The Russian Tsar Alexander Pavlovich entered the world historiography as the winner of the French emperor Napoleon I and the champion of peace in Europe. He took part in (1814-15), advocated the creation of the Holy Alliance (1815) and took part in subsequent conferences.
Born December 23, 1777 in St. Petersburg. Alexander Pavlovich was the first child of Paul I and Maria Feodorovna. His grandmother, the empress regnant (Great), took him from his parents (he was removed from parental care) and raised him herself to prepare him for succession. She was determined to disinherit her own son Paul, who repelled her with his instability.
Catherine invited Denis Diderot, an encyclopedist, to become Alexander's personal mentor. When he refused, she chose Frederick-Cesar La Harp, a Swiss republican and educator who instilled in his student a sincere affection for philosophy.
In Gatchina, Alexander received military training under the guidance of a strong and tough officer Alexei Arakcheev. Alexander was fluent in English and excellent French, but did not know Russian. His education was continued after he was 16 years old, when his grandmother married him off to Princess Louise of Baden-Durlach, who was 14 years old, in 1793. The girl, who became Elizaveta Alekseevna, was loved by everyone except her husband.
Catherine had already written a manifesto that deprived her son of his rights and appointed her grandson as heir to the throne when she died suddenly on November 17, 1796. Alexander, who knew about this, did not dare to publish the manifesto and Paul became emperor.
Continuity
At the court of Catherine II, Alexander was preparing to become her successor. Since the relationship between Catherine and her son Paul was hostile, she tried to change Alexander's succession. Paul reigned for 5 years. On March 11, 1801, a palace uprising led to the assassination of Paul with the assistance of Alexander. None of the participants in the conspiracy was tried or officially punished.
Ascension to the throne
Alexander became king the next day. The conspirators revealed the secret to him, assuring him that they would not kill his father, but would only demand that he renounce. After the darkness in which Pavel plunged Russia, he, with four friends, from noble families, but driven by liberal ideas - Prince Adam Czartorysky, Count Pavel Stroganov, Count Viktor Kochubey and Nikolai Vasiltsev - formed a private committee (Tacit Committee). Its avowed purpose was to make "good laws, which are the source of the welfare of the nation".
Domestic politics
Ongoing reforms:
The first enlightened measures |
|
Speransky's attempt at constitutional reform |
|
Creation of the State Council |
|
Financial and legislative reforms |
|
Education reform |
|
Results of reforms | Speransky's constitutional reforms were not carried out, leading to organized political opposition in the form of secret societies and a failed coup d'état. |
Early foreign policy
Plan for the creation of a European federation:
Alexander was forced to declare war on Napoleon after his coronation in 1804. He hoped for the help of the Austrian generals. But at Austerlitz, in Moravia, they were defeated. December 2, 1805 Emperor Francis II signs a peace treaty with France. In 1806, Napoleon defeated Prussia at Jena and Auerstedt. Alexander I rushed to help a friend. The battles were fought in East Prussia. After a partial success in Eylau, the Russian army was destroyed in Friedland on June 14, 1807. Then the two emperors met (June 25) on a raft in the middle of the Neman near Tilsit (now Sovetsk). Alexander accepted all the conditions of the winner:
- break with England;
- join the Continental System to isolate and weaken Great Britain;
- recognize the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
In response, Napoleon gave him the freedom to expand at the expense of Sweden and Turkey.
From Tilsit to the Invasion of 1812
The bulk of the Russians were irritated and humiliated by the Tilsit Union. Alexander's entourage did not want to stop trading with England. He reformed and strengthened his own troops. The popularity of the monarch was falling, all segments of the population accused him of a useless sacrifice of Russian blood and the ruin of the country. During the war of 1809 between France and Austria, Alexander, despite his promises, did not get involved in the affairs of Napoleon, but only feigned a military offensive. In vain he pressed Napoleon for a promise not to establish a sovereign Kingdom of Poland. Napoleon annexed German lands in the Baltic, including the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, a fief of the Tsar's son-in-law. The two monarchs were preparing for war.
Defeat of Napoleon
Napoleon and his famous army of 600,000 broke into Russia on June 24, 1812. Subsequently, the bloody French entered deserted and burning Moscow. Alexander did not ask for a peace treaty. He appointed Kutuzov commander in chief. Kutuzov pursued the enemy and drove him out of the country. Alexander did not want peace until he reached Paris in March 1814. Napoleon abdicated. Alexander became the most powerful monarch in Europe. He inspired the convening of the greatest International Congress in history at Vienna in the autumn of 1814. When Napoleon returned from exile in Elba and regained his throne, the war resumed, ending with his final defeat on June 18, 1815, at Waterloo.
last decade
The king subsequently became a religious mystic and practiced a non-dogmatic "universal religion" heavily influenced by Quaker and Moravian beliefs. He received Poland, founded it as a kingdom with him. After returning home, he no longer thought about reforms. After the Second Treaty of Paris, inspired by piety, he concluded the Holy Alliance, which was supposed to bring peace based on Christian love for the monarchs and peoples of Europe. The monarchs of this alliance showed themselves as champions of despotism and defenders of the armed order.
Alexander I died on December 1, 1825 in Taganrog. The sudden death of the tsar, his mysticism, the bewilderment and blunders of his entourage - all this went into the creation of the legend of his "departure" for the Siberian retreat. The refusal to open the royal tomb after his death only deepened the mystery.
The reign of Alexander I in Russian historiography
N.M. Karamzin | Memoirs about ancient and modern Russia | Description of the achievements of Alexander I |
Mark Raff | Mikhail Speransky: statesman of imperial Russia, 1772-1839 | Biographical study with an extensive analysis of the political activities and projects of Count Speransky |
Napoleon's invasion of Russia, 1812 | Parallels between the Napoleonic invasion and the threat of attack by Nazi Germany |
|
Alan McConnell | Tsar Alexander I: paternalistic reformer | Biography of Alexander I |
L.N. Tolstoy | War and Peace | Napoleonic invasion of Russia during the reign of Alexander I. |
The reign of Alexander 1 fell on the years of the fateful military campaign of Napoleon for the whole of Europe. "Alexander" is translated as "winner", and the king fully justified his proud name, which was given to him by his crowned grandmother Catherine II.
A few months before the birth of the future Emperor Alexander, the most terrible flood of the 18th century occurred in St. Petersburg. The water rose above three meters. Alexander's mother, the wife of Emperor Pavel Petrovich, was so frightened that everyone was afraid of premature birth, but nothing happened. Alexander 1 himself saw in this flood of 1777 a certain sign that was given to him from above even before his birth.
The upbringing of the heir to the throne was carried out with pleasure by his grandmother, Catherine II. She independently selected educators for her beloved grandson, she herself wrote special instructions in which way it is necessary to conduct education and training. Alexander's father, the emperor, also sought to raise his son according to his own strict rules and demanded strict obedience. This confrontation between father and grandmother left an indelible imprint on the character of young Alexander. He was often at a loss - who should he listen to, how to behave. This situation taught the future emperor to isolation and secrecy.
The ascension to the throne of Alexander 1 is connected with the tragic events in the palace. His father, Paul 1, was strangled as a result of a conspiracy about which Alexander was well aware. Nevertheless, the news of his father's death brought Alexander almost to the point of fainting. For several days he could not come to his senses and obeyed the conspirators in everything. The reign of Alexander 1 began in 1801, when he was 24 years old. Throughout his subsequent life, the emperor will be tormented by remorse and in all life's troubles he will see punishment for complicity in the murder of Paul 1.
The beginning of the reign of Alexander 1 was marked by the abolition of the previous rules and laws that Paul had introduced in his time. All disgraced nobles were given back their rights and titles. The priests were released from the Secret Chancellery and the Secret Expedition were closed, the elections of representatives of the nobility were resumed.
Alexander 1 even took care of the abolition of clothing restrictions that were introduced under Paul 1. The soldiers took off their white wigs with braids with relief, and civilian officials were again able to wear vests, tailcoats and round hats.
The emperor gradually sent the participants in the conspiracy away from the palace: some to Siberia, some to the Caucasus.
The reign of Alexander 1 began with moderate liberal reforms, the projects of which were developed by the sovereign himself and his young friends: Prince Kochubey, Count Novosiltsev, Count Stroganov. They called their activities the "Committee of Public Salvation". The petty bourgeois and merchants were allowed to receive uninhabited lands, the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum was opened, universities were founded in various cities of Russia.
Starting from 1808, Alexander's closest assistant became Secretary of State Speransky, who was also a supporter of active state reforms. In the same year, the emperor appointed A.A. Arakcheev, a former protégé of Paul 1, as Minister of War. He believed that Arakcheev was “betrayed without flattery,” so he entrusted him to give orders that he himself had previously given.
The reign of Alexander 1 was still not aggressively reformist, therefore, even from the Speransky state reform project, only the most “safe” points were implemented. The emperor did not show much perseverance and consistency.
The same picture was observed in foreign policy. Russia concluded peace treaties immediately with England and France, trying to maneuver between these two countries. However, in 1805, Alexander 1 was forced to enter into a coalition against France, since a specific threat began to emanate from Napoleon's enslavement of all of Europe. In the same year, the Allied forces (Austria, Russia and Prussia) suffered crushing defeats at Austerlitz and Friedland, which led to a signing with Napoleon.
