LAS'!' YEARS - CONCLUSION 351ed, or the views of the Slavophile reformers analyzed very carefully and
completely, the connection must remain a mere suggestion and hypo-thesis. It is of course quite plausible that Speransky's goal and the
approach of the Slavophile liberal reformers were similar because both
had the same philosophical and religious roots: the social and political
traditions of the Russian church on the one hand, and of German
romantic metaphysical and ethical systems, on the other. Yet, it is not
easy to escape the impression that the similarity between K. Aksakov's
"Zemskii Sobor" and Speransky's Dumas is too great to be accounted for
by a common metaphysical, ethical, and religious source of thought
alone. We should hasten to add, though, that in one important partic-
ular the difference between the Slavophiles and Speransky was im-
mense: Speransky's reliance on the bureaucracy, however enlightened,
could not be to the taste of the Slavophiles. 1
Speransky's relation to the Slavophiles brings us to the question of
his relations with Russian society in general. The last time we dealt
with this aspect in some detail had been to point out his complete
isolation from society at court and in the capital just before his exile.
At that time, he had lived entirely absorbed in his work and had
relied only on the company of people much inferior to himself in-
tellectually and socially. Apparently, the harsh experience of disgrace
and exile taught Speransky the lesson of the danger of social isolation
for a person in his position. As provincial governor he also had to
recognize the value of social contacts from an administrative and polito
ical point of view. And when he returned to St. Petersburg in 1821
he decided that he would not repeat the same mistake again.
Conditions were favorable, as "society" was elated by the news of
his return to the capital. People believed that it was proof of Alex-
ander's return to his earlier liberal policies and preoccupation with
internal reform (after so many years of war and absorption with foreign
affairs). The rumor of Speransky's treason had either been forgotten
or was dismissed as an expression of war hysteria. Francophilia did
not have any more the derogatory political implications it had had in
- And the more ardent enemies of Speransky, Rostopchin, Armfelt,
Balashev, and others were either dead or removed from influence.
Whatever the reasons, the return of Speransky was welcomed by most.
Rumor assigned him a bewildering variety of posts: vario"us ministries,
the chairmanship of the Council of State, or the chairmanship of a
1 For instance, A. Khomiakov's disparaging opinion of Speransky, as cited from
a letter of his to I. S. Aksakov (1859) by N. P. Barsukov, Zhizn' i trudy M. P.
Pogodina, XVI, p. 397.