Documents in Russian HistorySeton Hall University, Russian and East European Studies Program

http://artsci.shu.edu/reesp/documents/Sources--main.htm

Currently the following sources are available:

Muscovy, Pre-Petrine Russia    Samuel Collins:   "On the Present State of Russia."

Peter the Great    Proclamation on the Introduction of the New Calendar, 1700    Decree on Single Inheritance     Pavel Miliukov on the Reforms of Peter the Great

Eighteenth Century Russia    The "Conditions" of Anna Ivanovna's Accession to the Throne    Peter III's Manifesto Freeing Nobles from Obligatory Service    The Pugachev Rebellion    Catherine the Great's Instruction to the Legislative Commission    Alexander Radishchev, Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow

Nineteenth Century Russia    Petr Chaadaev, First Philosophical Letter    Vissarion Belinsky, Letter to Gogol    Alexander II, Emancipation Manifesto, February 19, 1861    Alexander Nikitenko responds to the Emancipation Manifesto    A. V. Iartsev, Proclamation of a Populist Activist, 1874    Alexander III, Manifesto of April 29, 1881    Konstantin Pobedonostsev, Reflections of a Russian Statesman    Sources on Mixed Marriage (courtesy of Paul Werth)

The Russian Revolution, 1905-1921    Lenin, "What is to be Done."    Workers' Petition, January 9, 1905 (Bloody Sunday)    Manifesto of October 17, 1905    Manifesto of June 3, 1907 (Dissolution of the Second Duma)

The Soviet Union    Stalin on the Industrialization of the Soviet Union.

Samuel Collins on the Court of Aleksei Mikhailovich (1670)

Samuel Collins (1619-1670) was an English physician invited in 1660 to serve as the personal physician of the Russian Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich.  He spent nine years in Moscow before his death.  In 1671 a volume entitled "On the Present State of Russia" was compiled by a publisher from a series of letters written by Collins to Robert Boyle, a well-known English scientist.

I shall now give you a further description of the Czar. He is a goodly person, about six foot high, well set, inclin'd to fat, of a clear complexion, lightish hair, somewhat a low forehead, of a stern countenance, severe in his chastisements, but very careful of his Subjects love. Being urged by a Stranger to make it death for any man to desert his Colours; he answer'd, it was a hard case to do that, for God has not given courage to all men alike. He never appears to the people but in magnificance, and on festivals with wonderful splendor of Jewels and Attendants. He never went to any Subjects house but his Governours when he was thought past all recovery. His Centinels and Guards placed round about his Court, stand like silent and immoveable Statues. No noise is heard in his Pallace, no more than if uninhabited. None but his Domesticks are suffer'd to approach the inward Court, except the Lords that are in Office. He never dines publickly but on Festivals, and then his Nobility dine in his presence. At Easter all the Nobility and Gentry, and Courtiers kiss the Emperours hand, and receive Eggs. Every meal he sends dishes of meat to his Favourites from his own Table. His stores of Corn, and dry'd flesh are very considerable, with these he pays his Strelsies or Janzaries, giving them some cloth, but very little money; for they have all Trades, and great Priviledges.

The Emperour with his Pottash, Wax and Honey, he buys Velvet, Sattin, Damask, cloth of Gold and Broad-cloth, with which he gratifies his Officers for their service. He hath now seven Versts off Mosco, built Work-houses for Hemp and Flax, in that good order, beauty and capacity, that they will employ all the poor in his Kingdom with work. He hath allotted many miles of wast Land for that design. The Czaritza is to govern the womens side for her use and profit. Thus the Czar improves the Manufactures of his Countrey, feeds all the Labourers as cheap as we do our Dogs. And lays up the money that comes out of the Cabacks, Bath stoves, Tarr, Pitch, Hemp, Flax, Honey, Wax, Cariare, Sturgeon, Bellusa, and other salted and dry'd fish from Astracan, Cazan, the Lake Belsira, and many other Lakes and Rivers with which the Countrey abounds, especially Syberia in the latter. [....]

Every year towards the latter end of May the Czar goes three miles out of Moscow, to an house of pleasure call'd Obrasausky : In English Transfiguration, being dedicated to the Transfiguration in the Mount. And according to that, Master 'tis good for us to be here, let us make three Tabernacles ; So the Emperour has most magnificent Tents, his own is made of cloth of Gold, lined

with Sables. His Czaritsa's with cloth of Silver, lined with Ermines. The Princes according to their degree. His and Czaritsa's, with those of his eleven children and five Sisters, stand in a circle with the Church-Tent in the middle, the most glorous show in its kind that ever I saw. There are Rails and Guards set Musquet shot from them, beyond which no man may pass without order: For the Czar will have none of the vulgar people to be eye-witnesses of his pastimes. Indeed the too near approaches of the common Rabble make discovery of Princes' infirmities, not to say vanities, Majesty is jealous of Gazers. This made Montezume King of Mexico keep his Subjects at such a distance that they aurst not behold him, familiarity breeds contempt, when Princes expose themselves too much unto pulick view, they grow cheap, and are little regarded. Therefore in a Theatre, the State is rail'd in, that the Spectators may not crowd upon the Scenes, which show best at a distance. And so it fares with Princes, the more they are reserv'd the more they are observ'd, the more implor'd the more ador'd; otherwise they run a great hazard of being condemn'd, and reckon'd no better than their Subjects, seeing an equal mortality and frailty of flesh attends all men. When the Czar goes into the Country or fields to take his pleasure he gives strict charge that none should interrupt him with Petitions. A Captain of white Russia, and native of that Countrey being three years without pay, and finding no reliefs from Peter Solticove Lord of that Province, came and press'd too near the Czars coach; the Czar perceiving no petition in his hand, suspected he might be an Assassinate, and with his staff (once Cxar Juans ) not unlike a dart, intending to push the fellow away, he struck him to the heart, and he died. The Nobility rid up to the coach, and searching what arms the man had, found nothing but a wooden spoon, and a petition for three years Arrears, Whereupon the Czar smote his Breast, saying, I have kill'd an innocent person, but Peter Solticove is guilty of his blood, whom God forgive; and immediatly sending for him, after a severe check, he turn'd him out of his place, banished him from the Court, and appointed Nashockin that great Minister of State to take his Office, and examine and find out the misdemeanours thereof. This hapned in June last, and this action was but whispered, and that too with too much peril of a mans tongue.

In the night season the Czar will go about and visit his Chancellors Desks, and see what Decrees are pass'd, and what Petitions are unanswer'd. He has his spyes in every corner, and nothing is done or said at any Feast, publick Meeting, Burial or Weding but he knows it. He has spyes also attending his Armies to watch their motions, and give a true account of their actions: These spyes are Gentlement of small fortunes who depend on the Emperours favour and are sent into Armies, and along with Embassadors, and are present on all publick occasions.

'Tis death for any one to reveal what is spoken in the Czars Pallace. I being curious to see the fine buildings for the Flax and Hemp, ask't to what end they were built, but not a Workman durst tell me, though they know it well enough; but they replied, God and the Emperour know best, this was all I could get from them. The Czars children are attended with children of their own bred up with them, and there is none of them but know their distance, and their degrees of

bowing to all sorts of persons. None dare speak a word what passes in their Court.

NOTES

1.   Strelsies.  Musketeers.  From the Russian Streliat', meaning to shoot.  The modern transliteration is Streltsy.

2.   Versts.  An old Russian unit of measurement.  One verst = .66 miles.

3.   Cabacks.  Taverns.  Standard translateration is Kabak.

4.   Obrasausky.   Collins is referring to the estate known as Preobrazhensky which is located on the outskirts of  Moscow.

5.   Nashockin.   Afanasy Ordin-Nashchokin.  One of the Aleksei Mikhailovich's key assistants during the latter part of his reign.

Excepted from Samuel Collins, On the Present State of Russia, (London, 1671)  On-line edition edited by Marshall Poe.  Used with permission of the editor. 

 

How Russians Celebrated the Year 1700

Proclamation on the Introduction of a New Calendar, December 20, 1699

The Great Sovereign ordered that it be said: It is known to the him, the Great Sovereign, that not only in many European Christian countries, but also among the Slavic peoples, who are in full accord with our Eastern Orthodox Church, such as: the Wallachians, Moldavians, Serbs, Dalmations, Bulgarians, and Cherkess, subjects of the Great Sovereign himself, and all the Greeks, from whom our Orthodox faith was received, years are counted starting eight days from the birth of Christ, that is from the first day of January, and not from the creation of the world… And now the 1699th year from the birth of Christ has come, and next January from the first of the month will begin the new 1700th year along with the new century. And for this good and opportune occasion, the Great Sovereign ordered that from now on years are to be counted in the chancelleries and in all papers and documents are to be dated from the present first of January from the birth of Christ as 1700. And as a sign of this benevolent endeavor and the new centennial era in the capital city of Moscow, after the requisite thanks to God and singing of prayers in Churches and in the homes… decorations are to be put up along the large streets and thoroughfares and along the gates of the greatest houses of lay and clerical servitors. [They] should be made from the limbs and branches of pine, yule and juniper trees in accordance with the models that are displayed at the trading court and the pharmacy building or in whatever way seems most appropriate and decent; Poor people should put up at least a bough or a branch on the gate or on their houses. and it should be done on time, this coming January by the first day of this year; and this decoration is to stay in place until the seventh day of 1700. And on the first day in January, as a sign of merriment, in congratulating each other on the New Year and centennial era, the follow should be performed: when on the Great Red Square the fireworks are lighted and the salute begins, the high court Boyars, and Okolnichyi, the important officials, the most prominent people of the chancellery, military servitors and high ranking merchants, each in his own court, should perform a triple salute from a small cannon, for those who have them, or from several muskets or other small arms and set off several rockets, as many as can be mustered. And in the large streets, where there is space, from January 1 to 7 bonfires should be lit at night from logs or brush or straw.   Small families should assemble in groups of five or six households and build their fires, for those who so desire, on platforms in one two or three tar barrels, which they should fill it with straw or brush to light. This is so that it will be within the power of the Burgmeister to [oversee] these salutes and fires and also to have jurisdiction over these fires and salutes and decorations.

Source: Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, v. 3, no. 1736.

Translated by Nathaniel Knight

1/18/2000

Decree on Single Inheritance, March 23, 1714

We, Peter I, Tsar and Autocrat of All Russia, etc., issue this ukaz for all the subjects of Our state, of whatever rank or status:

The division of estates upon the death of fathers causes great harm to Our state and state interests and brings ruin to our subjects and to the families concerned; for example: 

1. Concerning Taxes. Suppose a man had 1000 [serf] households and five sons, had a fine manor, a good table, and a sound relationship with people; if after his death this property is divided among his children, each would receive 200 households; those children, remembering the fame of their father and the honor of their line [rod] would not wish to live the life of an orphan; everyone can see that the poor subjects [serfs](1) will have to supply five tables instead of one and that 200 households cannot bear the burden (including state taxes) previously borne by 1000. Does not this practice bring ruin to the people and harm to state interest? Because 200 households cannot make payments as reliably to the state and to the nobleman as 1000 households could, because (as noted above) one lord will be satisfied with [revenues from] 1000 [households] (but not from 200) and will moderate the situation of the peasants, who will be able to pay taxes punctually to both the state and to the lord. Consequently, division of estates brings great harm to the government treasury and ruin base people.

2. Concerning Families. And should each of those five sons have two sons, each of them son will receive 100 households, and should they further multiply, they will be so impoverished that they may turn into one-household owners, with the result that [the descendants of] a glorious line, in place of fame, will turn into villagers; there are already many examples of this among the Russian people [rossiiskii narod].

3. On Indolence: On top of these two harms, there is yet another. Anyone who receives his bread gratuitously, even if it is not much, will neither serve the state without compulsion nor try to improve himself; on the contrary, each will seek any excuse to live in idleness, which (according to Holy Scripture) is the mother of all evil.

In contrast to Item 1: If all real estate were to be handed down to one son and the others were to inherit only movable property, then state revenues would be sounder; the nobleman would be better off even if he should collect small amounts from a larger number [of serfs]; there will be only one manor [dom] instead of five (as stated above); and he can show favor to his subjects [serfs]. As for Item 2: Families will not decline, but will remain stable in all their glory and their manors shall remain famous and renowned. Regarding Item 3: The remaining [members of the family] will not be idle because they will be forced to earn their bread through service, teaching, trade, and so forth. And whatever they do for their own living will also benefit the state.

Because this [new system] is intended to bring benefit, the following is proclaimed:

(a) All real estate, i.e. hereditary, service, and purchased estates, as well as homes and stores, should neither be sold nor mortgaged but retained in the [family] line in the following manner:

(b) Whoever has sons must bequeath his real estate to one, who will inherit all; other children of both sexes, however many there are, will be awarded movable property which either the father or mother will divide for both sons and daughters in the amount they wish, except that the one who inherits the real estate [will be excluded]. If someone does not have sons, but daughters only, he should then designate one in the same manner. If someone fails to assign [his property], a government decree will assign the real estate to the eldest son as his inheritance, while movable property will be divided equally among the others; obviously, the same procedure is to apply to daughters.

(c) Whoever is childless is free to leave his real estate to one of the members of his family, whomever he wishes, and the movable [property] to his kin or even to outsiders. And if he fails to do this, both forms of property will then be divided by a decree among the members of the line, real estate to the closest relative and the rest to all others equally...

 

Translated by Daniel Field

(1) The decree uses the same word, podannye, for subjects of the sovereign (as in the first sentence) as for “subjects” of a squire, i.e. serfs.

Pavel Miliukov on the reforms of Peter the Great.

Pavel Miliukov (1859-1943) was educated at Moscow University where he studied under V. O. Kliuchevskii, Russia's leading historian.  After completing in 1893 a pathbreaking dissertation on State Administration  under Peter the Great, Miliukov began a short-lived career teaching at Moscow University which came to an abrupt end in 1895 when he was dismissed for his political views.  Miliukov went on to become one of the founders of the liberal Kadet party and a major political figure in the last years of Tsarist Russia.  After the revolution of 1917, in which he played a prominent role, he continued to be active in exile as a writer, scholar and editor.  The passage below is from his major work "Outlines of the History of Russian Culture," first published in the late 1890s and revised and republished in the 1930s.

In the absence of a [consciously developed plan of reform] there remained only one feeling, continually raising Peter above all the trifles and details in which he was constantly entangled. This feeling was very strongly developed in Peter and was the only thing that could discipline him, take the place of all the restraint that his upbringing could not provide. This was the feeling of responsibility, the feeling of duty, of obligation imposed from without. It is curious how even this consciousness of duty toward the motherland takes on the form with Peter of military discipline, the form most comprehensible for him and for those around him... He served the fatherland – not only as a Tsar, as the "first servant" in the manner of Frederick the Great; no – he served above all as a drummer boy, a bombardier, a night watchman, a vice admiral...In all of Peter’s activity we find nothing more deeply rooted, almost to the point of instinct, no other guiding idea other than this idea of service...The feeling of duty, without a doubt, helped Peter – amidst all the fluctuations and vicissitudes of fortune, amidst his own impulses and caprices – to hold his will steady, to outlast his enemies, his allies, his helpers and his nation in the quest to attain the goals he had set. But this feeling could never take the place of a clear plan or make Peter’s actions systematic.

The absence of such a plan and system, without a doubt, could only deprive the reformer of the chance to control the reforms, the guide their progress in a fully conscious and expedient manner. In other words, his personal influence on the reforms was significantly diminished in scope under these circumstances. But this condition only casts into particularly sharp relief...the degree of personal participation that nonetheless remained...  One only has to go over in one’s mind the main objects of Peter’s reform to become convinced of the truth of this point... Let us look at just one area of reform that would seem to be the most personal, the most dependent on the will of the reformer and, consequently the most accessible to planned implementation. Petersburg-- this was the embodiment of all the passions and antipathies of Peter: his love for the sea and the navy, his need for wide open space, his habit of dabbling in the external cultural environment, and his fear in the face of the hollow hostility of the old capital. This Petrine "paradise," created, according to the picturesque Finnish legend, entirely in the air and then lowered all at once into a marsh so that it would not sink in separate pieces, this Petersburg also reflected not only the full substance of the reforms in miniature, but also all of their methods. On the small patches of land, divided up by the mouth of the Neva, Peter thrashed about for ten years without tiring, and the result was again a mass of unproductive wasted efforts, a mass of beginnings without ends, magnificent and expensive plans left without realization, and nothing coherent. One day Petersburg was to be on the present day Petrograd side. And so they began to build there churches, an exchange, shops, buildings of the colleges, and private houses, which every nobleman in service was required to build, depending on his wealth. The next day it seemed better to move the trade and main settlement to Kronstadt. And

there again, every province had to erect an enormous stone building, in which no one would live and which would gradually fall into ruin over time. Meanwhile, the city was emerging in a new place, between the Admiralty and the Summer Garden, where the banks were higher and the danger from floods not as great. And again, Peter was not satisfied.   In his leisure time during his last years, a new idea came to mind: to turn Petersburg into Amsterdam, to replace the streets with canals, and for this to move the entire city to the very lowest place, Vasil’ev Island, which had earlier been given in its entirety to Menshikov. To protect from floods and hostile attacks, dykes would have to be built.  And once again the entire nobility, which had already built their homes in other parts of Petersburg, received mandatory invitations to build obligatory houses on Vasil’ev Island. Peter dies, and the building that had started was abandoned. The houses fell into disrepair and served merely as the butt of jokes: in other countries time creates ruins, but in Russia we build them on purpose...

The personality of Peter is visible everywhere in his reforms: his imprint lies in every detail. And it is precisely this feature that imparts to the reforms to a significant degree it elemental nature. This endless repetition and accumulation of experiences, this uninterrupted cyclone of destruction and creation, and in the midst of it all a kind of inexhaustible life force which no sacrifice, no loss, no failure has the power to break or even to stop. These are all features which are more reminiscent of the wastefulness of nature in all its blind elemental creativity, than the political art of a statesman. In drawing this conclusion, we must not forget yet another feature... It is precisely due to the particular form that the reforms took that they cease to appear as a miracle and descend to the level of the surrounding reality. They had to be the way they were in order to correspond with this reality. Their randomness, arbitrariness, individuality, and violence are all necessary features. And despite their sharply anti-national appearance, they are completely rooted in the conditions of national life. Russia received the only reform that it was capable of receiving. (166)

Source: P. N. Miliukov, Ocherki po istorii russkoi kul’tury (Moscow, 1995), v. 3, pp. 161-162, 166.

