Personality and reputation of Paul I of Russia

The origin of his hatred for Catherine may have stemmed from his belief that she had been complicit in the overthrow (and assassination) of his father, Peter III.[30] Also, the fact that the revolutionaries of 1762 had originally proposed Paul as the new emperor, with Catherine acting only as regent[31] in the background; this did not suit Catherine's plans, and explain her subsequent near-exile of him to Gatchina.[32] He and Catherine were polar opposites;[33] the scholar Jerome Blum believes Paul had a "pathological hatred" of Catherine, who had, for her part, "treated him shamefully".[34] Paul bore an "intense hatred" for his mother, says Dmytryshyn.[35]

Paul's demand for continual service from his nobility was to eventually cost him his life.[49] Paul, says Wortman, "humiliated the nobility, turning them from comrades in arms into victims".[50] For instance, Catherine gave him a captured Turkish prisoner, Ivan Pavlovich Kutaysov. Paul promptly made him a Russian count with a large estate, purely in order to spite the nobility, suggests Lieven.[51] Argues Loewenson, Paul's growing autocracy was in direct contrast with his upbringing as a constitutionalist:

Paul turned the idea inside out. He flooded his chancelleries with a stream of contradictory decrees, abolishing today what he had yesterday erected; he demanded strict conformity to a seemingly endless series of idiotic norms in dress, speech, and behaviour; and eventually, he created the very nightmare of despotic rule and personal insecurity the Panins had hoped so much to prevent.[52]

The Russian aristocracy was, by now, almost completely westernised, and French had become their first language.[53] Paul seems to have equated aristocratic luxury with wastefulness,[54] and believed that years of indulgent rule by a permissive female ruler had led to men—predominantly of the nobility—becoming soft and socially irresponsible, hence his edicts primarily focussing on perceived social ills of that class.[55] Paul wanted to instil the nobility with a new-found moral discipline.[56] J. M. K. Vivyan, writing in the New Cambridge Modern History, argues that enmity towards the nobility was inherent to Russia's Tsars, due to their vulnerability from Palace coups, but in Paul's case it was exacerbated by his treatment at his mother's hands, and who had supported the aristocracy.[57] Paul distrusted his aristocracy, particularly those who dwelt on their estates rather than attending court.

The parade ground outside Gatchina Palace as seen in 2010

[58]

Where Catherine had generally favoured the nobility, ruling with a degree of consensus, Paul, in the interests of overturning her policies, did the opposite, greatly constraining the aristocracies' liberties. He said, on one occasion, that to him, "only he is great in Russia to whom I am speaking, and only as long as I speak [to him]", regardless of birth or status,[59] in what Montefiori has called a comment "worthy of Caligula".[60] Lieven suggests that Paul's idealised Emperor-vassel relationship "did not represent late 18th-century Russian realities",[61] especially his echoing of Caligula's dictum, "let them hate so long as they fear".[60][62] Wishing to roll back the political power of the aristocratic class, Paul did so both in the big picture and in the detail.[63] Paul annulled the nobility's exemption from corporal punishment that they had extracted from Catherine.[64] This was a direct challenge to the nobility, says Montefiori, who were traditionally authorised to beat their own serfs.[65] Lieven argues that Paul's attack on the aristocracy's liberties was actually limited, although still sufficient to persuade them to conspire against him later on.[64] However, there appears to have been little or no resistance to him, reflecting that people no choice other than to accept what the Emperor chose to do. Whitworth, for example, commented that, although in other countries Paul's intemperate decrees might have been resisted, in Russia because of "the character of the people, and that spirit of subordination which yet prevails, scarcely a murmur is heard.[66] It was ironic, comments McGrew, that the only class to forcibly resit Paul in arms was the class he had tried to protect, the serfs: around 55 separate peasant uprisings were recorded between the death of Catherine in November and the New Year. This was followed by nearly 120 in the first three months of 1797.[67][note 5]

Everything that hinted of revolution was banned,[69] which he feared more than his mother had done.[70]Paul's hatred of revolutions was based on his view of his subjects: they were his children and were easily distracted, and needed firm guidance so they were not taken advantage of by evil men.[71]

