Главная Журнал «Россия и Запад: диалог культур» Главная Рубрики Исторический контекст взаимодействия культур Anna Pavlovskaya "Western Contemporaries on Russian Emperor Alexander II"

Anna Pavlovskaya "Western Contemporaries on Russian Emperor Alexander II"

Anna Pavlovskaya –

Doctor of Historical Science, Professor,

Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area Studies,

Lomovosov Moscow State University,

Tel.: (495)783-02-64

E-mail: annapavl@mail.ru

Western Contemporaries on Russian Emperor Alexander II.

This study discusses the Western opinion on the personality of Emperor Alexander II of Russia and his role in the emancipation of the serfs and the subsequent reforms. The analysis is based on a diverse body of 19th c. Western sources (memoirs, diaries, publicist writings, etc.), which so far have been largely unnoticed by historians. These sources not only provide valuable evidence about the emperor but also reveal certain tendencies in the West’s perception of Russia. The study shows how highly positive evaluations of Alexander, expressed amid his liberal reforms, give way to increasingly harsh criticism, as the West grows disappointed with the outcome of the changes. Subjective as they are, these judgements give important insights into both Russian and Western civilisations.

Key words: Emperor Alexander II, liberal reforms 1860s - 1880s, Western perception of Russia.

Memoirs of foreigners about Russia are widely used in studies of its ancient history; they are also employed in describing historical events of the 18th century. The Russian history of the 19th century abounds in various historical source-books. This is probably the reason why memoirs written by foreign contemporaries escaped the attention of both Russian and Western historians. At the same time a vast corpus of Western materials on the Russian history of the 19th century is of no little consequence, even against the background of numerous sources of Russian origin.

Firstly, they offer a distinctive view of Russia - a detached view. Secondly, they frequently pay attention to those facts and events of life in Russia, which, intentionally or otherwise, may escape the notice of Russian observers. Undoubtedly tendentious, as a private source of information should be, nonetheless it is their tendencies as distinct from the Russian ones that they reflect, and sometimes they are even less biased and free from political impacts than Russian memoirs and diaries of the period. Long ago V.O. Klyuchevsky pointed out the importance of studying foreigners' notes: "An outside observer would be attentive to ordinary conditions of life and daily routine which would be passed unnoticed by contemporaries for whom they were customary. Not acquainted or little acquainted with history of the people, alien to its habits in principles, a foreigner could not interpret many phenomena of the Russian way of life correctly - nor even judge them impartially; however, what he could indeed do better than people who were used to these phenomena and regarded them from an inside and conventional viewpoint, was to portray them, bring out their more conspicuous features and, last but not least, describe the first impression they produced on a stranger."[1]

Western sources furnish abundant material for understanding the Russian civilization and national character, as well as the Western civilization and national character of the peoples which view and assess Russia.

The present study uses diverse, for the most part English-language, materials. Unofficial sources were employed in the first place: diaries, memoirs, itinerary notes, fiction and publicist writings. An attempt is made to re-create the image of Alexander the Liberator as seen by his Western contemporaries.

The enthronement of Alexander II and beginning of reforms brought about a turning-point in the West's perception of Russia. In late 18th – early 19th centuries, information about Russia became more profound and extensive due to a larger number of foreigners coming to the country to get acquainted with its traditions and way of life; however, the process was interrupted during the reign of Nicholas I. An English traveler who happened to be in Russia after the tsar's death refers to him as "the last European khan" and "Asiatic emperor", pointing out that "while he occupied the throne, his country was ... a mystery ... With mystery came distrust, for the unknown is always feared".[2] With Alexander II's accession to power the situation changed dramatically. A stream of foreigners now sought to unravel the mystery of Russia, a country of "... people who are really less known to their western neighbours than any other civilized nation".[3]

The range of questions raised by Western observers is, indeed, very broad. Naturally, the reforms and the Emperor who ventured them were in the center of attention.

