INTRODUCTION

1. EDUCATION OF ALEXANDER I.

2. CHARACTER OF ALEXANDER I.

3. TRANSFORMATIVE EXPERIENCES IN THE FIRST YEARS

4. SPERANSKY AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TSING’S PLANS

5. DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICIES OF ALEXANDER I.

CONCLUSION

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

INTRODUCTION

When addressing the topic proposed to us, first of all, the question arises of what is meant by a political portrait. As a result of the study, it turned out that this concept is as frequently used as it is vague.

We found the only mention of the typology and essence of a political portrait in T.M. Ryskova, which gives us reason to conclude that there are at least several main types of political portraits:

political-ideological (political-ideological) portrait;

political-psychological portrait;

historical portrait;

political biography 1.

When using the first option, we are usually talking about satisfying the user’s need for grouped and verified information with an emphasis on events and facts of the leader’s political activities. In this case, the comment should be lapidary; it is necessary to focus the user’s attention on the compliance of certain actions and statements of the leader with certain models of political and ideological behavior accepted in a given society.

If the second option for drawing up a portrait is used, then the user should be able to find in it a more detailed analytical interpretation of the ideological, political, artistic and aesthetic views of the leader, including his hobbies.

At the same time, the historical portrait of the leader is very interesting if we are dealing with a retrospective political study. Primary importance will be given to the chronological sequence of certain events in the political, official or business career of the leader, his contacts with other people who influenced the key moments of his life path.

Compiling a political biography as a method of portrait diagnostics is very common in the West.

In relation to Alexander I, he will resort to the third type of research. But! Not being able to evaluate a person directly, as well as process the huge volume of existing evidence from contemporaries, we will take a simpler path: we will resort to experience and personality assessment conducted by authoritative researchers. First of all, this is the famous historian Klyuchevsky.

The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by the significance of the personality of Alexander I, which indirectly determined the direction of development of the Russian state for a century to come.

Purpose of the work: to understand it political action in the context of a specific historical era.

1. Education of Alexander I.

When ascending to the throne, Emperor Alexander I put it on the line and boldly began to resolve a wide range of problems. In the methods of this resolution, a large part was taken by, firstly, the political ideas that were assimilated by him, and, secondly, practical considerations, political views on the situation in Russia, which developed in him from personal experiences and observations. Both of them - both political ideas and personal views - were closely connected with the upbringing that this emperor received, and with his character, which was formed under the influence of his upbringing. That is why the upbringing of Alexander I, as well as his character, become important factors in the history of our state life. The personality of Alexander I had more than one local significance: he was an indicator total moment experienced throughout Europe. 2

Emperor Alexander I in himself, not by social status, but by his natural quality, was a man of average size, neither higher nor lower general level. He had to experience the influence of both centuries, which met and parted so unfriendly. But he was a more receptive than an active person, and therefore perceived the impressions of time with the least refraction. Moreover, this was a historical person, a real one, not an artistic image.

Watching Alexander I, one can observe a whole era of not only Russian, but also European history, because it is difficult to find another historical figure who would have encountered so many diverse cultural influences of the then Europe.

Alexander was born on December 12, 1777, from the second marriage of Grand Duke Paul to Maria Feodorovna, Princess of Württemberg. Early, too early, his grandmother tore him away from his family, from his mother, in order to raise him in the rules of the then philosophical pedagogy. When the Grand Duke and his brother Konstantin, who followed him, began to grow up, the grandmother drew up a philosophical plan for their upbringing and selected a staff of educators. Colonel Laharpe, a Swiss republican, was elected as the main mentor and educator of the political thought of the grand dukes.

Mikhail Nikitich Muravyov, a very educated man and a very good writer in the liberal-political and sentimental-didactic direction, was invited to teach the Grand Duke the Russian language and history, as well as moral philosophy. Finally, general supervision over the behavior and health of the Grand Dukes was entrusted to General-Chief Count N.I. Saltykov, not brilliant, but a typical nobleman of Catherine’s school. When the Grand Duke and his brother Konstantin, who followed him, began to grow up, the grandmother drew up a philosophical plan for their upbringing and selected a staff of educators. Colonel La Harpe, a Swiss Republican, an enthusiastic, albeit cautious admirer of the abstract ideas of French educational philosophy, was chosen as the main mentor and teacher of the political thought of the great princes. La Harpe, according to him own confession, took up his task very seriously as a teacher, aware of his responsibilities towards the great people for whom he was preparing a ruler; he began to read and, in the spirit of his republican convictions, explain to the great princes the Latin and Greek classics - Demosthenes, Plutarch and Tacitus, English and French historians and philosophers - Locke, Gibbon, Mably, Rousseau. The kind and clever Muravyov added fuel to the fire, reading to children his own idylls about love for humanity, about the law, about freedom of thought as examples of style, and forced them to translate the same Rousseau, Gibbon, Mabley, etc. into Russian. All this was said and was read to the future Russian autocrat at the age of 10 to 14 years, that is, a little premature. 3 High ideas were perceived by the 12-year-old politician and moralist as political and moral fairy tales, filling the child’s imagination with non-childish images and exciting his immature heart with very adult feelings.

He was taught how to feel and behave, but not taught to think and act; they did not ask either scientific or everyday questions that he could resolve himself, making mistakes and correcting himself: he was given ready-made answers to everything - political and moral dogmas, which there was no need to test or invent, but only had to be solidified and felt. He was not forced to rack his brains, strain himself, was not educated, but, like a dry sponge, he was soaked in distilled political and universal morality, saturated with the delicacies of European thought. He was not introduced to school work, with its miniature sorrows and joys, with that work, which alone, perhaps, gives school educational value. 4

Thanks to such a generous reception of the political and moral idyll, the Grand Duke early began to dream of rural solitude and could not pass by without delight wildflower or a peasant hut, he was worried at the sight of a young woman in an elegant dress, he was early accustomed to glide over everyday phenomena with that light gaze for which life is a pleasant pastime, and the world is a vast cabinet for aesthetic experiments and exercises.

With an abundant supply of majestic ancient images and the latest political ideas, Alexander entered real life; he had to rotate between grandmother and father, and these were not only two faces, but even two special worlds.