Translated by Nathaniel Knight

1/18/00

The "Conditions" of Anna Ivanovna's Accession to the Throne, 1730The sudden death of the young Peter II in early 1730 threw Russia in a serious succession crisis.   With no remaining male heirs to the Romanov line, the ruling elites dominated by the Dolgorukii and Golitsyn families, turned to Anna Ivanovna, daughter of the feeble-minded Ivan V and niece of Peter the Great, as an acceptably weak and innocuous candidate for the throne.  To insure their continuing domination under the new ruler, the elites, working through the institution of the Supreme Privy Council created by Catherine I, required Anna to sign a document stipulating a number of significant restrictions on her power as a monarch.   But when Anna arrived in Moscow and news of the "conditions" of her accession to the throne became known, a storm of protest broke out among the nobility

who feared the power of the Supreme Privy Council.   In the constitutional crisis that ensured a number of projects and proposals  were put forward. Ultimately, however, Anna, relying on the support of the nobility and guards regiments, opted to repudiate the previously signed conditions and restore to Russia the principle of unimpeded autocratic rule.  In retrospect, some historian have interpreted Anna's "conditions" as a precedent for constitutionalism in Russian.   The text of Anna's conditions follows:

 

We hereby give a most binding promise that my main concern and effort shall be not only to maintain but to spread, as far as possible and in every way, our Orthodox faith of the Greek Confession. Moreover, after accepting the Russian crown, I will not enter into wedlock so long as I live; nor will I designate a successor, either in my lifetime or after. We also promise that, since the safety and welfare of every state depends upon good counsel, we will always maintain the Supreme Privy Council as it is at present established with its membership of eight persons. Without the consent of this Supreme Privy Council:

1. We will not start a war with anybody.

2. We will not conclude peace.

3. We will not burden our faithful subjects with new taxes.

4. We will not promote anybody to high rank--above the rank of colonel--either in the civil or military service, be it on land or sea, nor will we assign any important affair to anybody; the guards and other important regiments are to remain under the control of the Supreme Privy Council.

5. We will not deprive members of the nobility [shliakhetstvo] of life, possessions, or honor without a court of law.

6. We will not grant any patrimonies [votchiny] or villages.

7. We will not promote anyone, whether Russian or foreign, to an office at court without the advice of the Supreme Privy Council.

8. We will not spend any revenues of state.

And [we also promise] to maintain an unalterably favorable disposition toward all our faithful subjects. Should I not carry out or fail to live up to any part of this promise, I shall be deprived of the Russian crown.

 

Translation by Daniel Field

Peter III's Manifesto Freeing Nobles from Obligatory Service: 1762

All Europe, indeed the greater part of the world, knows what difficulties and effort that Peter the Great, wise monarch of immortal memory, Our dear sovereign grandfather and Emperor of all the Russias, had to expend in his efforts, solely with a view to bringing benefit and welfare to fatherland, to introduce into Russia advanced knowledge of military, civil, and political affairs.

To achieve this goal it was essential first to coerce the nobles, the chief body of the state, and convince them of the great advantages enjoyed by enlightened states over those countless peoples who are sunk in the depths of ignorance. Because the circumstances of the time then demanded extreme sacrifices from Russian Nobles, he [Peter I] did not show any mercy towards them, he forced them into military and civil service, and furthermore required noble youth to study the various liberal arts and also useful skills; he sent [some of] them to European countries, and, to achieve the same goal as rapidly as possible, established various schools in Russia itself.

It is true that in the beginning these innovations were burdensome and unendurable for the nobles, as they were deprived of peace, were forced to leave their homes, were obliged against their will to serve in the army or to perform other service, and were required to register their children. In consequence some nobles tried to evade these requirements, for which they were fined or even forfeited their estates, since they had shown themselves indifferent to their own best interest and that of their descendants. These demands, though burdensome in the beginning and accompanied by force, proved to be much advantage during the reigns of Peter the Great's successors, especially during the reign of Our dear aunt, Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, of glorious memory, who followed in the footsteps of her sovereign father, who supported the knowledge of political affairs and who, by her protection, extended much useful knowledge throughout Russia. We can look with pride at everything that has occurred, and every true son of the country will agree that great advantages have resulted from all this. Manners have been improved; knowledge has replaced illiteracy; devotion and zeal for military affairs resulted in the appearance of many experienced and brave generals; civil and political concerns have attracted many intelligent people; in a word, noble thoughts have penetrated the hearts of all true Russian patriots who have revealed toward Us their unlimited devotion, love, zeal, and fervor. Because of all these reasons We judge it to be no longer necessary to compel the nobles into service, as has been the practice hitherto. Because of these circumstances, and by virtue of the authority granted to Us by the almighty, We grant freedom and liberty to the entire Russian nobility, by Our High Imperial Grace, from this movement and forever, to all future generations. They may continue to perform service in Our Empire or in other European countries friendly to our State on the basis of the following rules:

1. All nobles who are presently in our service may continue as long as they wish or as long as their health may permit; those serving in the army may request release or furlough during a campaign or three months before a campaign; they should wait for release until the end of a war; those serving in the army may request release or retirement permits from their superiors and must wait for these permits; those serving Us in various capacities in the first eight ranks must apply for their release directly to Us; other ranks will be released by the departments for which they work.

2. At their retirement We will reward all nobles who serve Us well and faultlessly by promoting them to a higher rank, provided they have served at least one year in the rank from which they

retired; those who wish to retire from military service and enter civil service, provided there is a vacancy for them, should be rewarded only if they have served three years in a given rank.

3. Those nobles who have retired or those who have terminated their military or civil service for Us, but who should express a desire to re-enter the military service, shall be admitted, provided they prove worthy of those ranks to which they belong and provided they will not be elevated to ranks higher than those of their co-servicemen who were equal in rank at the retirement; if they should be elevated in rank this should go into effect from the day they re-join the service over those who have retired and also make it possible for those who have retired from one service to join other services.

4. Those nobles who, freed from Our service, who wish to travel to other European countries should immediately receive the necessary passports from Our Foreign College under one condition: namely, that should ever a pressing need arise, those nobles shall return home whenever they are notified. Everyone should fulfill this request as soon as possible; those who fail to comply with it will have their property confiscated.

5. ... [on Russians who would serve in other states.]

6. By virtue of this manifesto, no Russian nobleman will ever be forced to serve against his will; nor will any of Our administrative departments make use of them except in emergency cases and then only if We personally should summon them; this rule also applies to the nobility of the Smolensk area. An exception to this rule is St. Petersburg and Moscow, where an ukaz of the Sovereign Emperor Peter I stipulated that some men from among the retired nobles should be made available for various needs at the Senate and at the [Heraldic] Office; We amend this Imperial rule by decreeing that henceforth there should be selected annually thirty men to serve in the Senate and twenty to serve in the Office. These men should be chosen by the Heraldic Office from among the nobles living in the provinces and not from those still in service. No one should be designated by name for this duty. Nobles themselves should decide who should be selected in the districts and provinces. Local officials should forward the names of those so selected to the Heraldic Office and also provide those selected with needed items.

7. Although, by this gracious manifesto we grant forever freedom to all of Our Russian nobles, except freeholders [odnodvortsy], Our fatherly concern for them as well as for their children will continue. These latter, We decree, should henceforth, whenever they reach twelve years of age, be reported to the Heraldic Office in districts, provinces, or cities or wherever is most convenient. From their parents or relatives who are bringing them up, information should be obtained about the level of the children's education up to the age of twelve and where they would like to continue their studies, whether within Our State in various institutions We have founded, in European countries, or, should the means of their parents allow it, in their own homes by experienced and skillful teachers. No nobleman should keep his children uneducated under the penalty of Our anger. Those noblemen who have under 1000 serfs should report their children to Our Cadet Corps of the Nobility, where they will learn everything befitting a nobleman and where they will be educated with the utmost care. Following his education each nobleman will assume his rank in accordance with his dignity and reward, and subsequently each may enter and continue his service as indicated above.

8. Those nobles who presently are in Our military service as soldiers or non-commissioned officers below the rank of oberofitser, that is, those who have failed to attain officer rank, should not be allowed to retire unless they have served twelve years in the army.

9. We grant this gracious act to all of Our nobles for eternity as a fundamental and unalterable law; by Our Imperial word We pledge to observe it in its entirety in the most solemn and irrevocable manner. Our rightful successors should not alter it in any way whatsoever, as their adherence to this decree will serve as an indispensable support for the autocratic throne of All Russia. We hope that in return for this act Russian nobles, realizing what great concern We have shown toward them and toward their descendants, will continue to serve Us loyally and zealously and will not withdraw from Our service; on the contrary, that they will seek the service eagerly and will continue it as long as possible, and will educate their children attentively in useful knowledge; those who will not perform any service will also lead purposeless lives and will not educate their children in any useful subject. Such people are not concerned with the general good, and We order all true sons of the Fatherland to despise and demolish [!] them. We will not allow such people any access to Our court, nor will We tolerate their presence at public assemblies and festivals.

The Pugachev Rebellion, 1773-1774

Pugachev's first ukaz, September, 1773

From the autocratic Emperor, our Great Sovereign Petr Fedorovich of all Russia, and so forth and so forth and so forth. This is my personal ukaz to the Cossack army of the Iaik: Inasmuch as you, my friends, served former tsars with your very flesh and blood, and as your fathers and grandfathers did, so for the sake of your fatherland should you serve me, the great sovereign emperor Petr Fedorovich. When you stand up for your fatherland, your Cossack glory will endure from henceforth for all time and so will that of your children. You, the Cossacks and Kalmucks and Tatars will be rewarded by me, the Sovereign Imperial Majesty Petr Fedorovich. As for those of you who have wronged me, the Sovereign Imperial Majesty Petr Fedorovich, I, the Sovereign Petr Fedorovich, forgive you all your wrongs and reward you with the river from source to mouth, and lands and meadows and money and powder and shot and supplies of grain. Thus I, the great sovereign emperor, reward you.  

               Petr Fedorovich

Pugachev's last ukaz, June 1774

By the grace of God We, Peter the third, Emperor and Autocrat of all Russia, and so forth and so forth and so forth. It is declared for all the people to know. By this personal ukaz We bestow on all those who formerly were peasants and in subjugation to the landowners, along with Our monarchic and paternal compassion, to be dutiful slaves subject directly to Our crown. We grant them the ancient cross and prayer, haircut and beard, freedom and liberty, and they are to be Cossacks forever, not liable to recruitment into the army or to the soul tax or other money taxes, and We grant them tenure of the land and the forests and the hay meadows and the fisheries and the salt lakes, without purchase and without obrok, and we liberate all the aforementioned from the villainous nobles and from the bribe takers in the city--the officials who imposed taxes and other burdens on the peasants and the whole people. We wish everyone salvation of the soul and a peaceful life in this world, for which We have tasted and suffered exile and great wrongs from those villains, the nobles. But since now, by the power of the right hand of the Almighty, Our name now flourishes in Russia, We accordingly do ordain by this personal ukaz: those who formerly were nobles living on estates are enemies to Our power and disrupters of the empire and oppressors of the peasantry, and they should be caught, executed and hanged, they should be treated just as they, who have no Christianity, dealt with you peasants. When these enemies and villains have been eliminated, all may enjoy peace and a quiet life that will last for all time.

Given on this, the 31st day of June, 1774

Peter

 

Petition of Serfs in Kungur District, Perm' Province, to "Peter III"

 

Most brilliant and autocratic Great Sovereign Petr Fedorovich, Autocrat of all Russia, of Little and White Russia, etc., etc.!

This declaration comes from the Guselinovka ward of the village of Spasskoe in Kungur District, in the name of the entire community through its authorized representatives, Kornilo Prokopov'ev Shiriaev and Ustin Ananienich Medvidev. It addresses the following points:

1. We your slaves have, by the grace of God, heard that Your Imperial Majesty, coming from the southern lands in Orenburg Province, has taken on great strength. We praised God that our beautful sun of old, after having hidden beneath the ground, now rises in the East and in its mercy wishes to warm us, Your humble and loyal slaves, with its grace, so we peasants with one accord bow our heads to the very ground. 

2. We [Your] slaves, all the peasants of the aforementioned ward, most humbly request the tsar's mercy from the officers and do not wish to oppose them in any way. Your Majesty did not declare His anger and punishment towards us, so we ask the lords His officers to spare us from the fatal sword and [ask them] to obey His [Majesty's] orders.

3. We also have a great hope that His Tsarist Majesty will mercifully spare us from the vicious, wild poisonous animals, the boyars    and officers, and break off their sharp claws--for example, Mikhailo Ivanovich Bashmakov at the Iugov State Factories, also Aleksei Semenovich Elchanov, and, in the town of Kungur, Aleksei Semenovich Elchanov, Dmitrii Popov. These lords make us angry with their declarations that whoever invokes the great name of Petr Fedorovich shall be treated like a great evildoer and done to death. 

4. To this end, we slaves, all the peasants, have sent reliable people to discover the truth about Your Majesty and to make a deep bow to the very ground before your military commanders, not to resist them. Therefore, if you please, give them encouragement so that we slaves may know of Your Tsarist Majesty's health, for which we slaves would have great jubilation.

5. May the humble petition of us slaves receive the gracious attention of Your Majesty, so that we humble folk shall not suffer any harm at the hands of your troops.

The Instructions of Catherine II to the Legislative Commission of 1767

The Instructions to the Commissioners for Composing a New Code of Laws

1.  The Christian Law teaches us to do mutual Good to one another, as much as possibly we can.

2.  Laying this down as a fundamental Rule prescribed by that Religion, which has taken, or ought to take Root in the Hearts of the whole People; we cannot but suppose that every honest Man in the Community is, or will be, desirous of seeing his native Country at the very Summit of Happiness, Glory, Safety, and Tranquillity.

3.  And that every Individual Citizen in particular must wish to see himself protected by Laws, which should not distress him in his Circumstances, but, on the Contrary, should defend him from all Attempts of others that are repugnant to this fundamental Rule.

4.  In order therefore to proceed to a speedy Execution of what We expect from such a general Wish, We, fixing the Foundation upon the above first-mentioned Rule, ought to begin with an Inquiry into the natural Situation of this Empire.

5.  For those Laws have the greatest Conformity with Nature, whose particular Regulations are best adapted to the Situation and Circumstances of the People for whom they are instituted. This natural Situation is described in the three following Chapters.

Chapter I

6.  Russia is an European State.

7.  This is clearly demonstrated by the following Observations: The Alterations which Peter the Great undertook in Russia succeeded with the greater Ease, because the Manners, which prevailed at that Time, and had been introduced amongst us by a Mixture of different Nations, and the Conquest of foreign Territories, were quite unsuitable to the Climate. Peter the First, by introducing the Manners and Customs of Europe among the European People in his Dominions, found at that Time such Means as even he himself was not sanguine enough to expect.

Chapter II

8.  The Possessions of the Russian Empire extend upon the terrestrial Globe to 32 Degrees of Latitude, and to 165 of Longitude.

9.  The Sovereign is absolute; for there is no other authority but that which centers in his single Person that can act with a Vigour proportionate to the Extent of such a vast Dominion.

10.  The Extent of the Dominion requires an absolute Power to be vested in that Person who rules over it. It is expedient so to be that the quick Dispatch of Affairs, sent from distant Parts, might make ample Amends for the Delay occasioned by the great Distance of the Places.

11.  Every other Form of Government whatsoever would not only have been prejudicial to Russia, but would even have proved its entire Ruin.

13.  What is the true End of Monarchy? Not to deprive People of their natural Liberty; but to correct their Actions, in order to attain the supreme Good.

14.  The Form of Government, therefore, which best attains this End, and at the same Time sets less Bounds than others to natural Liberty, is that which coincides with the Views and Purposes of rational Creatures, and answers the End, upon which we ought to fix a steadfast Eye in the Regulations of civil Polity.

15.  The Intention and the End of Monarchy is the Glory of the Citizens, of the State, and of the Sovereign.

16.  But, from this Glory, a Sense of Liberty arises in a People governed by a Monarch; which may produce in these States as much Energy in transacting the most important Affairs, and may contribute as much to the Happiness of the Subjects, as even Liberty itself.

Chapter III

17.  Of the Safety of the Institutions of Monarchy.

18.  The intermediate Powers, subordinate to, and depending upon the supreme Power, form the essential Part of monarchical Government.

19.  I have said, that the intermediate Powers, subordinate and depending, proceed from the supreme Power, as in the very Nature of the Thing the Sovereign is the Source of all imperial and civil Power.

20.  The Laws, which form the Foundation of the State, send out certain Courts of judicature, through which, as through smaller Streams, the Power of the Government is poured out, and diffused.

21.  The Laws allow these Courts of judicature to remonstrate, that such or such an Injunction is unconstitutional, and prejudicial, obscure, and impossible to be carried into Execution; and direct, beforehand, to which Injunction one ought to pay Obedience, and in what Manner one ought to conform to it. These Laws undoubtedly constitute the firm and immoveable Basis of every State.

Chapter VII

61.  There are means of preventing the growth of crimes, and these are the punishments inflicted by the laws....

63.  In a word, every punishment which is not inflicted through necessity is tyrannical. The Law has its source not merely from Power [but also from] Nature....

66.  All laws which aim at the extremity of rigor, may be evaded. It is moderation which rules a people, and not excess of severity.

67.  Civil liberty flourishes when the laws deduce every punishment from the peculiar nature of every crime. The application of punishment ought not to proceed from the arbitrary will or mere caprice of the Legislator, but from the nature of the crime....

68.  Crimes are divisible into four classes: against religion, against manners [morality], against the peace, against the security of the citizens....

74.  I include under the first class of crimes [only] a direct and immediate attack upon religion, such as sacrilege, distinctly and clearly defined by law.... In order that the punishment for the crime of sacrilege might flow from the nature of the thing, it ought to consist in depriving the offender of those benefits to which we are entitled by religion; for instance, by expulsion from the churches, exclusion from the society of the faithful for a limited time, or for ever....

76.  In the second class of crimes are included those which are contrary to good manners.

77.  Such [include] the corruption of the purity of morals in general, either public or private; that is, every procedure contrary to the rules which show in what manner we ought to enjoy the external conveniences given to man by Nature for his necessities, interest, and satisfaction. The punishments of these crimes ought to flow also from the nature of the thing [offense]: deprivation of those advantages which Society has attached to purity of morals, [for example,] monetary penalties, shame, or dishonor ... expulsion from the city and the community; in a word, all the punishments which at judicial discretion are sufficient to repress the presumption and disorderly behavior of both sexes. In fact, these offenses do not spring so much from badness of heart as from a certain forgetfulness or mean opinion of one's self. To this class belong only the crimes which are prejudicial to manners, and not those which at the same time violate public security, such as carrying off by force and rape; for these are crimes of the fourth class.

