many illustrations, which are not possible here.  I may remark, however, that Viollet-le-Duc and Fergusson do not understand the subject of Russian architecture, and that their few observations on the matter are nearly all as erroneous as they well can be.  I believe that very few Russians even know much scientifically about the development of their national architecture from the Byzantine style.  Yaroslavl is a good place to study it, and has given its name to one epoch of that development.

With the exception of the churches, Yaroslavl has not much to show to the visitor; but the bazaar was a delight to us, with its queer pottery, its baskets for moulding bread, its bread-trays for washtubs, and a dozen other things in demand by the peasants as to which we had to ask explanations.

Breezy, picturesque Yaroslavl, with its dainty, independent cabbies, who object to the mud which must have been their portion all their lives, and reject rare customers rather than drive through it; with its churches never to be forgotten; its view of the Volga, and its typical Russian features!  It was a fitting end to our Volga trip, and fully repaid us for our hot-cold voyage with the samovar steamer against the stream, though I had not believed, during the voyage, that anything could make up for the tedium.  If I were to visit it again, I would approach it from the railway side and leave it to descend the river.  But I would not advise any foreigner to tackle it at all, unless he be as well prepared as we were to appreciate its remarkable merits in certain directions.

A night’s journey landed us in Moscow.  But even the glories of Moscow cannot make us forget the city of Yaroslaff the Great and Nizhni Novgorod.