Paul's actions against Jacobinism occasionally appeared comedic.[72] Having a deep-seated fear of Jacobins,[73] he believed himself to be surrounded by them, even on his own estate. A contemporary tells how Paul kept his estate in a permanent state of siege, writing that "every day, one hears of nothing but acts of violence. The Grand Duke thinks every moment that someone is wanting in respect or has the intention of criticising his actions. He sees everywhere manifestations of the revolution."[73]

His campaign against his mother began immediately; he refused to wear the Imperial crown at his coronation on the grounds that she had worn it first.[74][note 6] There was also a tradition of new monarchs making bold breaks with their predecessors' policies.[75] What he saw as righting Catherine's wrongs, suggests McGrew.[76] Paul did not just attack her policies, but physical reminders of her reign: Tsarskoe Selo Palace was allowed to fall into disrepair, having been one of her favoured residences.[77] He sought to subvert her legacy.[78]

While Paul's reign had similarities with that of his predecessor, the difference, says Ryeff, was personality: unlike Catherine, Paul "was capricious and unstable; his personal rule degenerated into one of abusive treatment".[79] On reversal of Catherine's policy, asks Ragsdale, "such a program was at least painfully naive. Was it also insane?"[80]

Before Catherine died, French influence on Russia was already being curtailed; freedom of movement between the countries was restricted and diplomatic relations hardened, although culturally French culture remained predominant.[81] Catherine had also placed all French citizens then resident in St Petersburg under surveillance.[82]

Under Catherine, says Grey, the nobility gained all they had sought; it was their "golden age".[83] Paul had a dislike of what he saw as being the "immorality" of Catherine's reign,[28] The nobles to whom she had made grants had them immediately reversed and withdrawn,[84] and changes of staff, removing Catherine's appointments "proceeded at a dizzying pace".[78] Undoing his mother's policies was the one thing Paul showed consistency in: "with one stroke of the pen he abrogated a whole series of Catherine's decrees.[85] Regardless, notes Kluchevsky, of whether they were good or bad, and even on occasion neutralising his own progressive decrees in the course of overturning his predecessor's.[86][note 7]

Whereas Catherine had generally ruled by consensus and accepted commentary thereupon from broader political society, Paul is seen as authoritarian.[88] Where she decentralised, he "fostered centralisation".[78] Historian Hugh Ragsdale has said that whereas Catherine was a "masterful opportunist ... Paul was her polar opposite".[89] Catherine had also maintained a policy of Russification, particularly in the Baltic states and Poland. As a result, Paul's policy was to restore to these areas their local rights and devolve the interests of the Russian government in them.[37] Cross notes that "Paul was prepared to do many things to spite the memory of his mother-but the restoration of any degree of freedom to publish was not one of them".[90]

Although Catherine had been known, occasionally, as "the Great" during her lifetime, during the reign of Paul it achieved broad acceptance, notes Alexander, "perhaps partly in silent protest of Paul's ill-considered efforts to demean his mother".[91]

Paul admired for all things Prussian.[92] Such a philosophy was not confined to Paul, as what Wortman calls "Prussomania" had engulfed Europe in the 18th century, although it made the greatest impact in Russia.[36] Whitworth, reporting on Paul's first day as Emperor, amid the installation of his Prussian-themed army, wrote how "the Court and the town is [sic] entirely military, and we can scare persuade ourselves that instead of Petersburg we are not in Potsdam".[93] While Admiral Shishkov commented that "the change was so great, that it looked like nothing other than an enemy invasion ... there were armed soldiers everywhere".[94] Thus, says Wortman, although Paul's accession was not by way of a military coup, it had the appearance of one as a result of his march on St Petersburg with the Gatchina units.[95] Sablukov echoed these complaints, saying that whereas St Petersburg had been one of the most modern European capitals under Catherine, under her son it had become "more like a German one, two centuries back".[96]

Paul was obsessed with the paraphernalia of war.[120] Army officers were forbidden to eat lunch wearing their hats.[121]

