and then another; so that nobody can ever be sure of my favor." What a vulgar and vicious theory is this! Will there never appear a man superior to this man, who can prove its falsity? The only thing wanting to the sacred cause of morality is to be attend; ed in this world with great and brilliant success. One who duly appreciates the dignity of this cause would, without doubt, feel a pleasure in sacrificing to it every other consideration; but those presumptuous souls who regard vice as a proof of sound and deep thinking, require to be taught by example, that if immorality is sometimes compatible with talent, genius may also be the attendant of virtue. I was satisfied of the good faith of the emperor Alexander in his relations with Napoleon; and was convinced at the same time, that he would never imitate the conduct of the unfortunate German sovereigns, by signing a peace with one who is equally the enemy of sovereigns and nations. A noble mind will never be deceived twice by the same person. Alexander gives and withdraws his confidence with great reflection. His youth and personal advantages threw upon him, at the beginning of his reign, some suspicions of frivolity; but he is serious, like all who have suffered. Alexander expressed to ine his regret at not being a great captain. In answer to so noble a proof of modesty, I remarked, that sovereigns were even more rare than generals; and that to keep up the spirit of the nation, by his example, was the most important of victories, and the first of the kind that had been gained in these struggles. The emperor spoke to me with enthusiasm of his people and their future destinies. He intimated the desire, which he is generally known to feel, of improving the condition of the peasants who are still in slavery. "Sire, said I, "your character is a constitution to your empire, and your conscience is the security of it." "if this were true," he replied; "I should still be only a fortunate accident." What a noble remark! The first of the kind, I fancy, that an absolute monarch ever pronounced. What virtue it requires in a despot to pass such a sentence upon despotism! and what virtue too, it requires never to abuse power in a country where public opinion is so far from demanding moderation, that the people are almost astonished at its exercise.'

Late events have shown very clearly, that whatever confidence the conscience of the emperor Alexander may inspire in the minds of his subjects, it is no sufficient security against the abuse of his influence over foreign powers. The representation here given of his disposition at a preceding period, towards Bonaparte, is tinged with a favorable coloring, which nothing could excuse, but the sympathy naturally inspired by his situation at the time when this passage was written. A

mind, which could be seduced by the glare of military success, encircling the name of Bonaparte, into a passionate admiration of his character, and a public approval of his measures, by cooperation, even to the invasion of Spain, must be strangely wanting in firmness; and a conscience which can lend itself to such illusions is a poor security for the rights of a great nation. That Peter III. felt a similar enthusiasm for the great Frederic may be true; but the example is not very flattering to the emperor Alexander, who probably aspires to a higher reputation than that of his besotted and miserable great grandfather; while, in order to defend him on the authority of this instance, it would be necessary to suppose him as much weaker than Peter, as Bonaparte was more unprincipled, and less accomplished than the hero of Brandenburgh. We can hardly exculpate Madame de Stael, in this point, of intentional flattery, a heinous offence in so warm a champion of liberal principles and generous feelings. We are not, however, disposed to deny that her general idea of the emperor's moral character is substantially just. We believe his disposition to be naturally good and generous, and are ready to admit that even in supporting the late invasion of Italy, he did not wilfully sin against his conscience, but really believed himself to be doing God service. His honesty in these measures was of the same description with that, which lighted the faggots for Cranmer, and hung the witches at Salem. Minds much stronger than the emperor's have been subdued by the influence of prevailing opinions; and a powerful military despot, who is led to trample on the rights of other nations by a fanatical zeal for what he believes to be a good cause, is, in our opinion, a much more dangerous person, than a sovereign merely ambitious of greatness and glory. The proceedings of the former will probably be found to be more violent, more unjust, and perhaps more cruel. The conscience of an individual is, therefore, no sufficient guarantee for any rights whatever, and it is the great advantage of liberal institutions and representative governments, that they protect the people, alike from the wilful oppression of profligate rulers, and the equally fatal errors of the well meaning. These institutions throw upon the march of government the broad daylight of public opinion. Public opinion itself may, at times, be erroneous; but it is the last tribunal to which an appeal can be made on this side the grave; and where the form of

government allows it a full and free expression, its counsels may generally be followed with confidence by honest rulers, as they must be obeyed, however reluctantly, by all. While with these reservations we adopt the opinion of Madame de Stael respecting the moral character of the emperor of Russia, we find ourselves unable to agree with her, in pronouncing him a man of remarkable talent and information. Every thing has, doubtless, been done for his mind, which could be effected by the most careful and judicious course of training; and he is much superior to the great majority of persons belonging to the same social class; but we are not aware that he has exhibited any clear proofs of possessing great intellectual energy; and he certainly has given many of wanting it.

There is little novelty in the remarks of Madame de Stael upon the general character of the Russians. She was forcibly struck with the high civilization of the nobles, and the rude barbarity of the general mass. Her representation of the character of both classes is perhaps rather more favorable than strict justice would admit, but is in the main, substantially just. The following passages contain some of her reflections on the Russian character, and may perhaps be interesting at a time when the public attention is so strongly directed towards this vast empire, and when the important part which it is destined to play in the future history of Europe is becoming every day more and more perceptible.