So, what was the Western opinion of Alexander II? It should be noted first and foremost that the attitude to the Russian Emperor was exceptionally positive, to the point of admiration. This fact is of particular interest, considering that the attitude to the Russian monarchy, often compared to an Asian tyranny, was on the whole negative. Incidentally, Americans, a nation who had not known monarchy, take a much more admiring attitude to Alexander II than the cautious English.

Reasons for this are numerous. America also was going through processes of great political consequence: abolition of slavery and civil war. The idea of identical destinies of the two nations was extremely popular at the time, and a glimpse into the life of Russia also enabled Americans to understand themselves. A traditional opposition of the free republican America to the conservative monarchic Russia gave way to an awareness of identical problems and hopes for the future. As was then noted in the American press, “Russia, like the United States, is a nation of the future… Like the US, Russia is in agonies of a terrible transition: the Russian serfs, like the American Negroes, are receiving their liberty; and the Russian ‘boyars’, like the southern slave owners, are mutinous at the loss of the property”.[4]In 1918 J. Kerner, an American historian, wrote: “We in America … always cherishing a platonic interest in Russia, because of the similarity of our problems …”. [5]

An important part in American-Russian rapprochement was played by England. A common enemy will draw countries closer, so, as an American diplomat wrote, “Russo-American relations were usually more cordial when one or the other of the countries was at odds with England”. [6]

The Russian press assessed the American attitude to Russia in a similar way: “Part of American political credo is ‘love for Russia’ … the reason why the general public is with Russia is not at all genuine liking for us … but, rather, hatred for England”. [7]

Warm feelings of Americans towards Russia were kept up by those of Russians towards America. Mark Twain, who visited Russia in 1867, wrote: “… we have been in no country yet where we have been so kindly received, and where we felt that to be Americans was a sufficient visé for our passports”.[8]

The English were more cautious in their judgment of Russian reforms. Unlike Americans, they did not pretend to be platonic in their concern about Russia. As a rule, most writers tackled, in some way of another, the ‘Eastern question’, issues of Russian-English relations, chances for a Russian-American union. England’s growing interest in Russia was increasingly motivated politically.

The English appear to have been surprised at the changes Russia was undergoing, their attitude being extremely cautious. The following words of an Englishman who visited Russia in 1869 sound as if written in an attempt to convince his countrymen in the benefit of the reforms: “Even in our selfish interests, it would be well for us to have a civilized neighbour on our frontier rather than a savage tribe; a neighbour bound by law and courtesy instead of a savage Khan who murders our envoy and rejects our trade”. [9]

First of all, it would be interesting to cite a few quotations that give a graphic evidence of the admiration Alexander II evoked in the West. The article printed soon after the abolition of serfdom is unsparing of words of praise: “He is the greatest of Russian benefactors in all these thousand years – the Warrior who restored peace, the Monarch who had faith in God’s will to make order, and in man’s will to keep order, the Christian Patriot who made forty millions of serfs forty millions of men – Alexander the Second – Alexander the Earnest”. [10]

Western press refers to him with the same kind of high-sounding words 20 years later as well: “No one who knew Alexander the Great, for indeed is he entitled to that epithet more justly than his namesake of Macedon, can doubt for a moment that the decree of emancipation was his own free act and will. No other historical character has ever done for humanity, for the sacred cause of freedom, a tithe of what the Great Russian Emperor has done”. [11]

A testimony of high regard for the Russian Emperor and an event in the history of Russian-American friendly ties was a visit to Russia of an American squadron headed by Admiral Fox. The mission came in 1866 in connection with an attempt on Alexander II’s life: to celebrate the escape of the Liberator and convey the message of heartfelt sympathy from the people of America. The Congress resolution brought to Alexander said, characteristically, that the attempt ‘undoubtedly was made by an enemy of serf-liberation’[12]: enemies of the abolition had killed President Lincoln in 1865, enemies of the peasant reform now made an attempt on the tsar’s life.

