Part 26 (1/2)
The registered gifts to the twelve favorites amounted to upward of one hundred million dollars.[278] Lanskoi, who had held no political offices, and the whole of whose fortune was drawn from the flagitious profits of his post of dishonor, died, after less than four years of office, worth, in cash only, and exclusive of valuables, seven millions of rubles.
Potemkin's wealth, which was acc.u.mulated from all sources of public robbery and private extortion, was fabulous. At his death he owned two hundred thousand serfs; he had whole cupboards filled with gold coin, jewels, and bank-bills; he held thirty-two orders, and his fortune was estimated at sixty million dollars.[279]
In the closing days of Catharine's reign she found a lower deep into which to plunge. When upward of sixty, she took into office, as her favorite, Zuboff, who was not quite twenty-five. She now formed the Society of the Little Hermitage. This was a picked company of wits and libertines, of both s.e.xes, over whose scenes of debauchery and revelry the empress presided. An inner penetralia even of these orgies was established, and called the Little Society.
The pernicious influence of such an example, set for so long a period of time by a sovereign distinguished for ability, and whose reign had been rendered famous by its successful foreign enterprises, was the almost universal corruption of the Russian court and aristocracy of both s.e.xes.
The women, in imitation of her majesty, kept men, with the t.i.tle and office of favorites. This was as customary as any other piece of fas.h.i.+on, and was recognized by husbands. Tender intrigues were unknown; strong pa.s.sion was still more rare; marriage was merely an a.s.sociation. There was a club, called the club of natural philosophers, which was a society of men and women of the highest cla.s.ses, the object of whose meetings was indiscriminate s.e.xual intercourse. The members met to feast, and after the banquet they retired in pairs chosen by lot. This club was afterward put down by the Russian police, in common with all other secret societies. A hospital was founded by Catharine for fifty ladies affected with venereal disease. These were all to be taken care of; no question was permitted as to name or quality, and the linen of the establishment was marked with the significant word ”discretion.”
Catharine's end was sudden and frightful. She had grown corpulent, and her legs and body had swollen and burst. She moved about with considerable difficulty, although her imperious will would not allow her to give way in her career either of ambition or profligacy. She was at the Little Hermitage November 4, 1796, in remarkably high spirits, and even joked her buffoon, Leof Nauskin, among other things, as to his death and his fears thereupon. The next morning the dread messenger, of whose advent she had made sport, brought his orders for her. She fell into an apoplectic fit, and, after thirty-seven hours of insensibility, died unblessing and unblessed, to be succeeded by Paul, her detested son by her first lover Soltikoff.
The emperor, or as he was better known by Napoleon's sobriquet, the mad Emperor Paul, was too remarkable for his eccentricities to make himself conspicuous for his gallantries. Even in this particular he preserved his eccentricity. He neglected his wife, an amiable and handsome woman, the mother of Alexander and Nicholas, for an ugly mistress, Mademoiselle Nelidoff, and for another, Mademoiselle Lapukhin, who would not accept his addresses, but to whom he nevertheless professed the patient devotion of Don Quixote. The most noteworthy circ.u.mstance, in this connection, of Paul's life was the indirect effect of female frailty in procuring his murder. The enemies who subsequently plotted his downfall and destruction procured their return from banishment through the offices of a certain Mademoiselle Chevalier, a French actress who ruled Kutaisoff, who on his part ruled the Czar.
As we approach our own times, the description of historical characters becomes liable to the tinge of prejudice or partiality.
Alexander, the son and successor of Paul, was distinguished by the amenity of his disposition and the philosophical tone of his political theories.
He was married at an early age by order of his grandmother Catharine, who in his case insisted on making him a good husband, and took numerous precautions for that purpose, all of which her example neutralized or belied. The selection made for him might, under the conditions of humble life or a free choice, have turned out happily. As it was, he preferred the society of the ladies of his court, and in particular of the Countess Narishkin, by whom he had three children. The countess proved inconstant, and all his children by her died, to Alexander's deep grief.
After the loss of these illegitimate children, the affections of Alexander were turned toward the empress, whose true worth he recognized when it was too late. She was struck with disease, and he was on a journey to Southern Russia to select a suitable spot for a residence for her, when he was seized with the fever of which he died.
If Alexander's mild character had but little influence on his subjects, the name of his successor, Nicholas, has been identified with the very existence of the Russian people, as much as any sovereign since Peter the Great. His example and expressed will have had immense effect, both for good and evil. It is almost impossible to arrive at the true character of Nicholas at the present time, for the reasons just mentioned. In his private life as husband and father, and in his public life as ruler and politician, writers are diametrically opposed to each other. Party prejudice denies him all worth, or makes him a very Socrates. Golovin and authors of the democratic school affirm, in addition to his other offenses, that Nicholas had several illegitimate children, and also ”that no woman could feel herself secure from Nicholas's importunities;” while writers like Von Tietz, Jermann, and other panegyrists of the Russian court, describe Nicholas as an exemplary husband and father, a model to his subjects in his domestic relations. They allege farther, that the gross immorality which has been the chief feature of Russian society was very much discouraged, and rendered altogether unfas.h.i.+onable by the estimable manners of the imperial family.
