The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-06-04

Of a sexual 'perversity amounting to mania
however ia scarcely reconcilable with the
singular sobriety and sanity which, In all
respects except In her relations with her
lovers. characterized her condrct. Appar-
emily the poet Pope, who in his way was
psych ologist, would have pronounced her
normal: for in some familiar lines he seems
to have foreehadowed, as typical, her
subjugation by two master cravings:
In men we various ruling passions and;
In women, two almost divide the kind;
Those only, n1ed. they first or last obey.
The love Of pleasure and the love OF sway
Our author recalls that Mason. In MS
"Memoiree Secrets makes a remark OF
similar import when he says OF Cathe-
rine: "She had two passions which only
degehe rated into Nbertinage, and her love
Of glory, which degenerated into vanity
Other students OF her career have found
It hard to make GATHERINGS behavior
with regard to favorites harmonic with her
general character. NJ. Walszeuski. after
stating that her shameless sensuality seems
an isolated phenomenon, unconnected with
the rest OF her temperam ent, proceeds TO
say that this is 40 perhaps only in appearance
and that there may be psychological
intellectual culture Of one who loved to
call herself pupil of voltaire. He sees in
the Empress Of the North constant lofty
cynicism, not to be explained merely on the
ground Of physiological anomaly.
Our author for his part observes that
there was in GATHERINGS attitude toward
the institution Of favoritism a constant dis
position to treat it ss a matter Of COURSE
aho f, II in hor writin abe
neither particularly defends nor yet blamee
herself. -She seems says Mr.. Sergeant,
.from the beginning to have been nom
moral in her point Of view on the question.
Her Judgment, or rather absence of judg-
ment, on herself, in her own memoirs,
though these were written at a distance
from the events which they describe, Is in
strict keeping with her actions therein
portrayed Her mental attitude remained
consistent; though, as she advanced in life,
she grew less restrained. Our author
does not concur, however, with M. Jauffert
in imputing to Potemkin called in this
book Patiomkin) the oorrupting influence.
1t appears that this writer, after attributing
to Gregory Orlof a loyal character, elevated
spirit and devoted affection, which en-
ged in Catherine q certain reserve,
makes Potemkin responsible for her de-
terioration, by Intoxicating her with
| incense, surro unding her with lies, and.
| by his perverse genius. malignity and
depravity sleeping her Court in intrigues
and coarse pleasures. Mr.. Sergeant con-
| cedes that Potemkin Exercised no moral
restraint on Catherine-no more, in fact,
| than Orlof,' but he holds that she was her
own corrupter, and her conduct grew worse
| by it's own influence. She might we'll
have applied to herself that favorite max
| i'm Of Casanov va Memo l9ditur nisi q sc ipso
one can only be self -debauched.
The curious and at first sight contradic-
| tory fact is brought out in the book before
| us that with all GATHERINGS disregard OF
| general notions Of propriety in her system
| Of favoritism there went certain severity
| on moral questions. 1t was we'll known
| at her court that no scandalous or licentious
| talk, no attacks on morals or religion, could
| find favor with the Empress. The Comte
| de Segur even annoyed her once by reciting
| some verses which he confesses to have been
| a little free, though they had been well
received by virtuous and amiable ladies
| in Paris. After mentioning what might
seem to some an anomaly. Segur quotes
! a remark made by his brother on the con-
| trast between the indulgence permitted by
| chaste women and the apparent severity
| OF those who are less perfect: where
virtue reigns a show OF nice decorum is;
superb nous
| There is unanimous testimony that the
behavior of Catherine toward those whom
| she had elevated to the post Of favorite
was the most generous possible. We are
not here referring only to the way in which
| she heaped gifts on the men Of her choice.
| but to the forbearanoe and magnanimity
with which, when they had offended her
by infidelity- though she dismissed them
she did 80 with fresh gifts and without any
marks of anger. Segur was impelled by
her treatment of Mamonof, after the latter's
unfaithfulness, to write: When Catherine
il drawn her weaknesses are the shadows
of the picture, but at least they leave
the generosity Of her character undarkened
Few women invested with absolute power
would have shown so much moderation
when they saw their sentiments betrayed
and their sef-ove wounded" Mason,
when he considers Catherine's gentleness,
| is moved to remark how far removed Is her
conduct from that Of Elizabeth OF Eng
land. whom he accuses OF cutting off
the heads of her favorites and her rivals.
| Mr.. Sergeant, for his part cheerfully adj
mits that from this point of view GATHERINGS
behavior was far better than was that Of
the daughter of Henry VIII. But he notes
that Sainte- Beuve, with characteristic
casuistry, when he also contrasts Catherine
with Elizabeth and Christina OF Sweden.
holds that the formers practise Of heaping
gifts on the discarded lover rather than
assassinating him really told against her
since 1t showed openly how great was her
soorn Of men and nations. Discarded
lovers would hardly be expected to take
Sainte- Beuve's view Of the matter.
Our author, for his part, would not deny
that Catherine exhibited measure Of
cynicism with regard to public opinion.
He contends, however. that the changes
made by her in the post Of favorite do not
indicate a contempt FOR the ocoupiers Of
the post. but that hei tendency lay all in
the opposite direction. She always looked
at the romantic side OF every map-not
only Of her lovers but also OF all who served
her-and when her fancy was taken she
busted herself with investing the object
with the qualities which her brain told
her would alone justify her in comforting the
hoporo which she wa a wont to beStOw Mr.