Diplomatic portraits; Europe and the Monroe doctrine one hundred years ago

Preface

In a recently published biography of Clara Barton, the author notes as a curious fact the reluctance of American public opinion to support the delegates sent to the Geneva Conference in 1864 to cooperate in the formation of the International Organization of the Red Cross. To bear a hand in the great work of charity and mercy proposed by the conference was, by some strange process of reasoning, considered in the United States as a possible “infringement of the Monroe Doctrine” and a departure from our traditional policy regarding “entangling foreign alliances.”

Such strange intensity of national prejudice can be explained only by considering the historical background. International “idealism” is not a monopoly of our own generation. Just one hundred years ago (the centennial of Monroe’s great Message to Congress marks the day) the United States had its first real experience of the drawbacks and benefits of “concerted”? European action. The outcome of the “System,” which resulted from the debates of the Congress of Vienna, was a disappointment to liberal opinion in America as well as in Europe. The menace to American institutions, which developed from an

vil

PREFACE application of the principles of “ European solidarity” upheld by the group of reactionary Powers known as the “Holy Alliance,” goes far toward explaining our tendency toward national “isolation.” The “unreasoning antipathy” toward a closer connection with trans-Atlantic affairs (against which the statesmen of Europe protest, often so reasonably, at the present day) is only understandable when viewed in the light of past experience.

The group of world statesmen who appear in these pages belong to an era of history which shows a curious affinity to our own. The period of international adjustment which followed the Napoleonic Wars was a Golden Age of Diplomacy. The reunions held under the terms of the treaties constituting the “System of 1815” gave a wide scope to personality and the arts of persuasion. Not until the recent World War and its ensuing period of “reconstruction” has another such opportunity been offered for a reasonably combined international policy.

In the series of sketches which follow I have tried to point out the significance of certain individuals in relation to the events of their time rather than to define personalities. These “Portraits” generally attempt to depict historical contemporaries. The only sequence, therefore, depends upon the order of the principal events considered in connection with each character. (Many of the latter, indeed, inevitably

Vill

PREFACE appear again and again as subordinate figures in new groupings, and are often kept with difficulty in the second plane.) In reviewing the lives of these international figures of a hundred years ago, I have tried simultaneously to develop the story of one of the most significant movements in world history: the more or less conscious attempt to “federate” Europe which occurred during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The consistent ideals of American foreign policy, and the aspirations of our earlier diplomats naturally caused them to view these efforts with sympathetic attention.

In a friendly appreciation of my more fully documented study of “The Holy Alliance: The European Background of the Monroe Doctrine,” Baron d’Estournelles de Constant (the great European authority on International Organization) suggested the advisability of expanding this little work to cover the period of our diplomatic contacts with Europe one hundred years ago. The contribution of Monroe, and his great Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, to the worid statesmanship of their day, although but barely recognized by their contemporaries, has taken on a new significance in our own time. In including their “portraits” I have attempted to supply a personal background too often lacking in many standard European accounts.

I am indebted to the North American Review, the New York Times and Evening Post — and especially

PREFACE to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which republished the work mentioned above in their valuable series of monographs — for permission to reproduce a part of the material contained in these pages.

ILLUSTRATIONS

James Monroe Frontispiece,

From an engraving by A. B. Durand after the painting by J. Vanderlyn in the City Hall, New York

ALEXANDER I 2 From an old French engraving

Napoteon I 64.

From the portrait by David ,

Lorp CasTLEREAGH 98 From an engraving by Nasi after a painting by Sir Thomas Lawrence

From an engraving by Bocourt after a drawing by Mullard

Mme. pE KruDENER 156 From an engraving by Nargeot after a drawing by G. Staal

Joun Quincy Apams 186 From the portrait by Copley in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

