1812 came, and then seven more years passed.The turbulent sea of ​​European history has calmed down.It seems silent, but the mysterious forces (mysterious because the laws governing their motion are unknown to us) that move man forward continue to operate. Although the surface of the ocean of history does not seem to be in motion, human beings continue to move forward like time.Groups of people are formed and dissolved.Various causes were brewing for the formation and dissolution of states, and for the migration of various peoples. The ocean of history is no longer rushing from shore to shore like it used to be; but it is churning in the depths of the sea.Nor are historical figures swept from one shore to the other as they were before;It turned out that these historical figures led the army and issued orders. , to declare war, go out, and fight, in order to repel the popular movement; but now they are using political and diplomatic skills skillfully, using laws and treaties to repel the surging mass movement.

Such activities of historical figures are called reactionary by historians. Historians, in describing the activities of these past historical figures, have often condemned them viscerally and viciously, because they believe that these historical figures are the bane of the reaction to which they refer.All the well-known figures of the time, from Alexander and Napoleon to Frau Stael, Forty, Schelling, Fichte, Chéteaubrien, and others, were severely judged by historians and regarded as Whether it contributes to progress or reaction to acquit or condemn. According to the records of historians, there was also a reaction in Russia during this period, and the culprit of this reaction was Alexander I.It was this Alexander I (still according to historians) who advocated liberalism and preached the salvation of Russia at the beginning of his reign.

In the existing Russian literature, there is no one, from schoolchildren to learned historians, who did not throw stones at Alexander I for his wrongdoings during his reign. "He should have acted so and so. He was good at one thing and bad at another. He did a good job early in his administration and in 1812; but, given Poland made a constitution, established the Holy League, delegated great powers to Arakcheev, encouraged Golitsyn and mysticism, and then Shishkov and Foty. He asked the troops at the front, It was not done right; he dismantled the Semyonov Corps, and he did not do it right, etc., etc."

It would take ten pages to enumerate the reproaches which historians have made against Alexander I, according to their knowledge of the welfare of mankind. What do these reproaches mean? Alexander I's behaviors praised by historians, such as some liberal pioneering activities in the early days of his accession to the throne, his resistance to Napoleon, his tough attitude in 1812, and his expedition in 1813, are similar to those behaviors condemned by historians. , such as the founding of the Holy Alliance, the restoration of Poland, and the reaction of the twenties, did not all arise from the same source of blood, education, and life conditions that formed the personality of Alexander I?

What is the essence of these accusations? Its essence lies in this: Alexander I was a historical figure at the zenith of human power possible, as if at the focus of the dazzling historical brilliance gathered in him.A man like him deserved the strongest influence in the world of intrigue, deceit, flattery, self-deception that goes with power; responsible for everything that happens.This character is not a fiction, but a living person with flesh and blood.He had, like all men, his habits, his passions, his longing for truth, goodness and beauty—a figure who, fifty years ago, was not devoid of virtue (and historians do not reproach him in this respect).But he does not have the views and views on human happiness that contemporary professors have—these professors have delved into knowledge since their youth, talked extensively, grasped the spirit of the lecture materials, and recorded his thoughts in their notebooks. .

Suppose that, fifty years ago, Alexander I was wrong about the happiness of mankind, and it must certainly be said that the historian who accused Alexander was wrong about the happiness of mankind a few years later. of.The reason why this assumption is justified and necessary is that we have only to look at the development of history to see that the conception of human happiness is constantly changing from time to time and from writer to writer. with.Therefore, what was considered a blessing at first will be considered a disaster ten years later, and vice versa.Not only that, but even in the same period, we can see that the views on misfortunes and blessings in history are sometimes completely contradictory.For example, some credit Alexander with giving Poland a constitution and a Holy Alliance, but others blame Alexander for it.

The actions of Alexander and Napoleon cannot simply be said to be beneficial or harmful, because we cannot say why it was beneficial and why it was harmful.If someone dislikes certain activities, it is because they do not fit his narrow conception of happiness.Whether it is the preservation of my father's house in Moscow in 1812, or the glory of the Russian army, or the prosperity of Petersburg University or other universities, or the freedom of Poland, or the strength of Russia, or the balance of Europe, or the Whether I consider these phenomena to be a blessing or not, I have to admit that the behavior of any historical figure has other more general purposes than I understand, in addition to these purposes.

However, we assume that the so-called science has the possibility to reconcile all contradictions, and it also has an unchanging yardstick for measuring the quality of historical figures and historical events. We assume that Alexander could have done all these things differently.We assume that he can follow the instructions of those who accuse him, who pretend to know the ultimate goal of human activities, and at the same time follow the program of nationality, liberty, equality and progress offered by his accusers (no newer ones seem to be available). program) govern the country.We assume that there might be such a program, that it had already been drawn up, and that Alexander acted according to it.So what will happen to all the activities of those who oppose the policies of the government at that time-activities that historians think are beneficial, okay?There would be no such activity, there would be no actual life, there would be no such thing.

If it is said that human life can be governed by reason, then it is impossible to have practical life.