Description of the attitude of the West to Alexander II would not be complete without mentioning Cassius Clay, a well-known figure in America, Lincoln's friend, Ambassador to Russia in 1861-62 and 1863-69, who was personally acquainted with the Emperor. Alexander II's admirer, Cassius Clay put down the liberation of peasants exceptionally to his credit, due to his wisdom and persistence. Here is a much quoted phrase he wrote: "I think I can say without implication of profanity or want of reverence, that since the days of Christ himself such a happy and glorious privilege has not been reserved to any other man to do that amount of good, and no man has ever more gallantly or nobly done it than Alexander II, Czar of Russia".[13]

Last but not least, young Mark Twain, in his European travel notes written with the characteristic humor and irony, abandoned the air of skepticism typical of his descriptions of prominent statesmen when he recalled meeting with Alexander II in the Crimea as a member of an American mission. Simplicity, decision and nobleness - these were, in Mark Twain's opinion, salient features of the Russian emperor: "The Emperor wore a cap, frock coat and pantaloons, all of some kind of plain white drilling - cotton or linen - and sported no jewelry or any insignia whatever of rank. No costume could be less ostentatious. He is very tall and spare, and a determined-looking man, though a very pleasant-looking one, nevertheless. It is easy to see that he is kind and affectionate. There is something very noble in his expression when his cap is off. There is none of that cunning in his eye that all of us noticed in Louis Napoleon's".[14]

Alexander II's portrait also reflects admiration on the part of his Western contemporaries. He was usually portrayed as a tall man of a noble stature, very handsome. Beautiful light-blue, sometimes gray, eyes with a deeply thoughtful look in them, a round face. A pleasant voice and excellent English accent; he also knew American English in perfection. It was noted that his looks, as well as speech and manner of walking, were truly regal. He was very simple in his manner; those who had a chance to talk to him pointed out that his conversation was unaffected, pleasant and interesting as he was " ... courteous in manner, genial and frank in conversation, but reserved when public issues were introduced. He kept systematic notes from newspapers and reports and was well informed on matters both at home and abroad". [15]

Russian contemporaries paint a similar portrait. A.F. Tyutcheva, lady-in-waiting at his court, gives the following descriptions of his outward appearance in her diary and memoirs: the Emperor "with his fair and kind face ... ". "His Majesty was pale and sad, but amazingly handsome with the shining crown on his head".[16] Interestingly, the Emperor's portraits and photographs contradict this opinion: judging by those available to us, one would not say he was so handsome. The decisive factors were, probably, his manner of behavior and the effect it produced on his contemporaries.

As for Alexander II's personality, the traits mentioned most frequently were his nobleness, honesty, straightforwardness, generosity, deep religious beliefs. Alexander's democratism and his concern for the common people were emphasized in particular. The English traveller Dixon wrote in his book about Russia (very popular in England as well as in other countries) that Alexander II started his reign with "joining his people" and with his people he stayed until he felt he had seen "more of the Russian soil, knew more of the Russian people, than any of the ministers about his court"[17]. He treated his people with fatherly love, and, in return, they loved him as a father. The affection of the ordinary men and women to the Emperor is a fact noticed by all Western visitors, including the critically-minded ones.

Western observers, normally very hard on Nicholas I, unanimously emphasized the difference between the father and son. A German writer on the Russian way of life wrote: "Alexander had always exhibited more gentle and large-hearted feeling, and greater accessibility to foreign views than Nicholas; he had a tender and nervous temperament, which itself forbade the continuance of the former system of inflexible severity and arbitrary will"[18].

Most of Alexander's Western contemporaries give him all the credit for the abolition of serfdom and the subsequent reforms. Motivated by European notions, at the same time fundamentally Russian, inspired from heaven, supported, or, according to certain evidence, resisted by the nobility, Alexander II is portrayed as Russia's benefactor. Most Western authors consider Alexander II the main, if not sole, initiator of reforms. This is often attributed not only to the Emperor's personal merits, but also to his absolute power. The well-known English traveller Wallace writes that "It is a fundamental principle of Russian political organization that all initiative in public affairs proceeds from the autocratic power"[19].

