Alexander II, or the Story of Three Solitudes. What is greatness? (a few words to end the conversation) Alexander 2 or the story of three solitudes

The historical and biographical book of L. M. Lyashenko is one of the first studies in world literature that attempts to comprehensively describe the life of a person who occupies an exceptional place among Russian autocrats. The personality of Alexander II, overshadowed by the grandeur of his reforms, primarily the abolition of serfdom, appears in all the fullness of human traits, everyday actions and acts of state. Along with the contradictory nature of the Tsar-Liberator, whose royal loneliness was torn apart by Narodnaya Volya bombs, the book displays images of his lovers and wives, provides a gallery of living portraits of people in the imperial entourage, and comprehends the very nature of supreme power.

On our website you can download the book “Alexander II, or the Story of Three Solitudes” by Leonid Mikhailovich Lyashenko for free and without registration in epub, fb2 format, read the book online or buy the book in the online store.

Only in Russia on the brink of 1855, and only by crossing this line,
we are in our Russia, and not in the Russia of our ancestors.
B.E. Nolde

Throughout our entire conversation, which I would like to believe did not bore you too much, we tried to prove exactly what the baron and historian B. Nolde said as something self-evident in a few lines. He could afford this, since he wrote not about Alexander II, but about the Slavophiles, and he felt the turning point, the stage-by-stage reign of our hero through the fates of his characters. We had to prove the thesis he put forward by talking about all aspects of Alexander Nikolaevich’s life, discussing all stages of the monarch’s life. And now, when the main thing has been said, when it is absolutely clear what our modest strength was enough for and what it was not enough for, it remains to sum up the results and say a warm goodbye to each other.

By the way, why did the author so persistently and sometimes tediously insist that the book he wrote was closest to the conversational genre? Apparently because all these attempts to penetrate into the mechanisms of the past era and describe them are a purely and exclusively subjective matter. Even more subjective are his efforts to penetrate into the psychology of the book’s hero - a real person. Yes, of course, any work of the historical genre cannot be considered detachedly objective. However, academic monographs, based on facts recognized by scientists and developed research methods, strive to give a general picture of what happened, and they more or less succeed in doing this. Historical novels obviously do not claim absolute accuracy of presentation, focusing, in fact, on the clash of characters’ characters around timeless, universal problems.

Historical and biographical works are a different matter. On the one hand, their objects certainly existed, and therefore, if the objects are interesting and significant, there is an image of them that is established in human memory, a kind of stereotype, overgrown with hundreds, if not thousands of variations, albeit less established, but dear to those who built them. On the other hand, the heroes of such books cannot be recklessly invented, like the heroes of novels and stories, because there are immutable facts of their biography, a chronology of events, beyond the boundaries of which progress is prohibited. And this limitation is sometimes more interesting than the wildest fantasies.

Maybe that’s why historical and biographical books are one of the best reasons for a leisurely, interested and pleasant conversation under a cozy lampshade in the living room or in the usual cramped kitchen, where everything you need can be reached with your hand without getting up from your chair. Each of us, if we wish, without much difficulty, feels like the hero of a literary work, film or theatrical performance. This happens much less often with the historical and biographical genre. Here we can only argue, draw parallels between eras, agree or disagree on the nuances of the motives of behavior of the main character and his entourage, argue about possible options for their destinies and about Fate in general. Here the author is least of all a dictator, he only sets the beginning and tone of the conversation, and then participates in it on an equal basis with the interlocutor readers

Sovereigns and rulers in Russia, as you know, were not chosen; they were bestowed upon her, one might say, by chance, or one might say, from God, depending on who you like. Despite all the shortcomings of the monarchical method of government, it had great merit: the Russian tsars and emperors, despite a significant difference in their personal qualities, proceeded from the main principle of the monarchy - the God-given power they received over the country and people. Therefore, as a rule, among them there were no temporary workers who neglected difficult government responsibilities. Of course, their very attitude towards unlimited power did not remain unchanged, especially in the last centuries of the existence of the monarchy. “Joyful power,” power for the sake of power in the eighteenth century, gives way to power for the sake of duty in the nineteenth century. The seething on and around the throne in the 18th century was replaced by the monarch fulfilling his duties through “I can’t” because “that’s how it should be.” A common thread running through the diaries, letters, and memoirs of Alexander I, Nicholas I, Alexander II, Alexander III, and Nicholas II is the idea of ​​the monarch’s responsibility to his earthly subjects and the heavenly Lord. The duty of the sovereign became almost the only driving force in the life of the Russian “elite”.

Who, in this case, had and has the right to judge kings? The intelligent observer and keen publicist Joseph de Maistre called Time"God's first minister for the affairs of monarchs." Quite a long time has passed since the death of Alexander II, and assessments of his personality should have already been established and somehow unified, but this did not happen. It did not happen at all because of a lack of zeal on the part of historians, publicists, and public figures, and at the same time it was far from accidental. According to one of the modern philosophers: “The power of a person is measured by the breadth of the spectrum of assessments - from malicious lampoons to declarations of love. The less you can say, the shallower the person.” If this statement is true, then Alexander II, which we, in fact, had no doubt about, is clearly an extraordinary person.

Since the end of the 18th century, the problem of the abolition of serfdom (and the closely related problem of granting civil rights to the estates) became one of the main ones in the politics of the Russian monarchs; one might say that it became almost a tribal problem for them. The destruction of serfdom turned out to be an unusually complex and lengthy process, requiring extreme efforts from a number of autocrats, until Alexander I managed to complete what his predecessors had planned. Few of them could imagine that the cardinal problem in the life of the country would turn out to be like a multi-stage rocket, when the solution of the first problem launches a task of no less, if not more, significance.

The main character of our conversation did not imagine this either. The main motive for the behavior of the authorities during his reign was a leap into the unknown. We very often confuse two things: theoretical preference and the real viability of programs, projects, and specific transformations. In most cases, the carnivalesque art of preference blocks the everyday simplicity of life from us, or even completely defeats it. The Russian social movement, which began to play such a noticeable role in the life of the country precisely in 1850-1860, did not avoid this mistake. In contrast to power (not so much wise as cautious), it sometimes offered paths not into the unknown, but into the unknown. We can say that the history of Russia in the 19th century is a search and struggle for ways into the unknown (for now specifically by Russia) and into the unknown (by the world community in general).

It is difficult to say unequivocally that Alexander II, like Peter the Great, confidently led the movement for decisive reforms. Rather, he found himself inside this movement and was formed along with it. Our main character lived in a turning point and not only lived, but in many ways created it, because, as a monarch, he bore the entire burden of the legacy of the great and not-so-great past and the germs of an unclear future. That is why Alexander II is almost always indecisive. The easiest way to consider its sources is weakness of character, undeveloped positions of the king, and his lack of well-thought-out tactics. It is difficult to argue with such statements, but one cannot help but remember something else. It was also a matter of the complexity of the choice, since the monarch always remembered that he was choosing a path not only for himself, like each of us, his strict and not very strict judges, but also for the country, society, people. It’s a strange convergence, but I’ll risk mentioning it. Before the uprising of December 14, 1825, the Decembrists passionately and fearlessly talked about ways to radically transform the country, about what the revolutionary uprising would threaten them in case of failure; up to a certain point, all this concerned only them personally. And they went out onto Senate Square with the greatest doubt, since now their enormous responsibility for their actions, which could change the fate of the country, society, and people, was beginning to show. Does a person even have the right, if he does not consider himself chosen by God, to make choices for other people, for the state as a whole? And if he considers himself God’s chosen one, will he always have enough mental strength to make such a choice without hesitation?

