Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/489

 and generally in the German service; the French chief dragoman usually attains the rank of minister plenipotentiary. The value of a tactful and efficient intermediary can hardly be over-estimated, and in the East a personal interview of a few minutes often results in the conclusion of some important matter which would otherwise require the exchange of a long and laborious correspondence. The more important consulates in the provinces of Turkey are also provided with one or more dragomans, whose duties, mutatis mutandis, are of a similar though less important nature. In the same way banks, railway companies and financial institutions employ dragomans for facilitating their business relations with Turkish officials.

 DRAGOMIROV, MICHAEL IVANOVICH (1830–1905), Russian general and military writer, was born on the 8th of November 1830. He entered the Guard infantry in 1849, becoming 2nd lieutenant in 1852 and lieutenant in 1854. In the latter year he was selected to study at the Nicholas Academy (staff college), and here he distinguished himself so much that he received a gold medal, an honour which, it is stated, was paid to a student of the academy only twice in the 19th century. In 1856 he was promoted staff-captain and in 1858 full captain, being sent in the latter year to study the military methods in vogue in other countries. He visited France, England and Belgium, and wrote voluminous reports on the instructional and manœuvre camps of these countries at Châlons, Aldershot and Beverloo. In 1859 he was attached to the headquarters of the king of Sardinia during the campaign of Magenta and Solferino, and immediately upon his return to Russia he was sent to the Nicholas Academy as professor of tactics. Dragomirov played a leading part in the reorganization of the educational system of the army, and acted also as instructor to several princes of the imperial family. This post he held until 1863, when, as a lieutenant-colonel, he took part in the suppression of the Polish insurrection of 1863–64, returning to St Petersburg in the latter year as colonel and chief of staff to one of the Guard divisions. During the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, Dragomirov was attached to the headquarters of the II. Prussian army. He was present at the battles on the upper Elbe and at Königgrätz, and his comments on the operations which he witnessed are of the greatest value to the student of tactics and of the war of 1866.

In 1868 he was made a major-general, and in the following year became chief of the staff in the Kiev military circumscription. In 1873 he was appointed to command the 14th division, and in this command he distinguished himself very greatly in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. The 14th division led the way at the crossing of the Danube at Zimnitza, Dragomirov being in charge of the delicate and difficult operation of crossing and landing under fire, and fulfilling his mission with complete success. Later, after the reverses before Plevna, he, with the cesarevich and Generals Todleben and Milutine, strenuously opposed the suggestion of the Grand-duke Nicholas that the Russian army should retreat into Rumania, and the demoralization of the greater part of the army was not permitted to spread to Dragomirov’s division, which retained its discipline unimpaired and gave a splendid example to the rest.

He was wounded at the Shipka Pass, and, though promoted lieutenant-general soon after this, was not able to see further active service. He was also made adjutant-general to the tsar and chief of the 53rd Volhynia regiment of his old division. For eleven years thereafter General Dragomirov was chief of the Nicholas Academy, and it was during this period that he collated and introduced into the Russian army all the best military literature of Europe, and in many other ways was active in improving the moral and technical efficiency of the Russian officer-corps, especially of the staff officer. In 1889 Dragomirov became commander-in-chief of the Kiev military district, and governor-general of Kiev, Podolsk and Volhynia, retaining this post until 1903. He was promoted to the rank of general of infantry in 1891. His advanced age and failing health prevented his employment at the front during the Russo-Japanese war of 1904–5, but his advice was continually solicited by the general headquarters at St Petersburg, and while he disagreed with General Kuropatkin in many important questions of strategy and military policy, they both recommended a repetition of the strategy of 1812, even though the total abandonment of Port Arthur was involved therein. General Dragomirov died at Konotop on the 28th of October 1905. In addition to the orders which he already possessed, he received in 1901 the order of St Andrew.

His larger military works were mostly translated into French, and his occasional papers, extending over a period of nearly fifty years, appeared chiefly in the Voienni Svornik and the Razoiedschik; his later articles in the last-named paper were, like the general orders he issued to his own troops, attentively studied throughout the Russian army. His critique of Tolstoy’s War and Peace attracted even wider attention. Dragomirov was, in formal tactics, the head of the “orthodox” school. His conservatism was not, however, the result of habit and early training, but of deliberate reasoning and choice. His model was, as he admitted in the war of 1866, the British infantry of the Peninsular War, but he sought to reach the ideal, not through the methods of repression against which the “advanced” tacticians revolted, but by means of thorough efficiency in the individual soldier and in the smaller units. He inculcated the “offensive at all costs,” and the combination of crushing short-range fire and the bayonet charge. He carried out the ideas of Suvarov to the fullest extent, and many thought that he pressed them to a theoretical extreme unattainable in practice. His critics, however, did not always realize that Dragomirov depended, for the efficiency his unit required, on the capacity of the leader, and that an essential part of the self-sacrificing discipline he exacted from his officers was the power of assuming responsibility. The details of his brilliant achievement of Zimnitza suffice to give a clear idea of Dragomirov’s personality and of the way in which his methods of training conduced to success.

 DRAGON (Fr. dragon, through Lat. draco, from the Greek; connected with , “see,” and interpreted as “sharp-sighted”; O.H. Ger. tracho, dracho, M.H.G. trache, Mod. Ger. Drachen; A.S. draca, hence the equivalent English form “drake,” “fire-drake,” cf. Low Ger. and Swed. drake, Dan. drage), a fabulous monster, usually conceived as a huge winged fire-breathing lizard or snake. In Greece the word  was used originally of any large serpent, and the dragon of mythology, whatever shape it may have assumed, remains essentially a snake. For the part it has played in the myths and cults of various peoples and ages see the article. Here it may be said, in general, that in the East, where snakes are large and deadly (Chaldea, Assyria, Phoenicia, to a less degree in Egypt), the serpent or dragon was symbolic of the principle of evil. Thus Apophis, in the Egyptian religion, was the great serpent of the world of darkness vanquished by Ra, while in Chaldaea the goddess Tiāmat, the female principle of primeval Chaos, took the form of a dragon. Thus, too, in the Hebrew sacred books the serpent or dragon is the source of death and sin, a conception which was adopted in the New Testament and so passed into Christian mythology. In Greece and Rome, on the other hand, while the oriental idea of the serpent as an evil power found an entrance and gave birth to a plentiful brood of terrors (the serpents of the Gorgons, Hydra, Chimaera and the like), the dracontes were also at times conceived as beneficent powers, sharp-eyed dwellers in the inner parts of the earth, wise to discover its secrets and utter them in oracles, or powerful to invoke as guardian genii. Such were the sacred snakes in the temples of Aesculapius and the sacri dracontes in that of the Bona Dea at Rome; or, as guardians, the Python at Delphi and the dragon of the Hesperides.

In general, however, the evil reputation of dragons was the stronger, and in Europe it outlived the other. Christianity, of course, confused the benevolent and malevolent serpent-deities of the ancient cults in a common condemnation. The very “wisdom of the serpent” made him suspect; the devil, said St Augustine, “leo et draco est; leo propter impetum, draco propter insidias.” The dragon myths of the pagan East took new shapes in the legends of the victories of St Michael and