Pinkalicious and Planet Pink Victoria

Kann
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/pinkalicious-and-planet-pink-victoria-kann/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Lonely Planet Vancouver Victoria 9 Travel Guide 9th

Edition John Lee

https://ebookmeta.com/product/lonely-planet-vancouver-
victoria-9-travel-guide-9th-edition-john-lee/

Playing the Caro Kann A Counter Attacking Repertoire

Lars Schandorff

https://ebookmeta.com/product/playing-the-caro-kann-a-counter-
attacking-repertoire-lars-schandorff/

Media Anthropology and Public Engagement 1st Edition

Sarah Pink

https://ebookmeta.com/product/media-anthropology-and-public-
engagement-1st-edition-sarah-pink/

Doing Visual Ethnography 4th Edition Sarah Pink

https://ebookmeta.com/product/doing-visual-ethnography-4th-
edition-sarah-pink/
Pink The Complete Trilogy 1st Edition Misty Vixen

https://ebookmeta.com/product/pink-the-complete-trilogy-1st-
edition-misty-vixen/

Pink NHB Modern Plays 3rd Edition Holcroft Sam

https://ebookmeta.com/product/pink-nhb-modern-plays-3rd-edition-
holcroft-sam/

Not in the Pink 1st Edition Vella Day

https://ebookmeta.com/product/not-in-the-pink-1st-edition-vella-
day/

Proud Pink Sky 1st Edition Redfern Jon Barrett

https://ebookmeta.com/product/proud-pink-sky-1st-edition-redfern-
jon-barrett/

Lonely Planet Florida Lonely Planet

https://ebookmeta.com/product/lonely-planet-florida-lonely-
planet/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
eventful day, he returned to Oranienbaum, where he disembarked at
four o’clock in the morning of July the 10th. Here he was soon visited
by the emissaries of Catherine; was persuaded to sign an act of
abdication; was conducted to Peterhov; was divested of all his
imperial orders; was clad in a mean dress, and consigned, first to
one of the country houses of the hetman, and soon afterwards to the
fortress of Ropscha, about twenty miles distant from Peterhov. He
was not allowed to see the empress; and his mistress and
attendants were separated from him.b

Death of Peter III (1762 a.d.)