When Field Marshal Alexander Suvorov objected to Paul's treatment of the army he was banished to his estates.[122][note 11] Paul's treatment of the army was crucial to later overthrow. Apart from forcing Prussian-style uniforms upon them, he exercised a rule of iron over its men. Vivyan describes how[122]

On the other hand, while observing a parade one morning with Count Repnin, Paul remarked "Marshal, you see this guard of 400 men? At one word, I could promote every one of them to marshal".[60] Paul applied the principles he had enforced at Gatchina to St Petersburg society.[113] In effect, society was to be drilled the same way the military was. The problem with this, notes McGrew, was that while the military rule book laid down parameters and boundaries of conduct, the civilian regulations did not:[55]

Orders were given and enforced hour by hour. Sometimes they were published, and sometimes not, and there was no comprehensive summary of the radical restrictions on dress, for example, until early in 1798.[note 12] It was the subjects' responsibility to keep abreast, though even the enforcers could not stay fully informed. This condition, of course, added substantially to the anxiety in people's lives.[55]

The army was reorganised on Prussian lines, with Prussian uniforms and "draconian" discipline with it.[123] The uniforms were tight enough to prevent men from sitting, and also to prevent them standing up on their own if they fell over;[105] an English observer compared them to the "stiff, wooden machines" of the Seven Years' War.[124] Hair was plaited[105] and set in a "noisesome" paste of wax,[125] lard and flour which over time started smelling bad.[105] Paul, says Simon Sebag Montefiore, "regarded the waxed Prussian plaits as the expression of the ancien régime against the tousled locks of French freedom".[96] Introduced other unsuitable items, such as buckled shoes.[126] "His penchant for finicking detail was amply matched by his determination to punish any aberrations", as a result, noted Cobenzl, over half the officers of the Imperial Guard had resigned their commissions.[113] These edicts, suggests Esdaile, were the product of Paul's belief that "relaxation in the norms expected of a gentleman would undermine respect for their betters among the populace", and that therefore they needed regulating.[127]

Transfers, demotion, the recall to service of officers in civilian and court posts, appeared not as a vast reform but as an exercise in tyranny. The garrison of the capital lived under a kind of parade-ground terror, and it became a common thing for officers to parade with their affairs wound up and with a stock of ready money lest they were sent off the square straight to Siberia.[122]

Sealed coaches were maintained during every parade for the purpose of whisking away those that incurred Paul's displeasure.[105] This was documented by the General, Alexander Sablukov, who reported that not only had he done this himself but on three occasions had had to lend money to comrades who had failed to take such a precaution:[128] "When we mounted guard, we used to put a few hundred roubles in banknotes into our coat pockets so as not to be left penniless if suddenly sent away", he wrote. Paul occasionally beat men on parade himself;[60] an entire troop could be transferred to the provinces in an instant, cashiered, or its officers reduced in rank to footsoldiers.[129] Paul took pleasure in his role of drill sergeant, in even more in finding this wrong. A martinet, brutal punishments—such as flogging with the knout—were inflicted on the culprits.[130] Conversely, a soldier on review might find himself promoted on the spot.[131] According to Sablukov, under Paul, royal military service was "very unpleasant".[60]

1797 illustration of fashion under the French Directory; the round hat and high cravat sported by the man in the middle were condemned by Paul

Paul's domestic policy was unpopular, particularly among the Russian nobility,[132] who were especially affected.[133] Changes in dress had begun on Catherine's death.[134] Paul's edits were introduced with immediate effect: "new uniforms were fitted, sewn, and worn in a matter of hours; frock-coats disappeared or were turned into emergency cloaks by slashing scissors, while even round hats could be folded and pinned to form a tricorn".[66] Of ladies haircuts, the latest fashion in France was that à la guillotine;[104] like other Parisian-tailored clothes and fashion, it was to be expunged.[62] Paul's offensive was against "the whole of contemporary male chic", says McGrew.[55]

