Augusta; but, upon CATHERINE II. among the ATHERINE II., Empress of Russia, was a monarch, who doubtless has a claim to be ranked great sovereigns of Europe, according to the usual acceptation of the word greatness, wherein goodness is not reckoned a necessary ingredient. She was the daughter of. Christian Augustus, prince of AnhaltZerbst; was born May 2, 1729, and baptized Sophia her marriage with the Grand-duke of Russia, September 1, 1745, and admission into the Greek church, she assumed the name of Catherine. Her husband, Peter III., succeeded his aunt Elizabeth, January 5, 1762, but had not reigned six months, when he fell a sacrifice to his wife's ambition; being deposed on the 28th of June, and barbarously murdered on the 9th of July following, in the same shocking manner in which Edward II. of England perished. Upon the deposition of her unfortunate husband, Catherine II. was proclaimed Empress of all the Russias, and soon after endeavoured to conceal the crimes by which she ascended the throne, by the dazzling lustre of some of those actions, falsely called great, which have blotted the page of history with blood in all ages of the world, and have too long employed the pens of historians and poets, to record and to celebrate. Future historians will decide, whether the great exploits, displayed during her reign, are not more to be ascribed to the natural strength of the empire, the force of which it was her business to collect and concentrate, than to any superior personal genius which she possessed. As to the justice of these exploits, it need hardly be left to posterity to judge. Without entering into the merits of her claims upon the Turkish dominions, her invasion and partition of Poland, in conjunction with other powers, particularly the King of Prussia, affords as flagrant an instance of the violation of the rights of nations, by pen and unprovoked robbery and murder, as is to be found in the annals of the most barbarous savages. In short, the chief merit of Catherine, as a sovereign, seems to have lain, like that of Queen Elizabeth of England, in selecting able ministers, admirals, and generals, to carry on the operations she had planned. In this respect, even her vices as a woman, which gave her the ascendant of an imperious character over her favourites, exempt from the weakness of sentiment, supplied the place of public virtues; and banished from her government the degrading influence which courtiers elsewhere often exercise. She at last, however, allowed herself to be ruled by her freed man, Sabor, who deceived her with regard to the state of her forces, which did not amount to 200,000 men, though her military lists contained 400,000; and her long preparations for the field terminated in a disastrous war in Persia, by which two of her armies were consumed. If her policy in relation to Austria and Poland was attended with success, it is, perhaps, less to be ascribed to her interference, than to the good sense she displayed in allowing her ministers to govern. Yet this policy was overreached in her last war against the Turks, when, in spite of pompous promises, assisting Austria only with feeble succours, and suddenly finding her squadrons held bound by those of Sweden, she left to her rival all the advantages of many bloody campaigns; and excited in the Grand Signior a desire of vengeance. Nor were her plans of political aggrandisement free from fluctuations and contradictions. During the American war, one would have imagined that the trident of Neptune was, by her exertions, about to become the sacred symbol of liberty. She presented to the courts of Versailles, Madrid, and London, a memorial, in which she demanded that the commerce of all nations, even of the belligerent powers, should be free and respected. She proposed that a league should be formed for its support, and for this purpose deputed Prince Gallitzin to the General States. But, in 1793, she avowed principles directly opposite. Influenced solely by her rage against France, she announced war against that republic, without discussion, without manifesto, without even being able to allege, with regard to a state so remote from her territories, that barbarous maxim, which has slipped from the pen of Montesquieu himself:-"That the law of natural defence sometimes involves the necessity of attack, when a people sees, that a longer peace would enable another power to effect their destruction."-Esprit de Lois, 1. 