What was to be done with Peter? At the deliberations on this

question Catherine calmly listened to arguments as to the necessity
of measures being taken in order that the former emperor should not
injure her rule by disturbing weak minds; she clearly realised all the
dangers that might be created for her, if not by Peter himself at any
rate by his partisans. They were not numerous, yet they did exist and
they might multiply in the future. It was necessary that Peter should
be definitively made harmless, but how was it to be done? During the
deliberations on the means to be taken, no restraint was imposed by
Catherine’s presence. The empress was not an Elizabeth Petrovna:
she at once understood the uselessness of imprisonment at
Schlüsselburg or any other place; she was not likely to fall into a
fainting fit at any proposition made. The examples of Ivan the
Terrible and Peter the Great did not disturb her. Nevertheless, not
one of those present, not even the persons nearest to her, reading in
her eyes the secret desire decisively to finish once for all with this
unbearable question, would have dared even to hint at an unnatural
death—they knew Catherine, they might read her thought, but not
aloud.
When the persons who surrounded Catherine were definitively
convinced that Peter’s removal was recognised by her as
indispensable, they decided to devise a means for it without her
knowledge and to accomplish it without her consent. In this were
interested all the personal partisans of Catherine, those “chosen
sons of the people,” who had stirred up the empress to put herself at
the head of the movement. They were far more interested in the
matter than Catherine herself: the change had been brought about
by all classes of society, by the whole nation, not by her; no one
could even think of the detested Peter ascending the throne a
second time—it was not on Catherine that the malcontents would
revenge themselves, that is if there were or would be any, but on the
“chosen of the people.” Peter did not prevent a change being
brought about; still, he might hinder not Catherine but many of the
“chosen ones” from reaping the fruits of their labours. The Orlov
brothers were above all interested in the matter; all of them, and
especially Gregory, occupied important posts, which gave them the
right to dream of great things; the realisation of these dreams could,
it seemed to them, be prevented only by Peter’s perpetual
imprisonment. As long as Peter lived, Catherine was not free: it was
now observed by everyone that in the manifesto of the 28th of June
Peter was not once called the consort, the husband of Catherine; but
such bonds imposed by the church are not broken either by
manifestoes or imprisonment: Peter living, by the one fact of his
being alive, prevented the Orlovs from attaining the final results of
their efforts, their sacrifices. No matter by what means, somehow the
Orlovs must guard not merely what was as yet only possible and
cherished in their dreams, but the good fortune that had already
been attained to; and, for this, haste must be made. The favour
shown to them, especially to Gregory, was visible to every eye. At
the court there were already snares laid for them, intrigues began to
be carried on against them, endeavours were made to overthrow
Gregory; if Gregory fell his brothers would fall with him. Haste must
be made.
On Wednesday, the 3rd of July, on the fourth day after the
appearance of the attacks of Peter’s illness, in the evening the
doctor, Leyders, came to Ropscha from St. Petersburg. On
Thursday, the 4th of July, the former emperor probably grew worse:
at any rate a second doctor came that day from St. Petersburg—the
regimental surgeon Paulsen. The doctors did not observe any
change for the worse, and according to the expressions of the
language of contemporaries, the condition of the patient left nothing
to be desired. Friday passed quietly. On Saturday, the 6th of July, in
the morning while the prisoner was still asleep, the valet who
attended on Peter went out into the garden, “to breathe the fresh air.”
An officer who was in the garden ordered him to be seized and the
valet was put into a carriage which stood in readiness and removed
from Ropscha. In the evening, at six o’clock, a messenger who had
ridden from Ropscha gave to Catherine a packet from Alexis Orlov.
On a sheet of soiled gray paper, in the ignorant handwriting of Alexis
