80 "CONSTITUTIONALISM"
These and other bothersome petty restrictions would have been
only a superficial source of annoyance or grievance had Paul's regime
satisfied the interests and needs of the various classes of the population,
particularly the nobility. But the Emperor Was so much taken up with
the minutiae of military life (paradomania, Prince Adam Czartoryski
called it) that he left the government at the mercy of ill-chosen and
often changed favorites, like the brutal and grafting Obolianinov or
the cruel and ignorant Kutaisov. Foreign policy was conducted with
a cavalier disregard for what, in the reign of Catherine II, had been
considered Russia's vital national interests, and diplomacy was
subordinated to the romantic infatuations and caprices of the Emperor
(as for instance, his championship of the Order of Malta). Paul"s
actions, especially in the first years of his reign, seemed to be dictated
less by any purposeful conception of policy than by his intense
personal craving to undo whatever his mother had done. This spirit of
contradiction, raised to the status of "statesmanship", resulted in an
even greater disorder in affairs than had been usual in Russia up to
that time. It completely undermined the continuity, purposefulness,
and stability of policy which Catherine II had finally succeeded in
bringing about by a judicious use of "public opinion" and of the force
of tradition. Oblivious and scornful of the feelings of his subjects,
Paul I revoked the Charter of the Nobility, the Charter of the Towns,
and inflicted serious damage to Russian trade by his break with
England on account of Malta, which in truth was of no concern to
Russia. Emperor Paul had at least one good intention, to set the
maximum of the corve at three days a week. However, incapable and
unwilling to enforce this measure, he did not succeed in improving
the wretched condition of the serfs, while at the same time heincreased the nobility'S anger and sulking opposition. It seemed that
Paul had a talent for doing everything to displease and harm those
who counted in the state. In fact, he distrusted a "free" nobility
residing in its estates, away from his immediate supervision and
running its own affairs without government direction and control. Paul
wanted to return to an earlier tradition which saw in the noblemanexclusively a servant of the state. To the Emperor's mind, every able-
bodied nobleman should serve in the army, and if physically disabled,
in the civil government. He therefore forcibly impressed noblemen
into service, in direct violation of the Charters of 1761 and 1785 which
had "forever" freed the nobility from compulsory state service.
Naturally, having once tasted the benefits of freedom from service,
the nobility was unwilling to see the clock turned back half a