"Attacks with shears on people's clothing in the streets recalled Peter I's assaults on traditional caftans and beards, but now anything reminiscent of French as opposed to Russian dress, including associated vocabulary (gilet, pantalon), was suspect. Paul banned certain books, music and foreign travel, much as Catherine had done after 1793 in her understandable response to the French Terror, but the need for such sanctions now seemed unconvincing, as did the introduction of a host of niceties Of etiquette that victimized nobles who under Catherine were beginning to enjoy some degree of security. Demands such as the one that ladies curtsy to the emperor in the street and thus drag their clothes in the mud seemed demeaning. For men, the wrong belt buckle or a step out of place would result in a humiliating beating or banishment."[135] Paul brandished his horsewhip at pedestrians in the street.[77]

One of the most unpopular instructions, promulgated in late 1800,[136] dealt with how to behave on meeting the Emperor's carriage in the street. Regardless of age, gender or class, and regardless of the mode of transport—on foot, horseback or carriage—had to dismount immediately. The police were especially concerned to implement this decree.[66] Men had to bow deeply if Paul passed them in the street, and their ladies—despite that they were wearing expensive dresses and that the pavements were slushy—had to prostrate themselves[132] and men had to remain on their knee until he had passed,[137] irrespective of the condition of the roads as they did.[39] This may have been a means of demonstrating his power.[137] People went to the trouble of finding out where Paul or his family were likely to be travelling and then avoided these streets where possible in order to avoid public prostrationl[66][note 13] all of which was enshrined in law.[139] On one occasion Paul reprimanded a nanny out pushing a baby's pushchair for not doffing the baby's sunbonnet at the Emperor: Paul removed it himself.[96][note 14] "Wallowing in the pomp and circumstance of power", argue MacKenzie and Curran, Paul demanded his nobility prostrate themselves before him.[78] Whether at the palace or merely passing in the street, noted Sablukov, "all those seated inside carriages had to step out and make their bow".[96] Those seen wearing the forbidden round hats were pursued by the police and if caught by the adjutants were liable to face being bastinadoed.[96] There were 300 police detailed to uphold the Emperor's social decrees.[140] Clothes would be shredded in front of their owners and shoes confiscated in the street.[139]

Those wishing to hold balls, parties or other social gatherings—including weddings and funerals—had to follow detailed legislation, including receiving the necessary permission to do so from the local police. Further, a member of police would attend the gathering and ensure against any demonstration of lack of "loyalty, propriety and sobriety".[140]

Tailors, hatters, shoemakers and other clothiers had to apply to quartermasters' at Gatchina for instruction on the styles they were allowed to make.[140]

The scholar Lynn Hunt, discussing the fashions of France in the revolutionary period, describes the uniform of a "true Republican" as being "close-fitting pants of fine cloth, ankle boots, morning coats and round hats".[141] Paul was averse to what he saw as "French degeneracy", argues Hughes.[135] Everything he banned was suggestive, says Pares, of revolutionary France, whether in costume—round hats, frock coats, high collars—language—he prescribed public use of the word "society", "citizen"[142] and "revolution"[98]—or culture—neither European music nor literature was allowed,[142] regardless of scientific or intellectual merit.[143] Mention of or discussion about the Enlightenment was also forbidden, as Paul believed it had led directly to the revolution.[144] The press was heavily censored,[98] although though in this, Paul was continuing the work of his mother, who had also censored the press.[note 15] Paul, though, was much more energetic,[144] and his decrees "closed down any pretensions of literary liberalism".[109] Banned books included Catherine's own Instructions, a series of legal-philosophical musings based on writers such as Montesquieu, Cesare Beccaria and William Blackstone.[145] Books from France were especially targeted as they were dated by the French revolutionary calendar.[146] Booksellers were placed under police control.[77]

Waistcoats were of particular importance to Paul. The Princess Liéven later stated that "the emperor claimed that waistcoats caused the entire French Revolution somehow".[134][note 16] Also, the colour of clothing was restricted to solid colours only[121] as was the decorating of private and public buildings,[148] which had to all be repainted black and white.[149] Further instruction applied to the decoration of their doors.[121] It was orders such as these, argues Duke, that created a "the crazy atmosphere" in St Petersburg during paul's reign.[149]

