Page images
PDF
EPUB

der of all that is rotten, corrupt, oppressive, and galling in the old and legitimate despotisms, while it misrepresents, abuses, and affects to treat with derision, whatever is most healthful, vigorous, and beneficial in popular go

vernment.

From a Journal, conducted upon such principles, disseminating such doctrines, and, for aught we know, in the pay of those whose cause it uniformly espouses, an impartial and fearless traveller, like Dr Lyall, who, in aggravation of his other sins, has had the hardihood to call Napoleon a great man, had no reason to expect other treatment than that which he has received. But we are happy to find, that he has not silently endured the petulance, scurrility, and injurious insinuations of the Russian Cabal, who have clubbed among them the paltry and disingenuous tirade against his work. His reply we are now about to submit to our readers, to whom we once more recommend his book, as in many respects the most valuable that has yet been published on the semi-barbarous subjects, or rather slaves, of the Autocrat of all the Russias. That reply we think perfectly conclusive, It is indeed clear that the Russians were no favourites with the Doctor; but it is equally manifest that he has made every effort to be impartial, has set off the few virtues they possess against their notorious vices, and has softened the harshness of many features, to which he might, without incurring the charge of very unpardonable exaggeration, have given a more odious and revolting aspect. We never meant to flatter him so far as to insinuate that, as a writer, he has any pretensions to equal Dr Clarke; but we do hold, that he is incomparably more faithful,-that he has no resentments to gratify, no violent, overmastering prejudices to vitiate his credit,-and that, though a "Scotch-made Doctor," he is a man of truth and honour, and as well deserving of belief in what he states, as any erratic knight of the pencil that ever painted panoramas, or manufactured quartos. But the Doctor must do the business for himself; here is his answer:

The legitimate end of a review ought to be an impartial report respecting the prin. cipal works which issue from the press, so as to save us purchasing, or reading any, except those which suit our tastes, or may be requisite for our occupations. A just review of any work should contain a succinct account of its principal contents, illustrated by quotations, so as to allow the public, in some degree, to exercise its own judgment. I shall not inquire whether the writers of the Reviewal of my quarte, contained in the Sixty-first Number of the Quarterly Review, have been guided by such principles; nor am I very curious to know whether it was composed by a knight, a physician, or an Esquire, or by a coalition of such a trio. I leave it to the judgment and candour of the British public to discover why my works are noticed in the Quarterly Review, and whether the malice it contains be the offspring of private pique, party spirit, or political intrigue. Indeed, the review alluded to is so manifestly partial, illiberal, and unfair, that I hesitated whether to treat it with contempt and ridicule, or to oppose it with sober truth. It owes this notice, not to its intrinsic value, but because it has appeared in a work which has a wide circulation ⚫. Before I proceed to the immediate objects in view, in justice to the Russians, as well as to myself, I may be allowed to state, that whilst I have freely spoken of their imperfections and their vices, I have not overlooked their good qualities or their virtues. I have every where endeavoured to convey the idea that the Russians (the real Russians, for it is only to them that I allude) are in a much higher state of civiliza. tion than is generally believed (p. v.) :—I have spoken in terms of commendation of their general toleration (p. xvii.):-contrary to Clarke, I have declared that they are not in a barbarous state, nor all equally barbarous, (p. xxiii. and p. xliii.):-I have mentioned that cudgelling, though not abolished, is greatly out of fashion in comparison with former times (p. xxiv.):-I have stated that all classes demonstrate love of country (p. xxxiii.):-I have said, that though vermin be frequent in Russia, contrary to Clarke's assertion, that neither beauteous Princesses, nor the ladies of inferior

The Sixty-first Number of the Quarterly Review was published on the 30th December, 1824; and this answer, nearly in its present state, appeared in the Courier of the 4th, 5th, and 6th of January 1825. It was written on the spur of the mo ment, and sent to press.

