Full download ebook at ebookmass.

com

Our Crumbling Foundation: How We Solve Canada's

Housing Crisis Gregor Craigie

For dowload this book click link below

https://ebookmass.com/product/our-crumbling-
foundation-how-we-solve-canadas-housing-crisis-
gregor-craigie/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Download more ebook from https://ebookmass.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Pressure cooker: why home cooking won't solve our

problems and what we can do about it Bowen

https://ebookmass.com/product/pressure-cooker-why-home-cooking-
wont-solve-our-problems-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-bowen/

How We Heal Alexandra Elle

https://ebookmass.com/product/how-we-heal-alexandra-elle/

Innovation from Within: Redefining How Nonprofits Solve

Problems Stephanie Berzin

https://ebookmass.com/product/innovation-from-within-redefining-
how-nonprofits-solve-problems-stephanie-berzin/

Our Planet Powered by AI: How We Use Artificial

Intelligence to Create a Sustainable Future for
Humanity Mark Minevich

https://ebookmass.com/product/our-planet-powered-by-ai-how-we-
use-artificial-intelligence-to-create-a-sustainable-future-for-
humanity-mark-minevich/
One of Ten Billion Earths : How We Learn about Our
Planet's Past and Future from Distant Exoplanets First
Edition Karel Schrijver

https://ebookmass.com/product/one-of-ten-billion-earths-how-we-
learn-about-our-planets-past-and-future-from-distant-exoplanets-
first-edition-karel-schrijver/

The Einstein Effect: How the World's Favorite Genius

Got into Our Cars, Our Bathrooms, and Our Minds
Benyamin Cohen

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-einstein-effect-how-the-worlds-
favorite-genius-got-into-our-cars-our-bathrooms-and-our-minds-
benyamin-cohen/

Reaching Net Zero: What It Takes to Solve the Global

Climate Crisis 1st Edition William D. Fletcher

https://ebookmass.com/product/reaching-net-zero-what-it-takes-to-
solve-the-global-climate-crisis-1st-edition-william-d-fletcher/

The brainwashing of my dad : how the rise of the right-

wing media changed a father and divided our nation, and
how we can fight back Jen Senko

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-brainwashing-of-my-dad-how-the-
rise-of-the-right-wing-media-changed-a-father-and-divided-our-
nation-and-how-we-can-fight-back-jen-senko/

Raven (The Irish Wolves Book 1) Anne Gregor

https://ebookmass.com/product/raven-the-irish-wolves-book-1-anne-
gregor/
 PRAISE FOR

OUR CRUMBLING FOUNDATION

“Gregor Craigie blends clear writing, deep research and deeper

compassion in this essential study of the housing crisis that affects us all
—but especially society’s most vulnerable people. By applying a global
lens to a national crisis, he highlights realistic ways to solve one of the most
urgent problems of our time.”
Josh O’Kane, author of Sideways: The City Google Couldn’t Buy

“In this insightful and accessible blueprint, Craigie navigates readers

through the crisis of the Canadian housing landscape with national and
international examples, that include both failures and innovative solutions.
Written like a novel, each micro-chapter transports readers to the location of
the story and into the lives of the characters. However, unlike fiction, this
book provides copious facts, advice, and moments that tug at your
heart and inspire action. While the alarm rings loudly, Craigie’s calm
and expertly crafted narrative provides a beacon of hope. With
compelling clarity, he empowers policy makers, and others, to embrace
these transformative insights and breathe life into much-needed solutions.
Don’t miss this essential read; the future of Canadian housing depends on
it.”
Celina Caesar-Chavannes, author of Can You Hear Me Now?

“To solve Canada’s housing crisis, Gregor Craigie roams the globe seeking
answers in twenty disparate places.…Astonishingly, he finds individuals in
every location willing to share intimate details of how they are coping with
upheaval…He warns that Canada’s housing crisis is just beginning, offers a
list of 37 measures to address the emerging nightmare, and, in ‘Craigie’s
Index,’ even adds a touch of statistical whimsy. Our Crumbling
Foundation is a transformative tour de force.”
Ken McGoogan, author of Searching for Franklin

“This is an exhaustive look at one of the most important issues facing

this country right now. With impeccable timing, Craigie presents a
thorough analysis of the mechanics of housing affordability, and just how
far off the path we’ve gone.”
Daniel Foch, co-host of The Canadian Real Estate Investor podcast

“Our Crumbling Foundation documents the harrowing human costs of

Canada’s severe undersupply of housing. Other advanced countries build
far more housing per person than Canada, and thus many of these tragedies
are avoidable. Why can’t we accept more housing in our neighbourhoods?”
Eric Protzer, Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School

“I needed to read this book! Our Crumbling Foundation is a captivating

mosaic of housing need across Canada. You travel when you read this book.
Gregor Craigie draws from his journalism roots to illustrate the housing
struggles of a diverse group of Canadians.…He brings to life solutions
being implemented around the world: the huge co-op movement in Berlin,
La Samaritaine and the public housing project Bois-le-Prêtre in Paris, tiny
home and modular construction in Ireland and Oregon, even 3-D printing
homes in Mexico.
The solutions are at hand!”
Cathy Crowe C.M., Street Nurse, Visiting Practitioner at Toronto
Metropolitan University

“Our Crumbling Foundation is a must read, not just for policy wonks but
for anyone affected by a housing crisis that knows no bounds. With a
focus not just on the problem, but also tangible solutions, Craigie provides
numerous paths forward.…From Duncan to Paris with many stops in
between, Our Crumbling Foundation explores the multitude of factors
that got us into this housing mess, and how we can get ourselves out of
it, by bringing to life the housing frustrations of real people and a
range of policy solutions tried around the world.”
Jill Atkey, CEO, BC Non-Profit Housing Association

“Gregor Craigie’s Our Crumbling Foundation has nailed the issue of the
moment with its overview of the housing crisis causing so much anxiety
in cities around the world, especially amongst young people. Gregor’s
weaving of stories of real people and their real struggles to find suitable and
affordable housing, makes this book accessible to the reader and
demystifies a complex and perplexing housing crisis.…Gregor provides
practical solutions that have worked elsewhere…and leaves us with hope
that governments will formulate policy that will create the conditions to
build more housing that is urgently needed now.”
Mitzie Hunter, Former MPP Scarborough-Guildwood and Ontario Minister
of Education

“Author and journalist Gregor Craigie delves into the heart of the housing
crisis in this latest work, exploring the diverse struggles faced by
individuals across Canada in their pursuit of affordable and adequate
housing. Through compelling storytelling, Craigie not only navigates the
challenges but also unveils global insights, highlighting both triumphs and
setbacks worldwide. Ultimately, Craigie presents a comprehensive list of
‘repairs’ for our crumbling foundation. A must-read for those seeking
understanding in the face of this complex societal change.”
Carolina Ibarra, Chief Executive Officer, Pacifica Housing

“Gregor Craigie’s Our Crumbling Foundation is a deeply reported look at

Canada’s ever-growing housing crisis. It’s also so chockful of solutions
that it makes you want to shake politicians and policymakers and ask:
‘When are you going to act?’”
André Picard, author of Neglected No More
ALSO BY GREGOR CRAIGIE

Non-fiction
On Borrowed Time: North America’s Next Big Quake

Fiction
Radio Jet Lag

For Young Readers

Why Humans Build Up: The Rise of Towers, Temples and Skyscrapers
 published by random house canada

Copyright © 2024 Gregor Craigie

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this
book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except
by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in a review. Published in 2024 by Random House
Canada, a division of Penguin Random House Canada Limited, Toronto. Distributed in Canada by
Penguin Random House Canada Limited, Toronto.

www.penguinrandomhouse.ca

Random House Canada and colophon are registered trademarks.

this page constitutes a continuation of the copyright page.

library and archives canada cataloguing in publication

Title: Our crumbling foundation : how we solve Canada’s housing crisis / Gregor Craigie.
Names: Craigie, Gregor, author.
Description: Includes index.
Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20230474179 | Canadiana (ebook) 20230474233 | ISBN
9781039009387 (softcover) | ISBN 9781039009394 (EPUB)
Subjects: LCSH: Housing policy—Canada. | LCSH: Housing—Canada.
Classification: LCC HD7305.A3 C73 2024 | DDC 363.5/5610971—dc23

Cover design: Kate Sinclair

Text design: Kate Sinclair, adapted for ebook
Image credits: C.J. Burton / Getty Images

a_prh_6.3_146398455_c0_r0
This book is dedicated to everyone whose life is on hold because they
cannot find a home of their own.
 CONTENTS

Cover
Also by Gregor Craigie
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Author’s Note
Introduction: Just the Beginning