The diarist and commentator Filipp Vigel was in Kiev when the Emperor's edict was announced and recognised the political overtones the seemingly garb-orientated instruction had. He described what he saw:

One thing struck me in Kiev—new costumes. In a state of madness, punishing not a stone, as Zhukovskii says about Napoleon, but dress, Paul armed himself against round hats, tailcoats, waistcoats, pantaloons, shoes and boots with cuffs. He prohibited to wear them and ordered to replace [these garments] with single-breasted caftans with a stand-up collar, tricornes, camisoles, small-clothes [short breeches] and jackboots".[150]

In 1797 paul issued a ukase prohibiting certain items of clothing—round hats, top-boots, trousers and laced shoes—and making others—such as the tricorn, powdered queues, buckled shoes and breeches—mandatory.[151] Meanwhile, the wearing of square-toed shoes and gaiters was enforced.[140] Fops, says journalist "were forced to lock waistcoats and other ominous garments in their trunks until Paul's death".[134] Not just the French style, but any that was new and fashionable was banned. This included trousers, frockcoats, round hats, top-boots, laced shoes,[96] low collars, tails waistcoats and boots.[140] Scissors were taken to the tails off "revolutionary" frockcoats. This was a particular attack on the nobility, and, says Montefiori, and "nothing was so odious" for them.[96]

Paul dictated "the only lawfully permissible wear".[140] His judicial assaults on French fashions, among other things, have been described by Vivyan as "tyrannical caprices".[152] These clothes had been allowed during Catherine's reign. Turned down coat collars were cut off and waistcoats ripped off. The hats were confiscated[153] and their wearers interrogated at the nearest guardhouse.[72] His campaign against hats and cravats was probably an expression of his desire for discipline and conformity in civilian dress, similar to that he had imposed upon the army.[120] He also regulated citizens' deportment,[111] the size of their coaches and the number of horses that drew them according to the status of their owners.[120] Also concerned about the thickness of men's moustaches,[135] hair to be combed back from the forehead[55] the depth of women's curtsies and the angle at which hats were worn.[154] Toupées were banned, large curls in the hair and sideburns, as well as bright ribbons.[56] Paul saw round hats and laced shoes as the apparel of the faubourg mobs and the sans-culottes.[143] Polish historian Kazimierz Waliszewski notes that round hats and high cravats were banned[73] along with colourful scarves.[121] No excuses were accepted,[111] and severe punishments awaited those who for did so.[73]

To enforce his decrees Paul recreated the secret the police,[63] who among other duties proactively searched the streets for men in round hats; those they found had them torn from their heads and then burnt[155] (although they appear to have been acceptable if the wearer was in traditional dress).[111] Those with wide lapels had them forcibly cut off in the street.[155][note 17] By the end of 1796, it had become apparent, through constant police surveillance and the abundance of rules, that Paul himself was effectively the individual in the country who had legal liberties.[25] He placed the police above the law,[77] and they were zealous in their enforcement of Paul's edicts.[111] His view of the police service, suggests Ragsdale, was that they guarded the citizenry against "malevolent influences", which would, therefore, enforce happiness upon the people.[157]

The nobility—the dvorianstvo—was greatly influenced by French intellectual and cultural ideas, and Catherine generally encouraged this. However, on Paul's accession, in November 1796[158] this made them an immediate target of the new Emperor. Although he began by attacking their privileges, he eventually banned most liberal ideas.[159] Waltzes were banned as licentious,[160] except before him. Anyone dancing a waltz in his presence had to ensure that when they faced him their "every pose must imply the instinct of obeisance to the Emperor".