The complexity of Alexander II's position was aggravated by his personal qualities and preferences. He was, on the one hand, a typical Romanov, and on the other, a somewhat unusual one. The remarkable historian V.O. said this best of all at the beginning of the 20th century. Klyuchevsky: “He differed from his immediate predecessors in his lack of inclination to play the king. Alexander II remained himself as much as possible both in his daily and weekend interactions. He did not want to appear better than he was, and often was better than he seemed When a complex and difficult matter arose, which gave him time to think, Alexander was overcome by a lingering thought, a suspicious imagination was awakened, picturing possible individual dangers But in moments of helplessness, Alexander II was rescued by the same a character flaw that was so harmful to the entire course of his transformative activity: this cautious suspiciousness of his Suspiciousness became a source of determination.”

Among his contemporaries, and after them in historical literature, a paradoxical assessment was established for our hero: Alexander Nikolaevich was called a great emperor who does not belong to the great ones. Apparently, its authors meant that the reforms of his reign were far from sinless and are still subject to criticism. As one far from stupid person rightly noted: “Fame may or may not contribute to success, but success always harms fame, it turns it, at best, into fame.” Disputes about the success or failure of Alexander II's reforms will continue forever, but the glory of carrying out these reforms unconditionally belongs to our hero. In general, if we use the words of the major French historian F. Blush: “The greatness of the reign of this or that monarch cannot be determined based on the personal attitude of this or that person towards him.” In addition, assessing the actions or character of a monarch is much more difficult than the actions of an ordinary person - the diversity of the ruler interferes. Alexander II had to play many social roles throughout his life, the most important of which were the roles of monarch, family man, and politician. Unfortunately, in both the main and most minor roles, the autocrat turned out to be frighteningly defenseless both against terrorist bombs and the slander of “well-wishers.” But there were people who accused him not only of the incompleteness of the “building of reforms” or the instability of the post-reform nobility and peasantry, but also of the impending collapse of the Russian state.

Such critics seem to be blinded by momentary and sometimes purely external aspects, and therefore their assessments turn out to be spectacular, but rather superficial. They did not and do not take into account the complexity of the tasks facing Russia and Alexander II, the scale of what he did, even if what was done was far from ideal. But in real politics there is hardly any need to talk about ideal solutions. The problems the country is untangling turned out to be truly super-complex. According to B.N. Chicherin, the emperor had to: “ renew to the very foundations the huge state entrusted to his management, abolish the centuries-old order established on slavery, and replace it with citizenship and freedom, establish a court in a country that for centuries did not know what justice was, reorganize the entire administration, to establish freedom of the press” And Alexander Nikolaevich did all this to the best of his strength and abilities. To complain that he was not given enough of these same strengths and abilities means to dream again and again about a miracle, to indulge in sweet dreams of what would have happened if Peter the Great, rather than Alexander II, had been on the throne during those years. or any other ruler recognized as great.

As for the collapse of the Russian state, understanding and sharing the sincere pain over the tragedy of the country at the beginning of the 20th century, let us agree that the causes of this tragedy are completely natural and quite understandable. Inexorable logic and the experience of history constantly remind us that there are no eternal empires. They either change their appearance smoothly, without cataclysms, or collapse, causing unpredictable consequences for national and world history. In this regard, a legitimate question arises: who was more right - Alexander II, who tried to make a slow turn of Russia towards a new destiny for it, or his successors, who stubbornly adhered to the traditional social and political orientation? Naturally, everyone has their own answer to this question, but blaming Alexander II for the Russian troubles of the early 20th century is, at least, not serious.

And the historical and biographical book of L. M. Lyashenko is one of the first studies in world literature that attempts to comprehensively describe the life of a person who occupies an exceptional place among Russian autocrats. The personality of Alexander II, overshadowed by the grandeur of his reforms, primarily the abolition of serfdom, appears in all the fullness of human traits, everyday actions and acts of state. Along with the contradictory nature of the Tsar-Liberator, whose royal loneliness was torn apart by Narodnaya Volya bombs, the book displays images of his lovers and wives, provides a gallery of living portraits of people in the imperial entourage, and comprehends the very nature of supreme power.

The drama of life, glory and infamy of Alexander II are shown against a broad historical background and revealed using a variety of memoirs and archival materials.

Preface

With all the fascinating diversity of history, special eras will always stand out in it, which had extraordinary significance for a particular people, region, and all of humanity. The remarkable historian T. N. Granovsky rightly wrote that scientists and amateurs are attracted by “great turns that begin new circles of development”

In the history of our country, anyone can easily identify these eras of “revolutions” - the main milestones on its thorny path. The formation of the state, the adoption of Christianity, the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols and so on, up to and including the last “perestroika”.

The era in which the hero of L. M. Lyashenko’s book, Russian Tsar Alexander II, undoubtedly played the main role, occupies in this series not only a legitimate, but also, perhaps, a completely exceptional place. In my opinion, she is completely unique. It is based on a grandiose peasant reform that radically changed the life of the country. In order to understand the full significance of the abolition of serfdom, you need to clearly imagine what an extraordinary role it played in the history of Russia. Indeed, over the course of four and a half centuries, the entire existence of our country was literally strung on this fatal core. And being broken, he made his presence felt for a long time. Serfdom turned out to be tenacious; it distorted Russian life for a long time even after the reform of 1861. Moreover, it seems to me that sometimes it manifests itself in unexpected convulsions in our times - both at the state level and at the everyday level...

If you try to judge objectively and sensibly - which is difficult for us earthlings, and perhaps especially so in relation to our historical past - then it is difficult to escape the impression: serfdom in the grave form in which it developed in Russia , was inevitable, as was the autocracy inextricably linked with it. In any case, it was a strictly defined payment for the future...

After all, it must be borne in mind that as a result of the Tatar-Mongol invasion, Rus' found itself in a disastrous position, the analogue of which is not easy to find in world history. Having lost its most fertile and economically promising southwestern and western lands, captured by Lithuania, it was pushed into the northeastern, bearish corner of Europe, into barren loam, dense forests and swamps. Our climate matches our soil - harsh, sharply continental, with harsh winters and sultry, often dry summers; in terms of the amplitude of fluctuations in average winter and summer temperatures, Muscovite Rus' has nothing to compare with. At these latitudes, conditions for agriculture are worse only in Siberia - so it did not exist there until the annexation of this region to Russia.

Power and loneliness (a few words to start the conversation)

In the so-called Modern Age of world history, the beginning of each century found Russia at one crossroads or another. At the beginning of the 17th century - the Time of Troubles, at the beginning of the 18th - the reforms of Peter I, suspiciously reminiscent of the revolution in many of its attributes, at the beginning of the 19th - the invasion of Napoleon and the sincere promises of Alexander I to transform the country, at the beginning of the 20th century - the revolutionary events of 1905 and 1917. And in the coming 21st century, we cannot say with peace of mind that everything is clear to us about the direction of the country’s development. According to an expression popular in the recent past, there is an opinion that the beginning of each of the last centuries is a kind of mystical threshold for our country, so that many unexpected things await us ahead, whether we like it or not. One could agree with this conclusion, especially since it is very difficult and, most importantly, useless to discuss the statements of mystics, but it is worth recalling that one of the most important turning points in the history of Russia occurred not at the beginning, but in the middle of the 19th century. This somewhat spoils the mystery of the picture of the country’s development associated with the beginning of the century, but you can’t erase the words from the song. We intend to start a conversation about the events of this particular period. Or rather, not only and not so much about events, but about people who, by force of circumstances or the will of Fate, found themselves at the head of the Russian Empire in the 1850-1880s.

