fth of romance is knight-errantry. Manning was essentially a man of affairs moving with wisdom and circumspection in the realms of faith; and he must be ranked rather among the children of Martha than those of Mary. Yet, behind his practical, business-like, half-soldierly method of approaching the work of human salvation, there lay an inner life of the soul, of which Mr Strachey is hardly sensible and which Mr Leslie has not fully probed. A concentrated sketch of the progress of his spirit across the evangelical teaching of Miss Bevan, through the restrained Anglicanism of the 'forties, into the atmosphere of the Paradisus Anima'-a book of devotion little known outside the circle of his own communion, but which formed his own constant and apparently favourite devotional reading-seems, however, to be an indispensable adjunct of any final portrait of his character. But his countrymen would follow such a study with no more than languid attention. For them his public career, with its purple close and its disputable motives and its patriotic philanthropy, remains the interesting thing about him; and, if Mr Strachey must be commiserated for having reminded us so cleverly of its more vulnerable points, Mr Leslie may be congratulated upon having revived the recollection of its striking merits. Among those merits members of Manning's town communion will hold it not the least that he, a Cardinal with his faith in Rome, satisfied without sign of effort the claims both of a Catholic imperialism and of that imperial idea which his own countrymen were just then bringing to birth and which he himself did something to nurse into existence. 'Between the Universal Church and the Universal Empire,' says Mr Leslie in language in which patriotic pride has for a moment got rather the better of actual fact, he saw the possibility of common appreciation and understanding.' It is perhaps enough to say that he knew how to approve himself at once as a great Catholic Churchman and a good British subject, so that in the end his fellow-citizens learned to listen for the beating of an English heart beneath the suspected, unfamiliar folds of the Roman purple.

ALGERNON CECIL.

Art. 12.-TWO RUSSIAN STATESMEN.

1. The Memoirs of Count Witte. Translated from the original Russian MS. and edited by Abraham Yarmo linsky. Heinemann, 1921.

2. The Memoirs of Alexander Iswolsky, formerly Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs. Edited and translated by C. L. Seager. Hutchinson, 1921.

3. Diplomatic Reminiscences before and during the World War, 1911-1917. By A. Nekludoff. Translated from the French by Alexandra Paget. Murray, 1921. CURIOUS musings on the causes which further the rise and hasten the fall of empires, and on the part that may be played in the destinies of states and peoples by individuals of light and leading, are once more set astir by the reminiscences of two statesmen of very different types and mental calibres, a portion of whose biographies will be for ever interwoven with a chapter of the history of a most critical period in the fortunes of Russia and Europe. For several years of the reign of Alexander III Sergius Witte ruled the Tsardom with the overrated power of an absolute monarch, and showed what feats of statesmanship a clear-sighted, constructive ruler could achieve, even within the narrow limits set to his activities by the predatory character and hampering structure of the Tsardom, whose destinies he was working to control During an equal number of subsequent years Alexander's son and successor demonstrated how easily and effectu ally a shiftless individual invested with power, but devoid of will or vision, could pull down the fabric that had weathered the storms of ages, gathering into one focal centre and radiating thence the destructive forces which had long been scattered over his Empire. It was while this disintegrating process was going forward that M. Izvolsky had the direction of Russia's foreign policy in his hands, and was striving by argument, suasion, and innocent little stratagems to induce his imperial master, at least, to refrain from thwarting the constructive schemes of his responsible advisers who had the advance ment of his people and the safety of his Empire at heart

These two volumes of memoirs complement and correct each other, being mainly two versions of the

same sequence of events narrated by the actors themselves, and, therefore, occasionally conflicting. For, as the Schoolmen used to say: Quando duo faciunt idem, non est idem. Although Witte's story, penned at odd moments when fierce and impotent rage against the Tsar and his counsellors was still strong upon him, is too often an undisguised indictment of these, while Izvolsky's exposé becomes at times a touching apology for his late sovereign, a comparison of the two may enable the unbiassed reader to strike the balance and reach a more or less fair estimate of the character, qualities, and defects of the monarch who contributed more than any other individual to demolish the Empire which he was so anxious to consolidate.