78.  The crimes of the third class are those which violate the peace and tranquillity of the citizens. The punishments for them ought also to flow from the very nature of the crime, as for instance, imprisonment, banishment, corrections, and the like which reclaim these turbulent people and bring them back to the established order. Crimes against the peace I confine to those things only which consist in a simple breach of the civil polity.

79.  The penalties due to crimes of the fourth class are peculiarly and emphatically termed Capital Punishments. They are a kind of retaliation by which Society deprives that citizen of his security who has deprived, or would deprive, another of it. The punishment is taken from the nature of the thing, deduced from Reason, and the sources of Good and Evil. A citizen deserves death when he has violated the public security so far as to have taken away, or attempted to take away, the life of another. Capital punishment is the remedy for a distempered society. If public security is violated with respect to property, reasons may be produced to prove that the offender ought not in such a case suffer capital punishment; but that it seems better and more comfortable to Nature that crimes against the public security with respect to property should be punished by deprivation of property. And this ought inevitably to have been done, if the wealth of everyone had been common, or equal. But as those who have no property are always most ready to invade the property of others, to remedy this defect corporal punishment was obliged to be substituted for pecuniary. What I have here mentioned is drawn from the nature of things, and conduces to the protection of the liberty of the citizens....

Chapter VIII

80. Of Punishments.

81. The Love of our Country, Shame, and the Dread of public Censure, are Motives which restrain, and may deter Mankind from the Commission of a Number of Crimes.

82. The greatest Punishment for a bad Action, under a mild Administration, will be for the Party to be convinced of it. The civil Laws will there correct Vice with the more Ease, and will not be under a Necessity of employing more rigorous Means.

83. In these Governments, the Legislature will apply itself more to prevent Crimes than to punish them, and should take more Care to instil Good Manners into the Minds of the Citizens, by proper Regulations, than to dispirit them by the Terror of corporal and capital Punishments.

84. In a Word, whatever is termed Punishment in the Law is, in Fact, nothing but Pain and Suffering.

85. Experience teaches us that, in those Countries where Punishments are mild, they operate with the same Efficacy upon the Minds of the Citizens as the most severe in other Places.

86. If a sensible Injury should accrue to a State from some popular Commotion, a violent Administration will be at once for a sudden Remedy, and instead of recurring to the ancient Laws, will inflict some terrible Punishment, in order to crush the growing Evil on the Spot. The Imagination of the People is affected at the Time of this greater Punishment, just as it would have been affected by the least; and when the Dread of this Punishment gradually wears off, it will be compelled to introduce a severer Punishment upon all Occasions.

87. The People ought not to be driven on by violent Methods, but we ought to make Use of the Means which Nature has given us, with the utmost Care and Caution, in order to conduct them to the End we propose.

88. Examine with Attention the Cause of all Licentiousness; and you will find that it proceeds from the Neglect of punishing Crimes, not from the Mildness of Punishments.

Chapter IX

97. Of the administration of Justice in general…

119. The Laws which condemn Man upon the Deposition of one Evidence only are destructive to Liberty.

120. Two Witnesses are absolutely necessary in order to form a right Judgment: For an Accuser, who affirms, and the Party accuses, who denies the Fact, make the Evidence on both Sides equal; for that Reason a Third is required in order to convict the Defendant; unless other clear collateral Proofs should fix the Credibility of the Evidence in favour of one of them.

123. The Usage of Torture is contrary to all the Dictates of Nature and Reason; even Mankind itself cries out against it, and demands loudly the total Abolition of it. We see, at this very Time, a People greatly renowned for the Excellence of their civil Polity, who reject it without any sensible Inconveniencies. It is, therefore, by no Means necessary by its Nature…

156. By making the penal Laws always clearly intelligible, Word by Word, every one may calculate truly and know exactly the Inconveniences of a bad Action; a Knowledge which is absolutely necessary for restraining People from committing it; and the People may enjoy Security with respect both to their Persons and Property; which ought ever to remain so, because this is the main Scope and Object of the Laws, and without which the Community would be dissolved.

158. The Laws ought to be written in the common vernacular Tongue; and the Code, which contains all the Laws, ought to be esteemed as a Book of the utmost Use, which should be purchased at as small a Price as the Catechism. If the Case were otherwise, and the Citizen should be ignorant of the Consequences of his own Actions, and what concerns his Person and Liberty, be will then depend upon some few of the People who have taken upon themselves the Care of preserving and explaining them. Crimes will be less frequent in proportion as the Code of Laws is more universally read, and comprehended by the People. And, for this Reason, it must be ordained, That, in all the Schools, Children should be taught to read alternately out of the Church Books and out of those which contain the Laws....

193. The Torture of the Rack is a Cruelty established and made use of by many Nations, and is applied to the Party accused during the Course of his Trial, either to extort from him a Confession of his Guilt, or in order to clear up some Contradictions in which, he had involved himself during his Examination, or to compel him to discover his Accomplices, or in order to discover other Crimes, of which, though he is not accused, yet he may perhaps be guilty.

194. (1) No Man ought to be looked upon as guilty before he has received his judicial Sentence; nor can the Laws deprive him of their Protection before it is proved that he has forfeited all Right to it. What Right therefore can Power give to any to inflict Punishment upon a Citizen at a Time when it is yet dubious whether he is innocent or guilty? Whether the Crime be known or unknown, it is not very difficult to gain a thorough Knowledge of the Affair by duly weighing all the Circumstances. If the Crime be known, the Criminal ought not to suffer any Punishment but what the Law ordains; consequently the Rack is quite unnecessary. If the Crime be not known, the Rack ought not to be applied to the Party accused; for this Reason, That the Innocent ought not to be tortured; and, in the Eye of the law, every Person is innocent whose Crime is not yet proved. It is undoubtedly extremely necessary that no Crime, after it has been proved, should remain unpunished. The Party accused on the Rack, whilst in the Agonies of Torture, is not Master enough of himself to be able to declare the Truth. Can we give more Credit to a Man when be is light-headed in a Fever, than when he enjoys the free Use of his Reason in a State of Health? The Sensation of Pain may arise to such a Height that, after having subdued the whole Soul, it will leave her no longer the Liberty of producing any proper Act of the Will, except that of taking the shortest instantaneous Method, in the very twinkling of an Eye, as it were, of getting rid of her Torment. In such an Extremity, even an innocent Person will roar out that he is guilty, only to gain some Respite from his Tortures. Thus the very same Expedient, which is made use of to distinguish the Innocent from the Guilty, will take away the whole Difference between them; and the Judges will be as uncertain whether they have an innocent or a guilty Person before them, as they were before the Beginning of this partial Way of Examination. The Rack, therefore, is a sure Method of condemning an innocent Person of a weakly Constitution, and of acquitting a wicked Wretch, who depends upon the Robustness of his Frame.

195. (2) The Rack is likewise made use of to oblige the Party accused to clear up (as they term it) the Contradictions in which he has involved himself in the Course of his Examination; as if the Dread of Punishment, the Uncertainty and Anxiety in determining what to say, and even gross Ignorance itself, common to both Innocent and Guilty, could not lead a timorous Innocent, and a Delinquent who seeks to hide his Villanies, into Contradictions; and as if Contradictions, which are so common to Man even in a State of Ease and Tranquillity, would not increase in that Perturbation of Soul, when he is plunged entirely in Reflections of how to escape the Danger he is threatened with.

196. (3) To make use of the Rack for discovering whether the Party accused has not committed other Crimes, besides that which he has been convicted of, is a certain Expedient to screen every Crime from its proper Punishment: For a judge will always be discovering new Ones. Finally, this Method of Proceeding will be founded upon the following Way of reasoning: Thou art guilty of one Crime, therefore, perhaps, thou hast committed an Hundred others: According to the Laws, thou wilt be tortured and tormented; not only because thou art guilty, but even because thou mayest be still more guilty.

197. (4) Besides this, the Party accussed is tortured, to oblige him to discover his Accomplices. But when we have already proved that the Rack cannot be the proper Means for searching Out the truth, then how can it give any Assistance in discovering, the Accomplices in a Crime? It is undoubtedly extremely easy for him, who accuses himself, to accuse others. Besides, is it just to torture one Man for Crimes of others? Might not the Accomplices be discovered by examining the Witnesses who were produced against the Criminal, by a strict Inquiry into the Proofs alledged against him, and even by the Nature of the Fact itself, and the Circumstances which happened at the Time when the Crime was committed? In short, by all the Means which serve to prove the Delinquent guilty of the Crime he had committed ?. . .

209. Is the punishment of death really useful and necessary in a community for the preservation of peace and good order?

210. Proofs from fact demonstrate to us that the frequent use of capital punishment never mended the morals of a people.... The death of a citizen can only be useful and necessary in one case: which is, when, though he be deprived of liberty, yet he has such power by his connections as may enable him to raise disturbances dangerous to the public peace. This case can happen only when a People either loses or recovers their liberty, or in a time of anarchy, when the disorders themselves hold the place of laws. But in a reign of peace and tranquillity, under a Government established with the united wishes of a whole People, in a state well fortified against external enemies and protected within by strong supports, that is, by its own internal strength and virtuous sentiments rooted in the minds of the citizens, and where the whole power is lodged in the hands of a Monarch: in such a state there can be no necessity for taking away the life of a citizen....

220. A Punishment ought to be immediate, analogous to the Nature of the Crime and known to the Public.

221. The sooner the Punishment succeeds to the Commission of a Crime, the more useful and just it will be. Just; because it will spare the Malefactor the torturing and useless Anguish of Heart about the Uncertainty of his Destiny. Consequently the Decision of an Affair, in a Court of Judicature, ought to be finished in as little Time as possible. I have said before that Punishment immediately inflicted is most useful; the Reason is because the smaller the Interval of Time is which passes

between the Crime and the Punishment, the more the Crime will be esteemed as a Motive to the Punishment, and the Punishment as an Effect of the Crime. Punishment must be certain and unavoidable.

222. The most certain Curb upon Crimes is not the Severity of the Punishment, but the absolute Conviction in the People that Delinquents will be inevitably punished.

223.The Certainty even of a small, but inevitable Punishment, will make a stronger impression on the Mind than, the Dread even of capital Punishment, connected with the Hopes of escaping it. As Punishments become more mild and moderate; Mercy and Pardon will be less necessary in Proportion, for the Laws themselves, at such a Time, are replete with the Spirit of Mercy.

224 .However extensive a State may be, every Part Of it must depend upon the Laws.

225. We must endeavour to exterminate Crimes in general, particularly those which are most injurious to the Community: Consequently, the Means made use of by the Laws to deter People from the Commission of every Kind of Crimes ought to be the most powerful, in proportion as the Crimes are more destructive to the Public Good, and in proportion to the Strength of the Temptation by which weak or bad Minds may be allured to the Commission of them. Consequently, there ought to be a fixed stated Proportion between Crimes and Punishments.

226. If there be two Crimes, which injure the Community unequally, and yet receive equal Punishment; then the unequal Distribution of the Punishment will produce this strange Contradiction, very little noticed by any one, though it frequently happens, that the Laws will punish Crimes which proceed from the Laws themselves.

227. If the same Punishment should be inflicted upon a Man for killing an Animal as for killing another Man, or for Forgery, the People will soon make no Difference between those Crimes....

239. (Q. 8) Which are the most efficacious Means of preventing Crimes?

240. It is better to prevent Crimes than to punish them.

241. To prevent Crimes is the Intention and the End of every good Legislation; which is nothing more than the Art of conducting People to the greatest Good, or to leave the least Evil possible amongst them, if it should prove impracticable to exterminate the whole.

242. If we forbid many Actions which are termed indifferent by the Moralists, we shall not prevent the Crimes of which they may be productive, but shall create still new Ones.

243. Would you prevent Crimes? Order it so, that the Laws might rather favour every Individual, than any particular Rank of Citizens, in the Community.

244. Order it so, that the People should fear the Laws, and nothing but the Laws.

245. Would you prevent Crimes? Order it so, that the Light of Knowledge may be diffused among the People.

246. A Book of good Laws is nothing but a Bar to prevent the Licentiousness of injurious Men from doing Mischief to their fellow Creatures.

247. There is yet another Expedient to prevent Crimes, which is by rewarding Virtue.

248. Finally, the most sure but, at the same Time, the most difficult Expedient to mend the Morals of the People, is a perfect System of Education....

Chapter XIX

439. Of the Composition of the Laws

447. Every subject, according to the order and Place to which he belongs, is to be inserted separately in the Code of Laws -for instance, under judicial, military, commercial, civil, or the police, city or country affairs, etc. etc

448. Each law ought to be written in so clear a style as to be perfectly intelligible to everyone, and, at the same time, with great conciseness. For this reason explanations or interpretations are undoubtedly to be added (as occasion shall require) to enable judges to perceive more readily the force as well as use of the law…

449. But the utmost care and caution is to be observed in adding these explanations and interpretations, because they may sometimes rather darken than clear up the case; of which there are many instances [in the existing laws].

450. When exceptions, limitations, and modifications are not absolutely necessary in a law, in that case it is better not to insert them; for such particular details generally produce still more details.

451. If the Legislator desires to give his reason for making any particular law, that reason ought to be good and worthy of the law....

452. Laws ought not to be filled with subtile distinctions, to demonstrate the brilliance of the Legislator; they are made for people of moderate capacities as well as for those of genius. They are not a logical art, but the simple and plain reasoning of a father who takes care of his children and family.

453. Real candor and sincerity ought to be displayed in every part of the laws; and as they are made for the punishment of crimes, they ought consequently to include in themselves the greatest virtue and benevolence.

454. The style of the laws ought to be simple and concise: a plain direct expression will always be better understood than a studied one.

455. When the style of laws is tumid and inflated, they are looked upon only as a work of vanity and ostentation....

511. A Monarchy is destroyed when a Sovereign imagines that he displays his power more by changing the order of things than by adhering to it, and when he is more fond of his own imaginations than of his will, from which the laws proceed and have proceeded.

512. It is true there are cases where Power ought and can exert its full influence without any danger to the State. But there are cases also where it ought to act according to the limits prescribed by itself.

513. The supreme art of governing a State consists in the precise knowledge of that degree of power, whether great or small, which ought to be exerted according to the different exigencies of affairs. For in a Monarchy the prosperity of the State depends, in part, on a mild and condescending government.

514. In the best constructed machines, Art employs the least moment, force, and fewest wheels possible. This rule holds equally good in the administration of government; the most simple expedients are often the very best, and the most intricate the very worst.

515. There is a certain facility in this method of governing: It is better for the Sovereign to encourage, and for the Laws to threaten....

519. It is certain that a high opinion of the glory and power of the Sovereign would increase the strength of his administration; but a good opinion of his love of justice will increase it at least as much.

520. All this will never please those flatterers who are daily instilling this pernicious maxim into all the sovereigns on Earth, that Their people are created for them only. But We think, and esteem it Our glory to declare, that "We are created for Our people." And for this reason, We are obliged to speak of things just as they ought to be. For God forbid that after this legislation is finished any nation on Earth should be more just and, consequently, should flourish more than Russia. Otherwise, the intention of Our laws would be totally frustrated; an unhappiness which I do not wish to survive.

521. All the examples and customs of different nations which are introduced in this work [the Instruction] ought to produce no other effect than to cooperate in the choice of those means which may render the people of Russia, humanly speaking, the most happy in themselves of any people upon the Earth.

522. Nothing more remains now for the Commission to do but to compare every part of the laws with the rules of this Instruction.

Source:  The Grand Instruction to the Commissioners Appointed to Frame a New Code of Laws for the Russian Empire:  Composed by Her Imperial Majesty Catherine II. (London, 1768). 

Alexander Radishchev, Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.  1790Alexander Radishchev (1749-1802) came from a moderately wealthy noble family with landholdings in Saratov Province.   He was educated in the Corps of Pages in St. Petersburg and went on to study law and philosophy at the University of Leipzig in Germany.   On his return to Russia in 1771, Radishchev pursued a intermittent career in state service rising eventually to the post of Chief of the St. Petersburg Customs House.   In 1790, Radishchev published Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow,  a passionate tirade against the evils of serfdom and the corruption of Russian life.   Radishchev's journey marks the first open condemnation of serfdom in Russian public life, and his overwrought emotional portrayals, drawing heavily on the style and motifs of pre-romantic sentimentalism, quickly drew the attention of Russian readers and the wrath of Catherine the Great.  Alarmed by the radicalism of the French Revolution, Catherine saw in Radishchev's audacity a threat to the state and pronounced him "a rebel worse than Pugachev."  Radishchev was arrested, tried and condemned to death, a sentence which Catherine commuted to 10 years exile in Siberia.   Under Paul I, Radishchev was released from exile and his full rights as a nobleman were restored in 1801.  He committed suicide in 1802.

Mednoe.

Twice every week all of the Russian Empire is informed that N. N. or B. B. is unable or unwilling to pay what he has borrowed, taken or what is demanded from him. The borrowed money has been gambled away, traveled away, spent away, eaten away, drunk away, given away or has perished in fire and water. Or N. N. or B. B. has in some other way gone into debt or incurred an obligation. Any case will do for the announcement which reads: At ten o clock this morning, on order of the county court or city magistrate, the real estate of retired captain T... consisting of house no. X, in such and such a district and six male and female souls, will be sold at auction. The sale will take place at said house. Interested parties may view the property in advance.

