Michael Speransky. Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772–1839 - Marc Raeff

174 DISGRACE AND EXILE

Russia's religious life. If not stopped immediately, they would end by

dissolving the ethical and, later, the social fabric of the nation. In
Count Rostopchin's opinion, Speransky was the evil genius of Russia.
"His" administrative measures and reform plans were copies of the
hateful French models and aimed at transforming the Tsar's traditional
absolutism and paternalism into Jacobin tyranny that would ruin the
Russian people. As if this were not enough, Rostopchin also believed

• not without some foundation - that Speransky was a leader among
  Russia's Free Masons and mystics. Gossip and rumor further exag-
  gerated Speransky's interest in freemasonry which many thought to be
  dedicated to the propagation of revolutionary ideas.
  Count Rostopchin was a brilliant person; he possessed a fascinating
  sardonic wit, good education, wide knowledge, a facile and eloquent
  pen. These qualities made him an excellent propagandist. Without any
  moral scruples, as shown by his duplicity and shady role in 1801, he
  did not shrink before the basest means to achieve his ends. He soon
  became convinced that calumny was the best weapon against the
  government's policy. He did not waste any time in bringing this insight
  into action and directed his effort at Speransky, whom he singled out
  as the most convenient and vulnerable target. Without any positive
  proof concerning Speransky's relations to freemasonry, Rostopchin took
  all the rumors and gossip at face value and embroidered upon them
  with petulant imagination. He claimed that Speransky was the unofficial
  high priest of the Illuminates, the spiritus rector and patron of all

mystics and Free Masons in Russia. It did not matter to Rostopchin

that mystics and Free Masons were not necessarily identical, he spoke

of the two in the same brea:h., for both had derogatory connotations.^1

Rostopchin did not content himself with insinuations and whispering

campaigns in Moscow. He resorted to open accusations and denun-

ciations to the Emperor. To make a stronger impression on Alexander,

he circulated a petition in which the "loyal nobility and subjects of the

Tsar" appealed to the monarch for protection against the hardships

and mistreatment they had to suffer at the hands of Speransky's policy.

They imploreQ Alexander to stop Russia from sliding into the gaping

abyss.2 This petition was sent to the Emperor on the very eve of

Speransky's dismissal - it came too late to influence the sovereign. In

any event, the petition proved superfluous also because in the meantime

1 Graf Rostopchin, "Zapiska 0 Martinistakh predstavlennaia 1811 vel. kn.

Ekaterine Pavlovne," Russkii At-khiv (1875), No.3, p. 75.

2 "Pis'mo Rostopchina k Aleksandru I," 17 March 1812, Russkaia Starin a, 122

(1905), 412-416 - also Ermolov, "Pamflet na Speranskogo," Chteniia, (1895), No.3,

part 2, pp. 1-24.