X

INTRODUCTION

to support any such conclusion, and probably weshall not err greatly if we take it that the bookremained in MS. because the writer could not finda publisher.

Most of those who have studied the publishedhistories of Peter the Great, must have been struckby the almost unvarying omission of the authors toattach any permanent, or, indeed, considerable im-portance to his creation of a navy. It is only withinliterally the last few months that we have had itpublicly demonstrated 1 that it ‘ has profoundly in-fluenced the course of events.’ Historians, nodoubt, had dwelt upon Peter’s strong nautical tastesand nautical occupations. These lent themselvesmuch too easily to interesting narration to beentirely ignored ; but as to their real significanceand ultimate effect, historians have been strangelyinappreciative, or, at least, strangely silent. Yet,in addition to its ‘ profound influence on the courseof events,’ the establishment of an efficient navalforce is the one reform or innovation in which Peterthe Great’s originality of conception is indisputable.The belief that all the political and administrativeinstitutions, and much of the public sentiment, ofRussia owe their origin to Peter’s reforming energy,is not supported by authoritative records. We neednot go so far as Waliszewski, and maintain that allthat the great Tsar did was merely to put on old in-stitutions a veneer or thin outer coating of novelty—un travail de replatrage et de p lac age, il nest pas untravail nouveati —but we must admit that in hisquality of reformer Peter had several predecessors.

1 By Sir George Clarke. {Russia’s Sea-power. London : 1898.)