Page:The Great problems of British statesmanship.djvu/37

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
Great Problems of British Statesmanship
17

nople has loomed particularly large, and probably unduly large, on the political horizon. Apparently the strategical importance of Constantinople is at present generally over-estimated, because the last few generations, instead of studying critically and without prejudice the real importance of that town, have been mesmerised by the pronouncements of the great Corsican warrior, and have repeated his celebrated saying that Constantinople is 'the key of the world,' although it is nothing of the kind.

According to many popular historians, Russia has 'always' tried to wrest India from England and to make herself mistress of the world by seizing Constantinople. From some of the most serious historical books, and even from dry diplomatic documents, we learn that Russia's policy of seizing with Constantinople the dominion of the world was initiated by her greatest ruler, Peter the Great, who recommended that policy to his successors in his celebrated political testament. History, as Napoleon has told us, is a fable convenue. Napoleon himself has skilfully created a fable convenue around the town of Constantinople, and most of the mistaken views as to Russia's world-conquering aims have been engendered by that great genius who has mystified England during a whole century, and who has been responsible for a century of misunderstandings between England and Russia. It seems therefore timely and necessary to consider Russia's actions in the direction of Constantinople and of India by means of the most authoritative documents existing, the vast majority of which are not given in English books. They will be new to most British readers, and they may help in destroying a century-old legend which has served Napoleon's purpose of sowing enmity between Russia and this country.

The political testament of Peter the Great, which plays so great a part in historic and diplomatic literature, has, as far as I know, not been translated into English. There are several versions of that document. The following passages, which are taken from the combined versions given