METTERNICH 258 From a lithograph by Ducarme after a drawing by H. Garnier

Francois-RENE DE CHATEAUBRIAND 292 From the portrait by Girodet, 1809

CONTENTS gaat

ALEXANDER I: A Tsar INTERNATIONALIST

The official portrait: “The Conqueror of Napoleon” — The first constfuctive internationalist — Youthful influences: Catherine the Great: a Byzantine background — His teachers — Laharpe: the philosophy of revolution — Tsar Paul: militarism and madness — Araktcheev: an evil genius — Assassination of the Emperor Paul — A penitent on the throne — Feminine influence: La Narischkine — Czartoryski and the “Young Liberals” — Napoleon: influence on Paul and Alexander — The murder of Enghien — An “International Protest” — In search of an alliance — Pitt and ‘‘Novosiltzov’s Mission” — A new Diplomatic Programme and its meaning to-day — Coalition — The Holy Roman Emperor — Austerlitz — An omen— The end of a crusade — The shadow of Tilsit — A truce with the Power of Evil and the outcome

II Napo.Leon: THE DipLomMacy or IMPERIALISM

Was Napoleon’s diplomacy successful? —The vagaries of genius — Napoleon as an internationalist: the retrospections of St. Helena — Napoleon and the Tsar: an imperial dream — Tilsit an imposed alliance — Russia the pivot of diplomacy — Queen Louise — Erfurt — The Grand

Army: the beginnings of modern warfare — Alexander is himself again ~

— Internationalism vs. Empire — A dream realized — Alexander: “The Arbiter of Europe”

Ill

CASTLEREAGH: THE DIPLOMACY OF RESERVATIONS

Pitt, and Austerlitz — In the “Land of Ire” — Wellington and Castlereagh: the education of a Foreign Minister — The links of the chain — The banker of the Grand Alliance — Castlereagh in France — Chaumont: the charter of European liberty — Castlereagh and Internationalism —“ Solidarity” — The “‘reservations” — “ Britain’s orbit”

x1

CONTENTS IV

TALLEYRAND: THE Concress OF VIENNA

A retrospect: the Bishop of Autun in America — The “X Y Z Letters” — Talleyrand and Napoleon — The Bourbons’ return — Alexander and Internationalism — The Congress of Vienna—A “bamboozled”’ idealist — Ballroom diplomacy — Talleyrand and Metternich — The formula of Vienna: Legitimacy — Poland and practical idealism — Talleyrand plays tramps — “ The Hundred Days” — Richelieu and the Peace of Paris

~

V

Mapame DE KRrupener: Tue Hoty ALLIANCE

Vienna and “the Fires of Moscow” — The Holy Alliance: an imposed “League of Peace” — Its origin: a political mystery — Misconceptions and an explanation — Baroness de Kriidener — Mysticism and Diplomacy — A Tsar-Idealist

VI

Joun Quincy Apams: Tue Diptomacy or IsoLation

An American family — Diplomacy and “Relations” — The “Adams Tradition” — America at the cross-roads: Russia or Great Britain? — The policy of the Holy Alliance — The United States and the “Federation of Europe” — Adams in London — Adams and Monroe — The reception of the Holy Alliance in the United States — The Peace Society — Early American “Idealism” — Alexander and the United States — Polética’s mission — Adams and the Senate — The beginnings of isolation

Vil

Gentz: Tue Era or INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES

Gentz: an international “expert” — American studies: an “authority” — Gentz and Metternich — Gentz at Vienna — After Vienna: the Conference System — Carlsbad and Troppau — Alexander and “International Procedure” — The “Minutes” of Laybach

VII

MetTTeERNICH: THE DipLomacy oF STABILITY

The education of a master diplomatist — Kaunitz and the “Grand Style” — Metternich and Napoleon: the sword and the pen — Frank-

Xil

CONTENTS fort — Metternich and Alexander — At Vienna — The “conversion of Alexander” — Metternich and the Holy Alliance — The technique of High Diplomacy — Spies, ladies, and liaisons — The Greek Revolution — Alexander in the toils — Metternich and the “Sects” — The “Red Peril” a century ago

IX

CHATEAUBRIAND: THE Monroe DoctRINE

“Memoirs from beyond the Tomb” — Chateaubriand as a writer: as a statesman: the dangers of “amateur diplomacy” — His voyage to _ America — Chateaubriand at Verona — Alexander makes a convert —