Portrait of Charles Whitworth, Ambassador to Imperial Russia

[132]

Literature deemed to be influenced by French thinkers suppressed, but plays banned for the same reason; "even in the more superficial areas such as fashion", comments Rey.[28] Homegrown literature was banned; for instance, although the Freemasons were a legitimate body[161]—indeed, they flourished under Paul[162]—their publications were proscribed.[161][163][note 18] Thirteen words banned in all, and in some cases Gallicisms were replaced with Prussianisms. In some cases, comments Cross, however, "the logic defies understanding", some words were removed but not replaced. This particular case, suggests Cross, indicates that Paul or his censors did not keep up with what they had banned, as this very word subsequently appeared in an Imperial decree of 1798.[146] Other words banned by Paul were otechevesto (fatherland), grazhdanin and obshchestvo.[121]

Although there was a degree of continuity from the previous reign, as Catherine had also proscribed cravats which were high enough to cover the chin.[151] Generally, though Paul's motive was as much that French fashions had been popular in her reign.[98] Paul's was effectively a reaction against his mother, and the reforms he brought in were intentionally directed at the aristocracy, whom Catherine had encouraged to imitate that of France at Versailles.[142] Fashion in directoire France was a reaction against the sombre, egalitarian clothes enjoined upon the populace by the Jacobin government. With the Thermidorian Reaction came a relaxation which saw a return to fancy clothes, especially colourful waistcoats and cravats so high they might cover the chin.[134][note 19]

Traffic was to drive sedately, even the troikas.[55] Balls and dances before the Imperial couple, commented Czartoryski, were events where "one risked losing his liberty", as numerous in-house spies were constantly reporting back to the Emperor or his wife anything that could be construed as a slight against them.[165]

The cultural transition occurred almost overnight. The Polish diplomat Adam Jerzy Czartoryski relates how "never was there any change of scene at a theatre so sudden and so complete as the change of affairs at the accession of Paul. In less than a day, costumes, manners, occupations, all were altered".[96] The biographer E. M. Almedingen comments that "less than a fortnight after the death of the Empress, a thick grey curtain fell upon the once gay 'Venice of the North'".[140] The diplomat Yury Golovkin described St Petersburg under Paul as a prison controlled form the Winter Palace where "before which one may not pass, even in the absence of the sovereign, without taking off one’s hat", and that one could not approach "without showing police passes seven times over".[139] Foreigners, although officially exempt from this treatment, usually received it as well since the police did not ask questions as to whom they were stopping.[111] The British Ambassador in St Petersburg, Sir Charles Whitworth, had his nephew—a dandy—staying with him; the nephew was also manhandled in this way.[166] Whitworth himself swiftly changed his headgear to avoid similar treatment.[66]

Domestic affairs had primacy for most of the reign,[167] and until 1797 was the sole focus of Paul's activity.[168][note 20] Farquhar notes that Paul's "domestic tyranny coincided with a bizarre foreign policy".[129]

Early foreign policy showed signs of maturity, recalling expeditionary forces from Persia and releasing Polish prisoners.[118]

reversed Catherines's policy towards the southern region, by neglecting the areas she had confiscated from the Ottoman Empire and legislated against runaway serfs to Novorossija being treated as colonists rather than fugitives.[170]

for example, an arbitrary edict banning the trade of timber with Britain.[171] Banned items were banned from both entering and leaving Russia.[126] Paul's behaviour encouraged foreign observers to assume that Russia would sink back into an unenlightened state.[135]

He felt he had been insulted at not being invited to participate at the Congress of Rastatt in 1797—which in William Doyle's words was "redrawing the map of Germany without consulting him"—and France's seizure of Malta confirmed his anti-French policy.[172] French visitors were only allowed into the country on production of a passport issued under the Bourbons rather than the French revolutionary government,[173] thus, says Spector, "proving he would not be a source of revolutionary propaganda".[126] Paul welcomed French émigrés, and granted Louis XVI a pension and estate.[174]

There was also concern that his foreign policy was becoming erratic, and that his planned invasion of India was "dangerous and even foolish" for Russia to attempt to undertake,.[175] and his son, on hearing of the plan, declared that Paul had "declared war on common sense".[176] James Jenny, for example, suggests that it was not only Paul's rejection of Britain as an ally against Napoleon that made his nobility question his sanity but the speed with which he did so.[177][note 21] Ragsdale argues that among Paul's contemporaries, opinion varied, and ranged from his being a fool to a hero. None of them, however, says Ragsdale, deny that by 1800 Paul was either "the dupe or the willing creature".[180][note 22] However, Muriel Atkin argues that Paul's foreign policy was more pragmatic than his other's or, for that matter, that of his son.[181] The Russian scholar Boris Nolde argued that Paul was proactive in expanding Russian territories, yet was unable to base his policies on an analytical assessment of circumstances.[182]