There are, however, voices of criticism in the general eulogistic chorus. Some writers believe that Alexander abandoned the planned liberal path and took a conservative stand after 1866. Herbert Thompson, an English scholar and active member of the "Friends of Russian Freedom" society, whose main aim was to support liberation movement in Russia and struggle against absolutism, maintained that it was not in the monarch's power to settle such global issues as abolition of serfdom. The only thing he could do was either interfere or not interfere with its implementation[20]. Some authors believe that it was only the spirit of the times and the force of necessity that compelled Alexander II to embark upon reforms.

At the same time, as has been said, Western visitors were, on the whole, exceptionally well-disposed to the Liberator. This became especially noticeable after his tragic death, which left no one indifferent. Here are but a few comments on his death, which were numerous and written by different people - English and American, liberals and conservatives, diplomats and ordinary men:

"Of all the ghastly miscalculations ever made, of all the crimes which have cost the earth most dear, his murder was the worst. The murders of William of Orange, of Lincoln, of Garfield, of Carnot, of Humbert I, did not stop the course of a beneficent evolution; but the murder of Alexander II threw Russia back into the hands of a reaction"[21].

"The funeral of the murdered Tsar was, of course, a most gorgeous and impressive sight ... A constant stream of people, mainly of peasant class, passed through, each in turn stopping to kneel and kiss the hand of the dead Tsar-emancipator, as I did, too, and with no little emotion; for, whatever his faults, that hand had struck the fetters from some forty millions of human beings." [22]

"The murderers had put back the clock in Russia for twenty-four years."[23]

To sum up: Western contemporaries highly estimated personal merits of the Tsar, as well as his activities as the head of state. It can even be said in many cases that his image was idealized. How can this fact be accounted for? The question is of particular interest, taking into consideration the general extremely negative attitude to Russian autocracy.

Firstly, an important factor is that it was Nicholas I whom Alexander succeeded. One of the analysts, far from being inclined to idealize the Tsar, thought that Alexander II owed his "fame" exclusively to his predecessor, for so great were expectations of change after Nicholas's death that a slightest action of the new Emperor was qualified as a liberal reform.[24]

Most writers about Alexander II display a strong opinion about his father, although with inherent respect. Nicholas I's rule became an epitome of despotism for his Western contemporaries; he was often referred to as an "Asiatic despot", "European khan". He was powerful and strong, but alien and incomprehensible to the West. As for Alexander II, he was a Western type of ruler, even if brought up "in the strict traditions of autocracy"[25]. He was closer and more easily comprehensible to the West than his father.

In his turn, Alexander II was fairly well-disposed towards and frequently received foreign visitors, and not only public figures. Russia opened its doors to foreigners during his rule: now they had a chance to familiarize themselves with the country, and often met with the monarch as well. Naturally, all this elevated the Russian Emperor in the opinion of his Western contemporaries.

A significant factor in creating a halo around Alexander II's name was his policy of reforms. With the extremely unfavorable assessment of the Russian political set-up on the whole, which is also typical of other periods, the West is usually exceedingly enthusiastic about any radical changes in the country. Periods of this kind are usually superseded by those of disappointment. As will be shown below, Alexander's reputation in the West faded noticeably at the turn of the 20th century, when the outcome of his reforms became clearly visible. In the second half of the 19th century, however, the West welcomed the "new era in Russia" and its initiator with great enthusiasm.

Undoubtedly, the Emperor's charm and personality traits all played their part. There is ample evidence provided by his Russian contemporaries that the Emperor was simple in manner, amiable and charming. The above-mentioned diaries of Tyutcheva read: "His foremost gift was his heart – a kind, warm, humane heart, which drew him naturally to all that was noble and generous"[26].

Finally, it ought to be reminded that American-Russian relations were, for various reasons, particularly friendly at the time and the idea of identical historical destinies of the two countries enjoyed great popularity. Interest for Russia and its people reached its climax in relation to the royal head of state.