Thé French intervention in Spain — Chateaubriand develops his policy: a Bourbon Empire in South America — Rush and Canning to the rescue — The Constitutional Powers oppose Federated Europe — The Monroe Doctrine and international organization

Xx

James Monroe: A Centenary Portrait (1823-1923)

Monroe as a diplomat — His mission to France — Monroe a “Red”? — His vindication — Monroe and Adams — Who wrote the Monroe Message? — The Greek Question one hundred years ago — The first Monroe Message: Intervention or Isolation? — A cycle of history — Monroe and the Tsar Alexander — The Monroe Doctrine vs. international action — The last Congress of the Holy Alliance — The end of a Peace League oY 5 *é T Ae ae Ae oree ae insect he so unetre 4 Barth A heh mt ary Sy)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Apams, J. Q., Memoirs.

American Statesmen Series.

Bausset, L. F. J. pe, Mémoires de Napoléon. f

Bercasse, N. (Collected Papers), Anonymous, 4 Defender of Old Tradition under the Revolution.

Bocpanovircn, History of Alexander I and His Time (in Russian).

Bryce, James, The Holy Roman Empire.

\ Cambridge Modern History.

CHATEAUBRIAND, Mémoires d’Outre Tombe: CuoiseuL-Gourrier, ComTesse DE, Histoire a’ Alexandre Ie. Crevanp, Early Sentiment for Annexation in California. Ciéry, Rosinet be, Gentz.

Compan, Mapame De, Mémoires.

Corwin, French Policy and the American Alliance. Cresson, W. P., The Cossacks: Their History and Country.

The Holy Alliance: The European Background of the Monroe Doctrine.

Cretenau-Jout, Histoire des Traités de 1815.

~ Czartoryskli, Memoirs.

Desivovr, A., Histoire Diplomatique de I’ Europe. Dunnine, W. A., The Political Theories of the German Idealists. Dupuis, Cuaries, Le Ministére de Talleyrand en 1814.

Empaytaz, Notice Respecting Alexander, Emperor of Russia. Eynarp, Madame de Kriidener.

Fisuer, H. A. L., Bonapartism.

Forp, Wortuincton C., Adams and the Monroe Doctrine (Mass. Hist. Soc.). y Fournirr, A., Napoleon I: A Biography.

Garven, Histoire Général des Traités de Paix. GoEBEL, Juuius, Intervention.

Goxprr, F. A., The Russian Offer of Mediation in the War of 1812.

Hitpr, Early Diplomatic Negotiations of the United States with Russia.

XVil

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HoussayE, “875.”

Jackson, Lavy, The Court of the Tuileries. Jerrerson, Tuomas, Collected Papers, etc. Jostxa, Baron, Memoirs.

Joynevitte, Life and Times of Alexander I.

Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace. KorniLov, ALEXANDER, Modern Russian History.

Lacarpe, The Congress of Vienna.

Lansinc, Rosert, The Peace Negotiations.

Mapison, JAMES, Papers.

Maistre, JosepH DE, Mémoires.

Martens, von, Nouveau Recueil des Traités. Metrernicu, Mémoires.

Micuaup, Dictionnaire de Biographie Universelle. MixnalLovitcu, Grand DuKe Nicuoras, Alexandre I¢: Russian Court Life.

Moisson, Secret Memoirs.

Monroe, James, Seventh Annual Message. Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law. Henry Clay and Pan-Americanism.

American Diplomacy.

NeEvvIiL_e, Hype DE, Mémoires.

Pasquier, Mémoires.

Puituips, W. A., The Confederation of Europe. George Canning.

Picarp and Tuetoy, Unpublished Correspondence of Napoleon I. Potovstov, Correspondance Diplomatique des Ambassadeurs et Ministres de France en Russie et de Russie en France 1814 @ 1830.

Prapt, Assé DE, L’Europe apres le Congrés a Aix-la-Chapelle. L’ Europe et ? Amérique en 1821.