10, c. 2. With all her foibles, however, Catherine had some right to the panegyrics of men of letters. She purchased the praises of several French philosophers, and she did not overlook the merits of some English authors, for instance the late Mr. Bruce, the distinguished traveller. After the example of some of the tyrants of antiquity, she renewed the singularity of royal and philosophic banquets. Like Dionysius, Pisistratus, Periander, and Hero, she collected Platos, Aristippi, Simonideses, and Pindars at her suppers. The imperial resentment, however, was sometimes excited; on which occasions the wit was rewarded with banishment; a premium which Diderot received for his frankness. The compliment she paid to the rhetorical merits of Mr. Fox, by commissioning his bust, and placing it between those of Cicero and Demosthenes in her library, for his having prevented the threatened rupture between Great Britain and Russia, reflects honour on her memory, as well as on that public-spirited orator. Her purchasing the libraries, letters, and papers of Messrs. Voltaire and D'Alembert, also evidenced her literary taste; unless, as a French writer suspects, she did it with a view to bury the relics of these great men. "But her refusal," he adds, "to give effect to the useful instructions collected under her orders, by the learned travellers of the Academy of St. Petersburg, under the direction of Pallas and Gmelin, proves clearly that the desire of a vain lustre, rather than the real utility of nations, was the motive of the protection she affected to give to artists and to men of letters." A life of Catherine II. was lately published at Paris, said to be written with a strict adherence to truth. The strongest feature it gives of her character is, her marked aversion to her son Paul, her successor. He owed his preservation to the public regard, and would have been sacrificed to the ambition of Prince Potemkin, if the deed could have been perpetrated with impunity. Prince Paul being one day indisposed, the people, who had not forgotten the tragical end of Peter III., surrounded the castle and desired to see him. The empress brought him forward, pale, trembling, and fearful for her own safety. "To this legitimate terror, inspired by the people, (says the French annotator,) they owe the existence of a prince, who wishes nothing more than the happiness of his subjects." This extraordinary woman died suddenly and unseen, in her water-closet, on the 17th of November, 1796, in the 67th year of her age. We shall conclude this memoir, with two sketches of her character, drawn by writers of very opposite opinions respecting her; leaving the reader to draw his own inference from the whole. The first is by M. De la Croix, who, speaking of Russia, says: "This mighty empire was grossly hewn out by Peter the Great. The rough form of this colossal figure was softened by Elizabeth; and it has received more of the human appearance from the able hand of Catherine II., who, by the instructions which she gave the commissioners, charged with preparing a new code of laws, has proved herself worthy of governing a great empire. She has done more for Russia by her equity and her beneficence than all her generals have done by their warlike virtues. It is of little advantage to so vast an empire to have its bounds extended. Its true welfare is more essentially promoted, by favouring population; by wise laws; by encouraging industry; by increasing its riches by commerce; by cultivating the arts, and reconciling them to a stubborn soil, ungenial to their nature; by meliorating the manners of a still savage race of nobles; and by communicating sensibility to a people, whom the roughness of their climate had rendered impenetrable to all the soft affections and social virtues of humanity. These are the works which already make the name of Catherine illustrious, and which will reflect so much glory on her memory."-The other is part of an address by an anonymous author, to the Czarina, which was inserted in most of our public papers a few years ago: "Base counterfeit of all that's mild and good! Still for new kingdoms struggling, dost thou brave Thy mad ambition wilt thou never curb, But still with wars the weary world disturb? T is curious, observes the venerable and ingenious Mr. William Hutton, in his account of the extraordinary subject of this article, " to observe Nature step out of the common road and enter the precincts of the marvellous. To march in her usual track excites no admiration; but when, in her wanton moods, she forms an O'Brien of eight feet, and a Boruwlaski of three, an admirable Crichton with every accomplishment, and a thousand other men with none, 'tis by these deviations that she raises astonishment." Thomas Topham, a man whose feats of strength might have figured beside those of Homer's heroes, was born in London about the year 1710. His father, who was a carpenter, brought him up to the same trade. Though his stature was not remarkable, being, at his full growth, five feet ten inches in height, yet he was endowed by nature with muscular powers so extraordinary as to exceed any thing of the kind on record. He followed the trade of his father until he had attained the age of twenty-four years, when he exchanged it for the less laborious employment of a publican. That Topham was fond of athletic exercises, and that the practice of them contributed to give him that superior strength for which he was so remarkable, can scarcely be doubted; for we find that the house ་་ |