But this peace turned out to be very fragile, and ahead of Russia was the war of 1812, the devastating fire of Moscow and the fiercest turning point battle near Borodino. The French will be expelled from Russia, and the Russian army will march victoriously through the countries of Europe to Paris itself. Alexander 1 was destined to become a liberator and lead a coalition of European countries against France.
The zenith of Alexander's glory was his entry with the army into the defeated Paris. Local residents, having made sure that their city would not be burned, greeted the Russian troops with delight and jubilation. Therefore, the reign of Alexander 1 is associated by many with the fateful victory over the troops of Napoleon in the war of 1812.
Having done away with Bonaparte, the emperor stopped liberal reforms in his country. Speransky was removed from all posts and sent into exile in Nizhny Novgorod. The landowners were again allowed to arbitrarily exile their serfs to Siberia without trial or investigation. Universities were subject to restrictions on their autonomy.
At the same time, both in St. Petersburg and in Moscow, religious and mystical organizations began to actively develop. Masonic lodges, which were banned by Catherine II, revived again. The reign of Alexander 1 entered the rut of conservatism and mysticism.
The chairmanship of the Synod was given to the St. Petersburg Patriarch, and the sovereign appointed the members of the Synod personally. Officially, the chief prosecutor, a friend of Alexander 1, supervised the activities of the Synod. In 1817, he also headed the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs, created by decree of the emperor. society was gradually filled with more and more mysticism and religious exaltation. Numerous Bible societies, house churches with strange rites introduced the spirit of heresy and posed a serious threat to the foundations of the Orthodox faith.
Therefore, the church declared war on mysticism. This movement was led by the monk Photius. He carefully followed the meetings of mystics, what books they put out, what sayings come out of their midst. He publicly cursed the Masons, burned their publications. War Minister Arakcheev supported the Orthodox clergy in this struggle, therefore, under general pressure, Golitsyn had to resign. However, the echoes of a firmly entrenched mysticism made themselves felt among the Russian secular society for a long time to come.
Alexander 1 himself in the 20s of the 19th century increasingly began to visit monasteries and talk about his desire to abdicate. Any denunciations of conspiracies and the creation of secret societies do not touch him anymore. He perceives all events as a punishment for the death of his father and for his extramarital affairs. He wants to retire and devote his later life to the atonement of sins.
The reign of Alexander 1 ended in 1825 - according to the documents, he died in Taganrog, where he left with his wife for treatment. The emperor was transported to St. Petersburg in a closed coffin. Eyewitnesses said that his face has changed a lot. According to rumors, at the same time, a courier, very similar in appearance to Alexander, died in Taganrog. Until now, many people believe that the emperor used that opportunity to leave the throne and go wandering. Like it or not - there are no historical facts on this score.
The results of the reign of Alexander 1 can be summarized as follows: it was a very inconsistent reign, where the liberal reforms that had begun were replaced by strict conservatism. At the same time, Alexander 1 went down in history forever as the liberator of Russia and all of Europe. He was revered and glorified, admired and glorified, but his own conscience haunted him all his life.
Alexander I became Russian Emperor as a result of a palace coup and regicide on March 11, 1801.
In the first years of his reign, he believed that the country needed fundamental reforms and serious renewal. To carry out reforms, he created an Unspoken Committee to discuss reform projects. The secret committee put forward the idea of limiting autocracy, but at first it was decided to carry out reforms in the sphere of administration. In 1802, the reform of the highest bodies of state power began, ministries were created, and the Committee of Ministers was established. In 1803, a decree was issued on "free cultivators", according to which landowners could release their serfs into freedom with land allotments for a ransom. After the appeal of the Baltic landowners, he approved the law on the complete abolition of serfdom in Estonia (1811).
In 1809, the emperor's secretary of state M. Speransky presented to the tsar a project for a radical reform of public administration - a project for the creation of a constitutional monarchy in Russia. Having met the active resistance of the nobles, Alexander I abandoned the project.
In 1816-1822. in Russia, noble secret societies arose - the "Union of Salvation". Welfare Union Southern Society, Northern Society - with the aim of introducing a republican constitution in Russia or a constitutional monarchy. By the end of his reign, Alexander I, under pressure from the nobles and fearing popular uprisings, abandoned all liberal ideas and serious reforms.
In 1812, Russia experienced the invasion of Napoleon's army, the defeat of which ended with the entry of Russian troops into Paris. Russia's foreign policy has undergone fundamental changes. Unlike Paul I, who supported Napoleon, Alexander, on the contrary, opposed France, and resumed trade and political relations with England.
In 1801, Russia and England concluded an anti-French convention "On Mutual Friendship", and then, in 1804, Russia joined the third anti-French coalition. After the defeat at Austerlitz in 1805, the coalition fell apart. In 1807, the forced Peace of Tilsit was signed with Napoleon. Subsequently, Russia and its allies inflicted a decisive defeat on Napoleon's army in the "Battle of the Nations" near Leipzig in 1813.
In 1804-1813. Russia won the war with Iran, seriously expanded and strengthened its southern borders. In 1806-1812. there was a protracted Russo-Turkish war. As a result of the war with Sweden in 1808-1809. Russia included Finland, later Poland (1814).
In 1814, Russia took part in the work of the Congress of Vienna to resolve issues of the post-war structure of Europe and in the creation of the Holy Alliance to ensure peace in Europe, which included Russia and almost all European countries.
THE BEGINNING OF THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER I
And yet, the first years of the reign of Alexander I left the best memories among contemporaries, “A wonderful beginning of the Days of Alexander” - this is how A.S. Pushkin. A short period of enlightened absolutism set in.” Universities, lyceums, gymnasiums were opened. Measures were taken to alleviate the situation of the peasants. Alexander stopped the distribution of state peasants into the possession of the landowners. In 1803, a decree on "free cultivators" was adopted. According to the decree, the landowner could free his peasants by giving them land and receiving a ransom from them. But the landlords were in no hurry to take advantage of this decree. During the reign of Alexander I, only 47 thousand male souls were released. But the ideas laid down in the decree of 1803 subsequently formed the basis of the reform of 1861.
In the Unspoken Committee, a proposal was made to prohibit the sale of serfs without land. Human trafficking was carried out in Russia in undisguised, cynical forms. Announcements about the sale of serfs were published in newspapers. At the Makariev fair, they were sold along with other goods, families were separated. Sometimes a Russian peasant, bought at a fair, went to distant eastern countries, where until the end of his days he lived in the position of a foreign slave.
Alexander I wanted to stop such shameful phenomena, but the proposal to ban the sale of peasants without land ran into the stubborn resistance of the highest dignitaries. They believed that this undermined serfdom. Without showing perseverance, the young emperor retreated. It was forbidden only to publish advertisements for the sale of people.
By the beginning of the XIX century. the administrative system of the state was in a state of apparent collapse. The collegial form of central administration that was introduced clearly did not justify itself. A circular irresponsibility reigned in the colleges, covering up bribery and embezzlement. Local authorities, taking advantage of the weakness of the central government, committed lawlessness.
At first, Alexander I hoped to restore order and strengthen the state by introducing a ministerial system of central government based on the principle of unity of command. In 1802, instead of the previous 12 colleges, 8 ministries were created: military, naval, foreign affairs, internal affairs, commerce, finance, public education and justice. This measure strengthened the central administration. But a decisive victory in the fight against abuse was not achieved. Old vices settled in the new ministries. Growing, they rose to the upper floors of state power. Alexander was aware of senators who took bribes. The desire to expose them struggled in him with the fear of dropping the prestige of the Senate. It became obvious that the task of creating a system of state power that would actively promote the development of the country's productive forces, and not devour its resources, could not be solved by mere rearrangements in the bureaucratic machine. A fundamentally new approach to solving the problem was required.
Bokhanov A.N., Gorinov M.M. History of Russia from the beginning of the XVIII to the end of the XIX century, M., 2001
"RUSSIAN POLICY DOES NOT EXIST"
Russian, Russian politics in the reign of Emperor Alexander I, one might say, does not exist. There is a European policy (a hundred years later they would say "pan-European"), there is a policy of the universe - the policy of the Holy Alliance. And there is the “Russian policy” of foreign cabinets that use Russia and its Tsar for their own selfish purposes by the skillful work of proxies who have unlimited influence on the Sovereign (such, for example, Pozzo di Borgo and Michaud de Boretour - two amazing adjutant generals who ran Russian politics , but for their long-term adjutant general who did not learn a single Russian word).
There are four phases here:
The first is the era of predominantly English influence. This is "the days of Alexander's wonderful beginning." The young Sovereign is not averse to dreaming in a circle of intimate friends about "projects for the Russian constitution." England is the ideal and patroness of all liberalism, including Russian. At the head of the English government, Pitt Jr. is the great son of a great father, the mortal enemy of France in general and Bonaparte in particular. They embark on a wonderful idea of liberating Europe from the tyranny of Napoleon (England takes over the financial side). The result - the war with France - the second French war ... True, little English blood is shed, but Russian blood flows like a river at Austerlitz and Pultusk, Eylau and Friedland.
Friedland is followed by Tilsit, who opens the second era - the era of French influence. Napoleon's genius makes a deep impression on Alexander... The Tilsit banquet, St. George's crosses on the breasts of the French grenadiers... The Erfurt rendezvous - Emperor of the West, Emperor of the East... Russia's hands are untied on the Danube, where she is waging war with Turkey, while Napoleon gets freedom of action in Spain. Russia recklessly joins the continental system without considering all the consequences of this step.
