PLANS OF REFORM 161projected by Speransky, were mere copies of French institutions, those
wicked and abhorrent creations of the French Revolution and the
Usurper BuonapOlrte. There was enough truth in this accusation, if
one considered only the external and formal features of the Council,
to make a very effective propaganda argument. Further proof of
Russia's slavish submission to France was seen by Karamzin in the
fact that the changes and reforms had been introduced after Tilsit,
and even more particularly after Erfurt. It was but a short step to the
suggestion that Speransky had been bribed (or at best, tricked) into
subverting Russia's traditions and source of strength through the in-
troduction of alien elements. Unfortunately, continued Karamzin, the
well-meaning but misguided Emperor had fallen victim to the Machi-
avellian scheme. Furthermore, Karamzin condemned the limitation of
the absolute and autocratic power of the Russian monarch implied in
the Statute of the Council of State. The Historiographer believed that
such a limitation was not only contrary to Russia's historical tradition,
but also harmful to the future development of the country. The limiting
and restrictive intent of the Council of State was to be found, Karamzin
pointed out, in the formula which had to accompany all future legis-
lative acts: "vniav mneniiu soveta," i.e., "having heard the opinion of
the council." This formula, Karamzin argued, was nothing but a
translation of the phrase used in all the legislative acts of Napoleonic
France, "Ie conseil d'etat entendu .. :' As France had a constitutional
government - its practical non-existence under Napoleon I was con-
veniently disregarded by Karamzin - the formula had a constitutional
meaning and aimed at limiting the power of the Emperor. Poor logic,
indeed!If the formal similarity between the Russian and French formulas is
not a crucial argument, may it not be true, though, that Speransky's
intention in introducing this formula, had been to limit the power of
the autocratic ruler of All Russia? Most historians have answered in
the affirmative and indeed have considered the use of the formula as
the first breach - at least by implication and potentially - in the solid
wall of Russian autocracy. The mere fact of having to hear the opinion
of the Council, so the argument went, was a limitation upon absolutism.
But did the Emperor not always ask and hear - not necessarily follow,
of course, - the advice of his councillors and other regularly constituted
administrative bodies? The autocratic, absolute character of the Russian
Emperor's power found expression among others, in his prerogative of
legislating without regard to the opinions and advice rendered. The use
of the formula "vniav mneniiu soveta," or even the mere existence of