Alexander I the Blessed (December 12, 1777 - November 19, 1825) - Emperor of All Russia - grew up at the court of Catherine the Great; teacher – Swiss F.S. La Harpe introduced him to the principles of humanity of Rousseau, the military teacher Nikolai Saltykov introduced him to the traditions of the Russian aristocracy, Father Paul I conveyed to him his passion for military parades.

At the beginning of his reign he spent moderately liberal reforms, developed by the Secret Committee and M.M. Speransky. In foreign policy he maneuvered between Great Britain and France. In 1805–1807 participated in anti-French coalitions. In 1807–1812 temporarily became closer to France. He fought successful wars with Turkey (1806–1812), Persia (1804–1813) and Sweden (1808–1809). Under Alexander I, Russia was annexed Eastern Georgia(1801), Finland (1809), Bessarabia (1812), Azerbaijan (1813), Duchy of Warsaw (1815). After the Patriotic War of 1812, he headed in 1813–1814. anti-French coalition of European powers. Was one of the leaders Congress of Vienna 1814–1815 and the organizers of the Holy Alliance.

This was all he was: understanding everything, keeping his true passions and principles in the depths of his soul, a cautious and attentive politician. One involuntarily recalls the assessments given to him by memoirists and historians: timid, two-faced, passive, etc. Was all this said about him? Real life shows something completely different - a purposeful, powerful, exceptionally lively nature, capable of feelings and experiences, a clear mind, perspicacious and cautious, a flexible character, capable of self-restraint, mimicry, taking into account what kind of people one has to deal with.

In the last years of his life he often spoke about his intention to abdicate the throne and “remove the world”, that after his unexpected death in Taganrog gave rise to the legend of “elder Fyodor Kuzmich.” According to this legend, it was not Alexander who died in Taganrog, but his double, while the tsar lived for a long time as an old hermit in Siberia and died in Tomsk in 1864.

1. Personality of Alexander I

Alexander I was a complex and contradictory personality. With all the variety of reviews from contemporaries about Alexander, they all agree on one thing - the recognition of insincerity and secrecy as the main character traits of the emperor. The origins of this must be sought in the unhealthy environment of the imperial house.

Catherine II adored her grandson and predicted, bypassing Paul, to be the heir to the throne. From her, the future emperor inherited flexibility of mind, the ability to seduce his interlocutor, and a passion for acting bordering on duplicity. In this, Alexander almost surpassed Catherine II. “A real seducer,” M.M. wrote about him. Speransky.

The need to maneuver between the “big court” of Catherine II in
Petersburg and the “small” - Father Pavel Petrovich in Gatchina taught Alexander to “live on two minds”, developed distrust and caution in him. Possessing an extraordinary mind, refined manners, and, according to his contemporaries, “an innate gift of courtesy,” he was distinguished by his masterly ability to win over people of different views and beliefs.

Everyone who wrote about Alexander noted his gentleness, modesty, curiosity, great impressionability and receptivity, grace of thought, great personal charm, piety and mysticism at the end of his life, and among the negative qualities - timidity and passivity, idleness and laziness of thought, dislike of systematic studies, inactive daydreaming, the ability to quickly light up and cool down quickly.

The main educator of the heir was the Swiss republican F.S. Laharpe. In accordance with his convictions, he preached the power of reason, the equality of people, the absurdity of despotism, and the vileness of slavery. His influence on Alexander I was enormous.

All his policies were clear and thoughtful. Alexander I was called the “Mysterious Sphinx” at court. A tall, slender, handsome young man with blond hair and blue eyes. Fluent in three European languages.

In 1793, Alexander married Louise Maria Augusta of Baden (who took the name Elizaveta Alekseevna in Orthodoxy) (1779–1826). Both of their daughters died in early childhood. Elizaveta Alekseevna always shared her husband’s views and concerns and supported him, which was confirmed more than once, especially in the most difficult days for Alexander.

For 15 years, Alexander practically had a second family with Maria Naryshkina. She bore him two daughters and a son and insisted that Alexander dissolve his marriage to Elizaveta Alekseevna and marry her. Alexander, despite all his passion for Maria Antonovna, persisted and cited political motives, realizing that she was a stranger to him. Researchers also note that from his youth Alexander had a close and very personal relationship with his sister Ekaterina Pavlovna.

Essentially, Alexander’s involvement in a secret conspiracy against Paul began precisely in the mid-90s with the active assistance of Catherine. At the same time, fear and disgust for this terrible intrigue grow in him.

Opponents of Paul I already in 1800 suggested that Alexander force his father to abdicate the throne by force and take power into his own hands, but he refused. Some historians believe that he hesitated and that, as events unfolded, he only gradually came to support the conspirators and entered into direct contact with them. However, subsequent events show: Alexander had no hesitation about removing his father from power; brought up in conditions of palace intrigue, with well-organized ambition, possessing a character that was certainly firm, decisive, but extremely secretive, disguised by external softness and compliance, he was concerned with only one thing - the absolute success of the enterprise and maintaining his political and dynastic unsullied in the brewing dramatic situation. faces. This is precisely what all his efforts were aimed at in 1800 - early 1801.

Alexander agreed to remove his father from power, even to imprison him in a fortress, however, on the condition that his life would be safe. The illusory nature of this “noble” agreement was obvious to everyone. Alexander knew perfectly well how this kind of coups in Russia ended: his grandfather Peter III was killed by conspirators, supporters of Catherine II.

Thus, what Catherine could not decide on in relation to Paul, and Paul himself could not decide on political and, as a result, physical elimination in relation to Alexander, the blue-eyed “angel”, soft and intelligent Alexander, decided, which indicates not only his fear before his father for his own life, but also for his enormous ambition, strong character, and determination, which he would demonstrate more than once during the years of his reign.

At the beginning of 1801, Pavel ordered the arrest of more than two dozen prominent nobles, whom he suspected of oppositional sentiments. Then the emperor began to openly express threats against his wife Maria Feodorovna and his eldest son, Alexander. A real threat hangs over 23-year-old Alexander to spend the rest of his days in prison. It was under these conditions that he had to make the final choice. Suspicious and vindictive, Pavel, not without reason, believed that his son was involved in a conspiracy, and Alexander could only be saved by opposing his father.

So, Alexander agreed to deprive his father of supreme power and to imprison him in the Peter and Paul Fortress. At half past twelve on the night of March 12, 1801, Count P.A. Palen informed Alexander about the murder of his father. Already in the first hours he experienced the full force of the consciousness of parricide. No lofty goals expressed, in particular, in his manifesto on the occasion of his accession to the throne, could justify him to himself.

Power approached Alexander immediately, without preparation, and for his human personality the question was whether he would be able to adequately resist it, as he imagined in the time of his youthful dreams, or whether it would crush him and give him another ready-made example of a ruler - cruel, unprincipled , ready to do anything to keep her. He solved this question throughout his life, without giving either a negative or a positive answer to it. And this, apparently, was his drama as a person and as a ruler.

The idea of ​​redemption terrible sin The prosperity of the Fatherland will pass through his entire life, until 1825, therefore, Alexander’s entire subsequent life should be viewed through the prism of his constant efforts to achieve this correspondence, which was extremely difficult both in purely human terms, but especially in terms of government in Russia at that time.

As for his purely human qualities, he, despite all the terrifying cruelty of the system in which he lived, fought all his life to find himself, to return to his former self. He pursued this personal, human line, despite the dictates of power, traditions, and temptations, throughout his entire life, and sometimes he succeeded, although not without retreats, concessions, and weaknesses, which gave rise to talk about duplicity, hypocrisy, Alexander's insincerity.

His almost ascetic lifestyle is also striking: early rise, difficult work with papers and people, a very limited environment, lonely walks or horseback rides, the pleasure of visiting people he likes, the desire to avoid flattery, gentle, even treatment of servants. And all this remained the dominant feature of life for many years, although the situation required going out into the world and frequent departures; The passion for the army and paradomania, which became a passion almost from childhood, have also been preserved.

Even Alexander’s endless travels had some kind of peculiar coloring. On these trips, he not only attended balls and dinners, met with the top of the local nobility and merchants, and organized a review of army units, but was also interested in the life of all levels of society. So, he reached the “Kyrgyz steppe” and visited the yurts of nomads, visited the Zlatoust factories, went down to the Miass mines, visited Tatar families in the Crimea, visited hospitals, communicated with prisoners and exiled settlers.

His biographers note that on the road he had to face considerable difficulties: eating poorly, experiencing various inconveniences, getting into unpleasant road accidents, walking for a long time. But he had a personal idea of ​​how Russia lived. And the deep disappointments that befell him at the end of his life were probably, to a certain extent, caused by this very difficult information, which dispelled his last remnants of illusions regarding his efforts for the benefit of the Fatherland.

For some reason, numerous cases of compassion, philanthropy, and help he showed towards people remain unnoticed. So, on the banks of the Neman, the emperor saw a barge hauler hit by a broken rope. Alexander got out of the carriage, helped lift the poor man, sent for a doctor and, only after making sure that everything possible had been done for him, continued on his way.

History has preserved many similar examples from the life of Alexander, which speak of his unostentatious interest in people, philanthropy, tolerance and humility. At the same time, there are known cases of cruel orders of Alexander I regarding the rebel soldiers of the Semenovsky regiment and military settlers. Wherever he showed himself as an individual, Alexander acted as a very humane person; where he showed himself as a representative and leader of the system, he sometimes acted in the spirit of the principles of unlimited autocracy.

Autocratic liberal

2.1 Domestic policy of Alexander I

2.1.1 Reform of senior management bodies

The first steps of the state of the young emperor gave the foundation to A.S. Pushkin to determine the beginning of the 19th century. as “the days of Alexandrov are a wonderful beginning.” Widespread pardons of prisoners were carried out. Russian troops sent to India were recalled to their homeland. In the army, the names of the old regiments were restored and Russian uniforms were returned. Many court cases were reviewed and censorship was relaxed. All obstacles to communication with European countries were eliminated: travel abroad became free, and Pavlov’s restrictions on clothing, as well as on trade with foreign countries, were lifted. Alexander restored the effect of the Charter to the nobility and cities, and abolished the secret chancellery.

Already in the manifesto of March 12, 1801. new emperor took upon himself the obligation to govern the people “according to the laws and according to the heart of his wise grandmother.” In decrees, as well as in private conversations, the emperor expressed the main rule that would guide him: to replace personal arbitrariness with strict legality. It was in this direction that the transformative experiments of the first years were carried out.

Even before Alexander’s accession to the throne, a group of “young friends” rallied around him (P.A. Stroganov, V.P. Kochubey, A.A. Chartorysky, N.N. Novosiltsev), who from 1801 began to play an extremely important role in government.

Reforms began with central control. Gathered at the personal discretion of Empress Catherine State Council On March 30, 1801, it was replaced by a permanent institution, called the “Permanent Council”, transformed in 1810 by M.M. Speransky to the State Council. To organize the activities of the State Council, the State Chancellery was created, and Speransky was appointed its Secretary of State.