Witte's book is a collection of desultory notes and comments penned spasmodically in his various moods, now in the depths of despair, now burning with rage against adversaries who were conspiring to destroy at once his work, his character, and his life; and the readers whom he had in his mind's eye were his fellowcountrymen living under conditions not materially different from those of his own day. Hence he takes for granted on the part of his readers a thorough knowledge of Russian institutions, politics, and men, which very few Westerners possess. And the translator has done nothing to fill these gaps. Like Goetz von Berlichingen, Witte was better fitted to make history than to write it, and the memoirs as they have been given to the public are superlatively disappointing. Much that ought never to have seen the light has here been published in extenso; while his accounts of certain momentous events, which to my personal knowledge he had consigned to writing, have been either suppressed or mislaid. The style is amorphous, and at times the grammar is bad.

For the last time, in the spring of 1914, I admonished Witte that unless he prepared his reminiscences carefully for the press, correcting slips of memory and errors and leaving the manuscript quite ready for the printer, his reputation would inevitably suffer. For, as most of his notes had passed through my hands, I was aware of the necessity of suppressing some, correcting others, and rewriting many of them. In their published form the memoirs, which I have perused with a feeling of intense

sadness, are disfigured by many concrete errors, some contradictory statements, and several inaccuracies. How defective Witte's memory was will be readily discerned by those readers of his memoirs who are conversant with recent Russian and European history. His fan tastic story of the part which he played in dealing with the grave crisis caused by the Agadir incident may serve as a sample. He assured me on many occasions that the service which he then rendered to the peace of the world consisted in his proposing to the French Premier, M. Rouvier, who welcomed the plan, an international conference to pass judgment on the main issues between France and Germany, and in inducing the Kaiser to adopt his suggestion. This version of the story was 80 utterly at variance with well-known facts, and implied such a disservice to France, that I at once challenged its accuracy, denied its possibility, and urged him to consult his manuscript memoirs. Witte stoutly maintained that he was right in every particular and the subject dropped On five or six occasions I returned to the charge, but in vain.

The story as he told it, I explained, was not credible, because Witte's conversation with Rouvier took place on Sept. 20, 1905, and his reception by the Kaiser six days later; whereas the international conference had been agreed upon as early as July 8, that is to say, three weeks before he set out for the United States to discuss peace terms with the Japanese. I further insisted that it was Germany who proposed a conference on the ground that the status of Morocco ought not to be determined by separate agreements made by Great Britain, France, and Spain among themselves, but must be referred to an international areopagus. Moreover, pointed out that France was opposed to the scheme, and sustained her opposition until the danger of war began to loom visible in the political horizon. Consequently, it was absurd to affirm that Rouvier was enamoured of it or that France was grateful to the proposer, or that the proposal could have originated with Russia.*

The facts were these. By the time Witte arrived in

* The negotiation is given in detail, with many letters hitherto ungab lished, in the "Life of Theodore Roosevelt," vol. 1, caps. 36 and 37.

Paris from the United States a deadlock in the negotiations had occurred over the programme of the Conference, the French refusing to include in it the demarcation of the Moroccan and Algerian frontiers, while the Kaiser's Government insisted on that too being submitted to the delegates. It was at this conjuncture that the Russian statesman reached Rominten and discussed the matter with the Kaiser. He argued so forcibly in favour of the French contention that Wilhelm finally declared himself convinced, and there and then telegraphed instructions to Prince Bulow to give way to the French. And this was undoubtedly a sterling service to the cause of peace.

But as Count Witte persistently maintained the exactitude of his own version, I mentioned the matter to the French Ambassador in St Petersburg, M. Bompard, who like myself was amazed at this pathetic travesty of history. At last Witte told me that he had consulted his memoirs, and he actually dictated to me the same extraordinary story in which he figures as the originator of the international conference, and Rouvier and France as his grateful debtors for this welcome issue out of a political no-thoroughfare. I besought him to correct the narrative; but he felt unable to do so, and it has now been submitted to the public without a word of explanation or correction by the American translator.

Slips of this nature and the lack of any clue to guide the foreign reader through the bewildering maze of Russian parties, politicians, and incidents, detract very considerably from the value of these memoirs to the historian. It is no exaggeration to affirm that the eminent statesman who penned them in the heat of ruthless political struggles has done himself great injustice, from the consequence of which-in default of his friends-his own brilliant achievements in statecraft alone can save him.

A third book, M. Nekludoff's 'Diplomatic Reminiscences,' takes us to the uttermost periphery of the scene of the great Russian drama, and unfolds to our gaze the reaction which the far-resonant events at the centre or faint echoes of these produced in Bulgaria and Sweden. This diplomatist's personal experiences constitute a welcome addition to the existing materials for a history of Russia's intercourse with those two