Abstract
Official duties and administrative projects absorbed Speransky’s attention and energy so much that he seemed quite oblivious to his social and political isolation in St. Petersburg. He felt confident that as long as he retained the trust and esteem of the Emperor, his enemies and ill-wishers could do him no real harm. Quite true, indeed, as long as Alexander I trusted him, Speransky did not need to fear the jealousies or intrigues of courtiers and dignitaries. Unfortunately, Speransky made no allowance for the peculiarities of Alexander’s character, suspicious and ever-changing in his attachments. Nor did the State Secretary seem to be aware of the growing tensions and dissatisfactions in the country to which, for reasons of his own, the Emperor felt compelled to pay some attention. So that when the blow fell, it came as a complete and brutal surprise to the unsuspecting State Secretary. Yet, his fall from influence and power had been in the making for some time; in a way since Erfurt when, in the mind of Society, his name became indissolubly linked with the hated French alliance. The “campaign” against Speransky, frequently serving as a pretext to those who wished to change Alexander’s orientation, proceeded slowly and deviously. It originated in Moscow from where it was taken up by some circles in St. Petersburg, and finally the Emperor himself “se mit de Ia partie” sealing the fate of his assistant. Today it is almost impossible to unravel the intricate and confused skein of intrigue which culminated in Speransky’s exile. We can no more separate and analyse the motives and roles of all participants with any degree of certainty. As a matter of fact, probably not much would be gained even if it were possible to do so. Whatever the factual details and the psychological riddles which remain hidden from us, the general course of events is clear and we can get at the main considerations that dictated the actions of the personalities involved. The story of this resounding cause célèbre of Alexander’s reign was, perhaps, much simpler than most contemporaries and subsequent historians have thought.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
M. Gershenzon, Griboedovskaia Moskva, 2d. ed., Moscow-Berlin 1922. My description of the state of Russian public opinion is based on the memoirs and correspondence cited in the bibliography to the chapter.
The mildest expression of this sentiment is found in a letter of P. V. Chichagov to S. R. Vorontsov, Paris 26 March 1810, (No. 48, Arkhiv kniazia Vorontsova, Vol. 19, pp. 170-173).
Graf Rostopchin, “Zapiska o Martinistakh predstavlennaia 1811 vel. kn. Ekaterine Pavlovne,” Russkii Arkhiv (1875), No. 3, p. 75.
“Pis’mo Rostopchina k Aleksandru I,” 17 March 1812, Russkaia Starina, 122 (1905), 412-416-also Ermolov, “Pamflet na Speranskogo,” Chteniia, (1895), No. 3, part 2, pp. 1-24.
The political ideas of Karamzin are a subject by themselves, which still needs investigation. Recently, Karamzin’s political views were analysed by Wolfgang Mitter, “Die Entwicklung der politischen Anschauungen Karamzins,” Forschungen zur Osteuropäischen Geschichte, Bd. 2, (Berlin 1955), pp. 165–285 and Richard E. Pipes, “Karamzin’s Conception of the Monarchy” in a forthcoming volume of the Harvard Slavic Studies.
Bychkov, “Deiateli i uchastniki padeniia Speranskogo,” Russkaia Starino, 109 (1902), pp. 469–508, passim. Playing up to the prevailing sentiments of Moscow, the pamphlet was signed, “Rostopchin and Moscovites.”
“In this country there are political parties, ambitious rivalries, and personal animosities, perhaps not the less violent and inveterate for being much cramped and restricted in the expression of their sentiments and purposes.” U. S. Department of State — Russia, John Quincy Adams to the Secretary of State, dispatch No. 86, dated 11 June 1812.
See A. Vandal (ed.), “La cour de Russie en 1807–1808.” Revue d’histoire diplomatique, IV (1890), pp. 402–407
Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitsch, L’Empereur Alexandre Ier (St. Pbg. 1912), Vol. I, pp. 83–84.
Ernst Moritz Arndt, Meine Wanderungen und Wandlungen mit dem Freiherrn vom Stein (3. Abdruck, Berlin 1869), p. 18.
“Plusieurs russes sont infectés de Ia philosophie allemande: un homme surtout, qui s’élève à tout et qui n’aurait pu partir de plus bas puisqu’il est fils de prêtre (popowitch), M. Speranski, est un grand partisan de Kant, comme je m’en suis aperçu dans une conversation: il influe beaucoup sur les affaires. Ces gens perdront l’Empereur comme ils en ont perdu tant d’autres.” J. de Maistre, Correspondance, vol. III, p. 237 (letter of 8/20. IV. 1809 to the Chevalier de Rossi No. 282). See also ibid., p. 385 (letter to King Victor Emmanuel, December 1809, No. 298).
A summary of the evidence concerning de Maistre’s role is to be found in the somewhat confused and fragmentary paper of Ar. Fateev, “La disgrâce d’un homme d’état,” Zapiski russkogo nauchno-issledovatel’skogo ob’edineniia v Frage, X (Praha 1940), pp. 33-73.
In exile Speransky seems to have realized it had been a mistake. Grot, “K istorii ssylki Speranskogo,” Russkii Arkhiv, (1871), pp. 2076-2077.
The French Ambassador, Caulaincourt, noted Speransky’s social isolation in a letter to Champagny: “M. Speransky est le faiseur de l’empereur, en quelque sorte le ministre des innovations. Il n’est lié avec personne. Son influence s’étend sur tout…” Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitsch, Les relations diplomatiques de Ia Russie et de Ia France, V, p. 352 (letter dated 3 March 1811). Further evidence of Speransky’s evasion of the limelight can be deduced from the fact that John Q. Adams does not mention once that he had met him during his stay as U.S. Minister in St. Petersburg, and Adams, as at “liberal” and highly intelligent man, could have been an interesting person to know and easy to get in touch with in diplomatic and court circles. And finally, the diary of the Court Marshal (Kamerfur’erskii Zhurnal) which lists all persons invited to the court and imperial table, has relatively few entries concerning Speransky’s presence at court functions and meals, although he was at the Palace almost every day for conferences with the Emperor. He apparently stayed only for the audience and was but rarely invited to join the Emperor at the table or at the evening cercle.
