"Duszą Narodu polskiego jest pielgrzymstwo polskie" (THE SPIRIT OF THE POLISH PEOPLE IS POLISH PILGRIMAGE)

The Kingdom of Poland, a failed tentative of union between Russia and Poland.

Польское Королевство: не успешная попытка соединения полши и России

Il Regno di Polonia:un tentativo non riuscito di unione fra Russia e Polonia

 Le Royaume de Pologne: une tentative non réussie d'union entre Russie et Pologne

 Koenigreich Polen:  erfolgloser Versuch  von Union zwischen Russland und Polen.

Another question which was, and still is, common to Poland and Russia is the “Polish Question”, which rendered, at that time, and still renders, bitter and bitter the relationships between Russia and the rest of Europe. At the beginning, the first partition of Poland had not caused any important cultural reactions, either in Poland itself, nor abroad. In fact, in the middle of XVIII Century, there was nowhere a strong national feeling, and, in particular, Poland had never been a strong centralized kingdom. On the contrary, it had evolved, during the last two centuries, into a loose confederation of a myriad of feudal lords, which was governed by an elective King (usually a Swede, a Hungarian or a German), and, in the last period, was under the alternate influence of Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Three Partitions involved all the three monarchs.

In the meantime, during the XVIII Century, from one side, both the idea of nationhood, and the one of liberalism,  had started becoming more sensitive, also in Poland, and, from another point of view, it resulted clearer that, with the partition, the foreign influences, which had been important also before, were reaching a level which was no more tolerable, at least for little aristocracy (“Szlachta”), which was not connected with the foreign kingdoms like higher aristocrats.

This had led to a subdivision of the aristocracy (which remained the leading social force in Poland), into two “fields”: from one side, the “Whites”, around the great aristocrats, like Poniatowski and Czartoryski, which accepted a certain extent of influence of Russia, and, from the other side, the “Reds”(like Kosciuszko and Mickiewicz) which included mostly the small aristocracy and the bourgeois, which were contrary to any accommodation with the occupation powers, and opposed themselves militarily.It is worthwile noting that the distinction between “Reds” and “Whites” survived the Polish Independence Wars, and transferred itself to the Russian Civil War.

The accession of the Polish politician Czartoryski, after violent struggles, to the role of Foreign Minister of Russia had arisen the hope that a new, “liberal” policy of Alexander 1^st would have found, via Czartoryski, a solution satisfying all the Poles.

Czartoryski, consistent with the general vision, shared with Alexander 1^st, of Europe after the Vienna Congress, where a place would have been left to the “Europe of the Peoples”, worked out the idea of a constitution of the Polish Kingdom within the Russian Empire, alongside the “Konstytucja Trzeciego Maja” and the Finnish “Constitution”, as well as the one of the Duchy of Poland established by Napoleon between 1807 and 1813. .

The furtherance of the “constitutional experiment” in Poland and Finland, if successful, could have become an anticipation of an alternative “reformist”, path to the creation of a “Europe of the Peoples”, by gradually granting autonomy to the territories of the Russia, German, Austrian and Ottoman Empires (and, why not, of other large European States), without the need of two centuries of uninterrupted wars and revolutions.

However, the solution was not accepted by the Poles; Poland insurged, and Czartoryski himself, after having become the Prime Minister of the insurged Poland, was condemned to death, fled from Poland andcontinued to keep alive from Paris the conservative Polish opposition, whilst Lelewel headed the progressive opposition from Brussels.

LES SOIREES DE ST.PETERSBOURG

The De Maistre, a Russian-Savoyan Family

де Местр: русско-Савойская семья

I De Maistre: una famiglia russo-savoiarda

Les  De Maistre: une famille russo-savoisienne

Die De Maistre: eine russisch-savoische Familie

One of the most impressing achievements of Russia’s successes in Napoleon’s war was the fact that St. Petersburg had become one of the most important intellectual centers of Europe, also because it became the target of different groups, most of them thinkers, as well as Freemasons, of aristocrats fleeing from the Revolution’s and Napoleon persecutions.

A family, which well symbolizes this “Golden Age” of St. Petersburg, is the De Maistre Family, whose statues are in front of the Castle of Chambéry, in France,the  former capital city of the Duchy of Savoy and the native city of the two brothers.