Truth is rarely found in extremes. The prevalent usage among sovereigns in this century has been ”to a.s.sume a virtue if they have it not,” and to maintain a respectable exterior for the sake of public opinion. So politic a ruler as Nicholas was not likely to reject this. He did all that could be done to bring virtue into good repute at court. But too many little incidents are told of him to justify a belief in his perfect spotlessness.
The characters of individuals, even as rulers, would be unimportant to us were it not that in Russia society is in a transition state, and shows itself plastic in the hands of an energetic emperor. ”The state! I am the state!” was perfectly true in the mouth of Nicholas. By his subjects he was held in an esteem little short of idolatry, and he was, in every sense of the word, the most remarkable man in his vast dominions.
Thompson, an English traveler, who has spoken very favorably of the personal worth of the Emperor Nicholas, says of the morality of the upper cla.s.ses among the Russians, ”Denied the advantages of rational amus.e.m.e.nt and innocent social enjoyments, deprived of those resources which, while they dispel _ennui_, elevate the feelings, the mind resorts to sensual indulgences and to the gratification of the pa.s.sions for the purpose of finding recreation and relief from the deadening pressure of despotism.
Immorality and intrigue are of universal prevalence, and (in a social sense) are hardly looked upon as criminal acts, while gambling and debauchery are the natural consequences of the tedious monotony from which all seek to escape by indulging in gross and vicious excitement.”
Under the system of serf.a.ge, now approaching its end, it was almost impossible that there should be such a thing as public morality in the lower cla.s.ses. The Russians, both n.o.ble and serf, are false and dishonest to a proverb. Prost.i.tution in such cases is a superfluous term: a woman had no right or opportunity to be virtuous.
The morality of St. Petersburg is undoubtedly of the lowest, and yet we have not met with any accounts of local prost.i.tution there. It is a city of men, containing one hundred thousand more males than females.[280]
Kelly says the women form only two sevenths (2/7) of the entire population, and calls it ”an alarming fact.” The climate is unfavorable to female beauty, and it is generally conceded that the men are handsomer than the women. The German girls have an almost exclusive reputation for good looks in St. Petersburg. By reason of the disproportion of the s.e.xes, it is said that ladies can not venture out unattended. This is etiquette among the higher cla.s.ses of all Continental Europe, and the simple fact, without the reason, would not be surprising.
The attention to minutiae which distinguishes a despotism, and which is so remarkable a feature of Russian state craft, does not allow us to suppose there are no statistical papers on the subject of prost.i.tution; on the contrary, it is perfectly well known that such are in existence. The secrecy which is scrupulously maintained in all public matters, and the watchful vigilance of the police over strangers, prevents them obtaining any information except on the most patent and notorious subjects. The remarks of travelers on Russian society are very vague and general, and unsupported by any of those details which could alone authenticate them.
We have already alluded to the ancient Oriental seclusion of women among the Russians. This was so strict that a suitor never saw, or at least was presumed never to have seen, the face of his bride before marriage. In 1493, Ivan the Great told a German emba.s.sador who demanded his daughter in marriage for the Margrave of Baden, that Russians never showed their daughters to any one before the match was decided. Peter the Great abolished this lottery, and directed that the parties might see each other, but he still found it necessary to promulgate a strong ukase against parents compelling children to marry against their wishes.
The compromise of the ancient custom which has been brought about by this law is that the elders of the family usually pre-contract for the juniors: then succeeds the bridal promenade, at which the young people, if unknown to each other, are led accidentally to meet in the same walk. Having thus managed an interview, the father of the young man, if all the preliminaries have been satisfactory so far, sends to the bride's father, and a general family meeting takes place, at which the arrangements are completed, the dowry determined, and then follows the betrothal. The elect pair kneel down on a fur mat and exchange rings. The preparations for the marriage are commenced, during which time the lovers have frequent opportunities of meeting and becoming better known to each other; this is a general period of visiting and parties. On the wedding-day the bridemaids unbraid the lady's hair, and she receives her husband with flowing locks. This is a remnant of ancient Russian usage, when the greatest outrage that could be committed on a woman was to unbraid her hair. It is generally believed that among the lower orders the wife is bound to draw off her husband's boots on the wedding-day, and also that the Russian peasant beats his wife at the commencement of her married life, so as to indicate supremacy. As to the substantial observance of the latter practice modern travelers differ, although it would seem that symbolically it is still maintained.[281]
A curious exhibition takes place on Whitsunday in the Petersburg summer garden, called ”The Bride's Fair.” All the marriageable daughters of the Russian tradesmen turn out on that day for a promenade. The young men, in their best attire, come forth to view them. The brides expectant do not limit their display to their charms, but second them by attractions of a more substantial character, adorning themselves with trinkets, jewels, or even now and then with silver tea-spoons, plate, and other valuables useful in housekeeping. This has been inveighed against as indicative of the prevalent indelicacy of the Russians, a sort of bride-market. Is it more reprehensible than many customs nearer home? It is now, however, falling into disuse.