Paul had offended too many important vested interests, argues Esdaile,[194] and so with Alexander's permission, members of Paul's nobility plotted to remove him. the deposition took place on the evening of 23 March 1801; during a struggle, Paul was killed.[195] His death was later to be announced to have been due to apoplexy, which Grey suggests was plausible on account of the "insensate rages" he was known for.[196]

The aristocracy did not often speak or act as a single homogenous bloc,[197] and this prevented them from offering a united resistance.[198] His assassination, suggests Dixon, indicates that there was an unstated boundary over which a Tsar should not step except with the consent of his nobility.[94] Lieven identifies Paul's own claim, that no-one was noble in Russia except he to whom Paul was speaking, as being directly contributory to his downfall.[61] He argues that their motivation was both Paul's foreign policy and their fear of his attacks upon their class.[61]

The words "waistcoat", "tailcoat" and "pantaloons" did not re-enter the Dictionary of the Russian Academy for decades. In his 1833 verse-novel, the poet Alexander Pushkin mentions the foreignness of certain words even then: "No pantalony frak, zhilet/Vsekh etikh slov na russkom net"[134] ("But pants, tailcoat, vest/There are no such words in Russian").[203] "[note 25]

Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, the wife of Nicholas II, told the latter—who was facing discontent in the State Duma in 1916—that in dealing with his enemies he should be more like "Peter the Great, John the Terrible, Emperor Paul—crush them under you".[205]

Ragsdale notes that while Paul is generally agreed to have been—"with varying degrees of explicitness"—mentally abnormal, there is, he suggests, "an undercurrent of suspicion" that this has been artificially influenced by the views of a small number of erudite contemporaries and the memoirs they have left. As a result, Ragsdale recommend that historiographers avoid them.[210] Ragsdale suggests that there are better contemporary sources than memoirs, suggesting the writings of Paul's intimates, such as his tutors, records of his public appearances and foreign diplomatic reports.[210] McGrew suggests that the diplomatic reports and briefings are invaluable sources.[45] There are, though, he suggests, sufficient complaints in contemporary sources to conclude that people hated what the Emperor was doing. He, in the knowledge that his policies were for the best, ignored them.[113]

Alexander himself wrote that[187]

No remonstrance is ever tolerated until the damage has already been done. In short, to speak plainly, the happiness of the State counts for nothing in the governing of affairs. There is only one absolute power, which does everything without rhyme or reason. It would be impossible to enumerate to you all the mad things that have been done ... My poor country is in an indescribable state: the farmer harassed, commerce obstructed, liberty and personal welfare reduced to nothing. That is the picture of Russia.[187]

His wife, Elizabeth Alexeievna also disliked Paul, describing him to her mother as—in their native German—widerwartig (disgusting), and that "said so himself. And his wish is generally fulfilled, he is feared and hated."[211] Paul's Grand Marshal, Fyodor Rostopchin, however, blamed Paul's advisors rather than the Emperor himself, later writing that he was "surrounded by such people that the most honest would deserve to be hanged without trial".[212][213] Rospotchin continued that paul was "destroying himself and contriving the means of making himself hated".[213] Paul's mental condition may have allowed his assassins to have persuaded themselves that they were acting in the interests of Russia rather themselves, suggests Kenney, if they saw the country's interests "threatened by an insane Tsar".[178]

A petty tyrant, regular outbursts of intense rage, with the "salient feature" of his policy being to reverse his mother's policy where he could.[192][214] Atkin sums up Paul's problem in that he "had an unhappy talent for making even his wisest moves appear ill-considered".[215] Ragsdale suggests that Paul's problem with the army was that he overly focussed on superficial details rather than broad reorganisations, which contemporaries called the "Gatchina spirit": "parades and manoeuvres, uniforms and equipment, awards and punishments, in short with the minutiae of army life, and a corresponding neglect of weightier matters likely to prove decisive in war: morale, professional training [and] technical progress".[216] Paul's changes were nether revolutionary nor swiftly imposed, argues Waliszewski,[92] but his policies have been summarised as "instability and capriciousness".[217] While Wortman suggests that hos reign was an "embarrassment" for his successors.[218]