1. Priced Out: Vancouver

2. Priced In: Tokyo
3. Shattered Dreams: Golden Horseshoe
4. Dreams Renewed: Paris
5. Renters in a Dangerous Time: Ottawa
6. A Co-operative Approach: Berlin
7. Homeless: Duncan, British Columbia
8. Housing First: Helsinki
9. The Airbnb Effect: Montreal
10. A Long-Term Strategy on Short-Term Rentals: Santa Monica,
California
11. In Short Supply: St-Boniface, Quebec
12. Subsidies for (Almost) Everyone: Singapore
13. An Essential Problem: Toronto
14. Key Worker Housing: London
15. Squeezed Out by Single-Family Zoning: Victoria
16. Infills for Affordability: Portland, Oregon
17. Searching for Sanctuary: Calgary
18. A Modular Response: Cork, Ireland
19. An RV by the Sea: Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia
20. 3-D Printing Homes for the Future: Nacajuca, Mexico

Afterword: A New Way Forward

Appendix A: A List of Repairs
Appendix B: Craigie’s Index
Sources
Photo Credits
Acknowledgements
Index
About the Author
 AUTHOR’S NOTE

while this is a book about housing, it inevitably deals with those who
have none, which raises the question of what people without housing should
be called. I use the words homeless and homelessness in this book, but I
also use some of the other terms that are becoming more common, such as
unhoused or people experiencing homelessness. While some housing
advocates object to the word homeless, arguing it now has negative
connotations, I have interviewed many people who are sleeping on the
streets, and the vast majority of them have described themselves as
homeless. As a result, I am comfortable using the term. When the
Associated Press updated its style guide in 2020, it said “homeless is
generally acceptable as an adjective to describe people without a fixed
residence.” However, the guide urged AP writers to “avoid the
dehumanizing collective noun the homeless, instead using constructions like
homeless people, people without housing or people without homes.”
There is also the question of what exactly constitutes “housing.” In this
book, I use the term broadly to cover home ownership, rentals, shared living
arrangements with roommates, and even less traditional living
arrangements, such as living in an RV. That’s not to say that everyone who
lives in a recreational vehicle wants to live in one—indeed, many do not
and I describe that in more than one chapter. However, housing can take
many forms, and I use the term accordingly.
On currency—costs and prices are in Canadian dollars unless stated
otherwise.
 And one final note on anonymity. I have used the real names for the
people who are quoted in this book, with a few exceptions where a person
needs to maintain anonymity for personal or professional reasons, or for
reasons of safety.
 INTRODUCTION

Just the Beginning

canada is caught in a housing crisis. It’s been obvious in Toronto and

Vancouver for years, as the sight of homeless people on the streets became
as common as news stories about record-high home prices. But in between
the two extremes of multi-million-dollar homes and people with no homes
at all, there’s a huge and growing segment of society whose lives are
dominated by the difficult question—where will I live? Some simply give
up on their dreams of buying a home. Others spend their free time looking
for a better place to rent. Some have been evicted by landlords cashing in
on those high prices. Others are plagued by panic attacks every time a rental
application is rejected and are terrified of ending up homeless. And for
those experiencing homelessness, of course, every day is a crisis.
Stories like these aren’t new. Housing affordability in Canada has been
a concern for some people for years. What is new is the scale of the
problem. In 2022, Canada’s first Federal Housing Advocate, Marie-Josée
Houle, put it bluntly: “housing and housing affordability is becoming more
and more out of reach for most Canadians.” Many are young, employed,
and well-educated. But those things don’t mean what they used to mean in
Canada. The old rule that going to school and getting a good job would
allow you to buy a home doesn’t apply anymore for many young
Canadians. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps the most obvious is
that incomes haven’t kept up with rising housing costs. Between 2001 and
2021, the average price of a single-family home in Canada more than
tripled, while the cost of everything else rose only 43 percent. The result is
that homes are too expensive for many Canadians. On top of that, there just
aren’t enough of them. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
estimates that by the end of this decade Canada will need an extra 3.5
million homes. That’s on top of the more than 2.3 million new housing units
already predicted to be built by then. But this crisis is about much more
than just supply and demand. Single-family zoning, divestment from social
housing, decades of low interest rates that encouraged the commodification
of housing, and short-term vacation rentals have all contributed, along with
many other factors. British Columbia and Toronto have recently eliminated
most single-family zoning in an effort to increase the housing supply. But if
Canada is going to make housing more affordable, or at least attainable,
then it will need to make many more changes. That’s why I wrote this book.
After reporting on this issue for more than twenty-five years, I want to see
more people move into secure housing.
I’ve reported on housing and homelessness more times than I can
remember. I’ve interviewed hundreds of people about this—renters,
landlords, buyers, sellers, developers, real estate agents, homeless people,
housing advocates, builders, building inspectors, market analysts,
economists, municipal councillors, mayors, housing ministers, premiers,
and prime ministers. It’s not that I’m obsessed by the issue of housing—
though it has always interested me—so much as the fact that the issue has
dominated life in British Columbia for as long as I’ve lived here. And it’s
only got worse, both here and across a lot of the rest of the country. It took
many years before it finally dawned on me exactly how big the problem is.
It may seem counterintuitive, but this epiphany came to me not at work
but at home, when my wife and I received our 2021 property assessment in
the mail. The number seemed to scream out at me as soon as I ripped open
the envelope: $1.3 million! Our 110-year-old, ramshackle wood frame
house was worth a fortune. I felt a brief moment of jubilation, and even
heard the Barenaked Ladies singing in my head. If I had a million dollars…
I’d be rich. But my momentary elation at our new-found wealth on paper
was eclipsed almost immediately by a sobering realization—there is no way
I could afford to buy my house today. I thought back seventeen years to
when we bought our first house in Vancouver. I remembered the nagging
suspicion that the $305,000 price tag would lead us to financial ruin. Little
did we know it would be the best financial decision we’d ever make. Sure,
we have another decade or so of mortgage payments in front of us, but
we’re extremely lucky. Today, my journalist salary combined with my
wife’s teacher salary simply wouldn’t be enough to buy that house, or the
one I now call home. I thought of my young colleagues who won’t have the
same opportunity I had, simply because they were born too late. Then I
thought of my kids. How will they ever afford homes of their own? And
where? If these sound like the middle-class concerns of someone who’s
relatively fortunate, well, that’s because they are. I own a safe house in a
beautiful city. It’s walking distance to schools, shops, and the beach.
Everyone should be so lucky. And I know my kids will likely be able to rely
on at least some financial help from their parents in the future—a factor that
matters more and more these days, and only exacerbates intergenerational
inequalities. But this book isn’t about me or my family. It’s about the
millions of Canadians who are struggling with unaffordable housing, and
the impact it is having on both them and the country as a whole.
This book tells the stories of Canadians who are suffering due to the
lack of affordable housing in this country. It also profiles people in other
countries who have benefited from changes that could work here. As a
journalist, I’ve heard countless tales of struggle over the years. But in
writing this book, I’ve heard many success stories too. They’ve convinced
me that there is no single measure that will fix this problem. Instead, most
or even all the solutions presented in this book will be needed. Of course,
many measures have already been introduced in Canada, like co-op
housing, which has been around for decades, and the recent two-year ban
on non-Canadians buying residential properties here. But much more is
needed.
It’s tempting to think we might just do nothing and wait this all out.
While house prices smashed records during the first two years of the COVID-
19 pandemic, they started to drop in 2022. But make no mistake, housing is
still too expensive for millions of Canadians. In fact, rising interest rates
made mortgages more expensive, which effectively cancelled out any
benefits to buyers of lower prices. In the third quarter of 2022, housing in
Canada was more unaffordable than ever. A Royal Bank report estimated
the share of the average household income needed to cover the ownership
costs of an average home had risen to 62.7 percent—an all-time high. In
Toronto, the average house cost 85.2 percent of pre-tax income. In
Vancouver, it cost 95.8 percent. “The current decline in house prices will
not save us,” Benjamin Tal, deputy chief economist at CIBC, said. “By any
stretch of the imagination, this is not the end of the housing crisis. This is
just the beginning.”
 1

PRICED OUT

Vancouver

when martin and nicole Chiu got married in 2011, Martin’s parents
invited them to move into their house. The newlyweds took over the two-
bedroom suite on the lower level, while Martin’s parents occupied the
three-bedroom suite upstairs. In many ways, the house was perfectly
designed for multi-generational living. It was a Vancouver Special—the
familiar style of single-family house that’s a more common sight in the city
than Starbucks outlets or rainy days. The utilitarian two-storey design first
appeared in the late 1940s and took advantage of local zoning laws to
maximize floor space and reduce building costs. It was panned by
architecture critics but proved extremely popular with many immigrants
between the 1960s and the 1980s. Roughly ten thousand were built,
especially on the city’s working-class Eastside.
Martin and Nicole paid his parents a reduced rent, and over the next
decade they saved enough money for what they hoped would be the down
payment on their first home. They were still saving when their first two
children were born—the oldest, Jacob, and his little sister, Chloe, four and a
half years later. In 2019, when baby Nate arrived, the young family of five
moved upstairs into the three-bedroom suite, while Martin’s parents moved
downstairs. Their nest egg was growing—thanks to disciplined saving and
the low rent. But in January 2021, a For Sale sign went up across the street
that made them realize their bank account would never catch up with
Vancouver.