Everyone is interested in a bargain. The day and hour of the sale has arrived. Buyers are assembling from all around. In the hall where the sale is to take place, the condemned are standing motionless. An old man of 75 years, leaning on a elmwood cane, is anxious to find out into whose hands his fate will pass, who will close his eyes. He served with the Master’s father in the Crimean campaign under Field Marshal Munnich. At the battle of Frankfurt he carried his wounded master off the field of battle on his shoulders. Returning home, he became the tutor for his young master. In [the master's] childhood, he had saved the boy from drowning, jumping into the river into which he had fallen while crossing on a ferry, and putting his life at risk, pulled him out.  In [the master's] youth he had bailed him out of prison where he had been confined for his debts incurred while serving as a junior officer. An old women, 80 years of age, the old man’s wife, was the wet nurse for the mother of the young master: she was the young man’s nanny and had been the housekeeper up until the very moment when she was brought out for this auction. In all the years of her service she never wasted anything of the master’s, never thought of her own profit in any way, never lied, and if she ever gave occasion for annoyance it was only on account of her simple hearted scruples. A woman 40 years of age, a widow, was the wet nurse for the young master. And even now she still feels a certain tenderness toward him. Her blood flows in his veins. She is his second mother: he owes his

life to her even more than to his natural mother. The latter had conceived him in a light-hearted moment, and had taken no part in his infancy. His nurses brought him up. They part with him as if with a son. A young woman, 18 year of age, her daughter and the granddaughter of the old couple. Wild beast, monster, reprobate! Look at her, look at her crimson cheeks, at the tears pouring from her enchanting eyes. Was it not you who, failing to entrap her innocence through flattery and enticement or to shake her steadfastness with threat, finally resorted to deceit. Having married her to your companion in treachery, your took his place and partook of the pleasure, which she had disdained to share with you. She found out about your deceit. Her bridegroom touched no more her bed, and you, deprived of the object of your desire, turned to force. Four scoundrels, executors of your will, holding her arms and legs--- No! Let us go no further. On her brow is sorrow, in her eyes despair. She is holding the infant, the sorrowful fruit of your deceit or violence, and the living image of his lascivious father. Having given birth to him, she began to forget his father’s savagery, and her heart began to feel tenderness toward the baby. She is afraid that he will fall into the hands of another like his father. The infant... your son, barbarian, your blood. Or do you think that there is not obligation when there is no church ceremony? Do you think that the blessing given at your order to the hired preacher of the word of God has confirmed their union? Do you think that forced marriage in God’s church can be called matrimony? The Almighty despises force, and delights in the wishes of the heart; they alone are uncorrupted. O, how many acts of fornication and seduction are committed in the name of the father of joys and the comforter of sorrows in the presence of his witnesses, unworthy of their office! A youth of twenty five, her wedded husband, companion and confidant of his master, who has now repented of his services. In his pocket is a knife. He grasps it tightly; it is not hard to guess his thoughts. Fruitless zeal! You will go to another. The hand of your master, hanging constantly above the head of the slave will bend your neck to any service. Hunger, chill, torment and heat – all of this will stand against you. Your mind is alien to noble thoughts. You do not know how to die. You will bend and will become a slave in spirit as well as law. And if you take it in to your mind to resist, you will die an agonizing death in chains. There is no justice over you both. If your tormentor does not wish to punish you himself he will become your accuser. He will turn you over to the city justice. Justice! Where the accused has almost no power to defend himself! Let us pass over the other unfortunates brought out for sale.

Barely had the dreaded hammer let out its hollow thud when the four unfortunates learned their fate – tears, sobs and moans pierced the ears of the entire assembly. Even the hardest were moved. Petrified hearts! Almost fruitless sympathy? O Quakers! If we had your hearts we would have made a collection, bought these unfortunates and given them their freedom. Having lived many years in each other’s embrace, these unfortunates because of this abominable auction will feel the anguish of parting. But if the law or, better to say, barbarian custom, for this is not written in the law, allows such contempt for humanity, who has the right to sell this infant? He is illegitimate: the law liberates him. Stop, I will denounce this; I will save him. But if only the others could be saved along with him. O fortune! Why have you doled out to me such a miserly share. It is only now that I begin to feel the passion for wealth. My heart is so troubled that I jump up from amid the assembly and giving the last pennies from my wallet to the unfortunates, I run out. On the stairway, I met a friend, a foreigner.

"What has happened to you? You are weeping!."

"Go back" I said to him, "do not be a witness to this shameful spectacle. O, once you cursed the barbaric custom of selling of black slaves in far off colonies of your fatherland; go back," I repeated, "do not be a witness to our darkness lest you must reveal our shame to your countrymen in talking to them of our customs." "I can not believe it," my friend said to me. "It is impossible that in a place

where all are allow to think and believe as they wish, such a shameful custom exists." "Do not be astonished." I said to him, "the establishment of freedom of belief offends only priests and monks, and even they are more interested in acquiring sheep for themselves rather than for Christ’s flock, but freedom for rural inhabitants would offend, as they say, the right of property. And all those who might be fighters for freedom are all great landowners, and freedom is not to be expected from their council but from the heavy weight of enslavement itself.

 

Source:  A. N. Radishchev, Puteshestvie iz Peterburga v Moskvu, Volnost'. (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1992) pp. 92-94.

Translated by Nathaniel Knight

For an English translation of the full text see Aleksandr Nikolaevich Radishchev, A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1958).

6/09/00

Petr Chaadaev Philosophical Letters Addressed to a Lady (1829)

Chaadaev was born in 1794 the son of wealthy nobleman.   In 1812, he cut off his studies at Moscow University to fight in the campaign against Napoleon’s invasion.  He resigned his officer’s commission in 1821, reportedly just before he was to have been appointed an adjutant of Alexander I.   In the years that followed he lived as a semi-recluse, spending much of his time abroad, and devoting himself to intellectual pursuits.  His Philosophical Letters were written in 1829, and circulated in manuscript form for several years.  In 1836 the first of the philosophical letters was published by Nikolai Nadezhdin in the journal Telescope, apparently at the behest of Chaadaev himself.   In the uproar that followed, Nadezhdin was exiled to the Far North, the censor, Boldyrev, was removed from his position, and Chaadaev was declared a madman.   During the 1840s Chaadaev was an active participant in the Moscow literary circles.  He died in 1856.

Letter One (excerpts)

…It is one of the most deplorable traits of our strange civilization that we are still discovering truths that are commonplace even among peoples much less advanced than we.  This is because we have never moved in concert with the other peoples. We are not a part of any of the great families of the human race; we are neither of the West nor of the East, and we have not the traditions of either.   We stand, as it were, outside of time, the universal education of mankind has not touched us…

Look around you. Everyone seems to have one foot in the air. One would think that we are all in transit. No one has a fixed sphere of existence; there are no proper habits, no rules that govern anything. We do not even have homes; there is nothing to tie us down, nothing that arouses our sympathies and affections, nothing enduring, nothing lasting. Everything passes, flows away, leaving no trace either outside or within us. In our homes, we are like guests; to our families, we are like strangers; and in our cities we seem like nomads, more so than those who wander our steppes, for they are more attached to their deserts than we are to our towns...

Our memories reach back no further than yesterday; we are, as it were, strangers to ourselves. We move through time in such a singular manner that, as we advance, the past is lost to us forever. That is but a natural consequence of a culture that consists entirely of imports and imitation. Among us there is no internal development, no natural progress; new ideas sweep out the old, because they are not derived from the old but tumble down upon us from who knows where. We absorb all our ideas ready-made, and therefore the indelible trace left in the mind by a progressive movement of ideas, which gives it strength, does not shape our intellect. We grow, but we do not mature; we move, but along a crooked path, that is, one that does not lead to the desired goal. We are like children who have not been taught to think for themselves: when they become adults, they have nothing of their their own--all their knowledge is on the surface of their being, their soul is not within them. That is precisely our situation

Peoples, like individuals, are moral beings.  Their education takes centuries, as it takes years for that of persons. In a way, one could say that we are an exception among peoples. We are one of those nations, which do not seem to be an integral part of the human race, but exist only in order to teach some great lesson to the world.

Source:   P. Ia Chaadaev, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i izbrannye pis'ma, t. 1, (Moscow, 1991), p. 90, 92-93.

Translated by Nathaniel Knight

The full text of the first letter can be found in English in Marc Raeff, ed.,  Russian Intellectual History: An Anthology.

6/09/00

 

  V. G. BelinskiiLetter to N. V. Gogol’ Gogol’, born in Ukraine, became Russia’s most famous writer of prose in the 1830s. Belinskii, Russia’s most influential literary critic, praised Gogol’s work extravagantly, reading such satirical works as The Inspector General and Dead Souls as exposés of Russia’s social and political ills and thus as blows struck for liberation. Gogol’s personal views were extremely conservative, however. He made them plain in a weird book called Selected Excerpts from Correspondence with Friends, in which he praised autocracy and orthodoxy and instructed

 

serfholders how to run their estates. Belinskii’s published review of Selected Excerpts was unfavorable, but subdued by the pressure of censorship. Gogol’ was nonetheless moved to complain. Belinskii wrote this letter in reply.  It circulated in hundreds of manuscript copies and is one of the fundamental texts of Russian radicalism.  It was published in Russia only in 1906

  

You are only partly right in regarding my article as that of an angered man: that epithet is too mild and inadequate to express the state to which I was reduced on reading your book. But you are entirely wrong in ascribing that state to your indeed none too flattering references to the admirers of your talent. No, there was a more important reason for this. One could endure an outraged sense of self-esteem, and I should have had sense enough to let the matter pass in silence were that the whole gist of the matter; but one cannot endure an outraged sense of truth and human dignity; one cannot keep silent when lies and immorality are preached as truth and virtue under the guise of religion and the protection of the knout.

Yes, I loved you with all the passion with which a man, bound by ties of blood to his native country, can love its hope, its honor, its glory, one of its great leaders on the path toward consciousness, development, and progress.And you had sound reason for losing your equanimity at least momentarily when you forfeited that love.I say that not because I believe my love to be an adequate reward for a great talent, but because I do not represent a single person in this respect but a multitude of men, most of whom neither you nor I have ever set eyes on, and who, in their turn, have never set eyes on you. I find myself at a loss to give you an adequate idea of the indignation your book has aroused in all noble hearts, and of the wild shouts of joy that were set up on its appearance by all your enemies, both the nonliterary -- the Chichikovs, the Nozdrevs, and the mayors[1]--and by the literary, whose names

 

are well known to you. You see yourself that even those people who are of one mind with your book have disowned it. Even if it had been written as a result of deep and sincere conviction, it could not have created any impression on the public other than the one it did. And it is nobody’s fault but your own if everyone (except the few who must be seen and known in order not to derive pleasure from their approval) received it as an ingenious but all too unceremonious artifice for achieving a purely earthly aim by celestial means.

Nor is that in any way surprising; what is surprising is that you find it surprising. I believe that is so because your profound knowledge of Russia is only that of an artist, but not of a thinker, whose role you have so ineffectually tried to play in your fantastic book. Not that you are not a thinker, but that you have been accustomed for so many years to look at Russia from your beautiful far-away;[2] and who does not know that there is nothing easier than seeing things from a distance the way we want to see them; for in that beautiful far-away you live a life that is entirely alien to it; you live in and within yourself or within a circle of the same mentality as your own that is powerless to resist your influence on it.

Therefore you failed to realize that Russia sees her salvation not in mysticism or asceticism or pietism, but in the successes of civilization, enlightenment, and humanity. What she needs is not sermons (she has heard enough of them!) or prayers (she has repeated them too often!), but the awakening in the people of a sense of their human dignity lost for so many centuries amid dirt and refuse; she needs rights and laws conforming not to the preaching of the church but to common sense and justice, and their strictest possible observance. Instead of which she presents the dire spectacle of a country where men traffic in men, without even having the excuse so insidiously exploited by the American plantation owners who claim that the Negro is not a man; a country where people call themselves not by names but by nicknames such as Vanka, Vaska, Steshka, Palashka; a country where there are not only no guarantees for individuality, honor and property, but even no police order, and where there is nothing but vast corporations of official thieves and robbers of various descriptions. The most vital national problems in Russia today are the abolition of serfdom and corporal punishment and the strictest possible observance of at least those laws that already exist. This is even realized by the government itself (which is well aware of how the landowners treat their peasants and how many of the former are annually done away with by the latter), as is proved by its timid and abortive half-measures for the relief of the white Negroes and the comical substitution of the single-lash knout by a cat-o-three tails.

Such are the problems that prey on the mind of Russia in her apathetic slumber!  And at such a time a great writer, whose astonishingly artistic and deeply truthful works have so powerfully contributed toward Russia’s awareness of herself, enabling her as they did to take a look at herself as though in a mirror—publishes a book in which he teaches the barbarian landowner to make still greater profits out of the peasants and to abuse them still more in the name of Christ and Church....[3]  And would you expect me not to become indignant?...  Why, if you had made an attempt on my life I could not have hated you more than I do for these disgraceful lines....  And after this, you expect people to believe the sincerity of your book’s intent!  No!  Had you really been inspired by the truth of Christ and not by the teaching of the devil you would certainly have written something entirely different in your new book.  You would have told the landowner that since his peasants are his brethren in Christ, and since a brother cannot be a slave to his brother, he should either give them their freedom or, at least, allow them to enjoy the fruits of their own labor to their greatest possible benefit, realizing, as he does, in the depths of his own conscience, the false relationship in which he stands toward them.

And the expression “Oh, you unwashed snout, you!” From what Nozdrev and Sobakevich did you overhear it, in order to present it to the world as a great discovery for the edification and benefit of the peasants, whose only reason for not washing is that they have let themselves be persuaded by their masters that they are not human beings?  And your conception of the national Russian system of trial and punishment, whose ideal you have found in the foolish saying that both the guilty and innocent should be flogged alike?  That, indeed, is often the case with us, though more often than not it is the man who is in the right who takes the punishment, unless he can ransom himself, and for such occasions another proverb says: Guiltlessly guilty!  And such a book is supposed to have been the result of an arduous inner process, a lofty spiritual enlightenment!  Impossible!  Either you are ill—and you must hasten to take a cure, or...I am afraid to put my thought into words!...

Proponent of the knout, apostle of ignorance, champion of obscurantism and Stygian darkness, panegyrist of Tartar morals—what are you about!  Look beneath your feet—you are standing on the brink of an abyss!...  That you base such teaching on the Orthodox Church I can understand: it has always served as the prop of the knout and the servant of despotism; but why have you mixed Christ up in it?  What have you found in common between Him and any church, least of all the Orthodox Church?  He was the first to bring to people the teaching of freedom, equality, and brotherhood and to set the seal of truth to that teaching by martyrdom.  And this teaching was men’s salvation only until it became organized in the Church and took the principle of Orthodoxy for its foundation.  The Church, on the other hand, was a hierarchy, consequently a champion of inequality, a flatterer of authority, an enemy and persecutor of brotherhood among men—and so it has remained to this day.  But the meaning of Christ’s message has been revealed by the philosophical movement of the preceding century.  And that is why a man like Voltaire who stamped out the fires of fanaticism and ignorance in Europe by ridicule, is, of course, more the son of Christ, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, than all your priests, bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs —Eastern or Western.  Do you really mean to say you do not know that!  Now it is not even a novelty to a schoolboy.

Hence, can it be that you, the author of The Inspector General and Dead Souls, have in all sincerity, from the bottom of your heart, sung a hymn to the nefarious Russian clergy whom you rank immeasurably higher than the Catholic clergy?  Let us assume that you do not know that the latter had once been something, while the former had never been anything but a servant and slave of the secular powers; but do you really mean to say you do not know that our clergy is held in universal contempt by Russian society and the Russian people?  About whom do the Russian people tell dirty stories?  Of the priest, the priest’s wife, the priest’s daughter, and the priest’s farm hand.  Does not the priest in Russia represent the embodiment of gluttony, avarice, servility, and shamelessness for all Russians?  Do you mean to say that you do not know all this?  Strange!  According to you the Russian people is the most religious in the world.  That is a lie!  The basis of religiousness is pietism, reverence, fear of God.  Whereas the Russian man utters the name of the Lord while scratching himself somewhere.  He says of the icon: If it works, pray to it; if it doesn’t, it’s good for covering pots.

Take a closer look and you will see that it is by nature a profoundly atheistic people.  It still retains a good deal of superstition, but not a trace of religiousness.  Superstition passes with the advances of civilization, but religiousness often keeps company with them too; we have a living example of this in France, where even today there are many sincere Catholics among enlightened and educated men, and where many people who have rejected Christianity still cling stubbornly to some sort of god.  The Russian people is different; mystic exaltation is not in its nature; it has too much common sense, a too lucid and positive mind, and therein, perhaps, lies the vastness of its historic destinies in the future.  Religiousness has not even taken root among the clergy in it, since a few isolated and exceptional

personalities distinguished for such cold ascetic contemplation prove nothing.  But the majority of our clergy has always been distinguished for their fat bellies, scholastic pedantry, and savage ignorance.  It is a shame to accuse it of religious intolerance and fanaticism; instead it could be praised for exemplary indifference in matters of faith.  Religiosity among us appeared only in the schismatic sects who formed such a contrast in spirit to the mass of the people and who were numerically so insignificant in comparison with it.

I shall not expatiate on your panegyric to the affectionate relations existing between the Russian people and its lords and masters.  I shall say point-blank that panegyric has met sympathy nowhere and has lowered you even in the eyes of people who in other respects are very close to you in their views.  As far as I am concerned, I leave it to your conscience to admire the divine beauty of the autocracy (it is both safe and profitable), but continue to admire it judiciously from your beautiful far-away: at close quarters it is not so attractive, and not so safe....  I would remark but this: when a European, especially a Catholic, is seized with religious ardor he becomes a denouncer of iniquitous authority, similar to the Hebrew prophets who denounced the iniquities of the great ones of the earth.  We do quite the contrary: no sooner is a person (even a reputable person) afflicted with the malady that is known to psychiatrists as religiosa mania than he begins to burn more incense to the earthly god than to the heavenly one, and so overshoots the mark in doing so that the former would fain reward him for his slavish zeal did he not perceive that he would thereby be compromising himself in society’s eyes.... What a rogue our fellow the Russian is!

Another thing I remember you saying in your book, claiming it to be a great and incontrovertible truth, is that literacy is not merely useless but positively harmful to the common people.  What can I say to this?  May your Byzantine God forgive you that Byzantine thought, unless, in committing it to paper, you knew not what you were saying.... But perhaps you will say: “Assuming that I have erred and that all my ideas are false, but why should I be denied the right to err and why should people doubt the sincerity of my errors?”  Because, I would say in reply, such a tendency has long ceased to be a novelty in Russia.  Not so very long ago it was drained to the lees by Burachok [an advocate of “official nationality”]  and his fraternity.  Of course, your book shows a good deal more intellect and talent (though neither of these elements is very richly represented) than their works; but then they have developed your common doctrine with greater energy and greater consistence; they have boldly reached its ultimate conclusions, have rendered all to the Byzantine God and left nothing for Satan; whereas you, wanting to light a taper to each of them, have fallen into contradiction, upholding, for example, Pushkin, literature, and the theater, all of which, in your opinion, if you were only conscientious enough to be consistent, can in no way serve the salvation of the soul but can do a lot toward its damnation.