[ocr errors]

titles, are to be seen at the windows of palaces, in the act of divesting themselves of such companions (p. xlvi. and p. li.):-I have contradicted Clarke's statement, that the principal articles of the diet of the Russians are every where grease and brandy, (p. xlvii.):-I have extolled the Russians for their hospitality (p. lxxiv.),-for their charity (p. lxxiii),-for their temperance and sobriety (pp. lxxxviii. and ix.) :-I have explained what was ridiculously called their passport to Heaven (p. civ.):—and I have every where borne witness to their advancement in knowledge, and to the great and praiseworthy efforts of the Emperor Alexander for the civilization of his extensive realms. But let us now come more to the point

The reviewer sets out by refusing me "implicit eredence" and immediate confi. dence," because I am a "prejudiced person." Having made these declarations, how comes it that he gives credence and implicit faith to my account of the renovation of Moscow, of the real state of the Russian peasantry,-of the "sound practical view" (as he is pleased to call it) of the policy that should be pursued toward this class of the population, of the military colonies,-of the corrupt state of civil administration in Russia, and of the advancement of arts and sciences, literature, and general knowledge? I demand why is all this believed, whilst he protests that credence cannot be given me? The reviewer had better said that the "book was lies frae end to end," and then confronted it with truths, as demonstrative proofs of his accuracy. But he has not brought forward one single fact to invalidate my statements; for, as we shall see immediately, his triumphant contradictions turn out to be mistakes; and he believes all that suits his own views.

The reviewer very seriously tells the world his opinion, that the former and larger portion of my work is "constituted of those materials which usually make up our half-crown Guides' to watering-places," &c. This observation shews with what attention he has read my work; but there are strong proofs that he never did read it. In self-defence, I have reluctantly subjoined to this answer, a number of quotations from a variety of periodical works, in which a very different judgment has been pro

nounced.

According to the reviewer, I gravely assure the world, that " Napoleon had no other object at heart than the happiness of Europe." There is no such assertion in my work. But his object is evidently to make out that I am a Radical, because I everywhere show myself the friend of liberty, and the enemy of despotism. This only de monstrates his ignorance of my principles of moderation, and my complete determination to avoid political party. Though I speak of the great Napoleon, I have not hesitated to declare that Moscow was "the barrier to that mighty ambition which seemed as unchecked as unbounded;" (Preface, p. 10. ;) nor to allude to his other failings.

I was not aware that it was a degradation to be a Scotchman-to belong to that nation, which, in proportion to its population, has produced more men of great talents a greater quantum of mind, if I may so speak, than any other under heaven. Neither did I know that it was a disgrace to be a Scotch-made Physician. If I were so, I should glory in the title. After serving a regular apprenticeship, I was educated in the University of Edinburgh, avowedly the most celebrated medical school in the world. Having received my Diploma, I was engaged five years as a general practitioner in the town which gave me birth. I went to Russia in the year 1815. Every individual, were he even a Professor, has no authority to practise in that empire, until he has submitted to different examinations, and if he wishes the rank of a physician, till he has defended his Thesis, either in the Imperial MedicoChirurgical Academy, or in one of the Universities. He then receives his degree, as in other countries. My Thesis was defended in the Academy above noticed; and then I was "enabled to write M.D." after my name. By the recommendation of His Imperial Majesty's physicians, and especially by that of the late Dr Simpson, I was engaged by the Countess Orlof-Tchesmenska, on my return from a journey with a nobleman in the interior of the empire. A house-doctor in Russia receives a salary varying from 25% to 100%; while mine was equal to that of the Emperor's physicians, besides house, wood, candles, carriage, coachman, &c.; agreeably to the Rus sian manner of engaging a physician who is attached to a family.

On our arrival at Moscow, I found that Countess Orlof-Tchesmenska's affairs were altogether under the controul of her steward, (the head-steward being old and imbecile,) a real Russian-that he was the bosom-friend of an Italian physician who never resided in her Excellency's house, but had frequently attended her, and had an annual salary-that the house-surgeon was the humble-servant and agent both of the steward and the physician-and that the apothecary, by whom medicines were annually supplied to the Countess's establishment, to the amount of about 10,000