Panned by architecture critics, the Vancouver Special proved

popular with many new residents for its utilitarian design, which
effectively maximized affordability and living space for extended
family.

It was an old three-bedroom bungalow with no garage, listed at just

under $1.3 million. The price tag did nothing to deter would-be buyers and
real estate agents seduced by a new listing like raccoons by an open
compost bin. A telltale parade of new Audis, BMWs, and Land Rovers
started cruising down East 37th and hammered home just how far out of
reach the Chius’ home ownership dream really was.
“This is supposed to be East Van,” Martin lamented. But times had
changed in the traditionally working-class neighbourhood, and the couple
realized they would have to change too. Their savings would allow them to
pay a 20 percent deposit on a home up to $300,000. That might have given
them a fighting chance at a detached house in East Vancouver back in 2004.
Just. But in January 2021 it wasn’t even close. One look at the benchmark
price (the term used by Canada’s five largest real estate boards, who claim it
provides a more accurate estimate of typical home prices than average or
mean prices) made that obvious. The benchmark price of a detached house
in Metro Vancouver was more than $1.5 million that month, while the
benchmark price for an apartment was more than $680,000. If the Chius
wanted to buy, they’d simply have to look elsewhere.
So they went online and entered a maximum price of $300,000. Nothing
showed up in Metro Vancouver, so they zoomed out. Way out. “We kept
going and going,” Martin remembers, “and we didn’t find anything we
could afford until we got to Williams Lake.” The small city is a six-and-a-
half-hour drive away from Vancouver, in good weather, and would make an
ideal home for many outdoor enthusiasts. But the Chius had decided they
wanted to live in a bigger city for a number of reasons, including the need
for reliable high-speed internet because Martin worked from home for a
major bank. So they kept looking farther and farther from Vancouver, and
were surprised to find several townhouses they could afford in Calgary.
They booked flights to the other side of the Rockies and set off in search of
a new home.
The Chius weren’t alone. Across Vancouver, thousands of families were
feeling the financial squeeze of high housing costs. Stories of dozens of
desperate buyers competing for homes became commonplace. Houses,
townhomes, and condominiums were routinely sold in bidding wars for
hundreds of thousands of dollars over the asking price. Some house hunters
got what they were looking for, along with a lot more debt than they had
planned to take on. Others had to adjust their expectations, opting for a
townhouse instead of a detached home, or resigning themselves to a
suburban commute instead of living near the city centre. Some had to give
up on home ownership entirely, and continue renting.
Of course, some people are happy to rent. They prefer the freedoms it
offers them or they’ve calculated it’s a better financial choice than buying.
But as property prices skyrocketed in 2021, rents started to rise in a way
they previously hadn’t. Then, in 2022, when house prices started to fall,
rents kept rising. Like many jurisdictions, British Columbia has legislation
that restricts rental increases to a few percent a year. In fact, rents were
frozen for much of the pandemic. But BC has no restrictions on landlords
raising rents between tenancies. With many property owners who were
tempted to sell their rental properties to cash in on record-high prices, a
growing number of tenants were starting to worry about their future.
In 2021, approximately 77,000 households in the city of Vancouver
were unaffordable, unsuitable, or inadequate, according to a housing report
prepared for city council. That doesn’t include any of Vancouver’s suburbs,
which add up to more than half of the metropolitan population. Martin and
Nicole Chiu knew they were relatively lucky living in the shared house with
Martin’s parents, despite watching prices rise out of their reach. They could
easily find people who were much worse off, as some of their friends
struggled with much higher rents or evictions. The city’s housing report
pegged the number of homeless in the city of Vancouver at 2,000, with an
additional 7,000 people living in single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels—
usually dilapidated old buildings in Vancouver’s infamous Downtown
Eastside. Across the city there was a growing disquiet that the heartbreaking
poverty and social dysfunction of Canada’s poorest postal code was starting
to spread.
Bob Rennie, a real estate marketer who made millions from
Vancouver’s hot housing market and became known to many as the Condo
King, started writing op-eds and speaking in community forums on housing
affordability. “We have to do something or we’ll have civil unrest if we
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
increase in taxation, all those whose interests had been set aside
united against the upstart; he was accused of despising the time-
honoured institutions of Moscow and of having presented as a model
to the Russians the Code Napoleon when the country was on the eve
of war with France. The ministers Balachev, Armfelt, Guriev, Count
Rostoptchin, Araktcheiev, and the grand duchess Catherine Pavlovna,
sister of the emperor, influenced Alexander against him. Karamzin,
the historian, addressed to the emperor an impassioned memoir on
New and Old Russia, in which he stepped forth as the champion of
serfdom, of the old laws, and of autocracy. Speranski’s enemy even
went to the length of denouncing him as a traitor and an accomplice
of France. In March, 1812, he was suddenly sent from the capital to
Nijni-Novgorod and afterwards deported to a distant post where he
was subjected to close surveillance. He was recalled in 1819, when
passions had somewhat cooled, and was appointed governor of
Siberia. In 1821 he returned to St. Petersburg, but did not recover
his former position.
A new epoch now set in. The adversaries of Speranski, Armfelt,
Schichkov, and Rostoptchin attained high positions, but the
acknowledged favourite was Araktcheiev, the rough “corporal of
Gachina,” born enemy to progress and reform and apostle of
absolute dominion and passive obedience. He gained the confidence
of Alexander, first by his devotion to the memory of Paul, next by his
punctuality, his unquestioning obedience, his disinterestedness and
habits of industry, and lastly by his ingenuous admiration for the
“genius of the emperor.” He was the most trustworthy of servitors,
the most imperious of superiors, and the most perfect instrument for
a reaction. His influence was not at once exclusive. After having
conquered Napoleon, Alexander looked upon himself as the liberator
of nations. He had set Germany free; he dealt leniently with France
and obtained for it a charter; he granted a constitution to Poland,
with the intention of extending its benefit to Russia. Though the
censorship of the press had recently forbidden the Viestnik
slovesnosti to criticise, “the servants of his majesty,” Alexander had
not entirely renounced his utopian ideas. English Protestant
influence succeeded to the influence of France; French theatres were
closed and Bible societies opened.
Nevertheless, this first period of favour for Araktcheiev soon
became an epoch of sterility; though reaction had not yet set in
there had at least come a decided pause. The reforms interrupted by
the war of 1812 were not to be again resumed. The code of
Speranski had come to an end and all efforts to compile one better
suited to Russian traditions were of no avail.f

EDUCATIONAL ADVANCES; THE LYCÉE AND THE LIBRARY

On the 23rd of January of the year 1811 was promulgated the

statute of the lycée of Tsarskoi Selo, which had been definitely
worked out by secretary of state Speranski. The aim of the
establishment of the lycée was the education of young men, and
chiefly of those who were destined to fill the most important posts of
the government service. The following circumstance was the primary
cause of the foundation of this higher educational establishment:
although the emperor did not interfere in the matter of the
education of his younger brothers, the grand dukes Nicholas and
Michael Pavlovitch, which was entirely left to the empress, Marie
Feodorovna, a case soon presented itself where the emperor
recognised the necessity of departing from the rule he had
established. The widowed empress desired to send her sons to the
university of Leipsic for the completion of their studies; this was,
however, firmly opposed by the emperor, and instead he had the
idea of establishing a lycée at Tsarskoi Selo, where his younger
brothers could assist at the public lectures. A wing of the palace
connected by a gallery with the chief building, was adapted to this
purpose, and the solemn opening of the Tsarskoi Selo lycée took
place on the 31st of October, 1811, in the presence of the emperor
Alexander. It commenced with a thanksgiving service in the court
chapel of Tsarskoi Selo, after which those present accompanied the
clergy who made the tour of the edifice, sprinkling it with holy water.
At the conclusion of the ecclesiastical ceremony, the imperial charter
given to the lycée was read in the hall of the building, and the
speeches began. Amongst them that of the adjunct professor
Kunitzin earned the special approbation of the emperor for the art
with which it avoided generalisations and dwelt on the beneficence
of the founder. In conclusion, Alexander inspected the premises
allotted to the students, and was present at their dinner table.
The year 1811 was also
signalised by the completion of
the building of the Kazan
cathedral, the first stone of
which had been laid by the
emperor Alexander on the 8th of
September, 1801. The
constructor of the cathedral was
the Russian architect Andrew
Nikivorovitch Voroniknin. The
building committee was under
the direction of the president of
the Academy of Arts, Count
Alexander Stroganov. The
building of the cathedral took
ten years, and on the 27th of
September, 1811, on the
anniversary of the emperor’s Tower of Ivan Velika, Moscow
coronation, the solemn
consecration of the new
cathedral took place in the presence of the emperor. Count
Stroganov was that day elevated to the dignity of actual privy
councillor of the first rank. He was not destined to enjoy for long the
completion of his work: ten days later he died.
In the very thick of the preparations for war, and amidst such
agitating political circumstances as had been unknown till then, the
emperor Alexander continued to labour for the enlightenment of his
subjects. Notable among his acts at this time was the foundation of
a public library. Catherine II’s idea of founding in the capital a library
for general use, and of rendering it accessible to all, was only
brought to fulfilment by Alexander. A special edifice was built with
this object; its construction had been already commenced during
Catherine’s reign. By 1812 all the preliminary work in the building of
this library was completed, and on the 14th of January the emperor
honoured the newly constructed library with a visit, and examined in
detail all its curiosities. Following on this the “draft of detailed rules
for the administration of the Imperial Public Library” was ratified by
his majesty on the 7th of March.
The events of 1812, however, deferred the actual opening of the
library: soon measures had to be thought of to save its treasures.
The opening ceremony took place, therefore, two years later, in
1814, on the 14th of January, the anniversary of the day on which
the emperor Alexander made his gracious visit to the library, on the
memorable occasion of its founding.
A great many festivities took place at the Russian court upon the
occasion of the marriage of the grand duke Nicholas Pavlovitch with
the princess Charlotte of Prussia (July 13th, 1817). About the same
time (July 31st, 1817), a modest festival was celebrated at Tsarskoi
Selo—the first distribution of prizes to students of the lycée. On that
day the emperor Alexander, accompanied by Prince A. N. Galitzin,
was present in the conference hall of the institution he had founded;
he himself distributed the prizes and certificates to the pupils, and
after having announced the awards to be given to them and their
teachers he left, bidding a fatherly farewell to all. The poet Pushkin
was amongst the students who took part in the festival.