Joseph et Xavier De Maistre were the sons of the higher magistrate of the Duchy of Savoy, the original cradle of the Dynasty, which, at the time of the French Revolution, was governed by local magistrates on behalf of the King of Sardinia, residing in Torino.

Savoy was, already at that time, a country of French culture, in the same way as other territories of the Kingdom of Sardinia, such as the County of Nice and the Duchy of Aosta.

As many other European aristocrats, Joseph de Maistre had embraced Freemasonry, which, according to him, would have offered a purer way of understanding religion, as well as a way for fighting against the moral degeneration of the ruling classes, which characterized the last period of the Ancien Régime (as testified by famous masterpieces, like “Les Liaisons Dangéreuses” of Choderlos de Laclos). In fact, it results that one of the main objectives of famous revolutionaries, such as Robespierre, was, precisely, as it had been for Puritans, the one of hinging back Religion to its originary purity, as well as to fight public immorality.

However, the path followed by Joseph de Maistre was different from the one followed by French revolutionaries. Similar to what happened to most of the “Enlightened Monarchs”, such as Catherine 2^nd and Joseph 2^nd, and to Goethe, when the French Revolution came up, he gave up his belonging in Freemasonry and in Enlightenment, and fled, from the native Savoy, into the core of Sardinia’s Kingdom.

He also moved his core interests, from the urgency of a purification of religion and customs, into a reflection on French Revolution, which, according to him, fulfilled, to a certain extent, his wishes of purification, in the sense that it constituted the long-due punishment of France, of its Kingdom and of its aristocracy for their guilts. Notwithstanding the above positive impact, the Revolution lacked, for De Maistre, a constructive character. According to him, the deep-rooted nature of humankind is well expressed by the Catholic idea of original sin. No social revolution may change this fact, so that a sound society may be grounded only upon a realistic and pessimistic notion of mankind, on the necessity of  the alliance Throne and Altar as a discipline needed for minimizing Evil. In conclusion, the French Revolution has been a purification of the past sins, imposed by the Divine Providence. It will allow the Church and the Kingdom to stand up stronger than before. For this reason, no use withstanding Revolution using its own methods: and, this, not only because, according to De Maistre, traditional institutions must show themselves morally superior to the ones of Revolution, but also because Revolution, having been decided by God, is, to a certain extent, irreversible. t can just be overcome, not destroyed. Finally, the end of Ancien Régime has also another positive aspect, the elimination of the pretention by the Monarchs, to achieve a “sovereign” power, whilst, according to him, the only real “sovereign” power belongs to the Pope. So, at the end of the day, De Maistre is not a reactionary, but, on the contrary, the forebear of conservatives like Tocqueville.I

Following to the important role of Marshal Suvorov in fight against Napoleon in Piedmont, Joseph de Maistre establishes a link with Russia, which, according to him, might fulfill, after France, a providential task within Europe’s history: the one to save Europe from himself (i.e., from the corruption of the Ancien Régime and the fanatism of Revolution). An idea which will be shared by many authors, the most famous being Dostojevskij. In the meantime, an opposite, but parallel,  attitude was rising in liberal and progressive circles. For instance, Heinrich Heine expressed the hope that the Revolution, defeated in the West, could take place in Russia (an idea which, it goes without saying, would have received a large support).

So, Joseph de Maistre transferred his family (including his brother Xavier) at its own change, to St. Petersburg, where it represented, on a voluntary basis, the Kingdom of Sardinia, which, at that time, had been reduced, by Napoleon’s conquests, to the sole island of Sardinia, and that, therefore, could not afford the expenses of a full-fledged Embassy in Russia.

The long years of stay in St. Petersburg were very fruitful, from a cultural point of view, for both De Maistre brothers. Joseph entered into the very complex and sophisticated political and cultural environment of the Emperor, dominated by Cazrtoryski, Novosiltzev and Baroness von Krüdener. However, his policy was conflictual with the one of the Tsar, especially because he tried to push the Tsar and the Russian aristocracy to embrace on his own positions, including a tentative to convert the Tsar himself, or, at least, many important aristocrats, to the Catholic Church. This tentative was in line, but also in competition, with peaceful efforts  undertaken  by German protestant sects, and, in particular, by Baroness von Krüdener.