The fact that a person in himself is interesting and even, one might say, is the highest value, has long become a commonplace for philosophers, writers, historians and in general everyone who is interested in studying the role of people in past or ongoing events and processes. This may be true, but at the everyday level this is primarily true when it comes to relatives, friends, neighbors, colleagues or heroes of purely literary works, that is, works invented by the authors. However, when it comes to documentary biographies of rulers, generals, scientists, artists or leaders of social movements, one important circumstance becomes clear.

It turns out that a person in himself (that is, the experiences and movements of his soul, thoughts, family life, etc.) is not so interesting to readers. He is significant for them because he discovered, transformed, conquered, wrote and, perhaps most importantly, because he paid Fate for his great deeds or with what Fate rewarded him for them. In other words, he is interesting, on the one hand, due to the specific circumstances of the place and time in which he lived, provided that these circumstances are important and significant for other generations, on the other hand, he arouses the reader’s interest with his personal losses or gains, which are obligatory companions of a person marked by History.

From this point of view, kings, emperors, sultans and presidents are beyond competition: what could be more interesting, more significant than the fate of a person elevated by the will of Providence or the choice of fellow citizens to the pinnacle of power? The well-being of millions of subjects depends on his actions, his voice is listened to in the international arena, remembering the past, he works in the present, knowing that his actions with one sign or another will later be recorded in the annals of history. If the ruler is also an extraordinary person, then he is certainly guaranteed a long memory for his generation. But how can we distinguish whether we are dealing with an ordinary or an extraordinary person, what are the criteria for his ordinariness or exceptionality? And if there are doubts and ambiguities in determining the basic position, is everything completely fair in the annals of history carefully protected by tradition and its defenders?

The pedestal of power is high, and therefore successfully hides much of what could disappoint subjects in the ruler. However, it is precisely the height of this pedestal that often helps to see what makes rulers ordinary people, sometimes inconsolably unhappy, sometimes incredibly happy, and therefore even more interesting for their contemporaries and descendants. Of course, when it comes to heads of state, we involuntarily turn not only to their personal qualities, but also to the specific circumstances of their reigns. Reforms and wars, relations with society and those closest to him, popular rumors and literary anecdotes characterize the ruler no less than the kind and inhumane deeds he committed as an ordinary private person. The magic of power, the elevation above people and circumstances, the original, automatic belonging of history... Meanwhile, there is one more characteristic that sharply distinguishes the leaders of states, especially monarchical states, from other mortals.

At the beginning of his reign, the new monarch timidly tried to rely on the experience of public administration of his father Nikolai Pavlovich, but time and circumstances forced him to act contrary to this experience. He was called upon to help the country make a sharp breakthrough and catch up with the leading powers of the world, hoping to make his subjects happy. Unfortunately, as history has shown, they could be made happy either by miracles emanating from the supreme power, or by a sharp limitation and destruction of this power. Alexander Nikolaevich was going to deal only with carrying out reforms.

You can calmly and with dignity bear the burden of power, proud of how the country is growing richer and becoming more and more powerful. What if it doesn’t, or does it happen too slowly, imperceptibly to the eye? You can immerse yourself in the routine of everyday affairs and monotonously play the role of director of a huge department called a power, an empire. What if you don’t have a soul for this kind of work, or simply don’t have the talent for bureaucratic work? You can try to make a leap to accomplish the almost impossible, change the centuries-old way of life of the country, spur its leisurely movement along the path of progress. And if the results of such breakthroughs do not appear immediately, and not all of them are unambiguously beneficial?.. And the idea arises to lighten the monarch’s burden, to leave an area of ​​​​activity to his heirs.

However, in 1856, Alexander Nikolaevich was still very far from such sentiments, from being tired of power. He is full of strength and plans, the people around him like him, and Russian society looks at him quite kindly. So was he ready to not only take the throne, but also to perform, having established himself on it, the actions that the country expected of him? On this issue, there are a variety of points of view in historical literature: from the assertion that our hero was a pale epigone of his father, to the opinion that a born reformer ascended the Russian throne. In order to understand this discord, let’s try not so much to start from the beginning, but to summarize some of the results of the first part of our conversation.

Firstly, who expected what from our hero? It is no secret that there was not and could not be unanimity in Russian expectations; society remained too diverse, which means that the interests of its different strata were too contradictory. The highest bureaucracy, represented by the old Nikolaev campaigners, longed to restore order in the country, that is, to debug the work of the state apparatus, which had become loose during the years of the Crimean War. These people did not think about any serious changes, except perhaps personnel ones, since the Nicholas system of government seemed to them the only possible one, and the Crimean War was an annoying misunderstanding.

Behind these figures, as it soon turned out, there was a relatively wide and quite influential layer of the middle-high bureaucracy, many of whose representatives had their own vision of solving the problems that arose in Russia. It included reforming various spheres of life of the empire, up to the introduction of constitutional government in the future. From the point of view of reformer officials, Alexander II was supposed to take the lead in the reforms and, with his authority, help them (officials) lead Russia along the path of progress, that is, further Europeanization of the country. This layer of the middle-high bureaucracy did not believe in the ability of a divided, disorganized society to help the Winter Palace in the matter of transformation, allowing individual members of this society to participate in reforms as experts or agents of change on the ground.

The local nobility, despite its heterogeneity, expected from the new emperor, first of all, to restore order in the countryside and finances disturbed by the war. The overwhelming majority of these nobles did not even think about any serious changes in the socio-political field, having difficulty imagining a non-serfdom Russia. Of course, among the landowners there were people who considered options for the abolition of serfdom and even welcomed them, but they constituted an insignificant part of the provincial nobility. As for changing the system of government of the country, the majority of landowners adhered to the beliefs of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who believed that the absolute power of the monarch was fairer and more profitable for the first estate than the oligarchic rule of several aristocratic families. The constitutional dreams of the liberals were stubbornly associated in the minds of the landowners with the chaos of the Time of Troubles or the “invention of the rulers” in the late 1720s.

Finally, for the urban strata and the peasantry, the accession of the new emperor was associated with hopes of equalizing the legal status of the Russian classes, up to the liberation of the landowner peasants and the abolition of a number of manifestations of serfdom. The expectations of the general public are very difficult to accurately classify, both because these expectations are too broad and because they are extremely vague. We can say that the masses hoped for an improvement in their lives, meaning by this, first of all, an improvement in their financial situation. However, let’s not oversimplify people’s demands. The chief of the III department, A.H. Benckendorf, noted back in 1827: “Among this class (serfs - L.L.) there are many more reasoning heads than one might assume at first glance.” What were these serf “heads” talking about and what did they oppose to the existing order of things?

It is not for nothing that the first half of the 19th century is considered the time of the greatest spread of popular social utopia, which reflected the peasantry’s ideas about the ideal forms of human coexistence. These forms were dressed in religious clothing, looked back to the distant past and included the principles of universal brotherhood, joint and feasible labor, and the organization of artel-communes, giving each member equal rights and opportunities with others. Descriptions of ideal human coexistence in folk utopias vividly resemble pictures of the Kingdom of God, usually painted by people who are sincere believers, but not very knowledgeable in theology.