EXPULSION OF THE JESUITS FROM ST. PETERSBURG

The year 1815, which had been filled with a series of unexpected
events, terminated with an important administrative measure which
no one had foreseen. On the 18th of January, 1817, an imperial
ukase was issued ordering the immediate expulsion of all the monks
of the order of Jesuits from St. Petersburg, and at the same time
forbidding their entry into either of the two capitals. In the middle of
the night they were provided with fur cloaks, and warm boots, and
despatched in carts to the residence of their brethren at Polotsk.[60]
It was enjoined in this ukase that the Catholic church in St.
Petersburg should be “placed on the same footing that had been
established during the reign of the empress Catherine II and which
had endured up to the year 1800.” This expulsion put an end to the
pedagogical activity of the Jesuits in St. Petersburg. The words of N.
J. Turgeniev, spoken in the year 1812 and addressed to his
successor Gruber, the Berezovski Jesuit, were, in fact, realised for
the order in the most unpleasant way. He said: “This is the
beginning of the end; you will now do so much that you will be sent
away.” The government was compelled to have recourse to decisive
measures in view of cases of conversion to Catholicism amongst the
orthodox pupils of the Jesuit school in St. Petersburg; besides which
the influence of Jesuit propaganda was spreading in a remarkable
way amongst the ladies of the high society of St. Petersburg.
This measure, however, did not put a limit to the misfortunes that
descended upon the Jesuits during the reign of Alexander. A few
years later (on the 25th of March, 1820) the order was given that
the Jesuits should be expelled finally from Russia, adding that they
were not under any aspect or denomination to be allowed to return;
and at the same time the Polotsk academy was suppressed, as well
as all the schools depending on it.

LIBERATION OF THE PEASANTS OF THE BALTIC PROVINCES

(1816-1818 A.D.)

The nobility of Esthonia had in 1811

[1816-1818 a.d.] announced their desire of giving up their rights
of servitude over their peasants. In the year
1816 this intention led to the confirmation of the establishment of
the Esthonian peasants upon a new footing, according to which the
individual right of servitude was abolished. The nobility kept the land
as their property, and the relations between the peasants and the
landowners were from thenceforth based upon mutual agreement by
free will contracts conformable with rules determining essential
conditions; a period of transition was appointed for bringing in the
new order of things. After the first trial, the individual, landless
liberation of the peasants spread throughout the Baltic provinces and
in other governments—namely, in Courland in 1817 and in Livonia in
1819. The introduction of the new order of things was everywhere
accomplished without any particular difficulty.
In expressing to the Livonian nobility his satisfaction upon the
occasion of the reform effectuated, the emperor Alexander said: “I
rejoice that the Livonian nobility has justified my expectations. Your
example deserves imitation. You have acted in accordance with the
spirit of the times and have understood that liberal principles alone
can serve as a basis for the happiness of nations.” From these words
it is evident that the emperor entertained, according to Shishkov’s
expression, an unfortunate prejudice against the right of servitude in
Russia, and it appeared to many that in other parts of the empire
words would be followed by deeds.[61]
From the year 1816, the peasant question began to occupy
society. The aide-de-camp of his majesty, Kisselev, even presented a
memoir to the emperor which bore the title Of the Gradual Abolition
of Slavery in Russia. The memoir began with the words: “Civic liberty
is the foundation of national prosperity. This truth is so undoubted
that I consider it superfluous here to explain how desirable it is that
the lawful independence of which serfs and agriculturists, are
unjustly deprived, should be established for them throughout the
empire. I consider this measure the more needful now that the
progress of enlightenment and our closer contact with Europe, which
hourly increases the fermentation of minds, indicate to the
government the necessity of averting the consequences which may
follow, and whose menace it would be already difficult or impossible
to deny. The blood in which the French Revolution was steeped
bears witness to this.” In what manner the emperor Alexander
regarded the memoir presented by his aide-de-camp, and what fate
overtook this production of his pen has remained unknown.
P. D. Kisselev was not the only nobleman who recognised the
urgent necessity of the government’s occupying itself with the
peasant question. The following circumstance serves as a proof of
this: in this same year, 1816, many of the richest landowners of the
government of St. Petersburg, knowing the emperor’s moral
aspirations to better the lot of the peasant serfs, decided to turn
them into obligatory settlers upon the basis of the then existing
regulations. The act was drawn up and signed by sixty-five
landowners; it only remained to take it to be ratified by the emperor,
and for this purpose the general aide-de-camp J. V. Vasiltchikov was
chosen. Those who had taken part in the signature of the act
supposed that the emperor knew nothing of the meetings that had
taken place on the occasion and were convinced that he would
receive graciously a proposition, which was in accordance with his
manner of thinking. But the emperor Alexander was aware of the
determination of the nobles and hardly had Vasiltchikov, after
requesting permission to present himself to his majesty, begun to
speak of the matter, when Alexander, interrupting him, inquired: “To
whom, in your opinion, does the legislative power belong in Russia?”
And when Vasiltchikov replied: “Without doubt to your imperial
majesty as an autocratic emperor,” Alexander, raising his voice, said,
“Then leave it to me to promulgate such laws as I consider most
beneficial to my subjects.”
The emperor’s reply gave little hope of a favourable solution of
this important question. In the then existing state of affairs, the
matter could not avoid passing through the hands of Araktcheiev.
This indeed actually happened. In February, 1818, before the
departure of the emperor Alexander from Moscow for Warsaw to
open the first Polish diet, Count Araktcheiev announced that his
majesty had deigned to issue an edict for the liberation of
landowners’ peasants from the condition of serfdom, with the
stipulation that the edict should not in any of its measures be
oppressive to the landowners, and especially that it should not
present anything of a violent character in its accomplishment on the
part of the government: but, on the contrary, that it should be
accompanied by advantages for the landowners and awaken in them
a desire to co-operate with the government in the abolition of the
conditions of serfdom in Russia, an abolition corresponding to the
spirit of the times and the progress of education, and indispensable
for the future tranquillity of the possessors of serfs.

