350 LAST YEARS - CONCLUSIONfluenced the slow shift in thinking about the serf problem that can be
detected in the committees of the second half of Nicholas' reign.
Speransky actively participated in the discussions concerning the
improvement of the legal status of the domestic (household) serfs. It
had been a long standing preoccupation of his, and he aimed at
abolishing that category of serfs, the most unfortunate one in Russia.
He felt that the very complicated and fundamental problem of serfdom
in general could be given a good start toward solution if its worst
manifestation could be abolished first. Speransky also took a prominent
part in the long and drawn out discussions that led to the currency
reform of 1839-1840. But his views did not prevail against those of
Finance Minister Count Kankrin.
In all these, and some other matters, Speransky was called in as an
expert, even when his grasp of the subject was not very firm. What
was asked of him was to solve a problem "bureaucratically", by drafting
the right kind of balanced and well written committee report or
legislation. His facile pen, clear and analytical mind, tactful manner,
and great capacity for work were ideal for achieving success in a govern-
ment like that of Nicholas I. Not that Speransky was influential in
suggesting policies, in directing the Emperor's political attitudes and
decisions - as he had with Alexander I, for a while at least - but
Nicholas listened readily and with respect to all his technical suggestions.
His ubiquitous activities left traces in all government committees and
agencies. In this respect he was the madel and the teacher for an entire
generation of government officials, at least in the techniques of bureau-
cratic work. Some of these younger officials took over his function as
technical advisers in drafting reports and legislation - among these
were Nadezhdin and Baron Korf, his future biographer. Some others
developed Speransky's political ideas and attitudes further and tried
to implement them in the reign of Nicholas' successor. In this group
we find the names of men like Nicholas Miliutin, Iurii Samarin, K.
Kavelin to mention but the more prominent ones. The similarity
between some of the political attitudes of Speransky and the "Slav-
ophile reformers" of the 1860's makes one wonder whether Speransky
exercised any direct influence on them. Unfortunately, no definitive
answer can be given. There is some indirect evidence that men like N.
Miliutin,Iu.Samarin, A. Koshelev might have been directly acquainted
with Speransky's plans, projects, and proposals. There is also some
indication that a few of the "older Slavophiles" might have had per-
sonal contacts with Speransky in the first years of their mature life
(the 1820's). However, until new archival material is found and publish-