On September 8, 1802, a personal decree “On the rights and duties of the Senate” was signed, which determined both the organization of the Senate itself and its relationship to other higher institutions. The Senate was declared the supreme body in the empire, concentrating the highest administrative, judicial and supervisory power. He was given the right to make representations regarding decrees issued if they contradicted other laws.

The Holy Synod also underwent changes, the members of which were the highest spiritual hierarchs - metropolitans and bishops, but at the head of the Synod was a civil official with the rank of chief prosecutor. Under Alexander I, representatives senior clergy they no longer gathered, but were summoned to meetings of the Synod to select the chief prosecutor, whose rights were significantly expanded.

On September 8, 1802, the Manifesto “On the Establishment of Ministries” began a ministerial reform - 8 ministries were approved: foreign affairs, military ground forces, naval forces, internal affairs, finance, justice, commerce and public education.

At the end of 1809, Alexander I instructed Speransky to develop a plan state transformation Russia. In October 1809, a project entitled “Introduction to the Code of State Laws” was presented to the emperor, but met with stubborn opposition high nobility, and Alexander I did not dare to implement it.

2.1.2 Attempts to resolve the peasant issue

The most significant part of the liberal reform program in Russia was the approach to the peasant question. On December 12, 1801, a decree was issued extending the right to purchase land to merchants, townspeople, state-owned peasants, and freedmen. The nobles' monopoly on land was broken. On February 20, 1803, the decree “On Free Plowmen” appeared, according to which serfs, with the consent of their landowners, could buy their freedom with land in entire villages.

In 1809, Alexander I signed a decree abolishing the right of landowners to exile their peasants to Siberia for minor offenses. The rule was confirmed: if a peasant once received freedom, then he could not be assigned to the landowner again. Those who were released from captivity, as well as those taken through conscription, received freedom. With the permission of the landowner, peasants could trade, take bills, and engage in contracts.

From the point of view of the processes that took place in advanced Europe at that time, this was negligible. But this was Russia with a powerful conservative nobility, a powerful bureaucracy, and a noble military corps. Perhaps at that time, in order to avoid being killed in another conspiracy, these were important steps, and it was not anyone else who took them, but Alexander I, thereby paving the way for future reforms.

Since 1810, the practice of organizing military settlements began. In 1857, military settlements were abolished. They already numbered 800,000 people.

Essentially, it was in Alexander’s liberal environment that the basic idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe solution arose peasant question- caution, gradualism, preservation of the interests of the landowners, even the Decembrists approached the solution of this problem very cautiously and contradictorily. And yet, Alexander carefully, gradually, with great caution and, as if distancing himself from personal participation in this issue, moved it forward.

In 1816, he supported the initiative of the Estonian nobility, who showed their readiness to free the serfs. In 1817 in Courland and in 1819 in Livonia, at the request of the local nobility, as well as in Estland, serfdom of the peasants was abolished; a request was also received in this regard from the nobility of Lithuania. In 1819, Alexander declared on the occasion of the reform in Livonia: “You acted in the spirit of the times and realized that liberal principles alone can serve as the basis for the happiness of peoples.”

2.1.3 Attempts to implement the constitution in Russia

In parallel with his attempts to give rise to the peasant question, Alexander I sought to equally carefully test the waters regarding the development of a constitution in Russia. The constitutional ideas of Alexander and his circle were most fully embodied, alas, not in Russia, but in the adjacent territories that had recently become part of the empire - in Finland and Poland, as well as in France after the defeat of Napoleon. Three weeks before his death, in Sevastopol, during a conversation with the Chief of the General Staff I.I. Alexander Diebitsch said: “Still, no matter what they say about me, I lived and will die as a republican.”

2.2 Foreign policy

2.2.1 Alexander I and Napoleon Bonaparte: confrontation

The personality and state practice of Alexander I were most clearly revealed in his confrontation with Napoleon. The very first clash with Napoleon at Austerlitz taught Alexander a cruel life lesson, which he learned very thoroughly. This was already evident during the negotiations in Tilsit. Defeated in the war, having lost the color of its army in the Battle of Friedland, forced to make peace, Russia, through the efforts of Alexander I, managed to protect its borders from the invasion of a victorious enemy, maintain its prestige, and not stand on a par with the defeated, occupied, humiliated Prussia and relegated to second place role of Austria. Alexander managed, in these most difficult conditions, bearing in mind not only the defeat of his army at Friedland, but also the tenacity of the Russian army that shocked Napoleon at Preussisch-Eylau in February 1807, solely due to his diplomatic and political talent to stand on a par with the winner.

On the way to Erfurt - the second meeting with Napoleon and the next negotiations with him - Alexander I continued this line: restraint, calm, goodwill, playing on the vanity of the French emperor and the desire to obtain certain foreign policy benefits for Russia. At the same time, Alexander sent secret letters to England, calming the British cabinet, expressing his strong desire to fight Bonaparte. Mistrust, secrecy, duplicity - this is how Alexander appeared in his relations with Napoleon in 1807–1808.

The meeting in Erfurt brought Russia incomparable success: Napoleon agreed to Russia's annexation of Finland, Moldavia and Wallachia, but opposed the seizure of the Bosporus and Dardanelles. But at the same time, he forced Alexander to promise that Russia would act on his side in the event of a war between France and Austria. The Russian emperor, saving his ally, the Prussian king, obtained from France a reduction in indemnity from Prussia. He also insisted on the withdrawal of French troops from the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.

The negotiations in Erfurt, despite the outward cordiality, were very tense. The true attitude of the Russian emperor towards Napoleon was manifested in the fact that the Russian court actually refused the French emperor's request to receive the hand of the tsar's sister. Napoleon was furious.

Beginning in 1808, the tsar, preparing for a future confrontation with the French emperor, began to rebuild and reform the Russian army. At the same time, he established relations with the British government and Polish high-ranking officials.

By the spring of 1812, relations between France and Russia had become tense. Under these conditions, Alexander showed great restraint, fortitude, and true patriotism. Having invaded Russia, Napoleon's great army began to move unhindered into the interior of the country. Napoleon intended to complete the 1812 campaign in Smolensk and, through the captured Russian general P.A. Tuchkova sent Alexander I a letter offering peace. There was no answer. In Smolensk, Napoleon decided to attack Moscow, take control of it and dictate his peace terms to Alexander.

In August, under the pressure of difficult military circumstances and the demands of public opinion, Alexander I signed an order to create a unified command of all active Russian armies and to appoint M.I. as commander-in-chief. Kutuzova.

For the general battle, Kutuzov chose a position near the village. Borodino (124 km west of Moscow). The Battle of Borodino began at half past five in the morning on August 26. Heavy losses and a delay in the arrival of promised reserves prevented Kutuzov from resuming the battle the next day. He made the only correct decision: to leave Moscow in order to save the army, because with the loss of the army, Moscow would be lost and the entire campaign would be lost.

From Moscow, Napoleon repeatedly turned to Alexander I with proposals to conclude peace. Konstantin Pavlovich, the Dowager Empress, many courtiers persuaded Alexander to peace, but Alexander was adamant. “I will grow a beard and would rather agree to eat potatoes with the last of my peasants than sign the shame of my fatherland,” he said.

The French army stayed in Moscow for 36 days. Napoleon never received any offers of peace. Coming out of Moscow at the head of a 116,000-strong still combat-ready French army and with a huge convoy of looted valuables, Napoleon intended, following the Kaluga road, to defeat the Russian army, take possession of the food base in Kaluga and military arsenals in Tula, then head south to places not devastated by the war. province, but this plan was thwarted by Kutuzov. Napoleon was forced to abandon his movement to the south and turned towards Vyazma, onto the devastated Smolensk road. The retreat of the French army began (which later turned into flight) and its pursuit by the Russian army. After crossing the Berezina on November 14–16, during which Napoleon lost 50 thousand soldiers, all artillery and convoys, the disorderly flight of the remnants of the French troops began. On December 25, a royal manifesto was issued to coincide with the Nativity of Christ, announcing the end of the war. But the victorious end of the Patriotic War of 1812 did not yet mean that Russia managed to put an end to Napoleon’s aggressive plans.

He himself openly announced the preparation of a new campaign against Russia, feverishly putting together a new army for the campaign of 1813. Alexander I decided to forestall Napoleon and immediately transfer military operations outside the country.

2.2.2 Foreign campaigns of the Russian army. Congress of Vienna

In December 1812, the Russian army, having ousted the French from Russia, reached the state border. M.I. Kutuzov believed that the war could end here, that there was no need to destroy Russian soldiers anymore. He believed that the fall of Napoleon would only strengthen England and other European powers in spite of Russia. However, Alexander now sought to become the savior of Europe, to be its arbiter.

During foreign trip Alexander was constantly with the army, but he was no longer an enthusiastic newcomer to Austerlitz, but a wise man from military experience, and a brave man at that. In the battle near Dresden on the Lucen fields, he took part in leading the troops and stood under fire. Alexander showed personal courage and good military management during the Battle of Leipzig, as well as in the battle for Paris.

After the French success at Bautzen, Napoleon turned to the Russian Tsar with peace proposals and was refused. Alexander continued to show firmness throughout 1814, but after the overthrow of Napoleon, Alexander no longer harbored personal enmity. On the contrary, he showed him generosity. Alexander insisted on relatively mild conditions for Napoleon’s removal from power (possession of the island of Elba, a huge pension, 50 guard soldiers for protection), contrary to Talleyrand, who proposed exile to the Azores and a stricter regime of detention.

However, as soon as the news of Napoleon’s flight from Elba and the advent of the era of the “hundred days” spread across Europe and reached Vienna, where the leaders of the then Europe gathered for its next redistribution, Alexander again showed determination and combativeness, which largely determined the unity of the allies and the final defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte. Alexander did not abandon his line towards Napoleon even when he sent the Russian emperor an anti-Russian treaty signed by Russia’s recent allies - Austria, England and Louis XVIII, who had been placed on the French throne. The agreement was secret and provided for the possibility joint actions, including the military, against Russia due to serious differences between the allies and Russia on territorial issues. Napoleon was doomed, and the conspiracy of the “great” powers against Russia was gaining formidable strength. Austria, England, and France continued to unite in the confrontation with Russia on the European continent, which quickly made itself felt at the ongoing negotiations in Vienna, and subsequently, in connection with events in the Balkans in relations with Turkey, and directly led to Crimean War. All this, after the revelation of the conspiracy of the powers, could have been easily predicted, but Alexander believed that he was above this. He allowed himself the luxury of true generosity, and in politics, as subsequent events showed, this is punished cruelly.

3. Collapse: reactionary period of government

At the turn of the second and third decades of his reign, the turn in Alexander’s actions began, which led him to his premature death. This turn was based on a whole complex of reasons - social upheavals, Alexander’s personal dramas.

First of all, it should be said about Alexander’s deep disappointment in his former allies, about their betrayal and conspiracy against Russia. And this is after the great troubles that Russia experienced, the sacrifices that it brought on the altar of Europe, after the fire of Moscow, after his, Alexander’s, army gained the upper hand in a difficult war, and he himself entered Paris victoriously.

