A history of Russia

magnificent and extremely shrewd diplomat, who consistently bested Napoleon. Napoleon himself, it might be added, called him 'a cunning Byzantine.' But other scholars, again on good evidence, have emphasized the Russian ruler's mysticism and even his growing detachment from reality.

Various elements in the emperor's background have been cited to help account for his baffling character. There was, to begin with, Alexander's difficult childhood and boyhood, in particular his ambiguous relations with his father, Paul, and his grandmother, Catherine the Great, who hated each other. Alexander spent more time with Catherine than with his parents, and he learned early the arts of flattery, dissimulation, and hypocrisy, or at least so his boyhood letters indicate. The empress took a great liking to Alexander from the very beginning and apparently wanted to make him her successor, bypassing Paul. Quite possibly only the suddenness of her death upset this plan. Education also influenced the future emperor's character, views, and activities. Catherine the Great took a personal interest in Alexander's upbringing, which was guided by the ideas of the Enlightenment. A prominent Swiss philosophe and liberal, Frederic-Cesar de LaHarpe, acted as the grand duke's chief tutor and became his close friend. Yet LaHarpe's instruction, full of progressive ideas and humane sentiments, had its disadvantages. LaHarpe, that 'very liberal and garrulous French booklet,' as Kliuchevsky described the tutor, and his teaching had little in common with Russian reality. The contrast between theory and practice characteristic of Alexander I's reign has been derived by some scholars from this one-sided education. The circumstances of Alexander I's accession to the throne have also been analyzed for their effect on the sovereign's character and rule. Alexander found himself in a precarious position during Paul's reign, especially because Paul thought of divorcing his wife and of disinheriting Alexander and his other sons by her. The young grand duke almost certainly knew of the conspiracy against his father, but the murder of Emperor Paul came to him apparently as a surprise and a shock. Certain critics attribute to the tragedy of his accession Alexander I's strong feeling of guilt and his later mysticism and lack of balance.

Behind Alexander I's reactions to particular incidents and situations of his life there was, of course, his basic character. Alexander I remains a mystery in the sense that human personality has not been and perhaps cannot be fully explained. Yet his psychological type is not especially uncommon, as psychiatrists, psychologists, and observant laymen attest. The emperor belonged with those exceedingly sensitive, charming, and restless men and women whose lives display a constant irritation, search, and disappointment. They lack balance, consistency, and firmness of purpose. They are contradictory. Alexander I's inability to come to terms with himself and pursue a steady course explains his actions much better, on the whole, than do allegations of cynicism or Machiavellianism. As is characteristic for the type, personal problems grew with the passage of time: the emperor became more and more irritable, tired, and suspicious of people, more dissatisfied with life, more frantically in search of a religious or mystical answer; he even lost some of his proverbial charm. The autocrat died in 1825, only forty-eight years old. However, as if to continue the mystery of Alexander I, some specialists insist that he did not die, but escaped from the throne to live in Siberia as a saintly hermit Theodore, or Fedor, Kuzmich. Based on such circumstantial evidence as the emperor's constant longing to shed the burdens of his office, and a court physician's refusal to sign the death warrant, this supposition needs further proof, although it cannot be entirely dismissed. Suicide might offer another explanation for a certain strangeness and confusion associated with the sovereign's death.

Liberalism and Reform

The Russians rejoiced at the accession of Alexander I. In place of an exacting and unpredictable tyrant, Paul, they obtained a young ruler of supreme charm and apparently enormous promise. Alexander I seemed to represent the best of the Enlightenment - that humaneness, progressive-ness, affirmation of human dignity, and freedom, which educated Russians, in one way or another, fervently desired. The new emperor's first acts confirmed the expectations. An amnesty restored to their former positions up to twelve thousand men dismissed by Paul; the obnoxious restrictions on travel abroad and on the entry into Russia of foreigners as well as of foreign books and periodicals were abrogated; the censorship was relaxed, and private publishing houses were again allowed to open; torture in investigation was abolished; and the charters granted by Catherine the Great to the gentry and to towns regained their full force. But, of course, these welcome measures marked at best only the beginning of a liberal program. The key issues to be faced included serfdom and autocracy, together with the general backwardness of the country and the inadequacy and corruption of its

administrative apparatus. In contrast to Catherine the Great and Paul, Alexander I brought these problems up for consideration, although, as we shall see, the tangible results of his efforts proved to be slight. The reign of Alexander I contained two liberal periods, from 1801 to 1805 and from 1807 to 1812, each, incidentally, followed by war with France.