Forced to say what others liked, he became accustomed to hiding what he thought himself. Stealth has gone from being a necessity to being a necessity. With the accession of his father, these difficulties were replaced by constant daily worries: the Grand Duke was appointed governor-general of St. Petersburg and commander guards corps. Guilty of nothing, he was distrusted by his father early on and had to, along with others, tremble before the hot-tempered sovereign.

From the book 100 great Russians author Ryzhov Konstantin Vladislavovich

From the book Comrade Stalin: an affair with the security agencies of His Imperial Majesty author Yakovlev Leo

Chapter VI. Episode one - the first escape and return to his native land It is not known for certain when Dzhugashvili left for the stage to the place of his first exile. There is information that he was previously returned to the Batumi prison in the second half of August 1903, but they are unlikely,

From the book Emperors. Psychological portraits author Chulkov Georgy Ivanovich

Alexander the First

From the book New chronology and the concept of the ancient history of Rus', England and Rome author

Roman consul Brutus - the first Roman to conquer Britain and the first king of the Britons Above, we examined the duration and periods of reigns and formulated a hypothesis about the overlap of English history with Byzantine history. The question immediately arises: is this hypothesis confirmed?

From the book On the Beginning and Causes of Defeat author Avramenko Alexander Mikhailovich

Avramenko Alexander Mikhailovich About the beginning and reasons for the defeat Forty-first. Failures and successes A lot has already been said about the reasons for the defeats of the Red Army in the initial period of one thousand nine hundred and forty-one. What components of the defeat were not named - here and

From the book Secrets of the House of Romanov author Balyazin Voldemar Nikolaevich

Alexander the First - an inescapable sin and the first attempts to atone for it... The first minutes and hours of Alexander's reign turned out to be the most difficult in his life. Palen led him through the dark corridors of the Mikhailovsky Castle, filled with drunken, highly excited, loud

From the book Moscow inhabitants author Vostryshev Mikhail Ivanovich

First honorary citizen. City mayor, Prince Alexander Alekseevich Shcherbatov (1829–1902) Moscow house management, that is, improvement of the city, collection of local taxes and establishment of trade rules, to late XVII century was concentrated in the hands of “officials and other

From the book Full course Russian history: in one book [in modern presentation] author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

Alexander the First Pavlovich (1801–1825) What tasks faced him? All the same: to equalize the classes and bring them into a friendly government activities. Consequently, it was necessary to change the very foundations of legislation, to harmonize existing laws of the empire,

From the book Rus'. China. England. Dating of the Nativity of Christ and the First Ecumenical Council author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

From the book The Mystery of St. Petersburg. Sensational discovery of the city's origins. To the 300th anniversary of its founding author Kurlyandsky Viktor Vladimirovich

1. Alexander the Great - the first chosen one of the priests The facts of contacts between Alexander the Great (356–323; king of Macedonia from 336 BC) with the priests, and even earlier with people initiated into their secrets are well known. Socrates' student Plato devoted 20 years of his life to preparing

From the book Alphabetical reference list of Russian sovereigns and the most remarkable persons of their blood author Khmyrov Mikhail Dmitrievich

158. PETER I (First) ALEXEEVICH, the first emperor of all Russia, the son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich from his second marriage to Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina (see 148). Born in the Moscow Kremlin on May 30, 1672; began to learn to read and write from clerk Zotov in 1677; upon the death of his childless brother,

From the book Modernization: from Elizabeth Tudor to Yegor Gaidar by Margania Otar

From the book Not There and Not Then. When did World War II begin and where did it end? author Parshev Andrey Petrovich

First battle, first company, first tanker Even knowledgeable people sometimes it is believed that only advisers were there. Well, yes, there were advisers. Of the 59 Heroes of the Soviet Union for the Spanish campaign (starting with the Decree of December 31, 1936), there were two advisers: Batov, a combined arms adviser and

From the book St. Petersburg. Autobiography author Korolev Kirill Mikhailovich

Rock club and cafe “Saigon”, 1980s Alexander Bashlachev, Alexander Zhitinsky, Leonid Sivoedov, Sergey Korovin One can argue until one is hoarse about how much the phenomenon that is commonly called “Russian rock” musically corresponds to the real, classical

From the book Both Time and Place [Historical and philological collection for the sixtieth anniversary of Alexander Lvovich Ospovat] author Team of authors

From the book Crazy Chronology author Muravyov Maxim

Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky is a rather remarkable personality in Russian history, truly amazing person. I managed to understand this only by looking at the dates and places of the beginning and end of his life, think about it: 1856, Vladimir province - 1919, Paris. “May you live in an era of change...”, conservative Chinese once wished harm on someone. But by the way, life is interesting only if there are frequent changes in it. Alexander Petrovich lived in the era of Great Changes. And I, as a person of the era of change at the end of the 20th century, could easily understand how rich and interesting the life of this brilliant diplomat and politician was. But Alexander Petrovich owes his fate not only to time, but also to his eminent ancestors. Most of his ancestors served the state faithfully for many years. The late father of Alexander Petrovich was a senator for several years, served in the rank of provincial prosecutor, and generally practiced law for a long time, and it was he who initially mentored his sons Alexander and Peter in political matters. He gave both sons an excellent education for those times, thanks to which in 1875 Alexander Petrovich graduated from the Alexander Lyceum with a gold medal. His name was inscribed on the marble plaque of honor. The examiners noted the young man’s remarkable talent in law and especially in foreign languages.

By the end of his life, Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky knew quite a few languages, since due to the nature of his activity he had to visit many countries of the world.

But it started working life still inexperienced young man from the native office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire in 1877.

In order to achieve recognition as a specialist, he had to work for a long time as a secretary in various institutions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, subordinate to famous political history people of the second half of the 19th century.

Izvolsky’s hard work and good reviews about him from Lobanov-Rostovsky, set out in the recommendations, opened the way for a young, promising diplomat to a grandiose career. In just six years, Izvolsky managed to visit various parts of our planet - he worked as a secretary diplomatic mission in Bucharest (since 1882), already served with the rank of first secretary of the diplomatic mission in Washington (since 1885). Was made valid privy councilors, which corresponded to generally accepted ideas about a successful career.