By the start of the 20th century, English and American analysts were more critical about Alexander II as a personality and his role in preparing and implementing reforms, though the attitude remains favorable as a whole. A weak-willed and hesitating, but kind-hearted and noble person, who realized the necessity for reforms and so headed them - this is how Alexander II is portrayed in Western studies of the turn of the 20th century. Interestingly, the lack of strong personality noted in the Emperor is usually attributed to his merits, as it "made him all the more able to reflect the mood of the nation"[27]. His murder is regarded as a terrible tragedy, which pushed the country far back in its development. Now the precise period of time is even quoted - 24 years back,[28] i.e. the political changes brought about by the 1905 revolution could have taken place peacefully during Alexander II's reign.

The description of the Western image of Alexander II would not be complete without two books published in the 20th century (one in the 1930s, the other in the 1950s). These are virtually the only publications devoted to Alexander II in Anglo-American historiography, which otherwise abounds in scientific biographies.

"Tsar of Freedom", the first study of Alexander II's personality in Anglo-American historiography, appeared in the 1930s. Its author, S. Graham, spent a 1ong time in Russia traveling, went from Moscow to Arkhangelsk on foot, and later to Jerusalem, with a group of Russian pilgrims. Graham's work is certainly popular-scientific, rather than rigorously scientific. The question of the source books used by the author is still uncertain as no references are made. At the same time this is the first work to have been written about Alexander II in English.

The book begins with a comparison of two reigns - those of Alexander II in Russia and Queen Victoria in England, both differences and similarities being analyzed. The principal feature they have in common is, in Graham's opinion, that the epoch was characterized by a "remarkable national self-expression" in both countries; it was a time of rapid industrial growth, liberalism, individualism, "the age of Peace marred by Wars"[29]. In brief, it was a golden age in both English and Russian history, marked by great achievements in literature, poetry and philosophy. At the same time fundamental dissimilarities that had a dramatic impact on the destinies of the countries are also revealed. England advanced gradually, in the course of centuries, while Russia, in Graham's opinion, "woke up from barbarism all of a sudden in the 19th century"[30], which bore unexpected fruit. If in England the above processes were accompanied by an increased loyalty to the throne and an extraordinary national consolidation, in Russia it conjured up destructive forces, nihilism and Marxism.

Alexander II is depicted as an honest and noble person, who would listen to other people's opinion, though lacking in originality and firmness. In his detailed analysis of the Emperor's life and activities Graham justifies Alexander's reforms. "Alexander II was, probably, the only czar who believed in freedom. It was for introducing freedom in Russia that he deserved the name of the great czar"[31]. Graham comes out against subdividing Alexander II's reign into the liberal and reactionary periods in the belief that a certain firmness was necessary because "Russia in freedom tended to get out of hand". He considers the murder of Alexander II as a great misfortune for Russia which "if we look ahead thirty-six years, was the destruction of the Romanoff dynasty and the setting-up of a proletariat dictatorship"[32]. In Graham's opinion, the murder of the kind and just ruler, who had done to Russia more than anyone else, seemed to convince his successors that a wise and liberal rule was an impossibility in Russia, as "liberals have generally been more distasteful to the Russian revolutionaries than violent reactionaries"[33].

Graham's work is the first biography of Alexander II written in English and, at the same time, the last one in Anglo-American historiography to idealize the Russian Emperor, especially his reforms.

W. Mosse's book "Alexander II and Modernization of Russia", published in 1950, is much more reserved and cautious in its assessment of his activities and critical in its portrayal of the Emperor's personality, though the author's attitude to the Liberator is quite favorable on the whole.