XVILL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ratn, Pierre, Alexandre I#: Un T. sar-Idéologue.

» Ramsaup, AtrreD, History of Russia. Reppaway, W. F., The Monroe Doctrine.. Rousseau, J. J., Euvres Completes.

SCHALCK DE LA Faveris, A., Napoléon et les Etats Unis. » Scunirzer, Secret History of Russia. Scuuy_er, American Diplomacy.

Scort, James Brown, Cases in International Law. SHEPHERD, WiLi1aM R., Latin America. SoreEL, ALBERT, L’ Europe et la Révolution Francaise. Stapteton, Life of Canning. ¥ Stoang, W. M., Napoleon Bonaparte: A History.

Taverranp, Mémoires.

Taticuev, Alexandre et Napoléon.

» Tuters, A., History of the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon. TreitscuKe, History of Germany in the Nineteenth Century.

VanpaL, Napoléon et Alexandre I.

Vittanueva, La Monarquia en America.

Watezewski, Paul I le Fils de la Grande Catherine. Wattace, W. K., The Trend of History. Wasuincton, Georce, Official Papers.

Welt, La Campagne de 1814.

Wueaton, Elements of International Law.

a pe pethihiargae Ly

7 3 AL Sede Lg

I

ALEXANDER I: A TSAR INTERNATIONALIST

I

Breakinc the silence of the long northern night of December 12, 1777, the roar of an imperial salute announced to St. Petersburg the birth of a future Tsar. The child who was to become the conqueror of Napoleon — the author of the strange League of Peace known as the “‘ Holy Alliance” — was, even in his cradle, the embodiment of a cause. In the little person of the Grand Duke Alexander were centered the hopes of all who desired to see perpetuated the glories of the Great Catherine’s reign. The birth of the Empress’s grandson seemed to remove — or at least to render more remote — the danger that her immediate heir might succeed to the throne.

In the broad square before the palace a dark multitude of peasants and townspeople sank to their knees in the snow to send up thankful prayers. Motley groups of palace courtiers drunkenly embraced one another in a frenzy of self-congratulation. An immense relief pervaded all classes. The morose and unpopular Tsarevitch Paul — with his threatening “reforms” and his terrifying ugliness — was now

I felt to be thrust into the background. Even in his swaddling clothes it was Alexander’s inevitable fate to represent to those who surrounded him a bright Symbol of Promise.

Along the endless corridors of the Winter Palace — through vast apartments wherein German taste and Russian prodigality had thought to realize a conception of Byzantine magnificence — a jubilant procession bore the child to the Empress’s apartments. By her orders its father was scarcely afforded time to glance at the little heir whose arrival had so complicated the difficulties of his own position. In the ceremonies that ensued, he played the part of an undesired and unhonored guest. But the bitterest blow of all was the Empress’s refusal to accept her son’s advice concerning the new grand ducal household. Paul was a politician even in his son’s nursery.

The celebrations in honor of the christening were of unparalleled magnificence. Potemkin, the shameless _ favorite who from the folds of Catherine’s skirts ruled Russia as Prime Minister, gave an entertainment costing more than fifty thousand rubles. A few days later — as the English Minister reports — the Tsarina’s table “at supper was set out with jewels to the amount of upwards of two million pounds.” ? Anxious to please the Semiramis of the North, whose prestige throughout Europe was at its height, the foreign embassies at St. Petersburg vied with each

1 Malmesbury. 2 other in expensive presents and compliments, filling their dispatches with conjectures concerning the health and prospects of the new arrival.

A few days after Alexander’s birth, in spite of tears and entreaties, the child was definitely removed from’ the care of its mother. “To stop her crying,” the Tsarina sent a present of\“‘a few thousand rubles.’” The numerous suite of nurses and governesses (besides a host of the less essential officials required by the semi-Oriental etiquette of the Russian Court) were lodged in an improvised nursery next to the bedchamber occupied by the Sovereign. Even in his cradle the little Grand Duke was treated by Catherine as the direct heir to her throne. The birth of a brother more than a year later (1779) was welcomed as a further step toward the achievement of the splendid ambitions she cherished for her adopted country. To Alexander was reserved the Empire of Europe. To the younger prince was given the prophetic name of Constantine, recalling the traditional designs of the Romanovs to succeed to the Empire of Byzantium, and Catherine’s intention of creating a new Vice-Royalty of the East.