After the second defeat of Napoleon, the congress to develop a general peace treaty resumed its work. At the same time, Alexander conceived the idea of ​​​​creating a Holy Alliance of European powers, which would regulate relations between states from a legal, religious and moral standpoint. Alexander, when planning it, firmly believed in the principles of goodness that he laid as its basis. And so it was especially disconcerting for him when the Holy Alliance was used, primarily by Austria, as a means of suppressing popular movements in the 20s. Subsequently, the formidable revolutionary reality destroyed Alexander’s liberal hobbies.

Internal affairs were increasingly reaching a dead end. Constitutional reforms and plans for the emancipation of the peasants provoked fierce resistance from the majority of the nobles. This gave rise to a familiar fear in the soul, resurrecting the terrible night of March 11, 1801. Under the influence of this fear, responsibility for the murder of his father increasingly haunted Alexander’s thoughts and gave no rest. Redemption with good intentions and good deeds never came for Russia, and this made life hopeless and meaningless.

At times, the state routine overwhelmed him, but even here, in these last years of his life, there were more failures and disappointments than bright moments. The brainchild of his dream - military settlements - instead of easing the situation of the peasants, they turned into one of its darkest symbols, and the brutal suppression of the discontent of the military settlers painted Alexander’s entire post-war domestic policy in brightly reactionary tones.

The Semenovsky regiment rebelled, information appeared about the actions of secret societies in Russia. Discontent in the army and society grew against the Russian governor in Warsaw, Konstantin Pavlovich, and terrible news periodically came about the height of European revolutions. I think that only this can explain the appearance in the early 20s of a number of decrees that again unleashed the arbitrariness of landowners against peasants, allowed them to be exiled to Siberia, and forbade them to complain about the landowners. At the same time, censorship and persecution of the press intensified. Moreover, those press organs that tried to propagate the constitutional projects of Alexander I himself were persecuted.

Under pressure from the nobility and fear of personal death, under fear of popular uprisings: Alexander had to curtail his liberal programs. He saw all this with bitterness, understood and could not help but feel deep disappointment. Crisis phenomena grew in all public spheres of Russia: in the economy, financial affairs, management

In December 1818, after a cold, she died while still very young. at a young age beloved sister of Alexander I Ekaterina Pavlovna. At the age of 16, his beloved daughter Sophia died from a long-term relationship with his favorite M.A. Naryshkina. Truly fate haunted Alexander both as a statesman and as a person.

In recent years, he became increasingly gloomy, increasingly secluded, increasingly trying to go abroad, then to the far reaches of Russia, as if he was running away from himself. Perhaps, during these long travels, the fear of a possible assassination attempt also made itself felt, especially since information about the creation of secret societies with the intention of killing the tsar periodically settled in the emperor’s office. Perhaps Alexander felt an unaccountable guilt before the people, who never received the coveted freedom from him; hence his desire to reach every layer of society during his travels around the country, to see with his own eyes how peasants, Cossacks, military settlers, steppe inhabitants, mine workers and even prisoners live. The impressions from these trips and meetings were difficult. He saw life described two decades later by N.V. Gogol in The Government Inspector and Dead Souls.

The sudden death of the emperor on November 19, 1825 in Taganrog gave rise to a lot of rumors among the people. Later, in the 30-40s of the 19th century, a legend appeared that Alexander, tormented by remorse (as an accomplice in the murder of his father), faked his death far from the capital and began a wandering, hermit life under the name of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich.

Conclusion

The life and death of Alexander I is truly a dramatic page in Russian history; to an even greater extent, this is the drama of a living human personality, forced to combine, it seems, such incompatible principles as “power” and “humanity.”

He was one of the first to talk about the importance of limiting autocratic power, introducing a Duma and a constitution. With him, voices calling for the abolition of serfdom began to sound louder, and a lot of work was done in this regard. During the reign of Alexander I, Russia was able to successfully defend itself against an external enemy that conquered all of Europe. The Patriotic War of 1812 became the personification of the unity of the Russian people in the face of external danger.

1. None of the major state undertakings of Alexander I can be considered, on the one hand, outside of his desire to justify his accession to the throne, “to bring happiness to people,” and on the other hand, outside of the constant feeling of fear for his life, which he could pay if , if his policies came into conflict with the powerful conservative nobility.

2. Results of the internal policy of Alexander I : in the first decade of his reign, Alexander I improved the system to a certain extent government controlled, contributed to the spread of education in the country.

3. Promoted the development of liberal ideas in Russia, thereby preparing the ground for economic and political reform of the country.

4. Began the process of limiting and even partially abolishing serfdom.

5. The refusal to implement the promised liberal reforms led to the radicalization of the position of the progressive part of the noble intelligentsia and gave rise to noble revolutionism. But in general, the ruling strata rejected the liberal reforms and innovations coming from above, which ultimately predetermined the turn to reaction.

6. Foreign policy Alexandra I did not meet Russia's national interests. As a result of the implementation of the utopian ideas of the Holy Alliance, Russian foreign policy was completely subordinated to national interests foreign countries, always hostile to Russia. Russia did not take full advantage of the position in which it found itself after the victory over Napoleon to further strengthen its international position.

7. The last decade of Alexander’s reign was a period of growing conservative tendencies in the domestic political course, which, despite attempts to return to liberal policies, was finally established by the beginning of the 20s.

emperor alexander liberal reform

Bibliography

1. Vallotton A. Alexander I. – M.: Progress, 1991. – 400 p.

2. Vandal A. Napoleon and Alexander. – Rostov n/a: Phoenix, 1995. T. II. – 546 p.

3. Klyuchevsky V.O. Essays. – M.: Mysl, 1989. T. 5. – 480 p.

4. Lyubimov L. The Mystery of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich // Questions of History. 1966. No. 1.S. 213.

5. Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. – M.: Nauka, 1989. – 240 p.

6. Mironenko S.V. Pages of the secret history of autocracy. – M.: Mysl, 1990. – 272 p.

7. Pivovarov Yu. The genius of the good of Russian politics // Frontiers. 1995. No. 4. P. 61.

8. Speransky M.M. Projects and notes. – M.: Nauka, 1961. – 680 p.

9. Fedorov V.A. Alexander I // Questions of history. 1990. No. 1. P. 51.

10. Eidelman N.Ya. Edge of centuries. – M.: Ex Libris, 1992. – 384 p.

11. Sakharov A. Alexander I. – M.: Nauka. 1998. – 287 p.

Speransky M.M. Projects and notes. - M.: Nauka, 1961, p. 145

Klyuchevsky V.O. Works. - M.: Mysl, 1989. T. 5, p. 14.

Vallotton A. Alexander I. - M.: Progress, 1991, p. 13

Eidelman N.Ya. Edge of centuries. - M.: Bookplate, 1992, p. 51.

Sakharov A.N. Alexander I. - M.: Science. 1998, p. 129

Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. - M., 1989. P. 84-85.

Mironenko S.V. Pages of the secret history of autocracy. - M.: Mysl, 1990, p. 94-95.

Vandal A. Napoleon and Alexander. - Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 1995. T. II., p. 85

Pivovarov Yu. The genius of the good of Russian politics // Frontiers. 1995. No. 4, p. 61.

Fedorov V.A. Alexander I // Questions of history. 1990. No. 1, p. 51.

Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. - M.: Nauka, 1989, p. 84-85.

Lyubimov L. The Mystery of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich // Questions of History. 1966. No. 1, p. 213.

Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky is a rather remarkable personality in Russian history, truly amazing person. I managed to understand this only by looking at the dates and places of the beginning and end of his life, think about it: 1856, Vladimir province - 1919, Paris. “May you live in an era of change...”, conservative Chinese once wished harm on someone. But by the way, life is interesting only if there are frequent changes in it. Alexander Petrovich lived in the era of Great Changes. And I, as a person of the era of change at the end of the 20th century, could easily understand how rich and interesting the life of this brilliant diplomat and politician was. But Alexander Petrovich owes his fate not only to time, but also to his eminent ancestors. Most of his ancestors served the state faithfully for many years. The late father of Alexander Petrovich was a senator for several years, served in the rank of provincial prosecutor, and generally practiced law for a long time, and it was he who initially mentored his sons Alexander and Peter in political matters. He gave both sons an excellent education for those times, thanks to which in 1875 Alexander Petrovich graduated from the Alexander Lyceum with a gold medal. His name was inscribed on the marble plaque of honor. The examiners noted the young man’s remarkable talent in law and especially in foreign languages.

By the end of his life, Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky knew quite a few languages, since due to the nature of his activity he had to visit many countries of the world.

But the working life of the still inexperienced young man began in his native office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire in 1877.

In order to achieve recognition as a specialist, he had to work for a long time as a secretary in various institutions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, subordinate to famous people in political history of the second half of the 19th century.

Izvolsky’s hard work and good reviews of him from Lobanov-Rostovsky, set out in the recommendations, paved the way for a promising young diplomat to a grandiose career. In just six years, Izvolsky managed to visit various parts of our planet - he worked as a secretary diplomatic mission in Bucharest (since 1882), already served with the rank of first secretary of the diplomatic mission in Washington (since 1885). He was promoted to actual privy councilor, which corresponded to generally accepted ideas about a successful career.

He was also an envoy to the Vatican, Belgrade, Munich, and finally his career brought the already experienced diplomat to the capital of Japan, Tokyo. By personal order of Emperor Nicholas II, Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky was transferred to Tokyo, since the emperor needed a person capable of constructively solving the problems of the Russian Empire in Far East diplomatically. The results were not long in coming - Alexander Petrovich proposed giving up spheres of influence in Korea in exchange for maintaining influence in Manchuria. Immediately he met approving reviews of his work from Sergei Yulievich Witte, Vladimir Nikolaevich Lamzdorf, but Alexander Petrovich’s line met resistance from the so-called “Bezobrazov clique” - a group, mainly large landowners, in Russia in 1898-1905, which aimed to create joint stock company for the exploitation of the natural resources of Korea and Manchuria. They influenced production and pursued an adventurist foreign policy. Having convinced the emperor of the harmfulness of Izvolsky’s course, this group managed to remove Alexander Petrovich from the post of head of the diplomatic mission in Japan in the fall of 1902. For the diplomat, who was two steps away from being appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, this was essentially a failure, but thanks to extensive connections at court, in diplomatic circles (Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky was married to his daughter former ambassador in Copenhagen K.K. Tolya) Izvolsky is appointed to what was then considered a prestigious post of ambassador in Copenhagen. Tokyo was quickly forgotten at court when, during the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905, Alexander Petrovich agreed on the unhindered passage of the squadron of Admiral Z.P. through the Danish straits of Sunda and Belta. Rozhdestvensky. Thanks to my long-standing friendship with Witte, good relations With the emperor's mother Maria Fedorovna, Alexander Petrovich again found himself at court, and the issue of appointing Izvolsky as Minister of Foreign Affairs was practically resolved. The mother of Emperor Nicholas II, Maria Fedorovna, wrote a letter to Nikolai Alexandrovich recommending Izvolsky for the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as with a proposal to “give the country a constitutional charter.” Izvolsky had a long-standing acquaintance with Maria Feodorovna and had great influence on her. It was he who proposed writing to Nicholas II about the constitution, since he believed that Russia simply needed, in the light of the transition to market relations and industrialization, to have an appropriate government structure, and naturally help in every possible way in the development of entrepreneurship in Russia. Alexander Petrovich also believed that for the successful internal political development of Russia it is simply necessary to introduce into the government representatives of parties of a liberal nature that are in opposition to the government.