No civilized nation is so nearly savage as Russia; and even the nobles when they possess mental energy, exhibit the faults and the virtues of unreclaimed nature. Much praise has been bestowed on the celebrated remark of Diderot," The Russians rotted before they ripened;" but the observation is wholly false. Their vices, with some exceptions, are those of barbarism, and not of corruption. A Russian wish would blow up a city, said a man of talent, and when they desire to accomplish any object good or bad, they are alternately furious and cunning. Their character is not changed by the rapid civilization introduced by Peter. Hitherto it has only polished their manners, and fortunately for them, they remain what we call barbarians, that is, they act from feelings, often generous, but always instinctive; and employ reflection only in the choice of means, and never in that of ends. I say fortunately for them, not because I think the state of barbarism desirable, but because this native energy of character is the only substitute in nations for the reflecting and deliberate power of freedom.

New Series, No. 9.

16

The people, it may be said, are in slavery; how then can they be supposed to have a character. Certainly I need not say, that every enlightened man desires to see them raised above this situation, and the emperor Alexander more than any body else. But the slavery of the Russians does not correspond in its effects, with the idea we form of it in the west. This relation is not like that which existed under the feudal system, when a conquering nation had imposed severe laws upon a conquered one. It is more like the state of family servitude among the ancients. There is no middling class (tiers état) in Russia. This is a great evil as regards the progress of literature and the arts, which generally flourish but in this portion of society; but the absence of any intervening order between the nobles and the slaves, produces a greater attachment between them than would otherwise exist. The distance appears very great from one of these orders to the other, because they are two extremes, unconnected by any intermediate link; but this very circumstance brings them in reality much more frequently into contact. This state of society is very unfavorable to the improvement of the higher classes, but not to the happiness of the lower. In countries where there is no representative government, and where the monarch makes himself the law which he is to execute, the people are often more debased by the sacrifice of independence and opinion, required by such a political constitution, than they are in this empire, where a few simple ideas of religion and patriotism serve to maintain the influence of a small number of lords over a vast uncivilized mass. The immense extent of the Russian empire prevents the despotism of the nobles from pressing as heavily as it otherwise would, upon the peasants. A religious and a military spirit are also generally prevalent, and we may readily overlook some deficiencies in a country where two such excellent motives of conduct are in steady operation. A man of great talent remarked, that Russia resembled the plays of Shakspeare, where every thing which is not sublime is faulty; and every thing which is not faulty is sublime. This observation is perfectly just; but in the very difficult crisis which existed at the time when I visited this people, it was impossible not to admire their energetic resistance to the invader, and their cheerful resignation to the necessary sacrifices. Where such virtues were actually exhibited, it was hardly possible to notice the faults which might have been remarked at other times.'

We quote these passages without pretending to adopt or contest the opinions; but merely with a view of communicating to the reader the sentiments of so enlightened an observer on a very important subject.

The determined and bitter hostility of Madame de Stael to

the now departed military tyrant of her country, is a remarkable feature in this work, as in the one on the French revolution. It is expressed in this in a still more unqualified form than in the other, partly, perhaps, because the rude lines of a first sketch had not been corrected and softened for the public eye, and partly because the work was written at the period of the emperor's worst and wildest extravagance, and when the writer was suffering strongly herself under the continual stroke' of his iron sceptre. When she published the work on the French revolution, her great enemy had already lost his power; and even then it began to be perceived, that there were other rulers in the world not wholly indisposed to play in their turn the game of tyranny. Under these circumstances she was able to treat the character and history of Bonaparte with more coolness and judgment; and though there are still strong symptoms of personal feeling, we perceive something of the dignity and impartiality of history. In the present work a tone of passion and petulance prevails throughout on the subject; and it tends very strongly to defeat the unfavorable impression which might otherwise be made by the facts related and the opinions given. This circumstance might have been considered as a reason among others, for suppressing the work out of regard for the author's reputation.

Independently of the unfortunate tone of most of the observations upon that point, the substance of them is far from being always correct or even plausible. There is too obvious an effort to degrade the character of Napoleon for talent, as well as to inculpate his motives and conduct. If we merely look at his political and military successes, it is evident that the production of such effects, in an age like this, demands intellectual powers of the highest order. An Attila or a Gengiskan may ravage half the globe, without any qualities but brutal courage and a wild barbarian energy of mind and body; but to establish a dominion, though merely military, over an enlightened continent like Europe, is an achievement of a different sort; and supposes, in addition to the virtues of a great commander, a natural dignity and elevation of mind. Is it possible that a vulgar spirit should raise itself, by its own efforts, from the lowest ranks in the army to the throne of one of the most powerful and civilized nations in Europe; and should then push the greatness of this nation to a point which it never reached before, and extend its influence over a great