Whose head could have digested the idea of Gogol’s identity with Burachok?  You have placed yourself too high in the regard of the Russian public for it to be able to believe you sincere in such convictions.  What seems natural in fools cannot seem so in a man of genius.  Some people have been inclined to regard your book as the result of mental derangement verging on sheer madness.  But they soon rejected such a supposition, for clearly that book was not written in a single day or week or month, but very likely in one, two, or three years; it shows coherence; through its careless exposition one glimpses premeditation, and the hymn to the powers-that-be nicely arranges the earthly affairs of the devout author.  That is why a rumor has been current in St. Petersburg to the effect that you have written this book with the aim of securing a position as tutor to the son of the heir apparent.  Before that, your letter to [Minister of Education] Uvarov became known in St. Petersburg, wherein you say that you are grieved to find that your works about Russia are misinterpreted; then you evince

dissatisfaction with your previous works and declare that you will be pleased with your own works only when the Tsar is pleased with them.  Now judge for yourself.  Is it to be wondered at that your book has lowered you in the eyes of the public both as a writer and still more as a man?

As far as I can see, you do not properly understand the Russian public.  Its character is determined by the condition of Russian society in which fresh forces are seething and struggling for expression; but weighed down by heavy oppression, and finding no outlet, they induce merely dejection, weariness, and apathy.  Only literature, despite the Tartar censorship, shows signs of life and progressive movement.  That is why the title of writer is held in such esteem among us; that is why literary success is easy among us even for a writer of little talent.  The title of poet and writer has long since eclipsed the tinsel of epaulets and gaudy uniforms.  And that especially explains why every so-called liberal tendency, however poor in talent, is rewarded by universal notice, and why the popularity of great talents that sincerely or insincerely give themselves to the service of orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality declines so quickly.  A striking example is Pushkin who had merely to write two of three verses in a loyal strain and don the kammeriunker’s [courtier’s] livery to forfeit popular affection immediately!  And you are greatly mistaken if you believe in all earnest that your book has come to grief not because of its bad trend, but because of the harsh truths alleged to have been expressed by you about all and sundry.  Assuming you could think that of the writing fraternity, but then how do you account for the public?  Did you tell it less bitter home truths less harshly and with less truth and talent in The Inspector General and Dead Souls?  Indeed, the old school was worked up to a furious pitch of anger against you, but The Inspector General and Dead Souls were not affected by it, whereas your latest book has been an utter and disgraceful failure.  And here the public is right, for it looks upon Russian writers as its only leaders, defenders, and saviors against Russian autocracy, orthodoxy, and nationality, and therefore, while always prepared to forgive a writer a bad book, will never forgive him a pernicious book.  This shows how much fresh and healthy intuition, albeit still in embryo, is latent in our society, and this likewise proves that it has a future.  If you love Russia, rejoice with me at the failure of your book!

I would tell you, not without a certain feeling of self-satisfaction, that I believe I know the Russian public a little.  Your book alarmed me by the possibility of its exercising a bad influence on the government and the censorship, but not on the public.  When it was rumored in St. Petersburg that the government intended to publish your book in many thousands of copies and to sell it at an extremely low price, my friends grew despondent; but I told them then and there that the book, despite everything, would have no success and that it would soon be forgotten.  In fact it is now better remembered for the articles that have been written about it than for the book itself.  Yes, the Russian has a deep, though still undeveloped, instinct for truth.

Your conversion may conceivably have been sincere, but your idea of bringing it to the notice of the public was a most unhappy one. The days of naive piety have long since passed, even in our society. It already understands that it makes no difference where one prays and that the only people who seek Christ and Jerusalem are those who have never carried Him in their breasts or who have lost Him. He who is capable of suffering at the sight of other people’s sufferings and who is pained at the sight of other people’s oppression bears Christ within his bosom and has no need to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The humility you preach is, first of all, not novel, and, second, it savors on the one hand of prodigious pride, and on the other of the most shameful degradation of one’s human dignity. The idea of becoming a sort of abstract perfection, of rising above everyone else in humility, is the fruit of either pride or imbecility, and in either case leads inevitably to hypocrisy, sanctimoniousness, and incomprehensibility. Moreover, in your book you have taken the liberty of expressing yourself with

gross cynicism not only of other people (that would be merely impolite) but of yourself -- and that is vile, for if a man who strikes his neighbor on the cheek evokes indignation, the sight of a man striking himself on the cheek evokes contempt. No, you are not illuminated; you are simply beclouded; you have failed to grasp either the spirit or the form of Christianity of our time. Your book breathes not the true Christian teaching but the morbid fear of death, of the devil and of hell! And what language, what phrases! “Every man hath now become trash and a rag” -- do you really believe that in saying hath instead of has you are expressing yourself biblically? How eminently true it is that when a man gives himself wholly up to lies, intelligence and talent desert him. If this book did not bear your name, who would have thought that this turgid and squalid bombast was the work of the author of The Inspector General and Dead Souls?

So far as I myself am concerned, I repeat: You are mistaken in taking my article to be an expression of vexation at your comment on me as one of your critics.  Were this the only thing to make me angry I would have reacted with annoyance to it alone and would have dealt with all the rest with unruffled impartiality.  But it is true that your criticism of your admirers is doubly bad.  I understand the necessity of sometimes having to rap a silly man whose praises and ecstasies make the object of his worship look ridiculous, but even this is a painful necessity, since, humanly speaking, it is somehow awkward to reward even false affection with enmity.  But you had in view men who, though not brilliantly clever, are not quite fools.  These people, in their admiration of your works, have probably uttered more ejaculations than talked sense about them; still, their enthusiastic attitude toward you springs from such a pure and noble source that you ought not to have betrayed them completely to your common enemies and accused them, into the bargain, of wanting to misinterpret your works.  You did that, of course, while carried away by the main idea of your book and through indiscretion, while Viazemskii, that prince in aristocracy and helot in literature, developed your idea and printed a denunciation against your admirers (and consequently mostly against me).  He probably did this to show his gratitude to you for having exalted him, the poetaster, to the rank of great poet, if I remember rightly for his “pithless, dragging verse.” That is all very bad.  That you were merely biding your time in order to give the admirers of your talent their due as well (after having given it with proud humility to your enemies) —I was not aware; I could not, and, I must confess, did not want to know it.  It was your book that lay before me and not your intentions: I read and reread it a hundred times, but I found nothing in it that was not there, and what was there deeply offended and incensed my soul.

Were I to give free rein to my feelings this letter would probably grow into a voluminous notebook. I never thought of writing you on this subject, though I longed to do so and though you gave all and sundry printed permission to write you without ceremony with an eye to the truth alone. Were I in Russia I would not be able to do it, for the local “Shpekins” open other people’s letters not merely for their own pleasure but as a matter of official duty, for the sake of informing. This summer incipient consumption has driven me abroad, and [the poet] Nekrasov has forwarded me your letter to Salzbrunn, which I am leaving today with Annenkov for Paris via Frankfort-on-Main. The unexpected receipt of your letter has enabled me to unburden my soul of what has accumulated there against you on account of your book. I cannot express myself by halves, I cannot prevaricate; it is not in my nature. Let you or time itself prove to me that I am mistaken in my conclusions. I shall be the first to rejoice in it, but I shall not repent what I have told you. This is not a question of your or my personality; it concerns a matter that is of greater importance than myself or even you; it is a matter that concerns the truth, Russian society, Russia. And this is my last concluding word: If you have had the misfortune of disowning with proud humility your truly great works, you should now disown with sincere humility your last book, and atone for the dire sin of its publication by new creations that

would be reminiscent of your old ones.

SALZBRUNN

July 15, 1847

Translation and Annotations by Daniel Field

 

 

[1] These and, except as indicated, other persons named by Belinskii are characters in Gogol’s fiction.

[2] A quotation from Gogol’s Dead Souls. Gogol’ wrote Selected Excerpts while he was in Rome.

[3] Here and below, the elipses are in the text.

 

 

 

Alexander II

The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia

Manifesto of February 19, 1861

 

 

This is the ceremonial preamble to the hundreds of pages of statutes spelling out the terms

of the abolition of serfdom. It was ghost-written by the Metropolitan of Moscow, who

opposed the reform.

By the Grace of God WE, Alexander II, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, King of

Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, etc., make known to all OUR faithful subjects:

Called by Divine Providence and by the sacred right of inheritance to the Russian throne of

OUR ancestors, WE vowed in OUR heart to respond to the mission which is entrusted to

Us and to surround with OUR affection and OUR Imperial solicitude all OUR faithful

subjects of every rank and condition, from the soldier who nobly defends the country to the

humble artisan who works in industry; from the career official of the state to the plowman

who tills the soil.

Examining the condition of classes and professions comprising the state, WE became

convinced that the present state legislation favors the upper and middle classes, defines

their obligations, rights, and privileges, but does not equally favor the serfs, so designated

because in part from old laws and in part from custom they have been hereditarily

subjected to the authority of landowners, who in turn were obligated to provide for their

well being. Rights of nobles have been hitherto very broad and legally ill defined, because

they stem from tradition, custom, and the good will of the noblemen. In most cases this

has led to the establishment of good patriarchal relations based on the sincere, just

concern and benevolence on the part of the nobles, and on affectionate submission on the

part of the peasants. Because of the decline of the simplicity of morals, because of an

increase in the diversity of relations, because of the weakening of the direct paternal

relationship of nobles toward the peasants, and because noble rights fell sometimes into

the hands of people exclusively concerned with their personal interests, good relations

weakened. The way was opened for an arbitrariness burdensome for the peasants and

detrimental to their welfare, causing them to be indifferent to the improvement of their own

existence.

These facts had already attracted the attention of OUR predecessors of glorious memory,

and they had adopted measures aimed at improving the conditions of the peasants; but

these measures were ineffective, partly because they depended on the free, generous

action of nobles, and partly because they affected only some localities, by virtue of special

circumstances or as an experiment. Thus Alexander I issued a decree on free

agriculturists, and the late Emperor Nicholas, OUR beloved father, promulgated one

dealing with serfs: in the Western provinces, inventory regulations now determine the

peasant land allotments and their obligations. But decrees on free agriculturists and

[western] serfs have been carried out on a limited scale only.

WE thus became convinced that the problem of improving the condition of serfs was a

sacred inheritance bequeathed to Us by OUR predecessors, a mission which, in the

course of events, Divine Providence has called upon Us to fulfill.

WE have begun this task by expressing OUR confidence toward the Russian nobility,

which has proven on so many occasions its devotion to the Throne, and its readiness to

make sacrifices for the welfare of the country.

WE have left to the nobles themselves, in accordance with their own wishes, the task of

preparing proposals for the new organization of peasant life—proposals that would limit

their rights over the peasants, and the realization of which would inflict on them [the

nobles] some material losses. OUR confidence was justified. Through members of the

provincial committees, who were entrusted [with the task] by the corporate organizations of

the nobility in each province, after collecting the necessary data, have formulated

proposals on a new arrangement for serfs and their relationship with the nobles.

These proposals were diverse, because of the nature of the problem. They have been

compared, collated, systematized, rectified and finalized in the Main Committee instituted

for that purpose; and these new arrangements dealing with the peasants and household

serfs1[1] of the nobility have been examined in the Council of State.

Having invoked Divine assistance, WE have resolved to execute this task.

On the basis of the above-mentioned new arrangements, the serfs will receive in time the

full rights of free rural inhabitants.

The nobles, while retaining their property rights to all the lands belonging to them, grant

the peasants perpetual use of their household plots in return for a specified obligation; and,

to assure their livelihood as well as to guarantee fulfillment of their obligations toward time

government, [the nobles] grant them a portion of arable land fixed by the said

arrangements as well as other property.

While enjoying these land allotments, the peasants are obliged, in return, to fulfill

obligations to the noblemen fixed by the same arrangements. In this status, which is

temporary, the peasants are temporarily bound.

At the same time, they are granted the right to purchase their household plots, and, with

the consent of the nobles, they may acquire in full ownership the arable lands and other

properties which are allotted them for permanent use. Following such acquisition of full

ownership of land, the peasants will be freed from their obligations to the nobles for the

land thus purchased and will become free peasant landowners.

A special decree dealing with household serfs will establish a temporary status for them,

adapted to their occupations and their needs. At the end of two years from the day of the

promulgation of this decree, they shall receive full freedom and some temporary benefits.

In accordance with the fundamental principles of these arrangements, the future

organization of peasants and household serfs will be determined, the order of general

peasant administration will be established, and the rights given to the peasants and to the

household serfs will be spelled out in detail, as will the obligations imposed on them toward

the government and the nobles.

1

Although these arrangements, general as well as local, and the special supplementary

rules affecting some particular localities, estates of petty nobles, and peasants working in

factories and enterprises of the nobles, have been as far as possible adapted to economic

necessities and local customs; nevertheless, to preserve the existing order where it

presents reciprocal advantages, WE leave it to the nobles to reach a voluntary

understanding with the peasants and to reach agreements on the extent of the land

allotment and the obligations stemming from it, observing, at the same time, the

established rules to guarantee the inviolability of such agreements.

This new arrangement, because of its complexity, cannot be put into effect immediately, an

interval of not less than two years is necessary. During this period, to avoid all

misunderstanding and to protect public and private interests, the order actually existing on

the estates of nobles should be maintained until the new order shall become effective.

Towards that end, WE have deemed it advisable:

1. To establish in each province a special Office of Peasant Affairs, which will be entrusted

with the affairs of the peasant communes established on the estates of the nobility.

2. To appoint in every district arbiters of the peace to solve all misunderstandings and

disputes which may arise from time new arrangements and to organize from these justices

district assemblies.

3. To organize Peace Offices on the estates of the nobles, leaving the village communes

as they are, and to open cantonal offices in the large villages and unite small village

communes under one cantonal office.

4. To formulate, verify, and confirm in each village commune or estate a charter which will

specify, on the basis of local conditions, the amount of land allotted to the peasants for

permanent use, and the scope of their obligations to the nobleman for the land as well as

for other advantages which are granted.

5. To put these charters into practice as they are gradually approved on each estate, and

to put them into effect everywhere within two years from the date of publication of this

manifesto.

6. Until that time, peasants and household serfs must be obedient towards their nobles,

and scrupulously fulfill their former obligations.

7. The nobles will continue to keep order on their estates, with the right of jurisdiction and

of police, until the organization of cantons and of cantonal courts.

Aware of the unavoidable difficulties of this reform, WE place OUR confidence above all in

the graciousness of Divine Providence, which watches over Russia.

WE also rely upon the zealous devotion of OUR nobility, to whom WE express OUR

gratitude and that of the entire country as well, for the unselfish support it has given to the

realization of OUR designs. Russia will not forget that the nobility, motivated by its respect

for the dignity of man and its Christian love of its neighbor, has voluntarily renounced

serfdom, and has laid the foundation of a new economic future for the peasants. WE also

expect that it will continue to express further concern for the realization of the new

arrangement in a spirit of peace and benevolence, and that each nobleman will bring to

fruition on his estate the great civic act of time entire group by organizing the lives of his

peasants and his household serfs on mutually advantageous terms, thereby setting for the

rural population a good example of a punctual and conscientious execution of the state’s

requirements.

The examples of the generous concern of the nobles for the welfare of peasants, amid the

gratitude of the latter for that concern, give Us the hope that a mutual understanding will

solve most of the difficulties, which in some cases will be inevitable during the application

of general rules to the diverse conditions on some estates, and that thereby the transition

from the old order to time new will be facilitated, and that in the future mutual confidence

will be strengthened, and a good understanding and a unanimous tendency towards the

general good will evolve.

To facilitate the realization of these agreements between the nobles arid the peasants, by

which the latter may acquire full ownership of their household plots and their houses, the

government will lend assistance, under special regulations, by means of loans or transfer

of debts encumbering an estate.

WE rely upon the common sense of OUR people. When the government advanced the

idea of abolishing serfdom, there developed a partial misunderstanding among the

unprepared peasants. Some were concerned about freedom and not concerned about

obligations. But, generally, the common sense of the nation has not wavered, because it

has realized that every individual who enjoys freely the benefits of society owes it in return

certain positive obligations; according to Christian law every individual is subject to higher

authority (Romans, chap. xiii., 1); everyone must fulfill his obligations, and, above all,

render tribute, dues, respect, and honor (Ibid., chap. xiii., 7). What legally belongs to

nobles cannot be taken away from them without adequate compensation, or through their

voluntary concession; it would be contrary to all justice to use the land of the nobles

without assuming corresponding obligations.

And now WE confidently expect that the freed serfs, on the eve of a new future which is

opening to them, will appreciate and recognize the considerable sacrifices which the

nobility has made on their behalf.

They should understand that by acquiring property and greater freedom to dispose of their

possessions, they have an obligation to society and to themselves to live up to the letter of

the new law by a loyal and judicious use of the rights which are now granted to them.

However beneficial a law may be, it cannot make people happy if they do not themselves

organize their happiness under protection of the law. Abundance is acquired only through

hard work, wise use of strength and resources, strict economy, and above all, through an

honest God-fearing life.

The authorities who prepared the new way of life for the peasants and who will be

responsible for its inauguration will have to see that this task is accomplished with

calmness and regularity, taking advantage of the time allotted, in order not to divert the

attention of cultivators away from their agricultural work. Let them zealously work the soil

and harvest its fruits so that they will have a full granary of seeds to return to the soil which

will be theirs.

And now, Orthodox people, make the sign of the cross, and join with Us to invoke God’s

blessing upon your free labor, the sure pledge of your personal well being and the public

prosperity.

 

Given at St. Petersburg, March 3, the year of Grace 1861, and the seventh of OUR reign.

Alexander

 

 

2[1]dvorovye -- serfs who did not hold allotments of land; most of

them worked as domestic servants or craftspeople.

 

2

  Alexander Nikitenko responds to the Emancipation of the Serfs, 1861

Alexander Nikitenko was born a serf of the Sheremetev family in Voronezh Province in 1803.  Through an extraordinary concurrent of events, Alexander was able to receive an education, develop his intellectual abilities and ultimately, in 1825, obtain his freedom.  He went on to become a professor of literature at St. Petersburg University.  Throughout his life Nikitenko kept a detailed diary of his daily activities and responses to ongoing events.  Published soon after his death, the diary provides a intimate view of Russian intellectual and cultural life.  In the passage below, Nikitenko reports his reaction to learning of the emancipation of the serfs.

March 5 [1861], Sunday.  A great day: the manifesto on freedom for the peasants.  They brought it to me around noon.  With an inexpressible feeling of joy, I read through this precious act the likes of which has surely not been seen throughout the thousand year history of the Russian people.  I read it aloud to my wife and children and one of our friends in the study before the portrait of Alexander II at whom we all gazed with deep reverence and gratitude.  I tried to explain to my ten year old son as simply as I could the meaning of the manifesto, and I instructed him to enshrine forever in his heart the fifth of March and the name of Alexander II the Liberator.