Subsequently, Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky enjoyed the personal trust of Emperor Nicholas II. At the request of his wife, Alexander Petrovich took leave to travel to European countries, and to familiarize himself and agree with Russian foreign representatives on the future foreign policy course.

Among his relatives, Alexander Petrovich enjoyed great respect. Pavel Petrovich Izvolsky admired his brother’s amazing talent for diplomacy. He always supported his brother in his political steps, in his advancement through the ranks. Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky played a prominent role in the Russian and international political arena. He combined the outlook and mentality of a European statesman of the 20th century with the characteristic features of Russian bureaucrats of the last century - noble snobbery, negative qualities of a courtier, careerism.

In the future, Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky saw his further task in ensuring peaceful development to establish internal political calm, carry out reforms and restore the combat effectiveness of the army and navy. He rejected the idea of ​​a revenge war with Japan, believing that Russia simply needed five to ten years of peaceful life.

In accordance with the changed international situation, the foreign policy program presented by Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky has undergone great changes. From the development of measures begun under Lamzdorf to quickly bring the country out of the crisis and ensure its national security, Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky moved on to the formulation of a large national program designed for a gradual return to an active foreign policy aimed at Russia achieving a dominant position in the world political arena.

But in practice, the implementation of Alexander Petrovich’s program consisted of a policy of non-alignment with opposing blocs powers in Europe and stabilizing relations with them by concluding agreements on controversial issues. This reflected the results of several years of hard work and diplomatic play. Izvolsky already knew about the forces that Germany, England, and France had. He also knew that Russia was not destined to be among the winners. He was very knowledgeable about the state of the navy and the land army.

Izvolsky knew that not everyone at court was interested in rapprochement with France. Including Emperor Nicholas II was not inclined to an alliance, since he was married to a Hessian princess. But nevertheless, he tried to draw a line of rapprochement, especially when war seemed inevitable.

For the first time after many years, Alexander Petrovich first drew attention to the need to restructure the structure of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reduce the number of representatives, and increase the level of professional training of envoys. But the transformation plans were not destined to come to fruition. In his plans, Izvolsky was open to proposals from the Duma members, since he received permission from Nicholas II, if necessary, to speak out on foreign policy plans in State Duma, striving to establish mutual understanding with the leadership of the Duma factions on the basis of “national interests.” Alexander Petrovich was an active supporter of Stolypin's reforms.

Introduction

Alexander I the Blessed (December 12, 1777 - November 19, 1825) - Emperor of All Russia - grew up at the court of Catherine the Great; teacher - Swiss F.S. La Harpe introduced him to the principles of humanity of Rousseau, the military teacher Nikolai Saltykov introduced him to the traditions of the Russian aristocracy, Father Paul I conveyed to him his passion for military parades.

At the beginning of his reign, he carried out moderate liberal reforms developed by the Secret Committee and M.M. Speransky. In foreign policy he maneuvered between Great Britain and France. In 1805-1807 participated in anti-French coalitions. In 1807-1812. temporarily became closer to France. He waged successful wars with Turkey (1806-1812), Persia (1804-1813) and Sweden (1808-1809). Under Alexander I, Eastern Georgia (1801), Finland (1809), Bessarabia (1812), Azerbaijan (1813), and the Duchy of Warsaw (1815) were annexed to Russia. After the Patriotic War of 1812, he headed in 1813-1814. anti-French coalition of European powers. He was one of the leaders of the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815. and the organizers of the Holy Alliance.

This was all he was: understanding everything, keeping his true passions and principles in the depths of his soul, a cautious and attentive politician. One involuntarily recalls the assessments given to him by memoirists and historians: timid, two-faced, passive, etc. Was all this said about him? Real life shows something completely different - a purposeful, powerful, extremely lively nature, capable of feelings and experiences, a clear mind, insightful and cautious, a flexible character, capable of self-restraint, mimicry, taking into account what kind of people one has to deal with.

In the last years of his life, he often spoke of his intention to abdicate the throne and “retire from the world,” which, after his unexpected death in Taganrog, gave rise to the legend of “elder Fyodor Kuzmich.” According to this legend, it was not Alexander who died in Taganrog, but his double, while the tsar lived for a long time as an old hermit in Siberia and died in Tomsk in 1864.

Personality of Alexander I

Alexander I was a complex and contradictory personality. With all the variety of reviews from contemporaries about Alexander, they all agree on one thing - the recognition of insincerity and secrecy as the main character traits of the emperor. The origins of this must be sought in the unhealthy environment of the imperial house.

Catherine II adored her grandson and predicted, bypassing Paul, to be the heir to the throne. From her, the future emperor inherited flexibility of mind, the ability to seduce his interlocutor, and a passion for acting bordering on duplicity. In this, Alexander almost surpassed Catherine II. “A real seducer,” M.M. wrote about him. Speransky Speransky M.M. Projects and notes. - M.: Nauka, 1961, p. 145.

The need to maneuver between the “big court” of Catherine II in
Petersburg and the “small” - father Pavel Petrovich in Gatchina, Alexander was taught to “live on two minds” by V.O. Klyuchevsky. Essays. - M.: Mysl, 1989. T. 5, p. 14., developed distrust and caution in him. Possessing an extraordinary mind, refined manners, and, according to his contemporaries, “an innate gift of courtesy,” he was distinguished by his masterly ability to win over people of different views and beliefs.

Everyone who wrote about Alexander noted his gentleness, modesty, curiosity, great impressionability and receptivity, grace of thought, great personal charm, piety and mysticism at the end of his life, and among the negative qualities - timidity and passivity, idleness and laziness of thought, dislike of systematic studies, inactive daydreaming, the ability to quickly light up and cool down quickly.

The main educator of the heir was the Swiss republican F.S. Laharpe. In accordance with his convictions, he preached the power of reason, the equality of people, the absurdity of despotism, and the vileness of slavery. His influence on Alexander I was enormous Vallotton A. Alexander I. - M.: Progress, 1991, p. 13.

All his policies were clear and thoughtful. Alexander I was called the “Mysterious Sphinx” at court. A tall, slender, handsome young man with blond hair and blue eyes. Fluent in three European languages.

In 1793, Alexander married Louise Maria Augusta of Baden (who took the name Elizaveta Alekseevna in Orthodoxy) (1779-1826). Both of their daughters died in early childhood. Elizaveta Alekseevna always shared her husband’s views and concerns and supported him, which was confirmed more than once, especially in the most difficult days for Alexander.

For 15 years, Alexander practically had a second family with Maria Naryshkina. She bore him two daughters and a son and insisted that Alexander dissolve his marriage to Elizaveta Alekseevna and marry her. Alexander, despite all his passion for Maria Antonovna, persisted and cited political motives, realizing that she was a stranger to him. Researchers also note that from his youth Alexander had a close and very personal relationship with his sister Ekaterina Pavlovna.

Essentially, Alexander’s involvement in a secret conspiracy against Paul began precisely in the mid-90s with the active assistance of Catherine. At the same time, fear and disgust for this terrible intrigue grow in him Eidelman N.Ya. Edge of centuries. - M.: Bookplate, 1992, p. 51..

Opponents of Paul I already in 1800 suggested that Alexander force his father to abdicate the throne by force and take power into his own hands, but he refused. Some historians believe that he hesitated and that, as events unfolded, he only gradually came to support the conspirators and entered into direct contact with them. However, subsequent events show: Alexander had no hesitation about removing his father from power; brought up in conditions of palace intrigue, with well-organized ambition, possessing a character that was certainly firm, decisive, but extremely secretive, disguised by external softness and compliance, he was concerned with only one thing - the absolute success of the enterprise and maintaining his political and dynastic unsullied in the brewing dramatic situation. faces. This is precisely what all his efforts were aimed at in 1800 - early 1801.

Alexander agreed to remove his father from power, even to imprison him in a fortress, however, on the condition that his life would be safe. The illusory nature of this “noble” agreement was obvious to everyone. Alexander knew perfectly well how this kind of coups in Russia ended: his grandfather Peter III was killed by conspirators, supporters of Catherine II.

Thus, what Catherine could not decide on in relation to Paul, and Paul himself in relation to Alexander - political and, as a consequence, physical elimination, the blue-eyed “angel”, gentle and intelligent Alexander, decided on, which indicates not only his fear before his father for his own life, but also for his enormous ambition, strong character, and determination, which he would demonstrate more than once during the years of his reign.

At the beginning of 1801, Pavel ordered the arrest of more than two dozen prominent nobles, whom he suspected of oppositional sentiments. Then the emperor began to openly express threats against his wife Maria Feodorovna and his eldest son, Alexander. A real threat hangs over 23-year-old Alexander to spend the rest of his days in prison. It was under these conditions that he had to make the final choice. Suspicious and vindictive, Pavel, not without reason, believed that his son was involved in a conspiracy, and Alexander could only be saved by opposing his father.

So, Alexander agreed to deprive his father of supreme power and to imprison him in the Peter and Paul Fortress. At half past twelve on the night of March 12, 1801, Count P.A. Palen informed Alexander about the murder of his father. Already in the first hours he experienced the full force of the consciousness of parricide. No lofty goals expressed, in particular, in his manifesto on the occasion of his accession to the throne, could justify him to himself.

Power approached Alexander immediately, without preparation, and for his human personality the question was whether he would be able to adequately resist it, as he imagined in the time of his youthful dreams, or whether it would crush him and give him another ready-made example of a ruler - cruel, unprincipled , ready to do anything to keep her. He solved this question throughout his life, without giving either a negative or a positive answer to it. And this, apparently, was his drama as a person and as a ruler.

The idea of ​​atonement for a terrible sin with the prosperity of the Fatherland will pass through his entire life, right up to 1825, therefore the entire subsequent life of Alexander should be viewed through the prism of his constant efforts to achieve this compliance, which was extremely difficult both in terms of a purely human, but especially in terms of state in then Russia.

As for his purely human qualities, he, despite all the terrifying cruelty of the system in which he lived, fought all his life to find himself, to return to his former self. He pursued this personal, human line, despite the dictates of power, traditions, and temptations, throughout his entire life, and sometimes he succeeded, although not without retreats, concessions, and weaknesses, which gave rise to talk about duplicity, hypocrisy, Alexander's insincerity.

His almost ascetic lifestyle is also striking: early rise, difficult work with papers and people, a very limited environment, lonely walks or horseback rides, the pleasure of visiting people he likes, the desire to avoid flattery, gentle, even treatment of servants. And all this remained the dominant feature of life for many years, although the situation required going out into the world and frequent departures; The passion for the army and paradomania, which became a passion almost from childhood, have also been preserved.