THE EMPEROR AND THE QUAKERS

In 1814, at the time of the emperor Alexander’s stay in London,

the famous philanthropist Quakers, De Grelle de Mobillier,[62] and
Allen, had been inspired with the idea of taking advantage of a
favourable occasion, and instilling into the minds of the allied
sovereigns the conviction that the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of
justice and truth. With this object they first set off to visit the king of
Prussia, who received them and praised the Quakers living in his
dominions, but expressed his conviction that war is indispensable for
the attainment of peace. The emperor Alexander showed them more
sympathy; he visited a Quaker meeting and received a deputation.
The emperor assured the Quakers that he was in agreement with
the greater part of their opinions, and that although on account of
his exceptional position his mode of action must be other than
theirs, yet he was in union with them in the spiritual worship of
Christ. In taking leave of the Quakers, Alexander invited them to
come to see him in Russia and said: “I bid you farewell as a friend
and brother.”
Grelle and Allen arrived in St. Petersburg in November, 1818,
during the emperor’s absence. They went to Prince A. N. Galitzin, of
whom Grelle wrote: “He is a man penetrated by a truly Christian
spirit.” Galitzin received the Quakers with an open heart and
informed them that the emperor had sent him a letter telling him of
their coming to Russia and requesting that they might be received as
his friends. After various questions upon religious matters the
Quakers, together with Prince Galitzin, gave themselves up to silent,
inward meditation, and this method, writes Grelle, “did not appear at
all unknown to the prince. Inspired by the love of Christ, we felt in
ourselves, after silent, heartfelt prayer, the beneficent moving of
grace. In taking leave of the prince, he offered us free access to all
that could interest us—to the prisons, to reformatory institutions,
and to refuges for the poor.”
Their visit to the St. Petersburg prisons deeply agitated the pious
Quakers; according to Grelle’s observations, some of them were very
dirty and overrun with vermin; the odour was unbearable and the air
contaminated to such a degree that it affected the heads and lungs
of the visitors. The Quakers also inspected a few refuges and
schools.
On a subsequent evening the emperor Alexander received the
Quakers alone. He called them his old friends, made them sit beside
him on the sofa, and called to mind with inward emotion their
interview in London in 1814, saying that it had given him the spirit of
courage and firmness amidst all the difficult circumstances in which
he was then placed. “The emperor then,” writes Grelle, “suggested
to us some questions upon religious matters, thus showing his
sincere desire to progress in the saving knowledge of truth. He
further questioned us as to what we had seen and done in Russia.
We took advantage of the opportunity to relate to him the
distressing condition of the prisons; and in particular we directed his
attention to the wretched state of the prison in Åbo, and told him
about an unfortunate man who had been kept in irons there for
nineteen years. The emperor was touched by our narrative and said,
‘This ought not to be; it shall not occur again.’” The Quakers also
informed the emperor how deeply grieved they had been to see,
upon inspecting one of the schools, that the pupils were given books
to read that were pernicious to their morals; after which they
showed him a specimen of extracts they had made from the Holy
Scriptures for the use of schools. The emperor remained wrapped in
thought for a moment, and then turning to his companions, he
observed: “You have done precisely what I much desired. I have
often thought that schools might serve as a powerful instrument for
the furtherance of the kingdom of Christ, by leading the people to
the knowledge of the Saviour and the principles of true piety. Send
me as soon as possible all that you have succeeded in preparing.”
The conversation then touched on Daniel Villers, also a Quaker,
whom the emperor had called to St. Petersburg to drain the
marshes; Alexander said that he regarded his presence in Russia as
a blessing to the people. “It was not the draining of the marshes,”
added the emperor, “nor any other material necessity that was the
cause of my inviting some of your ‘friends’ to come here; no, I was
guided by the wish that their true piety, their probity, and other
virtues might serve as an example for my people to imitate.”
In conclusion the emperor said, “Before we separate, let us try to
spend some time in common prayer.” “We willingly consented,”
writes Grelle in regard to this matter, “feeling that the Lord with his
beneficent power was near us. Some time passed in silent, inward
contemplation; our souls were humbled, and a little later I felt within
me the heavenly breathing of the spirit of prayer and compunction;
enfolded by the spirit, I bent my knees before the greatness of God;
the emperor knelt beside me. Amidst the inward outpourings of the
soul we felt that the Lord had consented to hear our prayers. After
that we spent a little while longer in silence and then withdrew. In
bidding us farewell the emperor expressed the desire to see us again
before we left. We spent two hours with him.”
After this remarkable audience, which so graphically expresses the
religious-idealistic frame of mind of the emperor Alexander, the
Quakers visited under the patronage of the widowed empress the
female educational establishments, the young pupils of which
aroused much sympathy in them. Grelle found that some of them
had hearts open for receiving evangelical inspiration. These visits
were followed by the reception of the Quakers by the empress Marie
Feodorovna. They told the empress that they were much pleased at
the condition of the institutions under her patronage, but at the
same time they could not be otherwise than grieved to see how little
attention was paid in St. Petersburg, and in general throughout
Russia, to the education of children of the lower classes; they also
spoke to the empress of the unsatisfactoriness of the then existing
prison accommodations for women, and indicated how
advantageous it would be if the prisons were visited by women
capable of instructing and consoling the unfortunate prisoners. The
empress entirely agreed with these ideas.
Soon the emperor again invited the
Quakers to come and see him. “He
again received us in his private
apartments,” writes Grelle, “to which
we were taken by a secret way,
avoiding the guard and the court
servants. Nobody seemed surprised to
see us keeping our heads covered.
The emperor, as before, received us
with sincere affability. He began by
informing us that the chains in which
we had seen the prisoners at Åbo had
been taken off, that the unfortunate
man of whom we had told him had
been set at liberty, and that orders
had been given that the other
prisoners were to be better treated.
He then asked us to relate to him
Russian Priest openly all that we had noticed in the
prisons during our stay in Russia. The
governor-general (Count
Miloradovitch) had informed him of the changes and improvements
which he considered it advantageous to carry out in the gaols, and
the emperor entirely approved of the changes that had already been
made. He further told us that the widowed empress had spoken to
him with pleasure of our visit to her; that she had taken to heart
what we had said of the extreme neglect of the education of children
of the poorer classes, and that she was occupying herself in
searching for the most effectual measures of remedying this defect
as soon as possible. The emperor added that he had named a
certain sum of money to be used for the establishment of six schools
for poor children in the capital, and that the children were to receive
there a religious and moral education. He further told us that he had
attentively perused the books we had prepared and was delighted
with them; that if we had only come to Russia to do this, we had
already accomplished a very important work, and that he intended
to bring our books into use throughout all the schools of his empire.”
Before their departure for Moscow the emperor received his old
friends a third time, and on this occasion he related to them various
details of how he had himself been educated under the supervision
of his grandmother, the empress Catherine. “The persons attached
to me,” said he, “had some good qualities, but they were not
believing Christians and therefore my primary education was not
united with any profound moral impressions; in accordance with the
customs of our church, I was taught formally to repeat morning and
evening certain prayers I had learned; but this habit, which did not
in any wise satisfy the inward requirements of my religious feelings,
soon wearied me. Meanwhile it happened more than once that,
when I lay down to rest, I had a lively feeling in my soul of my sins,
and of the various moral deficiencies of my mode of life; thus
penetrated by heartfelt repentance I was moved by a desire to rise
from my bed and in the silence of the night to throw myself upon my
knees and with tears ask God for forgiveness and for strength to
preserve greater watchfulness over myself in future. This contrition
of heart continued for some time; but little by little, in the absence
of moral support on the part of the persons who surrounded me, I
began to feel more seldom and more feebly these salutary movings
of grace. Sin, together with worldly distractions, began to reign more
and more within my soul. Finally, in 1812, the Lord in his love and
mercy, again called to me, and the former movings of grace were
renewed with fresh strength in my heart. At that period a certain
pious person[63] advised me to take to reading the Holy Scriptures
and gave me a Bible, a book which until then I had never had in my
hands. I devoured the Bible finding that its words shed a new and
never previously experienced peace in my heart, and satisfied the
thirst of my soul. The Lord in his goodness granted me his Spirit to
understand what I read; and to this inward instruction and
enlightenment I owe all the spiritual good that I acquired by the
reading of the divine Word; this is why I look upon inward
enlightenment or instruction from the Holy Ghost as the firmest
support in the soul—saving knowledge of God.”
The emperor then related to his companions how deeply his soul
was penetrated with the desire to abolish forever wars and
bloodshed upon earth. “He said,” writes Grelle, “that he had passed
many nights without sleep in strained and intense deliberation as to
how this sacred desire could be realised, and in deep grief at the
thought of the innumerable calamities and misfortunes that are
occasioned by war. At that time when his soul was thus bowed down
in ardent prayer to the Saviour the idea arose in him of inviting the
crowned heads to unite in one holy alliance, before the tribunal of
which all future disagreements that should arise should be settled,
instead of having recourse to the sword and to bloodshed. This idea
took such possession of him that he got up from his bed, expounded
his feelings and aspirations in writing with such liveliness and ardour
that his intentions were subjected on the part of many to unmerited
suspicion and misinterpretation—‘Although,’ added he with a sigh,
‘ardent love for God and mankind was the sole motive that governed
me.’ Thoughts of the formation of the Holy Alliance again arose in
him during his stay in Paris. After we had spent some time in
conversing on this important subject, the emperor said to us: ‘And
thus we part, in this world, but I firmly trust that we, being
separated by space, will however remain by the goodness of the
spirit of God forever united through inward spiritual fellowship, for in
the kingdom of God there are no limitations of space. Now, before
we part, I have one request to make to you: let us join in silent
prayer and see if the Lord will not consent to manifest his gracious
presence to us, as he did the last time.’
“We gladly consented to fulfil his desire. A solemn silence followed
during which we felt that the Lord was amongst us; our souls were
reverently opened before him and he himself was working within us
through his grace. Somewhat later, I felt, through the breathing of
the love of Christ, the lively desire of saying a few words of
approbation to our beloved emperor in order to encourage him to
walk with firm steps in the Lord’s way and to put his whole trust,
unto the end of his earthly journeyings, in the efficaciousness of the
divine grace; in general I felt the necessity of guarding him from evil
and strengthening him in his good intention of ever following the
path of truth and righteousness. The words that I said produced a
profound impression upon the emperor and he shed burning tears.
Then our dear Allen, kneeling, raised a fervent prayer to God for the
emperor and his people. The emperor himself fell on his knees
beside him and remained a long while with us in spiritual
outpourings before the Lord. Finally we solemnly and touchingly took
leave of each other.”