I could not say sitting at home.  I had an urge to go outside and wander through the streets and, as it were, merge into the reborn people.   At intersections announcements were posted from the Governor-General and around each of them clumps of people were assembled: one read while the others listed. Constantly the words "decree on liberty," and "freedom" rose up to met the ear.   One person, reading the announcement and having reached the please where it was said that household serfs were remain in obedience to their master for two years, exclaimed with indignation: "The devil take this paper!  Two years--as if I'm really going to obey!."   The others were silent. 

From among my acquaintances, I met up with Galakhov.  "Christ has risen!"(1) I said to him.   "Truly he has risen," he answered, and together we expressed our common joy.  Then I dropped in on Rebinder.  He order that champagne be served and we each drank a glass in honor of Alexander II. 

 

(1).   "Christ has risen" (Khristos voskres!)  The tradition Russian orthodox Easter greeting.

 

Source: Aleksandr Nikitenko, Dnevnik v trekh tomakh (Leningrad: gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo khudozhenstvennoi literatury, 1955), v. 2, pp. 179-180.

Translated by Nathaniel Knight

3/15/03

  Proclamation by A. V. Iartsev (October, 1873)

Iartsev produced this text early in 1874 while under interrogation for his involvement in the "movement to the people;" he represented it as a faithful transcript of a talk he had given to some construction workers.

           Brothers! You can't deny that you are deceived at every step, that

your labor benefits only the rich and the contractors. That's what you are

thinking about--how to escape from this. The government doesn't think of

improving your situation, it just wants to collect a bit more money to pay its

functionaries and gather armies, so it can strut before other states. In

Samara Province, in what you call the low country, such grain used to grow

there that they still talk about it to this day, but now the common people is

dying from hunger there, now they are eating all kinds of garbage. That's

because the peasants there have little land, and with taxes, everything they

might save for a hungry year is squeezed out. Now there is a drought, and

death is among them. I have heard there is talk among you of equalizing the

land. Well, you have nothing to expect from the government in that, for it is

well fed and the well-fed don't understand the hungry. But here is how you

can do it yourselves, and abolish obrok at the same time. You should learn

to read and learn everything you should know. Of course, at first not many

of you can manage that, but when some do learn, they will teach others, and

so on. When the greater part of the common people is learned enough to

know how things should be, then all this can be done. Most important, you

will get some sense only when you yourselves are good, when you stop

envying one another but look on one another as brothers, and help one

another in trouble. When you have achieved all of this, elect from among

yourselves your chosen men--good and honest and intelligent people--who

will govern you. You yourselves can keep an eye on them, so that they do

everything according to the law, since everyone will know the laws and all

the rules. Even now there is the zemstvo assembly, but none of you can

make any sense out of what goes on there. The peasants don't elect as

delegates those that can be counted on but those who offer the most vodka.

That's who gets elected when the common people is in darkness and is bad

itself, the elections don't do any good. Stenka Razin and Pugachev were

concerned about improving the way people live, but they did not do any

good, because the common people was very backward, did not understand

what was good for it, but listened to any scoundrel; much blood flowed, but

no good was done. And all this was because everyone worried only about

himself, and didn't think of others. And so, brothers, stand one for all and all

for one, and only then can you get rid of taxes and the draft and equalize the

land. But until then study and improve yourselves.

Translated by Daniel Field

3/26/02

3[1].  Here, taxes to the state.

4[2]. Leaders of insurrections in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

34

        Alexander III

        Manifesto of April 29, 1881 

 

We proclaim this to all Our faithful subjects: God in His ineffable judgment has

deemed it proper to culminate the glorious reign of Our beloved father with a

martyr's death, and to lay the Holy duty of Autocratic Rule on us.

Submitting to the will of Providence and the Law on the inheritance of

Sovereignty, We assume this burden in a terrible hour of universal popular

grief and terror, averring before the countenance of the Most High that,

imparting this Authority to Us in so difficult and troublesome a time, He will not

withhold his All-powerful help from us. We also aver that the fervid prayers of

the pious people, which is celebrated in all the world for its love and devotion

to its Sovereigns, will draw Divine blessing down upon Us and upon the labor

of governing that lies before Us.

Our father reposing in God, having assumed from God the Autocratic power for

the benefit of the people in his stewardship, remained faithful even unto death. It

was not so much by stern orders as by goodness and kindness, which are also

attributes of power, that He carried out the greatest undertaking of His reign--the

emancipation of the enserfed peasants. In this he was able to elicit the

cooperation of the noble [serf-] holders themselves, who always quick to the

summons of the good and honorable. He established Justice in the Realm and,

having made his subjects without exception free for all time, He summoned them

to take charge of local administration and public works. May His memory be

blessed through the ages!.

The base and wicked murder of a Russian Sovereign by unworthy monsters

from the people, done in the very midst of that faithful people, who were ready to

lay down their lives for Him--this is a terrible and shameful matter, unheard of in

Russia, which has darkened Our entire land with grief and terror. But in the

midst of Our great grief, the voice of God orders Us courageously to undertake,

in deference to Divine intention, the task of ruling, with faith in the strength and

rightness [istina] of autocratic power. We are summoned to reaffirm that Power

and preserve it for the benefit of the people from any encroachment.

Courage to the hearts, now overcome by confusion and terror, of our faithful

subjects, who all love the Fatherland and have from generation to generation

been devoted to the Hereditary Tsarist Power! Under its shelter and in unbroken

union with it, Our land has more than once experienced great tumults and

passed, with faith in the God who ordains its fate, through grievous experiences

and misfortunes and on to new power and glory.

Dedicating ourself to Our great Service, we appeal to Our faithful subjects to

serve Us and the State truly and faithfully, so that the foul treason which shames

the Russian land may be uprooted, faith and morality be reaffirmed, children be

reared rightly, falsehood and spoliation be exterminated, and order and justice

be imparted to the activities of the institutions given to Russia by her Benefactor,

Our Beloved Father.

Alexander

St. Petersburg, 29 April 1881

Translated by Daniel Field

3/26/02

Konstantin Pobedonotsev, The Ideologist of Russian Reaction.Konstantin Pobedonotsev (1827-1907) was a legal scholar who rose through the ranks of the Imperial bureaucracy and played an important role in the writing of the judicial reforms of 1864. In 1865, he became a tutor to the Imperial family and directed the education of the future Alexander III. In 1880, he was appointed procurator of the Holy Synod, an office he would hold until 1905. With the ascent to the throne of his former pupil in 1881, he attained tremendous influence within the government. Not least of his achievements was his personal supervision of the education of Nicholas II. Pobedonotsev was viewed by Russian liberals as the incarnation of reaction, a cold and sinister presence whose ideological intransigence kept Russia mired in backwardness and oppression.

On Parliamentary DemocracyOn "Freedom of the Press"On the Nature of PowerOn Education

 

On Parliamentary Democracy:

What is this freedom by which so many minds are agitated, which inspires so many insensate actions, so many wild speeches, which leads the people so often to misfortune? In the democratic sense of the word, freedom is the right of political power, or, to express it otherwise, the right to participate in the government of the State… Forever extending its base, the new Democracy now aspires to universal suffrage - a fatal error, and one of the most remarkable in the history of mankind. By this means, the political power so passionately demanded by Democracy would be shattered into a number of infinitesimal bits, of which each citizen acquires a single one. What will he do with it, then? how will he employ it? In the result it has undoubtedly been shown that in the attainment of this aim Democracy violates its sacred formula of "Freedom indissolubly joined with Equality." It is shown that this apparently equal distribution of "freedom" among all involves the total destruction of equality. Each vote, representing an inconsiderable fragment of power, by itself signifies nothing; an aggregation of votes alone has a relative value… In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their henchmen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it… The history of mankind bears witness that the most necessary and fruitful reforms - the most durable measures - emanated from the supreme will of statesmen, or from a minority enlightened by lofty ideas and deep knowledge, and that, on the contrary, the extension of the representative principle is accompanied by an abasement of political ideas and the vulgarisation of opinions in the mass of the electors…

Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of the sovereignty of the people, the principle that all power issues from the people, and is based upon the national will - a principle

which has unhappily become more firmly established since the time of the French Revolution. Thence proceeds the theory of Parliamentarism, which, up to the present day, has deluded much of the so-called "intelligentsia," and unhappily infatuated certain foolish Russians. It continues to maintain its hold on many minds with the obstinacy of a narrow fanaticism, although every day its falsehood is exposed more clearly to the world.

In what does the theory of Parliamentarism consist? It is supposed that the people in its assemblies makes its own laws, and elects responsible officers to execute its will. Such is the ideal conception. Its immediate realisation is impossible. The historical development of society necessitates that local communities increase in numbers and complexity; that separate races be assimilated, or, retaining their polities and languages, unite under a single flag, that territory extend indefinitely: under such conditions direct government by the people is impracticable. The people must, therefore, delegate its right of power to its representatives, and invest them with administrative autonomy. These representatives in turn cannot govern immediately, but are compelled to elect a still smaller number of trustworthy persons - ministers - to whom they entrust the preparation and execution of the laws, the apportionment and collection of taxes, the appointment of subordinate officials, and the disposition of the militant forces.

In the abstract this mechanism is quite symmetrical: for its proper operation many conditions are essential. The working of the political machine is based on impersonal forces constantly acting and completely balanced. It may act successfully only when the delegates of the people abdicate their personalities; when on the benches of Parliament sit mechanical fulfillers of the people's behests; when the ministers of State remain impersonal, absolute executors of the will of the majority; when the elected representatives of the people are capable of understanding precisely, and executing conscientiously, the programme of activity, mathematically expressed, which has been delivered to them. Given such conditions the machine would work exactly, and would accomplish its purpose. The law would actually embody the will of the people! administrative measures would actually emanate from Parliament: the pillars of the State would rest actually on the elective assemblies, and each citizen would directly and consciously participate in the management of public affairs.

Such is the theory. Let us look at the practice. Even in the classic countries of Parliamentarism it would satisfy not one of the conditions enumerated. The elections in no way express the will of the electors. The popular representatives are in no way restricted by the opinions of their constituents, but are guided by their own views and considerations, modified by the tactics of their opponents. In reality, ministers are autocratic, and they rule, rather than are ruled by, Parliament. They attain power, and lose power, not by virtue of the will of the people, but through immense personal influence, or the influence of a strong party which places them in power, or drives them from it. They dispose of the force and resources of the nation at will, they grant immunities and favours, they maintain a multitude of idlers at the expense of the people, and they fear no censure while they enjoy the support in Parliament of a majority which they maintain by the distribution of bounties from the rich tables which the State has put at their disposal. In reality, the ministers are as irresponsible as the representatives of the people. Mistakes, abuse of power, and arbitrary acts, are of daily occurrence, yet how often do we hear of the grave responsibility of a minister? It may be once in fifty years a minister is tried for his crimes, with a result contemptible when compared with the celebrity gained by the solemn procedure.

Thus the representative principle works in practice. The ambitious man comes before his fellow-citizens, and strives by every means to convince them that he more than any other is worthy of their

confidence. What motives impel him to this quest? It is hard to believe that he is impelled by disinterested zeal for the public good. . . .

On the day of polling few give their votes intelligently; these are the individuals, influential electors whom it has been worth' while to convince in private. The mass of electors, after the practice of the herd, votes for one of the candidates nominated by the committees. Not one exactly knows the man, or considers his character, his capacity, his convictions; all vote merely because they have heard his name so often. It would be vain to struggle against this herd. If a level-headed elector wished to act intelligently in such a grave affair, and not to give way to the violence of the committee, he would have to abstain altogether, or to give his vote for his candidate according to his conviction. However he might act, he could not prevent the election of the candidate favored by the mass of frivolous, in different, and prejudiced electors.

In theory, the elected candidate must be the favorite of the majority; in fact, he is the favorite of a minority, sometimes very small, but representing an organized force, while the majority, like sand, has no coherence, and is therefore incapable of resisting the clique and the faction. In theory, the election favors the intelligent and capable; in reality, it favors the pushing and impudent. It might be thought that education, experience, conscientiousness in work, and wisdom in affairs, would be essential requirements in the candidate; in reality, whether these qualities exist or not, they are in no way needed in the struggle of the election, where the essential qualities are audacity, a combination of impudence and oratory, and even some vulgarity, which invariably acts on the masses; modesty, in union with delicacy of feeling and thought, is worth nothing. . . .

…By nature, men are divided into two classes - those who tolerate no power above them, and therefore of necessity strive to rule others; and those who by their nature dread the responsibility inseparable from independent action, and who shrink from any resolute exercise of will. These were born for submission, and together constitute a herd* which follows the men of will and resolution, who form the minority. Thus the most talented persons submit willingly, and gladly entrust to stronger hands the control of affairs and the moral responsibility for their direction. Instinctively they seek a leader, and become his obedient instruments, inspired by the conviction that he will lead them to victory-and, often, to spoil. Thus all the important actions of Parliament are controlled by the leaders of the party, who inspire all decision, who lead in combat, and profit by victory. The public sessions are no more than a spectacle for the mass. Speeches are delivered to sustain the fiction of Parliamentarism, but seldom a speech by itself affects the decision of Parliament in a grave affair. Speechmaking serves for the glory of orators, for the increase of their popularity, and the making of their careers; only on rare occasions does it affect the distribution of votes. Majorities and minorities are usually decided before the session begins. Such is the complicated mechanism of the Parliamentary farce; such is the great political lie which dominates our age. . . .

Such is the Parliamentary institution, exalted as the summit and crown of the edifice of State. It is sad to think that even in Russia there are men who aspire to the establishment of this falsehood among us; that our professors glorify to their young pupils representative government as the ideal of political science; that our newspapers pursue it in their articles and feuilletons, under the name of justice and order, without troubling to examine without prejudice the working of the parliamentary machine. Yet even where centuries have sanctified its existence, faith already decays; the Liberal intelligence exalts it, but the people groans under its despotism, and recognizes its falsehood. We may not see, but our children and grand children assuredly will see, the overthrow of this idol, which contemporary thought in its vanity continues still to worship. . . .

 

On "Freedom of the Press:"

In our age the judgment of others has assumed an organized form, and calls itself Public Opinion. Its organ and representative is the Press. In truth, the importance of the Press is immense, and may be regarded as the most characteristic fact of our time - more characteristic even than our remarkable discoveries and inventions in the realm of technical science. No government, no law, no custom can withstand its destructive activity when, from day to day, through the course of years, the Press repeats and disseminates among the people its condemnations of institutions or of men.

What is the secret of this strength? Certainly not the novelties and sensations with which the newspaper is filled, but its declared policy--the political and philosophical ideas propagated in its articles, selection and classification of its news and rumours, and the peculiar illumination which it casts upon them. The newspaper has usurped the position of judicial observer of the events of the day; it judges not only the actions and words of men, but affects a knowledge of their unexpressed opinions, their intentions, and their enterprises; it praises and condemns at discretion; it incites some, threatens others; drags to the pillory one, and others exalts as idols to be adored and examples worthy of the emulation of all. In the name of Public Opinion it bestows rewards on some, and punishes others with the severity of excommunication. The question naturally occurs: Who are these representatives of this terrible power. Public Opinion? Whence is derived their right and authority to rule in the name of the community, to demolish existing institutions, and to proclaim new ideals of ethics and legislation?

But no one attempts to answer this question; all talk loudly of the liberty of the Press as the first and essential element of social well-being. Even in Russia, so libeled by the lying Press of Europe, such words are heard. Our so-called Slavophiles, with amazing inconsistency, share the same delusion, although their avowed object is to reform and renovate the institutions of their country upon a historic basis. Having joined the chorus of Liberals, in alliance with the propagandists of revolution, they proclaim exactly in the manner of the West: "Public Opinion-that is, the collective thought, guided by the natural love of right in all - is the final judge in all matters of public interest; therefore no restriction upon freedom of speech can be allowed, for such restriction can only express the tyranny of the minority over the will of the mass."

Such is a current proposition of the newest Liberalism. It is accepted by many in good faith, and there are few who, having troubled to analyze it, have discerned how it is based upon falsehood and self-deception. It conflicts with the first principles of logic, for it is based on the fallacious premise that the opinions of the public and of the Press are identical.

To test the validity of this claim, it is only needful to consider the origin of newspapers, and the characters of their makers.

Any vagabond babbler or unacknowledged genius, any enterprising tradesman, with his own money or with the money of others, may found a newspaper, even a great newspaper. He may attract a host of writers and feuilletonists, ready to deliver judgment on any subject at a moment's notice; he may hire illiterate reporters to keep him supplied with rumors and scandals. His staff is then complete. From that day he sits in judgment on all the world, on ministers and administrators, on literature and art, on finance and industry. . .

This phenomenon is worthy of close inspection, for we find in it the most incongruous product of modern culture, the more incongruous where the principles of the new Liberalism have taken root, where the sanction of election, the authority of the popular will, is needed for every institution, where the ruling power is vested in the hands of individuals, and derived from the suffrages of the majority in the representative assemblies. For the journalist with a power comprehending all things, requires no sanction. He derives his authority from no election, he receives support from no one. His newspaper becomes an authority in the State, and for this authority no endorsement is required. The man in the street may establish such an organ and exercise the concomitant authority with an irresponsibility enjoyed by no other power in the world. That this is in no way exaggeration there are innumerable proofs. How often have superficial and unscrupulous journalists paved the way for revolution, fomented irritation into enmity, and brought about desolating wars! For conduct such as this a monarch would lose his throne, a minister would be disgraced, impeached, and punished; but the journalist stands dry above the waters he has disturbed, from the ruin he has caused he rises triumphant, and briskly continues his destructive work.

This is by no means the worst. When a judge has power to dishonor us, to deprive us of our property and of our freedom, he receives his power from the hands of the State only after such prolonged labor and experience as qualify him for his calling. His power is restricted by rigorous laws, his judgments are subject to revision by higher powers, and his sentence may be altered or commuted. The journalist has the fullest power to defame and dishonor me, to injure my material interests, even to restrict my liberty by attacks which force me to leave my place of abode. These judicial powers he has usurped; no higher authority has conferred them upon him; he has never proven by examination his fitness to exercise them; he has in no way shown his trustworthiness or his impartiality; his court is ruled by no formal procedure: and from his judgment there lies no appeal…

It is hard to imagine a despotism more irresponsible and violent than the despotism of printed words. Is it not strange and irrational, then, that those who struggle most for the preservation of this despotism are the impassioned champions for freedom, the ferocious enemies of legal restrictions and of all interference by the established authority. We cannot help remembering those wise men who went mad because they knew of their wisdom.