The Tsar did not appreciate this very personal and very passionated way to interpret his ambassador’s role, and asked the King of Sardinia to call back De Maistre to Sardinia’s capital, Torino. Indeed, De Maistre was very critical of the Tsar’s position, affirming that: «Russia could have done very much for Europe, but it does not do anything».

De Maistre criticized especially the trend towards Protestantism, which, according to him, had found its expression in the Manifesto of the Holy Alliance, which was, in practice, an alliance between Orthodox and Protestant powers; according to De Maistre, Russia, having refused to reunite with Catholicism, was preparing a new revolution. From his point of view, De Maistre was undoubtedly right, since the cultural basis of the Holy Alliance were the philosophy of Saint Martin (to which De Maistre adhered during his “Masonic” period), the Baroness von Krüdener (a protestant mystic, living at Alexander’s Court), Franz von Baader and Jung-Stilling (seeVon Baader’s “Über das durch die Französische Revolution herbeigeführte Bedürfniss einer neueren und innigen Verbindung der Religion mit der Politik“, which Von Baader composed in 1814 and sent to the King of Prussia and to the Emperors of Austria and Russia).

According to Jung-Stilling, the French Revolution precedes immediately the Advent of Antichrist. Whilst the Antichrist proceeded from East to West, true believers should have proceeded the opposite way, towards Russia. Under the influence of von Krüdener and Jung-Stilling, thousands of “awakened” flocked to Crimea.

In the meantime, De Maistre had written “Les Soirée de St. Petersbourg”, one of the masterpieces of philosophical literature in French, which, whilst expressing in a classical form his philosophical and theological points of view, constitutes also a vibrant celebration of St. Petersburg as a crucial cultural center of Europe during the first half of the XIX Century, and an act of personal nostalgy for the City.

Eventually, De Maistre was also, for a short period, Prime Minister of the Sardinian Kingdom, and Governor of the Island of Sardinia, implementing, in these roles, the theories he had worked out, about the needlessness, for Counter-revolution, to follow the violent and intolerant paths typical for revolutions. In fact, he opposed to persecuting the many Piemontese aristocrats which, under the Napoleonian occupation, had collaborated with the French, so betraying Sardinia. Moreover, De Maistre, contrary to what could be imagined, was a forebear of the theories of the Piemontese Historical Right, that catholic-liberal élite which imposed to the country Italian unification under a constitutional monarchy.

De Maistre’s work is described, in the manuals of history, together with the ones of Bonald and of Burke, as the basis for the counter-revolutionary thought of Restauration. This is truly the case. However, the main interest for such works today does not reside in their aspect of critics towards liberalism, but, on the contrary, especially in the one that, by trying to overcome the culture of the Revolution, these authors anticipated philosophies and ideas of later thinkers, which, at their turn, have deeply influenced today’s society. So, whilst Burke anticipated Dirk Russel’s ideas about the opposition between the American and the French Revolutions, and Bonald the ones of socialist utopic revolutionaries, De Maistre’s stress on a supposed pre-existing harmony of Ancien Régime, axed on the character of the Pope, anticipated St. Simon’s and Comte’s ideas of an “organic society”, whereby such society would have been governed, no more, by Throne and Altar, but by Science and Management.

Le Soirées de Saint Petersbourg was published in Paris before De Maistre’s death.

Joseph’s brother, Xavier, was also an intellectual deeply involved in the anti-Napoleonic struggle. His main profession was to be an officer. He served in the Sardinian Army as long as Sardinia resisted Napoleon. Afterward, he entered the Russian Army and fought in the Caucasus against Cechens. The military adventures of Xavier de Maistre allowed him to realize some of the most famous works of French Romanticism, such as “L’histoire du Lépreux de la Ville d’Aoste”, which he wrote during the retreat of the Sardinian Army, defeated by Napoleon, from Savoy to the Aosta Valley, as well as “Voyage autour de ma chambre”, and  “Le prisonnier du Caucase”, devoted to Chechnya, which anticipates several works of Russian authors, including  Tolstoj, on the same subject.