SECRET SOCIETIES UNDER ALEXANDER I

After the year 1815, when the emperor Alexander already

appeared as a weary martyr, immersed in mystic contemplation and
wavering between the evergrowing influence of Count Araktcheiev
and the convictions he had himself formed in the days of his youth,
the events of 1812 were reflected in a totally different manner upon
the movement of social ideas in Russia. The war of the fatherland
was accompanied in Russia by an unusual rising of the spirit of the
nation and a remarkable awakening of the public conscience. The
continuation of the struggle with Napoleon beyond the frontiers of
Russia had led Alexander’s troops to Paris. This enforced military
exploit widened the horizon of the Russian people; they became
acquainted with European manners and customs, were in closer
contact with the current of European thought, and felt drawn
towards political judgment. It was quite natural that the Russian
people should begin to compare the order of things in their own
country with political and public organisation abroad. An
unrestrainable impulse to criticise and compare was awakened;
thenceforth it was difficult to become
reconciled to the former status of
Russian life and the traditional order
of things.
It will be asked what abuses
presented themselves to the gaze of
the Russian conquerors, who had
liberated Europe, upon their return to
their country. An entire absence of
respect for the rights of the individual
was patent; the forcible introduction
of monstrous military settlements, the
exploits of Magnitski and others of his
kind in the department of public
instruction were crying shames; and,
finally, the cruelties of serfdom were
in full activity. The subtile exactions
which then prevailed in service at the
front completed the development of
general dissatisfaction amongst
military circles. There is, therefore,
nothing astonishing in the fact that
A Valdai Woman
the misfortunes which then weighed
upon the Russian people should have
found an answering call in the hearts
of men who were at that time in the grip of a violent patriotic
revival.
The natural consequence of this joyless condition of affairs in
Russia was a hidden protest, which led to the formation of secret
societies. Under the then existing conditions there was no possibility
of carrying on reformatory deliberations with the cognisance of the
government. Thus a remarkable phenomenon was accomplished; on
the one hand Russian public thought was seeking for itself an issue
and solution of the questions that oppressed it; while on the other
the emperor Alexander, disenchanted with his former political ideals
and standing at the head of the European reaction, had become the
unexpected champion of aspirations which had nothing in common
with the ideas of which he had been the representative during the
best period of his life. This circumstance made a break in the interior
life of Russia, which imperceptibly prepared the ground for events
until then unprecedented in Russian history. “What has become of
liberalism?” is a question that one of the contemporaries of that
epoch sets himself. “It seems to have vanished, to have disappeared
from the face of the earth; everything is silent. And yet it is just at
this instant that its hidden forces have begun to grow dangerous.”
The time had come when secret societies were in full bloom. The
masonic lodges, which had been allowed by the government, had
long since accustomed the Russian nobility to the form of secret
societies. Officers’ circles, in which conversations were carried on
about the wounds of Russia, the obduracy of the people, the
distressing position of the soldier, the indifference of society to the
affairs of the country, imperceptibly changed into organised secret
societies.
It happened that yet another time the emperor Alexander
expressed the conviction that the interior administration of Russia
ought to be thought of, that it was necessary that means should be
taken for remedying the evil; but the sovereign did not pass from
words to deeds. In reference to this, the ideas expressed by
Alexander to the governor of Penza, T. P. Lubianovski, on the
occasion of his visit to that town in 1824 are worthy of attention.
The emperor had inspected the second infantry corps there
assembled; the manœuvres had deserved particular praise.
Observing signs of weariness on the emperor’s face, Lubianovski
ventured to remark that the empire had reason to complain of his
majesty.
“Why?” “You will not take care of yourself.” “You mean to say that
I am tired?” replied the emperor. “It is impossible to look at the
troops without satisfaction; the men are good, faithful and
excellently trained; we have gained no little glory through them.
Russia has enough glory; she does not require more; it would be a
mistake to require more. But when I think how little has been as yet
done in the interior of the empire, then the thought lies on my heart
like a ten-pound weight. That is what makes me tired.”
The profoundly true thought that fell from the lips of the sovereign
in his conversation with Lubianovski was not, however, put into
application. At that period it was impossible to count upon the
amendment of the state edifice through the administrations of the
government. The dim figure of Araktcheiev had definitively
succeeded in screening Russia from the gaze of Alexander, and his
evil influence was felt at every step. Therefore in the main
everything led to the sorrowful result that the emperor, as Viguel
expressed it, was like a gentleman who, having grown tired of
administering his own estate, had given it over entirely into the
hands of a stern steward, being thus sure that the peasants would
not become spoiled under him.
A few words remain to be said of the fate that overtook the secret
societies after the closing of the Alliance of the Public Good.
Benkendorf’s[64] supposition that a new and more secret society
would be formed after this, which would act under the veil of greater
security, was actually justified. The more zealous members of the
alliance only joined together more closely, and from its ruins arose
two fresh alliances—the Northern and the Southern.
The leaders of the Northern Alliance in the beginning were
Muraviev and Turgeniev. Later on, in 1823, Kondratz Bileiev entered
the society, of which he became the leader. The aspirations of the
Northern Alliance were of a constitutional-monarchic character. In
the Southern Alliance, chiefly composed of members of the second
army, the principal leader was the commander of the Viatka infantry
regiment, Colonel Paul Pestel, son of the former governor-general of
Siberia. Thanks to Pestel’s influence the Southern Alliance acquired a
preponderating republican tendency; he occupied himself with the
composition of a work which he called Russian Truth, in which he
expounded his ideas on the reconstruction of Russia. Many members
of this society inclined to the conviction that the death of the
emperor Alexander and even the extermination of the entire imperial
family were indispensable to the successful realisation of their
proposed undertakings; at any rate there is no doubt that
conversations to this effect were carried on amongst the members of
the secret societies. Soon the active propaganda of the members of
the Southern Society called another society into existence—the
Slavonic Alliance or the United Slavonians. In it was chiefly
concentrated the radical element from the midst of the future
Dekabrists. The members of this society proposed insane and violent
projects and insisted chiefly on the speedy commencement of
decisive action, giving only a secondary importance to deliberations
on the constitutional form of government. Sergei Nuraviev Apostol
called them mad dogs chained.
There yet remained a better means for strengthening the designs
of the secret societies—this was to enter into relations with the
Polish secret societies. Negotiations with the representative of the
Polish patriotic alliance, Prince Tablonovski, were personally carried
on by Pestel; but the details of this agreement are even now little
known. Such was the dangerous and fruitless path into which many
of the best representatives of thinking Russia were drawn: each year
the crisis became more and more inevitable; and meanwhile the
government became more decisively confirmed than ever in the
pathway of reaction, thus indirectly giving greater power to secret
revolutionary propaganda.

Closing of the Masonic Lodges

In August, 1822, a rescript was issued in the name of the minister

of the interior, ordering the closing of all secret societies, under
whatever name they might exist—masonic lodges or others—and
forbidding their establishment in future. All members of these
societies had to pledge themselves not to form any masonic lodges
or other secret societies in the future; and a declaration was
required from all ranks of the army and from the civil service that
neither soldiers nor officials should thenceforth belong to such
organisations: “If any person refuses to make such a pledge, he
shall no longer remain in the service.”
All the measures drawn up by the rescript of August were,
however, put into effect only with regard to the closing of the
masonic lodges. As to the secret societies, which had undoubtedly a
political aim, they continued to develop in all tranquillity. “At that
time,” writes a contemporary, “there was a triple police in St.
Petersburg—namely, the governor general, the minister of the
interior, and Count Araktcheiev; but that it did not bring forth any
advantages is proved by the events of 1825.”
According to the remarks of the same contemporary, card-playing
had then spread in St. Petersburg society to an incredible degree.
“Certainly in ninety houses out of a hundred they play,” writes
Danilevski, “and although the circle of my acquaintances has become
very vast this year and I go out a great deal yet I never see people
doing anything else than playing at cards. If one is invited to an
evening party, it means cards, and I have hardly made my bow to
the hostess before I find the cards in my hand. When one is asked
out to dinner one sits down to whist before the meal is served. Card-
playing occupies not only elderly people but young ones also. I think
this has arisen partly from a defect in education which is in general
observable in Russia—for when education finishes at seventeen,
what store of ideas and knowledge, what passion for science can
one expect to find in adults? This condition is further exaggerated by
the fact that all political matters are banished from conversation: the
government is suspicious, and spies are not unfrequently to be met
with in society. The greater part of them are, however, known; some
belong to old noble families, are decorated with orders, and wear
chamberlains’ keys.”
The closing of the masonic lodges called forth the following
deliberations from Danilevski: “As far as I know, masonry had no
other object in Russia beyond benevolence and providing an
agreeable way of passing time. The closing of the lodges deprived us
of the only places where we assembled for anything else besides
card-playing, for we have no society where cards do not constitute
the principal or rather the only occupation. We are as yet so
unversed in political matters that it is absurd for the government to
fear that such subjects would furnish conversation at the masonic
lodges. With us, notable persons have rarely been masons; at least
none such have visited our lodge, which is usually full of people of
the middle class, officers, civil-service employees, artists, a very few
merchants, and a large percentage of literary men.”b
These of course are the words of a partisan and must be taken
with a certain allowance. The same remark applies with full force to
the testimony of the historian Turgeniev, whose association with the
secret unions has already been mentioned, and whose comments on
the subject, despite a certain bias, are full of interest. Turgeniev is
speaking of the period just following that in which the government
had taken action against the societies.a

Turgeniev’s Comment on the Secret Societies.