Orlov and by his own drunken hand was traced the following:
 Merciful sovereign mother![52]
How can I explain, how describe what has happened; you will not believe your
faithful servant; but before God I speak the truth. Matushka! I am ready to go to my
death; but I myself do not know, how this calamity happened. We are lost, if you do
not have mercy. Matushka, he is no more on earth. But no one had thought of this,
and how could we have thought to raise our hands against the sovereign! But,
your majesty, the calamity is accomplished. At table he began to dispute with
Prince Theodore;[53] we were unable to separate them and he was already no
more; we do not ourselves remember what we did; but we are all equally guilty and
deserving of punishment. Have mercy upon me, if it is only for my brother’s sake. I
have brought you my confession and seek for nothing. Forgive or command that it
may be quickly finished. The world is not kind; we have angered you and
destroyed our souls forever.

The news of death is a great matter. It is impossible either to

prepare for it or grow accustomed to it. In the present case the death
of Peter, doing away with many perplexities, and giving a free hand
to many persons, appeared as the only possible and most desirable
issue to the political drama which was agitating the people of Russia.
Nevertheless the news of this death struck some, disturbed others,
and puzzled all as an unexpected sudden phenomenon. On
Catherine it produced the strongest impression, and (justice must be
rendered to her) she was the first to control herself, to examine into
the mass of new conditions, created by the death of Peter, and to
master the various feelings which made their invasion together with
the news of the catastrophe of Ropscha.
“Que je suis affectée: même terrassée par cette mort” (How
affected and even overwhelmed I am by this death), said Catherine
to Princess Dashkov. She was touched by it as a woman; she was
struck by it as empress. Catherine clearly recognised her position:
the death of Peter, a death that was so sudden, would at such a time
awaken rumours, throw a shadow on her intentions, lay a spot on the
memory of those until then clear, bright ten days; yet she did not hide
from herself that it was only by death that the great undertaking
“begun by us” could be entirely consummated. The tragedy of
Catherine’s position was still further increased by the circumstance
of Alexis Orlov’s having taken an active part in the catastrophe of
Ropscha: she was under great obligations to the Orlovs as empress,
while as a woman she was bound by the ties of affection to Gregory
Orlov; she loathed the crime, but she could not give up the criminal.
“One must be firm in one’s resolutions,” said Catherine, “only weak-
minded people are undecided.” Even she herself, she must conceal
the crime and protect the criminal, taking upon herself all the moral
responsibility and political burden of the catastrophe. Catherine then
for the first time showed a healthy political understanding of the
widest diapason and played the rôle she had taken upon herself with
the talent of a virtuoso.
The letter of Alexis Orlov, which entirely exculpated her from all
suspicion was hidden in a cupboard, where it lay for thirty-four years,
until the very death of the empress. With the exception of two or
three persons in the immediate entourage of Catherine, who were
near her at the moment when the letter was received besides Nikita
Panin and the hetman Razumovski, no one ever read it, no one
knew of it while the empress lived. Having decided upon the fate of
the letter, she herself marked out the programme of her actions
clearly and shortly: “Il faut marcher droit; je ne dois pas être
suspecte.” (I must walk uprightly; I must not be suspected.)
The programme was exactly fulfilled. The letter of Alexis Orlov did
not communicate the trifling details of the catastrophe, but the
general signification of the narrative did not leave any doubts as to
its chief features, and therefore Catherine considered it first of all
necessary to certify whether poison had been employed; the
postmortem examination, made by order of the empress, did not
show the least trace of poison. Neither the medical certificate as to
the cause of death nor the act of death has been preserved; we can
only guess that these certificates directed the composition of the
following “mourning” manifesto:

On the seventh day after our acceptation of the throne of all the Russias, we
received the news that the former emperor Peter III, by an attack of hemorrhage
which was common and previously frequent to him, had fallen into a most
dangerous condition. In order therefore not to neglect our Christian duty and the
sacred command, by which we are obliged to preserve the life of our neighbour,
we immediately ordered that everything necessary should be sent to him in order
to avert consequences that might be dangerous to his health through this
mischance, and tend to assist to his speedy recovery. But to our extreme grief and
trouble of heart, we yesterday evening received news that, by the will of God, he
 had departed this life. We have therefore commanded that his body should be
taken to the Nevski monastery to be there interred; meanwhile we incite and
exhort all our true and faithful subjects by our imperial and maternal word that,
without evil remembrance of all that is past, they should raise to God their heartfelt
prayers that forgiveness and salvation of his soul may be granted to the deceased;
this unexpected decree by God of his death we accept as a manifestation of the
divine providence through which God in his inscrutable judgment lays the path,
known to his holy will alone, to our throne and to the entire fatherland. Given at St.
Petersburg on the 7th day of July, 1762.
Catherine.

The Russian made the sign of the cross as he read this manifesto.
Yes, the judgments of God are indeed inscrutable! The former
emperor had experienced in his last days so many sorrows, so many
reverses—no wonder his feeble, sickly nature, which had already
suffered from attacks of hemorrhage, would not withstand these
shocks; in the matter of death nobody is free: he had fallen ill and
died. To the common people his death appeared natural; even the
upper classes, although they might hear even if they did not know
something, did not admit any thoughts of Catherine’s having had any
share in his death. The empress “must not be suspected” and she
remained unsuspected. On the night between Sunday, the 7th of
July, and Monday, the 8th, the body was brought straight to St.
Petersburg, directly to the present monastery of St. Alexander
Nevski to the same place where the body of the princess Anna of
Brunswick was exposed for reverence, and later on the body of the
princess Anna Petrovna, Catherine’s daughter.e

FOOTNOTES

[49] It is said that when the infant Ivan heard the shouts of the
soldiers in front of the palace, he endeavoured to imitate their
vociferations, when Elizabeth exclaimed, “Poor babe! thou
knowest not that thou art joining in the noise that is raised at thy
undoing.”
[50] The mother died in childbed, 1746; the father survived until
1780.
[51] She is said to have been privately married to a singer; but
this is doubtful. What is certain is that her lovers were as
numerous after as before the alleged union.
[52] The exact expression in Russian is Matushka (little
mother), a title of endearment given by the people to the
sovereign.
[53] Prince Theodore Sergeivitch Bariatinski.
 CHAPTER VIII. THE AGE OF CATHERINE THE
GREAT
We must acknowledge that in many respects Catherine was far from
irreproachable; her very accession to the throne casts a dark shadow on her moral
image. But the reproaches that must be made to her on this account cannot but be
counteracted by the thirty-four years of greatness and prosperity which Russia
enjoyed under her and to which the popular voice has given the appellation of the
Age of Catherine.—Shehebalski.b