According to Mosse, three public figures symbolize three main epochs in Russian history: Peter I, Alexander II and Lenin. Alexander's reforms are believed to have entailed Russia's transition to capitalism, which manifested itself in rapid industrial growth during the post-reform period. Mosse called Alexander II "father of industrial revolution", maintaining that he, like Peter I and Lenin, directed Russia's development along the Western path. Paying tribute to Alexander II as a reformer who carried out "a revolution from the top and its results were as significant as those of the political trends which brought students and workers to barricades in 1848"[34], Mosse gave a lot of space to describing the Emperor as a personality. In his view, Alexander did not possess many of the qualities indispensable for a true ruler of a country. He mentions the fact that "from his childhood Alexander tried to avoid difficulties and was seeking easy ways of dealing with complicated situations"[35].

Alexander's serious faults that produced a dramatic effect on the way reforms were planned are, according to Mosse, his lack of resolve and the fact that he was easily influenced: "he supported the one who was the last to speak to him"[36].  Lack of confidence and the feeling of fear made him "prisoner" of such people as Shuvalov and Trepov, later - Loris-Melikov.

Mosse's work is a concise, popularly written and fairly superficial account of the Emperor's activities as a reformer. Scientifically it presents no interest. On the other hand, it is one of the few biographies of Alexander II in the English-language historiography and it represents, in a concise form, the traditional essential viewpoints of Western historians. Regrettably, Mosse's work, as well as Graham's one, contains no references to any sources or scientific publications.

Modern English and American authors' evaluation of Alexander is, on the whole, rather negative. Characteristic, though simplified, is the opinion we can find in Encyclopedia Britannia, which devoted to him a separate entry: "Alexander II, a man of week character but good-natured, possessed no steadfast views on politics ... Alexander was always conscious of his power as unlimited monarch, and his liberalism ended as soon as his reforms brought with them a revival of political or autonomous tendencies"[37]. This opinion appears to be shared by a majority of modern English and American historians.

Characteristically, with all the attention modern Anglo-American historiographers pay to the period of reforms, on the one hand, and historical personalities, on the other (an example is a scientifically written biography of Nicholas I, who is disliked in the West), there is no scientific biography of the Liberator, whom they so much glorified in the 19th century. There can be different judgments about the Emperor's personality and role in the reform process; however, the statement that "although he became famous as the Liberator-czar he made no personal impact on his epoch"[38] can hardly be agreed with. Russian reality of the mid-19th century was such that major changes on a national scale could only be performed if initiated by the monarch.[39]

So we see that the Western attitude to Alexander II has undergone a cardinal change during the past 150 years: from admiring idealization to scornful criticism. Alexander II did not justify the hopes that the West pinned on him in the second half of the 19th century. The admiration gave way to disappointment, and now he came to occupy his place among the other autocratic rulers of Russia.

Turning back to the problem of employing Western source-books on the Russian history of the 19th century, one should point out their doubtless significance. Modern Western historiography does not preserve a trace of the admiration for the Russian Emperor which distinguishes the 19th c. literature. There is an impression that the West has forgotten its writers who left vivid and interesting recollections about Alexander II.

Diaries written by foreigners are an excellent complement to Russian sources, and in many cases they have a considerable significance of their own. There are not so many eye-witness accounts of Alexander the Liberator as a personality. He ranked too high in the opinion of most Russians to allow an impartial judgment. Foreigners, on the contrary, were more independent in their evaluation. This makes their evidence all the more important as a source on the Russian history of the 19th century.


  1. Arnaud Ch. A. The New Era in Russia. - Wash., 1890
  2. Baddeley J.F. Russia in the "Eighties". L., 1921
  3. Dixon W.N. Free Russia. V.1-2. L., 1870
  4. Eckardt J. Modern Russia. Leipzig - L.,1870
  5. Graham S. Tsar of Freedom. The Life and Reign of Alexander II. - New Haven, 1935
  6. Kerner R.J. Slavic Europe. Massachusetts, 1918
  7. Mosse W.E. Alexander II and the Modernisation of Russia. - L., 1958
  8. Pares B. Russia and Reform. L., 1907
  9. Thomas B.P. Ruso-American Relations 1815-1861. Baltimore, 1930