To what extent did our hero correspond to this motley set of hopes and aspirations, which of the above sections of the country’s population could his accession satisfy, what was he able to do, and what was he powerless against? Alexander Nikolaevich was one of the most educated monarchs who ever ascended the Russian throne. He possessed not only broad theoretical knowledge, but also sufficient practical skills in government. In the latter case, knowledge of the principles of activity of the bureaucratic apparatus is especially important, since the direction of its activity largely depends on the opinions of the monarch and his ability to direct this activity in the direction he needs. Our hero was very familiar with the mechanism of the state machine.

The second thing we should talk about when analyzing his readiness for transformation or, conversely, for the defense of traditional foundations, is the very spirit of the times that historians love to refer to in difficult cases. When they write about the Crimean War, they unanimously note that it became a turning point for Russia. This statement is absolutely true, and we will still have time to verify this. However, it is somehow forgotten that the Crimean War became a kind of watershed for the whole of Europe. In the mid-1850s, the most important losses of prestige occurred, which significantly influenced the further development of the countries of the continent. Firstly, an end was put to the political and military dictatorship of Russia, which not only the emperors, but also the majority of educated Russian people reveled in.

Secondly, the spiritual dictatorship of the French Revolution of the late 18th century, the end of which was predetermined by a series of revolutions in the 1830s and 1840s, is ending. The great revolutionary crisis in Western Europe ended and the stabilization of its political and civil structure began. Absolutism is replaced by constitutionalism, feudal law is replaced by bourgeois, democratic law, class privileges are abolished. Thirdly, with the Crimean War the “first round” of Europeanization of Russia ends, a political “tour”, when the formation of imperial higher and local bodies took place, the interaction of church and secular authorities was settled, and a social movement was born.

In other words, the government of Alexander II faced the task of starting the “second round” of Europeanization of the country, primarily its social relations (abolition of serfdom, judicial and military reforms, changes in the financial and educational systems). Let us note in parentheses that this “tour” promised to be more difficult than the previous one, since it was necessary to limit or destroy the very mechanism with the help of which Europeanization was carried out before Alexander II, that is, the serfdom system itself.

However, if the personality traits of our hero and the spirit of the times favored his accession to the throne, then what, in fact, is the essence of the disagreement over whether he was exactly the emperor that Russia was waiting for? Apparently, the difficulty lies in the ideological and, if you like, psychological predisposition or reluctance of Alexander Nikolaevich to take certain steps in his new post. And here we enter the shaky ground of assumptions and conjectures, when we can only be guided by what we know about his childhood and youth, as well as what he will do later. Nevertheless, let us linger on this topic, since it largely determines our attitude towards the emperor.

If we talk about ideology, then the position of Alexander Nikolaevich can hardly be defined unambiguously as liberal or, say, conservative. And not at all because our hero was politically omnivorous or, as political scientists put it, a conformist. He was sincerely and confidently ready to act according to the circumstances, but these actions were determined not so much by his political sympathies as by the personal wishes of the head of state, the monarch. Due to historical circumstances, the owner of the Winter Palace and his immediate circle, as already noted, felt the breath of time better than anyone else in Russia and, if they did not blinker their eyes, did not try to impose their point of view on time, then they had a real chance to lead the country along the path of gradual , but necessary changes without unnecessary losses and shocks.

In other words, Alexander Nikolayevich was an evolutionist and, for the sake of a gradual but continuous movement forward, was ready to support liberals or conservatives, that is, those whose positions at this particular moment in the life of Russia were most consistent, from the point of view of the monarch, with historical realities. It was these realities that set the course for the ship of state, and the task of the ship’s captain was to ensure that the ship entrusted to him did not receive a critical list on any side and safely reached the intermediate harbor. After all, every reign is a successful or not very successful voyage from one port to another.

When the closest associates of Alexander II complained about the vagueness of the emperor’s position (and this happened quite often), they, despite all their formal correctness, did not understand the main thing. A definite political position is important and obligatory for a member of a party or political organization. A monarch, even the toughest one, is doomed to unthinkable compromises, sudden and not always conscious changes in course. He cannot become a member of any one party, because he himself is a unique party, into which outsiders have no access and which is doomed to a lonely existence.

If we talk about the character, about the personality of Alexander Nikolaevich, then let’s first of all remember that he ascended the throne at the age of 37, that is, a completely mature man. There is no longer any need to talk about any kind of psychological maturation, changes in character traits, etc. in such years. Born heir to the throne and raised in the Winter Palace, he internalized the traditional attitude towards the position of monarch. This position required complete self-denial, the dissolution of the reigning person in what is called royal duty, the subordination of every day of the emperor’s life, all aspects of his existence, to the fulfillment of this duty.

However, when it comes to our hero, in all these seemingly indisputable maxims, a certain peculiarity begins to emerge, a cunning that is attractive to lovers of riddles, characteristic not so much of Alexander II as of the time of his reign. The absolute monarchy, in other words, everything absolute associated with the monarchy, became obsolete and gradually died away, including the absolute loneliness of the monarch, his absolute difference from other people, his elevation above them. Due to his character traits, our hero was more ready for such a development of events than any of his predecessors and successors. We can say that since childhood he dreamed of changing the image of the Russian autocrat.

Those researchers who consider Alexander II insufficiently prepared for the mission that fell to his lot, in fact, reproach him for not being the new Peter the Great. But, firstly, how could he become one if he had to destroy precisely the feudal system on which Peter erected the building of a new Russia? And secondly, the point was that the liberation of the peasants from the unlimited power of the landowners, the word from censorship, the army from conscription, etc. was intertwined for Alexander Nikolaevich with his own liberation from the absolutization of the position of the monarch, his lack of private life. He wanted to be a person on the throne, not a symbol. Should he be condemned for this or should he be encouraged to admire the courage of the emperor’s decision? Let’s not rush to conclusions, let’s see what our hero’s attempts to make the monarch an ordinary person in the eyes of Russians led to.

However, why only Russians? Bismarck, already mentioned during our conversation, was a good psychologist, but in any case, he knew how to notice invisible at first glance, but “telling” character traits of his interlocutors. So, the Prussian chancellor once wrote the following in his diary: “I always felt sympathy for him (Alexander II - L.L.) at dinners with our emperor, where they served German champagne and one cutlet per person, the king ate and drank with disgust and did not try very skillfully to hide it. He could be nice at the table... I have never seen a more typical Russian... And this ability to fall in love... He was always in love and therefore almost always friendly to people.”

You can have long and quite interesting theoretical debates about the humanity or heartlessness of this or that monarch - it is unlikely that such discussions will add anything significant to our knowledge about these people. It is only clear that the loneliness of monarchs, associated with the rank they accepted, is an integral part of their life path. And it is also clear that a full-fledged conversation about a specific ruler will not happen until we delve into the study of all areas of his life, until we try to look at him not only as an autocrat, but also as a public figure, son, brother , husband, father. Where should we direct our conversation now, what topic should we touch on? Bismarck said a funny phrase, remember “He was always in love...” Didn’t it intrigue you? But, I must admit, it touched a nerve...

LONELINESS SECOND. ESCAPE

It is difficult to get used to a life that takes place entirely in reception halls, in palace entrances and on staircases.

Jean de La Bruyère

Among family

If our conversation were devoted only to the events and processes that took place in Russia in the 1850-1880s, then now, of course, we should talk about the reforms carried out during the reign of Alexander II, about the difficult relations of the Winter Palace with the socio-political camps of the country , about hopes and disappointments that alternately gripped both government and public figures and ordinary people in Russia, and finally, about the circumstances of the tragic death of the hero of this book. However, the topic of our conversation is: Alexander Nikolaevich is a man and a monarch, and therefore we will now talk about his stay in the family of his parents, the creation of his own home, and in the future - about attempts to find happiness and peace outside the family circle.

I would like to believe that much in the fate and actions of Alexander II will become clearer if we turn specifically to the events of his personal life. In the end, reforms and other actions determined the greatness and characteristics of his reign, but they are unlikely to have had a strong impact on the human essence of Alexander Nikolaevich, his likes and dislikes. And his reign, like the reign of any other monarch, did not consist of only majestic moments. All of them were people who wanted warmth, care, understanding, who tried to hide from the hardships of life behind the strong walls of their home.

Our hero was always surrounded by numerous relatives: grandmother, father, mother, brothers, sisters, wife, six sons, two daughters. It seemed that what else was needed, if not for complete happiness, then at least in order not to feel lonely both in the family of your parents and in your own family? At first glance, everything is true, but... How many such “buts” were encountered in the life path of Alexander Nikolaevich! However, before delving into the circumstances of our hero’s personal life, let’s say a few words about the upbringing of noble children in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. This will help us assess the typicality or uniqueness of the upbringing of the heir to the throne in the 1820-1830s.

In Russia during this period, there were three types of relationships between parents and children. The first to note is the so-called English, in which children were allowed almost everything. It was believed that in this way truly free individuals are developed from children, not constrained by inappropriate prohibitions, not crippled by adult control. In fact, parents, while defending the absolute freedom of the child, actually indulged his whims and most often raised not ideal English gentlemen, but callous egoists and tyrants.

The second type of intrafamily relationships was Spartan education, in which the world of children and adults was separated by an insurmountable wall. The relationship between the older and younger generations in such families was reminiscent of the relationship between superiors and subordinates in public places. Particular warmth could not and did not exist in such an environment, although the rigidity of home education often yielded good results: children grew up physically healthy, they developed a strong character, ready for the harsh trials of life. On the other hand, people who grew up in such an environment and submitted to it sometimes lacked the spiritual subtlety of empathy for their neighbors.

But there was also a third type of relationship between parents and children, colored by promising harmony. The idyllic patriarchy familiar to Russia was complemented in this case by an effective interest in world culture, which created a spiritual balance in the family, carefully built and preserved. Harmoniously and highly developed children most often grew up in such families. Examples of such high pedagogy were not the rule in Russia, but they were not such a rare exception either. The nobles gradually grew to understand the simple truth, which was that in raising children one should think not about the needs of modern society, not about the future of the country, but only and only about the specific child himself, the development of his personality, soul. It is necessary to prepare him not for the future (especially not for the kind of future that educators imagine), but for himself. And then he will decide how and in what way he can be useful for the country, for the world, for the individual person who happens to be next to him.

What type of relationship between parents and children prevailed in the family where our hero happened to be born? In his father, Emperor Nicholas I, Russian autocracy was embodied in its purest form and at the highest level. Nikolai Pavlovich felt like the ruler and God of millions of people, which did not fetter him at all, did not bend his shoulders; on the contrary, a proud sense of power and strength was naturally reflected in the appearance and being of the emperor. He was a despot out of principle, in accordance with his understanding of the requirements of the moment, and anyone's independence from the monarch or superiority over him was perceived by Nikolai Pavlovich as an insult. The point here is not about ordinary human pettiness or vulgar envy, but about attempts to preserve the purity and inaccessibility of the post held by the emperor to mere mortals. Perhaps this is also why the army was for Nicholas I not just a favorite state institution, but a standard for building the lifestyle of all his subjects, including members of his own family. Explaining his sympathy for army regulations, he wrote back in 1821: “Here there is order, strict unconditional legality, no know-it-all and no contradiction, everything follows one from the other... no one without a legal basis (that is, without a command from above - L.L. ) does not stand in front of another, everyone obeys one fair goal, everything has its purpose. I look at human life only as a service, since everyone serves.” To be honest, the look is rather dull, but what happened was what happened.

By the end of the 1840s, it seemed that the emperor had succeeded in bringing his dream to fruition everywhere and subordinating the thoughts and aspirations of his subjects to the duty of continuous service to their homeland and throne. According to one of the writers of that time, “... everything seemed finished, packed and handed over to the post office behind five seals for delivery to the addressee, whom it was proposed in advance not to look for.” However, let’s leave our subjects alone; for us now it is important that the above-mentioned ideas and feelings of Nikolai Pavlovich fully extended to his family, in which he felt, to some extent, like an eastern ruler. He demanded complete obedience from the children, reproached them for the slightest offense, that is, whether he wanted it or not, he suppressed their personality every minute.

One of his wife’s ladies-in-waiting recalled how Nikolai strictly monitored “the standing of his children in the church; the minors were lined up in front of him and did not dare to move.” He could quite calmly order his daughters gathered for the ball to take off their jewelry, calling them “monkeys.” It is clear that the children responded to their father with an oriental sense of reverence with a fair amount of hypocrisy. It can hardly be called love; it would be more accurate to describe it as forced respect based on the ingrained habit of the undivided dominance of adults. All this stemmed not only from the despotic character traits of the emperor, but also because he perfectly understood what awaited them in the future. His daughter, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna recalled: “Dad demanded strict obedience, but allowed us pleasures characteristic of our childhood. When they reported our pranks to him, he replied: “Give children the fun of their age; early enough they will have to learn to separate themselves from everyone else.”

All of the above about the relationship between father and children was completely and primarily characteristic of the first-born Nikolai Pavlovich. It would have been difficult to expect anything else, since there was a special demand for the heir to the throne, and this demand began from early childhood. Countess M. M. Medem recalled: “In 1821, after our graduation from the Catherine Institute, my father took me... to introduce me to Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna. After several greetings, Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich... announced that he wanted to show off his son, and, despite the protest of the Grand Duchess, he led everyone... into his son’s bedroom, moved the screen, woke up the sleeping child and took him out of the crib, affirming that a soldier must be ready at all times. Then, putting his son on the floor, he knelt next to him, took a huge drum and, to the sounds of the march he was beating out, forced his son to march.”

According to another eyewitness: “The Emperor was strict towards his heir, I will even say, in some cases, unmerciful... which could remain in the son’s memory in the form of painful sensations that were caused by harsh remarks, prohibitions to express an opinion to the young man, as he called him. .. I will never forget the bitter tears of the Tsarevich after reading the official paper to him... in which he was informed of the highest order that he should never bother himself with petitions received in the name of the Tsarevich.”

A loving father communicating with his son through official papers is powerful, although somewhat strange. However, let us repeat once again, the laws of the Nicholas system applied equally to everyone, including the heir. However, Alexander Nikolaevich had to experience more unpleasant moments, because in moments of anger, Nicholas I forgot about his greatness and behaved with children in the most offensive way. He was a complete pedant, observing the daily routine (or maybe just the order he established for everyone) minute by minute. So, one day, because Tsarevna Maria Alexandrovna was late to appear at the appointed hour, the emperor publicly called Alexander Nikolaevich a “cow” (though without explaining why this animal was to blame, or why the heir was to blame for his wife’s lateness). Probably, the monarch considered that he had dissolved his wife and failed to establish the military discipline required by the emperor at home. Of course, the children were in awe of such a father and tried to hide their true thoughts and feelings.

Some authors claim that Nicholas I did not really like his eldest son and even allegedly thought about removing him from the throne. Such precedents, as we know, happened in the Romanov family, but this was rather different. Indeed, once at the parade, Nicholas I loudly and obscenely cursed Alexander Nikolaevich in front of the formation. Another time, visiting his son at his dacha near Peterhof, the sovereign saw that he was playing cards with the courtiers in the middle of the day and slapped him in the face, but all this was in the order of things, an everyday matter. Rumors about the excommunication of the heir from the throne seem to be a clear exaggeration; they are not in the spirit, not in the rules of Nikolai Pavlovich.

Moreover, let’s not exaggerate the colors, otherwise the life of the royal family will seem monochromatic and black. In his own way, Nicholas I was an attentive father, but, nevertheless, a father-emperor, more of a ruler than a parent. He took care of the excellent education of his sons and daughters, carefully monitored their successes, punished them for failures, appointed boys as chiefs of guards and army regiments, and also actively involved the heir to the throne in government activities. However, it is difficult to believe that Alexander Nikolaevich felt inescapable family warmth and constant parental attention. The intervention of Nicholas I in the educational process of his sons, his communication with them had the character of the lord's raids on the possessions of the vassals, the vassals trembled, but this did not make the lord closer to them.

Nicholas I was harsh not only towards his sons, but also towards his daughters. Let's say, Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna was married, and very happily, to one from Beauharnais, but her father considered this marriage a misalliance and could not stand his daughter's husband. During the young couple’s visits to Russia, Nikolai Pavlovich even forbade mention of his daughter’s new title, demanding that she continue to be called the Grand Duchess. His other daughter, Olga Nikolaevna, passionately loved Prince A.I. Baryatinsky, a brilliant hussar officer. The emperor sent him to the Caucasus and in every possible way prevented his promotion. He married his daughter to the Prince of Württemberg, although all European courts whispered about the latter’s unnatural inclinations.

Alexander Nikolaevich's mother, Alexandra Fedorovna, was an affable and pleasant woman in many respects. Educated and gifted with great artistic taste, all her life she was prone to melancholy and daydreaming, interrupted by periods of stormy, but somewhat incomprehensible activity. In her youth, the future empress was considered the “goddess of beauty and grace.” It was she who Zhukovsky called “the genius of pure beauty” (this successful line became famous thanks to Pushkin, who redirected it to A.P. Kern in a widely known poem). The same Zhukovsky dedicated the following lines to Alexandra Feodorovna:

Everything - and timid shyness

Under the radiance of the crown,

And infantile vivacity,

And the greatness of the face,

And in the features there is a depth of feeling

With serene silence, -

Everything about her was without art

Indescribable beauty!

Alexandra Fedorovna never used the words “order” and “command”, saying that only the autocrat has the right to pronounce them, and she is just his wife. Her daughter Olga Nikolaevna also testifies to the modesty of the empress’s claims: “Mama’s main purpose was to be a loving wife, content with her secondary role...” The empress always had a smile and a kind word at the ready, but all this was somehow casual, condescending, fleeting. In addition, her kindness never went beyond the rather limited circle of those whom fate wanted to bring closer to her. All her life, Alexandra Feodorovna, according to Tyutcheva, lived in a golden cage built by her husband, and was one of those rulers who are able to ask why people don’t eat cakes if they don’t have enough bread. Maybe so, but... When some ladies complained to Moscow Metropolitan Philaret that the Empress was dancing and chasing entertainment instead of thinking about saving her soul, he usually answered: “Perhaps, but I think she will get caught dancing.” to heaven, while you are still knocking on doors.”

As we have already said, Alexandra Fedorovna at times loved variety, she preferred it to be lively, beautiful, even brilliant around her, which made it difficult for her family and courtiers. The turmoil and confusion of the movements of the court, caused by another whim of the empress, reached its climax in the summer: carriages and carts roamed along the roads between Tsarskoye Selo and Pavlovsk, Peterhof and Gatchina, moving courtiers, furniture, servants, food supplies, wardrobes, etc. Moreover, by order of Nicholas I, a huge park was laid out in the lower part of Peterhof on the seashore, named after his beloved wife Alexandria. Several dozen buildings were hastily erected here, but all these Swiss chalets, Chinese pagodas, Dutch mills and Italian palazzos were not designed for long life in the harsh Russian conditions. They turned out to be so damp and cold that mushrooms grew on the walls of the empress’s rooms, and the hot weather brought another disaster: it became absolutely impossible to breathe in the rooms. But from the outside, this town looked not just beautiful, but also royally magnificent. In general, we wanted the best...

Biographies series "Lives of Remarkable People", issue 1057 (857).
Author Leonid Lyashenko.
The title is “Alexander II, or the story of three solitudes.”
The preface by A. A. Levandovsky, on 25 pages, contains 4 articles.
The main text consists of 5 parts, each part is titled, contains an epigraph and consists of several articles without numbering.
2nd edition, expanded.
Moscow, “Young Guard”, 2003.
359 pages + 9.
Black and white illustrations No. 75 (copies of artistic canvases, postcards, drawings, documents, regalia, photographs; including Alexander II, the Tsar’s family, statesmen, architectural objects, offices, recreation places, monuments) + 1st cover p.
The author's introductory article with dedication and epigraph contains 7 pages.
The 20-page notes to the preface and chapters are located at the end of the main text.
+ The main dates of the life of Alexander II are located after the notes.
+ Brief bibliography, located after the main dates.
The table of contents is at the end of the book.

Historical and biographical presentation. Contains a brief description of the historical processes occurring during the reign of Alexander II.
The negative role of serfdom in the history of Russia is briefly assessed, from the beginning of serfdom, after its abolition and to the present day. The historical processes associated with the Tatar-Mongol invasion of the territory of the Ancient Russian state, and the resulting negative phenomena associated with the restriction of the way of life and freedoms of Ancient Rus', are briefly assessed. A superficial description of the geographical, climatic and agricultural conditions characteristic of the territory of Russia is given.
The concepts of “serfdom”, “in-kind dues”, “corvee”, “peasant unrest”, “liberation of the peasants”, “Tsar Liberator”, “reforms”, “capitation census”, “enslavement of peasants”, “bureaucratic Russia” are touched upon. , “recruitment”, “local government”, “public court”, “universal conscription”, “Reformer”; "Historians of the Leningrad School".
A brief assessment of the author's work is given.
In general, the “Preface” is understandable, informative, concise, with links, quotes, characteristics, explanations, assessments of personalities and events. However, it seems unnecessary, now fashionable, to castigate the works of historians of the socialist era, which takes away the time and attention of the reader.

Introductory article by the author.
The author lists some eras, from the 17th century to the present day, indicating turning points. However, it is not clear on what basis the author selected these eras, which leads the reader to think about a flaw in this point.
At the beginning of the article, it seems unnecessary to discuss the role of the individual in the interest of cultural and artistic figures including it in their works.
The author takes a long time, as if convincing the reader of something that the reader has already agreed with after the “Preface”.
Probably, the author should not have included negative “stigmas” for “crowned persons”. Since the author does not provide detailed documentary evidence of this, they here appear to be no higher than the level of gossip, which is unacceptable in a historical and journalistic article.
Comparisons of Peter I, Catherine II, Paul and Alexander II also seem to be a weak side of the article. These are different figures, different eras, different worlds, and when mentioning them in passing, putting them on the same page seems wrong.
The positive side of the article is the author’s heartfelt, positive attitude towards his hero. And the author leads the line of preparing the reader’s interest in the personality of the king, his state problems and difficult moments of his personal life.
The end of the article sets the reader up for a calm conversation, which for the subsequent complex historical presentation is a good incentive for the reader to read persistently.

Main text.
Part I
Here, perhaps, the introduction is unnecessarily long, and its presentation is chaotic.
The author operates with such concepts as “Secret Committee”, “liberation of serfs”, “limitation of autocracy”, “Patriotic War of 1812”, “Holy Alliance of Monarchical States”, “transformation of Russia”, “Polish Sejm of 1818”, “Constitutional Charter of the Russian Empire”, “Welfare Union”, “radical nobles”, “Decembrist Union of Salvation”, “retrograde”, “national identity”, “slavery”, “secret revolutionary organizations”, “enlightenment”, “secret police” and others. However, the reader does not find a disclosure of the essence of these concepts and figures in the footnotes. This is also a flaw of the author and a weak point of the text. In the same unfinished form for the reader, for example, the phrase “The Miracle Monastery was founded in 1385, and in the 18th century there was a Greek-Latin school located here.” For a book of historical and biographical content, it would be useful to indicate and explain to the reader who founded the monastery, for what purpose, what were the functions of the monastery, then who was admitted to the school, and its outstanding graduates. The author's phrase would have been better suited as a footnote at the bottom of the page. If the author is not able to deepen the reader, at least briefly, into the essence of the above fact, then, probably, it was not worth citing it at all as a theorem. (If a theorem is given, then a proof must be attached to it, otherwise its essence is left to the reader’s faith, and the reader can draw the most unexpected conclusions and, sometimes, far from the truth). In addition, the author is silent about why exactly these time periods: 1385 and the 18th century were chosen for the readers to see. The reader does not find any argumentation for the choice of these particular dates.
Statements such as “the transformer of Russia Peter the Great” and the like look unfounded; it would be more literate to either clarify the concept of “transformer of Russia”, from the author’s point of view, and provide documentary evidence.
The text mentions the following figures: Peter I, M. M. Speransky, Napoleon, Alexander I, Nicholas I, A. A. Arakcheev, D. A. Guryev, Prince Nikolai Pavlovich, M. S. Vorontsov,
A. N. Muravyov, I. I. Dmitriev, Pestalozzi, Poroshin, Lagarp, P. A. Pletnev,
M. Yu. Vielgorsky, Decembrists, A. I. Herzen, A. P. Kavelin, A. A. Kizevetter,
P. D. Kiselev, Catherine II, Georg-Friedrich Eckart, Jeremy Pozier, M. D. Gorchakov and others.
As well as educators, nannies and mentors of young Alexander, the main character of the story, such as Yu. F. Baranova, N. A. Tauberg, M. V. Kosovskaya, A. A. Christie, K. K. Merder, V. A. Zhukovsky, K.I. Arsenyev, M.M. Speransky, G.V. Jomini, Kankrin (without specifying the name by the author in the text, we find this data only under the illustrations), Brunnov (also given by the author without a name and patronymic, updated data only below the illustration).
True, the author’s remark about the similarity of the surnames of A. A. Christie and the author of detective novels Agatha Christie is inappropriate here; it lowers the dignity of the text, distracts the reader’s attention, and takes his consciousness out of the era set by the author.
Quotes are given from the statements, correspondence and stories of N. G. Vyazemsky,
F. Crispin, N. G. Repnin, P. A. Vyazemsky, S. P. Trubetskoy, Alexander I,
V. N. Karazin, A. A. Zakrevsky, F. V. Rostopchin, N. M. Karamzin, A. P. Ermolov,
S. V. Mironenko, Alexandra Fedorovna, Maria Fedorovna, Olga Nikolaevna,
K. K. Merder, V. A. Zhukovsky, Nicholas I, D. Davydov, S. A. Yuryevich, Marquis de Custine, F. Blush, S. A. Kotlyarevsky, F. N. Plevako, P. A. Stolypin ,
A. S. Pushkin, L. A. Tikhomirova, A. F. Tyutcheva, Marquise de Custine,
P. A. Kropotkin, M. A. Korf, S. M. Solovyov, Alexander II, Bismarck (?), etc.
Excerpts from poems are given: V. A. Zhukovsky, K. F. Ryleev.
The author’s use of documentary sources, both in the text, in the form of quotes, and in footnotes located in the “Notes,” is positive. But if we talk about the culture of the publication, in this book, where there are much fewer footnotes than in a serious historical scientific work, for such a historical and biographical presentation intended for the general reader, it would be better to place notes, bibliographical references and explanations of the author directly below the text, on the same page. This would save the reader from having to interrupt his thoughts and attention to the content of the text when he simply cast his gaze to the bottom edge of the page.
It would not be amiss, perhaps, to devote a separate chapter to the hero’s ancestors.
It would seem that reading about the heir’s trip to the cities of Russia could be very interesting. But, really, the author’s description of it is quite dry and not replete with historical details that would be interesting to a reader interested in history. The author writes: “we had to move around on horses, with a whole cavalcade of carriages and carriages of all colors and styles.” There is nothing familiar in this dry remark to the modern reader. “Cavalcade”, “carriage”, “crew”, as well as what exactly “colors and styles” - all this remains incomprehensible to the modern reader. (Although the author himself is no stranger to describing details, which we pleasantly observe in the analysis of the items of the main character’s coronation).
The empty lists of the royal personage’s route do not say anything: Novgorod the Great, Vyshny Volochek, and so on. Since modern people live at different speeds, and do not understand how much time was spent moving from one point to another.
The author’s phrase “crowd of people” also sounds unpleasant. If a ruler calls the people a crowd, can we respect such a ruler, and will the reader then lose interest in the hero of the story?

Part II.
Quotes are provided from the statements, correspondence and stories of Nicholas I,
Olga Nikolaevna, M. M. Medem, Philaret, Marquise de Custine,
Konstantin Nikolaevich, Alexander Nikolaevich, P.V. Dolgoruky and others.
Excerpts from poems by V. A. Zhukovsky and others are given.
The introduction of the chapter “From first to last love...” evokes the unpleasant feeling of sorting through dirty laundry. It seems that the author himself understands something about this, or is he addressing this book, as he puts it, to the “crowds” of low, uneducated, stupid readers who are enthusiastic about every mention of the word “strawberry”? Of course, an episode that takes up more than a page of the author’s thoughts about, so to speak, the free personal life of high-ranking persons from the Romanov family, not only loses in the reader’s moral understanding of the book presented to him, but also destroys confidence in the author and his work. The reader begins to doubt whether the author, under a historical and biographical theme, is veiling propaganda of nastiness and shamelessness, and whether the book is moral? Is it worth reading further? The question arises for the author: on what basis does he choose historical science as a platform for the now fashionable “strawberry desserts”? Moreover, here, even in this matter, the author’s lack of a sense of time is reflected, and the introduction to this chapter is presented to us from the position of modernity.
Footnote No. 6 – the author did not bother to explain to the reader where this information was taken from.
In the expression of the author, “the famous poet-hussar Denis Davydov,” right, there is historical negligence, it makes you smile. Even in children's books they write more intelligently about this person.
The phrase “The maid of honor again became the object of his passion (what to do if it was they, the maids of honor, who were always under his eyes and at hand) ...” (!) destroys all respectable ideas about the hero.
The chapter is very boring and tedious, I have no desire to read it to the end. There is a lot of “physics”, no philosophical reflections, no historical characters, no feelings and relationships. The reader finds nothing but that same boring “physics”. Can this be compared, for example, with the “Diaries” of Maria Bashkirtseva, although the reader was promised that “the personality of Alexander II... will appear in its entirety...”? I have to stop reading such uninteresting material.
In the next chapter, the author’s reasoning, which is contrary to historical science, is just as boring and uninteresting.