rubles, was a protegé of the whole whilst, according to the custom of the country, he was liberal of his presents. Countess Orlof-Tchesmenska had engaged me, without consulting her steward, which step highly offended him; so that, from the first day I entered Moscow, he became my enemy :-the Italian physician feared the loss of his salary; the house-surgeon trembled for the detection of his roguery and the suspension of his presents ;-and the apothecary knew, before my arrival, that I had purchased a stock of medicines at Petersburgh with the view of establishing an apo. thecary shop for her Excellency's family. Ignorant of the general corruption of the Russians, and of the intrigues formed to ruin me, with the Countess's sanction, I commenced a reformation in the whole medical establishment, which I found in a miserable condition. I new-modelled the hospital, and erected an apothecary-shop, by which above 5000 rubles were annually saved, &c. &c. Intrigue followed intrigue in rapid succession, for my ruin, which proved ineffectual. Then every measure of the combination was made to disgust me with my place. I addressed myself to the Countess, and was protected. Injury was therefore heaped upon injury—not difficult for a steward who has a carte blanche to do what he likes that I might either disgust her Excellency by frequent complaints, or myself become disgusted by her unavailing remonstrances; for though a very amiable and excellent person, she is not distinguished for decision. Nearly at the expiration of four years the plan succeeded; I resigned my situation, but on good terms with the Countess, which were afterwards maintained both at Petersburgh and Moscow. These facts will explain how well qualified the reviewer was " to say a word or two with respect to the au thor," and also "the circumstance not necessary to be mentioned," which is assigned as the cause of my "hostility to the steward." There are those in London who know the whole of these transactions.

The example given of my style as meant to be "picturesque" is not mine, but is a translation from a German work, referred to in p. 499, where it occurs. My style may be judged of by the quotations which the reviewer has chosen to make from the quarto.

In allusion to the forty-five millions of Russian subjects, and the "no very judicious division of the diversified inhabitants of Russia" into nobility, clergy, mer. chants, and peasants, which I have followed, as well as the unaccountable delusion of the reviewer, that I was treating of the whole nation," the Cossacks-Calmucs Kirgises-Monguls-Muscovites," the following quotation from my work is a sufficient reply:" I must here premise, that when speaking of Russia, I generally have regard to Russia Proper; when of the Russians, I allude only to the inhabitants, and do not include the numerous tribes and nations which form the population of that immense realm."-(Character of the Russians, p. ii.)

The reviewer says, "We have not been able to discover how Dr Lyall distinguishes between the higher and lower nobility, whether in point of antiquity or rank, of wealth or poverty." The inattention with which he has read my work will be evident, from the above and similar remarks. I employed neither of his criterions. In "The character of the Russians," and at the very commencement, I say, "The higher classes of nobility, or those who give the ton to society, &c." Can any thing be more explicit than that I mean the leading, or the highest, society of the nation ?

The reviewer, in the course of a few pages, returns again and again to the merchants, and perhaps he thinks not that this " arrangement of the subjects is wholly without skill;" and concludes that my "unmeasured abuse of the merchants seems to have no other foundation than that they ask more for their goods than they will ultimately take, and teaze passengers to buy as they walk the streets." This I do not comprehend. I have employed many pages in the explanation of the manner in which the Russians cheat, in the quantity, in the quality, and in the price-by false weights, by false balances, by false measures, and by adulteration, &c. (Vide "Character of the Russians," &c. from p. 284 to p. 295); and I have more seriously charged all the guilds of the Russian merchants (p. cxxix.) with deceit, and sometimes with perjury, and assigned these as my reasons for my 66 unmeasured abuse." That my "abuse" was not unmeasured, however, appears from the fact which occurs in page 224 of my work, where I speak of those merchants" who are very upright in their dealings," and who sell immense quantities of goods, especially to foreigners. I shall appeal to all those who have had affairs with the Russian merchants, and to the unprejudiced, whether I have not given a fair and just account of the mode of traffic which prevails, not only among the " petty traders and shopkeepers," but among those who have extensive "mercantile concerns with this and other countries of Europe and America." The reviewer is not aware of the fact,

that almost the whole of this great commerce is in the hands of foreigners, and especially of the British and Americans. He has discovered that I have vilified a "respectable body of men." I should like to read this on the Exchange of Moscow, Petersburgh, or even London, and hear the remarks of those who have been deceived and swindled out of their property by this "respectable body of men."-The reviewer may rest assured that he remains solus in his opinion.

