whom they regard as the cause of their sufferings. Deprived of power and authority, his crimes and his craft exposed, he should have appeared to them what he appeared ten years previously and one year later—an outlawed brigand. But by some strange chance no one perceives this. His part is not yet ended. The man who ten years before and a year later was considered an outlawed brigand is sent to an island two days’ sail from France, which for some reason is presented to him as his dominion, and guards are given to him and millions of money are paid him.
THE FLOOD OF NATIONS begins to subside into its normal channels. The waves of the great movement abate, and on the calm surface eddies are formed in which float the diplomatists, who imagine that they have caused the floods to abate.
But the smooth sea again suddenly becomes disturbed. The diplomatists think that their disagreements are the cause of this fresh pressure of natural forces; they anticipate war between their sovereigns; the position seems to them insoluble. But the wave they feel to be rising does not come from the quarter they expect. It rises again from the same point as before—Paris. The last backwash of the movement from the west occurs: a backwash which serves to solve the apparently insuperable diplomatic difficulties and ends the military movement of that period of history.
The man who had devastated France returns to France alone, without any conspiracy and without soldiers. Any guard might arrest him, but by strange chance no one does so and all rapturously greet the man they cursed the day before and will curse again a month later.
This man is still needed to justify the final collective act.
That act is performed.
The last role is played. The actor is bidden to disrobe and wash off his powder and paint: he will not be wanted any more.
And some years pass during which he plays a pitiful comedy to himself in solitude on his island, justifying his actions by intrigues and lies when the justification is no longer needed, and displaying to the whole world what it was that people had mistaken for strength as long as an unseen hand directed his actions.
The manager having brought the drama to a close and stripped the actor shows him to us.
“See what you believed in! This is he! Do you now see that it was not he but I who moved you?”
But dazed by the force of the movement, it was long before people understood this.
Still greater coherence and inevitability is seen in the life of Alexander I, the man who stood at the head of the countermovement from east to west.
What was needed for him who, overshadowing others, stood at the head of that movement from east to west?
What was needed was a sense of justice and a sympathy with European affairs, but a remote sympathy not dulled by petty interests; a moral superiority over those sovereigns of the day who co-operated with him; a mild and attractive personality; and a personal grievance against Napoleon. And all this was found in Alexander I; all this had been prepared by innumerable so-called chances in his life: his education, his early liberalism, the advisers who surrounded him, and by Austerlitz, and Tilsit, and Erfurt.
During the national war he was inactive because he was not needed. But as soon as the necessity for a general European war presented itself he appeared in his place at the given moment and, uniting the nations of Europe, led them to the goal.
The goal is reached. After the final war of 1815 Alexander possesses all possible power. How does he use it?
Alexander I—the pacifier of Europe, the man who from his early years had striven only for his people’s welfare, the originator of the liberal innovations in his fatherland—now that he seemed to possess the utmost power and therefore to have the possibility of bringing about the welfare of his peoples—at the time when Napoleon in exile was drawing up childish and mendacious plans of how he would have made mankind happy had he retained power—Alexander I, having fulfilled his mission and feeling the hand of God upon him, suddenly recognizes the insignificance of that supposed power, turns away from it, and gives it into the hands of contemptible men whom he despises, saying only:
“Not unto us, not unto us, but unto Thy Name! 12 . . . I too am a man like the rest of you. Let me live like a man and think of my soul and of God.” 13
As the sun and each atom of ether is a sphere complete in itself, and yet at the same time only a part of a whole too immense for man to comprehend, so each individual has within himself his own aims and yet has them to serve a general purpose incomprehensible to man.