The government contributed much [he declares] by its suspicions

and precautions, to strengthen the reports which were afloat
concerning secret societies: to them all was suspect. A species of
insurrection having broken out in a regiment of the guards, of which
the emperor was head, the government thought they could trace it
to the action of some society, whereas it was caused by the brutal
and ridiculous conduct of a new colonel they had placed in
command. That such was their conviction there was no doubt,
because two of the officers of the insurrectionary companies were
traduced before a council of war, and condemned, not only without
any proof but with no specification of the crime or fault with which
they were charged, whereas in reality neither the one nor the other
officer had ever belonged to a secret society.
A rash Englishman took it into his head to go round the world and
publish an account of his travels. He arrived at St. Petersburg, went
over Russia, and thence to Siberia. There he was taken for a spy,
and soon an order came from St. Petersburg to conduct him to the
frontier. Even pious Protestant missionaries, propagating with their
accustomed zeal Christian morals among savage peoples, were
suspected by the government. They were hindered in the holy
warfare they desired to carry on in the farthest and least civilised
regions of the empire. The powers only saw in them emissaries of
European liberalism.
The public for their part did not fail to take appearances for reality.
That is the common propensity of the crowd in every country. How
many times, before and after this epoch, might not men have been
seen addressing themselves to those who were supposed to be at
the head of such societies, and insistently asking to be admitted. In
the army subalterns thus addressed their chiefs, and old generals
sought their young subordinates to obtain the same favour. It might
have been said with equal truth to both parties that no secret
societies existed. Men’s minds, however, were all on the strain for
political events. It was thought that some great change was to come
soon, and everyone wanted to get an inkling of it. Restless curiosity
was not the worst of the inconveniences caused to such
associations. Doubtless, the evil was less due to societies than to
persons who judged them after their deceitful appearances. Perhaps
it was the fault of the political order which made secret societies
necessary or, at any rate, inevitable; but it was nevertheless a
serious matter which only publicity could remedy. The strong energy
of a free man would advantageously replace the trickery and
restlessness of a slave.
However, at the epoch of which we now speak, individuals were
able to agitate in various ways, but without the least result. But if
such a thing as an organised secret society did exist, how is it I did
not know of it—I who knew many of those called liberals? I will give
convincing proof of what I here maintain; I quote the words of
Pestel, a man sent to the scaffold by the government not because he
had committed some political crime but because he was considered
as the most influential of those who were supposed to belong to
secret associations. Pestel was in St. Petersburg just as my
departure was decided on. He came to see me and spoke with
regret of the dissolution of the Bien Public Society. “As for us” (the
2nd army), he said, “we have not observed the dissolution. It would
be too disheartening. We are believed to be strong and numerous; I
encourage the delusion. What would be said were it known that we
are but five or six who form the association?” He ended by advising
me to renounce my journey, or, at any rate to return as soon as
possible and take up the abandoned work again. “I see quite well,”
he said, “there is absolutely nothing left here of the old society, but
at your house and a few others one can always believe in the
existence of the society. Your departure will weaken this belief.”
I explained that my health forced
me to leave my affairs, and that,
furthermore, I had little faith in the
efficacy of secret societies. He
seemed impressed by my reasoning
and even agreed that I might be right
on this last point.
His attention was much occupied
with certain social theories that he
and some of his friends had
formulated. They thought to find in
me one proselyte more. But they were
disappointed, and Pestel was much
surprised and disconcerted. These
theories, which so many ardent
imaginations had adopted, were no
doubt excellent in intention, but they
hardly promised great results. The
genius, or something akin to it, in a
Fourier, the zeal of an Owen, the
A Tatar Woman
utopianism of many others, might
make proselytes and excite
admiration; but the dreams of such
men remained but dreams although they sometimes touched on the
sublime. Only, in default of possible realisation, these theories might
help humanity by directing the attention and effort of serious men
towards certain things of which they had sufficiently appreciated the
importance and utility. But to ensure that result more imagination
was required. One of the fundamental points in the theory of Pestel
and his friends was a universal distribution of territory, its cultivation
to be determined by a supreme authority. At least they wanted to
divide vast crown lands among those who had no property. What
Elizabeth had guaranteed to all Englishmen—the right of being
supported by the poor rates in default of other means of subsistence
—they wanted to guarantee by means of the possession or at least
the enjoyment of a certain quantity of land free for cultivation.
I tried to the best of my power to refute their arguments. It was
not easy. The refutation of certain theories is difficult, and there are
some whose very absurdity makes them unassailable. At last I came
to think that Pestel and his friends were far more discontented with
my opposition to their social theories than with my opinions on
secret societies.d

LITERARY ACTIVITY OF THE PERIOD

The awakening of the Russian spirit was not manifested in political

conspiracies alone. In science, in letters, and in art the reign of
Alexander was an epoch of magnificent achievement. The
intellectual like the liberal movement no longer bore the exotic and
superficial character that had been apparent during the reign of
Catherine; it penetrated to the deepest layers of society, gained
constantly in power and extent, carried away the middle classes, and
was propagated in the remotest provinces. The movement started in
1801 had not yet ceased, although the government failed to support
the efforts it had itself aroused, and Alexander, embittered and
disillusioned, had come to mistrust all intellectual manifestations.
The increased severity of the censorship had not availed to prevent
the formation of learned societies; literary journals and reviews
continued to multiply.
 During this period the Besieda, a literary club representing the
classical tendencies, was formed, and the romanticists, Jukovski,
Dachkov, Ouvarov, Pushkin, Bludov, and Prince Viazemski founded
the Arzamas. At St. Petersburg appeared the Northern Post, the St.
Petersburg Messenger, the Northern Messenger, the Northern
Mercury, the Messenger of Zion, the Beehive, and the Democrat, in
which latter Kropotkov inveighed against French customs and ideas,
and in the Funeral Orison of my Dog Balabas congratulated the
worthy animal on never having studied in a university, or read
Voltaire.
Literary activity was, as usual, greatest at Moscow, where
Karamzine was editing the European Messenger, Makarov the
Moscow Mercury, and Glinka the Russian Messenger. In his journal
Glinka endeavoured to excite a national feeling by first putting the
people on their guard against all foreign influence, but more
particularly that of France, and then arming them against Napoleon,
teaching them the doctrine of self-immolation, and letting loose the
furies of the “patriotic war.” When the Russian Messenger went out
of existence after the completion of its task, the Son of the Soil,
edited by de Gretch, took up the same work and carried the war
against Napoleon beyond the frontiers. “Taste in advance,” it cried to
the conqueror, “the immortality that you deserve; learn now the
curses that posterity will shower on your name! You sit on your
throne in the midst of thunder and flame as Satan sits in hell
surrounded by death, devastation, and fire!” The Russian Invalide
was founded in 1813 for the benefit of wounded and infirm soldiers.
Even after the war-fever had somewhat subsided, and
considerations less hostile to France were occupying the public mind,
the literary movement still continued.
Almost all the writers of the day took part in the crusade against
Gallomania and the belief in Napoleon’s omnipotence. Some had
fought in the war against France and their writings were deeply
tinged with patriotic feeling. Krilov, whose fables rank him not far
below La Fontaine, wrote comedies also. In the School for Young
Ladies and the Milliner’s Shop he ridiculed the exaggerated taste for
everything French. Besides his classical tragedies Ozerov wrote
Dmitri Donskoi, in which he recalled the struggles of Russia against
the Tatars, and in a measure foretold the approaching conflict with a
new invader. In the tragedy named after Pojarski, the hero of 1812,
Kriukovski made allusions of the same order. The poet Jukovski put
in verse the exploits of the Russians against Napoleon in 1806 and
1812, and Rostoptchin did not await the great crisis before opening
out on the French the vials of his wrath.
Viewed in general, the literature of Alexander’s period marked the
passage from the imitation of ancient writers and French classicists
to the imitation of French and English masterpieces. The Besieda
and the Arzamas were the headquarters of two rival armies which
carried on in Russia a war similar to that waged in Paris by romantic
and classical schools. Schiller, Goethe, Byron, and Shakespeare were
as much the fashion in Russia as in France, and created there as
close an approach to a literary scandal. While Ozerov, Batiuchkov,
and Derjavine upheld the traditions of the old school, Jukovski gave
to Russia a translation of Schiller’s Joan of Arc and of Byron’s
Prisoner of Chillon; and Pushkin published Ruslan and Liudmilla, The
Prisoner of the Caucasus, Eugene Oniegin, the poem Poltava, and
the tragedy Boris Godunov.
As in France the romantic movement had been accompanied by a
brilliant revival of historical studies, so in Russia a fresh impulse was
given to letters, and dramatists and novelists were inspired with a
taste for national subjects by Karamzin’s History of the Russian
Empire, a work remarkable for eloquence and charm [as our various
extracts testify] though deficient in critical insight. Schlötzer had
recently edited Nestor, the old annalist of Kiev and father of Russian
history.f