Paul and his consort, further to remove them from the neighborhood of their children, were soon sent on a “Grand Tour” of Europe. As a proof of the Tsarevitch’s tact, he is reported to have asked the Queen of France how she treated Mme. du Barry, and shocked the courtiers of the French Court by his open references to his quarrel with his mother, the Empress.

All unconscious of the intrigues which centered about them, the early childhood of the Imperial Princes passed happily enough. They were petted and cherished by their despotic Sovereign and grandparent, who regulated the whole conduct of their household. To this task she brought the same attention to detail which had reformed every administrative department of the Russian Empire. Catherine’s career as a grandmother is, indeed, one of the most pleasing historical memories of this \extraordinary Empress — usually so masculine in her mind and methods. The cares of statecraft and her less creditable diversions were set aside. When Alexander was but four years old, she writes exultingly to Grimm, her correspondent and unofficial representative in Paris:

The Lord only knows what the eldest has come to ° already. He models, he draws, he writes, he rides horseback and fences, his imagination is extraordinary and he asks questions without end. The other day he desired to be informed whence he came and why he was placed upon this earth. There is a singular depth and conciseness in the ideas which turn in the head of this youngster. With it all, he is always gay. Moreover, I never attempt to force him to any serious application. He does as he pleases and he is only restrained from hurting the feelings of others.

But such a régime might readily spoil even the most gracious of little Princes. When Countess

Benckendorf, the governess of the young Grand Dukes, died, in 1783, Catherine decided that a man should henceforth become director of their household. For this post she chose Prince Soltikov, whose talents and faults were intimately known to her. This pliant’ courtier, after a brief reign as “favorite,” had presented to the Empress’s notice the famous Platon Zoubov, who had definitely displaced the all-powerful Potemkin in her affections. Besides the friendship - of Zoubov, another reason commended Soltikov in Catherine’s eyes: the fact that, when Grand Master of the Court of the Grand Duke Paul, he had been dismissed by the latter after a violent quarrel.

Catherine, however, had no illusions with respect to the pedagogical talents of Count Soltikov, or of Protasov, his assistant. While giving over the general direction of the future Tsar’s household to Russians — thus ensuring the sympathy of the reactionary society of St. Petersburg — she cast about for a foreign professor with “solid learning.” She planned to develop the minds of her young charges along the lines congenial to her own powerful intellect. On May 17, 1784, she furnished Soltikov with a long “Memorandum of Instructions,” setting forth in elaborate detail the programme of studies which - Alexander and his brother were to follow. At the same time she announced that the tutor charged with carrying out this carefully prepared plan had also been chosen: an almost unknown young man, Frédéric César de Laharpe.

To this high-minded if somewhat priggish Swiss was to fall the task of directing the earlier education of the future “Tsar-Idealist.”” Brought to Russia to act as guardian for the scapegrace brother of Count Lanskoi (one of the ignoble procession of Catherine’s “minor favorites” whom Potemkin cynically refused to honor “‘ even with his jealousy”), Laharpe was, instead, to impress upon the pliant mind of the heir of Peter the Great those first lessons of philosophic liberalism which were to yield such promising results at a later day. As the earliest guide and inspiration of the first European monarch who ever attempted to bring into the field of practical diplomacy the internationalist ideals of Sully and the Abbé de Saint-Pierre, Laharpe played an important if somewhat accidental rdéle in the history of his time. The enigmatic figure of Alexander I (looming with new significance in the light of the events of our own time) can be understood only through a consideration of the sharply contending influences for good and evil that surrounded his youth.