Napoleon left for Spain. In the meantime, Stein's brilliant Prussian head had matured a plan for the liberation of Germany from the yoke of Napoleon - a plan based on Russian blood ... From Berlin to St. Petersburg is closer than from Madrid to St. Petersburg. Prussian influence begins to supplant French. Stein and Pfuel handled the matter skillfully, deftly presenting to the Russian Emperor all the greatness of the feat of "saving the tsars and their peoples." At the same time, their accomplices set Napoleon on Russia, in every possible way insinuating Russia's non-compliance with the continental treaty, touching on Napoleon's sore spot, his hatred for his main enemy - England. Relations between the Erfurt allies completely deteriorated and a trifling pretext (artfully inflated by the efforts of German well-wishers) turned out to be enough to involve Napoleon and Alexander in a cruel three-year war that bled and ruined their countries - but turned out to be extremely profitable (as the instigators counted on) for Germany in general and for Prussia in particular.
Using to the end the weaknesses of Alexander I - a passion for posture and mysticism - foreign cabinets with subtle flattery forced him to believe in their messianism and, through their trusted people, inspired him with the idea of the Holy Alliance, which then turned in their skillful hands into the Holy Alliance of Europe against Russia. Contemporary to those sad events, the engraving depicts "the oath of three monarchs on the coffin of Frederick the Great in eternal friendship." An oath for which four Russian generations paid a terrible price. At the Congress of Vienna, Galicia, which it had received shortly before, was taken away from Russia, and in exchange the Duchy of Warsaw was given, which prudently, to the greater glory of Germanism, introduced into Russia a hostile Polish element. In this fourth period, Russian policy is directed at the behest of Metternich.
WAR OF 1812 AND FOREIGN CAMPAIGN OF THE RUSSIAN ARMY
Of the 650 thousand soldiers of the "Great Army" of Napoleon returned to their homeland, according to some sources, 30 thousand, according to others - 40 thousand soldiers. In essence, the Napoleonic army was not expelled, but exterminated in the endless snowy expanses of Russia. December 21 reported to Alexander: "The war is over for the complete extermination of the enemy." On December 25, the tsar's manifesto, timed to coincide with the Nativity of Christ, was published announcing the end of the war. Russia turned out to be the only country in Europe capable of not only resisting Napoleonic aggression, but also inflicting a crushing blow on it. The secret of victory was that it was a national liberation, truly Patriotic, war. But this victory came at a high cost to the people. Twelve provinces, which became the scene of hostilities, were devastated. The ancient Russian cities of Smolensk, Polotsk, Vitebsk, Moscow were burned and destroyed. Direct military losses amounted to over 300 thousand soldiers and officers. Even greater losses were among the civilian population.
The victory in the Patriotic War of 1812 had a huge impact on all aspects of the social, political and cultural life of the country, contributed to the growth of national self-consciousness, and gave a powerful impetus to the development of advanced social thought in Russia.
But the victorious end of the Patriotic War of 1812 did not yet mean that Russia had succeeded in putting an end to Napoleon's aggressive plans. He himself openly announced the preparation of a new campaign against Russia, feverishly put together a new army for the campaign of 1813.
Alexander I decided to preempt Napoleon and immediately transfer military operations outside the country. In pursuance of his will, Kutuzov, in an order for the army of December 21, 1812, wrote: “Without stopping among heroic deeds, we are now moving forward. Let's go through the borders and try to complete the defeat of the enemy on his own fields. Both Alexander and Kutuzov rightfully counted on help from the peoples conquered by Napoleon, and their calculation was justified.
On January 1, 1813, a hundred thousandth Russian army under the command of Kutuzov crossed the Neman and entered Poland. On February 16, in Kalisz, where the headquarters of Alexander I was located, an offensive and defensive alliance was concluded between Russia and Prussia. Prussia also assumed the obligation to supply the Russian army with food on its territory.
In early March, Russian troops occupied Berlin. By this time, Napoleon had formed an army of 300,000, from which 160,000 soldiers moved against the allied forces. A heavy loss for Russia was the death of Kutuzov on April 16, 1813 in the Silesian city of Bunzlau. Alexander I appointed P.Kh. as the commander-in-chief of the Russian army. Wittgenstein. His attempts to lead his own strategy, different from Kutuzov's, led to a number of failures. Napoleon, having inflicted defeats on the Russian-Prussian troops at Luzen and Bautzen in late April - early May, threw them back to the Oder. Alexander I replaced Wittgenstein as Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces with Barclay de Tolly.
In July - August 1813 England, Sweden and Austria joined the anti-Napoleonic coalition. At the disposal of the coalition was up to half a million soldiers, divided into three armies. The Austrian Field Marshal Karl Schwarzenberg was appointed commander-in-chief of all the armies, and the general leadership of the conduct of military operations against Napoleon was carried out by the council of three monarchs - Alexander I, Franz I and Friedrich Wilhelm III.
By the beginning of August 1813, Napoleon already had 440 thousand soldiers, and on August 15 he defeated the coalition forces near Dresden. Only the victory of the Russian troops three days after the Battle of Dresden over the corps of Napoleonic General D. Vandam near Kulm prevented the collapse of the coalition.
The decisive battle during the campaign of 1813 took place near Leipzig on October 4-7. It was a "battle of the nations". More than half a million people participated in it from both sides. The battle ended with the victory of the allied Russian-Prussian-Austrian troops.
After the battle of Leipzig, the allies slowly moved towards the French border. In two and a half months, almost the entire territory of the German states was liberated from French troops, with the exception of some fortresses, in which the French garrisons stubbornly defended themselves until the very end of the war.
On January 1, 1814, the Allied forces crossed the Rhine and entered French territory. By this time, Denmark had joined the anti-Napoleonic coalition. The allied troops were continuously replenished with reserves, and by the beginning of 1814 they already numbered up to 900 thousand soldiers. During the two winter months of 1814, Napoleon won 12 battles against them and drew two. In the camp of the coalition again there were fluctuations. The allies offered peace to Napoleon on the condition that France return to the borders of 1792. Napoleon refused. Alexander I insisted on continuing the war, striving to overthrow Napoleon from the throne. At the same time, Alexander I did not want the restoration of the Bourbons to the French throne: he offered to leave Napoleon's infant son on the throne under the regency of his mother, Marie-Louise. On March 10, Russia, Austria, Prussia and England signed the Treaty of Chaumont, according to which they pledged not to enter into separate negotiations with Napoleon about peace or a truce. The threefold superiority of the allies in the number of troops by the end of March 1814 led to a victorious end to the campaign. Having won in early March in the battles of Laon and Arcy sur Aube, a 100,000-strong group of allied troops moved on Paris, defended by a 45,000-strong garrison. March 19, 1814 Paris capitulated. Napoleon rushed to liberate the capital, but his marshals refused to fight and forced him to sign an abdication on March 25. According to the peace treaty signed on May 18 (30), 1814 in Paris, France returned to the borders of 1792. Napoleon and his dynasty were deprived of the French throne, on which the Bourbons were restored. Louis XVIII, who returned from Russia, where he was in exile, became the King of France.
ENTERTAINMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT OF THE ALEXANDER AGE
The holidays of the dynasty were nation-wide days of rest and festivities, and every year all of St. Petersburg, seized with festive excitement, waited for July 22. A few days before the celebrations, thousands of people rushed from the city along the Peterhof road: to know in luxurious carriages, nobles, townspeople, commoners - whoever needs it. A journal from the 1820s tells us:
“Several people are crowded on the droshky and willingly endure shaking and anxiety; there, in a Chukhon wagon, there is a whole family with large stocks of provisions of all kinds, and they all patiently swallow thick dust ... Moreover, on both sides of the road there are many pedestrians, whose hunting and strength of legs overpower the lightness of the wallet; peddlers of various fruits and berries - and they rush to Peterhof in the hope of profit and vodka. ... The pier also presents a lively picture, here thousands of people crowd and rush to get on the ship.
Petersburgers spent several days in Peterhof - the parks were open for everyone. Tens of thousands of people spent the night right on the streets. The warm, short bright night did not seem tiring to anyone. The nobles slept in their carriages, the burghers and peasants in the wagons, hundreds of carriages formed real bivouacs. Everywhere one could see horses chewing, people sleeping in the most picturesque poses. They were peaceful hordes, everything was unusually quiet and orderly, without the usual drunkenness and massacre. After the end of the holiday, the guests just as quietly left for St. Petersburg, life went back to its usual track until the next summer ...
In the evening, after dinner and dancing in the Grand Palace, a masquerade began in the Lower Park, where everyone was admitted. By this time, Peterhof parks were being transformed: alleys, fountains, cascades, as in the 18th century, were decorated with thousands of lit bowls and multi-colored lamps. Orchestras played everywhere, crowds of guests in masquerade costumes walked along the alleys of the park, parting in front of the cavalcades of smart horsemen and carriages of members of the royal family.
With the ascension of Alexander, St. Petersburg celebrated its first century with particular joy. In May 1803, there were continuous festivities in the capital. Spectators saw on the birthday of the city how a myriad of festively dressed people filled all the alleys of the Summer Garden ... on the Tsaritsyn Meadow there were booths, swings and other devices for all kinds of folk games. In the evening, the Summer Garden, the main buildings on the embankment, the fortress and the small Dutch house of Peter the Great… were splendidly illuminated. On the Neva, a flotilla of small ships of the imperial squadron, dismantled with flags, was also brightly lit, and on the deck of one of these ships one could see ... the so-called "Grandfather of the Russian Fleet" - the boat from which the Russian fleet began ...