 

On the Nature of Power:

. . . In human souls there exists a force of moral gravity which draws them one to another; and which, made manifest in the spiritual interaction of souls, answers an organic need. Without this force mankind would be as a heap of sand, without any bond, dispersed by every wind on every side. By this inherent force, without preparatory accord, are men united in society. It impels them out of the crowd of men to seek for leaders with whom to commune, whom to obey, and whose direction to seek. Inspired by a moral principle, this instinct acquires the value of a creative force, uniting and elevating the people to worthy deeds and to great endurance…

To live without power is impossible. After the need of communion the need of power is of all feelings most deeply rooted in the spiritual nature of man. Since the day duality entered into his soul, since the day the knowledge of good and evil was vouchsafed to him, and the love of good and justice rose in his soul in eternal conflict with evil and injustice, for him there has been no salvation save to seek sustenance and reconciliation in a high judge of this conflict; in a living incarnation of

the principle of order and of truth. And, whatever may be the disenchantment, the betrayal, the afflictions which humanity has suffered from power, while men shall yearn for good and truth, and remember their helplessness and duality, they can never cease to believe in the ideal of power, and to repeat their efforts for its realization. Today, as in ancient times, the foolish say in their hearts: There is no God, no truth, no good, no evil; and gather around them pupils equally foolish, proclaiming atheism and anarchy. But the great mass of mankind stands firm in its faith in the supreme principle of life, and, through tears and bloodshed, as the blind seeking a guide, seeks for power with imperishable hope, notwithstanding eternal betrayal and disillusion.

Thus the work of power is a work of uninterrupted usefulness, and in reality a work of renunciation. How strange these words must seem beside the current conception of power! It is natural, it would seem, for men to flee and to avoid renunciation. Yet all seek power, all aspire to it; for power men strive together, they resort to crime, they destroy one another, and when they attain power they rejoice and triumph. Power seeks to exalt itself, and words pass through our heads as something in no way concerning us, as Yet the immutable, only true ideal of power is embodied in the words of Christ: "Whosoever of you will be the first shall be servant of all." These words pass through our heads as something in no way concerning us, as especially addressed to a vanished community in Palestine. In reality, they apply to all power, however great, which, in the depth of conscience, does not recognize that the higher its throne, the wider the sphere of its activity, the heavier must become its fetters, the more widely must open before it the roll of social evils, stained by the weeping of pity and woe, and the louder must sound the crying and sobbing of injustice which demands redress. The first necessity of power is faith in itself and in its mission. Happy is power when this faith is combined with a recognition of duty and of moral responsibility! Unhappy is it when it lacks this consciousness and leans upon itself alone! Then begins the decay which leads to loss of faith, and in the end to disintegration and destruction.

Power is the depository of truth, and needs, above all things, men of truth, of clear intellects, of strong understandings, and of sincere speech, who know the limits of yes and no, and never transcend them, whose thoughts develop clearly in their minds, and are clearly expressed by their words. Men of this nature only are the firm support of power, and its faithful delegates. Happy is the power which can distinguish such men, appreciate their merit, and firmly sustain them! Unhappy is the power which wearies of such natures, promoting men of complaisant character, flexible opinions, and flattering tongues!

 

On Education:

… Take, for instance, the phrases, repeated unto weariness among us, and everywhere: Free Education, Obligatory Attendance, the Restriction of Child-Labour During the Years of Obligatory Attendance. There can be no question that learning is light, and that ignorance is darkness, but in the application of this rule we must take care to be ruled by common-sense, and so to abstain from violating that freedom, of which we hear so much, and which our legislators so ruthlessly restrict. Inspired by an idle saying that the schoolmaster won the battle of Sadowa, we multiply our model schools and schoolmasters, ignoring the requirements both of children and of parents, of climate, and of nature itself. We refuse to recognize, what experience has shown, that the school is a deceptive formality where its roots have taken no hold among the people, where it fails to meet the people's necessities, and to accord with the economy of its life. That school alone is suited to the

people which pleases them, and the enlightening influence of which they see and feel; but all schools are repugnant to them to which they are driven by force, under threats of punishment, or which are organized, in ignorance of the people's tastes and necessities, on the fantasies of doctrinaires. In such schools the work becomes mechanical; the school resembles an office with all the formality and weariness which office life involves. The legislator is satisfied when he has founded and organized in certain localities a certain number of similar institutions adorned with the inscription - School. For these establishments money must be raised; attendance is secured under penalty; a great staff of inspectors is organized whose duty it is to see that parents and poor and working men send their children to school at the established age. Already all Governments have transgressed the line at which public instruction begins to show its reverse side. Everywhere official education flourishes at the expense of that real education in the sphere of domestic, professional, and social life which is a vital element of success.

But infinite evil has been wrought by the prevalent confusion of knowledge and power. Seduced by the fantasy of universal enlightenment, we confuse education with a certain sum of knowledge acquired by completing the courses of schools, skillfully elaborated in the studies of pedagogues. Having organized our school thus, we isolate it from life, and secure by force the attendance of children whom we subject to a process of intellectual training in accordance with our program. But we ignore or forget that the mass of the children whom we educate must earn their daily bread, a labour for which the abstract notions on which our programs are constructed will be vain; while in the interests of some imaginary knowledge we withhold that training in productive labour which alone will bear fruit. Such are the results of our complex educational system, and such are the causes of the aversion with which the masses regard our schools, for which they can find no use.

The vulgar conception of education is true enough, but unhappily it is disregarded in the organization of the modern school. In the popular mind the function of a school is to teach the elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic, and, in union with these, the duty of knowing, loving, and fearing Cod, of loving our native land, and of honoring our parents. These are the elements of knowledge and the sentiments which together form the basis of conscience in man, and give to him the moral strength needed for the preservation of his equilibrium in life, for the maintenance of struggle with the evil impulses of his nature and with the evil sentiments and temptations of the mind. It is an unhappy day when education tears the child from the surroundings in which he first acquired the elements of his future calling, those exercises of his early years through which he acquires, almost unconsciously, the taste capacity for work. The boy who wishes to become a bachelor or the master of arts must begin his studies at a certain age, and in due time pass through a given course of knowledge; but the vast majority of children must learn to live by the work of their hands. For such work physical training is needed from the earliest age. To close the door to such preparation, that time may be saved for the teaching of schools, is to place a burden upon the lives of the masses who have to struggle for their daily bread, and to shackle in the family the natural development of those economic forces which together constitute the capital of the commonwealth. The sailor qualifies for his calling by spending his boyhood on the sea; the miner prepares for his work by early years spent in the subterranean passages of mines. To the agriculturist it is even more essential that he shall become accustomed for his future work, that he may learn to love it in childhood, in the presence of nature, beside his herds and his plough, in the midst of his fields and his meadows.

Yet we waste our time discussing courses for elementary schools and obligatory programs which are to be the bases of a finished education. One would include an encyclopedic instruction under the barbarous term Rodinovyedenie (knowledge of the fatherland); another insists on the necessity for

the agriculturist to know physics, chemistry, agricultural economy, and medicine; while a third demands a course of political economy and jurisprudence. But few reflect that by tearing the child from the domestic hearth for such a lofty destiny, they deprive his parents of a productive force which is essential to the maintenance of the home, while by raising before his eyes the mirage of illusory learning they corrupt his mind, an subject it to the temptations of vanity and conceit.

 

Source: K. P. Pobyedonotseff, Reflections of a Russian Statesman, trans. R. C. Long (London: Grant Richard & Co., 1898).  Revised by Nathaniel Knight.

Primary Sources on Mixed Marriages in the Russian Empire  

 

  Marriage represented a crucial institution for Imperial Russia and indeed as a foundation for the existing social and even political order. But while civil marriage had begun to make its appearance in other European countries, marriage in Russia remained a resolutely religious affair and continued to be regulated by the rules of the empire's various faiths, which included Orthodoxy, Uniatism (until 1875), Catholicism, Protestanism, Armeno-Gregorianism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and "paganism." Below are some of the relevant sections of the law regulating marriage:  

Art. 61. Persons of all the Christian confessions are freely permitted in Russia to enter marriages with one another by the rituals and rules of their churches, without requesting special permission from the civil government, but with the observance of the limitations established for those confessions. Art. 65. Marriages of persons of all the Christian confessions must be concluded by their law [i.e., by the rules of their confession] and by the clergy of the church to which those entering marriage belong; but those marriages are also considered to be valid when, in the absence of a pastor or priest of their religion in the given location, the marriage is performed by an Orthodox priest, but in such a case the conclusion and dissolution of those marriages are dictated by the rules and rituals of the Orthodox church.  Art. 90. [The members of] each ethnicity and people, not excluding pagans, are allowed to enter into marriage by the rules of their law [i.e., their religion] or by accepted customs, without the participation of civil authorities or of Christian religious authorities.[1]

  The matter was clear enough, then, when both bride and groom were of the same confession. But what about those cases when two persons confessing different religious wished to enter marriage? In such cases, the law made the following basic provisions:  

Art. 85. For Russian subjects of Orthodox and Roman Catholic confessions marriages with non-Christians, and [for subjects] of the Protestant confession marriages with pagans, are entirely prohibited.  Art. 72. Marriages of persons of Orthodox confession with persons of Roman Catholic  confession, concluded only by Roman Catholic priests, are considered invalid until such time that the marriage has been performed by an Orthodox priest.

 Art. 76. If the groom or the bride belongs to the Orthodox confession [and the other to another confession], in such a case everywhere, except Finland (for whose native inhabitants in the next article (68) an exception is provided), the following is required: 1) that persons of other confessions, entering into marriage with persons of the Orthodox confession, give a written promise that they will not revile their spouses, nor incline them through enticement, threats or any other means to accept their faith, and that children born in this marriage will be baptized and raised in the rules of the Orthodox confession… ; 2) that in the conclusion of such marriages all the rules and precautions that have been established generally for marriages between persons of the Orthodox confession are executed and observed without fail; 3) [and] that such marriages be concluded by an Orthodox priest in an Orthodox church…. It is forbidden to accept requests for permission to perform the rite of marriage by the rules of a foreign [non-Orthodox] church alone [i.e., to accept requests for exceptions].[2]

  Of course, if a non-Orthodox person converted to Orthodoxy prior to a marriage to an Orthodox person, then the stipulations on mixed marriage would disappear. It was impossible, however, for an Orthodox person to convert to another faith, for until 1905 the following law was in effect:   

Those born into the Orthodox faith, as well as those who convert to it from other faiths, are forbidden from leaving it [Orthodoxy] and accepting another faith, even a Christian one.[3]

  This circumstance should be kept in mind as one considers the following archival file. The file dates to 1896 and begins when an Orthodox priest reported the intention of his parishioner, Venedikta Volkovich, to marry a Catholic, Mikhail Matsekevich. The matter was complicated by the fact that Venedikta's religious sympathies, despite her formal Orthodox status, were clearly Catholic and the couple was eager to have their marriage sanctified by Catholic rite. The Orthodox priest wrote that Venedikta, "despite the admonitions to which she was subjected more than once in October to return to the bosom of the Orthodox church and to enter a legal marriage with Mikhail Matsukevich by Orthodox ritual, remains recalcitrant." Indeed, Venedikta's relacitrance had already led Orthodox authorities to request that the local Procurator initiate legal proceedings against her, since "apostasy" from Orthodoxy was illegal. Meanwhile, the groom, Mikhail Matsukevich, knowing that "mixed" marriages legally required an Orthodox ceremony, nonetheless appealed to the Orthodox Archbishop of Lithuania to permit a Catholic ceremony instead. Noting that he had now lived with Venedikta out of wedlock for ten years and that they had already given birth to a daughter, Matsukevich contested the claim that his bride was actually Orthodox. She had always taken communion in the local Catholic church and her father had been included in the list of Orthodox parishioners "by mistake." As a result of these circumstances, Matsukevich wrote to the Archibishop,

  

Roman Catholic priests do not agree to marry me to her [Venedikta] by Roman Catholic ritual without the permission of Your Eminence. And since I am a Catholic and Venedikta Petrovna Volkovich, who was been living with me out of wedlock up until now, is not to be found on the list of the Orthodox, I humbly request Your Eminence to permit me to be married to her by Roman Catholic rite, out of consideration of the fact that if I do not receive such permission, then I will leave her and she will be compelled to live in debauchery. I submit this petition because I do not wish to offend her and [would like] to live with her as God commands, but under no circumstance am I willing, nor will I agree, to change my native faith for her sake. And so falling to the holy feet of Your Eminence, I most humbly request that you render me divine mercy and present me with a favorable resolution as to what I should do with her [Venedikta]: marry her by Roman Catholic rite or renounce her, since all priests send me to your Eminence, and I would not like to live like  a beast, however if you do not permit me [to marry by Catholic rite] then I will commit a sin and will marry another [woman] and will renounce Venedikta. (27 June 1896)

  The Lithuanian Orthodox Ecclesiastical Consistory rejected Matsukevich's request,   

"in light of the information provided in the protocol [on this case] and in light of the fact that the peasant Venedikta Petrovna Volkovich must confess the Orthodox church and may be married only in the Orthodox church by Orthodox rite." (13 December 1896).[4]

  While there is no indication as to what occurred in this case thereafter, in general the confessional order in Russia changed significantly in 1905, when a new decree on religious toleration lifted certain restrictions on religious conversion. That decree, dated 17 April 1905, provided that from that point forward the state was  

To recognize that apostasy from the Orthodox faith into another Christian confession or religious teaching is not subject to prosecution and should not involve any consequences that are unfavorable with respect to personal or civil rights; moroever upon attainment of majority the apostate from Orthodoxy is recognized as belonging to the religious confession or teaching that he or she has chosen.[5]

  This new law was important for the second case provided here, which began in 1909 when the Governor of Vilna province wrote to the Orthodox Archibichop Nikandr concerning the marriage of an Orthodox man (Vikentii Kovchik) and a Catholic woman (Emily Orlovskaia). The local Orthodox priest refused to marry the couple until Emily converted to Orthodoxy, which she refused to do. The couple

therefore turned to the Governor, in the hope that he would authorize the Catholic church to perform the service instead. Having laid out the circumstances of the case, the Governor wrote to the Archbishop:  

Recognizing that the condition set by the [Orthodox] priest of Malo-Mozheiskii church is not based on the law, and concerned that this demand could compel the petitioner Kovchik to convert to Catholicism, I consider my duty to forward the noted petition of Kovchik and Orlovskaia for consideration by Your Eminence. (6 May 1909).

  Kovchik and Orlovskaia's petition to the Governor read as follows:   

"We the petitioners wish to enter into a legal marriage, but since Kovchik is of the Orthodox faith and belongs to the Malo-Mozheiskii parish,  and Orlovskaia is of the Roman Catholic confession and belongs to the Zholudskii parish, neither the Malo-Mozheiskii [Orthodox] priest, nor the Zholudskii Catholic priest wishes to give us the marital crown, the former without the conversion of Orlovskaia to the Orthodox faith, and the latter without the conversion of Kovhcik to the Roman Catholic faith. But each one of us wishes to remain in the faith into which he or she was born.             And for this reason we have the honor of most humbly requesting Your Excellency to issue a directive instructing the Vilnius Roman-Catholic Spiritual Consistory to order the priest of the Zholudskii Roman Catholic church  to give us the [marital] crown without the conversion of Kovchik to the Roman Catholic confession, since the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic church confess belief in the same Jesus Christ, and each person finds it more pleasant to pray in the language in which he or she was instructed from childhood. (27 April 1909).

  The Lithuanian (Orthodox) Spiritual Consistory, having considered the case, ordered the local Orthodox priest,  in light of Orlovskaia's refusal to accept Orthodoxy, "to marry Kovchik and Orlovskaia without delay, if there are no legal obstacles, with the observation of all legal precautions and with the taking of the appopriate pre-marital signature" (13 May 1909). The "legal obstacles" referred to her concerned above all ascertaining that the groom and bride were not close relatives. Later in May, 1909 the Orthodox priest of Malo-Mozheiskii parish offered the following explanation of the circumstances in resposne to the Consistory's order of May 13:  

"In response to my suggestion to the brother of the groom, Nikita, who came to me as a messenger on May 21 with a paper from Mr. Governor and the resolution of Your Eminence concerning the marriage of Maksim Kovchik, of the Orthodox confession, with Emily Orlovskaia, of the Roman Catholic confession, I declared my willingness to marry them on May 22 in the Malomozheiskii church: But on the appointed day they did not appear.  It

turned out, based on [my] questioning of their fellow villagers, that Emily Orlovskaia, fanaticized by the Zheludskii Catholic priest, entirely refuses to be married in an Orthodox church and demands of her groom that he accept Catholicism, something that the entire Kovchik family refuses. Being a frightful fanatic, Emily Orlovskaia speaks about the Orthodox church using the most offensive language that I cannot even repeat. She has been selected by the Catholic priests as an instrument for leading [Orthodox people] astray. At the present time she is showing everyone the paper from Mr. Governor in which it is stated that the marriage should be concluded first in the Orthodox church, and then in the Catholic church, in which, without any doubt, Kovchik will be led astray into Catholicism. The marriage of Orthodox [people] with Catholics is the most certain means for leading them astray, since under the influence of the Catholic majority in the village the apostasy of Orthodox [people] is inevitable. In the parish entrsuted to me there have been cases of apostasy only in [confessionally] mixed families, and for this reason I have tried and continue to try to prevent mixed marriages in my parish in every way possible, very often subjecting myself, as a result, to insults and complaints to the authorities." (24 May 1909).

 And with this the file ends.[6]  

Materials gathered and translated by Paul W. Werth

 

 

[1]  Articles of vol. 10, part 1 of Svod Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, reproduced in  Ia. A. Kantorovich, Zakony o vere i veroterpimost' (St. Petersburg, 1899).

[2]  Kantorovich, Zakony, pp. 74-75. Mixed marriages in Finland were performed by the rites of both churches and the children were raised in the religion of their father (article 68).

[3]  Kantorovich, Zakony, p. 18 (article 36 of Ustav o preduprazhdenii i presechenii prestuplenii). [4] Lithuanian State Historical Archive (Vilnius), collection 605, register 9,file 423.[5] Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, 3rd series, no. 26126 (17 April 1905), pp. 258-59. [6] Lithuanian State Historical Archive, collection 605, register 9, file 299 

Vladimir Ilich Lenin: What is to be Done? (1902)

At the time when he wrote "What is to be Done," Lenin was a young Russian emigre recently returned from Siberian exile and living in Geneva, Switzerland.  His work on the Russian Social Democratic newspaper "Iskra" (The Spark), brought him into the center of a debate raging in European Marxist circles over the "revisionist" ideas of Eduard Bernstein.  The problem was all the more urgent for Lenin since some Russian Marxists, known as "economists," were advocating Bernstein's approach, arguing that the Social Democratic party in Russia should focus on legal activities aimed at improving the economic well being of the working class.   Lenin's response was the long pamphlet "What is to be Done," a vigorous polemic in which he sketched out a new vision of a Marxist revolutionary party.    The following are selected excerpts from the larger work.