There are few names so popular in Russia

[1762-1796 a.d.] and so dear to her as that of Catherine II. The
generation of men who belonged to her time
spoke of her with the most profound emotion. Memoirs and
reminiscences of her contemporaries breathe almost without
exception the same ardent devotion—a sort of worship of her. In
opposition to these feelings, foreign reports of her represent her as
cruel, heartless, and unscrupulous to the last degree. Some authors
represent her as a sort of monster. However strange such
contradictions may appear, they can readily be accounted for.
Foreigners view Catherine II more from the side of her external
policy, which was certainly often unsparing and unscrupulous in the
means employed; they refer caustically to her private life, which was
certainly not irreproachable. Russians, on the other hand, felt above
all the influence of her interior administration, which contrasted
sharply from that of her predecessors by its mildness, and which was
full of useful and liberal reforms. The Russians of her day could not
remain indifferent to the glory with which Catherine surrounded
Russia. And thus to the descendants of Catherine, acquainted as
they are with the reports given of her both by Russians and
foreigners, she appears as the two-faced god of antiquity; her visage
when turned to the neighbouring powers is stern and unwelcoming;
that, on the contrary, which is turned toward Russia is full of majesty
and mildness.
The state of affairs was very much entangled
[1762 a.d.] when Catherine ascended the throne, both in
the interior of the empire and in respect to
exterior policy. One of the first acts of the new empress was the
conclusion of peace with all those who had taken part in the Seven
Years’ War. Not seeing any advantage to Russia in helping the king
of Prussia in his war against the German emperor and his allies,
Catherine did not consider it necessary to assist the latter. “I am of
tolerably martial tastes,” said she, in the first days after her
accession to the throne, to one of the ambassadors to the Russian
court, “but I will never begin war without a cause; if I begin war, it will
not be as the empress Elizabeth did—to please others, but only
when I find it favourable for myself.” These words are characteristic
of all Catherine’s further foreign policy; to listen to them was not
without profit for foreign courts, which, during the preceding reigns,
had certainly been over-spoiled by the complaisance of the
Russians.
The next circumstance must have enlightened them still further as
to how little Catherine had the intention of allowing herself to be
restrained by considerations which did not tend to the furtherance of
the glory and prosperity of her dominions. We have already seen by
what persistency—sometimes even to the sacrifice of their dignity—
the preceding governments had succeeded in obtaining the
recognition of their right to the imperial title. France had recognised it
only under Elizabeth, and that under the condition that at all foreign
courts the Russian ambassador must, as previously, yield the
precedence to the French ambassador; the late empress Elizabeth
herself engaged that this should be done. When Catherine came to
the throne, it was proposed to her to renew this engagement; she,
however, very decidedly refused to do so, and commanded that it
should be declared that she would break off all relations with those
courts that did not recognise her in the quality of empress—a title,
she added, which, however, was in no degree more exalted than that
of the czars. Such were the first acts of the new empress in regard to
foreign governments: they were bold, firm, and determined.b