Speranskii, “Permskoe pis’mo,” Shil’der, Imperator Aleksandr I, III, p. 524 Cf. also Jacob’s report on Speransky’s remark: “Der Kaiser kann sich bisweilen durch das Einreden schlecht denkender Leute irre machen lassen, aber sein gesunder Verstand bringt ihn von selbst bald wieder auf den rechten Weg.” Denkwürdigkeiten, p. 315.
Speranskii, “Otchet v delakh 1810,” Sbornik IRIO, 21 (1877), p. 461.
A. A. Kizevetter, “Aleksandr I,” Istoricherskie siluety — lindi i sobytiia, (Berlin 1931), pp. 129, 131, 133.
The entries in the Kamerfur’erskii Zhurnal are expressive of this change in 1811-1812.
Jacob, Denkwürdigkeiten, p. 321: “Der Feldzug gegen Bonaparte war beschlossen und der Kaiser wollte in wenigen Wochen zur Armee abgehen. Dennoch wusste Speransky noch nicht ob er den Kaiser begleiten oder zurückbleiben würde. Das Zurückbleiben hätte in den Verhältnissen, in welchen Speransky damals gegen den Kaiser stand, schon allein eine Ungnade zu sein scheinen müssen. Dennoch schien es Speransky nicht so zu nehmen. Ich war den Sonntag, wo er arrestiert und verschickt wurde, von 10 bis gegen 2 Uhr bei ihm.”
Cited by Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitsch, Le Tsar Alexandre 1er (Paris 1931) p. 110. See also the following reminiscences of Nesselrode: “Je veux parler de Ia disgrâce de M. Speransky, mon intime ami, qui, pendant sa longue faveur, avait été mon principal appui auprès de l’empereur Alexandre. Son renvoi eut lieu dans Ia nuit du dimanche au lundi. Le mardi, l’Empereur me fit venir, et, avec sa bonté angélique me rassura sur les conséquences que j’avais redoutées un moment, c’est à dire sur le sort de ma correspondance, que Speransky avait envoyée cachetée à l’Empereur, et qui se trouvait dans son cabinet. Je trouvais l’Empereur très ému de Ia nécessité dans laquelle, à tort ou à raison, il s’était cru placé de se séparer d’un homme dont il aimait le caractère et estimait le talent. Il a été évidemment Ia victime d’une intrigue…” Lettres et papiers du chancelier comte de Nesselrode, Vol. II, pp. 75-76.
To this Alexander alluded in his rescript of 1816 by which he appointed Spe-ransky as governor of Penza, and he repeated it in his rescript of 22 March 1819 appointing Speransky to the governor generalship of Siberia (see Shil’der, Imperator Aleksandr 1, IV, pp. 148-149.)
Letter dated 7/19 April 1812, cited in Shil’der, op. cit., III, p. 52.
Quoted by Shil’der, op. cit., III, p. 493 — also cited in full by Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitsch, L’Empereur Alexandre Ier, I, 90-91.
Quoted in Shil’der, op. cit., III, p. 46.
A. la. Bulgakov, “Vyderzhki iz zapisok A. la. Bulgakova,” Russkii Arkhiv, (1867), pp. 1367–1368. See also letters of same to his brother, in Russkii Arkhiv, (1900), No. 5, pp. 14-17.
Arkhiv kniazia Vorontsova, Vol. 23, p. 97 (letter No. 44, 6 April 1812); pp. 144-153 passim (letter No. 59, 13 Nov. 1812).
Druzheskie pis’ma Masai’skomu, p. 14.
Letter of V. Kochubei, dated 4 September 1818, in Pamiati p. 490 (note).
Prince A. B. Kurakin reported to Rumiantsev from Paris on 15/27 April 1812: “(Napoleon asked Kurakin that same day) Mais dites-moi, j’ai appris que Speransky vient d’être arrête’. Pouvez vous m’apprendre les causes de cet événement? — Je [e.g. Kurakin] répondis encore qu’on ne m’avait rien appris sur Ia catastrophe de Speransky et que mon courrier m’avait dit seulement qu’il n’était plus en place, ni même à St. Petersbourg.” “Doneseniia imperatoru Aleksandru I kniazia A. B. Kurakina i doneseniia ego zhe kantsleru Rumiantsevu za 1811 i 1812 gg,” Sbomik IRIO, Vol. 21 (1877), p. 377. See also ibid., p. 386 (report dated 20 April/2 May, 1812) in which Kurakin summarizes what the Duke of Bassano has told him about Speransky’s exile on the basis of the dispatch of the French Ambassador Lauriston). Cf. also the dispatches of Lauriston (in Russian translation), Russkii Arkhiv, (1882), No. 1 pp. 169-176 and Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitsch, Les relations diplomatiques de Ia Russie et de Ia France, vol. VI, pp. 253-255.
Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitsch, L’Empereur Alexandre Ier, I, pp. 92-94.
U.S. Department of State — Russia, John Quincy Adams to the Secretary of State, dispatch No. 82, dated 31 March 1812.
Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitsch, L’Empereur Alexandre Ier, I, p. 91.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1957 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Raeff, M. (1957). Disgrace and Exile. In: Michael Speransky. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9304-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9304-7_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8547-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9304-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive