The reign of Nicholas 1 lasted from December 14, 1825 to February 1855. This emperor has an amazing fate, but it is noteworthy that the beginning and end of his reign are characterized by important political events in the country. Thus, Nicholas’s rise to power was marked by the Decembrist uprising, and the death of the emperor occurred during the days of the defense of Sevastopol.

Beginning of reign

Speaking about the personality of Nicholas 1, it is important to understand that initially no one prepared this man for the role of Emperor of Russia. This was the third son of Paul 1 (Alexander - the eldest, Konstantin - the middle and Nikolai - the youngest). Alexander the First died on December 1, 1825, leaving no heir. Therefore, according to the laws of that time, power came to the middle son of Paul 1 - Constantine. And on December 1, the Russian government swore allegiance to him. Nicholas himself also took the oath of allegiance. The problem was that Constantine was married to a woman of no noble family, lived in Poland and did not aspire to the throne. Therefore, he transferred authority to manage to Nicholas the First. Nevertheless, 2 weeks passed between these events, during which Russia was virtually without power.

It is necessary to note the main features of the reign of Nicholas 1, which were characteristic of his character traits:

• Military education. It is known that Nikolai poorly mastered any science except military science. His teachers were military men and almost everyone around him were former military personnel. It is in this that one must look for the origins of the fact that Nicholas 1 said “In Russia everyone must serve,” as well as his love for the uniform, which he forced everyone, without exception, in the country to wear.
• Decembrist uprising. The first day of power of the new emperor was marked by a major uprising. This showed the main threat that liberal ideas posed to Russia. Therefore, the main task of his reign was precisely the fight against the revolution.
• Lack of communication with Western countries. If we consider the history of Russia, starting from the era of Peter the Great, then foreign languages ​​were always spoken at court: Dutch, English, French, German. Nicholas 1 stopped this. Now all conversations were conducted exclusively in Russian, people wore traditional Russian clothes, and traditional Russian values ​​and traditions were promoted.

Many history textbooks say that the Nicholas era was characterized by reactionary rule. Nevertheless, governing the country in those conditions was very difficult, since all of Europe was literally mired in revolutions, the focus of which could shift towards Russia. And this had to be fought. The second important point is the need to resolve the peasant issue, where the emperor himself advocated the abolition of serfdom.

Changes within the country

Nicholas 1 was a military man, so his reign was associated with attempts to transfer army orders and customs to everyday life and government of the country.

There is clear order and subordination in the army. The laws apply here and there are no contradictions. Everything here is clear and understandable: some command, others obey. And all this to achieve a single goal. This is why I feel so comfortable among these people.

Nicholas the First

This phrase best emphasizes what the emperor saw in order. And it was precisely this order that he sought to introduce into all government bodies. First of all, in the Nicholas era there was a strengthening of police and bureaucratic power. According to the emperor, this was necessary to fight the revolution.

On July 3, 1826, the III Department was created, which performed the functions of the highest police. In fact, this body kept order in the country. This fact is interesting because it significantly expands the powers of ordinary police officers, giving them almost unlimited power. The third department consisted of about 6,000 people, which was a huge number at that time. They studied the public mood, observed foreign citizens and organizations in Russia, collected statistics, checked all private letters, and so on. During the second stage of the emperor's reign, Section 3 further expanded its powers, creating a network of agents to work abroad.

Systematization of laws

Even in the era of Alexander, attempts to systematize laws began in Russia. This was extremely necessary, since there were a huge number of laws, many of them contradicted each other, many were only in a handwritten version in the archive, and the laws had been in force since 1649. Therefore, before the Nicholas era, judges were no longer guided by the letter of the law, but rather by general orders and worldview. To solve this problem, Nicholas 1 decided to turn to Speransky, who was given the authority to systematize the laws of the Russian Empire.

Speransky proposed carrying out all the work in three stages:

1. Collect in chronological order all the laws issued from 1649 until the end of the reign of Alexander 1.
2. Publish a set of laws currently in force in the empire. This is not about changes in laws, but about considering which of the old laws can be repealed and which cannot.
3. The creation of a new “Code”, which was supposed to amend the current legislation in accordance with the current needs of the state.

Nicholas 1 was a terrible opponent of innovation (the only exception was the army). Therefore, he allowed the first two stages to take place and categorically prohibited the third.

The work of the commission began in 1828, and in 1832 the 15-volume Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was published. It was the codification of laws during the reign of Nicholas 1st that played a huge role in the formation of Russian absolutism. In fact, the country has not changed radically, but has received real structures for quality management.

Policy regarding education and enlightenment

Nicholas believed that the events of December 14, 1825 were connected with the educational system that was built under Alexander. Therefore, one of the first orders of the emperor in his post happened on August 18, 1827, in which Nicholas demanded that the charters of all educational institutions in the country be revised. As a result of this revision, any peasants were prohibited from entering higher educational institutions, philosophy as a science was abolished, and supervision of private educational institutions was strengthened. This work was supervised by Shishkov, who holds the position of Minister of Public Education. Nicholas 1 absolutely trusted this man, since their basic views converged. At the same time, it is enough to consider just one phrase from Shishkov to understand what the essence was behind the education system of that time.

Sciences are like salt. They are useful and can only be enjoyed if given in moderation. People should be taught only the kind of literacy that corresponds to their position in society. Educating all people without exception will undoubtedly do more harm than good.

A.S. Shishkov

The result of this stage of government is the creation of 3 types of educational institutions:

1. For the lower classes, single-class education was introduced, based on parish schools. People were taught only 4 operations of arithmetic (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division), reading, writing, and the laws of God.
2. For the middle classes (merchants, townspeople, and so on) three-year education. Additional subjects included geometry, geography and history.
3. For the upper classes, seven-year education was introduced, the receipt of which guaranteed the right to enter universities.

The solution to the peasant question

Nicholas 1 often said that the main task of his reign was the abolition of serfdom. However, he was unable to directly solve this problem. It is important to understand here that the emperor was faced with his own elite, who were categorically against this. The issue of the abolition of serfdom was extremely complex and extremely acute. One only has to look at the peasant uprisings of the 19th century to understand that they occurred literally every decade, and their strength increased each time. Here, for example, is what the head of the third department said.

Serfdom is a powder charge under the building of the Russian Empire.

OH. Benckendorff

Nicholas the First himself also understood the significance of this problem.

It is better to start changes on your own, gradually, carefully. We need to start at least with something, because otherwise, we will wait for changes to come from the people themselves.