Anisimov E.V. Imperial Russia. SPb., 2008
LEGENDS AND RUMORS ABOUT THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER I
What happened there in the south is shrouded in mystery. It is officially known that Alexander I died on November 19, 1825 in Taganrog. The body of the sovereign was hastily embalmed and taken to St. Petersburg. […] And around 1836, already under Nicholas I, rumors spread around the country that a certain wise old man Fyodor Kuzmich Kuzmin lives among the people, righteous, educated and very, very similar to the late emperor, although he does not at all pretend to imposture . He walked for a long time in the holy places of Russia, and then settled in Siberia, where he died in 1864. The fact that the elder was not a commoner was clear to everyone who saw him.
But then a furious and insoluble dispute flared up: who is he? Some say that this is the once brilliant cavalry guard Fyodor Uvarov, who mysteriously disappeared from his estate. Others believe that it was the Emperor Alexander himself. Of course, among the latter there are many crazy and graphomaniacs, but there are also serious people. They pay attention to many strange facts. The cause of death of the 47-year-old emperor, in general, a healthy, mobile person, is not fully understood. There is some strange confusion in the documents about the death of the king, and this led to the suspicion that the papers were drawn up retroactively. When the body was delivered to the capital, when the coffin was opened, everyone was amazed by the cry of the mother of the deceased, Empress Maria Feodorovna, at the sight of Alexander’s dark, “like a Moor’s” face: “This is not my son!” There was talk of some mistake in the embalming. Or maybe, as supporters of the departure of the king say, this mistake was not accidental? Just shortly before November 19, a courier crashed before the eyes of the sovereign - the carriage was carried by horses. They put him in a coffin, and Alexander himself ...
[…] In recent months, Alexander I has changed a lot. It seemed that some important thought possessed him, which made him thoughtful and resolute at the same time. […] Finally, relatives recalled how Alexander often spoke of being tired and dreaming of leaving the throne. The wife of Nicholas I, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, wrote in her diary a week before their coronation on August 15, 1826:
“Probably, when I see the people, I will think about how the late Emperor Alexander, once speaking to us about his abdication, added: “How I will rejoice when I see you passing by me, and I will shout to you in the crowd“ Hurray! waving his cap.
Opponents object to this: is it ever seen to give up such power? Yes, and all these conversations of Alexander are just his usual pose, affectation. And in general, why did the king need to go to the people that he did not like so much. Was there no other way to live without the throne - remember the Swedish Queen Christina, who left the throne and went to enjoy life in Italy. Or it was possible to settle in the Crimea and build a palace. Yes, you could go to the monastery, finally. […] Meanwhile, from one shrine to another, pilgrims wandered around Russia with staffs and knapsacks. Alexander saw them many times in his trips around the country. These were not vagabonds, but people full of faith and love for their neighbor, eternal enchanted wanderers of Russia. Their continuous movement along an endless road, their faith, visible in their eyes and not requiring proof, could suggest a way out for the weary sovereign ...
In a word, there is no clarity in this story. The best connoisseur of the time of Alexander I, historian N.K. Schilder, the author of a fundamental work about him, a brilliant connoisseur of documents and an honest person, said:
“The whole dispute is only possible because some certainly want Alexander I and Fyodor Kuzmich to be the same person, while others absolutely do not want this. Meanwhile, there are no definite data to resolve this issue in one direction or another. I can give as much evidence in favor of the first opinion as in favor of the second, and no definite conclusion can be drawn. […]
House of Culture "Meridian", Moscow. 11/15/2000.
Texting: Sergey Pilipenko, February 2015.
So, our lecture today is devoted to the reign of Alexander the First Pavlovich. I can not give a positive assessment of his era. Of course, every epoch, I insist as a historian of cultures, cannot be painted entirely in white or entirely in black. I think there will be only one era in world history that can be painted black. That will be the last era of history - the era of Antichrist. And even that is unlikely to succeed, because even in that terrible era there will be great, and perhaps even the greatest saints. So it won't work anymore. But all the same, the historian has the right and must make a factual assessment, and a final assessment, and even more so a moral assessment in terms of sum.
The era of Alexander the Great for me is, first of all, the last era in the evolution of Russian Westernism, before the Soviet occupation, of course, before the communist occupation of Russia. And now we are living through the era of Westernism. And after the era of Alexander the First, during the last four emperors there was a movement just in the opposite direction, which we will be happy to talk about in the following lectures. The last four reigns gradually gained intensity and turn to the national tradition and to the Orthodox, Eastern Christian tradition, if you like, to the Byzantine tradition. But Alexander the First is the third phase after Peter and Catherine, the third phase of the heyday and growth of Westernism with all the ensuing consequences.
First of all, it should be emphasized that in his manifesto on the occasion of his accession to the throne, Alexander the First himself outlined the main direction of his reign. He said, consoling the poor nobles, that everything would be with him, as with his royal grandmother. He threw the bridge himself. Having stepped over the coffin of his father, he threw a historical bridge to the reign of his grandmother. He himself declared the continuation of the rule of the nobility, he himself declared the continuation of the Western line, the pan-European line, the line for the final entry of Russia into the “civilized world”, which is now called both “progressive humanity” and “common European home”, variously called “human dimension” also called, although I always assumed that it was anatomy.
Alexander the First ascended the throne as a result of a grave crime in which he was involved. He was a passive participant in a conspiracy to overthrow his own father, was a de facto parricide, a de facto regicide. And he suffered tragically all his life. Alexander the First was conscientious. He couldn't take it lightly.
Alexander was prepared to take the throne. We thought they prepared it well enough. In fact, they cooked very badly. His teacher was La Harpe, a radical liberal, even at one time, which was indecent to talk about, a Jacobin. It was hard to imagine a worse teacher for the Tsarevich. An honest, decent, philanthropic Jacobin, without a doubt, brought up the royal pupil in an orientation towards "universal values."
It is most worthy and righteous when the monarch serves the Supreme Creator and Provider. If he falls short of that, then it is very worthy when the monarch serves his nation or the ruling nation of the empire. But if he serves "common human values", then, consequently, he is an enemy of his own nation.
And it truly amazes me that the era of Alexander the First did not give rise to another coup or another regicide. My lecture will be largely devoted to why the era of Emperor Alexander the First was actually an era of anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox, which brought harm to the Russian nation, the Russian Empire and the Ecumenical Orthodox Church. Alexander himself did not want this personally. As a person, as a Christian, he must be rehabilitated.
Moreover, given the duration of the reign, a quarter of a century, we have the right to say that Alexander the First was even more harmful than Peter the Third. But if that one was called a “loyal Prussian minister on the Russian throne,” and he was therefore at least predictable, then this one was a loyal “common man” on the Russian throne, which is immeasurably worse - worse than any state treason. You and I are educated Russian people, and I think that two and a half years of my lectures have sufficiently convinced my listeners that not only the boyars can betray the sovereign, but the sovereign can also betray the boyars, and the country, and the state.
He was badly taught. He wanted to be the benefactor of all. This means that he could not be not only a benefactor, but also a reliable guardian of Russia's interests. After the lecture, I would recommend that you look at a very small subchapter on the education of the Decembrists in the 5th volume of the Course of Russian History by Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. It is easy to find: there is a detailed table of contents. It is directly related to the disclosure of the face of the era and the disclosure of the face of the emperor, because, in fact, everything that is true for the Decembrists converged on Alexander the First.
The Decembrists, by the way, tried to destroy Russia, they tried, but did not destroy it. What was in their upbringing? As part of their families, not necessarily within one generation, usually within three generations, the Decembrists went through three waves of non-Russian and even anti-Russian education. First there was the classicist enlightenment (classical enlightenment), Voltairianism, the influence of French philosophy, which was greatly supported by the flowering of classicism in the era of Catherine, which we spoke about. That is, they were brought up with a rational, well, not godless, of course, but wingless Christianity, when it all boils down, like in Count Tolstoy, to a list of moral prescriptions, which not only is not all of Christianity, but is not even the most important thing in Christianity. As Dostoyevsky would boldly say later, “if it were possible to conceive of a truth other than Christ, I would rather renounce the truth and remain with Christ.”
Christianity of the 18th century, Christianity preserved by the Age of Enlightenment, is something impossible, it is, as it were, the truth without Christ. And Christianity, by the way, as a system of moral precepts, costs no more than other religions. Islam also has an excellent system of moral precepts, and Confucianism has an amazing system of moral precepts and a developed sense of duty. That was the first wave. This is how grandparents were conditionally brought up. In reality, in relation to specific Decembrists, it could be a great-grandfather or father, in general, the first layer.
The second wave of education was Masonic, anti-rational, with great respect for mysticism, visionary (prophetically) understood mysticism, non-Orthodox mysticism. But in many ways, the Freemasons had the truth compared to the Enlightenment. They were dynamic opponents of statics, they were mystical opponents of rationalism, they were romantic opponents of classicism, which I spoke about in the last lecture. But it was still not Russian mysticism, not very Russian romanticism.
And there was a third wave. After all, we accepted, in which Catherine was probably right, we sheltered the abolished Jesuits. And another Jesuit wave passed. Here, Klyuchevsky has everything clearly stated. After all, there were Jesuit pensions, of course, for representatives of wealthy noble families. There were Jesuits private teachers. What is Jesuitism? In world history courses, I always emphasize that the Jesuit Order was not engaged in coup d'état at all (the Masons wrote about them), not by stabbing with a dagger from around the corner, not by poisoning legitimate rulers and heirs of large fortunes. They were engaged in education, totalitarian education, subordinated to the idea of papism. Even now, at the turn of the millennium, Jesuit educational institutions are among the best in the world. Need to learn.