He was also an envoy to the Vatican, Belgrade, Munich, and finally his career brought the already experienced diplomat to the capital of Japan, Tokyo. By personal order of Emperor Nicholas II, Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky was transferred to Tokyo, since the emperor needed a person capable of constructive solution problems Russian Empire in the Far East through diplomatic means. The results were not long in coming - Alexander Petrovich proposed giving up spheres of influence in Korea in exchange for maintaining influence in Manchuria. Immediately he met approving reviews of his work from Sergei Yulievich Witte, Vladimir Nikolaevich Lamzdorf, but Alexander Petrovich’s line met resistance from the so-called “Bezobrazov clique” - a group, mainly large landowners, in Russia in 1898-1905, which aimed to create joint stock company for the exploitation of the natural resources of Korea and Manchuria. They influenced production, carried out adventuristic foreign policy. Having convinced the emperor of the harmfulness of Izvolsky’s course, this group managed to remove Alexander Petrovich from the post of head of the diplomatic mission in Japan in the fall of 1902. For the diplomat, who was two steps away from being appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, this was essentially a failure, but thanks to extensive connections at court, in diplomatic circles (Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky was married to his daughter former ambassador in Copenhagen K.K. Tolya) Izvolsky is appointed to what was then considered a prestigious post of ambassador in Copenhagen. Tokyo was quickly forgotten at court when, during the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905, Alexander Petrovich agreed on the unhindered passage of the squadron of Admiral Z.P. through the Danish straits of Sunda and Belta. Rozhdestvensky. Thanks to his long-standing friendship with Witte and good relations with the emperor’s mother Maria Fedorovna, Alexander Petrovich again found himself at court, and the issue of appointing Izvolsky as Minister of Foreign Affairs was practically resolved. The mother of Emperor Nicholas II, Maria Fedorovna, wrote a letter to Nikolai Alexandrovich recommending Izvolsky for the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as with a proposal to “give the country a constitutional charter.” Izvolsky had a long-standing acquaintance with Maria Fedorovna and had an eye on her great influence. It was he who suggested writing to Nicholas II about the constitution, since he believed that Russia simply needed in the light of the transition to market relations and industrialization have appropriate government system, and naturally help in every possible way in the development of entrepreneurship in Russia. Alexander Petrovich also believed that for the successful internal political development of Russia it is simply necessary to introduce into the government representatives of parties of a liberal nature that are in opposition to the government.

IN further Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky enjoyed the personal trust of Emperor Nicholas II. At the request of his wife, Alexander Petrovich took leave to travel to European countries, and to familiarize himself and agree with Russian foreign representatives on the future foreign policy course.

Among his relatives, Alexander Petrovich enjoyed great respect. Pavel Petrovich Izvolsky admired his brother’s amazing talent for diplomacy. He always supported his brother in his political steps, in his advancement through the ranks. Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky played a prominent role in Russian and international political arena. He combined the outlook and mentality of the European statesman XX century characteristic features Russian bureaucrats of the last century - noble snobbery, negative qualities of a courtier, careerism.

In the future, Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky saw his further task in ensuring peaceful development to establish internal political calm, carry out reforms and restore the combat effectiveness of the army and navy. He rejected the idea of a revenge war with Japan, believing that Russia simply needed five to ten years of peaceful life.

In accordance with the changed international situation, the foreign policy program presented by Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky has undergone great changes. From the development of measures, begun under Lamzdorf, to bring the country out of the crisis as quickly as possible and to ensure its national security Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky moved on to formulating a large national program designed for a gradual return to an active foreign policy aimed at Russia achieving a dominant position in the world political arena.

But in practice, the implementation of Alexander Petrovich’s program consisted of a policy of non-alignment with opposing blocs of powers in Europe and stabilization of relations with them through the conclusion of agreements on controversial issues. This reflected the results of several years of hard work and diplomatic play. Izvolsky already knew about the forces that Germany, England, and France had. He also knew that Russia was not destined to be among the winners. He was very knowledgeable about the state of the navy and the land army.

Izvolsky knew that not everyone at court was interested in rapprochement with France. Including Emperor Nicholas II was not inclined to an alliance, since he was married to a Hessian princess. But nevertheless, he tried to draw a line of rapprochement, especially when war seemed inevitable.

Alexander Petrovich, for the first time after many years, drew attention to the need to restructure the structure of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reduce the number of representatives, increase the level vocational training messengers. But the transformation plans were not destined to come to fruition. In his plans, Izvolsky was open to proposals from the Duma members, since he received permission from Nicholas II, if necessary, to speak out about foreign policy plans in the State Duma, striving to establish mutual understanding with the leadership of the Duma factions on the basis of “national interests.” Alexander Petrovich was an active supporter of Stolypin's reforms.

Page 1

Alexander I was a complex and contradictory personality. With all the variety of reviews from contemporaries about Alexander, they all agree on one thing - the recognition of insincerity and secrecy as the main character traits of the emperor. The origins of this must be sought in the unhealthy environment of the imperial house.

Catherine II adored her grandson and predicted, bypassing Paul, to be the heir to the throne. From her future emperor inherited flexibility of mind, the ability to seduce an interlocutor, a passion for acting bordering on duplicity. In this, Alexander almost surpassed Catherine II. “A real seducer,” M.M. wrote about him. Speransky.

The need to maneuver between the “big court” of Catherine II in St. Petersburg and the “small” court of Father Pavel Petrovich in Gatchina taught Alexander to “live on two minds” and developed distrust and caution in him. Possessing an extraordinary mind, refined manners, and, according to contemporaries, “an innate gift of courtesy,” he was distinguished by his masterly ability to win people over different views and beliefs.

Everyone who wrote about Alexander noted his gentleness, modesty, curiosity, great impressionability and sensitivity, grace of thought, great personal charm, piety and mysticism at the end of his life, and from negative qualities- timidity and passivity, idleness and laziness of thought, dislike for systematic studies, inactive daydreaming, the ability to quickly light up and cool down quickly.

The main educator of the heir was the Swiss republican F.S. Laharpe. In accordance with his convictions, he preached the power of reason, the equality of people, the absurdity of despotism, and the vileness of slavery. His influence on Alexander I was enormous.

All his policies were clear and thoughtful. Alexander I was called the “Mysterious Sphinx” at court. A tall, slender, handsome young man with blond hair and blue eyes. Fluent in three European languages.

In 1793, Alexander married Louise Maria Augusta of Baden (who took the name Elizaveta Alekseevna in Orthodoxy) (1779–1826). Both of their daughters died in early childhood. Elizaveta Alekseevna always shared her husband’s views and concerns and supported him, which was confirmed more than once, especially in the most difficult days for Alexander.

For 15 years, Alexander practically had a second family with Maria Naryshkina. She bore him two daughters and a son and insisted that Alexander dissolve his marriage to Elizaveta Alekseevna and marry her. Alexander, despite all his passion for Maria Antonovna, persisted and cited political motives, realizing that she was a stranger to him. Researchers also note that from his youth Alexander had a close and very personal relationship with his sister Ekaterina Pavlovna.

Essentially, Alexander’s involvement in a secret conspiracy against Paul began precisely in the mid-90s with the active assistance of Catherine. At the same time, fear and disgust for this terrible intrigue grow in him.

Opponents of Paul I already in 1800 suggested that Alexander force his father to abdicate the throne by force and take power into his own hands, but he refused. Some historians believe that he hesitated and that, as events unfolded, he only gradually came to support the conspirators and entered into direct contact with them. However, subsequent events show: Alexander had no hesitations about removing his father from power; brought up in conditions of palace intrigue, with well-organized ambition, possessing a character that was certainly firm, decisive, but extremely secretive, disguised by external softness and compliance, he was concerned with only one thing - the absolute success of the enterprise and maintaining his political and dynastic unsullied in the brewing dramatic situation. faces. This is precisely what all his efforts were aimed at in 1800 - early 1801.

Alexander agreed to remove his father from power, even to imprison him in a fortress, however, on the condition that his life would be safe. The illusory nature of this “noble” agreement was obvious to everyone. Alexander knew perfectly well how this kind of coups in Russia ended: his grandfather Peter III was killed by conspirators, supporters of Catherine II.

Prerequisites for reform activities in the domestic policy of Alexander II
Emperor Alexander ascended the throne (1855, February 19) at one of the most difficult moments, which Russia has only had to endure. “I’m handing over my command to you, but unfortunately, not in the order I wanted, leaving you with a lot of work and worries,” Nicholas I told him as he died. Indeed, the political and military situation in Russia at that time...

Economy
Coin from Panticapaeum. III century BC e. The leading role in the Bosporus belonged to the commercial production of cereals - wheat, barley, millet. The basis of Bosporus trade was the export of grain bread, which reached colossal proportions for that time: Demosthenes says that Athens received from the Bosporus half of all the imported grain it needed...

Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century. The crisis of the serf system.
The first quarter of the 19th century in Russia is characterized by a crisis of the feudal economic system. Contradictions began to brew between the developing productive forces and the moribund feudal forces. industrial relations. Subsistence farming was undermined by the growth of commodity exchange and the ever-deepening process of expansion...

Alexander I the Blessed (December 12, 1777 - November 19, 1825) - Emperor of All Russia - grew up at the court of Catherine the Great; teacher – Swiss F.S. La Harpe introduced him to the principles of humanity of Rousseau, the military teacher Nikolai Saltykov introduced him to the traditions of the Russian aristocracy, Father Paul I conveyed to him his passion for military parades.

At the beginning of his reign he spent moderately liberal reforms, developed by the Secret Committee and M.M. Speransky. In foreign policy he maneuvered between Great Britain and France. In 1805–1807 participated in anti-French coalitions. In 1807–1812 temporarily became closer to France. He fought successful wars with Turkey (1806–1812), Persia (1804–1813) and Sweden (1808–1809). Under Alexander I, Eastern Georgia (1801), Finland (1809), Bessarabia (1812), Azerbaijan (1813), and the Duchy of Warsaw (1815) were annexed to Russia. After the Patriotic War of 1812, he headed in 1813–1814. anti-French coalition of European powers. Was one of the leaders Congress of Vienna 1814–1815 and the organizers of the Holy Alliance.

This was all he was: understanding everything, keeping his true passions and principles in the depths of his soul, a cautious and attentive politician. One involuntarily recalls the assessments given to him by memoirists and historians: timid, two-faced, passive, etc. Was all this said about him? Real life shows something completely different - a purposeful, powerful, extremely lively nature, capable of feelings and experiences, a clear mind, insightful and cautious, a flexible character, capable of self-restraint, mimicry, taking into account what kind of people one has to deal with.

IN recent years In his life he often spoke of his intention to abdicate the throne and “retire from the world,” which, after his unexpected death in Taganrog, gave rise to the legend of “elder Fyodor Kuzmich.” According to this legend, it was not Alexander who died in Taganrog, but his double, while the tsar lived for a long time as an old hermit in Siberia and died in Tomsk in 1864.

1. Personality of Alexander I

Catherine II adored her grandson and predicted, bypassing Paul, to be the heir to the throne. From her, the future emperor inherited flexibility of mind, the ability to seduce his interlocutor, and a passion for acting bordering on duplicity. In this, Alexander almost surpassed Catherine II. “A real seducer,” M.M. wrote about him. Speransky.

The need to maneuver between the “big court” of Catherine II in
Petersburg and the “small” - Father Pavel Petrovich in Gatchina taught Alexander to “live on two minds”, developed distrust and caution in him. Possessing an extraordinary mind, refined manners, and, according to his contemporaries, “an innate gift of courtesy,” he was distinguished by his masterly ability to win over people of different views and beliefs.

Everyone who wrote about Alexander noted his gentleness, modesty, curiosity, great impressionability and receptivity, grace of thought, great personal charm, piety and mysticism at the end of his life, and among the negative qualities - timidity and passivity, idleness and laziness of thought, dislike of systematic studies, inactive daydreaming, the ability to quickly light up and quickly cool down.

Thus, what Catherine could not decide on in relation to Paul, and Paul himself in relation to Alexander - political and, as a consequence, physical elimination, the blue-eyed “angel”, soft and intelligent Alexander, decided on, which indicates not only his fear in front of my father own life, but also great ambition, strong character, determination, which he demonstrated more than once during the years of his reign.

At the beginning of 1801, Pavel ordered the arrest of more than two dozen prominent nobles, whom he suspected of oppositional sentiments. Then the emperor began to openly express threats against his wife Maria Feodorovna and his eldest son, Alexander. Hanging over 23-year-old Alexander real threat spend the rest of his days in prison. It was under these conditions that he had to make the final choice. Suspicious and vindictive, Pavel, not without reason, believed that his son was involved in a conspiracy, and Alexander could only be saved by opposing his father.

So, Alexander agreed to deprive his father of supreme power and to imprison him in the Peter and Paul Fortress. At half past twelve on the night of March 12, 1801, Count P.A. Palen informed Alexander about the murder of his father. Already in the first hours he experienced the full force of the consciousness of parricide. None high goals expressed, in particular, in his manifesto on the occasion of his accession to the throne could not justify him to himself.

Power approached Alexander immediately, without preparation, and for him human personality the question was whether he would be able to stand up to her with dignity, as he imagined in the time of his youthful dreams, or whether she would grind him down and give him another finished sample ruler - cruel, unprincipled, ready to do anything to keep her. He resolved this question throughout his life, without giving either a negative or a positive answer to it. And this, apparently, was his drama as a person and as a ruler.

The idea of redemption terrible sin The prosperity of the Fatherland will pass through his entire life, until 1825, therefore, Alexander’s entire subsequent life should be viewed through the prism of his constant efforts to achieve this correspondence, which was extremely difficult both in purely human terms, but especially in terms of government in Russia at that time.

As for his purely human qualities, he, despite all the terrifying cruelty of the system in which he lived, fought all his life to find himself, to return to his former self. He pursued this personal, human line, despite the dictates of power, traditions, and temptations, throughout his entire life, and sometimes he succeeded, although not without retreats, concessions, and weaknesses, which gave rise to talk about duplicity, hypocrisy, Alexander's insincerity.

His almost ascetic lifestyle is also striking: early rise, difficult work with papers and people, a very limited environment, lonely walks or horseback rides, the pleasure of visiting people he likes, the desire to avoid flattery, gentle even treatment of servants. And all this remained the dominant feature of life for many years, although the situation required going out into the world and frequent departures; The passion for the army and paradomania, which became a passion almost from childhood, have also been preserved.

Even Alexander’s endless travels had some kind of peculiar coloring. On these trips, he not only attended balls and dinners, met with the top of the local nobility and merchants, organized a review of army units, but also took an interest in the life of all levels of society. So, he reached the “Kyrgyz steppe” and visited the yurts of nomads, visited the Zlatoust factories, went down to the Miass mines, visited Tatar families in the Crimea, visited hospitals, communicated with prisoners and exiled settlers.

His biographers note that on the road he had to face considerable difficulties: eating poorly, experiencing various inconveniences, getting into unpleasant road accidents, walking for a long time. But he had a personal idea of how Russia lived. And the deep disappointments that befell him at the end of his life were probably, to a certain extent, caused by this very difficult information, which dispelled his last remnants of illusions regarding his efforts for the benefit of the Fatherland.

For some reason, numerous cases of compassion, philanthropy, and help he showed towards people remain unnoticed. So, on the banks of the Neman, the emperor saw a barge hauler hit by a broken rope. Alexander got out of the carriage, helped lift the poor man, sent for a doctor and, only after making sure that everything possible had been done for him, continued on his way.

History has preserved many similar examples from the life of Alexander, which speak of his unostentatious interest in people, philanthropy, tolerance and humility. At the same time, there are known cases of cruel orders of Alexander I regarding the rebel soldiers of the Semenovsky regiment and military settlers. Wherever he showed himself as an individual, Alexander acted as a very humane person; where he showed himself as a representative and leader of the system, he sometimes acted in the spirit of the principles of unlimited autocracy.

Autocratic liberal

2.1 Domestic policy of Alexander I

2.1.1 Reform of senior management bodies

The first steps of the state of the young emperor gave the foundation to A.S. Pushkin to determine the beginning of the 19th century. as “the days of Alexandrov are a wonderful beginning.” Widespread pardons of prisoners were carried out. Russian troops sent to India were recalled to their homeland. In the army, the names of the old regiments were restored and Russian uniforms were returned. Many court cases were reviewed and censorship was relaxed. All the obstacles to communicating with European countries were eliminated: travel abroad became free, and Pavlov’s restrictions on clothing, as well as in the field of trade with foreign countries, were lifted. Alexander restored the effect of the Charter to the nobility and cities, and abolished the secret chancellery.

Already in the manifesto of March 12, 1801, the new emperor committed himself to governing the people “according to the laws and according to the heart of his wise grandmother.” In decrees, as well as in private conversations, the emperor expressed the main rule that would guide him: to replace personal arbitrariness with strict legality. It was in this direction that the transformative experiments of the first years were carried out.

Even before Alexander’s accession to the throne, a group of “young friends” rallied around him (P.A. Stroganov, V.P. Kochubey, A.A. Chartorysky, N.N. Novosiltsev), who from 1801 began to play extremely important role in government.

Reforms began with central government. The State Council, which met at the personal discretion of Empress Catherine, was replaced on March 30, 1801 by a permanent institution called the “Permanent Council,” transformed in 1810 by M.M. Speransky to the State Council. To organize the activities of the State Council, it was created State Chancellery, and Speransky was appointed its secretary of state.

On September 8, 1802, a personal decree “On the rights and duties of the Senate” was signed, which determined both the organization of the Senate itself and its attitude towards others higher institutions. The Senate was declared the supreme body in the empire, concentrating the highest administrative, judicial and supervisory power. He was given the right to make representations regarding decrees issued if they contradicted other laws.

Changes have also been made Holy Synod, whose members were the highest spiritual hierarchs - metropolitans and bishops, but at the head of the Synod was a civil official with the rank of chief prosecutor. Under Alexander I, representatives of the highest clergy no longer gathered, but were summoned to meetings of the Synod to select the chief prosecutor, whose rights were significantly expanded.

On September 8, 1802, the Manifesto “On the Establishment of Ministries” began ministerial reform - 8 ministries were approved: foreign affairs, military ground forces, naval forces, internal affairs, finance, justice, commerce and public education.

At the end of 1809, Alexander I instructed Speransky to develop a plan for the state transformation of Russia. In October 1809, a project entitled “Introduction to the Code state laws"was presented to the emperor, but met with stubborn opposition high nobility, and Alexander I did not dare to implement it.

2.1.2 Attempts to resolve the peasant issue

The most significant part of the liberal reform program in Russia was the approach to the peasant question. On December 12, 1801, a decree was issued extending the right to purchase land to merchants, townspeople, state-owned peasants, and freedmen. The nobles' monopoly on land was broken. On February 20, 1803, the decree “On Free Plowmen” appeared, according to which serfs, with the consent of their landowners, could buy their freedom with land in entire villages.

In 1809, Alexander I signed a decree abolishing the right of landowners to exile their peasants to Siberia for minor offenses. The rule was confirmed: if a peasant once received freedom, then he could not be assigned to the landowner again. Those who were released from captivity, as well as those taken through conscription, received freedom. With the permission of the landowner, peasants could trade, take bills, and engage in contracts.

From the point of view of the processes that took place in advanced Europe at that time, this was negligible. But this was Russia with a powerful conservative nobility, a powerful bureaucracy, and a noble military corps. Perhaps at that time, in order not to be killed in another conspiracy, these were important steps, and it was not anyone else who took them, but Alexander I, thereby paving the way for future reforms.

Since 1810, the practice of organizing military settlements began. In 1857, military settlements were abolished. They already numbered 800,000 people.

Essentially, it was in Alexander’s liberal environment that the basic idea of solving the peasant question arose - caution, gradualism, preserving the interests of the landowners; even the Decembrists took a very cautious and contradictory approach to solving this problem. And yet, Alexander carefully, gradually, with great caution and, as if distancing himself from personal participation in this issue, moved it forward.

In 1816, he supported the initiative of the Estonian nobility, who showed their readiness to free the serfs. In 1817 in Courland and in 1819 in Livonia, at the request of the local nobility, as well as in Estland, serfdom of the peasants was abolished; a request was also received in this regard from the nobility of Lithuania. In 1819, Alexander declared on the occasion of the reform in Livonia: “You acted in the spirit of the times and realized that liberal principles alone can serve as the basis for the happiness of peoples.”

2.1.3 Attempts to implement the constitution in Russia

In parallel with his attempts to give rise to the peasant question, Alexander I sought to equally carefully test the waters regarding the development of a constitution in Russia. The constitutional ideas of Alexander and his circle were most fully embodied, alas, not in Russia, but in the adjacent territories that had recently become part of the empire - in Finland and Poland, as well as in France after the defeat of Napoleon. Three weeks before his death, in Sevastopol, during a conversation with the Chief of the General Staff I.I. Diebitsch Alexander said: “Still, no matter what they say about me, I lived and will die as a republican.”

2.2 Foreign policy

2.2.1 Alexander I and Napoleon Bonaparte: confrontation

The personality and state practice of Alexander I were most clearly revealed in his confrontation with Napoleon. The very first clash with Napoleon at Austerlitz taught Alexander a cruel life lesson, which he learned very thoroughly. This was already evident during the negotiations in Tilsit. Defeated in the war, having lost the color of its army in the Battle of Friedland, forced to make peace, Russia, through the efforts of Alexander I, managed to protect its borders from the invasion of a victorious enemy, maintain its prestige, and not stand on a par with the defeated, occupied, humiliated Prussia and relegated to second place role of Austria. Alexander managed in these most difficult conditions, bearing in mind not only the defeat of his army at Friedland, but also the tenacity of the Russian army at Preussisch-Eylau that shocked Napoleon in February 1807, solely due to his diplomatic and political talent to stand on a par with the winner.

On the way to Erfurt - his second meeting with Napoleon and the next negotiations with him - Alexander I continued this line: restraint, calm, goodwill, playing on the vanity of the French emperor and the desire to obtain certain foreign policy benefits for Russia. At the same time, Alexander sent secret letters to England, calming the British cabinet, expressing his strong desire to fight Bonaparte. Mistrust, secrecy, duplicity - this is how Alexander appeared in his relations with Napoleon in 1807–1808.

The meeting in Erfurt brought Russia incomparable success: Napoleon agreed to Russia's annexation of Finland, Moldavia and Wallachia, but opposed the seizure of the Bosporus and Dardanelles. But at the same time, he forced Alexander to promise that Russia would act on his side in the event of a war between France and Austria. The Russian emperor, saving his ally, the Prussian king, obtained from France a reduction in indemnity from Prussia. He also insisted on leaving French troops from the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.

The negotiations in Erfurt, despite the outward cordiality, were very tense. True attitude The Russian emperor's approach to Napoleon was manifested in the fact that the Russian court actually refused the French emperor's request to receive the hand of the Tsar's sister. Napoleon was furious.

Beginning in 1808, the tsar, preparing for a future confrontation with the French emperor, began to rebuild and reform the Russian army. At the same time, he established relations with the British government and Polish high-ranking officials.

By the spring of 1812, relations between France and Russia had become tense. Under these conditions, Alexander showed great restraint, fortitude, and true patriotism. Having invaded Russia, Napoleon's great army began to move unhindered into the interior of the country. Napoleon intended to complete the 1812 campaign in Smolensk and, through the captured Russian general P.A. Tuchkova sent Alexander I a letter offering peace. There was no answer. In Smolensk, Napoleon decided to attack Moscow, take control of it and dictate his peace terms to Alexander.

In August, under the pressure of difficult military circumstances and demands public opinion Alexander I signed an order to create a unified command of all active Russian armies and to appoint M.I. as commander-in-chief. Kutuzova.

For the general battle, Kutuzov chose a position near the village. Borodino (124 km west of Moscow). The Battle of Borodino began at half past five in the morning on August 26. Heavy losses and a delay in the arrival of promised reserves prevented Kutuzov from resuming the battle the next day. He made the only correct decision: to leave Moscow in order to save the army, because with the loss of the army, Moscow would be lost and the entire campaign would be lost.

From Moscow, Napoleon repeatedly turned to Alexander I with proposals to conclude peace. Konstantin Pavlovich, the Dowager Empress, many courtiers persuaded Alexander to peace, but Alexander was adamant. “I will grow a beard and would rather agree to eat potatoes with the last of my peasants than sign the shame of my fatherland,” he said.

The French army stayed in Moscow for 36 days. Napoleon never received any offers of peace. Coming out of Moscow at the head of a 116,000-strong still combat-ready French army and with a huge convoy of looted valuables, Napoleon intended, following the Kaluga road, to defeat the Russian army, take possession of the food base in Kaluga and military arsenals in Tula, then head south to the provinces not devastated by the war, but this plan was thwarted by Kutuzov. Napoleon was forced to abandon the movement to the south and turned to Vyazma, to the devastated Smolensk road. The retreat of the French army began (which later turned into flight) and its pursuit by the Russian army. After crossing the Berezina on November 14–16, during which Napoleon lost 50 thousand soldiers, all artillery and convoys, the disorderly flight of the remnants of the French troops began. On December 25, a royal manifesto was issued to coincide with the Nativity of Christ, announcing the end of the war. But the victorious end of the Patriotic War of 1812 did not mean that Russia managed to put an end to Napoleon’s aggressive plans.

He himself openly announced the preparation of a new campaign against Russia, feverishly put together new army For the campaign of 1813, Alexander I decided to forestall Napoleon and immediately transfer military operations outside the country.

2.2.2 Foreign campaigns of the Russian army. Congress of Vienna

In December 1812, the Russian army, having ousted the French from Russia, reached the state border. M.I. Kutuzov believed that the war could end here, that there was no need to destroy Russian soldiers anymore. He believed that the fall of Napoleon would only strengthen England and other European powers in spite of Russia. However, Alexander now sought to become the savior of Europe, to be its arbiter.

During the campaign abroad, Alexander was constantly with the army, but he was no longer an enthusiastic newcomer to Austerlitz, but a wise man from military experience, and a brave man at that. In the battle near Dresden on the Lucen fields, he took part in leading the troops and stood under fire. Alexander showed personal courage and good military management during the Battle of Leipzig, as well as in the battle for Paris.

After the French success at Bautzen, Napoleon turned to the Russian Tsar with peace proposals and was refused. Alexander continued to show firmness throughout 1814, but after the overthrow of Napoleon, Alexander no longer harbored personal enmity. On the contrary, he showed him generosity. Alexander insisted on relatively mild conditions for Napoleon’s removal from power (possession of the island of Elba, a huge pension, 50 guard soldiers for protection), contrary to Talleyrand, who proposed exile to the Azores and a more stringent regime of detention.

However, as soon as the news of Napoleon’s flight from Elba and the advent of the era of the “hundred days” spread across Europe and reached Vienna, where the leaders of the then Europe gathered for its next redistribution, Alexander again showed determination and combativeness, which largely determined the unity of the allies and the final defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte. Alexander did not abandon his line towards Napoleon even when he sent the Russian emperor an anti-Russian treaty signed by Russia’s recent allies - Austria, England and Louis XVIII, who had been placed on the French throne. The agreement was secret and provided for the possibility of joint actions, including military ones, against Russia due to serious differences between the allies and Russia on territorial issues. Napoleon was doomed, and the conspiracy of the “great” powers against Russia was gaining formidable strength. Austria, England, France continued to unite in the confrontation with Russia on the European continent, which quickly made itself felt at the ongoing negotiations in Vienna, and subsequently, in connection with events in the Balkans in relations with Turkey, and directly led to the Crimean War. All this, after the revelation of the conspiracy of the powers, could have been easily predicted, but Alexander believed that he was above this. He allowed himself the luxury of true generosity, and in politics this, as subsequent events showed, is severely punished.

3. Collapse: reactionary period of government

At the turn of the second and third decades of his reign, the turn in Alexander’s actions began, which led him to his premature death. This turn was based on a whole complex of reasons - social upheavals, Alexander’s personal dramas.

First of all, it should be said about Alexander’s deep disappointment in his former allies, about their betrayal and conspiracy against Russia. And this is after the great troubles that Russia experienced, the sacrifices that it brought on the altar of Europe, after the fire of Moscow, after his, Alexander’s, army gained the upper hand in a difficult war, and he himself entered Paris victoriously.

After the second defeat of Napoleon, the congress to develop a general peace treaty resumed its work. At the same time, Alexander conceived the idea of creating a Holy Alliance of European powers, which would regulate relations between states from a legal, religious and moral standpoint. Alexander, when planning it, firmly believed in the principles of goodness that he laid as its basis. And therefore, it was especially discouraging for him that the Holy Alliance was used, primarily by Austria, as a means of suppressing popular movements in the 20s. Subsequently, the formidable revolutionary reality destroyed Alexander’s liberal hobbies.

Internal affairs were increasingly reaching a dead end. Constitutional reforms and plans for the emancipation of the peasants provoked fierce resistance from the majority of the nobles. This gave rise to a familiar fear in the soul, resurrecting the terrible night of March 11, 1801. Under the influence of this fear, responsibility for the murder of his father increasingly haunted Alexander’s thoughts and gave him no rest. Redemption good intentions and good deeds for Russia never came, and this made life hopeless and meaningless.

At times, the state routine overwhelmed him, but even here, in these last years of his life, there were more failures and disappointments than bright moments. The brainchild of his dream - military settlements - instead of easing the situation of the peasants, they turned into one of its darkest symbols, and the brutal suppression of the discontent of the military settlers painted Alexander’s entire post-war domestic policy in brightly reactionary tones.

The Semenovsky regiment rebelled, information about the actions appeared secret societies in Russia. Discontent in the army and society grew against the Russian governor in Warsaw, Konstantin Pavlovich, and terrible news periodically came about the height of European revolutions. I think that only this can explain the appearance in the early 20s of a number of decrees that again unleashed the arbitrariness of landowners against peasants, allowed them to be exiled to Siberia, and forbade them to complain about the landowners. At the same time, censorship and persecution of the press intensified. Moreover, those press organs that tried to propagate the constitutional projects of Alexander I himself were persecuted.

Under pressure from the nobility and fear of personal death, under fear popular performances: Alexander had to curtail his liberal programs. He saw all this with bitterness, understood and could not help but feel deep disappointment. Crisis phenomena grew in everyone public spheres Russia: in economics, finance, management.

In December 1818, after a cold, Alexander I’s beloved sister Ekaterina Pavlovna died at a very young age. At the age of 16, his beloved daughter Sophia died from a long-term relationship with his favorite M.A. Naryshkina. Truly fate haunted Alexander both as a statesman and as a person.

In recent years, he became increasingly gloomy, increasingly secluded, increasingly trying to go abroad, then to the far reaches of Russia, as if he was running away from himself. Perhaps, during these long travels, the fear of a possible assassination attempt also made itself felt, especially since information about the creation of secret societies with the intention of killing the tsar periodically settled in the emperor’s office. Perhaps Alexander felt an unaccountable guilt before the people, who never received the coveted freedom from him; hence his desire to reach every layer of society during his travels around the country, to see with his own eyes how peasants, Cossacks, military settlers, steppe inhabitants, mine workers and even prisoners live. The impressions from these trips and meetings were difficult. He saw life described two decades later by N.V. Gogol in The Government Inspector and Dead Souls.

The sudden death of the emperor on November 19, 1825 in Taganrog gave rise to a lot of rumors among the people. Later, in the 30–40s of the 19th century, a legend appeared that Alexander, tormented by remorse (as an accomplice in the murder of his father), faked his death far from the capital and began a wandering, hermit life under the name of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich.

Conclusion

The life and death of Alexander I is truly a dramatic page in Russian history; to an even greater extent, this is the drama of a living human personality, forced to combine, it seems, such incompatible principles as “power” and “humanity.”

He was one of the first to talk about the importance of limiting autocratic power, introducing a Duma and a constitution. With him, voices began to sound louder and louder calling to cancel serfdom, and a lot of work has been done in this regard. During the reign of Alexander I, Russia was able to successfully defend itself against an external enemy that conquered all of Europe. The Patriotic War of 1812 became the personification of the unity of the Russian people in the face of external danger.

1. None of the major state undertakings of Alexander I can be considered, on the one hand, outside of his desire to justify his accession to the throne, “to bring happiness to the people,” and on the other hand, outside constant feeling fear for his life, which he could pay if his policy came into conflict with the powerful conservative nobility.

2. Results domestic policy Alexandra I : in the first decade of his reign, Alexander I improved the system to a certain extent public administration, contributed to the spread of education in the country.

3. Promoted development liberal ideas in Russia, thereby preparing the ground for economic and political reform of the country.

4. Began the process of limiting and even partially abolishing serfdom.

5. The refusal to implement the promised liberal reforms led to the radicalization of the position of the progressive part of the noble intelligentsia and gave rise to noble revolutionism. But in general, the ruling strata rejected the liberal reforms and innovations coming from above, which ultimately predetermined the turn to reaction.

6. Foreign policy of Alexander I did not meet Russia's national interests. As a result of the implementation of the utopian ideas of the Holy Alliance, foreign policy Russia found itself in complete subordination to the national interests of foreign states, always hostile to Russia. Russia did not take full advantage of the position in which it found itself after the victory over Napoleon to further strengthen its international position.

7. The last decade of Alexander’s reign was a period of growing conservative tendencies in the domestic political course, which, despite attempts to return to liberal policies, was finally established by the beginning of the 20s.

emperor alexander liberal reform

References

1. Vallotton A. Alexander I. – M.: Progress, 1991. – 400 p.

2. Vandal A. Napoleon and Alexander. – Rostov n/a: Phoenix, 1995. T. II. – 546 p.

3. Klyuchevsky V.O. Essays. – M.: Mysl, 1989. T. 5. – 480 p.

4. Lyubimov L. The Mystery of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich // Questions of History. 1966. No. 1.S. 213.

5. Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia in early XIX V. – M.: Nauka, 1989. – 240 p.

6. Mironenko S.V. Pages of the secret history of autocracy. – M.: Mysl, 1990. – 272 p.

7. Pivovarov Yu. The genius of the good of Russian politics // Frontiers. 1995. No. 4. P. 61.

8. Speransky M.M. Projects and notes. – M.: Nauka, 1961. – 680 p.

9. Fedorov V.A. Alexander I // Questions of history. 1990. No. 1. P. 51.

10. Eidelman N.Ya. Edge of centuries. – M.: Ex Libris, 1992. – 384 p.

11. Sakharov A. Alexander I. – M.: Nauka. 1998. – 287 p.

Speransky M.M. Projects and notes. - M.: Nauka, 1961, p. 145

Klyuchevsky V.O. Works. - M.: Mysl, 1989. T. 5, p. 14.

Vallotton A. Alexander I. - M.: Progress, 1991, p. 13

Eidelman N.Ya. Edge of centuries. - M.: Bookplate, 1992, p. 51.

Sakharov A.N. Alexander I. - M.: Science. 1998, p. 129

Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. - M., 1989. P. 84-85.

Mironenko S.V. Pages of the secret history of autocracy. - M.: Mysl, 1990, p. 94-95.

Vandal A. Napoleon and Alexander. - Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 1995. T. II., p. 85

Pivovarov Yu. The genius of the good of Russian politics // Frontiers. 1995. No. 4, p. 61.

Fedorov V.A. Alexander I // Questions of history. 1990. No. 1, p. 51.

Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. - M.: Nauka, 1989, p. 84-85.

Lyubimov L. The Mystery of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich // Questions of History. 1966. No. 1, p. 213.

Attempts to resolve the peasant issue. Chapters I - VIII