184 DISGRACE AND EXILERussia. On the face of it, the substantial police file on the State
Secretary looked quite impressive and was highly incriminating. Of
course, Speransky's direct and secret correspondence with Paris had
been a revelation only to Balashov and the other members of the anti-Speransky intrigue. It had long been known to the Emperor and could
not impress him very much. But Alexander was painfully surprised to
learn that Speransky had also been shown other secret diplomatic
materials. His natural distrust of his councillors, never fully asleep, was
immediately aroused. Yet, even then, the Emperor did not believe the
rumor of Speransky's treason. Did he then yield to public opinion when
he finally dismissed his State Secretary in March 1812?
Attacked from all quarters, Speransky stood alone. There really was. no one to defend him and to intercede in behalf of his cause before
the Emperor and public opinion. Speransky's tragedy was his social
and political isolation. His friends were "small men" with no social
prestige, men who owed their position to him and whose political
role was limited to assisting the State Secretary in his manifold
duties. Of those high dignitaries who had been his patrons and protec-
tors at the beginning of his career, most had lost their former credit
and influence. On the other hand, those officials whom Speransky had
displaced or pushed into relative insignificance were naturally quite
eager to join forces with Armfelt and Balashov. This was true of Count
Gur'ev, the Minister of Finance, who had opposed Speransky's Financial
Plan of 1809 and of Baron Rosenkampf who had been eased out of his
chairmanship of the Commission on Laws. As for Count A. Arakcheev,
at that time already one of the Emperor's closest "friends," he was
somewhat jealous of Speransky's ubiquitous role, and he had not
forgiven him for keeping the Plan of 1809 secret from him. However,
let us add, our sources do not indicate that Arakcheev partipated in
any way in the intrigue against Speransky. He remained strictly neutral.
But he could not be counted upon to raise his voice in favor of the
State Secretary.
Outside government and court circles, Speransky had no one who
could shield him against the concerted attacks of his enemies. 1 He
1 The French Ambassador, Caulaincourt, noted Speransky's social isolation in a
letter to Champagny: "M. Speransky est Ie faiseur de l'empereur, en quelque sorte
Ie ministre des innovations. II n'est lie avec personne. Son influence s'etend sur
tout ... " Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitsch, Les relations diplomatiques de la Russie
et de la France, V, p. 352 (letter dated 3 March 1811). Further evidence of Speransky's
evasion of the limelight can be deduced from the fact that John Q. Adams does
not mention once that he had met him during his stay as U.S. Minister in St.
Petersburg, and Adams, as ~ "liberal" and highly intelligent man, could have been
an interesting person to know and easy to get in touch with in diplomatic and
court circles. And finally, the diary of the Court Marshal (Kamerfur'erskii Zhurnal)