The reviewer next remarks, that " Dr Lyall appears to be nearly as well acquainted with the state of the Clergy, and the ritual and superstitions of the Russian Church, as that of the merchants; with the exception of some discussions on the practical part of worship in his interminable History of Moscow, he dispatches this numerous class in half a page."-" In this brief account, he sets out with the ignorant assertion that the high Clergy are all Monks. Now the high, or superior clergy, consist of me. tropolitans, archbishops, and bishops, not one of whom has any concern with monas teries." My answer is the following: "At one time, it was my intention to have introduced a long chapter, with respect to the Russo-Greek faith. I have been necessitated to abandon that idea, on account of want of room to do the subject justice within the prescribed bounds of the present volume, and it is the less necessary, as we already possess two excellent works upon this subject,"-viz. The Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia, by John Glen King; and the Present State of the Greek Church in Russia, translated by Dr Pinkerton, from the Sclavonic Original of Platon, late metropolitan of Moscow. In the History of Moscow, numerous illustrations of the ritual, and especially of the superstitions, of the Greek Church, present themselves, and also many illustrations of the "practical parts of worship" but a person who, perhaps, believed that my work was a " Guide to a Watering-place," of course could never see them.-Moreover, if the reviewer had read the work through with ordinary attention, he would have discovered that I had filled up the vacuities of the two excellent works just alluded to, with respect to images, and image-worship, and that the charge I have made against the Russians as worshippers of graven images, not paintings, is not only a novelty, but a fact. As for the "ignorant assertion that the higher Clergy are all Monks,” I am afraid it must be thrown back upon the reviewer's shoulders. They are all Monks;—and unless they were so, they could not aspire to those ranks. The quotations in the note below will fully prove that I am right-and they are from those whose authority has never been questioned".

King, speaking of the "superior clergy," says, "their way of living, from the nature of their order, being all Monks, is very rigid," &c. He also states, that the regular clergy are held in higher esteem than the secular, "for which reason, bishops are always taken from this order."-Even in the time of Peter the Great, those who were made bishops were obliged to sign an oath, of which the third condition begins with these words, "I will endeavour to govern the Monks who are under my jurisdiction."-Vide King's Rights and Ceremonies, p. 367-449-&c. &c.

"The Russian clergy are divided into Regular and Secular. The former are all Monks, and the latter are the parochial clergy. The superior clergy are divided into metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops, who are indiscriminately styled Archirès.""Promotion to the rank of bishop depends on the will of the Sovereign. When a vacancy takes place in a diocese, the holy legislative synod presents to his Imperial Majesty two or three candidates from amongst the eldest of the Archimandrites, or chiefs of monasteries, out of whom he selects one, and orders him to be ordained an Archire."-" Thus the metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops, compose the highest class of the Russian Clergy."—" After the Archirès, the next in order of dignity are those who, in Russia, are called Tchernoyé Duchovénstvo, or the Black Clergy, to which class belong the Archimandrites, or chiefs of monasteries, from amongst whom the bishops are always chosen."—"All the Black Clergy, and all the Archirès, according to the regulations of the Greek Church, are obliged to lead rigid and recluse lives; are forbidden animal food; and are not permitted to marry, after entering into this order. They compose the Regular Clergy, and consider themselves as superior to the secular priests, in respect both of rank and learning; for the whole powers and dignities of the Russian Church are exclusively vested in them."-" The secular priests are called the Beloyé Duchovénstvo, or the White Clergy."" the whole government and spiritual concerns of the church are vested in the Holy Synod." Subordinate to the Synod is "the Consistory of every diocese, which is composed of three Archimondaitse, or Hegumens, at the head of which is the Bishop."-Vide the Present State of the Greek Church. Translated by Robert Pinkerton. Preliminary Memoir.