10.  Thompson H.M. Russian Politics. L.,1895

11.  Wallace D.M. Russia. V.I - 2. L., 1877.

12.  White A.D. Autobiography. V.1-2. L., 1905

13.  Russian Thought and Society 1800-1917. Keele, 1984.

14.  Encyclopedia Britannia. - 28 V. - Chicago, 1963

15.  Ключевский B.О. Сказание иностранцев о Московском государстве" M., 1991

16.  Скальковский К. Внешняя политика России и положение иностранных держав. СПБ, 1987

17.  Твен М. Собр. соч. в 12-ти томах. Т. 1. М., 1959

18.  Тютчева A.Ф. При дворе двух императоров. M., 1990

[1] B.О. Ключевский. "Сказание иностранцев о Московском государстве". M., 1991

[2] Dixon W.N. Free Russia. V.1-2. L., 1870. - V.2 - p.334

[3] Arnaud Ch. A. The New Era in Russia. - Wash., 1890. - P.6

[4] Quoted from: Russian Thought and Society 1800-1917. Keele, 1984. – p. 34

[5] Kerner R.J. Slavic Europe. Massachusetts, 1918. – p. VII.

[6] Thomas B.P. Ruso-American Relations 1815-1861. Baltimore, 1930. – p. 16

[7] Скальковский К. Внешняя политика России и положение иностранных держав. СПБ, 1987. – с. 516.

[8] Твен М. Собр. соч. в 12-ти томах. Т. 1. М., 1959.

[9] Dixon W.N. Free Russia. V. I-II. L., 1870. – V 2. P. 334

[10] Quoted from: Russian  Thought and Society. p. 34

[11] Arnaud Ch.A. Op.Cit. – P. 16

[12] Fox mission to Russia. N.Y., 1873. – P.16

[13] Quoted after: Arnaud Ch.A. Op.cit. P.30

[14] Твен М. Указ. соч. C.337

[15] Quoted after: Robertson J.R. A Kentucian at the Court of the Tsar. Kentucky. 1935. - P.54

[16] A.Ф. Тютчева. При дворе двух императоров. M., 1990. - C.147

[17] Dixon, op.cit. - P.338

[18] Eckardt J. Modern Russia. Leipzig - L.,1870. -P.33

[19] Wallace D.M. Russia. V.I - 2. L., 1877. - V.2 P.272

[20] Thompson H.M. Russian Politics. L.,1895. - P. 103

[21] White A.D. Autobiography. V.1-2. L., 1905. - V.l. p.471

[22] Baddeley J.F. Russia in the "Eighties". L., 1921. - P. 109

[23] Pares B. Russia and Reform . L., 1907. - P.60

[24] Eckardt J. Op.cit - P.35

[25] Ibid. - P.33

[26] A Ф. Тютчева. Указ.соч. C. 23

[27] Pares B. Russia and Reform. - L., 1907 - P.49

[28] Ibid. - P.60

[29] Graham S. Tsar of Freedom. The Life and Reign of Alexander II. - New Haven, 1935.-P.17

[30] Ibid. - P. 17

[31] Ibid. P.119

[32] Ibid P. 227

[33] Ibid P. 302

[34] Mosse W.E. Alexander II and the Modernisation of Russia. - L., 1958. - P. l 0

[35] Ibid P.174

[36] Ibid. - P.175

[37] Ibid. - P.152

[38] Encyclopedia Britannia. - 28 V. - Chicago, 1963. - V.I - P.700

[39] See: 3axapoва JI.Г. Самодержавие, бюрократия и реформы 60-x rr.19в. в  России. – Вопросы истории, 1989, № 10. C.6

Нравится Нравится  
Из сборников конференции Россия и Запад:

Школа юного регионоведа

Основная информация
Запись в школу:

Заполните форму по ссылке - запись
E-mail: regionoved2005@yandex.ru

Выпуски журнала "Россия и Запад: диалог культур"