186 DISGRACE AND EXILEso often in 1801, 1807 and was going to do it in 1815, 1820. Even when
accompanied by Karamzin's dark hints about the fate of Paul I,
Alexander did not need to submit to the demands of his courtiers for
Speransky's dismissal after he had successfully withstood much more
serious clamors in 1802 and 1807. Speransky was quite right, his
influence and position depended exclusively on the personal pleasure
and favor of the Emperor; as long as these lasted he could disregard
Society's feelings, intrigues, and slanders. Of course, Speransky was not
unaware of the sentiment against him, and he realized that in the long
run it might undermine the Emperor's trust in him. To give less hold
to the evil rumors and jealousies, he requested Alexander to relieve
him of his manifold duties and retain him only as Chairman of the
Commission on Laws, where the most important and useful work had
yet to be done. 1 Alexander turned down the request; and interpreting
this as an expression of the Emperor's unbounded confidence, Spe-
ransky ceased to bother about his enemies' doings. Having rejected
the role of outside pressures, we must still return to the question, why
did Alexander change his attitude towards Speransky so completely and
suddenly?
A full analysis of the mysterious and contradictory features of
Alexander's personality would certainly take us beyond the scope of the
present study. But we must endeavor to explain the Emperor's motives
in dismissing Speransky, his most capable and heretofore trusted
councillor. In the eyes of the monarch, one of Speransky's great assets
was his ability to give logical, literary, coherent, and political expression
to the Emperor's love for order, clarity, and hierarchical discipline.
Moreover, exceedingly jealous of his autocratic prerogative, Alexander
was glad to have about him a pliable and obedient upstart, without
political friends and influential connections, who was unlikely to
become the leader of a "party" or clique. Speransky's social isolation
and his integrity of character were well known to the Emperor, and
to Alexander they seemed additional tokens of the State Secretary's
dependence on him alone, That explains the Emperor's great trust in
Speransky, At this point, however, we must mention another trait of
Alexander's political personality, A. Kizevetter may perhaps have gone a
bit too far when he argued that Alexander had an almost pathological
fear of seeing his vague dreams and shapeless yearnings concretized in
practical legislation and clear administrative directives,^2 However, it1 Speranskii, "Otchet v delakh 1810," Sbomik IRIO, 21 (1877), p. 461.
2 A. A. Kizevetter, "Aleksandr 1," Istoricheskie siluety - liudi i sob)'tiia, (Berlin
1931), pp. 129, 131, 133.