The history of the De Maistre brothers, Savoyan, Piedmontese and Sardinian officials, politicians and intellectuals in Russia, shows how deeply Western Europe and Russia have been interconnected in that period of their history.

THE EUROPE OF THE PEOPLES

The "Russian" Version of the Holy Alliance
"Русская" версия Священного Союза
La "versione russa" della Santa Alleanza
La "version Russe" de la Sainte Alliance
Die "russische Version" der Heiligen Allianz

For all the above reason, Russia was able to play a decisive role over the shape of the Holy Alliance, albeit its specific points of view were not taken into the hoped account. In particular, according to the secret instructions conferred, by the Tsar , on Novosiltsev, the political form of Europe should have been transformed deeply, from the one side, for accommodating the national ambitions of the peoples of Europe, and, from the other side, following a bit the scheme of the famous projects for the reform of Europe, which had been worked out, over the centuries, by Podĕbrad, De Sully, Crucé, St. Pierre, Rousseau, Kant, Novalis and others, whereby the European Kings should have stipulated a “Peacefully Pact” (Fœdus Pacificum) for avoiding wars and for protecting Christendom. In this sense, the Russian project defined Europe as “the Christian Nation”, and “Europe of the Peoples”T he document is of great interest, as in it we find formulated for the first time in an official dispatch the ideals of international policy which were to play so conspicuous a part in the affairs of the world at the close of the revolutionary epoch, and issued at the end of the 19th century in the Rescript of  Nicolas II and the conference of the Hague. Alexander argued that the outcome of the war was not to be only the liberation of France, but the universal triumph of "the sacred rights of Humanity". To attain this it would be necessary "after having attached the  tonations their government by making these incapable of acting save in the greatest interests of their subjects, to fix the relations of the states amongst each other on more precise rules, and such as it is to their interest to respect."

A general treaty was to become the basis of the relations of the states forming "the European Confederation"; and this, though "it was no question of realising the dream of universal peace, would attain some of its results if, at the conclusion of the general war, it were possible to establish on clear principles the prescriptions of the rights of nations." "Why could not one submit to it", the Tsar continued, "the positive rights of nations, assure the privilege of neutrality, insert the obligation of never beginning war until all the resources which the mediation of a third party could offer have been exhausted, having by this means brought to light the respective grievances, and tried to remove them? It is on such principles as these that one could proceed to a general pacification, and give birth to a league of which the stipulations would form, so to speak, a new code of the law of nations, which, sanctioned by the greater part of the nations of Europe, would without difficulty become the immutable rule of the cabinets, while those who should try to infringe it would risk bringing upon themselves the forces of the new union."

As it is well-known, such ambitions were nullified by the resistance, to the Russian proposals, of the other main negotiators of the Vienna Treat, which refused to sign the general text of the Holy Alliance, which was not a legal text, but a political manifesto of a conservative project for a new “European Concert” inspired by the Enlightened Conservatism and by a form of Christian Ecumenism alongside the ideas of Novalis. Nevertheless, Alexander 1^st ordered that this document was read officially at least once a year in all Churches of the Empire.

Because of all of these initiatives, Alexander !st was the only soverain after Charlemagne to be called "the Empèeror of the Europeans"

Some of the ideas of this text of the “Holy Alliance” were taken over, unexpectedly, by West European politicians such as Mazzini and Gioberti, who continued the ideas of a “Europe of the Peoples”, and, respectively, of an Italian  federation presided by the Pope. Surely, Mazzini, and even Rosmini and Gioberti, who were considered, in their times, very “progressive” people, would not have appreciated this analogy. Nevertheless, it appears self-evident when reading secret instructions to Novosiltev and of the works of the two Italian politicians and thinkers.

