LAND &? WATER 
September 12, 1918 
Kerensky: By J. Coudurier de Chassaigne 
THE first time I met Kerensky I was struck by the 
simplicity of his manners. He might have been 
one o{ those innumerable Russian students I used 
to see, in my youthful days, at the Sorbonne. 
But, in spite of his loosely fitting clothes, there was 
something in the way he entered the room which showed that 
the man had confidence in himself, and had been in possession 
of great power — that he was, in fact, somebody. His clean- 
shaven face, a little round, but not fat, with its close-cropped 
hair, as is the fashion in the Russian Army, had a very juvenile 
air. But the instant he looked at you he reminded you, 
somehow, of one of those veteran actors who, at a distance, 
seem to be boys, and when you get near them are old men. 
His nose — large, but not aquiline, broad at the top, and still 
broader at the base — falls over the mouth, as the nose in 
some of the portraits of Mirabeau. If Kerensky had adopted 
the French fashion of long hair d la GambeUa, one might call 
his nose leonine and admirably matched with an abundant 
mane. His scrutinising eyes, frequently screwed up as if 
they were very short-sighted, close and open so suddenly 
that I have not yet been able to discover what their colour is. 
But when he speaks with animation they throw out sombre 
flashes. His ips are rather thin, well curved, and the whole 
mouth is firmly set. On the forehead, a few deep lines. 
Above the eyes, slight protuberances. It is evident that the 
man has spent his life in hard and concentrated thinking, and 
the last two years have left their traces on the whole expres- 
sion of that enigmatic face. Kerensky is of medium stature, 
well set up, though not in the least athletic. The hands are 
strong, but delicately shaped. His voice is deep, and even 
when speaking to friends round a dinner-table he cannot 
suppress the volume of sound which pours forth without any 
apparent effort from his powerful throat. At our different 
meetings we always spoke in French, but I found him very 
fluent and able to express every shade of his thought with the 
greatest fac lity. He is a clear thinker, and, as he knows 
what he wants, the words never fail him to construct his 
logical and well-balanced sentences. As is often the case 
with real orators, his gestures are few. The force of his 
oratory .ies neither in magnetic power nor in physical fascina- 
tion, but in his constant eiifort to grip your mind and to 
convert you to his point of view, through the mere strength 
of logic and common sense. Doubtless his ability in develop- 
ing patriotic themes, and his consummate knowledge of human 
nature and o . the few strings that must be pulled to call forth 
an immediate answer from an enthusiastic audience, must 
appeal to the masses. But certainly in intimate conversation 
Kerensky never tries to make an oratorical effect. Even when 
carried away by the intensity of his convictions, a deeper tone 
in his voice, underlined by an occasional gesture, is the only 
sign of emotion perceptible. 
A King in Exile 
But all these externals throw little light on th^ real Kerensky 
who, for a short period, was the master of Russia, and who 
to-day is something of a king in exile. It is as yet too early 
to discuss the part he has played in the history of that country. 
We lack documents. We only know that he was called upon 
to assume a post of frightful responsibility in an hour of 
danger, and that he had to accept, at the call of duty, the 
heavy inheritance not only of his immediate predecessor, but 
also of the centuries of Tsardom, which were mainly respon- 
sible for the demoralisation of the Russian Army and for the 
fall of fhat once mighty Empire. It was not Kerensky who 
provoked the Revolution. He was only one of the many who 
had a share in it, and whose object was to stop the pro-German 
defection in the higher as well as in the lower circles of Russian 
society. When power came to him, he ought, if he had been 
a mere self-seeking politician, to have refused it, for the 
simple reason that no man has been yet found in the history 
of tne world who could govern without a prison, without a 
policeman, without a hangman, and also without an army ! 
Kerensky tried to rebuild Russia — or, rather, to stop its 
downfall — by the sole power of his persuasive eloquence, and 
by trying to convince the honest Russians of all parties that 
they must unite in order to reorganise their country, before 
it was too late. I believe he sincerely tried to be impartial, 
and to favour neither the extremists of the left nor the reac- 
tionaries of the right wing. He worked night and day against 
time and against tide, betrayed in every quarter, and mis- 
understood by all. Even if he had learnt by experience that 
to realise his generous and idealistic schemes it was necessary 
to have not only nominal power, but also the brutal strength 
indispensable to a dictatorship, he would have been unable 
to accomplish the miracle of finding guns and baj'onets 
wherewith to impose his will on the people. 