Part III.
Quotes are provided from the statements, correspondence and stories of Alexander II,
E. M. Feoktistova, F. I. Tyutcheva, P. Ya. Chaadaeva, V. A. Sleptsova, A. I. Herzen,
V. S. Aksakova, N. A. Melgunov, B. N. Chicherin, A. V. Nikitenko, G. I. Uspensky,
N. A. Nekrasova, A. S. Khomyakova, A. V. Nikitenko, Maria Alexandrovna,
M. P. Pogodin, S. S. Lansky, P. V. Dolgoruky, I. I. Panaev and others.
The author did not fail to label some of these figures with a so-called unfounded (without explanations, documentary evidence or footnotes) label, for example: “E. M. Feoktistov, who was not at all distinguished by his love for opposition ideas,” “revolutionary-democrat V. A. Sleptsov,” “representative of the glorious clan of Slavophiles V. S. Aksakov,” “opponent of the Slavophiles, Westernizer N. A. Melgunov,” and the like . It is surprising that, for example, F.I. Tyutchev, P.Ya. Chaadaev, A.I. Herzen were not awarded labels unexplained by the author, and remained “unfavoured” by the author. Thus, there is no consistency in this presentation. Of course, it would be better to either leave everyone without notes, or give a brief description of each, but competently - with footnotes and explanations about the role of this individual, the essence and line of activity, indicate supporters and opponents and other historical points.
Presented: Tyutchev’s epitaph, “almost a ditty form” (– L.L.) by an unknown author.
Unsupported designations of personality are repeated again, for example: “frail”, “cheerful” K.V. Nesselrode and the like. (An unsubstantiated description, perhaps it seemed to the author that Karl Vasilyevich was frail and cheerful, or the author has documentary evidence, evidence, stories about this person, then why didn’t the author share this material with the reader? Besides, evidence without indicating the source, it is hardly worth taking on faith.)
The text mentions “Herzen’s “Bell” (- L.L.) (this interpretation of the author also, perhaps, causes a smile).
Chapter “Passion for serfdom. It is presented chaotically, in pieces, extracts from nowhere, presented uninterestingly, inconsistently, with some kind of subtext known only to the author himself. The chapter is not catchy and does not interest the reader, because the reader was prepared from the beginning of the book to study the biography of the hero, and not to study the general chaotic materials of serfdom in Russia, in which case the title of the book would have been different, and the presentation of the topic would have been different. Very uninteresting presentation of the material. Of course, a consistent presentation of the problem of serfdom through the eyes of the hero and his contemporaries, their activities in this area, is more beneficial in a historical and biographical book. The reader who is attuned to the historical biography, and even the form of conversation, is of little interest in the author’s point of view; he is interested in thoughts, actions, philosophy, relationships, decision-making from the point of view of the HERO, and not the author. And all this should be presented to the reader consistently, clearly, with explanations, so that these are “untying the knots” by the readers, and not tedious dry extracts and conjectures. It's impossible to read and you have to skip to the next chapter.
The next chapter is built in the spirit of the previous one, and in impatience to finally come to a description of the hero’s biography, the reader is forced to leaf through this chapter.

Part VI.
This part, again, begins with the general words of the author, and the reader cannot get to the actual biography of the hero. Maybe the author doesn’t have it here at all? It seems that the author has a poor understanding of the topic of historical and biographical content.
In general, reading doesn’t go any further and it’s hardly worth spending precious time on this book. I have to finish reading.

Conclusions.
The style of presentation throughout the book seems to be varied. There remains a feeling that the author does not have the sense of the era he is working about that is necessary for a historical writer (although in Part III he tries to dissuade us of the opposite). Of course, not every historical researcher is given this gift from above. Therefore, Leonid Lyashenko’s text is not entirely smooth and readable. Indeed, events are often recorded and presented from the point of view of our time, especially when it comes to political moments or the structure of the state, legal thought or discussions of the adoption of laws - the modern political tone and modern political ambitions shine through in the author's interpretation.
In other details or parts of the historical-biographical narrative, the mood of the documentary of the past is felt, and the presentation is presented in the style of the former historical school, different from the author’s, in which there was a softer tone and more artistry, for example: “The old man standing with the “power” M.D. Gorchakov suddenly lost consciousness and fell, dropping the pillow with the symbol.”
The author presents the characteristics of “serfdom” to the reader not from the point of view of the hero and his contemporaries (which would be more advantageous in a historical and biographical book), but from his own, the author’s point of view. The author could present his point of view in conclusions. Here the reader has to switch from the hero’s biography to the history of serfdom.
Perhaps the conversation promised by the author to the reader did not work out. Leonid Lyashenko’s presentation is far from the conversations masterfully performed, for example, by S. F. Platonov, when, in fact, you delve into the text, as they say, headlong, when in the course of reading there are no questions to the author that distract from the topic, but there is only thirst knowledge and desire to read more on this topic. Or, say, such small books in form, but voluminous in content, as S. O. Kuznetsov “Stroganov Palaces”, St. Petersburg, 1998, series “White and Black” and “Mikhailovsky Castle” in two parts, the same series , St. Petersburg, 1998, 1999. are even more suitable for the wording “biography” than Leonid Lyashenko’s book. One gets the feeling that no construction, no beautiful parks and gardens, no culture and art, no chambers, no transport, no post offices, no fire department, in general, nothing like this existed under Alexander II. That is, he did not deal with issues of culture, art, urban issues, provincial issues, and the like. That the hero lived exclusively only by “physics” (as if to catch the next maid of honor spinning under his arms) and the reform of the liberation of the peasants. Apart from the description of the childhood years of the future emperor, the reader does not find the hero’s contacts with various layers of society (even if the hero was lonely, he probably was not content with sitting alone in the small room with closed shutters and plugged ears), writers, poets, scientists, diplomats, by the people. Diplomatic victories and failures. And the peasant problem itself is probably presented from the wrong side.
Such a biography is narrow and one-sided, and even more so cannot show the king from the point of view of an emperor with a human soul. At the suggestion of the author, the reader, on the contrary, is convinced of the opposite, at least in the first three parts. The reader also does not find an assessment of the horrors of war, how the emperor solved the problems of the participants in the battles, as well as how the problems of the socio-economic difficulties of the war years were solved. Although the author touches on the foreign policy of Russia during the period of Nicholas I - Alexander II.
Although the beginning of the author’s research was very promising, when the reader “plunged” into the childhood years of the heir. But the author did not have enough time, or desire, or skill to complete the matter, or he did not understand the topic correctly.
It is clear that the author wants to fill the required amount of text, maintain the theme, and attract the reader with “physical” moments. Nevertheless, there are many shortcomings in the work, misunderstandings of the author and historically incorrect statements, there are violations of the styles and culture of the publication. Well, it's not all that tragic. The author can improve his professionalism, and the reader has hope that Leonid Lyashenko’s next works will be more consistent, more successful and, of course, conscientious.
In Leonid Lyashenko’s book “Alexander II, or the story of three solitudes” the reader finds many individual facts of the political system, a large number of names of statesmen. In this sense, the author's work can be useful as a reference impetus for the research works of other authors. The book has amazing illustrations, interesting, informational, but, again, without page links. It is also positive that the book contains brief “Notes”, “Main dates of the life of Alexander II”, “Bibliography”. However, there is no index of names, which makes it difficult for researchers or those interested in mentions of certain figures in the book.
Well, the reader's expectations did not come true. Historical science does not stand still and, perhaps, it will yet present us with stunning, in its purity and execution, historical and biographical studies of the biography of the Russian Emperor Alexander II.