Nikolay 1

A secret committee was created to solve peasant problems. In total, in the Nicholas era, 9 secret committees met on this issue. The greatest changes affected exclusively the state peasants, and these changes were superficial and insignificant. The main problem of giving peasants their own land and the right to work for themselves has not been resolved. In total, during the reign and work of 9 secret committees, the following problems of the peasants were resolved:

• Peasants were forbidden to sell
• It was forbidden to separate families
• Peasants were allowed to buy real estate
• It was forbidden to send old people to Siberia

In total, during the reign of Nicholas 1, about 100 decrees were adopted that related to the solution of the peasant issue. It is here that one must look for the basis that led to the events of 1861 and the abolition of serfdom.

Relations with other countries

Emperor Nicholas 1 sacredly honored the “Holy Alliance,” an agreement signed by Alexander 1 on Russian assistance to countries where uprisings began. Russia was the European gendarme. In essence, the implementation of the “Holy Alliance” did not give Russia anything. The Russians solved the problems of the Europeans and returned home with nothing. In July 1830, the Russian army was preparing to march to France, where the revolution took place, but events in Poland disrupted this campaign. A major uprising broke out in Poland, led by Czartoryski. Nicholas 1 appointed Count Paskevich as commander of the army for the campaign against Poland, who defeated the Polish troops in September 1831. The uprising was suppressed, and the autonomy of Poland itself became almost formal.

In the period from 1826 – 1828. During the reign of Nicholas I, Russia was drawn into a war with Iran. Her reasons were that Iran was dissatisfied with the peace of 1813 when they lost part of their territory. Therefore, Iran decided to take advantage of the uprising in Russia to regain what it had lost. The war began suddenly for Russia, however, by the end of 1826, Russian troops completely expelled the Iranians from their territory, and in 1827 the Russian army went on the offensive. Iran was defeated, the existence of the country was under threat. The Russian army cleared its way to Tehran. In 1828, Iran offered peace. Russia received the khanates of Nakhichevan and Yerevan. Iran also pledged to pay Russia 20 million rubles. The war was successful for Russia; access to the Caspian Sea was won.

As soon as the war with Iran ended, the war with Turkey began. The Ottoman Empire, like Iran, wanted to take advantage of the visible weakness of Russia and regain some of the previously lost lands. As a result, the Russian-Turkish War began in 1828. It lasted until September 2, 1829, when the Treaty of Adrianople was signed. The Turks suffered a brutal defeat that cost them their position in the Balkans. In fact, with this war, Emperor Nicholas 1 achieved diplomatic submission to the Ottoman Empire.

In 1849, Europe was in revolutionary flames. Emperor Nicholas 1, fulfilling the allied dog, in 1849 sent an army to Hungary, where within a few weeks the Russian army unconditionally defeated the revolutionary forces of Hungary and Austria.

Emperor Nicholas 1 paid great attention to the fight against revolutionaries, keeping in mind the events of 1825. For this purpose, he created a special office, which was subordinate only to the emperor and conducted only activities against revolutionaries. Despite all the efforts of the emperor, revolutionary circles in Russia were actively developing.

The reign of Nicholas 1 ended in 1855, when Russia was drawn into a new war, the Crimean War, which ended sadly for our state. This war ended after the death of Nicholas, when the country was ruled by his son, Alexander 2.

Which of the above-mentioned decrees was signed by the emperor in 1803?1) “On obligated peasants”2) “On free cultivators”3) “On the establishment of the III department of the Own E.I.V. Office" 4) "On the introduction of universal military service" A2. Which class was the most privileged in Russia in the 19th century?1) boyars 3) merchants2) nobility 4) clergy (priesthood)A3. Which government body was given the functions of the highest judicial authority and supervisory body over the administration according to the reform of 1802?1) Holy Synod 3) Senate2) Supreme Privy Council 4) State CouncilA4. Like in the 19th century. What were the names of the peasants who had money and were engaged in entrepreneurial activities? 1) sessional 3) temporarily obliged 2) capitalist 4) Black Hundred A5. Read an excerpt from the historian’s work and indicate the place of the meeting of the two emperors in question. “On June 25, 1807, at the second hour of the day, the first meeting of both emperors took place. In the very middle of the river, a raft with two magnificent pavilions was established. The entire guard was lined up on the French bank, and a small retinue of the emperor on the Russian bank... The boats set sail from the banks, and in the middle of the river, the emperor and the tsar simultaneously entered the tent of peace. The guardsmen who shot at each other 10 days ago shout: “Hurray!” Yesterday's enemies embraced..."1) Waterloo 3) Austerlitz2) Tilsit 4) St. PetersburgA6. During which war did the Russian army carry out the brilliant Tarutino march maneuver?1) Smolensk 3) Livonian2) Northern 4) PatrioticA7. In the 19th century wealthy citizens could participate in issues of city management through 1) city councils 3) provincial elders 2) world intermediaries 4) zemstvo committeesA8. Read an excerpt from the notes of a contemporary and indicate the name of the war, the events of which are being discussed “The Uglitsky and Kazan regiments, and the fifth squad of the Bulgarian militia, with amazingly beautiful harmony, moved forward under dense enemy fire. After brilliant attacks, Skobelev lined up the Vladimir regiment in front... - Well, brothers, follow me now. Your comrades did their job honestly, and we will finish properly. - We’ll try... - Look... Move in order... The Turks are almost already defeated... God bless you!”1) Russian-Turkish war of 1806–1812. 3) Crimean War 1853–1856 2) Russian-Turkish War 1828–1829 4) Russian-Turkish war of 1877–1878 A9. According to the reform of 1861, peasants received the right 1) to move to other estates 2) to elect and be elected to the State Duma 3) to leave the community and settle in farms 4) to all the land of the landowner A10. Read an excerpt from N. Figner’s memoirs and indicate the name of the emperor whose assassination attempt is being prepared in the document. “Simultaneously with the preparations for explosions near Moscow, Aleksandrovsk and Odessa, the Committee had in mind another appointment in St. Petersburg itself... Committee in St. Petersburg prepared an explosion in the Winter Palace, but this was kept in the strictest confidence and was under the jurisdiction of the “Administration Commission” of three persons elected by the members of the Committee from among themselves for matters of the greatest importance. At that time the three were: Al. Mikhailov. Tikhomirov and Al. Kwiatkowski, from whom I once heard a mysterious phrase: “While all these preparations are going on, here the personal courage of one can end everything.” This was a hint to Khalturin, who later told me that in the Winter Palace he once happened to be alone with the sovereign, and the blow of a hammer could have destroyed him on the spot.”1) Pavel Petrovich 3) Nikolai Pavlovich2) Alexander Pavlovich 4) Alexander NikolaevichA11. Which of the following happened in the 19th century? 1) abolition of the patriarchate 3) proclamation of Russia as an empire 2) establishment of colleges 4) abolition of serfdom A12. “We were children of 1812” - this is what 1) Slavophiles 3) Decembrists 2) Marxists 4) Narodnaya Volya said about themselves13. What was the name of the legislative advisory body of state power established in 1810?1) State Council 3) Highest Senate2) State Duma 4) Holy SynodA14. Began in Russia in the 30s. XIX century The industrial revolution contributed to1) the emergence of the first manufactories2) the emergence of the first all-Russian fairs3) a decrease in the urban population4) the formation of factory centersA15. Representatives of Russian social thought from the late 1830s to the 1850s, who believed that Russia should develop in an original way, and not follow the models of leading European countries, were called 1) Westerners 3) Slavophiles 2) Social Democrats 4) Decembrists A16. Indicate the changes and transformations that were carried out during the Great Reforms of the 1860-1870s. A) abolition of conscription into the army B) limitation of corvee to three days a week B) creation of provincial and district zemstvos D) prohibition of selling peasants without land D) introduction of the institution of jurors Please indicate correct answer1) ABG 2) AVD 3) BVG 4) IOP