The Jesuits made a fiery wrestler, and a wrestler in his place. Jesuitism is a continuous theory of small things. If you are a banker, be a Roman Catholic banker. If you are a peasant, be a Roman Catholic peasant. If you are an officer, be a Roman Catholic officer. And you live, of course, only in the name of salvation, which is the reward. Your whole life must be subordinated to the idea of strengthening the Roman Church, conceived by the Jesuits as a papist, papist church. Ad maiorem Dei gloriam (To the greater glory of the Lord) is the motto of the Jesuit Order. And you know, I have nothing against it. I have against the practice, but I understand the motto. The end justifies the means, but not every end and not every means. But more often than not, the end really justifies the means! And then there are already other brakes, right? Brakes of morality. The brakes on the fact that evil is not done for the glory of God. But I repeat, at least in our life in 9 cases out of 10 the end really justifies the means.
But, naturally, a Jesuit in Russia could not educate a nobleman as a Jesuit, especially an aristocrat. They were smart guys, it would have been revealed. And the almighty empress could immediately deprive them of their patronage and generally send them out! And it got even worse. That is, they brought up, as it were, a secular layman, but there, at the top of the pyramid, dad sits, well, actually the Lord, but dad sits against the background of the icon of the Lord. And since it was impossible to educate a Russian to be a papist, they brought up a disciplined, ready for self-sacrifice, active person, whose top of the pyramid is empty. And without a pope, the Jesuit system does not work. As a result, they brought up heroes, brought up sacrificial personalities, for whom everything was clear, except for one. Blurred was the goal, blurred was the meaning. Instead of that meaning, instead of that goal, the normal Decembrist had a strange common good, which for some reason was simultaneously considered Christianity. Although the Savior did not call us to achieve the common good as the highest goal.
And Emperor Alexander the First turned out to be brought up in exactly the same way, although by age he rather belonged to the generation not of the Decembrists themselves, but to the generation of their fathers. The Decembrists of his age, his generation were also in the minority. The presence of secret societies was first reported to Alexander, as you know, by non-commissioned officer Sherwood, who received an honorary prefix, the honorary title Faithful. And we still clean this native of the British Isles in literature as an informer, a traitor. But he was not even a Decembrist. He found out about them by accident. Sherwood the Faithful was the noblest patriot indeed. So, when Alexander was first informed about the existence of secret societies, he dismissed the well-known phrase: "It is not for me to judge them." Well, he actually committed a crime. Thus, he passed the burden of responsibility on his successor. And Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich will have the right to write to his mother that the late brother left all the dirty, unworthy work to him. He never said that to anyone again and was very upset. He did his duty, which his older brother refused to do. But I think that in his heart he harbored that resentment for the rest of his life. And he was right.
"It's not for me to judge them" - that's what was behind this phrase of Alexander the First? Some in the literature prefer to believe that he meant his involvement in regicide and parricide. But I think that the smart, noble, truly philanthropic Alexander was already beginning to understand that he was just the same as the Decembrists, who did not understand their country, did not understand the interests of the fatherland, that he was a bad Russian tsar, that he was thinking wrong! How can he judge those who, for the good of Russia, also think wrong! I have written about this in the article "Diagnosis", which many of you have read. You can see this place there. I think that Alexander's subtext was exactly this. He understood that he was no better than the Decembrists, not only because he began to reign with patricide and regicide.
Klyuchevsky treated Alexander the First better than I did. Regarding Speransky, he will write that for a short time two people were at the head of Russia. One did not have enough common sense (I don’t remember verbatim), that is, he passionately loved Russia, but did not possess political technologies (then about Alexander), and the other had a perfect mind, but did not love Russia (then about Speransky). Klyuchevsky wrote about Mikhail Speransky correctly, but only he was not a perfect mind, but a perfect computer, he was an android, a non-human, a brilliant non-human. In fact, both of them did not understand Russia - neither Speransky, smart, well-bred, but heartless, nor Alexander the First, a man with a heart, but not brought up by a Russian man. Only by law, but not by upbringing, Alexander had the right to be Emperor of Russia.
Alexander had a difficult youth, although not as difficult as his father's. Very many reproached him for duplicity, in particular, contemporaries. And the genius of Pushkin will leave us not only the "Alexander Days a wonderful beginning", but also "The ruler is weak and crafty." Evil... His duplicity - that is, literally two guises - was not his crime. It has been brought up. He was torn between his father and grandmother. Imagine a person who could be in Gatchina in the morning of the same day, participate in the disengagement of the Gatchina troops on the parade ground, perform an officer's function, and in the evening of the same day be in Tsarskoye Selo at the grandmother, where they hated their father and everything fatherly. He could not afford, as the prospective heir to the throne (heir to the heir), to treat neither his grandmother nor his father with disdain, not out of fear, but out of a sense of duty. And so it was for years.
But his brother Konstantin had it all, sorry, dear ladies, they don’t give a damn, because he was not the heir to the throne and did not want to be one. He could tell his father, I gave you this example, that his best military invention is halberds, because they are made of good dry wood, and therefore soldiers burn fires from them. After the regicide, after the death of his father, he could afford to deliberately lorn Platon Zubov, and then, removing the lorgnette, say: “I would order them all to be hanged!” He was not afraid that he would be strangled, because no one needed him, like the Elusive Joe from the joke. After all, he was not an emperor. Alexander couldn't afford it. And Konstantin could afford everything. He, the most unworthy of the four brothers, allowed himself later, when he turned out to be the viceroy in Warsaw, that is, in fact, the viceroy of Poland, to behave in a way that even the lowest police or customs official would criminally behave. He married a Polish woman. Yes, he could marry anyone, because he did not want to be the heir to the throne. By a Morganatic marriage, he even got rid of it. And he really liked to please the Poles. Therefore, under Konstantin, everything was done there in the same way - I’m for you, Poles, I’m almost a Pole, but this is Petersburg, this is my brother orders.
Konstantin is personally guilty of the Polish uprising of 1831, in which he successfully survived, in which Russian garrison soldiers died, sometimes brutally murdered. And Konstantin remained in perfect order. And he wasn't even put to shame. Well, where is the elder brother of the younger one! Although if we were in the 18th century, and the blood would not have saved him, he would have flown shamefully to some Pustozersk! But, alas, we had already severely damaged the national self-consciousness, which now we have to restore with such difficulty. But Konstantin could do anything. He was a varmint everywhere, and everyone forgave him everything - his grandmother, his father. He scoffed at his grandmother, scoffed at his father. And Alexander was forced to seriously play these two roles. And that left a heavy imprint on the rest of his life. So it is not Alexander himself who is to blame, but his grandmother, partly even his father. Still, La Harpe did not choose Pavel, but Catherine. Of course, he did not know that his father would be killed. Moreover, he was convinced that his father was not in danger. We talked about this last time. The participants in the conspiracy also assumed that nothing would happen. They simply got drunk to clear their conscience, and when they got drunk, they choked and beat with a snuffbox, beat the sovereign, beat the officer. Alexander, all the more, allowed himself to be convinced without getting too drunk. By the way, he gradually removed the participants in the regicide from the throne.
There was an episode that he could never forgive Napoleon. The episode with the arrest and execution of the most prominent and authoritative then Bourbon - the Duke of Enghien. He lived in exile, if my memory serves me right, in Baden. Of course, he was a member of the French emigrant communities, but apparently he was not engaged in any real political activity. Historians have agreed on this. He was just respectable. However, the French accused him of leading a conspiracy to change the order of things in already consular France, on the eve of the empire. The French gendarmes calmly arrived in Baden and arrested the Duke of Enghien. And in general they were right.
You know, a state criminal can be arrested in any country. The strength would be enough. If we now had Russia, and not incomprehensibly what, then we could well and would have every right to send gendarmes to arrest the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Shevardnadze, try and put him under twelve guns as a state criminal. Of course, not for his activities as the President of the so-called Georgia, but for his activities as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, for his crimes, which should be punished under Article 64 of the old Criminal Code, that is, for treason. And the West would have washed. And we would say to the objector: well, the Americans arrested Noriega, and we can arrest Shevardnadze, he is a criminal. I wrote about this in Ideological Technologies. See the collection "Parameters of Christian Policy". I only did not name there, so as not to tease the geese and so as not to substitute those who would use my example. Of course, I had in mind, first of all, Shevardnadze, Shevardnadze's criminal.
It was something else. Still, the Duke of Enghien was a representative of the legitimate Bourbon dynasty. And besides, he did not commit any crime against France. That was slander. So, the duke was brought, tried, sentenced to death, shot in the moat of the Château de Vincennes. As you can imagine, Baden did not dare to grunt at the address of France. But there was a European power that could not only grunt, but also raise its voice. Russia objected to the violation of Baden's sovereignty. Napoleon answered Alexander in such a way that Alexander could never forgive him for that. This text is well-known: "If Your Majesty were lucky enough to find the murderers of your father Emperor Paul in France, I would not interfere with Your Majesty's gendarmes." Alexander received a slap in the face in front of all of Europe. The assassins were still around him, the assassins were at court.