Even Alexander’s endless travels had some kind of peculiar coloring. On these trips, he not only attended balls and dinners, met with the top of the local nobility and merchants, and organized a review of army units, but was also interested in the life of all levels of society. So, he reached the “Kyrgyz steppe” and visited the yurts of nomads, visited the Zlatoust factories, went down to the Miass mines, visited Tatar families in the Crimea, visited hospitals, communicated with prisoners and exiled settlers.

His biographers note that on the road he had to face considerable difficulties: eating poorly, experiencing various inconveniences, getting into unpleasant road accidents, walking for a long time. But he had a personal idea of ​​how Russia lived. And the deep disappointments that befell him at the end of his life were probably, to a certain extent, caused by this very difficult information, which dispelled his last remnants of illusions regarding his efforts for the benefit of the Fatherland.

For some reason, numerous cases of compassion, philanthropy, and help he showed towards people remain unnoticed. So, on the banks of the Neman, the emperor saw a barge hauler hit by a broken rope. Alexander got out of the carriage, helped lift the poor man, sent for a doctor and, only after making sure that everything possible had been done for him, continued on his way.

History has preserved many similar examples from the life of Alexander, which speak of his unostentatious interest in people, philanthropy, tolerance and humility Sakharov A.N. Alexander I. - M.: Science. 1998, p. 129. At the same time, there are known cases of cruel orders of Alexander I regarding the rebel soldiers of the Semenovsky regiment, military settlers S.V. Mironenko. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. - M., 1989. pp. 84-85.. Wherever he showed himself as an individual, Alexander acted as a very humane person, and where he showed himself as a representative and leader of the system, he sometimes acted in the spirit of the principles of unlimited autocracy.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

1. TSESAREVICH ALEXANDER

When Alexander was declared emperor, he was twenty-four years old. Russia, with its population of millions, was now as if in his complete power, unrestricted by anything. But from the very first days of his reign, he became convinced that in fact this power was imaginary, that even he was not at all free in his personal life, that any Russian citizen belonged more to himself and had more control over himself than he, the autocrat. He was not free, because from all sides he was persistently offered conflicting projects and plans, and he constantly felt that he was in a net. His beliefs pleased some, confused others, but he did not have time to apply his thoughts to action. He was not free also because now it suddenly became clear to himself that he was not at all ready for the role of a monarch.

How was his adolescence? How did he live his teenage years? Didn’t he feel like a prisoner of either Catherine’s noble life or the Gatchina guardhouse?

Alexander, saving himself, came up with techniques to inspire the trust of both his grandmother and father. He flattered, lavished tender confessions, submissively agreed with everyone, disarmed with meekness, hiding his real face under the mask of a “real seducer,” as M.M. later put it. Speransky.

His first teacher and educator was Catherine herself. She composed textbooks for him according to all the rules of pedagogy of that time, instilling in him, as it seemed to her, sound concepts about man and the world. Alexander's tutor was Count Nikolai Saltykov, a sophisticated courtier who loved to grimace and was prone to whims. Another teacher was General Protasov. His duties consisted mainly of monitoring the boy's daily behavior, and the general grumbled conscientiously at his pupil. Russian history and literature were taught to Alexandru M.N. Muravyov, one of our very significant writers of the 18th century. Mathematics was taught to the future king by Masson, geography and natural science by the famous Pallas, and physics by Kraft. It was also necessary to teach the heir the law of God, and Catherine, fearing that the boy would be instilled with some superstitions, found the safest archpriest for him in this regard. It was a certain Somborski. The main teacher and educator of the future Russian emperor was the Swiss Laharpe. He, apparently, had scant information about the true life of the masses of Europe, but not to mention the fact that La Harpe had no idea about the Russian people. He, however, managed to bind his pet to himself, who probably sensed the incorruptibility of his teacher.

Since 1791, Catherine stopped hiding from people close to her her plan to remove Paul from the throne, and Alexander, initiated into this plan, was horrified by the proximity of the hour when he would finally have to declare himself, shedding his disguise. When Catherine revealed to him her intentions to eliminate Paul and elevate him, Alexander, to the throne, the ill-fated candidate for the Russian throne wrote a letter to his grandmother in which he seemed to agree to everything, and at the same time it was impossible to use this document as evidence, that Alexander intends to challenge his father’s rights to supreme power. At the same time, he wrote a letter to Paul, calling his father “his majesty” and thus, as it were, predetermining the issue of succession to the throne. State concerns seemed overwhelming and scary to Alexander. I had to know so much, learn everything and remember everything, and oblivion was so pleasant. And it’s so tempting to give up on everything.

Catherine wanted Alexander to get into the position of an adult as soon as possible: she wanted everyone to get used to looking at her favorite as the future emperor. It was necessary to marry the young man as soon as possible. Catherine made inquiries with her ambassadors, and her choice settled on the Baden princesses. In October 1792, two princesses, Louise and Frederica, arrived in St. Petersburg. Frederica was just a child, and the eldest, Louise, was fourteen years old. She became Alexander's bride. The appearance and behavior of Louise, now called Elizabeth, inspired the sympathy of many. The slender, gentle, blue-eyed beauty captivated everyone with her grace and intelligence. She was educated. Elizabeth knew history and literature very well, despite her fourteen years. Alexander, although he was a year older than her, seemed like a teenager in her company. On September 23, 1793, the marriage of Alexander and Elizabeth took place.

At the beginning of 1795, Laharpe was fired, and Alexander completely stopped studying and working. Contemporaries claim that he abandoned books and indulged in laziness and pleasure. Only the Gatchina exercises on the military parade ground seemed to continue to occupy the future emperor. It is possible that all this is true, but it is unlikely that Alexander spent his time completely fruitlessly. He carefully observed what was happening around him. And if he didn’t have time to find out the real one, people's Russia, removed from him, but he managed to hate his grandmother’s autocracy and the baseness of court life. The future autocrat, he was then ashamed of the madness of unlimited power and dreamed of somehow getting rid of it.

Gradually, Alexander matured spiritually and matured. He has formed his views and beliefs. And if there is a lot of sentimental dreaminess in them, then nevertheless they already contain that bitter truth that tormented this emperor all his life. From time to time, an obsessive idea of ​​abdicating the throne arose in his soul, and he became exhausted in this struggle with himself. All his life Alexander cherished this dream. If in his youth he romantically pictured the future for himself as a modest life “with his wife on the banks of the Rhine,” believing his “happiness in the company of friends and in the study of nature,” then at the end of his life he no longer imagined this escape from power as a happy idyll.

Alexander gradually developed the conviction that it was necessary to first establish some kind of order, give Russia law and citizenship, and then, when freedom became the property of the country, leave, leaving others to continue the work he had begun. When these thoughts took shape in his soul, like something harmonious and for him most convincing, fate brought him together with one person who played an important role in his life. It was a young Polish aristocrat, Prince Adam Czartoryski, who ended up in St. Petersburg as a hostage. In 1794 he fought against Russia under the banner of Kosciuszko, who was now languishing at the behest of Catherine in St. Petersburg captivity.

Who else surrounded Alexander at that time? It is necessary to name chamber cadet A.N. Golitsyn, who later also played a significant role in the biography of the monarch. In 1796, a young couple came to St. Petersburg - Count P.A. Stroganov and his wife Sofya Vladimirovna. At one time Alexander was not free from her charms, and until the end of his days he retained complete respect and sympathy for her. Among Alexander’s friends at that time, V.P. was notable. Kochubey and P.I. Novosiltsev, relative of Count Stroganov. He was much older than Alexander and made a great impression on him with his intelligence, education, abilities and ability to elegantly and accurately express his thoughts.

At the beginning of November 1796, Catherine died suddenly. Paul ascended the throne. Everything changed immediately. Almost on the same day, Alexander had to, dressed in an old-fashioned Prussian uniform, install striped booths around the palace, like in Gatchina. Gradually, Paul dispersed Alexander's liberal friends. By the end of Pavlov’s reign in St. Petersburg, of the then freethinkers under Alexander, only P.A. remained. Stroganov. But the Tsarevich now had a completely different kind of faithful friend and devoted servant - Alexey Andreevich Arakcheev. However, it is difficult to imagine that Alexander, a man not stupid and not deprived moral sense, could not see the low and dark features of Arakcheev’s nature.

2. AT THE DAWN OF THE REIGN: THE FIRST STAGE OF REFORM

Gradually, the forces opposing Paul find contact with each other. A conspiracy against the emperor is formed around the English ambassador (the reason is Paul's decision to send Don Cossacks to India). Part of the guards officers, as well as the Governor-General of St. Petersburg, Count Palen, and other nobles, also rallied against the emperor. Alexander’s critical attitude towards his father’s policies contributed to his involvement in the conspiracy against Paul, but on the conditions that the conspirators would spare his father’s life and would only seek abdication. Alexander did not allow the thought of the possibility of a bloody outcome. Therefore, when Palen informed him, having come from Paul’s chambers, about what had happened, Alexander fainted and then revealed extreme despair. Palen was not able to convince Alexander to “start reigning” and, they say, only with a shout brought him to his senses. Alexander's position was very difficult: he felt that, knowing and allowing intentions to influence his father's power, he risked being blamed for what happened. He looked at himself as an unwitting participant in the murder and was afraid that others would look at him that way.

Alexander I ascended the Russian throne intending to carry out radical reform political system Russia by creating a constitution that guaranteed personal freedom and civil rights to all subjects. He was aware that such a “revolution from above” would actually lead to the elimination of the autocracy and was ready, if successful, to retire from power. However, he also understood that he needed a certain social support, like-minded people. He needed to get rid of pressure both from the conspirators who overthrew Paul and from Catherine’s old men who supported them. Alexander got rid of Paul’s murderers quite easily. Even the all-powerful Count Palen, without any resistance on his part, was removed from the court in the summer of 1801. They were hastily liberal decrees published. Peter-Pavel's Fortress- was empty: many prisoners in it were released. Those in exile began to flock to the capital, which had recently been inaccessible to them. Returned to St. Petersburg from the village and A.N. Radishchev. The number of persons who again received the rights they had lost under Paul was twelve thousand people.

On March 15, a manifesto was published with an amnesty for emigrants. A special decree was issued to the chief police chief, which asked the police “not to cause any offense to anyone.” The import of books from abroad was allowed, which was prohibited by the late emperor. Private printing houses, banned under Paul, began to operate again. The charter granted to the nobility was restored, as well as the city position. In April, the gallows that stood in the squares with the names of the guilty nailed to them were destroyed. They changed the military uniform, and although the new uniforms with excessively high and hard collars were also very uncomfortable, everyone admired them only because the hated Prussian-style uniforms were destroyed.

More serious reforms had to be thought through and discussed thoroughly. The main thing was to become familiar with the state of affairs in the country. The young emperor had very vague ideas about some things of paramount importance. The peasant question, for example, seemed easily solvable to him until he became a crown bearer. Now everything that seemed simple suddenly became difficult and complex. In addition, there were some things the emperor did not know at all.