Liberal reforms 1801-1815

Having become emperor, Alexander I fully demonstrated himself as a cautious, flexible and far-sighted politician, extremely prudent in his reform activities.

Alexander I returned the disgraced nobles, lifted restrictions on trade with England, and lifted the ban on the import of books from abroad. The emperor also confirmed the privileges of the nobles and cities specified in Catherine’s Charters.

At the same time, Alexander I, in order to develop liberal reforms of the state structure, created Secret Committee (May 1801 - November 1803), which included: P. Stroganov, A. Czartoryski, V. Kochubey and N. Novosiltsev.

The result of the activities of the Secret Committee of the camp reform of higher government bodies. On September 8, 1802, a Manifesto was published, according to which, instead of collegiums, the following ministries were established: military, naval, foreign affairs, internal affairs, commerce, finance, public education and justice, as well as the State Treasury as a ministry.

On February 20, 1803, a decree was issued on "free cultivators" which provided landowners with the opportunity to release peasants with land for ransom. The decree was advisory in nature and was not very popular among landowners.

Since the autumn of 1803, the importance of the Secret Committee began to decline, and its place was taken by the Committee of Ministers. To continue the transformation, Alexander I needed new people who were personally loyal to him. A new round of reforms was associated with the name M. Speransky. Alexander G made Speransky his main adviser and assistant. By 1809, Speransky, on behalf of the emperor, prepared a plan for state reforms called “Introduction to the Code of State Laws.” According to this plan, it was necessary to implement the principle of separation of powers (legislative functions were concentrated in the hands of the State Duma, judicial functions in the hands of the Senate, executive functions in the ministries).

The Emperor approved Speransky's plan, but did not dare to carry out large-scale reforms. The transformations affected exclusively the central system of government: in 1810, the State Council was established - a legislative body under the emperor.

In 1810-1811 the reform of the ministerial management system, begun back in 1803, was completed. According to the “General Establishment of Ministries” (1811), eight ministries were formed: foreign affairs, military, naval, internal affairs, finance, police, justice and public education, as well as the Main Directorate Post Office, State Treasury and a number of other departments. Strict autocracy was introduced. Ministers appointed by the king and accountable only to him formed Committee of Ministers, whose status as an advisory body under the emperor was determined only in 1812.

At the beginning of 1811, the State Council refused to approve the draft of new reforms. The failure of Speransky’s entire plan became obvious. The nobility clearly felt the threat of the destruction of serfdom. The growing opposition of conservatives became so threatening that Alexander I was forced to stop the reforms. M. Speransky was suspended and then exiled.

1803 ? beginning 1804

Diplomacy and court intrigue. Chancellor's illness

As can be seen from the above, I was very lucky with the Russian elders, but most of all with the Chancellor, who became my boss when I entered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From the very beginning he began to show me friendship and complete trust, introducing me to all the affairs of the ministry without exception.

From the moment the ministry was established, I began to take part in all meetings of Count Vorontsov with foreign representatives, and the Count entrusted me with the preparation of protocols, submitted to him at the highest discretion. I performed this work with great care, and he was pleased with it. It is known that a well-written protocol sets out in a more precise and clear form what was said without any particular order at the meetings. The Chancellor was pleased with my presentation of his views, since I accurately conveyed his thoughts, expressing them only more fully. I understood what he wanted to say, and he liked it very much. This work gave me the opportunity to practice editing papers, and therefore was extremely useful to me.

In addition, the meetings I attended acquainted me with Russia's relations with foreign powers. I was also entrusted with the compilation of dispatches that were the result of these meetings, and the emperor’s rescripts addressed to the Russian envoys to foreign powers. Having agreed to take on these responsibilities, I devoted myself wholeheartedly to the work with extraordinary zeal, wanting to repay the emperor for his friendship and trust in me.

It happened to me to work for eight or nine hours without a break, after which I began to feel some kind of nerve pain. Finding me one day in such a painful state, Dr. Rogerson advised me not to tire myself to such an extent, warning me that this could lead to sad consequences. Due to my youth, I did not pay much attention to the doctor’s warning at the time, and now I think that, indeed, thanks to such intense work, I subsequently, during my stay in Russia, suffered so much from nerve pain.

The policy of the Russian government under Chancellor Vorontsov in its main features remained the same as it had been under Count Kochubey; she only acquired more dignity and strength in the sense of external expression. Corresponding in every way to the character and aspirations of Emperor Alexander, it boiled down to the previous principle: to be on good terms with everyone and not to interfere at all in European affairs, so as not to be drawn further than desired; in a word, to carefully avoid any friction in foreign relations, at the same time pretending that Russia is not at all afraid of other powers. So, its essence remained the same, only its external manifestation changed. The Russian cabinet adopted an arrogant tone that was misleading as to its real intentions and was somewhat reminiscent of the tone of diplomatic negotiations from the time of Catherine.

The Chancellor, who was very wary of any quarrel and even simply strained relations with any of the strong powers, considered it appropriate, when the opportunity presented itself, to instill fear in the weak of Russian power and put pressure on them with all its weight. This happened with Sweden. Both governments argued over one insignificant island located on the river that separated real Finland from the province of the same name, which belonged to Russia.