The conjugal relations of the Russian n.o.bility were extremely loose and indefensible during the time when vice was fas.h.i.+on, and virtue in a courtier would have been deemed condemnation of the higher powers. Then, and even down to the reign of the Emperor Nicholas, marriage was simply an affair of convenience--the husband living at Moscow or St. Petersburg, the wife in Paris or Italy; such separations frequently lasting for years.[282]
The Foundling Hospital at St. Petersburg, the _Wospitatelnoi Dom_, is the most magnificent foundation of the kind in Europe, and it pleases the authorities to give information upon its features. The endowments are enormous, owing to the munificence of successive sovereigns, who have made it a kind of state caprice. The annual expenditure exceeds five millions two hundred thousand rubles.[283] The number of children in this inst.i.tution is commensurate with its wealth. Upward of twenty-five thousand are constantly enrolled on its books.
The lodge is open day and night for the reception of infants. The daily average of children brought is about twenty. The only question asked is if the child has been baptized, and by what name. If not baptized, the ceremony is performed by a priest of the Greek Church. At the time of leaving, the mother receives a ticket, the duplicate of which is placed around the child's neck. The mortality which takes place among these helpless victims of sin and misfortune is enormous. Some die in the lodge when just received; more perish during the tedious ceremonies of their baptism, which last several hours. The total number of deaths among children in the asylum and those out at nurse is probably three thousand per annum, or about one in four of the whole number committed to its charge.[284]
The children are given in care of wet nurses for about six weeks, when they are sent into the country until six years old. They are then brought back to the inst.i.tution and educated in a superior manner; the girls being qualified as governesses in Russian families, and the boys as artisans in the imperial manufactories. In cases of special capacity, they receive a scientific or musical education.
An incident which is said to have occurred at this inst.i.tution has gone the rounds of the press. The story is, that one of the young women having given birth to an infant, and the delinquent not being discovered, the Emperor Nicholas heard of the occurrence, and made a visit of inspection.
Having summoned the pupils before him, he demanded to know the guilty one, adding that, if she came forward, she should be pardoned. No one obeyed the invitation, and he was going away, with threats of disgracing the whole body, when one girl, to save her companions, came forward, threw herself at his feet, and confessed her fault. Nicholas kicked her out of the way, exclaiming that it was too late.[285]
A Lying-in Hospital is one of the appendages of this establishment.
Pregnant women may enter there four weeks before their confinement, and the strictest secrecy is maintained as to their name and character. Even the omnipotent Czar respects the privileges of the place.
The inst.i.tution at Moscow is on a similarly gigantic scale, and is managed after the same fas.h.i.+on.
The empress is the mother of the foundlings, which, be it observed, are mostly the children of such as can not or do not desire to keep their offspring. Free access, on appointed days, is permitted to the parents of the children; and, under special circ.u.mstances, the empress will permit a child to be removed from the inst.i.tution, if the parents prove their means and disposition to support it properly.
Kohl, who gives us particular, and even minute accounts of the management and arrangement of the public hospitals, makes no mention whatever of the syphilitic wards. The high system of efficiency in which the military infirmaries are maintained might have encouraged a hope for more detailed information on this subject.
CHAPTER XXII.
SWEDEN AND NORWAY.
Comparative Morality.--Illegitimacy.--Profligacy in Stockholm.-- Infanticide.--Foundling Hospitals.--Stora Barnhordst.--Laws against Prost.i.tution.--Toleration.--Government Brothels.--Syphilis.--Marriage in Norway.
The ancient Scandinavian peninsula, land of the Scald and the Rune, with its Vikings and Beisckers, has sent down to us many a legend of war and conquest, but few of social manners or moral relations. The high esteem in which the ancient Germans held their women, and the affinity of laws and customs between the Nors.e.m.e.n and the Teutons, justify us in believing that the blue-eyed maids of the Scandinavian heroes were as much respected for virtue as beloved for beauty. The eternal virgins in the Walhalla of Western mythology were not a.s.sociated with the grosser pleasures with which the impure fancy of the Koran invested the houris of the Mohammedan Paradise; and the Nors.e.m.e.n, through their posterity, the Normans, introduced, among the other amenities of chivalry, that prominent obligation of true knighthood, ”_devoir aux dames_,” perhaps not the least humanizing incident of the inst.i.tution.
Pa.s.sing, by a long stride, at once to modern times, we find in the joint kingdom of Sweden and Norway two territories as distinct in their social condition as they are in their geographical divisions. Norway has always been remarkable for a simple and hardy population of fishermen and small farmers, elements in the highest degree favorable to virtue and independence, and their poverty and isolation from the continental interests of Europe have exempted them from politics and war. Sweden, on the other hand, though not much wealthier as a nation, has had an hereditary n.o.bility, and the ambition and ability of some of her monarchs, especially of the great Gustavus, caused her to play a part in history wholly disproportionate to her territorial importance. If, however, the historical significance of Sweden be somewhat greater than that of the less pretentious sister kingdom, statistics do not accord to the former the same estimation, in point of morals, as they concede to the latter.