This is the situation in which a person, I repeat, who aspired to be virtuous, to be a benefactor, began his reign. He really started beautifully, but only shallowly. He put on a round hat, which his father Pavel hated, and began to walk around the Alexander Garden in a civil suit. Naturally, the metropolitan world was touched to drool. Everyone just ran to look at the young sovereign, who was walking among the public in the garden. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov also told me how he walked in St. Petersburg and saw the Tsarevich, who later killed Alexei Nikolaevich. But that was the declaration. Immediately, in order to make the population happy, to make his subjects happy, he begins to create one after another secret, non-public committees, "secret committees," as it was then called. The emperor and his young associates, they all played a little, they were all still young people. It is known that each of them, after a reception in the palace, looked around to see if some kind of footman accidentally saw, then quickly made a jump behind the curtain and passed through the deserted dark rooms to a remote office, where the secret committee met. You see, young people in their early twenties played with toys for noble purposes. I am not their judge at all.
But what was the composition of this committee? With whom did Alexander begin his reforms? See for yourself. The best of them was undoubtedly Count Novosiltsev, then not even a count. A bureaucrat to the marrow of his bones, but a smart bureaucrat, devoted to the sovereign, but not too much, not beyond measure. Quite devotees were bred in the civil service. That was not Derzhavin. Russia was also devoted, but not too much. It's just that his aristocratic interests were connected only with Russia. But smart, understanding, able to work. He was an even better representative. Further on, Count Kochubey is an old Little Russian family, undoubtedly of Tatar origin. crests like to reproach us that we are “Tatars”, but they are real Slavs. But if you sort through the noble Little Russian surnames - Kochubey of Tatar origin, Gamalei of Jewish origin, wow, there will be such a thing! And how many Polish origin! So, Count Kochubey was just a careerist, such a dray chinodral. This one was worse. Also a smart fellow, I must say. Let's give him his due. Stroganov under Alexander II at the end of his life will be one of the most intelligent, cautious, conservative and profound dignitaries of the empire. But under Alexander the First, he was a kid who was proud to have participated in the storming of the Bastille! Of course, he did not participate in it, but he happened to be a boy with his teacher at that moment in Paris and contemplated from afar how they were taking this very Bastille, in which there was not a single prisoner at that time. Doubtfully suitable for reforms in Russia, right? And finally, the most talented, perhaps, among them is Prince Adam Czartoryzhsky of an old Russian family, but for a long time, several generations before this, Adam of a Polonized family. Smart and patriotic. But the patriot is not Russia, but Poland. That is, a person who could not be allowed close to the position of a quarterly, alarm clock, not like a minister in Russia! As a result, the mountain gave birth to a mouse. Preli quite a lot, banned public announcements in the newspaper about the sale of serfs. It was not worth sitting in, casually it was possible to order such a decree to be issued. Information about the sale of "a strong cart, a greyhound bitch and a healthy girl" really stopped.
Well, the Decree on free cultivators of 1803 was also issued. Well, what exactly is in this decree? They usually criticize the Decree on the three-day corvee of Paul the First. And he was just reasonable, he acted and limited. And the Decree on free cultivators only declared that the government allows and recommends landowners to conclude bilateral agreements with their peasants for their release. And this decree was required for bureaucratic reasons, because the landowner with the strange surname Petrov-Solovovo did just that. With four thousand one soul of his peasants, he concluded such an agreement on redemption payments, provided them with land. But the landowner had the right to do so before, since the time of the Petrovsky Decree on single inheritance, which equated the estate with the estate. The landowner was free to negotiate with the peasants and free them. The state just messed up. That had only some significance, because by the Decree on free cultivators, Emperor Alexander declared that he was on their side, that he was on the side of the anti-serfdom. That is expensive, but he did absolutely nothing else.
By the way, all the projects for the liberation of the peasants of the Alexander time, which you will find in the 5th volume of Klyuchevsky, where everything is clearly stated, were distinguished by madness. According to the worst project, only a few world-eating kulaks could be redeemed. And “kulak”, by the way, is an old word in Russian, which means not a prosperous peasant whom the peasants never called “kulak”, but a grain dealer, namely a world-eater, one who profits from repurchasing, reselling the products of his cohabitants and neighbors. The term was distorted by the Socialist-Revolutionaries, picked up by the Bolsheviks, and already in their interpretation meant a prosperous peasant. But in Russian it is not so, read Engelhardt's notes. So, this most ridiculous decree was issued by a recognized liberal, Admiral Mordvinov, and the most reasonable - by Count Arakcheev. But all in all they didn't fit. The Arakcheev decree was bureaucratic, stubborn in the Arakcheev way, but made sure that the peasant, of course, retained all his economic capacity, that he remained a taxpayer, that he would feed himself and the state at the same time feed. This project was smarter. The illiberal Arakcheev turned out much smarter than the liberal Mordvinov.
But all these projections were of no use. Here is an example. Much was said about the liberation of the peasants. In Pushkin's unfinished chapter of Onegin about the lame Turgenev: "I foresaw in this crowd of nobles the liberators of the peasants." Remembered? Not a single Decembrist liberated the peasants! Isn't it interesting? The biggest freedom lovers! Not all of them were soul owners, some had undivided property with relatives, that is, they could not make a decision. Well, OK. But about half of the Decembrists could, after all, free the peasants. This attempt was made by only one Decembrist. The attempt was unsuccessful. Moreover, one of the most noble, in my opinion, Decembrists is the Decembrist Yakushkin. He will live a long, dignified life. He will even be released by Alexander the Second from exile, and long before that - by Nicholas the First from hard labor. He will be a real enlightener of Siberia, will benefit the Russian people, will become a completely Russian person. It is no coincidence that his own son was one of the first collectors of folklore and peasant art. And the young Yakushkin did not understand Russia and Russians so much that he gathered his peasants (probably the heads of families) for a gathering and offered them freedom. Tomorrow! No ransom! For free! But what about the earth, sir? the old people asked. The Westerner gentleman was amazed: and the land is mine. And he received the most severe answer: no, sir, we are yours, and the land is ours! And the liberation of the peasants by the Decembrists did not take place.
Here you have, generally speaking, the Alexander era. Here you have its "beautiful beginning", both one and the other, both on the part of the government and on the part of the nobles, although anti-serfdom sentiments were not in fashion! And having personally written to the emperor his “Note on Ancient and New Russia”, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin fell into disfavor for several years. Well, then, however, when the Napoleonic invasion of Russia began, he returned to favor and became an official historiographer. And he fell because he was resolutely against the madness with the landslide, immediate liberation of the peasants with an unfinished idea about land ownership, about who owns the land. We have already spoken about the contradiction of landownership, and we will speak more through a lecture when we get to the peasant reforms of Alexander II. And then, at the very end of the course, I will talk about Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. These are such complete, as they now say in the criminal world, complete "misunderstandings." "Completely incomprehensible" is a good word. And everyone suffered from misunderstandings - both the state and society.
Therefore, Karamzin's “Note on Ancient and New Russia” should be read simply by any person who even accidentally came to see me today. It cannot be read. Unfortunately, it was published only once in the early 90s, but in a very large circulation. There was also a magazine article. Because "Note" can be found. A modern Russian person can afford not to read Karamzin's poetry, he can afford not to read Karamzin's history, which is largely outdated, although it is great literature. But not a single educated Russian person can afford not to read Karamzin's Note. This is his most important work - "A Note on Ancient and New Russia". If we thought in our thoughts, then of course they would have it on the Internet and on everyone's table. But they only think what they think.
On the military policy of Alexander the First. The Persian campaign served to strengthen the external borders of Russia and should be considered geopolitically flawless and justified. The Turkish campaign was victorious and lay in line with the fulfillment of our imperial Orthodox duty, that is, the Turkish campaign of 1810-11 was a continuation of our mission in the liberation of Eastern Christians. Both of them were carried out very successfully, with very small human losses, which is very important, that is, with very little bloodshed on the part of Russian soldiers, which is very, very important! It's all right here.
By the way, we note that it was during the reign of Alexander the First that the Georgian states were gradually accepted into the Russian Empire. Let me remind you that in our relations with Georgia, we must be firmly aware not only of the fact that the Georgians for two hundred years, from the end of the 16th century to the end of the 18th century, lay at the feet of the Russians, begging to be accepted into citizenship. All literate Russians know that. Something else is much more important. Georgia has never been a part of Russia voluntarily. Independently of each other, Russia included two kingdoms and four completely independent sovereign principalities, including Abkhazia, which did it on its own, without being part of any Georgian state. Here it is necessary to know firmly - six states. And if the Soviet Union really collapsed, and was not dismembered, then six historical regions should have been formed in the place of Georgia. This is what I call a breakdown. Six states, and not Shevardnadzovsky Georgia with communist borders, that is, a completely illegal state. And if Georgia is not a part of Russia, then it does not follow from anywhere that Abkhazia is a part of Georgia.
So, Alexander's imperial policy lay in the imperial mainstream and was more or less successful during the quarter century of Alexander's reign, except for one thing - a sharp turn from France to England, for which we paid with several wars from 1804 to 1815 and innumerable human losses. Moreover, during Napoleon's invasion of our lands, in Russia itself, we suffered not the most terrible losses. The subsequent campaign of 1813-14 cost us more casualties. This is what Kutuzov warned against. Remember his immortal: "Let's go beyond the Neman, we'll return with a snout in the blood"?