I have accused the Russians of all classes and ranks of insincerity and deception, and I do not retract the charge. In this I am borne out by every author, ancient or modern, and by every impartial foreigner or traveller. As one instance of their deception upon the great scale, I have recorded, that before the Emperor visited Moscow in 1817, the walls of many of the ruined houses were built up (I might have said boarded,) roofed, plastered, and painted, and had windows put in; so that, while they had a magnificent exterior and appearance, “they presented a complete interior vacuity."-"We lament our dulness," says the reviewer, "but we cannot exactly comprehend what kind of deception was practised either on his Imperial Majesty or Dr Lyall." From this I am to conclude, that the reviewer does think, that four bare walls and a roof, without either floors, ceilings, stoves, or furniture, &c. &c. complete a Russian house! If he had been obliged to pass a night in one of these dwellings with a temperature of 20°, 25°, or 30°, of cold of Reaumur-which presented a complete interior vacuity, the powers of his comprehension would have been first sharpened and then extinguished; but he would have previously discovered the woeful deception. With respect to the hospital hoax (Vide Character of the Russians, p. xcvii. and the Quarterly Review, p. 152,) which is too long to copy, but of which the reviewer is pleased to say, "We cannot believe one syllable of this prettily-got-up story," I beg leave to reply, that facts are more "stubborn things" than "we do not believe," that the hospital in question was in existence in 1823, and that I shall give any traveller a reference that he may satisfy his curiosity-if the building be not pulled down before his arrival on the spot. I shall compromise no individual.

But if these were instances of deception upon the great scale, 1 shall now refer to another upon the greatest scale. Is it not known that for twelve years the Russians have denied that they themselves were the incendiaries of Moscow? Have not the Russian Historians, the Poets, the Generals, and the Government, all endeavoured to make their countrymen believe that Moscow was burned by the French?' (Vide Detailed History of Moscow, pp. 484, 520.) And yet, in the year 1821, Colonel Boutourlin, Aide-de-Camp of the Emperor Alexander, gravely comes forward, contradicts the accuracy of all previous writers, and AVOWS THAT THE RUSSIANS THEMSELVES BURNED THAT CAPITAL. (Vide “ Histoire Militaire de la Campagne de Russie en 1812.") We shall have no "not believes" about this national hoax. Those who know "the force of words" may say this is not decep tion, but policy.

In giving a professed account of the character of any people, ought we to tell all the truth, or only what suits our purpose?-What should we have thought of Hume, Robertson, Gibbon, Mosheim, &c.—or of Clarke, had they done so? Now, if the statements I made be true, they will stand of themselves—if falsehoods, why not oppose them with truths, and not with such insignificant expressions as “refusing im mediate credence or confidence," we do not believe," we have every reason to believe,” 66 we never heard." The truth is, the reviewer hesitates to believe what he dared not contradict, because he knew little of the matters on which he was writing. With respect to the Physical Club of Moscow, which has excited so much astonishment-as well it might I have only to confirm my former statements, and to tell the reviewer and the world, that I can refer them, and will refer them with pleasure, to those who have heard of its existence ;-for it seems the reviewer has inquired of Russians who had no knowledge of it, (what wisdom in inquiring of Russians!) and " of our own countrymen, who never heard of it." Nay, more, I will tell the reviewer, that I have good reason to believe that one, if not two or three of his colleagues, have dined with the rejected member of that disgraceful institution. The reviewer did not require to tell us, that "if any thing like it ever did exist, it has long since disappeared," for I have stated expressly (p. xxviii.) “ that it was abolished by order of Catharine II. ;" and, of course, I left the inference that an improvement in morals had taken placeto the reader's own mind. In future, let those who doubt the fact address themselves to me, and I shall give every information. I hope some respectable traveller will do so, and then the question shall be set to rest.

Respecting the ladies, the reviewer says, "he unhesitatingly pronounces them ugly, addicted to sensuality, infidelity, grossness, and every other vice that besets the male sex." I have nowhere made use of such expressions. I have said that very few of them are beautiful;-but is there no shade between beauty and ugliness? I have accused them of sensuality, but I have said there are exceptions.The reviewer confounds the account I have given of the ladies, the merchants' wives, the parochial clergy's wives, and the peasants' wives and asks "if they (the ladies) now daub their faces with paint ?" I answer, Yes; females of all ranks, but " of late years the liberal use of paint seems to be in some degree supplanted by that of snuff," (p. cxx. of my

« PreviousContinue »