Laharpe was an avowed Republican, strongly influenced by Voltaire in his youth. He was, of course, an enthusiastic disciple of M. Rousseau and his educational theories. Strangely enough, none of these qualities were likely at this time to injure his prestige in the eyes of the autocratic Catherine. At a later date, when the excesses of the French Revolution had disillusioned the Empress, the fashionable approval of liberalism, which she shared with the aristocratic salons of Paris, changed to a violent hatred of all that even remotely suggested “‘Jacobinism.” But until 1789 Catherine, who conscientiously believed herself a ‘“‘reformer,” saw no contradiction in choosing for tutor to the heir of the absolute Tsars, a man of Laharpe’s ultra-liberal convictions.

From the beginning, the young master and his pupils appear to have been charmed with each other. Laharpe was, happily, filled with youthful enthusiasm for his task. He recognized the importance and responsibility of his position, and in order to fulfill his mission to the best purpose asked for and soon obtained the entire direction of the education of the young Grand Dukes. History and a pleasant philosophical interpretation of the events it records was their favorite method of study. Of the progress of his young charges, Laharpe soon wrote with pride to his friends in Paris:

In talking with them of primitive society, I always insist in true Republican fashion on their own real equality with their subjects. Showing them as a first example the primitive tribal chief, clad in tiger skins and seated upon a log or stone in some log cabin, I next exhibit the same man, who, ceasing to believe himself the equal of his fellows, has become their King!... Thus do men, by believing in their own right to lift themselves high above their former comrades, profit by the negligence of the latter to make good their claim! This is the doctrine I have insisted upon with my pupils, a strange doctrine indeed for their consideration, but one which they recognize nevertheless to be true.

The young master also reports that “the scientific education of the Grand Dukes is well advanced. ... Alexander, besides arithmetical calculation, understands logarithms and is able to solve equations of the first degree.”” There was, indeed, a curious mixture of the system of Rousseau and his own good-natured genius in’ the educational methods followed by Laharpe. These included a system of copy-books, known as the “Archives of Shame,” in which both Alexander and Constantine were obliged to confess their faults at length and to analyze the reasons for their just punishments. Constantine on one occasion signs himself ““The Ass Constantine.”

The future ruler, whose realm comprised people of sO many nationalities, was encouraged to develop his natural talent for the languages. He was soon able to speak German and “to express his thoughts in English with some facility.” He was also fitted to speak with correctness and some eloquence his own Russian tongue, a talent not always met with among his compatriots.

Besides Laharpe, Catherine chose also the other “governors” and minor teachers who surrounded the young Grand Dukes: Kraft taught them experimental physics and what was classified as “science”; Pallas taught them botany and took them on long, rambling excursions near Pavlovsk; Masson taught them mathematics. All these men, as was then customary, were of foreign origin. But regarding matters essen-» tially Russian, Catherine determined that the Princes should remain under the control of their own compatriots. Muraviev taught them a glorified version of Russian history and “moral philosophy,” while their religious education was placed in the hands of their confessor, Father Samborski.! If Alexander became in after life, as was frequently charged, ‘“‘ more European than Russian,” this excess of internationalism cannot be laid to the account of his grandmother’s famous educational programme.

Il ALEXANDER’s docility as a pupil foreshadowed the pliant and “‘suggestionable” character which he developed in after life. He was as precocious as a young Oriental, and appears to have become ardently attached to all those who were able to “add to the store of his knowledge.” Unlike his brother, he sought the society of his masters and “preferred their company to games and amusements.” If this was true even of Soltikov, ‘‘a narrow-minded and characterless person, the target of the Court’s witticisms,’’* it is not surprising to find him lavishing an affection almost

1 Bogdanovich.

filial upon the far more brilliant and attractive Laharpe. The passion for political intrigue which later characterized Alexander’s career may be traced to this not wholly fortunate association — and the lack of more suitable amusements during his childhood.