CATHERINE’S OWN VIEWS ON RUSSIA

The interior condition of Russia and the

[1763 a.d.] position at that time occupied by Catherine are
best described by herself, in her own words. In
the very beginning of the year 1764 the procurator-general, A. I.
Glebov, was removed from his functions. As his successor in this
weighty and responsible office the empress named Prince A. A.
Viasemski. The procurator-general had to superintend the finances
of the empire, to direct the senate, and to govern all the interior
affairs of the nation, thus uniting in himself the powers of minister of
finance, of justice, and of home affairs. He was subordinate to none
except the law, the good of the country, and the will of the empress.
He was the right hand of the empress: “In cases where you may be
in doubt,” said Catherine to him, “consult with me, and put your trust
entirely in God and in me; and I, seeing how gratifying your conduct
is to me, will not forsake you.” Prince Viasemski was still a young
man—he was not yet thirty-seven years of age. A pupil of the land-
forces cadet corps, he had taken part in the Prussian War—not,
however, in the character of a brave soldier, but as the executor of
“secret orders.” At the accession of Catherine to the throne he was
already quartermaster-general. In 1763 he was entrusted with the
pacification of the peasants in the eastern provinces of Russia. He
was well educated, industrious, and was recognised by everyone as
an absolutely honest man. It was this last circumstance that
determined Catherine’s choice. Having selected for herself her
“closest helper,” with whom she would have to be in constant
relations, the empress considered it necessary once for all to have a
clear explanation with him, and with her own hand wrote him
“instructions” in which she expressed her own views on Russia, on
the chief branches of the administration, and on herself personally,
drawing her portrait for him as empress:
“The Russian Empire,” wrote Catherine, “is so vast in its extent
that any other form of government excepting that of an autocratic
sovereign would be prejudicial to it; for any other would be slow of
accomplishment and would include in itself a multitude of diverse
interests and passions which tend to the weakening of the
administrative power. No, there must be one sovereign, invested with
authority to destroy evil, and who esteems the public welfare as his
own. Other rulers are, in the words of the Gospel, hirelings.”
The first institution in the empire is the senate. Catherine thus
describes it to the young procurator-general: “In the senate you will
find two parties, but in my opinion a wise policy does not require that
much regard should be paid to them, lest too much firmness should
thus be given them: in this manner they will disappear the sooner; I
have only kept a watchful eye over them and have used men
according to their capabilities for one object or another. Both parties
will now try to catch you for their side. In one you will find men of
upright character, although not of far-seeing intellects; in the other I
think their views are wider, but it is not clear whether they are always
advantageous. Some think that because they have been in one or
another country for a long time, everything must be arranged in
politics for the good of their beloved land, and everything else
without exception meets with their criticism, in spite of the fact that all
interior administration is founded on the law of the rights of nations.
You must not regard either one party or the other, but be courteous
and dispassionate in your behaviour to both, listening to everything,
having only the good of the country and justice in view, and walking
in firm steps to the shortest road to truth.”
The senate “by its want of attention to the deeds of certain of my
forefathers left its fundamental principles, and oppressed other
courts through which the lower tribunals fell greatly into decline. The
servility and meanness of persons in these tribunals is indescribable
and no good can be expected until this evil is done away with. Only
the forms of bureaucracy are fulfilled, and people do not dare to act
uprightly although the interests of the state thus suffer. The senate
having once passed its proper bounds, it is now difficult to accustom
it to the necessary order in which it should stand. Perhaps for the
ambition of some members, the former measures have some charm,
but at any rate while I live, it will remain my duty to command.”
The “servility” of the members of the government offices was
ascribed to the senate, but the senate was not to repair the evil it
had occasioned. By a ukase of the 19th of December, 1763,
Catherine required that the “government offices should be filled by
worthy and honest men.” The motive of this ukase is explained in the
above cited instructions to Prince Viasemski. In these instructions
Catherine draws his attention to the great burdensomeness for the
people of the duties on salt and wine, but she confides to his
particular care the question of silver or copper money, which had
long interested her, as well as the position of trade and commerce.
“This very delicate matter,” she says, “of which many persons find it
unpleasant to hear must however be looked into and examined by
you.” Catherine did not conceal from herself that the laws required
amending. “Lack of time alone,” she says, “has prevented the
introduction of reforms.”
Catherine did not forget to tell the young procurator-general what
her views were on the frontier country of Russia: “Little Russia,
Livonia, and Finland are provinces that must be governed in
conformity with their privileges; to violate them by revoking them all
suddenly would be quite unseemly, to call them foreign countries,
however, and treat them on such a basis would be more than an
error—it might rightly be called stupidity. These provinces, as also
that of Smolensk, must by the lightest possible means be gradually
russianised so that they shall cease to be looked upon as wolves in
the forest. The attainment of such an object is quite easy if sensible
persons are chosen for the governors of these provinces. When
there is no longer a hetman in Little Russia, we must endeavour to
abolish even the appellation of hetman.”
 Having initiated Prince Viasemski
into the most secret matters, having
reminded him that a procurator-
general in the exercise of his functions
is obliged to oppose the most
powerful personages and that
therefore the sovereign power is his
only support, Catherine in the
following passage expressed her
views on her own sovereign power:
“You ought to know with whom you
have to do. Occasions will arise daily
which will lead you to seek my
counsel. You will find that I have no
other aims than the highest welfare
and glory of the fatherland and desire
nothing but the happiness of my
subjects of whatever condition they
may be. My only aspiration is that
both within and without my dominions
tranquillity, contentment, and peace
should be preserved. I love truth
above all things, and you may speak
An Old Mordvinian Woman
it, fearing nothing; I shall encourage
discussion, if good can be
accomplished by it. I hear that all
esteem you as an honest man; I hope to show you by experience
that persons with such qualities can live happily at court. I will add
that I require no flattery from you, but solely frankness and sincerity
in your dealings, and firmness in the affairs of state.” Such an
administration programme and such political principles gave
Catherine full right to look calmly towards the future.c