As for the Komiloff episode, too much has already been 
written about it without the necessary documentary evidence. 
We must await the publication in English of the reports 
already published in Russian of Kerensky 's depositions 
before the Commission of Inquiry set up by himself to throw 
light on that painful incident. But there is every reason to 
believe that Kerensky played straight with Korniloff, knowing 
full well that his Government could not re-establish order in 
Russia without the co-operation of a disciplined army. 
It seems clear that Korniloff — an honest soldier, but a 
bad politician — prepared a trap which Kerensky could only 
avoid by ordering his arrest. Be that as it may, the result 
was that the Bolshevists found therein an opportunity of 
rushing against the shadow of government which Kerensky 
was striving to preserve. What happened then is known 
to all of us. 
To-day, Kerensky does not come to us as the head of a 
definite party. He is not like a dethroned sovereign asking 
the Allies to help him to reconquer his lost Empire. He is 
only here for a short time as the envoy of a. group of patriotic 
citizens who have sent him to inform our Government of the 
real state of things in Russia. Even his bitterest enemies will 
not contest that he knows more about the present condition 
of affairs in his country, than most of his countrymen, and 
certainly than any one outside it. His devotion to the Allies 
and to their cause is beyond doubt. We must never forget 
that it was he who successfully organised during his short 
premiership the offensive, such as it was, on the Russian 
front which resulted in the capture of over 50,000 prisoners 
and hundreds of guns, and obliged the ' Germans to send 
back to the Eastern front some of their best troops, which 
they were going to hurl in the direction of Paris. That 
alone ought to Secure for Kerensky sympathy amongst us. 
The Future of Russia 
But what we have to face now is the reconstruction and 
the regeneration of Russia. The Bolshevists are nearing 
their end. The pro-German Monarchists are trying to seize 
power again with the help of our foes. Even assuming they 
are sincere patriots, they do not seem to xmderstand that if 
Russia becomes prosperous under the tutelage of the enemy 
of liberty and humanity, such an alliance will inevitably 
lead to future wars and will compromise for another long 
period the peace of the world. Another Monarchist party 
exists which is favourable to the Allies, and whose members 
clearly realise the price that Germany will exact for her help. 
But if a monarchy is imposed on Russia by the Allies, are we 
quite certain that the more reactionary elements will not absorb 
the liberal wing of the Tsarists, whoever that Tsar may be ? 
Would it not be better for us if the middle party could be 
strengthened, 1 mean the party which is made up of the Liberals, 
of the Socialists, and of all the elements which, though anti- 
Bolshevist, are opposed to the return of any autocratic 
regime ? Thus would it be possible for the purely Russian 
provinces to remain in close contact with all the nationahties 
which form Greater Russia, and which would certainly refuse 
to submit once more to the possible tyranny of a new Imperial 
domination. That centre party • is made up not only of 
intellectuals, of nobles, of merchants, and of industrials, but 
also of those innumerable provincial assemblies which are 
being reconstructed now in order to establish on a real demo- 
cratic basis the Russia of to-morrow. These local organisa- 
tions are the representatives of the peasant interest, which, 
however illiterate to-day, constitutes the foundation of any 
government which is to last in Russia. 
The Allies have made many mistakes in their foreign 
policy. Another mistake in Russia might prove fatal, and, 
in any case, would prolong the war. It is quite clear that 
any interference from us in Russia, seeming to back one 
party more than another, would be resented by the whole 
population. Are we sure to-day that we are in touch with 
the right people ? Is it not our first duty to help Russia to 
reorganise herself sufficiently to be able to elect a representa- 
tive assembly which should be entrusted with the elaboration 
6i a constitution ? Upon such a body would devolve the 
duty to choose, in the name of the Russian people, the mode 
of government which the Russians themselves desire. 
If Kerensky's sojourn in England and in France has con- 
tributed to help our Governments to realise more fully the 
actual state of Russia to-day, he will not have come in vain. 