Ragsdale also argues that it is not impossible that certain of his intimates, such as Count Pahlen, manipulated Paul and events surrounding him so as to create the impression of bizarre behaviour as a way of subtly paving the way for the eventual coup, although he notes that there is little that can be done about that.[210] McGrew argues that "even if Paul was not the monster his detractors claimed he was, it is doubtful he deserves the approving tone which marks some recent writing", as even some of those who sympathised with him at the time criticised him.[219] Historian David R. Stone argues that Paul's edicts over round hats and cravats, for example, were "small matter that symbolized a larger shortcoming".[220] It is also likely that Paul believed that his policies, while hated by those they were directed at, were, in fact, improving people's happiness.[121] If nothing else, says Ragsdale, "there is no denying that the man was bizarre and that his conduct was radically imprudent".[221]

The historian John W. Strong says that Paul I has traditionally had "the dubious distinction of being known as the worst Tsar in the history of the Romanov dynasty", as well as there being a question about his sanity, although Strong concludes that such "generalisations ... are no longer satisfactory".[222] Anatole G. Mazour called Paul "one of the most colourful personalities" of his dynasty.[223] Russian historians have traditionally been dismissive of Paul on account of his eccentricities. I. A. Fedosov called him a "crazy despot [who] threatened to discredit the very idea of absolutism".[224][225] Dixon argues that Paul was no more absolutist than Catherine had been; for her too, "consensus had to be achieved on her terms".[226] Paul's reign was an object lesson, suggest Ryeff, and regardless of his good intentions, in the need for security and calm, rather than his brand of arbitrary government.[79] MacKenzie and Curran summarise the significance of Paul's campaign against his mother's legacy as demonstrating the dangers of autocracy in irresponsible hands, and the nobility realised that "autocratic power could destroy privileges as well as grant them".[69] A "frivolous petty tyrant", suggest McGrew,[25] while Duke argues that Paul's "anecdotal" brutality have caricatured him.[149] Grey has argued that while his domestic policy may have been rational in intention, it was anything but in its execution.[105] Professor Bernard Pares has called Paul "essentially a tyrant".[132] Historian Lindsey Hughes says that Paul's reign contrasted sharply with his "laid back" predecessor.

Poster for the 1934 film Lieutenant Kijé

[135]

McGrew, like Rostochpin at the time, argues that Paul was let down by his subordinates, who were "either venal or incompetent". He also blames personal qualities, however, describing his rages as tantrums that made him appear a "small-minded martinet who might order but could never lead".[25]

For Dixon, Paul's reign exemplifies the importance of the individual in history, in how easy it was for Paul to dismantle so much of Catherine's work in such a short space of time.[227] Conversely, for Marc Raeff, Paul's reign demonstrates the danger of failing to institutionalise the bureaucracy, as there was an inherent risk in it being at the mercy of a highly personalised style of governance such as his.[228] Paul's reign, argue MacKenzie and Curran, is both "controversial and disputed";[207] Cobenzl noted that, while the Emperor had ability and good intentions, his mercurial personality combined with inexperience made his approach ineffective.[25] Historian Walther Kirchner has described Paul's reforms as "arbitrary and useless",[143] while Rey notes their internal inconsistency.[28]

Other examples of Paul's eccentricities that survive have been accepted by historians as having a kernel of truth.[149][229] For example, notes Duke, that of Lieutenant Kijé, a fictional creation on a military recruitment list—the result of a clerk's misspelling—who Paul supposedly promoted, made a general, died and was demoted all without the Emperor ever seeing him; at the same time a living man was written out of existence [149][229][note 28] On being told of the non-existent Kijé's untimely death, Paul is supposed to have replied: "that it is a great pity, as he was such a good officer". This "factual life of [a] fictitious lieutenant" was first described by the lexicographer Vladimir Dal, who said he received it from his father.[231]