writers,' but is also rendered highly improbable from all that is known of her teachings. It is difficult, moreover, to conceive that an experienced statesman like the Tsar should have been more than superficially influenced by such a source of political advice. Recent evidence tends to prove that another member of Madame de Krüdener's circle was infinitely more influential than the Baroness in this respect. The part played by the reactionary philosopher Bergasse in the preparation of the Holy Alliance is defined by another contemporary writer, Leopold de Gaillard.2 Bergasse was a political writer of some note under the first Bourbon restoration. However reactionary his theories may have been, they were at any rate the result of scientific inquiry, not of mystical inspiration. From Gaillard's account, it becomes evident that Bergasse furnished the "political" theories, while Madame de Krüdener furnished the language and inspiration of the Tsar's manifesto. Bergasse seems to have dreamed of a system of theocracy, vicariously asserting itself through the institution of legitimate monarchy. The reign of universal peace he believed might be secured through an active cooperation between the Kings of Christendom, the "Lord's anointed" on earth. The rights of man with difficulty found a place in this new order of ideas, although their rulers were bound by higher laws to respect them. However mystical and impracticable such a doctrine might appear to the statesmen of Europe, it was, nevertheless, to be the principle he besought Alexander to apply to the adjustment of international differences. The influence of Bergasse long outlasted that of the “Lettonian sibyl." Even during the Congress of Verona he continued in correspondence with the Tsar, urging that he use the might of the “Holy League" to stamp out the power of the revolutionary "sects." There is also evidence of somewhat stilted and formal 1 "I do not know upon what foundations the authors of the two histories of Alexander have been pleased to attribute to the exalted imagination of Madame de Krüdener the idea of the Holy Alliance and the League of universal peace, a noble project, which could only have had birth in the mind of Alexander himself. Neither at that time nor afterwards, when on several occasions he conversed with me, did the Emperor pronounce the name of the author of Valerie, although he often spoke of the celebrated literary men of past times and of the present, and even of women distinguished for their wit and intelligence, such as Madame de Stael, whose great talents he admired." Mme. de Choiseul-Gouffier, p. 153. 2 Quoted in Bergasse: A Defender of Old Tradition under the Revolution. This interesting collection of family papers has a valuable introduction by M. Etienne Lamy, member of the French Academy. requests on Alexander's part for further light upon the subject.1 It soon becomes evident, however, that the Tsar was tired of the torrent of advice poured out by this loquacious valetudinarian. The influence of Nicholas Bergasse-an influence which has perhaps not been sufficiently reckoned with in judging of the reactionary phase of Alexander's policy-appears to have ended in much the same way as other momentarily preponderating influences in the life of the great idealist. Like Czartoryski, Speranski, Madame de Krüdener and other lesser oracles, Bergasse "became a bore" and was somewhat brutally discarded in consequence. The Tsar possessed to a finished degree the faculty of taking advice when he needed it to support his own faltering judgment. But once his course was decided upon, he became suspicious and intolerant of anything that savored of direction. Like all convinced doctrinaires, he abhorred sermons unless he himself occupied the pulpit. 1The "sects" in this correspondence seem to have played the rôle of the "reds" in our own time. Alexander's note of acknowledgment dated 4/16 August, 1822, admits that he has "only been able to consider these matters hastily." Bergasse, p. 383. CHAPTER I THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY ALLIANCE "A Congress of Kings was to be held at Cambray. It was to consist of Through their adhesion to the "Act of September 14, 1815," on the Plain of Vertus, the chief Continental Powers had reluctantly signed the acknowledgment of an obligation to "common action." If the mystical language of the "Holy Alliance' contained any practical meaning this lay in its affirmation that the sovereigns of Europe should "on all occasions and in all places lend each other aid and assistance." Nor was this to be a "partial and exclusive alliance." All Powers who should choose solemnly to avow its "sacred principles" were to be received in its bonds "with equal ardor and affection." Before noting the effect of this invitation upon the non-signatory Powers, it would be well to consider certain evidence concerning the attitude of the signers themselves toward the vague program to which they found themselves pledged. The spirit in which Alexander's cherished scheme for a Christian League of Peace was received by his allies is perhaps best shown in Metternich's own account of the events just preceding the signature of the manifesto: During the course of the negotiations which brought about the signature of the second Peace of Paris, the Emperor Alexander asked me for an interview. He then informed me that he was busy with a great enterprise concerning which he especially desired to consult the Emperor Francis. "There are certain matters," said the Tsar, "which can only be considered in the light of intimate beliefs. Moreover, such beliefs are entirely subject to influences and considerations of a personal character. If this matter were purely an affair of state, I would immediately have asked for your advice. The subject, however, is one of such a 1 The name of Holy "Alliance" or "League" was a popular designation. With reference to the much discussed adhesion of the Prince Regent of Great Britain, Gentz observes: "The Prince Regent, either carelessly or to be agreeable or even to make fun of his August Ally (the latter is very possible in view of the fact that his signature had no value without a countersign) answered with an autograph letter adhering to the pact." Gentz, Dépêches inédités du Chevalier de Gentz aux Hospodars de Valachie, vol. 1, p. 217. nature that the council of official advisers can be of no use. It is one requiring the decisions of sovereigns themselves "Several days afterwards, the Emperor Francis sent for me and informed me that he had just returned from a visit to the Tsar, who had asked him to come alone to discuss matters of high importance. "The subject of our conversation," said the Emperor, "you will understand, after reading the document the Tsar has submitted to me with the request I give it my earnest attention For my own part, I have no sympathies with the ideas it contains, which have given me food for great unrest." It did not require any very serious study to convince me the document had no other value or sense except considered as a philanthropic aspiration cloaked in religious phraseology. I was convinced it could in no way be considered the subject of a treaty between sovereigns, and that it might even give rise to grave misinterpretations of a religious character.1 Metternich found the King of Prussia, who had also been consulted by Alexander, averse to thwarting the desire of his powerful ally, but equally doubtful as to the propriety of signing the manifesto in its original form. It was only after Metternich had, not without difficulty, secured the Tsar's consent to a number of changes that the promised signatures of the Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia were finally obtained. In the case of Emperor Francis this act was executed (as Metternich states) "in spite of a natural antipathy with which the whole project inspired him." In closing his account of the above transaction, Metternich adds the following significant, though somewhat disingenuous, paragraph: The irrefutable proof of what I have detailed above is found in the fact that subsequently there never was any question among the Cabinets of Europe of a "Holy Alliance"; that no such questions indeed could arise. It was only those hostile to the monarchical party who sought to exploit this act and use it as a weapon of calumny against its authors. The Holy Alliance was never founded to restrain the liberties of the people, nor to advance the cause of absolutism. It was solely the expression of the mystical beliefs of the Emperor Alexander; the application of the principles of Christianity to public policy. It is from this strange mixture of religious and political theories that the conception of the Holy Alliance arose. It was developed under the influence of Madame de Krüdener and Monsieur Bergasse. No one knows better than myself. the true meaning of this empty and sonorous document.2 Metternich (who at a later date was to turn to the purposes of Austrian diplomacy the bond of indiscriminate solidarity which Alexander believed to be the essence of the Holy Alliance) always insisted upon the essential difference between the League of Sover'Metternich, Mémoires, vol. 1, pp. 209–210. 2 Ibid., pp. 211–212. |