thames, is as ruthless as Mr. Brangwyn 
portraying a drunkard, but his tc.\t lacks the strength of 
the picture. He is controversial rather than convincing. 
It must b„' added, however, that he is illuminating on 
Brangwyn art. and especially on Brangwyn bridges, and we 
may agree with him or differ from him. hut we can no moii': 
ignore him than we can ignore tlir artist. With some of his 
conchisiuns we must agrei-, regrctlully ciiougii, and admit 
that British bridges do not compare in artistic proportion 
and fitness wtili the bridges of niedia.-val I'rance. But the 
iCouUtiued on page "J-J.) 