The rejection of the orientation correctly chosen by Alexander's great father, Emperor Paul, turned Russia into a voluntary chestnut-puller from the fire for Austria and even more so for England, sometimes with bare hands, which is painful. He placed Russia, fulfilling the Masonic dream, in the service of the interests of England. Moreover, Austria has simply already been defeated, Austria has simply completely submitted to France. But purely maritime England could in no way influence the course of events in continental Europe, if not for the use of Russia as an instrument. For this, there were no forces and means, especially human ones. Yes, of course, even in that situation, something was done for our Orthodox brothers, something was done for our Eastern Christian brothers. But not everything, and not everything is right.
Before 1812, the main mistakes of Alexander Pavlovich were made in domestic politics. That is his rapprochement with Mikhail Speransky. Klyuchevsky was a little fond of Speransky, just a little bit. I understand that: both priests, both of the same origin. It has a social reason. But he was not too fond of it, Klyuchevsky was too smart for that. However, he will write that for the first time since the time of Ordin-Nashchokin, a great friend, associate, close tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, such a mind stood next to the throne. Mikhail Speransky was really an unexpected person. There were such minds in the 17th century, and there were in the Middle Ages. But in the 18th century they ceased to be. He was a priest in the nobility and bureaucratic Russia. A minister of this origin is something impossible. There were many priestly officials, but not of that rank. He was a priest, a graduate of the St. Petersburg Seminary. Theological academies, first in Moscow and then in St. Petersburg, had not yet been established. Therefore, the St. Petersburg Seminary was then considered the leading one. That is, it was there that they trained teachers for other seminaries. Like a semi-higher educational institution, there were no academies. He was the first student of his stream, which is why, mind you, the leadership, the authorities recommended that he enter a civilian career. And after being a teacher in the seminary for 2-3 years, he goes to civil officials. What is behind it?
Well, first of all, how low the dignity of a spiritual title has fallen! If the rector and prefect of the seminary recommends not ordination to the best student, but a secular career. How low has the dignity of the priest fallen! But perhaps there was something else behind it. Perhaps it was the clergy who were at the head of the seminary who understood perfectly well that this icy, unemotional person was not fit to be a priest. Or maybe both. He quickly makes a career, he becomes a successful official already under Emperor Paul. Then he becomes close to Novosiltsev. And one day, when Novosiltsev fell ill, he makes a report for him on a prepared note to Emperor Alexander. Alexander is quite carried away by the young official, and Speransky's rapid rise begins up to the rank of secretary of state. Cool takeoff!
Speransky was preparing a grandiose reform, which included the liberation of peasants with an undeveloped land situation, as was done, for example, with blacks in many French colonies, when former slaves immediately turned out to be free full-fledged citizens who did not have real estate, that is, politically free laborers. Russians are not blacks. If we carried out the reforms according to Speransky, we would have received Pugachev in a few months. And perhaps such a terrible bloodletting would even be for the good of Russia. Maybe ... In any case, it would not be the same as the bloodletting of the 20th century. That is, without a mind, without a sense of the specifics of the country, the people, the agricultural population. On this basis, the equalization of citizens before the law, the construction of a triple pyramid of power with the implementation of the then newfangled, English principle of separation of powers, was supposed. That is, a separate legislative pyramid, a separate judicial, a separate executive, which is generally impossible. The separation of powers is beautiful on paper. I wrote about it. Look at my Polybius scheme of power. The only thing that is really possible is to achieve the independence of judges. But in no way can the executive and legislative powers be independent of each other. Nowhere has this been achieved, neither in England nor in the United States.
Moreover, if in the 18th century everything was copied from the French, well, it’s true, at the beginning of the 18th century, Peter copied most of all from the Swedes, a little from the Dutch, then Speransky was the first to write off from the British, and even wanted to create our House of Lords from one hundred heads of the most aristocratic families. It is not known how these hundred chapters were to be chosen, and who would have been offended. Why, for example, the Musins-Pushkins got in, but the Pushkins didn’t (Makhnach put the emphasis on the last “s” everywhere in the surnames)! After all, the English House of Lords was historically formed, and not established. But even that was expected. All this was not done. The only thing we managed to create was to slightly reform the State Council. That was a good idea. We have a chamber that discusses laws. Moreover, each law could be adopted only through discussion in the state council. The Council did not have the right to legislative initiative, it remained with the sovereign. And the last word remained with the sovereign. But bypassing the state council, the sovereign could no longer issue a law. By the way, we lived like this before the revolution. We were a very legal legal country, mind you.
Moreover, the members of the State Council did not occupy a place according to the seniority of the family as in the House of Lords, and were not elected, but appointed by the emperor, but for life, mind you.
A law on examinations of officials was issued. Now an official in the civil service, who applied for a rank of 8th and 5th grade, respectively, a collegiate assessor or a state adviser, had to present a Russian or foreign diploma of graduation from a higher educational institution, or pass exams according to an established program in the presence of university professors. Why was there such a strange requirement for grades 8 and 5? And it's very simple. The collegiate assessor then became a personal nobleman, and the state councilor - hereditary. If you want to cross this line - if you please, have a higher education. But on the one hand, Karamzin had the right to ironically that in no European country do they require knowledge of Roman law from the postmaster, and world history from the fire major. And on the other hand, Speransky immediately made his enemies all the bureaucrats who aspired to this noble line. Still, the children of a personal nobleman became hereditary honorary citizens.
The educational qualification nevertheless slightly raised the educational level of our bureaucracy. There was little benefit from this. They did it like maximalists, in Russian. They did it according to Chernomyrdin, they wanted the best, it turned out as always. Make the poor fire-major surrender his Roman law! But in general, this stimulated the development of secondary and higher education in the empire.
And that's all. In this empty chatter, in this work of purely bureaucratic instances, to which representatives of society were not involved, the main thing that had already become urgent was lost, drowned - the need to resolve the peasant question, the need to restore the union of society and the state, the need to weaken the bureaucratic "mediastinum" between them. ”, bureaucratic bulkhead. Reforms and even their projects were carried out by a purely bureaucratic method. And here the sovereign alienated society from the state.
On the congress policy of Alexander the First. Most of all, he succeeded by changing his foreign policy, as the main participant in the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815. It was the first serious congress in world history that attempted to equip post-war Europe and solve its problems by contractual method. In this respect, the Congress of Vienna is the forerunner of the Hague Conferences, the Hague Court, the League of Nations, the current United Nations, which has both positive and negative aspects. As a noble endeavor, the Congress of Vienna can be viewed positively. But the so-called “principle of legitimism” was put at the basis of the Vienna Congress. "Legitimate" means "legitimate", from the Latin word "legitimus", from the word "lex" ("law"). "Legitimate dynasty" means a legitimate dynasty. But what was meant by "legitimacy" in the days of the Congress of Vienna? It was understood in an unusually one-sided way: only the dynasty that already exists by the time of the Congress of Vienna is legal. Therefore, the Bonaparte dynasty is illegitimate, and the Bourbon dynasty is legitimate, because it already existed. Therefore, if a state does not have a legitimate dynasty, then this state cannot have any sovereignty, and this state should not exist. Here the Turkish sultan is legitimate, but the Poles do not have a legitimate king. Once there was, but now there is not. And if not, then it can't be. This principle was directed against revolutions, against changes in state frontiers. But it led to absurdities, to opposition in many cases, to a natural national and even national liberation movement. For example, in Italy. There was essentially no Italy! There are Italians, but who cares about them? Serbs are illegitimate, Vlachs are illegitimate, Greeks are illegitimate. Yes, once there was Byzantium, but now it is gone, and will never be again, it is illegitimate!
And so, although the true creators of the Vienna agreements were scoundrels of great intelligence like Prince Talleyrand, the representative of defeated France, or Prince Metternich, the chancellor of Austria, the most representative figure, certainly the number one figure in the Congress of Vienna, was Alexander. He felt like a liberator and benefactor of Europe! And how did they buy it on that! How small! Bought the same Metternich and other great diplomats. He was pleased, he reveled in his nobility. In Orthodox asceticism, by the way, this state is called “charm” (self-deception, self-deception).
Well, what happened? Let's see what Alexander did. I repeat, he was an honest man, honest and noble. Having given his word, he kept it. Becoming at the head of congressional politics, he became a lifelong protector, protector of congress Europe. Moreover, the successor to his foreign policy, alas, will then turn out to be his much more Russian brother Nikolai. This business will end with the fact that Russia will turn into a gendarme of Europe. And that’s true, it will turn, but for no reason, not because such a nasty Russia enslaved Europe, but because it was the word of the Russian Tsar that cost a lot, and not another ruler, because Russia, having voluntarily, unfortunately, joined Congress politics remained true to that policy.
The Greeks were the first among the Balkan Orthodox to free themselves. Well, for the first time the Greeks were freed back in the 18th century under Paul, when Fyodor Ushakov created the Ionian Republic. The project failed, we lost the opportunity to support the Greeks. But there will be a new Greek uprising, and a Hellenic Republic will be established in Athens. Who contributed the most? Russian people. Throughout the south of Russia, behind the scenes, secretly, since we had no right, we had relations with Turkey, secretly, but in such a way that everyone knew, any policeman, recruited volunteers for the Greek rebel army. Basically, of course, the Greeks, our subjects, but the Greeks. The commander-in-chief of the Greek rebel army was a general in the Russian service, one-eyed and one-armed Alexander Ypsilanti. Our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Count John Kapodistrias, turned out to be the President of the Republic of Hellenes that was created. Everything is great, right? Now the Greeks have their own state! We have opened our way in the Balkans. But no! Illegitimate! It is illegitimate for the Greeks to have their own state, and even more so a republic! Scary to think! And the Greeks imposed Prince Otto of Bavaria. Why, I don't remember exactly. But, most likely, because it was necessary to feed this Wittelsbach. Note that the Wittelsbachs, the Bavarian royal dynasty, were traditionally pro-Russian even against a German background. But the family is not without its black sheep. It was this Otto who could not stand the Russians. He was extremely helpful to us! But he is legitimate, and therefore he was allowed into the Greek kings. Our position has been weakened. What great power would allow this! But no! Congressional and legitimate!