The first period of reform, following immediately upon Alexander I's acquisition of the crown, was the most far-ranging in purpose and the most hopeful. The new emperor decided to transform Russia with the help of four young, cultivated, intelligent, and liberal friends, the so-called Unofficial Committee. The members of the committee, Nicholas Novosiltsev, Count Paul Stroganov, Count Victor Kochubey, and a Polish patriot Prince Adam Czartoryski, reflected the enlightened opinion of the period, ranging from Anglophilism to Jacobin connections. While they could not be classified as radicals or hotheads, the four did represent a new departure after Paul's administration. The emperor spoke of them jokingly as his 'Committee of Public Safety,' a reference to the French Revolution which would have made his predecessors shudder. He met with the committee informally and frequently, often daily over coffee.

Our information about the work of the Unofficial Committee - which includes Stroganov's notes on the meetings - suggests that at first Alexander I intended to abolish autocracy and serfdom. However, the dangers and difficulties associated with these issues, as well as the unpreparedness for reform of the administration and the mass of people, quickly became apparent. Serfdom represented, so to speak, the greatest single interest in the empire, and its repeal was bound to affect the entire Russian society, in particular the extremely important gentry class. As to autocracy, the emperor himself, although at one time he had spoken of a republic, hesitated in practice to accept any diminution of his authority. Characteristically, he became disillusioned and impatient with the proceedings and called the Unofficial Committee together less and less frequently. The war of 1805 marked the conclusion of its activities. Russia, thus, went un-regenerated and unreformed. Even more limited projects such as the proclamation of a Russian charter of rights failed to be translated into practice.

Although the grand scheme of reform failed, the first years of Alexander's reign witnessed the enactment of some important specific measures. For example, the Senate was restored, or perhaps promoted, to a very high position in the state: it was to be the supreme judicial and administrative institution in the empire, and its decrees were to carry the authority of those of the sovereign, who alone could stop their execution. Peter the Great's colleges, which had a checkered and generally unhappy history in the eighteenth century, were gradually replaced in 1802 and subsequent years by ministries, with a single minister in charge of each. At first there were eight: the ministries of war, navy, foreign affairs, justice, interior, finance,

commerce, and education. Later the ministry of commerce was abolished, and the ministry of police appeared.

The government even undertook some limited social legislation. In 1801 the right to own estates was extended from the gentry to other free Russians. In 1803 the so-called 'law concerning the free agriculturists' went into effect. It provided for voluntary emancipation of the serfs by their masters, assuring that the emancipated serfs would be given land and establishing regulations and courts to secure the observance of all provisions. The newly emancipated serfs were to receive in many respects the status of state peasants, but, by contrast with the latter, they were to enjoy stronger property rights and exemption from certain obligations. Few landlords, however, proved eager to free their peasants. To be more exact, under the provisions of the law concerning the free agriculturists from the time of its enactment until its suspension more than half a century later on the eve of 'the great reforms,' 384 masters emancipated 115,734 working male serfs together with their families. It may be added that Druzhinin and other Soviet scholars have disproved the frequently made assertion that Alexander I gave no state peasants, with state lands, into private ownership and serfdom.

Russian backwardness and ignorance became strikingly apparent to the monarch and his Unofficial Committee as they examined the condition of the country. Education, therefore, received a high priority in the official plans and activities of the first years of the reign. Fortunately too this effort did not present quite the dangers and obstacles that were associated with the issues of serfdom and autocracy. Spending large sums of