In May, an order was made on his behalf - not to publish in official gazettes announcements about the sale of peasants without land by landowners. Whether the emperor forgot this order, or whether it somehow went unnoticed by him, it only later became clear that Alexander did not even know that the nobles had such a right to sell people like cattle, separating wives, husbands and children. While abroad, the tsar indignantly denied that such a right existed in Russia. However, having become convinced from one random complaint that Russian slavery was in fact slavery, and not a rural idyll, the Tsar raised this issue in the State Council, astonishing the respectable members of the highest government institution with his simple-minded ignorance of our then customs. On April 5, 1801, the Permanent Council was created - a legislative advisory body under the sovereign, which received the right to protest the actions and decrees of the tsar. In May of the same year, Alexander submitted to the council a draft decree banning the sale of peasants without land, but members of the Council made it clear to the emperor that the adoption of such a decree would cause unrest among the nobles and lead to a new coup d'etat.

By September 1801, the Permanent Council had prepared a draft of the “Most Gracious Charter Committed to the Russian People,” which contained guarantees of the basic civil rights of subjects (freedom of speech, press, conscience, personal safety, guarantee of private property, etc.), a draft manifesto on the peasant issue (prohibition of the sale of peasants without land, establishment of a procedure for the redemption of peasants from the landowner) and a project for the reorganization of the Senate. During the discussion of the projects, sharp contradictions between the members of the Permanent Council were revealed, and as a result, none of the three documents were made public. It was only announced that the distribution of state peasants to private hands would cease. Further consideration of the peasant question led to the appearance on February 20, 1803 of a decree on “free cultivators”, which allowed landowners to set free peasants and assign ownership of the land to them, which for the first time created the category of personally free peasants.

In May 1801, at the suggestion of P.A. Stroganov, a Secret Committee was formed with the aim of discussing plans for state transformation. It existed until the autumn of 1805. The Committee consisted of Count V.P. Kochubeya, P.A. Stroganova, N.N. Novosiltsev and Prince A. Czartoryski. Alexander was the youngest in age. Freethinkers and Republicans, as soon as they had to engage in real politics, suddenly became very cautious and slow. It was decided to study Russia first, and then begin reforms.

What was the activity of the Secret Committee? None of its members proposed any serious constitutional project. Everyone thought we had to wait. A constitution at that time was possible only by class and qualification, with a clear predominance of aristocrats. In such a constitution, Alexander and his friends saw a direct threat to their philanthropic program. The nobles and rich nobles who surrounded the throne in a “greedy crowd” did not want fundamental social reforms, confident after their victory over Pugachev that the time had not come to share anything with the people. But, on the other hand, the peasant question, to which the Secret Committee repeatedly returned, required the participation in its solution of some politically literate people, but they were not there at all, and those who were treated this issue disinterestedly, as clearly in it interested Alexander turned to one or another statesman, offering to compose a project peasant reform, but each time I encountered insurmountable obstacles.

However, Alexander subsequently constantly returned to the issue of abolishing serfdom. He even instructed Arakcheev to present him with a corresponding project, and Arakcheev came up with a plan for the gradual redemption of peasants from landowners with an allotment of two dessiatines, but Alexander was unable to complete the matter even within the pitiful limits of Arakcheev’s crude reform. The emperor had no support in this matter. On September 15, 1801, he had to be crowned in Moscow. Alexander was exhausted from the obligatory splendor of rituals and etiquette. On the occasion of the coronation it was announced various awards, but many dignitaries were dissatisfied, not having received the peasants, which they had hoped for.

Alexander was indifferent to religion in those years. He had no idea about the people's church, and the ascetics who went into deep forests and distant deserts were unknown to him. But he became acquainted with the bishops who sat in the Synod, and this official and external church could hardly inspire respect in him. It is not surprising that Alexander, in a vague search for an integral worldview, two years after his accession to the throne, became interested in Freemasonry, without even trying to delve into the experience and teaching of the Orthodox Church.

In 1803, the young emperor visited famous mason Beber. He outlined to Alexander the essence of Masonic teaching and asked for the lifting of the ban imposed on the lodges. It seems that Alexander, seduced by his skillful interlocutor, not only gave his consent to the opening of lodges, but also wished to be initiated into the Freemasons. Whether or not Alexander was a free mason, there is no doubt that the Masons saw him as their man in the first years of his reign, as evidenced by numerous Masonic cants composed in honor of the Russian emperor. One of the Lithuanian lodges in its correspondence mentions Alexander as its fellow member. Apparently, Alexander's closest friends were also Freemasons. A. Czartoryski hints in his memoirs that the entire Secret Committee consisted of Freemasons.

In 1803, Alexander became interested in M.M. Speransky. He struck Alexander's imagination with the novelty of his views and the very way of his thinking. In his note on state reform, Speransky proposed, while temporarily preserving the absolute prerogatives of the monarch, to create a system of institutions that would prepare minds for a possible future reform. Alexander instructed Speransky to develop a plan for state reform in Russia and new principles for governing the country, and soon the first projects for the state reorganization of Russia, which envisaged a major reorganization of the judicial, legislative and executive branch, creation of the State Council, Cabinet and Governing Senate. Alexander approved Speransky's proposals, and the State Council was soon created. They usually point to the orders of 1809, edited by Speransky, on court ranks and on exams for civil ranks, as the reason for the dislike of the nobility and bureaucrats towards Speransky. The decree on court ranks recognized them as distinctions that did not bring any rank. The decree on examinations for ranks made production for the ranks of the VIII and senior classes dependent on educational qualifications. Perhaps the displeasure of those who suffered from the new official order played a role in the fall of Speransky; but, in any case, his fall followed long after the decrees of 1809 and happened quite suddenly. In March 1812, the Emperor sent Speransky to Nizhny Novgorod, and from there to Perm.

Speransky's removal was undoubtedly connected with a change in Alexander's foreign policy. The transition from hostility to rapprochement with France, the break with old allies, the severity of the continental system and continuous wars, French influence on internal affairs, the conductor of which was Speransky - all this greatly influenced public mood and caused murmurs. When the good relations between Alexander and Napoleon began to deteriorate, the hostility of Russian society towards Napoleon and France reached great tension, and Speransky in public opinion began to be considered an outright traitor.

Thus, in 1812, a new change took place in Alexander. Just as Alexander’s friends on the intimate committee had previously become convinced of the fragility of his friendship, just as Speransky now had to be convinced of this. Saying goodbye to him with tears, Alexander had the appearance of a man yielding to the need to sacrifice Speransky without verifying the accusations brought against him by denunciations. Behind his back, Alexander gave vent to his indignation at Speransky and even talked about the death penalty. And Napoleon himself had many occasions to become convinced of the duality of his ally. Amiable and reserved, charming and secretive, Alexander never gave all of himself to his friendship with Napoleon and, on occasion, rebuffed him or avoided frankness, maintaining his bright smile and charming gaze.

Successful wars with Turkey (1806-1812) and Sweden (1808-1809) strengthened Russia's international position. Eastern Georgia (1801), Finland (1809), Bessarabia (1812) and Azerbaijan (1813), and the Duchy of Warsaw (1815) were annexed.

3. THE FIGHT AGAINST NAPOLEONIC FRANCE.

ALEXANDER'S EUROPEAN POLITICS

throne council sovereign reform

Surrounded by court intrigues, selfish dignitaries and a dense wall of administrative and bureaucratic order, Alexander felt that Russia, with its serfdom, with its many millions of mysterious peasant population, would inevitably very soon come face to face with Europe, which Napoleon would move to the East in the proud hope to overthrow and crush the last rival, the last enemy of the world empire he dreamed of.

What could he, Emperor Alexander, oppose to the Napoleonic idea? Everyone in Russia then called the brave Corsican a tyrant and an enemy of freedom. But Alexander understood that it was somehow strange and awkward to talk about freedom in the Russia of that time. It's like talking about rope in a hanged man's house. There was slavery in Russia. People were sold wholesale and retail. During his reign, Alexander was unable to unravel this knot, and a dead loop strangled the country. And yet, despite this terrible ulcer, Russia seemed to Alexander the only bulwark against the dangerous claims of Bonaparte.

Admirers of Napoleon insisted that he was the embodiment of the revolution, that he, having pacified its rebellious forces, directed them along the main democratic channel, that he allegedly saved the cause of the revolution from “Jacobin madness.” But Alexander doubted this. True, now there are no Bourbons, but there is the unheard-of despotism of Bonaparte himself; there are no old privileged ones, but the administration of the empire enjoys prerogatives that are more burdensome than noble privileges; There is no royal censorship, but there is imperial censorship, unceremonious and soldierly rude.

In 1805-1807, Alexander I took part in coalitions against Napoleon, was defeated at Austerlitz (1805) and was forced to conclude the extremely unpopular Peace of Tilsit in Russia (1807). The phantom of Napoleon obscured from Alexander the entire complexity of the historical situation. Alexander knew, of course, that the so-called continental system, which closed all ports to English ships, was ruinous for Russia, that the economic process, which was developing uncontrollably within our country, encountered an artificial obstacle in this continental system and the business of our exports was slowed down, and along with thus delayed natural development all material and cultural forces of Russia. Alliance with Napoleon and imposed on Russia economic policy were disadvantageous not only to large landowners and the emerging bourgeoisie, but also to the middle class, and indirectly to the entire huge mass of the peasantry, for the fall of serfdom depended largely on general development productive forces of the population. France fought with England for political and economic hegemony, and Russia, after the signing of the Peace of Tilsit, fell into the position of a vassal of France. All this was sufficient grounds for a clash between the European West and the European East. But, realizing this, Alexander still, like all his contemporaries, could not rid himself of the thought that the entire history of mankind of that era was concentrated in the personality of Napoleon.

At the end of 1811, it was already clear to Alexander that a clash with Napoleon was inevitable, but at the same time, he himself and everyone around him felt that the government and army were not ready for this test. True, the November victory over the Turks won by Kutuzov and the alliance with Sweden provided some freedom of action, but this was not enough to fight the enemy. Napoleon led about six hundred thousand soldiers to Russia, but the Russian army numbered only two hundred thousand.

Alexander dreamed of becoming the head of the armies, but he was also afraid of this, aware of his responsibility to the country. In April 1812, in Vilna, he was surrounded by a huge crowd of foreigners. Stein, Fuhl, Bennigsen, Diebitsch, Toll, Wilson, Paulucci, Michaud, Saint-Prix and others vied with each other to offer their projects and plans to Alexander. And at the same time, balls and evenings took up as much time as meetings with strategists. The last celebration was a ball in Zakret. During this ball, he was informed that Napoleon had crossed the Neman without declaring war. Alexander spent the rest of the night doing urgent business. The next day a rescript was drawn up, where among other things he said: “I will not lay down my arms until not a single enemy warrior remains in my kingdom.”

Everyone knows further events: the armies - northern Barclay de Tolly and southern Bagration - retreated with the danger of being cut off from one another by Bonaparte's hordes. Alexander had to leave the main apartment. Everyone understood that his presence was harmful to business. Shishkov had to persuade Arakcheev to influence Alexander. The Tsar left for Moscow. Donations, huge for that time, flowed in non-stop. By autumn, up to one hundred million rubles had been collected. Solemn meetings and speeches, cheers from the street crowd, prayers and bells - all this filled the soul with confusion, tired the heart, and it was difficult to unravel the true meaning of events. Alexander understood, however, that the fate of Russia now depended primarily on the men. There were weapons in their hands. Alexander understood that it was necessary to wage the “Scythian” war, retreating into the interior of the country, but no one knew to what extent it was necessary to retreat.