THE POLISH SUCCESSION; THE POLICY OF THE NATIONS

 A subject of deep gravity soon claimed her attention—the
approaching death of the king of Poland and the consequent
opening of the succession. Two parties were contending for power in
Warsaw—the court party with minister Brühl and his son-in-law
Mniszek at its head, and the party which looked to Russia for support
and had for chiefs the Czartoriski. The first-named faction wished to
assure the succession to the prince of Saxony, an aim in which
France and Austria shared, and the second, planning to elect a piast
or native noble who should belong to their party, chose as candidate
a nephew of the Czartoriski, Stanislaus Poniatovski. Thus France,
which in 1733 had waged war in the cause of a piast against the
Saxon candidate, now came to support the Saxon against
Poniatovski. The face of affairs had completely changed, and the
Polish monarchy, growing weaker day by day, arrived at the point
where it could no longer stand erect save by the aid of Saxony, a
German state. Frederick II had as much reason to dread an increase
of power for Saxony as for Poland, since Saxony was an inveterate
enemy of Prussia in the empire, as was Poland in the regions of the
Vistula. Russia, which had formerly fought against Stanislaus
Leszczynski, father-in-law of Louis XV, was now to oppose the
candidate favoured by France and Austria; it was eager also to
prevent the accession to the throne of any Polish noble wielding too
much power of his own. The choice, therefore, of Stanislaus
Poniatovski, a simple gentleman without personal following or
influence, met fully the desires of Frederick II, the interests of the
Russian Empire, and the private feelings of Catherine II, who was
happy to bestow a crown upon one of her former lovers.
When Augustus III finally died, the diets of
[1765 a.d.] convocation and of election stirred up great
agitation all over the country. The two rival
parties waged fiercer strife than ever; at last the Czartoriski called
upon the Russian army to help drive out their enemies, and it was
under the protection of foreign bayonets that Poniatovski
inaugurated that fatal reign during which Poland was to be three
times dismembered and in the end wiped completely from the list of
nations. Three principal causes were to bring about the ruin of the
ancient royal republic:
 (1) The national movement in Russia, which aimed to complete its
territory on the west and recover, so said its historians, the provinces
which had formerly been part of the domain of St. Vladimir, or White
Russia, Black Russia, and Little Russia. With the national question
was mingled another which had already led, under Alexander
Mikhailovitch, to a first dismemberment of the Polish states.
Complaints against the operations of the uniates had multiplied in
Lithuania, and Russia had frequently attempted to intervene. Peter
the Great protested to Augustus II against the treatment accorded to
his co-religionists in Poland, and Augustus had issued an edict
assuring free exercise of the orthodox religion; but this never went
into effect owing to the inability of the monarchy to repress the zeal
of the clergy and the Jesuits. In 1723 Peter begged the intervention
of the pope, but his petition was refused and the abuses continued.
(2) The covetousness of Prussia. Poland being in possession of
western Prussia, that is the lower Vistula including Thorn and
Dantzic, eastern Prussia was completely cut off from the rest of the
Brandenburg monarchy, which was thus made a divided state. The
government of Warsaw committed, moreover, the serious error of
confounding Protestant and orthodox dissenters and harassing them
alike.
(3) The inevitable enkindling of Poland in its turn by the spirit of
reform that spread abroad during the eighteenth century. Poniatovski
and the most enlightened of his countrymen had long perceived the
contrast presented by national anarchy as it prevailed at home and
the order that was being established in neighbouring states.
Nevertheless, while Prussia, Russia, and Austria were exerting every
effort to re-form themselves into strictly modern states, Poland still
clung obstinately to the traditions of the feudal ages, and allowed the
other European monarchies to get so far ahead that when at last the
impulse to reform did come it hastened the dissolution of the country.
From a social point of view Poland was a nation of agricultural
serfs, above which had been superimposed a numerous petty
nobility that was itself in bondage to a few great families, against
whom even the king was powerless. There existed no third estate
unless we can designate by that name a few thousand Catholic
bourgeois and a million Jews, who had no interest in maintaining a
condition of things that condemned them to everlasting opprobrium.
From an economical point of view the country had only a limited
agriculture carried on by serfs after the most primitive methods; but
little commerce, no industries, and no public finances. From a
political standpoint the “legal” nation was composed exclusively of
gentleman—rivalry between the great families, anarchy in the diets,
the liberum veto, and the inveterate habit of invoking foreign
intervention having destroyed in Poland all idea of law or even of
state. From a military point of view Poland was still in the feudal
stage of undisciplined militia; it had scarcely any organised troops
outside the cavalry formed of nobles, no infantry, but little artillery,
and no fortresses worthy the name on frontiers that were thus left
open to the enemy. What means of defence had a nation divided
against itself, guilty of having received gold from the enemy, against
the three powerful monarchies which beset it on all sides, and whose
ambassadors had more power than its own king in his diets?
Catherine and Frederick were agreed on two essential points: to
vindicate the rights of dissenters and prevent any reform in the
anarchial constitution which made Poland their easy prey. By
affecting to espouse the cause of tolerance they could blind Europe
to their real designs against the integrity of the country, and Poland’s
own noisy fanaticism would further enable them to conceal their
object.
In 1765 Koninski, an orthodox bishop of White Russia, presented
a memoir to the king of Poland in which were recounted all the
vexations which the followers of the Greek religion had been made
to suffer in his kingdom. “The missionary fathers,” said the memoir,
“were particularly remarkable for their zeal; upheld by the secular
authorities they were in the habit of summoning all the Greco-
Russian inhabitants of the villages and banding them together like a
flock of sheep six weeks at a time, forcing them to confess, and
displaying thorny rods and stakes to intimidate the rebellious,
separating children from their parents and wives from husbands. In
case of stubborn resistance the recalcitrant ones were severely
beaten, their hands were burned, or they were confined in prison for
several months.”
Russia supported the dissenters in the Polish diet and Stanislaus
promised to sustain them. To do this it was necessary to assure to
the people the free exercise of their religion, and to the nobles the
political rights of which they had been despoiled under preceding
legislators. The diet of 1766 violently opposed this proposition, and
the deputy Gourovski who had tried to speak in favour of the
dissenters narrowly escaped assassination.
Repnin, Catherine’s ambassador, urged the
[1767-1768 a.d.] dissenters to resort to the legal method of
confederation. Those of the orthodox faith
united at Sluth, the Protestants, under the patronage of the Prussian
ambassador, at Thorn; even at Radom there was a confederation of
Catholics and of all those who feared a reform in the constitution or
the abolition of the liberum veto. Russia, which with Prussia had
guaranteed the support of this absurd constitution, took these also
under its protection. Such were the auspices under which was
opened the diet of 1767; the Poles seemed insensible to the attack
made on their independence and exerted themselves solely to
maintain intolerance. Soltik, bishop of Cracow, Zaluski, bishop of
Kiev, and two other of the pope’s ambassadors were the most ardent
in opposing the project of reform. Repnin had them seized and
carried to Russia, and so persistently had Poland shown herself in
the wrong that Europe applauded an act, in itself a violation of the
rights of men, which seemed to assure liberty of conscience. The
diet yielded and consented to the dissenting nobles being granted
equal rights with the Catholics; in any case the state religion was to
remain that of Rome.