Laharpe was, however, hampered in his duties by the jealousies and suspicion of his colleagues. A correspondence which he maintained with his cousin, General Laharpe, in Paris, served as an excuse to bring his supposed revolutionary tendencies to the attention of the Empress. Partly in a teasing mood, yet partly in earnest, she taxed him openly with being a “Jacobin.” Laharpe’s dignified rejoinder postponed the inevitable issue. He was a Republican, he admitted, and openly favored that form of government. “I advised my Canton to obtain its rights in a rightful way; that is not revolution. But in carrying out my task I owe respect to your government and will try to bring up the Grand Dukes according to your own traditions.” Catherine’s reply was to the effect that, even in Russia, “so honest a man might be a Jacobin if he saw fit.”! That a doctrinaire — whether liberal or reactionary — was not the most suitable person to have entire control of the Grand Dukes’ education seems to have escaped her attention.

In 1791, when Alexander was barely fourteen, the Empress Catherine decided to find a bride for her

1 Bogdanovich 10 young heir-presumptive. The importance of assuring the succession in the direct line was evident. Moreover, she impatiently awaited the moment when it would be possible to give the Grand Duke a separate position at Court. She took a malicious pleasure in, increasing his prestige at the expense of his father’s. Count Roumianzov (another courtier belonging to the “personal circle” of those who had enjoyed her intimate favors!) was chosen for this delicate diplomatic mission. He was ordered to undertake a tour _of those minor capitals of Germany where princesses fulfilling Catherine’s chief requirements — good birth and perfect health — were bred to the “calling of Empress.” In the petty court of the Grand Duchy of Baden (in much the same fashion that the Great Empress had herself been “discovered” in Anhalt and brought to Russia to become the bride of Peter III), Roumianzov found a suitable parti. This was the Princess Louisa Augusta, the third daughter of the reigning Grand Duke. The portrait which her envoy forwarded to the Tsarina, together with his report, met with favor. The Princess Louisa and her sister (the latter in order to leave a semblance of choice to Alexander) were invited to St. Petersburg. The plight of the two little girls must have reminded the great Empress of her own first appearance at the Russian Court. The former “Princess Figchen” took the newly arrived pair under her special protection. Louisa herself, in the charming diary which has been II preserved to us, tells of her first meeting with her future husband: “I looked at him as carefully as politeness permitted. I thought him quite handsome, but not as ravishing as I had been led to believe. He came toward me with a somewhat hostile air and took my hand. During the whole evening he hardly said a word fo me, and seemed anxious to avoid my company.”

For six weeks Alexander’s courtship progressed but slowly. The Princess’s position was becoming embarrassing when one night the Grand Duke slipped a letter into her hand containing his proposal. “He told me,” writes Louisa, “that he was authorized by his parents to tell me of his love and asked whether I believed that our marriage would bring happiness. I answered him in the same tone, on a scrap of paper, that my family had sent me to St. Petersburg hoping for our alliance, and I was wholly disposed to follow their wishes. From that time we were looked upon as an engaged couple.”

The ceremony of their betrothal took place in the midst of festivities. The courtiers, to please Catherine, insisted upon the “‘ romantic” circumstances of the match, and the docile Alexander began actually to believe himself “in love.” The future bridegroom was aged eighteen and his fiancée was sixteen.

Their marriage took place in September, 1793. On the occasion of her ‘“‘conversion” to the Russian Orthodox faith, the Princess took the name of Elizabeth. This somewhat artificial idyl was not to con-

tinue long uninterrupted. But during these earlier

days of married bliss the foundations were laid for a

long “understanding” to which the much-tried Eliza-

beth brought as her share patience and a just appre-» ciation both of her husband’s qualities and of his

shortcomings.

Their engagement and marriage scarcely interrupted the even tenor of the pleasant philosophical discourses which had become the conventional form of the “instruction” which Laharpe now gave en famille to the Grand Ducal pair. Elizabeth shared her husband’s interest in liberal theories which the young tutor presented in such attractive guise. She became the confidante of all Alexander’s projects of “reform.” For even at this period of his career the future ‘‘ Tsar-Idealist” had developed that passion for bettering the universe — or at least that part of it he was called upon to rule— which was to mark the history of his reign.