For all the above reason, Russia was able to play a decisive role over the shape of the Holy Alliance, albeit its specific points of view were not taken into the hoped account. In particular, according to the secret instructions conferred, by the Tsar , on Novosiltsev, the political form of Europe should have been transformed deeply, from the one side, for accommodating the national ambitions of the peoples of Europe, and, from the other side, following a bit the scheme of the famous projects for the reform of Europe, which had been worked out, over the centuries, by Podĕbrad, De Sully, Crucé, St. Pierre, Rousseau, Kant, Novalis and others, whereby the European Kings should have stipulated a “Peacefully Pact” (Fœdus Pacificum) for avoiding wars and for protecting Christendom. In this sense, the Russian project defined Europe as “the Christian Nation”, and “Europe of the Peoples”T he document is of great interest, as in it we find formulated for the first time in an official dispatch the ideals of international policy which were to play so conspicuous a part in the affairs of the world at the close of the revolutionary epoch, and issued at the end of the 19th century in the Rescript of Nicholas II and the conference of the Hague. Alexander argued that the outcome of the war was not to be only the liberation of France, but the universal triumph of "the sacred rights of humanity". To attain this it would be necessary "after having attached the nations to their government by making these incapable of acting save in the greatest interests of their subjects, to fix the relations of the states amongst each other on more precise rules, and such as it is to their interest to respect."

A general treaty was to become the basis of the relations of the states forming "the European Confederation"; and this, though "it was no question of realising the dream of universal peace, would attain some of its results if, at the conclusion of the general war, it were possible to establish on clear principles the prescriptions of the rights of nations." "Why could not one submit to it", the Tsar continued, "the positive rights of nations, assure the privilege of neutrality, insert the obligation of never beginning war until all the resources which the mediation of a third party could offer have been exhausted, having by this means brought to light the respective grievances, and tried to remove them? It is on such principles as these that one could proceed to a general pacification, and give birth to a league of which the stipulations would form, so to speak, a new code of the law of nations, which, sanctioned by the greater part of the nations of Europe, would without difficulty become the immutable rule of the cabinets, while those who should try to infringe it would risk bringing upon themselves the forces of the new union."

As it is well-known, such ambitions were nullified by the resistance, to the Russian proposals, of the other main negotiators of the Vienna Treat, which refused to sign the general text of the Holy Alliance, which was not a legal text, but a political manifesto of a conservative project for a new “European Concert” inspired by the Enlightened Conservatism and by a form of Christian Ecumenism alongside the ideas of Novalis. Nevertheless, Alexander 1^st ordered that this document was read officially at least once a year in all Churches of the Empire.

Moreover, some of the ideas of this text of the “Holy Alliance” were taken over, unexpectedly, by West European politicians such as Mazzini and Gioberti, who continued the ideas of a “Europe of the Peoples”, and, respectively, of an Italian federation presided by the Pope. Surely, Mazzini, and even Gioberti, who were considered, in their times, very “progressive” people, would not have appreciated this analogy. Nevertheless, it appears self-evident when reading secret instructions to Novosiltev and of the works of the two Italian politicians and thinkers.

A "EUROPEAN CONFEDERATION”: A LEGACY OF ALEXANDER Ist

The Emperor of the Europeans 

Царь  европейцев

L'imperatore degli Europei

L'empereur des Européens

Der Kaiser der Europaeer

Notwithstanding the change of Catherine’s mood towards Reforms after American and French Revolution, the relationships of the Russian Empire towards France and Napoleon was never completely negative.

The Czar Alexander 1^st was a follower of Freemasonry. During the first part of his reign, he was considered as favorable to reforms, and, by the Tilsit Treaty, he tried even to reach an agreement with Napoleon. However, the decision, by the latter, to invade Russia, left to him no other choice  than war. He was surrounded, from one side, by Freemason intellectuals of the most different orientations, and, from the other, by middle-of-the-way liberal reformers, such as Czartorysky and Novosiltsev, with whom he entertained complex relationships. In particular, Czartorysky, who had been active in the last struggles in Poland before the Third Partition, but who was a personal friend of the Tsar, had worked out, with the consent of the Emperor, a project, which merged the experiences of some pre-revolutionary constitutions, like the Polish “Konstytucja Trzeciego Maja” (which had the approval of Rousseau) and the final act of the Finnish Estactes of Borgå, with the project of Catherine II for a new Russian Legislation, so envisaging to introduce into Poland and into Finland some limited reforms, as an example to be followed lateron  in other parties of the Empire (it would have been the first occasion for utilizing the term “Finlandisation”).

