172 DISGRACE AND EXILE
On the surface, Moscow's Society before 1812 appeared to live only
for pleasure, in a ceaseless succession of parties, dances, receptions. It
seemed as if life consisted exclusively of warm, boisterous, and extravagant
display of old-fashioned hospitality. This gregariousness fostered and
abetted the social lions' propensity to revel in their recollections of tJie
past. The glories and glitter of the reign of Catherine II lived still in
the memories of the aging favorites and courtiers. Naturally, idealization
of the past led to a carping criticism of the present. The victories of
Suvorov were contrasted to the humiliating defeats of Alexander I; the
solemn, cold, military and bureaucratic atmosphere of Alexander's court
- presided over by the morose Dowager Empress, Maria Fedorovn~ -
seemed quite a come-down to the brilliant companions of the gay, clever,
and extravagant "Semiramis of the North." In short, "Moscow" was dis-
satisfied. It resented Alexander's apparent dislike of the upper nobility,
of that aristocracy which in the 18th century had elevated and dethroned
Emperors and Empresses, and had even challenged autocracy. Prominent
representatives of the "Senatorial Party" came to join and rejuvenate
the ranks of the Moscow Fronde after they had been pushed aside by
Alexander I and the Unofficial Committee. To the aristocracy and
"Senatorial Party" Speransky was hateful chiefly on two counts. In the
first place, he was an upstart, a priest's son. Secondly, he was considered
as the most systematic, consistent, and gifted advocate of the bureau-
cratic principle in government. Speransky's measures and proposals
were interpreted in Moscow as so many concealed moves at destroying
the political and social influence of the aristocracy.^1 The State
Secretary became the natural target for the criticisms of Moscow's nobles
who did not dare to come out against the Emperor himself.
The Moscow Fronde, composed of elderly men whose dissatisfaction
could easily be ascribed to senile jealousy, could not by itself become
very dangerous. But its threat grew in the eyes of the Emperor as it
became the rallying point for the concrete grievances of the numerous
provincial nobility. Russia's unsuccessful wars against Napoleon had
been very costly, and the burden lay heavily enough on the serf-owner.
More ruinous, yet, was Russia's forced participation in Napoleon's
Continental System. The landowners produced largely for the export
market, and their main customer had been England. In spite of the
Tariff of 1810, they feared economic ruin. Naturally, the nobility'S
attacks and protests were directed against the government's official
1 The mildest expression of this sentiment is found in a letter of P. V. Chichagov
to S. R. Vorontsov, Paris 26 March 1810, (No. 48, Arkhiv kniazia Vorontsova, Vol.
19, pp. 170-173).
