sea power, the Greek question seemed about to reach a settlement. Alexander (through Mme. de Lieven, wife of his Ambassador in London) sought a reconciliation with the British Minister of Foreign Affairs. But before undertaking the mediation that the Tsar now appeared willing to place solely in his hands, Canning demanded that the Russian Armies be withdrawn from the Pruth, and even threatened, if this were refused, to occupy the Morea and the Islands of the Grecian Archipelago.

But a dramatic turn of affairs was about to follow this final abdication by Alexander of his favorite principle of European intervention. On September 1, 1825, he had left St. Petersburg for the South. Failing health, not reasons of a military nature, was the cause of this journey. In a little town on the Asiatic borders of his vast Empire, the final act in the life drama of the Tsar-Idealist was about to be played. Far from the scenes of his triumphs and disappointments, the conqueror of Napoleon-the dreamer of a Holy Alliance which should unite the nations of the world in bonds of "Justice, Christian Charity and Peace"-was to end his full and eager life beneath the shadow of disappointment and failure.

Sensitive to the opinion of his contemporaries, the Tsar suffered acutely from the misunderstanding and suspicion that greeted every new effort to give practical effect to his international policies. Nor could he hide from himself the fact that in Russia his popularity had fallen to the lowest ebb from his readiness to sacrifice national interests to the welfare of the doctrinaire ideal of European Federation.

A morbid detestation of revolution at home and abroad became the guiding principle of his policy. He seems to have regarded the growing danger of his own assassination with a certain fatalismwhether arising from an increasing mental lethargy or from a kind of heroic indifference, it is hard to say. But with respect to the repressive policy of the Holy Alliance he remained adamant. In July, 1825, but a few months before his death, he sermonized the French Minister at length upon the dangers of coming to any agreement with the insurgents of San Domingo." "In the great struggle we are carrying on the issue is between good and evil

1 Rain, Un Tsar idéalogue Alexandre Ier, p. 425.

2 Dispatches of the French Minister to the Foreign Office, quoted in Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitch, L'Empereur Alexandre Ier, vol. 11, p. 530.

law against fact-order against license. The present unfortunate example is both risky and dangerous. . . The recognition of the independence of the United States led directly to the French Revolution." 99 1

Yet now and again a bright ray of his old time liberalism came to lighten the abyss of obscurantism into which he was plunged. As the end approached he seems to have renewed the dreams and visions of his younger days. To Karamzine, the great historian, who urged upon him the fact that his "years are numbered" while Russia still awaited fulfillment of the promise of his earlier reign he replied: "I shall yet give my Empire her fundamental rights!" A promise made under the shadow of death yet as vain as those which had preceded it! To all who surrounded him Alexander remained to the last the "impenetrable sphinx.' "93

It became evident to his entourage that following the failure of his Grecian policy, the Tsar did not himself know what ends he wished to pursue. He seems to have feared the accusation of being under the influence of the liberal Canning as much as he dreaded reminders of his subservience to the reactionary Metternich. Much of this hesitancy was doubtless due to illness. That Alexander's physical condition was now serious had become evident to all who surrounded him. Recurrent attacks of erysipelas frequently confined him to his bed. Morbid suspicions preyed upon his mind.1

Moreover, the conviction was daily growing clearer to the Tsar that he was the center of a vast conspiracy aimed at his throne, and

1 Nevertheless, Alexander remained to the end popular in the United States. Under date of July 2, 1825, Clay, acting in the name of the Cabinet, urged the intervention of the Tsar to bring about a cessation of hostilities between the King of Spain and the insurgents of Cuba and Porto Rico. Middleton in this connection wrote: "The proposition... has been communicated to the Allied Cabinets and I am of the opinion that the majority will agree." Mr. Middleton to the Secretary of State, September 8, 1825. MS. Dispatches, Russia.

2 Rain, op. cit., p. 437.

Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitch, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 309. "I do not believe," wrote La Ferronnays to Chateaubriand, "that it is possible to find anyone more convincingly frank and loyal in his conversation. One always leaves him under the impression that here, at last, is a Prince who unites to the qualities of a Christian knight all the attributes of a great sovereign. He also gives the impression of a man of intelligence and energy. Well! on the other hand, bitter experience and the whole story of his life teaches us that he can not be trusted." Letter of May 19, 1823, La Ferronnays to Chateaubriand, Archives of the French Foreign Office, quoted by Rain, op. cit., p. 426.

He often asked the favorite Madame Narychkine of whose fidelity he also had well founded reasons to doubt-"to tell him frankly whether his conduct was not a source of ridicule" to the courtiers of his entourage. He often talked of abdicating the throne with an earnestness that recalled his youthful days. Comtesse de Boigne, Memoirs, vol. 111, pp. 156-157.

even at his life. The preparations for his eagerly anticipated journey to South Russia (July, 1825) were interrupted by definite reports of an alarming nature concerning the machinations of the "Sects," a Russian officer of English origin named Sherwood revealing to his master the plots of a revolutionary nature which afterwards became fully known through the trials of the Decembrists.

After a tiresome journey lasting for more than two weeks Alexander arrived at the little city of Taganrog near the shores of the Black Sea, where he was shortly afterwards joined by the Tsarina. Freed from the cumbersome etiquette of the court and the grinding military routine which disturbed his leisure at St. Petersburg, the Tsar appears to have rallied from his state of nervous depression. A renewed period of friendship—even of marital affection-reunited him to the much-tried Empress Elizabeth. But the nervous fever of activity which devoured him soon drove him forth upon another journey. Against the advice of his physician, he attempted a tour of inspection in the provinces of the Crimea. Returning to Taganrog on November 17, he immediately took to his bed with a burning fever.

In spite of his precarious condition, he refused the medicines of his physicians, Wylie and Stofregen. It became apparent to all that the will to survive his disillusions was lacking and only his splendid physique rebelled at the final surrender. On the 27th a priest was sent for in haste to give him the last communion, of which he partook with touching piety and devotion. He died on December 1, 1825.1

1 In spite of the autopsy signed by five physicians, a strange tradition still current in Russia declares that the Tsar lived for many years after the date ascribed to his death. He is identified as the monk "Feodor Kousmitch," who lived as a hermit in the wilds of Siberia. In Russia, the author was assured of this fact by the son of an official, who pretended that his father had known the Tsar during this exile.

APPENDIX I

TERRITORIAL GUARANTEES AT THE CONGRESS OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, 18181

The result of the protocol of November 15-although expressing the benevolent intention of the Allied Powers, as well as those of the great Association of Europe-nevertheless leaves much to be desired. Another agreement more positive in its terms and more conservative in its principles will be needed in the future. The best means to obtain the ends desired would be the signing of a treaty to which the Powers signatory of the Recess of Vienna 2 and the subsequent Acts of Paris would adhere. This alone could mutually guarantee the integrity of their rights and the inviolability of their possessions as defined by the above-mentioned Recess and Treaty of Paris of the year 1815.

Such a guarantee of solidarity ought to be explicit and contain a definition of mutual obligations. His Imperial Majesty finds the basic principles—and a definition of the meaning and tenor of such a treaty-in the fraternal bond of September 14/26, 1815.3 A proof of the immutability of these principles is to be found in the imposing unanimity with which they were accepted by the governments of Europe.

If the Allied Powers share this view and judge it opportune and necessary to base their diplomatic acts and formula on the principles consecrated in the act mentioned (thereby ensuring to the alliance the guarantees of peace and security which are the fruit of this pact), the Emperor of Russia is ready to make any sacrifice to accomplish this result. His Minister is ordered to place himself in direct relation with the Allied Cabinets to discuss projects of a treaty along this line

To the above was annexed the following:

PROJECT OF TREATY

The transactions which have taken place among the Powers since the year 1814, and especially the measures taken at the Congresses of Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle, have had as their guiding principle the desire to establish in Europe a system of durable peace founded on the basis of a territorial guarantee among the Powers. The courts of

1 MS. Treaty proposed by Alexander at Aix-la-Chapelle contained in a folio marked Aix-la-Chapelle, 1818, in Archives of Russian Foreign Office.

2 The Final Act of Vienna.

The Holy Alliance.