Constantinople, and later at the feet of the Khans. They could meet
cruelty with cruelty, cunning with cunning. But it was the Princes of
Moscow who proved themselves masters in these Oriental arts. Their
cunning was not of the vulgar sort which works for ends that are near;
it was the cunning which could wait, could patiently cringe and feign
loyalty and devotion, with the steady purpose of tearing in pieces.
Added to this, they had the intelligence to divine the secret of power.
Certain ends they kept steadily in view. The old law of succession to
eldest collateral heir they set aside from the outset; the principality
being invariably divided among the sons of the deceased Prince. Then
they gradually established the habit of giving to the eldest son
Moscow, and only insignificant portions to the rest. So
_primogeniture_ lay at the root of the policy of the new state--and
they had created a dynasty.

Then their invariable method was by cunning arts to embroil neighboring
Princes in quarrels, and so to ingratiate themselves with their master
the Khan, that when they appeared before him at Saraï--as they
must--for his decision, while one unfortunate Prince (unless perchance
he was beheaded and did not come away at all) came away without his
throne, the faithful Prince of Moscow returned with a new state added
to his territory and a new title to his name! Was he not always ready,
not only to obey himself, but to enforce the obedience of others? Did
he not stand ready to march against Novgorod, or any proud, refractory
state which failed in tribute or homage to his master the Khan? No
gloomier, no darker chapter is written in history than that which
records the transition of Russia into _Muscovy_. It was rooted in a
tragedy, it was nourished by human blood at every step of its growth.
It was by base servility to the Khans, by perfidy to their peers, by
treachery and by prudent but pitiless policy, that Moscow rose from