A dispute arose over the question of which branch of the river the bridge marking the border should be located on. This question remained open for some time. The Chancellor decided to put an end to it immediately and abruptly: he adopted a dry and impudent tone towards Sweden. Due to the fact that dispatches on this matter had to be written in Russian, drafting them was not entrusted to me, which I was very happy about. Thanks to this circumstance, the Swedish king and his government subsequently gave me their trust. Meanwhile, the Russian government began to show that it was preparing to break with Sweden. The generals explored the Swedish border. The emperor himself went there. Count Pavel Stroganov and Novosiltsev and I accompanied him.

We traveled around the entire border, mostly on horseback. In this country, granite, which forms the main subsoil, is often barely covered by a light layer of earth. There are extraordinary landscapes here, magnificent waterfalls, but the country is sparsely populated, and we often had to spend the night in sparsely scattered villages and with pastors, some of whom knew no language other than Finnish. There are meadows near the villages and pastoral estates, but the general appearance of the country is sad and deserted. I speak here only of the territory belonging to Russia, since other parts of Finland are richer and more fertile.

The Emperor examined the island and the bridge that had caused such a fuss. Small, pathetic, they did not seem worth being so hotly fought over. Then we went to inspect the fortress and port - a strategic point that had already lost all significance, which now, in case of war, was supposed to be the center of Russian operations, since there was a parking lot for gunboats. The sapper work carried out in these places was led by the then chief of sappers, General Sukhtelen, who was later appointed Russian ambassador to Sweden. This work was far from finished, although it was moving forward. Sukhtelen produced them using a new system of his invention, simpler than the systems of Vauban and Koeghorn, which was a combination of these two systems. Its use gave results that satisfied all the requirements.

The Swedish king, for his part, became very stubborn and did not want to give in to Russia’s demands, presented in such an arrogant tone.

The Swedish ambassador in St. Petersburg, Count Steding, expressed his surprise to me several times about this. He shrugged his shoulders, speaking of the insulting tone for Sweden in which negotiations were conducted about this essentially trivial matter. Sweden stood its ground for a very long time, which is why Russia continued military preparations. In the end, Sweden had to give in and accept the terms dictated to it by Russia. The matter was about such unimportant concessions that Sweden could not commit madness and start a war over it. No one doubted this outcome. The Chancellor was still proud of the victory, which was so easy to win and without resorting to humiliation of Sweden, which, in my opinion, would have been a preferable political technique. Such behavior by Russia was bound to leave a bitter aftertaste in the heart of a neighbor who had already been blamed many times before, and who, despite his relative weakness, could, on occasion, cause a lot of harm. But Chancellor Vorontsov knew his people, or at least those who spoke on their behalf. He knew that any manifestation of power, even if it was unjust, was liked by the Russians; that to excel, to command, to suppress is the need of their national pride. Unable to cope with the strong, the chancellor attacked the weak, hoping to thereby promote the government of the young emperor. I am convinced that this was one of the reasons that prompted him to loudly trumpet “victory” over Sweden; but Russian society did not fall into deception.

In both capitals, among officials and military men - the class that later became the head of public opinion - there was a general dissatisfaction, a vague desire for something better, some more comforting joyful events, more flattering to popular vanity. It must be said that at that time public opinion in Russia was far from being in favor of Emperor Alexander, and in general, throughout this reign, the emperor only occasionally and for a short time gained popularity. During these same years, his behavior in particular was too artless, his intentions too pure and too inclined towards the good of the majority of his subjects, to receive due appreciation in a country whose upper classes had already tasted a perverted civilization, and were beyond all measure overwhelmed by greed and vanity. His kindness, gentleness, purity of intentions, all these qualities that Alexander possessed in his youth, were completely insufficient to create his popularity. Despite all the efforts of the Chancellor, society did not express great satisfaction with the victory won over such an insignificant enemy as Sweden was in his eyes: on the contrary, they were even dissatisfied with the old minister for wanting to show off and play on the strings his vanity.

At that time, Count Sovan was the Austrian ambassador to Russia. He always came to the chancellor in full dress uniform and brought great solemnity to the proceedings of the meetings.

The Austrian policy of that time was conducted in a plaintive and sentimental tone, very different from the present one. After the Peace of Luneville, the Austrian court sought consolation and wanted to arouse regret. The Russian government tried not to push away these feelings, but in return offered Austria nothing but fruitless assurances of sympathy for her interests and its desire for her good.

The representative of the Berlin court in St. Petersburg was Count Goltz. From his many years of service, Goltz took away only what a good memory and skill can provide. He was a gentle and kind man, strongly subordinate to his wife, who was distinguished by a slightly loud and sharp liveliness of character. Count Goltz took Lucesini's place in Vienna at a time when Prussia, treacherously violating the treaty concluded ten years ago, took its share from the remains of plundered Poland. He showed me respect, in which there was a glimpse of regret - I will say, almost shame - for the behavior of his government in relation to my homeland. I can add here one recollection of a completely personal nature. Goltz's predecessor in St. Petersburg was Tauentsin, who later became famous as one of the most skillful Prussian generals. While still a guards officer, he visited my mother in Berlin during her stay there on the occasion of my sister’s marriage to the Prince of Württemberg. He was very fond of Constance Narbut (later Mrs. Debovskaya), asked for her hand in marriage and was refused. But this had no other consequences, except that in St. Petersburg my brother and I often received invitations from him to dinner.

Relations with Prussia were based entirely on the closeness of the two monarchs, since the cabinets did not have any sympathy for each other. In addition, both the Russian army and Russian society were also not disposed towards Prussia. The Russians looked disapprovingly at her ambiguous behavior, obsequious submission to France and the acquisitions obtained at the cost of this submission, and did not spare her their ridicule. However, the emperor remained faithful to his friendship with the king and to the high opinion that he had of the Prussian army. This constancy of Alexander, condemned many times in St. Petersburg, nevertheless had very beneficial consequences for Russia; she achieved that she tied Prussia to herself and made her something like her companion. Although this connection was repeatedly interrupted, it is still impossible to dispute the very real benefits acquired by this temporary alliance.