When the armies of Barclay de Tolly and Bagration finally united near Smolensk, many hoped that the enemy’s path would be blocked here. However, despite the fact that the Russian soldiers fought with amazing tenacity, they had to leave Smolensk. And no wonder - for every Russian there were three Frenchmen. One must imagine what Alexander thought and felt when adjutants from the army came to him with news of a steady retreat.

Alexander became more and more convinced of his spiritual weakness and poverty. What does it mean in front of greatest events? Does he dare to take the place of the leader of the Russian army? We must humbly submit to the voice of the people. Everyone insists that we need a commander-in-chief with a Russian name, beloved by the soldiers. This is Kutuzov, Suvorov's younger comrade. Alexander recalled a clumsy, overweight man with a sly eye, and he was unpleasant that he would have to appoint him, this witness to the Austerlitz disgrace. But there is nothing to do. And Alexander appointed Kutuzov commander-in-chief. Everyone believed that the end of this retreat would come. But - a strange thing - this favorite of our soldiers, like the honest German Barclay de Tolly, led the army further and further, surprising all of Russia.

Finally came the Battle of Borodino. Forty thousand Russian people fell on the battlefield, and the same number of French and allies died. Alexander took the paper with Kutuzov’s report with trembling hands. It was a strange report. It was too laconic, vague and dry. It was as if the author of the report was too lazy to write it, as if Kutuzov was busy with something else, more important than this random battle one hundred and thirty miles from Moscow. Alexander accepted Kutuzov’s unclear and evasive report as news of the failure of the Russian army, but it was too late to change command. Meanwhile, Kutuzov himself had no doubt at all that the Battle of Borodino was the path to real victory. It is obvious that Kutuzov was not very interested in Alexander’s state of mind and did not consider it necessary to keep him cheerful.

When Alexander received a brief report from Count Rostopchin through Yaroslavl that Kutuzov had decided to leave Moscow, he retired to his office, and the valet heard his steps all night. In the morning he left his office, and everyone noticed that the emperor had many gray strands in his hair. The Empress Mother and brother Constantine hysterically reproached the emperor for not rushing to make peace with Bonaparte. Patriots were indignant in a different way. Everywhere Alexander was met by perplexed, angry people and confused looks. In vain, “devoted without flattery,” Arakcheev begged his master to accept Napoleon’s proposals for peace; Alexander usually absent-mindedly listened to his favorite if he decided to talk about high politics. Bonaparte's five weeks in Moscow were the most terrible test for Alexander since March 11, 1801. He tried to see as little people as possible, locked himself in his office and, forgetting to sign urgent papers, read the French Bible, trying to unravel its secret meaning. He now seemed stooped more than always, and his characteristic charming smile appeared less often on his face. Terrible news came from Moscow. The capital was burning, and entire neighborhoods were already in smoking ruins. The French plundered shamelessly. And the remaining residents were subjected to violence and insults. But this unbridledness of the soldiers concealed the death of the army.

Having received news of Napoleon's speech from Moscow, Alexander realized that the danger had passed. Kutuzov invited the emperor to lead military operations, but memories of Austerlitz and Friedland embarrassed Alexander, and he told Colonel Michaud, sent to him from the army, that he did not want to reap laurels that he did not deserve.

A week later, news arrived about the battle of Maloyaroslavets. Napoleon's army was still an impressive force, but it was doomed to destruction, despite the bravery of the veterans and the courage of the marshals. And finally, Alexander receives a report about the famous battle on the Berezina. Here was the final defeat of Napoleon’s army, but why, however, did Bonaparte himself leave with the remnants, albeit pitiful, of his army to the West? How could the Russian generals allow this escape? Having abandoned thousands of wounded and sick in Vilna, the French hurry on, and the Russian vanguard enters the city unhindered. Alexander goes to the army. Here, in Vilna, he has to hug Kutuzov solemnly in front of everyone. He has to give the old man “George” of the first degree, but they still do not understand each other. Kutuzov stubbornly insists to the sovereign that it is time to “put down the weapon.” We don't care about Europe. Everything will work out on its own there. Alexander had a different opinion on this matter, and it was difficult to convince the old man and many of his sympathizers that he needed new trip to the West for the liberation of Europe.

Kutuzov and Alexander were representatives of two opposing psychologies. Kutuzov was what is called a zemstvo man. He was organically connected with the land, with the population, with the traditions of Russia. It had all the advantages and disadvantages of this type. The soldiers loved him because there was something peasant, simple and slightly crafty about him. He did not want and could not go against the enemy with some distant goals. He agreed to directly defend Russia when Bonaparte went to Moscow, but shedding peasant blood, in some incomprehensible pan-European interests, seemed to him extravagant. Alexander was not like that. He was alien to the masses. He didn't know any men at all. Didn't understand them. This alienation from the earth was his drama, and it led him to a sad end.

However, there are no meaningless events in history. And the fact that Russia became the head of the campaign of 1813-1814 had its own objective meaning. “For twelve years I have been known in Europe as a mediocre person, let’s see what they say now,” Alexander said in Paris in 1814. Alexander's pride could indeed now be satisfied. The so-called European society hailed him as the leader of the victorious campaign that led to the overthrow of Napoleon. And then January 1814 came. Allied forces are going to Paris. Emperor Alexander seemed primarily interested in charming and seducing the enemy. Army orders keep repeating that soldiers must be generous to France. Not only civilians, but also captured soldiers are the subject of extreme concern for this sovereign. However, Alexander is not only concerned with his broad philanthropy. He follows the campaign plan and actions very closely and persistently. He tries to harmonize the opinions of generals and kings. He is silently recognized as the main leader of the campaign.

On March 19, 1814, the Allies entered Paris. Alexander very reluctantly agreed to the Bourbon monarchy, and then only after the falsified opinion of the nation, which allegedly wished for restoration. He lived on the Rue Saint-Florentin, in the house of Talleyrand, entangled in a whole network of intrigues. He had to devote a lot of mental strength and mental attention to negotiations with Napoleon, who was awaiting his fate in Fontainebleau. Alexander was very concerned that, when retiring to the island of Elba, Napoleon would not suffer any insults or even inconveniences along the way. He also ensured that the French officers were provided for in the best possible way in all respects. The same cannot be said about Russian soldiers. Intoxicated by his European popularity and Parisian successes, Emperor Alexander forgot in strange confusion about the fate of the Russian men, whom he led across Europe in order to defeat his terrible rival with their help. Now the deed was done, and the victors were locked in the barracks. They were poorly fed, burdened with outfits, and in case of accidental clashes with the French, the Russians always turned out to be at fault. The officers were also dissatisfied with the preference that Alexander gave to foreigners.

In the fall of 1814, a great spectacle of European diplomacy opened - the Congress of Vienna. Alexander played an important role on these stages. International robbers were quite successful in distributing territory and population. This was helped by the millions in bribes that ministers and diplomats took from less clever dukes and kings. The most difficult thing was to settle the matter with Poland. Alexander insisted on annexing the Duchy of Warsaw to Russia with an independent constitution. He failed, however, to unite all Polish lands under your crown. Austria and Prussia left behind them: the first - Galicia, the second - Poznan.

There was another difficulty. All sovereigns rebelled against endowing the Kingdom of Poland with a special constitution. It would be bad example for the enslaved nations. But Alexander was unshakable on this point. As a result, Russia, which suffered more than other powers from the war, received the least reward. Austria received a territory with ten million people, Prussia - with a population of five million, and Russia acquired three million new citizens, moreover, very doubtful regarding their state usefulness.

In the midst of redrawing the map of Europe, stunning news was received in Vienna. Napoleon left Elba and landed with a handful of brave men on the southern coast of France. Fear of the frantic Corsican again united everyone, and the rivals again became allies. And now Napoleon is defeated again. Europe is free. Alexander, crowned with laurels, returns to Russia.

In March 1815, Russia, England, Austria and Prussia signed an agreement to form the Quadruple Alliance. He was aimed at implementing the decisions of the Congress of Vienna, especially as it related to France. Her territory was occupied by the troops of the victorious powers, and she had to pay a huge indemnity. In September 1815, Alexander I, Austrian Emperor Franz and the Prussian king Frederick William III signed the Act of Formation of the Holy Alliance. Its author was Alexander I himself. The text was of a religious and mystical nature and contained obligations of Christian monarchs to provide each other with all possible assistance. Under the religious veneer were hidden mystical goals: support for the old monarchical dynasties based on the principle of legitimacy, the fight against revolutionary movements in Europe and the containment of many peoples within artificial state borders created by the decisions of the Congress of Vienna. At the congresses of the Holy Alliance in Aachen (1818) and Troppau (1820), the principle of legitimism was supplemented by a new political principle, which gave the right armed intervention members of the union into the internal affairs of other states to suppress revolutionary uprisings in them. France also became one of the participants in the Holy Alliance in 1818, after the decision was made at the congress in Aachen in 1818, at the insistence of Alexander, to withdraw the occupying troops from its territory.

Quadruple and Holy Alliances were created due to the fact that all European governments understood the need to achieve concerted action to resolve controversial issues. However, the alliances only muted, but did not remove the severity of the contradictions between the great powers.

4. Second stage of reforms. Strengthening the reaction

Returning from Europe, Alexander found a monstrous collapse of administration and economic affairs in the country. The absence of the sovereign, the obscurity in which many ministers found themselves, the powers given to local authorities, and the impossible tasks assigned to them in collecting taxes for military affairs - all this led to the complete collapse of local government. Failure to comply with Senate decrees, accumulation of arrears, arbitrary arrests of citizens, cruel punishments in places of detention, bribes, sale of government property, sneaking, giving of farm-outs without bidding, groveling, smuggling, even counterfeiting banknotes - these were the plagues of Russian life. From this, Alexander drew the conclusion that in Russia there are still no people suitable for inculcating citizenship, and only Western peoples are ripe for law and order.

In May 1815, Alexander announced the granting of a constitution to the Kingdom of Poland, which provided for the creation of a bicameral Sejm, a system local government and freedom of the press. Opening the Warsaw Sejm in the spring of 1818, in his speech from the throne, Alexander unambiguously announced that he intended to limit autocracy throughout all of Russia, and not just its outskirts.

In 1812, Alexander came across french book General Servan, who proposed a project for special military settlements on the borders of the empire. Alexander decided that he needed to use the idea of ​​the French general.

Alexander entrusted the organization of “military settlements” to his favorite Count Alexei Andreevich Arakcheev. In 1816, in the Novgorod province, where Arakcheev’s estate was located, an entire volost was turned into a military settlement. The men were declared military villagers. Battalions of regular troops were also stationed here. The soldiers found themselves in the position of farm laborers. The men were also shaved, put on uniforms and forced to learn military service. Now Alexander's eyes could rejoice. The gray huts and fences disappeared. In their place stood brand new houses in orderly rows, all of the same type, painted the same color. They gave the peasants loans, benefits, horses, cattle, and tried in every possible way to seduce them with the new order. The boys were all enrolled as cantonists and from the age of ten were already subject to Arakcheev’s discipline.