A bee settling on a flower has stung a child. And the child is afraid of bees and declares that bees exist to sting people. A poet admires the bee sucking from the chalice of a flower and says it exists to suck the fragrance of flowers. A beekeeper, seeing the bee collect pollen from flowers and carry it to the hive, says that it exists to gather honey. Another beekeeper who has studied the life of the hive more closely says that the bee gathers pollen dust to feed the young bees and rear a queen, and that it exists to perpetuate its race. A botanist notices that the bee flying with the pollen of a male flower to a pistil fertilizes the latter, and sees in this the purpose of the bee’s existence. Another, observing the migration of plants, notices that the bee helps in this work, and may say that in this lies the purpose of the bee. But the ultimate purpose of the bee is not exhausted by the first, the second, or any of the processes the human mind can discern. The higher the human intellect rises in the discovery of these purposes, the more obvious it becomes, that the ultimate purpose is beyond our comprehension.
All that is accessible to man is the relation of the life of the bee to other manifestations of life. And so it is with the purpose of historic characters and nations.

1. Photius (1792-1838) was Head of the Novgorod Monastery. In 1820, in the name of reactionary-Orthodox principles and in conjunction with an influential lady, Orlova-Chesmenskaya, he instigated a persecution of “Masons and mystics,” the Bible Society, and other movements tainted with liberalism or of questionable conformity with the then existing order in the Russian state and Orthodox Church. His movement promptly became a personal struggle against Prince A. N. Golitsyn, Minister of Education and of Spiritual Affairs. The Orthodox mystic was no better than his opponent, the more westernized mystic, who was head of the Bible Society, but in 1824 Golitsyn was dismissed. Photius was an ascetic, and frightened Alexander by dismal Apocalyptic predictions but did not retain his influence long.—A.M.
2. F. W. G. Schelling (1775-1854) began as a sympathizer with the French Revolution, but gradually changed his views. His criticism of Fichte developed into a sharp antagonism.—A.M.
3. J. G. Fichte (1762-1814), a German philosopher who influenced affairs by his revolutionary love of liberty.—A.M.
4. Chateaubriand (1764-1848), a French writer and politician, who was exceedingly changeable and inconsistent in his views and politics.—A.M.
5. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 created a “Kingdom of Poland” (containing about three fourths of Napoleon’s “Grand Duchy of Warsaw”) to be forever united with Russia, but to have a constitution of its own by which it was to be ruled by a king who was always to be the Emperor of Russia (ruling through a deputy who might either be a Pole or a member of the Russian Imperial family). Alexander I and his successor Nicholas I took an oath of fidelity to this constitution, which for those times was of a liberal character. It lasted till the Polish insurrection of 1830.—A.M.
6. This famous declaration, signed at first by the Emperors of Russia and Austria and the King of Prussia, was a precursor of the League of Nations and was quite sincerely intended to ensure the preservation of peace, but gradually it became a reactionary instrument for the suppression of freedom and the maintenance of despotism. It died a natural death owing to disagreements between the great Powers.—A.M.
7. Alexander Shishkov (1754-1841) has already been mentioned in Book Nine, p. 678, as writing the rescript Alexander issued at the commencement of Napoleon’s invasion. He occupied many positions, from that of admiral to Secretary to the Emperor and Minister of Education. He considered that to teach the peasants to read was “more harmful than useful.” —A.M.
8. The Semenov Guards were disbanded in 1820 for protesting against the cruelty and barbarity of their new German commander, Schwarz, and refusing to obey his orders. Alexander I dealt harshly with the outbreak, which was later seen to have been a prelude to the more serious “Decembrist” revolt of 1825. The officers and men were dispersed among other regiments, and not till 1823 did the Semenov regiment again become a regiment of the Guards.—A.M.
9. War and Peace was completed in 1869.—A.M.
10. In August, 1795, Bonaparte applied to a commission of the French government to be sent to Constantinople to reform the Turkish artillery service.—A.M.
11. Bonaparte sailed for Egypt in 1798. Suvorov led a Russian army into Italy in 1799 and successively defeated Moreau at Cassano, Macdonald on the Trebbia,, and Joubert at Novi.—A.M.
12. By Alexander’s order a medal, struck as a memorial of the defeat of the French