DISGRACE AND EXILE 185had failed to make friends even among those who approved his political
principles and the pro-French orientation of Russian diplomacy. He
had scorned all offers to ally himself with the influential and rich
families of Russia by bonds of marriage; his snubbing of society was
perhaps even less easy to .forgive than some of his ideas and policies.
In spite of his literary talents and gift for "popularizing" ideas, Spe-
ransky had never attempted to "sell" his ideas and policies to public
opinion. Interested only in convincing the Emperor and a few selected
officials by logic and reason, he indignantly refused to resort to
demagogy and emotional appeal. On his own admission, "in all my
recommendations I dealt only with Your [Alexander's] intelligence, and
never wanted to captivate your heart. Your reason and strict logic on
my part were my only weapons; in them consisted the secret of all
my labors and successes." 1 Such weapons as Speransky condescended
to use against his enemies' intrigues were certainly not enough, the
more so that they reached no one outside the Emperor's study.
Rostopchin, Armfelt, Balashov, Karamzin, de Maistre, were all men
adept at arousing and directing the prejudices and emotions of
Society; to counteract them effectively, Speransky, too, would have had
to make a wide appeal to public opinion, play up to the feelings and
traditions of the nobility and court. But he was unable and unwilling
to do so. Such a recourse would also have conflicted with his desire to
prepare all reforms in secret and along strictly bureaucratic, rational
lines. Thus, in the face of vicious insinuations and open attacks from
all sides, Speransky remained without anyone to protect him. No one,
that is, except the Emperor. Alexander's change of att~tude towards
his advisor and Secretary remains to be explained.
Nothing could be more erroneous than to believe that Speransky's
fall from power was brought about by pressure from public opinion,
a pressure which the Emperor was unable to resist. We have dealt
with the legend of Alexander's we;:lkness, lack. of willpower, and
pliability of character in an earlier chapter. We need not repeat the
argument presented there. The Emperor did not have to bow to the
clamor of his nobility in the present case, when he had disregarded it
which lists all persons invited to the court and imperial table, has relatively few
entries concerning Speransky's presence at court functions and meals, although he
was at the Palace almost every day for conferences with the Emperor. He apparently
stayed only for the audience and was but rarely invited to join the Emperor at the
table or at the evening cercle.
,I Speranskii, "Permskoe pis'mo," Shil'der, Imperator Aleksandr I, III, p. 524 Cf.
also Jacob's report on Speransky's remark: "Der Kaiser kann sich bisweilen durch
das Einreden schlecht denkender Leute irre machen lassen, aber sein gesunder
Verstand bringt ihn von selbst bald wieder auf den rechten Weg." Denkwiirdig-
keiten, p. 315.