This curious type of public worker—­a mixture of the mystical and the practical—­was the terror of the Vienna delegates.  He put spokes in everybody’s wheel, behaved as the autocrat of the Congress and felt as self-complacent as a saint.  Countess von Thurheim wrote of him:  “He mistrusted his environment and let himself be led by others.  But he was thoroughly good and high-minded and sought after the weal, not merely of his own country, but of the whole world. Son coeur eut embrasse le bonheur du monde.”  He realized in himself the dreams of the philosophers about love for mankind, but their Utopias of human happiness were based upon the perfection both of subjects and of princes, and, as Alexander could fulfil only one-half of these conditions, his work remained unfinished and the poor Emperor died, a victim of his high-minded illusions.[5]

The other personages, Metternich in particular, were greatly put out by Alexander’s presence.  They labeled him a marplot who could not and would not enter into the spirit of their game, but they dared not offend him.  Without his brave troops they could not have been victorious and they did not know how soon they might need him again, for he represented a numerous and powerful people whose economic and military resources promised it in time the hegemony of the world.  So, while they heartily disliked the chief of this new great country, they also feared and, therefore, humored him.  They all felt that the enemy, although defeated and humbled, was not, perhaps, permanently disabled, and might, at any moment, rise, phoenix-like and soar aloft again.  The great visionary was therefore feted and lauded and raised to a dizzy pedestal by men who, in their hearts, set him down as a crank.  His words were reverently repeated and his smiles recorded and remembered.  Hardly any one had the bad taste to remark that even this millennial philosopher in the statesman’s armchair left unsightly flaws in his system for the welfare of man.  Thus, while favoring equality generally, he obstinately refused to concede it to one race, in fact, he would not hear of common fairness being meted out to that race.  It was the Polish people which was treated thus at the Vienna Congress, and, owing to him, Poland’s just claims were ignored, her indefeasible rights were violated, and the work of the peace-makers was botched....

Happily, optimists said, the Paris Conference was organized on a wholly different basis.  Its members considered themselves mere servants of the public—­stewards, who had to render an account of their stewardship and who therefore went in salutary fear of the electorate at home.  This check was not felt by the plenipotentiaries in Vienna.  Again, everything the Paris delegates did was for the benefit of the masses, although most of it was done by stealth and unappreciated by them.