One has to recall that the Finnish-Swedish aristocracy had even fought a war against the Napoleonic Swedish for maintaining its “Constitution”. On the contrary, the Polish Constitution of 1815, which referred to the Old Constitution of 1791, was not accepted by mainstream Poland, since it reflected just the ideas of the higher aristocrats.

For Russia, the Napoleonic invasion in 1812 resulted in a unique experience, which deeply influenced its perception of the world. It had, on the self-consciousness of Russians, an impact similar to the one had in other countries of Europe (such as, e.g., Spain, Italy and Germany), i.e., the raising of the national feelings. However, this feelings were different in scope. In first instance, the special scope of Russia emerged from the fact itself that it was Russia, and Russia alone, which, with its resistance to Napoleon’s invasion, determined the fall of the latter. It was precisely the disbanding catastrophe followed to the invasion of Russia the reason why the French Army was no more in a position to overcome its European foes.

It is true, the invasion of Russia from the West had never succeeded, as experiences by the Poled and by the Swedes. However, after the invasion of Napoleon, this invincibility of Russia was put under the eyes of everybody in Europe. This was sufficient to give Russia a special standing. But this was not enough. In fact, Russian troops had proven to be very effective all over Europe. An example for all: already in 1796, Suvorov had been able to defeat Napoleon in Piedmont, to conquer Torino and to recall the King of Sardinia (who, however, declined his invitation). Especially, Suvorov, himself a typical “national-popular” military leader, outbalanced Napoleon also in his policy of aggregating, under “Austro-Russian” flags, the Italian national voluntaries, as well as counter-revolutionary guerrilla. In this sense, even if this role has never been recognized, he contributed, at least as much as Napoleon, to anticipate the birth of Italian nationalism, in the same way as this happened with the other ant-Napoleon military movements in Germany, Austria and Spain. Moreover, Suvorov conducted an extraordinary campaign in Switzerland, for which he was designed as “The Generalissimo”.

At the end of the war, Russia’s armies were present even in France, and Russia was in a position to influence heavily the overall results of the Congress of Vienna.

Thirdly, the Russian Empire was a multinational entity, which could avail itself of the far-reaching experience of people like Czartorysky, who had been an active part in the political life of another big country, like Poland, where the newest reform trends were hardly debated and had found a first concrete step in the “Konstytucja Treciego Maja”.

Finally, the liberation war against Napoleon, which was called “The Patriotic War”, allowed also Russia to forge its own nationalism.

During the XVIII Century, the original identity of the Muscovite State, which had been imprinted by the religious heritage of the “Third Rome”, had been profoundly shaken. The rationalist attitude, as well as the foreign nationality, of some monarchs (like Catherine II), together with the huge influence of Polish, German, Swedish and Tatar aristocrats, as well as of Italian, French, English and Scandinavian artists, architects and officials (who all spoke, among them, in French), had distanced the Court and the aristocracy from common people. By the way, it has to be remembered that personal serfdom was not a traditional Slavonic, or Russian, institution; on the contrary, it was consolidated precisely during the Catherine period, with something which can recall the idea of slave labor in the Americas and in the other European colonies worldwide of the same period. And, in fact, the revolts of Razin and Pugačiov recall, under many points of view, the contemporary anti-colonial revolts, such as the one of Tupac Amaru in Southern America, as well as the peasant revolts in the Austrian Galicia. On the contrary, the fact that, during the Napoleon wars, the aristocratic officials class had fought, side to side, together with peasants, for the defense of fatherland, had diffused a completely new mood. Intellectuals were encouraged to look for the “national soul” of the Russian people, alongside the ideals of Romanticism. This event raised, at the same time, the social consciousness of many aristocrats, like Prince Volkonskij, or the Decabrists, and the utilization of national language instead of French.

The growing importance of the peoples rendered it impossible to impeach also all the infinite other ethnic entities of the Empire (starting from Poles and Finns, but going down to Caucasians and to Lithuanians, up to Ukrainians and to Jews) to vindicate their respective nationalities, languages and identities, as well as an increased role for lower classes. It is the moment when Kalevala were written by Lömroeth and Pan Tadeusz and Dziady by Mickiewicz, and, and when Hadzi Muhammad and Chamil raised the Daghestanian and Chechnyan revolts.