Otto could not resist, they trampled him. He decided to feed himself so well at the expense of the Greeks that the Greeks quickly got fed up, and he was expelled from Greece. It was extremely beneficial for us. And what about Russia? Did you send congratulations? Arranged a parade and fireworks? No. Russia recalled the ambassador from Athens. It is good that at least the expeditionary force was not sent to suppress the Greeks and restore Otto Wittelsbach. Thus, we spoiled relations with the Greeks, and yet for the Greeks we were the light in the window. When the unpretentious sailors of Ushakov landed on the Ionian Islands, the Greeks did not let them soak their legs in the coastal wave. They ran to the longboats carrying paratroopers and carried the Russian sailors in their arms. This is how they treated us. But through the efforts of Alexander, we spoiled those relations so much that French and English interests seriously declared themselves in Greece. That's congressional politics for you. Who is guilty? Yes, Alexander is to blame, Alexander.
There are many such examples. We sinned with congressional policy under Nicholas the First, and we sinned before the Crimean War, in the end. But I will give you another example, much more egregious and much more relevant for us. The Greeks are our own, but still different. But the crests were then so familiar to us that they simply considered themselves Russian people. They simply did not have time to explain that there is a special Ukrainian nation, or at least a nationality. Under Alexander, there was not a single Khokhol who would have believed that he belonged to some other people.
And what are we doing? We legitimately leave Galicia occupied under Catherine the Second to Austria. With a grand gesture, we save the Poles the unity of the Polish lands in the form of the Kingdom of Poland. That is, in fact, we save Poland for them! The Poles, however, do not remember that. The Poles do not remember that Poland actually exists thanks to the Russians, and the Russians are often disliked, but for some reason they love the French, who regularly betray the Poles twice a century. But the Kingdom of Poland was impossible, illegitimate. If it weren't for the so-called occupation, if it weren't for the agreement to annex Poland to Russia as an autonomy, Poland would have been dismembered again, divided by the Austrians and Prussians, as it was before. We gave the Poles Poland.
What could we? We could not give the Poles Poland, and we could not leave Galicia in Austria, and we should not have left it. See for yourself. First, Austria could not resist Russia. The threat of the advance of Russian troops, the first army then in Europe, to Galicia would be enough for the Austrians to immediately agree to any Russian conditions. We didn't have to fight for Galicia. Secondly, it was enough for Alexander to threaten that he would leave the Congress of Vienna. It was such a sharp knife for Metternich that Alexander would have received Galicia immediately. And finally, thirdly, in the worst case, we could pay for Galicia with Poland, without Russian lands, of course, even without Lithuanian, only ethnically Polish lands. Yes, the Germans would tear the Polish lands to shreds. And what about us? And what do we care about that?
Now let's see what would not have happened if Alexander the First had acted in Russian and in the Orthodox way. If Galicia had become Russian, then, firstly, all these “Ivashki Franks” and “Kvitkas” would not have grown the concept of “Ukrainian” and the idea of the “Ukrainian nation” with Austrian money, and would not have constructed an artificial, stillborn Ukrainian language. We would not have had a Ukrainian problem for the entire 20th century. Secondly, under Nicholas I in 1839, the Unia was abolished by the Polotsk church cathedral. Moreover, we were not in a hurry with the abolition, we did not press. There were no Uniates left in the western Russian lands as part of the Russian Empire. But the Uniates and the current not only ecclesiastical, but also the cultural problem of Uniatism were preserved in Galicia, since it did not become Russian. We would not have had the problem of this fifth column, these educated traitors of the Russian people, of Orthodox culture, of Orthodoxy over the course of six hundred years of occupation. That's what we wouldn't get by annexing Galicia.
But the funny thing is that it was beneficial for us that Poland went to the Austrians and Prussians. Together with the Poles, we would give them the Polish uprising of 1831 and the Polish uprising of 1863. The Poles, by the way, are a valiant nation, a nation of warriors, who have always cultivated military prowess, and for that I am highly respected. The Poles would have rebelled anyway, but they would not have rebelled against us, but against the Austrians and Prussians. Not all of Europe would reproach us for the oppression of the freedom-loving Poles, forcing Pushkin to write "Slanderers of Russia", but we, in the interests of our prestige, our propaganda, would make noise, stamp our feet and reproach the Teutons who oppress our brother Slavs! We would send literature and guns to Poland along with bread. Yes, Polish blood would flow, not in streams, but in rivers, much more than the Russians shed it. What about us? Polish blood. Moreover, the Poles, shedding more and more blood, would love the Russians, because they do not fight with the Russians, they are not freed from the Russians, but from the Teutons. And the Russians even support us, although they are Orthodox, they are our brothers Slavs, - the Us Polish sir would spin, not forgetting that Poland is a mess. There would be one benefit around! And one disadvantage from the insane congress policy was imposed on us by Emperor Alexander.
I will not analyze the question of the possibility that the famous righteous man, the Siberian elder Fyodor Kuzmich, is Alexander the First. A portrait, yes, like. There are as many arguments for as there are against. Whether Fyodor Kuzmich was Alexander the First, we will find out in the next world when we find out the whole truth. I repeat, here pro and contra weigh the same. Here I want to say one thing. If that is true, if he really went into poverty, then I understand him perfectly. Emperor Alexander Pavlovich had to pray for years, decades from the Lord Almighty!
I read a note: “At the lecture before last, someone was interested in the anti-Fomenkov book. She lies under the note. It can be viewed by anyone. We can not give, as this is the author's copy. Fabulous! I am pleased to read this note aloud and invite you to look. There are no other posts today. This is a collection of articles of the Imperial Russian Historical Society No. 3 (151). Moscow, Russian panorama, 2000. There are so many authors that I won't read them. How the collection looks like, you now know. I'll put it on the edge of the table, like a magazine. We have such a proven audience that I think that nothing will happen to a book or a magazine.
After the death of Paul I, his son ascended the throne Alexander I. At the beginning of his reign, Alexander carried out a number of liberal reforms. In 1801, a decree was issued on the right of non-nobles to buy uninhabited lands. The distribution of state peasants has been stopped. The decree “on free cultivators” issued in 1803 allowed landowners to free peasants from serfdom by giving them land. By decree of 1804, the Baltic peasants were turned into hereditary holders of allotments. In 1809, he abolished the rights of landowners to exile peasants to Siberia.
New universities are opening in Vilna, Kharkov, Kazan. In 1804, the first university charter in the history of Russia was adopted, which provided higher educational institutions with a certain autonomy - the election of the rector and professorship, their own court, the right of universities to appoint teachers in the gymnasium and schools of their district.
In 1802–1810 A ministerial reform was carried out: the Petrine collegiums were replaced by ministries headed by ministers personally responsible to the emperor. A Committee of Ministers was established to discuss matters together. The State Council was established as a legislative body.
Alexander spent and active foreign policy. In 1804–1813 there was a war with Iran, as a result of which Northern Azerbaijan passed to Russia. As a result of the war with Turkey (1806–1812), Bessarabia and Sukhumi were ceded to Russia. The war with Sweden (1808–1809) ended with the incorporation of Finland into the empire. In 1805, the tsar entered into an alliance with Austria against Napoleon, but the allied army was defeated by the French at Austerlitz (1805) and Friedland (1807). Alexander was forced to sign the Treaty of Tilsit with Napoleon, according to which Russia joined the blockade of England. However, Alexander did not comply with the conditions of the blockade and clearly did not want to be friends with Napoleon, which pushed the latter in 1812 on a campaign in Russia. The main battle of the Patriotic War of 1812 was the Battle of Borodino (August 26). It ended in a draw, but the Russian troops, by decision of Field Marshal M. I. Kutuzov, left Moscow. From September 2 to October 7, Napoleon was in Moscow. He offered Alexander an honorable peace, but was refused and was forced to leave Moscow for fear of being stuck in Russia for the winter. Russian troops pursued Napoleon and in March 1814 entered Paris. The king created and became the head of the Holy Alliance, which was supposed to ensure order in Europe. As a result of the war, most of Poland became part of the Russian Empire as the Kingdom of Poland, having received from the tsar the most liberal constitution in Europe, which provided for the creation of a Sejm with legislative functions; voting rights were given to all property owners.
After the Patriotic War, the tsar was ready to continue liberal reforms. In 1816–1819 in the Baltics, the process of liberation of peasants from serfdom was completed. Projects were discussed for the gradual emancipation of the peasants in Russia for state money. In 1818, Alexander announced his intention to give a constitutional structure to all of Russia. His close friend Novosiltsev developed a project based on the Polish constitution. However, the king did not sign the project. He was frightened by the revolutionary events in Italy and Spain (1820-1821) and the spread of secret societies in Russia, which advocated the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and the emancipation of serfs. In 1822, the tsar restored the right of the landowners to exile serfs to Siberia, issued a decree banning secret societies, and began persecuting liberal university professors. In the autumn of 1825 he left for Taganrog, where he died under unclear circumstances.