England had just concluded the Peace of Amiens. The English ambassador in St. Petersburg was Sir John Warren, an excellent admiral, but a mediocre diplomat. He personified the insignificance of the Addington Ministry, which appointed him to this post. In those days, the English government was rarely able to make a happy choice, because, although many were very keen on a diplomatic career, nevertheless there were few capable people among the English diplomats. The most important diplomatic posts there were appointed either by patronage or by mutual agreement of political parties, with the aim of supporting the ministry or gaining a few more votes in the House of Commons. Promotions were made only based on length of service; lack of intelligence and good preparation did not present any obstacle to this. As a result, the British diplomats of that time, with few exceptions, were not distinguished by either skill or zeal. Now this state of affairs has completely changed, and the British can be considered the most skillful diplomats in Europe.

A little before the appointment of Sir John Warren, the Duke of Gloucester, nephew of King George III, came to stay in St. Petersburg.

The representative of France was General Guedouville, who gained some fame during the pacification of the Vendée, but he turned out to be of little use for maintaining the reputation of French diplomacy, the intelligence and skill of which seemed to increase even more during the consulate and under the ministry of Talleyrand. By choosing as minister a man with such a good-natured, little distinguished and, I would even say, boring character, the French government probably had the intention of calming public fears and lulling the suspicions of those whose friendship it wanted to acquire. There has been a period of calm in diplomacy, the kind that occurs after a thunderstorm or just before its onset.

There was nothing of any importance or even interest in Russia's relations with other influential powers. They amounted to insignificant relations, to the exchange of loud phrases, behind which only one common desire was hidden: “We will sit quietly, avoid all friction and clashes.” This sentiment was shared even by those governments that suffered from the conclusion of peace; It would have been very desirable for them to take some new steps in the hope of returning the lost game, but they did not dare to admit their thoughts.

England itself did not foresee the imminent break. If Austria sighed, it was slowly and only where it hoped to be heard without compromising itself with its complaints. Prussia was pleased with its constancy in maintaining neutrality, and saw this as a source of prosperity and progress. Even France froze: the first consul began organizing the internal government of the country and drawing up laws. But everyone’s eyes turned to this powerful force, which, as everyone thought, would not be content for long with the extensive power it had received and had already used.

All of continental Europe was afraid of France. Russia, although still peace-loving, adopted a tone that proved that she was aware of her equality of power with France and considered herself personally independent. The relationship of the Russian chancellor with General Guedouville testified to the friendly disposition of France and Russia, based on their mutual respect. There was even some kind of Russian-French agreement concluded, the exact content of which I do not remember and which, however, could not contain anything important. The Chancellor took advantage of this opportunity to offer the French ambassador the usual gift, which consisted, if I am not mistaken, of 4,000 ducats and a gold snuffbox studded with diamonds, with a portrait of the sovereign. At the time of the execution of this treaty, the chancellor was ill; he received General Guedouville in bed. We started exchanging signatures. This happened in my presence. On the bed, next to the snuffbox, bags of ducats were laid out. I never saw a face more radiant and excited than that of the good general at the sight of these bags. He looked like a gourmet who saw a table with wonderful dishes. This picture is imprinted in my memory and I cannot resist describing it.

The general, forgetting all the decorum and what he should have said about the gift with the portrait of the emperor, saw in front of him only bags of gold. He took possession of them with comical love, did not take his eyes off them, touched them with his hands. He was a very kind man, and everyone would have been pleased to see him so happy, if this happiness had not been mixed with something unworthy and little befitting the given circumstances. There are moments when a person forgets himself and reveals his inner nature in all its nakedness, alas! far from beautiful. This has probably happened to everyone, since everyone can succumb to some weakness and be taken by surprise by it.

Among the members of the Russian diplomatic corps, the Swedish ambassador, Baron Steding, stood tallest. He stood out for his intelligence and noble way of thinking. Very simple in appearance, he knew how to look at things just as simply. His behavior was distinguished under all circumstances by impeccable honesty, tact and extreme nobility. He had the rare ability to always appreciate both people and events. In his youth, as a colonel in the American service, he received the St. Cross for distinguished service in the war. Louis, and as a Protestant wore it on a blue ribbon. Later honored by the trust of Gustav III and placed at the head of the army, he distinguished himself in battles with the Russians in 1789 and 1790. After the signing of peace, he was appointed ambassador to St. Petersburg, where he was already known for his military merits. He held this post for three reigns, remaining in the most difficult moments a faithful servant of his fatherland and never losing the high respect he deserved. Of all the people I have ever met, he seemed to me the best, the most worthy of respect, one of those whom one cannot help but love and whom one would always like to have as a friend. I think that he was it for me, insofar, of course, as our different situations allowed, thanks to which we subsequently had to separate completely.

My position in the ministry, as a minor person, allowed me not to take an active part in the disagreement that arose between Russia and Sweden. In addition, the chancellor wanted to conduct this matter personally himself, so as to be able to attribute exclusively to himself the merit of the victory that was supposed to be won over Sweden. This arrogance of the strongest, this insulting display of superiority, the method that was resorted to in order to snatch from the weaker something absolutely priceless, wanting to take possession of it only with the goal of humiliating the enemy - all this was deeply disgusting to me, and I did not consider such methods good political tactics.

My opinion about the behavior of the Russian government in this matter came to the attention of the Swedes, and they expressed their gratitude and trust to me. Those who conveyed this to me, I think, are mostly no longer alive.

Within Russia, administrative institutions continued to develop and improve in the direction mentioned above, until one circumstance unexpectedly interrupted this movement along the path of progress.

Count Severin Potocki, as I already mentioned, was close to Grand Duke Alexander; Their friendly relations continued even after Alexander’s accession to the throne. Count Severin admired the qualities and beliefs of the emperor. Taking advantage of his trust, Potocki often presented him with memos on various issues. In addition to other important rights and advantages granted by Emperor Alexander to the Senate, he also received the right of all-subject representation.

The Senate has never used this right yet. Count Severin was quite naturally convinced of the sincerity of the emperor's liberal views. (The Emperor also considered himself sincere in this regard.) Therefore, Potocki considered it useful and commendable to encourage the Senate to take advantage of the right of all-subject representations given to it. He even thought that this would please the sovereign, as it would give him the opportunity to see the happy fruits of his good undertakings. The opportunity for this soon presented itself, and under these circumstances. Although in Russia the entire noble class chose a military career, military service was not obligatory for the nobles, and they could, if they wished, leave it at any time. This double privilege was granted to the nobility by decree of Peter III, for which he was often blessed. Emperor Alexander retained this privilege only for nobles who had risen to the rank of chief officer, while for noble non-commissioned officers he appointed a mandatory twenty-year term of service. This was, of course, a violation of the rights of the noble class guaranteed to them by the charter.

The decree made a difficult impression on society. Everyone blamed the Minister of War, an old official, a man, as they said, of low birth, for this, seeing in him the author of the decree, who managed to influence the emperor. Count Severin Potocki hastened to take advantage of this circumstance to give the Senate the opportunity to put into practice the rights granted to him. He prepared a speech in which, seeing in this decree a violation of the charter, he invited the Senate, as the most important government institution, to make its representations to the emperor.

This speech was read in the general meeting of the Senate. The senators, seeing that the initiator here was one of the emperor’s close associates, and that he was ardently supported by the old Count Stroganov, thought that they could vote in this sense without compromising themselves. The Senate was even glad of the opportunity to try for the first time to demonstrate its independence in precisely such a matter, where it did not see any risk, since everyone was sure that, in the end, all this was nothing more than a little comedy played out with the knowledge of the emperor. Count Severin's proposal was accepted, despite the protest of the Prosecutor General, the Minister of Justice; This protest was considered to be simulated in order to make a small, deliberately arranged story more believable. Count Stroganov, chosen along with the other two senators to present the Senate presentation to the emperor, took on this mission with redoubled zeal and ardor, but great disappointment awaited him, as the matter took a completely different turn.

Stroganov and his comrades were received very coldly by the emperor. The Count could not bear such a dry reception, became confused, did not know what to say, and left completely embarrassed. The Emperor, by a new decree, in which he severely reprimanded the Senate, ordered him not to interfere in matters that did not concern him, and confirmed the decree, which the Senate rebelled against in its submission, made on the initiative of Count Severin. To my great surprise, Novosiltsev agreed to meet the emperor’s unjust anger and write a decree reprimanding the Senate. Such a failure in the first liberal attempt was enough to discourage people whose noble aspirations, it must be said, were not very deep. I have not heard since then of the Senate attempting to regain its independence. His rights, which he never applied to the case, were probably completely disregarded in the end.

At my first meeting with the emperor, after this incident, I could not help but laugh at the excessive anxiety that the Senate’s attempt to occupy a new position caused in him. Alexander did not like my jokes and I think that my liberal inclinations then caused some anxiety in the depths of his soul, which he probably recalled later. This was a strip of light that shone on the true character of Alexander, which then appeared to me in a new and, unfortunately, too truthful form. Great thoughts about the common good, generous feelings, the desire to sacrifice for them his comforts and part of his power, and even in order to more accurately ensure the future happiness of the people subject to his will, to completely relinquish unlimited power - all this sincerely occupied the once emperor, he continued. to occupy him even now, but it was more a youthful hobby than a firm decision of a mature man. The emperor liked external forms of freedom, just as he likes beautiful spectacles; he liked that his government looked like a free government, and he boasted about it. But he only needed the external appearance and form, and he did not allow them to be translated into reality. In a word, he would willingly agree to give freedom to the whole world, but on the condition that everyone voluntarily submits exclusively to his will.

The position of Count Severin, after his liberal attempt, was no longer restored; he was still received at court and treated as before, but he no longer enjoyed the trust and favor of the sovereign.

Thanks to his act, Potocki gained great popularity in Moscow and other provinces of the empire; he was looked upon as a true Russian patriot and a noble defender of noble privileges. This fame was so pleasant to the count that because of it he forgot his former Polish feelings. In his youth, at the Diet of May 3rd, this man was an ardent Polish patriot, but in his old age, having forgotten about his homeland, he thought only about increasing his fortune, living pleasantly, and for the sake of passing the time he considered himself among the opposition in Russia.

In the end, it became his custom to constantly move from his estates to St. Petersburg, where he was present in the Senate, and back. During these travels, he read a lot and prepared speeches, which he delivered annually either in Moscow or in St. Petersburg.

Since, by the nature of his mind, he was inclined more towards skepticism than towards activity, it was rarely possible to obtain any positive opinion from him. Feelings did not play any role in his decisions - they were always invariably dictated only by calculation. However, his pride overcame his fear for his fate; however, these fears, in truth, could not depress him too much, since Alexander, especially at that time, was not pursuing anyone. It was possible to displease the emperor without risking anything. Count Severin retained for himself, as long as he wanted, the positions of senator and trustee, which gave him the opportunity to engage in his favorite activities. Smart and educated, deep down he always hesitated in everything, with the exception of only what concerned his material interests. Religious feeling was completely alien to him. A person with such a character should have become completely hardened by the end of his life. I never met him again. Alexander gave him a significant amount of land for fifty years' use. I helped him as much as I could to arrange this matter. Later I also provided some services to his son Lev. Thanks to this, good relations were established between us, which lasted throughout my stay in Russia and were interrupted later, just as the noise of the day is interrupted when night falls.

If human nature could be content with only the possible, Alexander should have satisfied the Russians, since he gave them peace, contentment, even some freedom, which they did not know before the beginning of his reign; in a word, a certain progress was felt throughout Russian life. But the Russians wanted something else. Similar to players greedy for strong sensations, they were bored by the monotony of a prosperous existence. They did not like the young emperor; he was too easy to handle, did not like pomp, and was too disdainful of etiquette. The Russians regretted the brilliant court of Catherine and the freedom of abuse at that time, this open field of passions and intrigues, in which they had to struggle so hard, but at the same time such enormous successes could be achieved. They regretted the times of favorites, when it was possible to achieve colossal wealth and positions, such as. reached Orlov or Potemkin. The loafers and courtesans did not know which hallway to push into, and looked in vain for an idol in front of which they could smoke their incense. Doomed from now on to inaction and boredom, they did not know where to apply all their vulgarity. Their baseness remained unused. The Moscow fronders were no better disposed towards the new position occupied by the court, because they felt unsettled by the constant criticism and were not at all happy about the benefits that they could have from these changes. However, their liberalism was completely different from the liberalism of Alexander, who, like Emperor Joseph, leaned more towards the side of democratic ideas and ideas of equality. But Alexander's liberalism stood higher than the liberalism of Emperor Joseph in the sense that it was cast in softer forms.

Only the Empress Mother tried to maintain the old customs and splendor at court. The young court, on the contrary, was even distinguished by exaggerated simplicity, a complete lack of etiquette and hosted only intimate society, where there were no restrictions. The emperor and his family appeared in ceremonial dresses only on Sundays and holidays, upon returning from mass. Dinners and evenings were given mostly in the inner chambers and were in no way similar to what they were in previous reigns. Subsequently, the emperor fell in love with splendor and pomp, but at the beginning of his reign he attached, one might say, too little importance to all this.

While Napoleon surrounded himself with pomp and public ceremonies on the model of previous reigns, Alexander liked to conceal himself and behaved like a private person. People who wished him well reproached him for this, by the way, and the Margravine of Baden, already mentioned above, his belle-mere, a person of great merit, who would like Alexander to develop in himself all the abilities necessary for a sovereign and thus achieve every possible success. She tried to excite him with the example of Napoleon, but she failed. Both emperors followed completely opposite directions in everything. One destroyed, the other restored the power of old ideas. They were constantly compared with each other, and these comparisons were not in Alexander’s favor in the eyes of those very Russians for whom he worked. Therefore, in the first years of his reign, Alexander was not at all popular. Meanwhile, he was never so devoted to serving the good of his fatherland as at that time. But people demand to be impressed without stopping at quackery. In no one is this need felt more than in Russians. At the beginning of his reign, Alexander did not possess such an ability at all; he acquired it later; but even then, despite his great successes, he could never equal his grandmother in popularity and moral influence. She could say about the Russians what Bonaparte said about the French - that they were in her pocket.

Since the emperor made it a law to respect other people's opinions, to allow everyone to speak openly and not to persecute anyone, it did not require great courage to reproach him and tell him the truth. Therefore, everyone decided to do this, and especially the salons of both capitals. There was continuous criticism of all government actions. This criticism, like the waves of a stormy sea, rose noisily and then fell for a while, only to rise again at the slightest breath of wind.

Such was the state of public opinion in Russia in the first years of Alexander's reign. The old courtiers, reassuring the young ones, said that all new reigns began the same way. According to them, the first years of Catherine's reign were marked by the same transformative aspirations. But one circumstance that privately concerned Alexander was the subject of continuous criticism and constant criticism. This is my presence next to him and my appointment to a very high post. A purely honorary title would not have embarrassed the Russians, but they could not get used to the fact that I was at the head of state affairs. The Pole, who enjoyed the full confidence of the emperor and was privy to all matters, represented a phenomenon offensive to the deep-rooted concepts and feelings of Russian society.

The emperor’s favor towards me, it must be admitted, could indeed give rise to suspicion, slander and slander from society, or, more accurately, from Russian salons. After all, my parents never hid their disgust for Russian influence; They were even deprived of their fortune for their participation in the Polish revolution, where they acted against the Russians. How could a young man, their son, who never hid his ardent devotion to the interests of his homeland, often showed it and constantly proved this devotion by his efforts to raise public education in the Polish provinces in a purely national spirit - how could he enjoy the trust and favor of the sovereign and influence his decisions? How many reasons for doubts and suspicions! After all, one could easily assume that this young Pole was insincere, that he was betraying the interests of Russia, harboring ulterior motives in favor of Poland, and that, if necessary, he would sacrifice his duty as a friend and minister for their sake. There was a lot to write on this topic, and they did not miss the opportunity to use it.

All the ambitious people who considered themselves more worthy of the monarch's trust than the suspicious stranger, all the young courtiers surrounding Alexander, could not help but join in these suspicions. But no matter how natural their concern was, it, in truth, had little basis. No one, I think, has ever served Alexander so zealously, so devotedly, as I have. He, better than anyone, knew my attachment to my homeland, and it was this feeling of mine that was the source of the respect and friendship with which he honored me, and the first basis on which our close relations arose.

At that time, the emperor did not think that the real good of Russia was incompatible with the good of Poland, or, perhaps, he was not well aware of this important issue, and seeing its resolution only in the distant future, did not consider it necessary to seriously delve into it. In the meantime, he accepted my services, which I sincerely rendered to him, and believed that it was fair and even proper, as a reward for them, to give me some freedom of action in the Polish provinces under his scepter. Of course, I took advantage of this good disposition of his and devoted my concerns mainly to the development of public education, which I conducted in the national spirit, and organized more widely and in greater accordance with the requirements of the time. The Russians could not understand my relationship with Alexander. These relations, indeed, could only be explained by our extreme youth, by the fact that we met at a time when we were more willing to give in to noble impulses than to deliberate plans. These feelings did not disappear in us in subsequent times, but we already kept them silently, without renewing mutual recognitions, for which we no longer had enough leisure. Moreover, our closeness was finally consolidated. And when it collapsed, we separated. The Russians stubbornly refused to admit anything in these relations except ambition and pretense on my part and short-sightedness on the part of the young emperor. They suspected me of secret sympathy for France, of a desire to draw Alexander into relations with Bonaparte and to keep him dependent on Bonaparte, so to speak, under the spell of his genius.

The St. Petersburg salons placed primary responsibility on me for the fact that Alexander was a little more obscure in matters of European politics. They wanted to see this, without daring to express it, as proof that I acted in concert with France. The Empress Mother shared this opinion and conveyed the same concerns to the circles of military youth. My situation was not easy.

Indeed, Russia's role in European affairs was neither as brilliant nor as significant as one might wish; it did not at all correspond to the claims of Russian vanity. Alexander was eclipsed by the first consul, who, having reached the pinnacle of military glory, introduced into diplomatic relations, hitherto always reserved, the same quick and unexpected decisions that were the secret of his incomparable successes on the battlefields. Going ahead of everyone in every European matter, every day he gained an advantage over everyone, gained more and more importance and already intended to soon become the supreme ruler of European destinies. I heard constant reproaches of softness, lack of self-esteem and energy, which were made by Russians to their government. What could be the answer to this? To reduce the reason for this to the character and views of Alexander would mean to direct blame at him alone.

Among the most ambitious and restless people, the most irritated, I will say - almost the most enraged by the favor that I enjoyed, was the young Prince Dolgorukov. His anger against me, his passionate desire to advance and play a role in his fatherland, in which some stranger, of a suspicious family and a suspicious nation, dared to get the better of him, his anger at the fact that this foreigner was interfering in state affairs and infiltrated into the trust of the sovereign, while he himself considered himself both worthy of this trust and capable of receiving it - all these passions that excited him eventually awakened, to the surprise of many, his mind. Indignation against me became at that time the original basis of the Russian party.

