Michael Speransky. Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772–1839 - Marc Raeff

LAST YEARS - CONCLUSION 357

that was important for me. He knew the innocence of my brother,

and even demonstrated it to me himself, and yet kept silent, he

kept silent when silence was a crime. Well, anyway, who did not

keep silent, except Zhukovskii? ... Speransky labored, and in his

work he found nourishment and glory. His collaborators were

mediocrities and more of a handicap than of any help to him ... " 1

The second comment is to be found in the autobiographical notes
of Senator K. Lebedev:

"Count M. M. Speransky died, after having been for more than

forty years a government official and for some time the first man

in the Empire. He left after himself the renown of a reformer

of institutions, an experienced legislator and the compiler of the

Digest of Laws. He did not manage to complete his task: the revision

of the laws remains in its first stage. Speransky belonged to the

small number of those extraordinary upstarts who can appear

only under conditions of an uneven education of the nation and

which now are becoming more and more rare. He had an

extraordinary native intelligence, which lacked theoretical knowledge

and strict logic. He adapted everything and adapted himself to

everything. If his education had been in diplomacy, he would

have been the Talleyrand of Eastern Europe. But he could not

be a Metternich, and still less a Lord Chatham. Secretive and

evasive, he acted decisively only when he was convinced of the

support of the authorities and not because of his conviction in

the truth [of what he was doing]. Aiming at honors, he was always

wary of expressing his opinion fully and awaited confused

situations to open his mouth; he worked in the dark and

ambiguously, so as not to offend any party and to prepare further

ground for his indispensability in the future. But because of his

experience, his sure touch, he belongs to those national giants

who concentrate upon themselves general popular attention, and

for this reason - whether rightly or wrongly - he received as his

share both glory and infamy for the innovations and improvements.

Like all seekers, divested of any definitive character, but endowed

with great cleverness and long experience, he had many persecutors

and men who envied him. He was respected by all, but loved by

none. Whatever the case may be, even with this dark side of his

life, he left a great memory." 2

In spite of their divergencies, the two comments show some interesting

agreement. Though neither can of course be accepted as a definitive

1 A. I. Turgenev, Pis'ma A. Turgeneva Bulgakovym (M. 1939), pp. 224-225, letter

from Paris, dated 14 March (2 March) 1839 to A. la. Bulgakov.

:I K. N. Lebedev, "Iz zapisok senatora K. N. Lebedeva," Russkij Arkhiv, (1910),

No.7, pp. 394-395.