POLAND IS DISMEMBERED

In 1768 a treaty was drawn up between Poland and Russia by the

terms of which no modification could be made in the constitution
without the consent of the latter power. This was equivalent to
legalising foreign intervention, from the abuse of which Poland was
to perish. The Russian troops evacuated Warsaw, and the
confederates sent deputies to render thanks to the empress.
The Radom Confederation, the most considerable of the three,
which had taken up arms solely to prevent reforms in the
constitution, not to support the dissenters, was gravely dissatisfied
with the result. On its dissolution another and still more numerous
confederation was formed, that of Bar in Podolia, which had for
object the maintenance of the liberum veto and the securing of
exclusive privileges to Catholics. It sent deputies to the courts of
Dresden, Vienna, and Versailles to awaken interest in its cause. In
the west opinions differed; on which side were right, the Polish
nation, the brightest promise for the future? Were they at Warsaw
with the king, the senate, and all those who had striven for the
enfranchisement of the dissenters and the reconstruction of Poland,
or were they at Bar with the turbulent nobles who, guided by
fanatical priests, had revolted in the name of the liberum veto and
religious intolerance? Voltaire and most of the French philosophers
declared for the king; but the minister of Louis XV, Monsieur de
Choiseul, favoured the confederates, without taking into
consideration that in weakening the power of the Polish king he was
weakening Poland itself. The royal army consisting of only nine
thousand men, the government committed the grievous blunder of
calling upon Russia for aid, and the result was that the Muscovite
troops succeeded in recapturing from the confederates Bar,
Berdichev, and Cracow. The Cossacks of the Ukraine, the
Zaparogians and the laïdamaks or brigands were called to arms and
a savage war, at once national, religious, and social, ensued,
desolating the provinces of the Dnieper. The massacre of Ouman, a
town belonging to Count Potocki, horrified the inhabitants of the
Ukraine.
The confederates obtained the support of the Viennese court and
established a council at Teschen, and their headquarters at Eperies,
in Hungary. They were still in possession of three strongholds in
Poland. Choiseul sent them money and commissioned successively
De Taules, Dumouriez, and the baron de Viomesnil to assist in their
organisation. From the memoirs of Dumouriez we learn that the
forces of the confederation, distributed about over all Poland,
consisted of sixteen thousand cavalry divided into five or six
separate bands, each commanded by an independent chief.
Dumouriez with his undisciplined troops was defeated at Landskron
(1771); but Viomesnil, Dussaillans, and Choisy became masters of
the château of Cracow (1772), which was finally recovered by
Souvorov. An attempt made by certain confederates on the 3rd of
November, 1771, to obtain possession of the person of the king,
excited noisy but insincere indignation at the three northern courts,
and increased Voltaire’s aversion to the confederates.d
By the treaty of St. Petersburg (signed August 5th, 1772), the
palatinates of Malborg, Pomerania, Warmia, Culm (except Dantzic
and Thorn), and part of Great Poland was ceded to Prussia. Austria
had Galicia, Sandomir, Cracow, and part of Podolia. Russia had
Polotsk, Vitepsk, Mikislav, and Polish Livonia. The next point was to
execute the treaty. A pretext could not long be wanting for the armed
interference of all the three powers: each had been expressly invited
by some one of the parties which divided that unhappy country,
which were perpetually engaged in civil war. The three bandit chiefs
despatched armies into Poland, and Europe waited with much
anxiety the issue of this step. Its suspense was not of long
continuance: the Treaty of St. Petersburg was presented to the
Polish king and senate; and manifestoes, stating the pretensions of
each power, were published.
Never were documents so insulting laid before rational men. King
and senate could oppose little resistance to demands so powerfully
supported; but their consent alone could not sanction the
dismemberment of the republic. Hence the diet was convoked. That
eight or ten members only should resist the destruction of their
country, that all the rest should tamely sanction it, might appear
incredible if it were not a matter of history. In this monstrous robbery
the lion’s share fell to Russia. She acquired an extent of territory
estimated at 3,440 square leagues, with one million and a half of
inhabitants: Austria had 2,700 leagues, but a greater population, viz.
two millions and a half: Prussia had scarcely 1,000 square leagues,
and less than a million of people.
 As the three co-robbers were so courageous as to set at defiance
both justice and public opinion, so magnanimous as to show
themselves in their real character to all posterity, it may appear
matter of surprise that they did not seize on the whole of the
kingdom. But though they had resolved to seize the remainder, they
were cautious enough to await the course of events—to take
advantage of any favourable circumstance that might arise. The
French Revolution furnished them with it. That event had many
admirers in Poland, many who wished to imitate it at home. It was
easy for the three neighbouring powers to take umbrage at the
progress of republican opinions; to assert, as indeed truth authorised
them to assert, that the Poles were in communication with the heads
of the movement in Paris. In reality, in the year 1791 a new
constitution was proclaimed, exceedingly like a republic. The
reduction of Dantzic and Thorn, the two most important possessions
in the north of Europe, convinced the Poles that they had been
duped. Catherine was not a woman to let others derive the sole
advantage where anything was to be gained. Preparatory to active
operations, she declared war against Poland. The diet resolved to
resist; but, as usual, the Poles were divided among themselves. One
party declared for Russia; and though the greater number declared
for independence, they could not be brought to combine. Success
after success was obtained by the Russian general; the empress
negotiated the details of another partition with Prussia; and the king
and the diet were, as before, compelled to sanction it. By it the
Russian frontier was extended to the centre of Lithuania and
Volhinia; while the remainder of Great and a part of Little Poland
were ceded to Frederick William. Much to the honour of Austria, she
had no hand in this second iniquity.
The territory of the republic was now reduced to about 4,000
square miles; and her army, by command of the czarina, was in
future not to exceed fifteen thousand men. The Poles were never
deficient in bravery; and they were, on this occasion, sensitive to the
national shame. They felt that the narrow limits still allowed them
would soon be passed, and that their remaining provinces were
intended soon to be incorporated with the neighbouring states. A
general insurrection was organised; an army voluntarily arose, and