As adjutant general to the emperor, he was constantly in the palace, and I met him there very often. He pursued me with various reproaches and ridicule about Russia’s too restrained behavior, constantly repeating that it would have to choose a new path. Once out of patience, I suggested that he address all his arguments not to me, but to the chancellor, who stood at the head of the cabinet. This answer seemed like a subterfuge to him; he answered me that the chancellor and I deliberately shift responsibility onto each other and send those who want an explanation to each other in order to avoid the difficulty in which the need to give a definite answer would put us. This conversation almost turned into a quarrel, but the emperor intervened and found Prince Dolgorukov guilty, who since then no longer spoke to me about politics. After this, my relationship with Dolgorukov finally broke down, but he continued his intrigues with even greater bitterness. But all his intrigues failed, and this irritated him even more. However, under Pavel our relations were very good. He showed me great confidence in one of his clashes with Wintzingerode, which I have already mentioned and which I will talk about later. He was a very honest, prim and very scrupulous German in matters of honor. Regarding some conversation with Prince Dolgorukov, he decided to challenge him to a duel. Both agreed to have me alone as their second. The duel took place in the garden. I loaded both pistols and positioned the opponents in such a way that there was the greatest chance of a miss on both sides. Everything turned out well, as both missed, and the incident ended with complete reconciliation on both sides. The Chancellor's health was beginning to deteriorate. He had already been seriously ill several times. The idea of ​​going home to his estates often occurred to him, but he intended to take advantage of only temporary rest and had no desire to retire completely from business. I remember once, during an illness, I was sitting at his bedside; he had a high fever; excited, in a state of oblivion, he uttered several phrases that revealed to me his real thoughts. “These young people,” he said, want to manage everything, but I will not allow this, I alone will stand at the head of affairs.” I decided that he was probably instilled with suspicion about those who were called friends of the emperor. Or perhaps these suspicions arose in his mind on their own. I am only convinced that he never suspected me and never believed the slander against me. He maintained complete and utter confidence in me until his death. This really surprises me when I remember how many people interested in causing us to quarrel tried to achieve this goal.

Chancellor Vorontsov, who was often slandered, was capable of friendship and trust in people, although he rarely gave them to anyone. The delicacy and nobility of his actions bordered almost on virtue, and although these feelings did not rest on strictly defined convictions, it is nevertheless true that they flowed from a kind and gentle heart. Always ready to serve everyone, he judged others with great condescension. Never, even in the moments of the most frank conversations, did I notice in him either a feeling of hatred or vindictive motives.

The emperor formed an unshakable prejudice against Count Vorontsov, which increased every day. His slightly outdated techniques, the sound of his voice, his manner of speaking in a singsong voice, right down to his habitual gestures, everything about him was antipathetic to Alexander. Often sick, the chancellor sent me with reports to the emperor. Alexander was glad that it was not the chancellor who came, but me. Despite all the good things that I told him about Vorontsov, the emperor ridiculed his old minister, mimicked him and often expressed a desire to get rid of him. This was the time of the greatest favor towards me on the part of the emperor and my greatest influence on affairs.

The Emperor approved only those dispatches and rescripts that were compiled by me. The chancellor's desire to retire therefore did not encounter any obstacles from the emperor, who, on the contrary, supported him in this intention in every way.

Meanwhile, relations between Russia and France began to deteriorate. Count Morkov was sent to Paris. In the eyes of the Russians, he was an extremely skillful man, a prototype and, in a way, the last living memory of the diplomacy of the old times of Catherine. Having fallen into disgrace during the reign of Paul, he was exiled to Podolia, to one of those estates that were confiscated from my father. Upon the accession of Alexander, he rushed to St. Petersburg. His arrival frightened the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count Panin. Panin realized what a danger it would be for him to be near the court of such an intelligent man as Count Morkov, who could be chosen and favored by the emperor at any moment.

He planned to remove Morkov. At that moment it was extremely important to renew good relations with France. In view of this, it was necessary to appoint as ambassador to the first consul a person capable of controlling his policy, restraining it and being able to maintain the dignity of Russia. This important mission was entrusted to Count Morkov, who happily took it upon himself. He guessed that he attracted little sympathy from Alexander and would not find satisfaction for his ambition in St. Petersburg. Moreover, he was very pleased to see Paris again after the revolution, to play a prominent role there in front of Bonaparte and other new celebrities.

Count Morkov did not always live up to his reputation as a skilled diplomat. His frivolity was the cause of a terrible misunderstanding, because of which the marriage of the Swedish king with the eldest great book was upset, which accelerated the death of Catherine. Despite his disgust with the first consul and his ministers, Count Morkov was unable to prevent the dismemberment of Germany, carried out to reward the princes who had lost part of their land holdings, and to satisfy the greed of Prussia. This matter was presented to the discretion of Emperor Alexander in a completely completed form, when it was already too late and impossible to change anything. Morkov should have warned him and not allowed him to do this. Russia had to rush to come up with its conditions regarding the quality and quantity of these lands until all the articles of the agreement and the amount of land rewards had not yet been finally established by France, which had organized a real auction for these lands. Undoubtedly, it would be difficult to achieve a good result, but it was still necessary to use at least some effort to achieve it. Count Morkov did nothing of the kind. He did not provide sufficient time for the Russian cabinet to give it the opportunity to express its opinion and insist on its implementation; thanks to this, Russia was forced to join this deal, like a child who can be forced to do anything.

Count Morkov, a longtime creation of the Zubovs, took the Zubovs’ side in their quarrel with Bezborodko, which ruined him in the eyes of Pavel. Need I add that he was an enemy of Poland and that, together with Zubov, he spoke out for its destruction, since all his views and feelings were in accordance with this fact. He was the embodiment of the spirit of the state and state diplomacy, unjust and ruthless.

Morkov was wasteful and very unpleasant in money matters. He loved gifts, but accepted them only in those cases when he was sure that it would not hurt his pride.

It must be admitted that the appointment of Count Morkov could not contribute to a strong consolidation of agreement between the two governments. In this respect, he was in complete contrast to the kind and quiet General Guedouville. His face, pitted with smallpox, constantly expressed irony and contempt. The round eyes and mouth, with downturned corners, resembled a tiger. He adopted the speech and important manners of the old Versailles court, adding to this an even greater dose of arrogance. There was little politeness and not a trace of politeness in his manner. He spoke French perfectly, but his words were mostly caustic, harsh and unpleasant; There was never a shadow of feeling in them. This pearl of Russian diplomacy was sent to France as a sign of Russia’s desire to remain friends with Bonaparte. At first, the consul received Morkov with great courtesy and was pleased with his actions during the negotiations on land rewards and the fact that he allowed France to carry out the division of Germany. Nevertheless, after some time, the contemptuous manner of address and sarcasm, which Count Morkov willingly allowed himself in the salons, first aroused coldness towards him on the part of the First Consul, and then led to real clashes between them. One of them was so sharp that the Russian ambassador could not doubt what it was leading to.