Alexander I as a Patron of Literature

Protection and encouragement were shown to literature by

Alexander I. Storcki writes as follows: “Rarely has any ruler shown
such encouragement to literature as Alexander I. The remarkable
literary merits of persons in the government service are rewarded by
rises in the official ranks, by orders and pensions, whilst writers who
are not in the government service and whose literary productions
come to the knowledge of the emperor not unfrequently receive
presents of considerable value. Under the existing conditions of the
book trade, Russian authors cannot always count on a fitting
recompense for large scientific works, and in such cases the
emperor, having regard to these circumstances, sometimes grants
the authors large sums for the publication of their works. Many
writers send their manuscripts to the emperor, and if only they have
a useful tendency he orders them to be printed at the expense of
the cabinet and then usually gives the whole edition to the author.”
In view of the desire manifested by Karamzin to devote his labours
to the composition of a full history of the Russian Empire, the
emperor by a ukase of the 31st of October, 1803, bestowed upon
him the title of historiographer and a yearly pension of 2,000 rubles.
During the reign of the emperor Paul, Alexander, in a letter to
Laharpe dated September 27th, 1797, expressed his conviction of
the necessity of translating useful books into the Russian language,
in order “to lay a foundation by spreading knowledge and
enlightenment in the minds of the people.” When he came to the
throne, Alexander did not delay in accomplishing the intention he
had already formed when he was czarevitch, and actually during the
epoch of reforms a multitude of translations of works appeared,
which had the evident object of inspiring interest in social, economic,
and political questions and of communicating to Russian society the
latest word of western science upon such questions.
In the establishment of the ministries the question of censorship
was not overlooked; it was transferred to the ministry of public
instruction. In consequence of this arrangement a special statute
was issued (July 9th, 1804), “not in order to place any restraint,” as
is stated in the minister’s report, “upon the freedom of thought and
of writing, but solely so as to take requisite measures against the
abuse of such freedom.” The entire statute contained forty-seven
paragraphs—a circumstance worthy of attention if we take into
consideration the fact that the censorship statute presented in the
year 1826 by A. S. Shishkov had grown to 230 paragraphs.
According to the statute of Alexander I the censorship was designed
chiefly to “furnish society with books and works contributing to the
true enlightenment of minds and to the formation of moral qualities,
and to remove books and works of contrary tendencies.” The
censorship was entrusted to the university, constituting in its general
jurisdiction the then newly organised department of the ministry of
public instruction, which had the chief direction of schools. The basis
of the functions of the censorship thus constituted was found in the
three provisions following:
(1) Watchfulness that in the books and periodicals published, and
in the pieces represented on the stage “there shall be nothing
against religion, the government, morality, or the personal honour of
any citizen.” (2) Care that in the prohibition of the publication or
issue of books and works the committee shall be “guided by a wise
indulgence, setting aside all biased interpretation of the works or of
any part of them which might seem to merit prohibition; and wisdom
to remember that when such parts seem subject to any doubt or
have a double meaning, it is better to interpret them in the manner
most favourable to the author than to prosecute him.” (3) “A discreet
and wise investigation of truths concerning faith, mankind, the
position of the citizen, the law, and all branches of the
administration, are to be treated by the censorship not only in the
most lenient manner, but should enjoy entire liberty of publication,
as contributing to the progress of enlightenment.”
Such was the aspect of the censorship and statute which
remained unchanged for more than twenty years, that is during the
whole reign of the emperor Alexander. It was only from the year
1817, from the establishment of the ministry of public worship and
of public instruction, that the censorship acquired a particularly
irksome tendency which was in opposition to the liberal spirit of the
statute: the most complete intolerance, fanaticism, and
captiousness, which had been absent at the commencement of
Alexander’s reign, then made their appearance.
In January, 1818 the emperor Alexander came for a short time to
St. Petersburg, and Karamzin took advantage of his stay in order to
present to him the eight volumes of the History of the Russian
Empire which he had just published. “He received me in his private
apartments, and I had the happiness of dining with him,” wrote
Karamzin to his friend I. I. Dmitriev. “On the 1st of February my
History of the Russian Empire was on sale; the edition was of three
thousand copies, and in spite of the high price at which the work
was sold (55 rubles, paper money, per copy), a month later not a
copy was left at the booksellers.”b

FAILURE OF THE POLISH EXPERIMENT

The constitution granted to Poland in 1815, based the government

on a tripartite division of power; the three estates of the realm being
the king, a senate, and a house of representatives—the latter two
being comprehended under the name of a diet. The executive was
vested in the king, and in functionaries by him appointed. The crown
was hereditary; it was the prerogative of the king to declare war,
convoke, prorogue, or dissolve the diet. He was empowered to
appoint a viceroy, who, unless a member of the royal family, was to
be a Pole. The king or viceroy was assisted by a council of state and
five responsible ministers, their several departments being
instruction, justice, interior and police, war, finance. These five
ministers were subordinate to the president of the council.
Considering the exhaustion, humiliation, and misery to which Poland
had been reduced, such a constitution was apparently a great boon,
for it guaranteed civil, political, and religious freedom; but by the
very nature of things it was foredoomed to destruction.
The first Polish diet assembled at Warsaw on the 27th of March,
1818. The grand duke Constantine, commander-in-chief of the Polish
army, was elected a deputy by the faubourg of Praga, and during the
session was obliged to renounce his privilege as a senator, because,
by the terms of the constitution, no person could sit in both houses.
He was elected by a majority of 103 votes to 6, an evident proof
that the new reign had excited the liveliest hopes. The emperor
arrived at Warsaw on the 13th of March; he devoted himself
laboriously to the examination of state affairs, and on the 27th he
opened the diet in person with a speech in the French language. He
said, “the organisation which existed in vigorous maturity in your
country permitted the instant establishment of what I have given
you, by putting into operation the principles of those liberal
institutions which have never ceased to be the object of my
solicitude, and whose salutary influence I hope by the aid of God to
disseminate through all the countries which He has confided to my
care. Thus you have afforded me the means of showing my country
what I had long since prepared for her, and what she shall obtain
when the elements of a work so important shall have attained their
necessary development.”

House of the Romanov Czars

There is no reason to doubt that Alexander cherished these

intentions in his own sanguine but impractical way. The
enfranchisement of the serfs of Esthonia, undertaken in 1802 and
completed in 1816, and that of the serfs of Courland in 1817, exhibit
the same principles. And when in 1819 the deputies of the Livonian
nobility submitted to the approbation of the emperor a plan to
pursue the same course with the serfs of their province, the
following was his remarkable reply: “I am delighted to see that the
nobility of Livonia have fulfilled my expectations. You have set an
example that ought to be imitated. You have acted in the spirit of
our age, and have felt that liberal principles alone can form the basis
of the people’s happiness.”
“Such,” says Schnitzler, “was constantly, during nearly twenty
years, the language of Alexander. He deeply mourned the entire
absence of all guarantees for the social well-being of the empire. His
regret was marked in his reply to Madame de Staël, when she
complimented him on the happiness of his people, who, without a
constitution, were blessed with such a sovereign: ‘I am but a lucky
accident.’” After 1815 he was no longer even that.
A year had hardly elapsed from the time when Alexander had
addressed the words we have quoted to the diet at Warsaw, ere the
Poles began to complain that the constitution was not observed in its
essential provisions; that their viceroy Zaionczek had but the
semblance of authority, whilst all the real power was in the hands of
the grand duke Constantine, and of Novosiltzov the Russian
commissioner. The bitterness of their discontent was in proportion
with the ardour of their short-lived joy. Russian despotism reverted
to its essential conditions; the liberty of the press was suspended;
and in 1819 the national army was dissolved. On the other hand, the
spirit of opposition became so strong in the diet, that in 1820, a
measure relating to criminal procedure, which was pressed forward
with all the force of government influence, was rejected by a
majority of 120 to 3. Thenceforth there was nothing but mutual
distrust between Poland and Russia.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS