358 LAST YEARS - CONCLUSIONjudgment on Speransky's life and work. both point out some of the
factors which render it difficult to pass a final judgment. We are strock
by the absence of any definite or sharply delineated features in Spe-
ransky's character. He obviously must have had some personality trait
which made everybody attribute this absence of definiteness to a lack
of honesty and frankness or to a lack of moral courage. What little we
know of his relations to society and individuals and of his psychological
reaction to situations, confirms the impression. Probably to a large
extent. it was a by-product of his early seminary training.
The two comments we have cited also indicate that it was difficult
to characterize Speransky as a person. Indeed, ·as the preceding pages
have illustrated, there is almost no record of a. person called Speransky.
We know some things of the student, the young government employee,
the dignitary in favor and the dignitary in disgrace, the prominent
official and the codificator of laws, but we have almost no picture of
the individual behind these labels.
The personality of Speransky was grey; there is no doubt about it.
He had a number of positive traits; he was intelligent, good hearted,
honest, hard working, tactful, and well mannered. We also have some
fleeting glimpses of him as a family man, a loving husband and a
devoted father. But such traits do not add up to anything very striking.
Perhaps it was his most notable quality that his was not at all a
striking personality. His lowly origin and seminary education which
aimed at the bending of strong individuality, may have been a factor
in bringing about this result. Surely though, Speransky himself must
have had also a predisposition for it. Several contemporaries have noted
that he was the most disconcerting person to talk to. He listened
attentively and politely, and seemed to agree with everything one said.
But he never expressed his opinion definitely; he never gave the im-
pression that he had a mind and will of his own. One never quite
knew what he thought or felt at the moment; his poise and apparent
equanimity were marvelous. But was it genuine tact and self control,
or was it coldness, apathy, or something else again? There is no
denying, in the final analysis, that he was what the vernacular calls a
"cold fish", without a clearly delineated individual character. Let us
admit it, his personality eludes us. But this does not seem to be of
major importance in assessing either his career or his accomplishments.
Only in a few instances (his fall from favor in 1812, his relations to
society, for example) do we note the intrusion of his personality, but
even here it was not a major factor. Such an indefinite personality,
however, when coupled with genuine technical ability, may be the