By the end of the reign, military settlements were established not only in the Novgorod province. In Ukraine, thirty-six infantry battalions and two hundred and forty-nine cavalry squadrons were enrolled in military settlements. There were ninety infantry battalions in the north. This means that almost a third of the entire army is in a peaceful situation. Alexander admired the success of the business he had planned. And at first glance, it seemed as if the success of the reform was indeed obvious. Financial reporting was exemplary. Arakcheev managed to accumulate reserve capital of fifty million rubles. Agriculture and crafts flourished in the settlements. During inspections, the authorities brought out fatty cabbage soup, piglets and chicken dishes from the settlers' meals for testing. But these piglets and chickens, as well as all the other decorations of military settlements, were like “Potemkin villages.”

One of the controversial aspects of Alexander’s activities was his concern for the education of Russia. He intended to cover Russia with a whole network of educational institutions that would consistently lead the student “from the ABC to the university”: this network was to be composed of: parish schools (one for at least two parishes), district, provincial (gymnasiums) and universities. Before Alexander, there were two universities in Russia (in Moscow and Dorpat); re-opened under him in Kharkov, Kazan and St. Petersburg; converted or reopened a number of special higher institutions- lyceums.

The dark days for universities only began in 1812, when the government valued every penny. First everything educational establishments distinguished by their secular character and all-class status. But when the sovereign was seized by a mystical mood, this also affected the fate of the educational work; he decided to closely combine faith and knowledge, “so that Christian piety would always be the basis of true enlightenment.” A visible sign of the new direction was the formation of a united ministry of spiritual affairs and public education.

In 1817, instead of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education was created, headed by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and the head of the Bible Society A.N. Golitsyn. There was another meaning hidden in this institution: affairs of all religions were equally handled in different departments; Alexander emphasized his complete religious tolerance. Under the leadership of A.N. Golitsyn, the destruction of Russian universities was actually carried out, and cruel censorship reigned.

In 1822, Alexander I banned activities in Russia Masonic lodges and other secret societies and approved the Senate’s proposal, which allowed landowners to exile their peasants to Siberia for “bad deeds.” At the same time, the emperor was aware of the activities of the first Decembrist organizations, but did not take any measures against their members, believing that they shared the delusions of his youth.

In 1817-1818, a number of people close to the emperor, incl. A.A. Arakcheev, on his orders, were engaged in the development of projects for the phased elimination of serfdom in Russia. In 1818, Alexander I gave the task to N.N. Novosiltsev to prepare a draft constitution for Russia. The draft “State Charter of the Russian Empire,” which provided for a federal structure of the country, was ready by the end of 1820 and approved by the emperor, but its introduction was postponed indefinitely.

The tsar complained to his immediate circle that he had no assistants and could not find suitable people for gubernatorial positions. Former ideals increasingly seemed to Alexander I to be just barren romantic dreams and illusions, divorced from real political practice. The legend that Arakcheev was the inspirer of Alexander in the era of reaction has already been debunked by historians.

The most important papers signed by Arakcheev were written according to the emperor’s own drafts. Arakcheev was Alexander’s executor and instrument, and not his mentor.

The news of the uprising of the Semenovsky regiment (1820) was perceived by Alexander as a threat of a revolutionary explosion in Russia, to prevent which it was necessary to take tough measures. However, dreams of reform did not leave the emperor until 1822-1823.

The question of succession to the throne was confusing. Back in January 1822, Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich renounced the throne and gave written assurance to this effect. Brother Nikolai Pavlovich had to be recognized as the heir. In the summer of 1823, with the knowledge of Golitsyn and Arakcheev, the Moscow Archbishop Filaret was secretly given an act of succession to the throne by Nicholas, signed by the emperor. On the sealed envelope was the tsar’s own handwritten inscription: “Keep in the Assumption Cathedral with state acts until my demand, and in the event of my death, open... before any other action.”

Nikolai Pavlovich was not officially notified of this act, but back in the summer of 1819 the emperor told him and his wife that perhaps he, Nikolai, would have to take the throne after his death or after his abdication. In her notes, Nikolai Pavlovich’s wife recounts this conversation, which allegedly confused and upset them. And Elizaveta Alekseevna, in one of her letters to her mother, wrote frankly that Nikolai Pavlovich was sleeping and seeing that happy day for himself when he would be the unlimited ruler of Russia.

The Greek question was an important subject of concern for the emperor. The uprising of the Greeks against the Turks, caused in 1821 by Alexander Ypsilanti, who was in Russian service, and the indignation in Morea and on the islands of the Archipelago caused a protest from Emperor Alexander. But the Sultan did not believe the sincerity of such a protest, and the Turks in Constantinople killed many Christians. Then the Russian ambassador Stroganov left Constantinople. War was inevitable, but, delayed by European diplomats, it broke out only after the death of the sovereign.

The Congress of Verona, which began in the fall of 1822, was the last political event in which Emperor Alexander took an active part. In essence, his life as a sovereign was over. He still continued to reign, was present at reviews and maneuvers, removed ministers and appointed new ones, made speeches at the Warsaw Sejm, signed rescripts, but this was no longer the old Alexander, who dreamed of the revival of the fatherland, the liberation of Europe from Napoleon and, in general, the welfare of the people ... Those around him no longer saw his benevolent smile and did not hear him kind words. Now he didn't care about the impression he made on people. He became gloomy, distrustful and concentrated, as if captivated by some one thought, heavy and persistent.

When accepting the crown, Alexander thought that with government work he would lull his conscience. Paul is killed, but Russia will rise again. Alexander will free her. Then he will renounce power and retire somewhere like fair man. But he failed to either liberate Russia or free himself from the heavy burden of autocratic power.

Inside the state, indeed, everything was bleak. Alexander knew that even under Paul there was no such extortion and embezzlement as there is now; he knew that the serfs were gloomily and impatiently awaiting the freedom promised in 1812; he knew that the cause of education, led by A.N. Golitsyn, hopelessly confused. The glory that surrounded his name as the pacifier of Europe now did not console Alexander.

The emperor spent the last years of his life mostly in constant travel to the most remote corners of Russia or in almost complete solitude in Tsarskoe Selo. It seems that there was not a person in Russia who did not complain about this: they joked that the sovereign ruled Russia from a postal carriage; they complained that the sovereign cared about everything, but not about what was happening in Russia. These complaints reached Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna and the generals devoted to A. (Zakrevsky, for example) and embarrassed them a lot.

A lot of matters remained unresolved and were postponed until the arrival of the sovereign; secret societies were born.

Back in 1816, it was discovered (on the occasion of the transition of one volost to military settlements) that, contrary to the belief of the sovereign and the government, there were no food reserves. While they were discussing how to organize the food supply business, whether to collect supplies in kind or in money, in 1820 a famine broke out, first in Chernigov province; in 1821, 15 provinces were already starving; most landowners refused to feed their peasants; people mixed all sorts of surrogates into bread, could barely stand on their feet, became plump, fell ill and died. All this created fertile ground for unrest and for the awakening of serious discontent.

What about Alexander’s personal life? In December 1818, a friend of her youth, sister Ekaterina Pavlovna, died, who knew how to be so tender, and in decisive moments so irreconcilable and persistent. And now sweet eighteen-year-old Sophie, the daughter of the emperor and M.A., has also died. Naryshkina. The doctors reported to the sovereign about another misfortune. Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna is seriously ill. Her situation has become so dangerous that she must go immediately to the south of France or Italy. But Elizaveta Alekseevna refused to go to Europe. They discussed something for a long time with the emperor. And then it was announced that they would go to Taganrog together.

On September 13, 1825, Alexander arrived in Taganrog. Ten days later the empress arrived there. They settled in a small one-story house that did not look like a palace at all. And the furnishings in this house were modest. Alexander and his wife, apparently, wanted to forget, if possible, about court pomp, so difficult and boring.

November 19 was a cloudy and gloomy day. At 10 o'clock in the morning, Emperor Alexander died. Soon after this officially certified death of the tsar, rumors began among the people that the emperor had not died at all, that he, burdened by the power, went with his staff somewhere into an unknown distance, and someone else was buried instead of the tsar. A legend arose. Subsequently, they even assured that the Siberian elder Fyodor Kuzmich, who died in 1864, was none other than Emperor Alexander himself. The legend is supported by others even today.

But whether Alexander Pavlovich Romanov died or did not die on November 19, 1825 in Taganrog - this is ultimately important for his personal fate. As an emperor, he died a long time ago. At the Congress of Verona he was already nothing more than a phantom of the former majestic monarch. He was the ghost of autocracy. He was defeated and killed by the revolution, the meaning of which he tried in vain to unravel.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Childhood, education, upbringing of the grandson of Empress Catherine II Alexander I. Reasons for early marriage. Portrait of his wife - Elizaveta Alekseevna. History of relations with Naryshkina. Conspiracy and murder of the father, accession to the throne. Foreign policy of Alexander I.

course work, added 05/23/2013


Childhood and youth of the future Russian Emperor Alexander II. Marriage and accession to the throne, personal tragedies. Abolition of serfdom. The rise of a social movement. The last years of the emperor's life. Several attempts on the life of Emperor Alexander II.

presentation, added 01/20/2015


Childhood, education and upbringing, Alexander’s accession to the throne. The emperor's internal policy, reform of the highest government bodies, attempts to resolve the peasant issue, financial reform. Foreign policy, wars against the Napoleonic Empire.

abstract, added 11/11/2010


Political portrait of Alexander II - Emperor of All Russia, son of Nicholas I. The essence and significance of his reforms in the field of finance, education, press and censorship, the abolition of serfdom. The assassination attempt on the emperor and its consequences, the end of his reign.

presentation, added 12/05/2013


Formation of the personality of Alexander II. Childhood and adolescence. Marriage and accession. State internal policy during the era of his reign. Abolition of serfdom. Bourgeois reforms. Foreign policy. The last years of the reign and the death of the king.

thesis, added 01/31/2014


Accession to the throne Russian Emperor Alexander I. The combination of liberal and conservative views as the reason for the emperor’s popularity in society. Public Administration Reform Project. Decree on free cultivators. Results of the reforms of Alexander I.

presentation, added 01/21/2016


Contradictions in the social, economic and political development of Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. History of the state from the first years of the reign of Alexander I - the grandson of Catherine II and the son of Paul I. Internal reforms and foreign policy of the emperor in 1801-1812.

course work, added 01/26/2013


The vicissitudes of Alexander I's accession to the Russian throne. The emperor's first steps in domestic policy. Main transformations: charter granted to the nobility, charter granted to cities. Alexander's steps to free the peasants from serfdom.

presentation, added 12/23/2014


Features of the classification of terrorism in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The main reforms of Emperor Alexander II. The essence of political terrorism. The assassination attempt on Alexander II as the first terrorist attack in Russia. The assassination of the emperor and its consequences.

abstract, added 09/06/2009


Accession to the Russian throne of Alexander II. Creation secret committee to discuss measures to organize the life of landowner peasants and conduct peasant, city, judicial, military, financial and zemstvo reforms. Size of land plot.