It is no secret that two trends have taken form in the present-day international Social-Democracy. The conflict between these trends now flares up in a bright flame, and now dies down and smolders under the ashes of imposing "truce resolutions." The essence of the "new" trend, which adopts a "critical" attitude towards "obsolete dogmatic" Marxism, has been presented clearly enough by Bernstein, and demonstrated by Millerand.

Social-Democracy must change from a party of the social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of symmetrically arranged "new" arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting Socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of the growing impoverishment, the process of proletarianisation and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, "ultimate aim," was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle on the grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society, governed according to the will of the majority, etc.

Thus, the demand for a decisive turn from revolutionary Social-Democracy to bourgeois social-reformism was accompanied by a no less resolute turn towards bourgeois criticism of all the fundamental ideas of Marxism....

He who does not deliberately close his eyes cannot fail to see that the new "critical" trend in socialism is nothing more nor less than a new variety of opportunism. And if we judge people not by the glittering uniforms they don, not by the high-sounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions, and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that "freedom of criticism" means freedom for an opportunistic trend in Social-Democracy, the freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, the freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into Socialism....

Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This thought cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity... Our Party is only in process of formation, its features are only just becoming outlined, and it is yet far from having settled accounts with other trends of revolutionary thought, which threaten to divert the movement from the correct path.... The national tasks of Russian Social-Democracy are such as have never confronted

any other socialist party in the world.... The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory....

The systematic strikes [of the 1890s in St. Petersburg] represented the class struggle in embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes were simply trade union struggles, but not yet Social-Democratic struggles. They marked the awakening antagonisms between workers and employers, but the workers were not, and could not be, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e., theirs was not yet Social-Democratic consciousness. In this sense, the strikes of the nineties despite of the enormous progress they represented as compared with [earlier] "revolts ," remained a purely spontaneous movement.

We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It could only be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. By their social status, the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement, it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia… Hence, we had both the spontaneous awakening of the masses of the workers, the awakening to conscious life and conscious struggle, and a revolutionary youth, armed with the Social-Democratic theory, eager to come into contact with the workers…

Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is--either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for humanity has not created a "third" ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn away from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology.

The political struggle of Social-Democracy is far more extensive and complex than the economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government. Similarly (indeed for that reason), the organization of a revolutionary Social-Democratic party must inevitably be of a kind different from the organisation of the workers designed for this struggle. A workers' organization must in the first place be a trade organization; secondly, it must be as broad as possible; and thirdly, it must be as little clandestine as possible (here, and further on, of course, I have only autocratic Russia in mind). On the other hand, the organizations of revolutionaries must consist first, foremost and mainly of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (that is why I speak of organizations of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). In view of this common feature of the members of such an organization, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories must be obliterated. Such an organization must of necessity be not too extensive and as secret as possible....

I assert: 1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders maintaining continuity; 2) that the broader the popular mass drawn spontaneously drawn into the struggle, forming the basis of the movement and participating in it, the more urgent the need for such an organization, and the more solid this organization must be (for it is much easier for demagogues to side track the more backward sections of the masses); 3) that such an organization must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; 4) that in an autocratic state, the more we confine the membership of such an organization to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and to have been professionally trained in the art of combatting the political police, the more difficult will it be to wipe out such an organization, and 5) the greater will be the number of people of the working class and of the other classes of society who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it…

Our worst sin with regard to organization is that by our amateurishness we have lowered the prestige of revolutionaries in Russia. A person who is flabby and shaky on questions of theory, who has a narrow outlook, who pleads the spontaneity of the masses as an excuse for his own sluggishness, who resembles a trade union secretary more than a spokesman of the people, who is unable to conceive of a broad and bold plan that would command the respect even of opponents, and who is inexperienced and clumsy in his own professional art - the art of combating the political police - why, such a man is not a revolutionary but a wretched amateur!

Source:  V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, (Moscow, 1964), v. 5, pp. 352-353, 354-355, 369-370, 374-375, 389, 452-453, 464.

Translation revised and edited by Nathaniel Knight

6/09/00

Petition Prepared for Presentation to Nicholas II

on "Bloody Sunday" (January 9, 1905)

Sovereign!

We, workers and inhabitants of the city of St. Petersburg, members of various sosloviia

(estates of the realm), our wives, children, and helpless old parents, have come to you, Sovereign, to

seek justice and protection. We are impoverished and oppressed, we are burdened with work, and

insulted. We are treated not like humans [but] like slaves who must suffer a bitter fate and keep

silent. And we have suffered, but we only get pushed deeper and deeper into a gulf of misery,

ignorance, and lack of rights. Despotism and arbitrariness are suffocating us, we are gasping for

breath. Sovereign, we have no strength left. We have reached the limit of our patience. We have

come to that terrible moment when it is better to die than to continue unbearable sufferings.

And so we left our work and declared to our employers that we will not return to work until

they meet our demands. We do not ask much; we only want that without which life is hard labor

and eternal suffering. Our first request was that our employers discuss our needs together with us.

But they refused to do this; they denied us the right to speak about our needs, on the grounds that the

law does not provide us with such a right. Also unlawful were our other requests: to reduce the

working day to eight hours; for them to set wages together with us and by agreement with us; to

examine our disputes with lower-level factory administrators; to increase the wages of unskilled

workers and women to one ruble per day; to abolish overtime work; to provide medical care

attentively and without insult; to build shops so that it is possible to work there and not face death

from the awful drafts, rain and snow.

Our employers and the factory administrators considered all this to be illegal: every one of

our requests was a crime, and our desire to improve our condition was slanderous insolence.

Sovereign, there are thousands of us here; outwardly we are human beings, but in reality

neither we nor the Russian people5[1] as a whole are provided with any human rights, even the right

5[1].   Here and elsewhere in the petition narod, a singular noun.

to speak, to think, to assemble, to discuss our needs, or to take measure to improve our conditions.

They have enslaved us and they did so under the protection of your officials, with their aid and with

their cooperation. They imprison and send into exile any one of us who has the courage to speak on

behalf of the interests of the working class and of the people. They punish us for a good heart and a

responsive spirit as if for a crime. To pity a downtrodden and tormented person with no rights is to

commit a grave crime. The entire working people and the peasants are subjected to the proizvol

(arbitrariness) of a bureaucratic administration composed of embezzlers of public funds and thieves

who not only have not concern at all for the interests of the Russian people but who harm those

interests. The bureaucratic administration has reduced the country to complete destitution, drawn it

into a shameful war, and brings Russia ever further towards ruin. We, the workers and the people,

have no voice in the expenditure of the enormous sums that are collected from us. We do not even

know where the money collected from the impoverished people goes. The people is deprived of any

possibility of expressing its wishes and demands, or of participating in the establishment of taxes

and in their expenditure. Workers are deprived of the possibility of organizing into unions to defend

their interests. Sovereign! Does all this accord with the law of God, by Whose grace you reign?

And is it possible to live under such laws? Would it not be better if we, the toiling people of all

Russia, died? Let the capitalists--exploiters of the working class--and the bureaucrats--embezzlers of

public funds and the pillagers of the Russian people--live and enjoy themselves.

Sovereign, this is what we face and this is the reason that we have gathered before the walls

of your palace. Here we seek our last salvation. Do not refuse to come to the aid of your people;

lead it out of the grave of poverty, ignorance, and lack of rights; grant it the opportunity to

determine its own destiny, and deliver it from them the unbearable yoke of the bureaucrats. Tear

down the wall that separates you from your people and let it rule the country together with you.

You have been placed [on the throne] for the happiness of the people; the bureaucrats, however,

snatch this happiness out of our hands, and it never reaches us; we get only grief and humiliation.

Sovereign, examine our requests attentively and without any anger; they incline not to evil, but to

the good, both for us and for you. Ours is not the voice of insolence but of the realization that we

must get out of a situation that is unbearable for everyone. Russia is too big, her needs are to

diverse and many, for her to be ruled only by bureaucrats. We need popular representation; it is

necessary for the people to help itself and to administer itself. After all, only the people knows its

real needs. Do not fend off its help, accept it, and order immediately, at once, that representatives of

the Russian land from all classes, all estates of the realm be summoned, including representatives

from the workers. Let the capitalist be there, and the worker, and the bureaucrat, and the priest, and

the doctor and the teacher--let everyone, whoever they are, elect their representatives. Let everyone

be free and equal in his voting rights, and to that end order that elections to the Constituent

Assembly be conducted under universal, secret and equal suffrage.

This is our main request, everything is based on it; it is the main and only poultice for our

painful wounds, without which those wounds must freely bleed and bring us to a quick death.

But no single measure can heal all our wounds. Other measures are necessary, and we,

representing of all of Russia's toiling class, frankly and openly speak to you, Sovereign, as to a

father, about them.

The following are necessary:

I. Measures against the ignorance of the Russian people

and against its lack of rights

1. Immediate freedom and return home for all those who have suffered for their political and

religious convictions, for strike activity, and for peasant disorders.

2. Immediate proclamation of the freedom and inviolability of the person, of freedom of speech and

of the press, of freedom of assembly, and of freedom of conscience in matters of religion.

3. Universal and compulsory public education at state expense.

4. Accountability of government ministers to the people and a guarantee of lawful administration.

5. Equality of all before the law without exception.

6. Separation of church and state

II. Measures against the poverty of the people

1. Abolition of indirect taxes and their replacement by a direct, progressive income tax.

2. Abolition of redemption payments, cheap credit, and the gradual transfer of land to the people.

3. Naval Ministry contracts should be filled in Russia, not abroad.

4. Termination of the war according to the will of the people.

III. Measures against the oppression of labor by capital

1. Abolition of the office of factory inspector.

2. Establishment in factories and plants of permanent commissions elected by the workers, which

jointly with the administration are to investigate all complaints coming from individual

workers. A worker cannot be fired except by a resolution of this commission.

3. Freedom for producer-consumer cooperatives and workers' trade unions--at once.

4. An eight-hour working day and regulation of overtime work.

5. Freedom for labor to struggle with capital--at once.

6. Wage regulation--at once.

7. Guaranteed participation of representatives of the working classes in drafting a law on state

insurance for workers--at once.

These, sovereign, are our main needs, about which we have come to you; only when they are

satisfied will the liberation of our Motherland from slavery and destitution be possible, only then

can she flourish, only then can workers organize to defend their interests from insolent exploitation

by capitalists and by the bureaucratic administration that plunders and suffocates the people. Give

the order, swear to meet these needs, and you will make Russia both happy and glorious, and your

name will be fixed in our hearts and the hearts of our posterity for all time--but if you do not give

the order, if you do not respond to our prayer, then we shall die here, on this square, in front of your

palace. We have nowhere else to go and no reason to. There are only two roads for us, one to

freedom and happiness, the other to the grave. Let our lives be sacrificed for suffering Russia. We

do not regret that sacrifice, we embrace it eagerly.

Georgii Gapon, priest

Ivan Vasimov, worker.  

 

Translated by Daniel Field

 

Manifesto of October 17, 1905

 We, Nicholas II, By the Grace of God Emperor and Autocrat of all Russia, King of Poland,

Grand Duke of Finland, etc., proclaim to all Our loyal subjects:

Rioting and disturbances in the capitals [i.e. St. Petersburg and the old capital, Moscow] and in

many localities of Our Empire fill Our heart with great and heavy grief. The well-being of the

Russian Sovereign is inseparable from the well-being of the nation, and the nation's sorrow is

his sorrow. The disturbances that have taken place may cause grave tension in the nation and

may threaten the integrity and unity of Our state.

By the great vow of service as tsar We are obliged to use every resource of wisdom and of Our

authority to bring a speedy end to unrest that is dangerous to Our state. We have ordered the

responsible authorities to take measures to terminate direct manifestations of disorder,

lawlessness, and violence and to protect peaceful people who quietly seek to fulfill their duties.

To carry out successfully the general measures that we have conceived to restore peace to the

life of the state, We believe that it is essential to coordinate activities at the highest level of

government.

We require the government dutifully to execute our unshakeable will:

(1.) To grant to the population the essential foundations of civil freedom, based on the

principles of genuine inviolability of the person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and

association.

(2.) Without postponing the scheduled elections to the State Duma, to admit to participation in

the duma (insofar as possible in the short time that remains before it is scheduled to convene) of

all those classes of the population that now are completely deprived of voting rights; and to

leave the further development of a general statute on elections to the future legislative order.

(3.) To establish as an unbreakable rule that no law shall take effect without confirmation by

the State Duma and that the elected representatives of the people shall be guaranteed the

opportunity to participate in the supervision of the legality of the actions of Our appointed

officials.

We summon all loyal sons of Russia to remember their duties toward their country, to assist in

terminating the unprecedented unrest now prevailing, and together with Us to make every effort

to restore peace and tranquility to Our native land.

Given at Peterhof the 17th of October in the 1905th year of Our Lord and of Our reign the

eleventh.

Nicholas

Translated by Daniel Field

 

Imperial Manifesto of June 3, 1907

The Second State Duma, which convened in March 1907 proved to be just as unwieldy and intransigent from the standpoint of the state as its predecessor, which had been dissolved the previous year.  Frustrated by the deputies' refusal to consider his proposals, Prime Minister Petr Stolypin prevailed upon Tsar Nicholas II to dissolve the Second Duma as well.  Drawing on the authority of Article 87 of the Fundamental Laws, which allowed the government to legislate by decree in the absence of a Duma, Stolypin then orchestrated a comprehensive revision of the electoral law in order to insure a conservative majority in the next Duma.   The following manifesto, issued by Nicholas II, justifies the government's actions.  

 We proclaim to all Our faithful subjects:

Since the time of the dissolution of the first State Duma, the government

has, in accord with Our orders and instructions, undertaken a consistent

series of measures to bring peace to the country and establish a proper

course for affairs of state.

The Second State Duma, which we convened, was called upon to facilitate,

in accord with Our Sovereign will, the restoration of peace to Russia: first of

all, by legislative work, without which it is impossible for the state to live or

for its structure to be perfected; also, by reviewing the budget of revenues

and expenditures, to ensure that the economic activities of the state are

being conducted correctly; and finally, by rationally exercising the right of

interrogating government officials, with a view to strengthening truth and

justice everywhere.

These obligations, which We entrusted to elected deputies from the

population, laid upon them a weighty responsibility and a holy duty to make

use of their rights reasonably, working for the benefit and enhancement of

the Russian state.

Such was Our thought and will in granting the population new foundations

for the life of the state. To Our dismay, a substantial part of the

membership of the Second State Duma did not justify our expectations.

 

Many of those sent by the population did not undertake their work with a

pure heart and with a desire to strengthen Russia and improve its

institutions, but rather with a flagrant intention of increasing turmoil and

encouraging the disintegration of the state.

The activity of these persons in the State Duma either did not under take

any review at all of the sweeping measures Our government had

developed, or it delayed discussing them or else it rejected them, not even

hesitating to turn down laws which would punish the overt celebration of

criminality or severely punish those who sow disorder in the armed forces.

By refusing to discuss murders and violence, the State Duma failed to

render moral support to the government in the matter of restoring order, and

Russia, to her shame, continued to experience criminal sedition.

The State Duma's dilatory review of the state budget caused difficulty in the

timely satisfaction of many pressing needs of the common people.

A significant part of the Duma perverted the right of interrogating the

government into a means of struggle with the government and of arousing

mistrust for it among wide segments of the population.

Finally there was accomplished a deed unheard of in the annals of history.

The judicial authorities discovered that a whole section of the State Duma

was involved in a conspiracy against the state and the authority of the tsar.

When Our government demanded that the fifty-five members of the Duma

who were accused of this crime be suspended, pending the outcome of the

trial, and that the most seriously implicated of them be confined under

custody, the State Duma did not immediately carry out this lawful demand

of the authorities, which did not admit of any delay.

All of this moved Us to dissolve the Second State Duma by an ukaz to the

Senate of June 3; the new Duma is to be convened on November 1 of this

year.

But, trusting in Our people's love for the motherland and in its statesmanlike

wisdom (gosudarstvennyi razum), We see the cause of the twofold failure in

practice of the State Duma in the fact that this legislative institution was full

of members who did not truly express the needs and desires of the people,

and this was due to the novelty of the situation and to defects in the

electoral law.

Hence, leaving in force all the rights given to Our subjects by the Manifesto

of October 17, 1905, and by the fundamental laws, We have made a

decision to change only the means by which the people's elected

representatives are summoned to the State Duma, so that every part of the

people can have its own chosen men in the Duma.

Since it was created to strengthen the Russian state, the State Duma

should also be Russian in spirit. The other nationalities of which the

population of Our realm is composed should have their spokesmen in the

State Duma, but they should not and will not be there in such number as to

give them the possibility of decisive influence on purely Russian questions.

In those border areas of the state where the population has not attained an

adequate level of citizenship, elections to the State duma must temporarily

be brought to an end.

All these changes in the election system cannot be enacted through the

ordinary legislative route, that is, through the very State Duma whose

composition We have pronounced unsatisfactory. Only the authority that

granted the first electoral law, the historical authority of the Russian tsar, is

adequate to abolish that law and replace it with a new one.

The Lord God had entrusted Us with monarchical authority over Our

people. It is before His throne that We shall give account for the fate of the

Russian realm. From this realization We derive a firm resolve to carry

through to the end the transformation of Russia which we have undertaken,

and so grant to her a new electoral law, which We have ordered the Senate

to promulgate.

We expect our faithful subjects to follow the path We have indicated and

render unanimous and ardent service to the motherland, whose sons have

in all times been a solid support to her strength, grandeur and glory.

Given at Peterhof on the 3rd day of June in the 1907th year since the birth

of Christ and in the thirteenth year of our reign.

NICHOLAS

Joseph V. Stalin. On the Industrialization of Russia.Speech to industrial managers, February 1931.

The late 1920s brought to the Soviet Union both the consolidation of Joseph Stalin's authority as preeminant leader, and a "great break" in political and economic policy marked by forced collectivization and breakneck industrialization.  In the speech below, Stalin addressed those who criticized the pace of industrialization and in so doing revealed his conception of Russian history.

It is sometimes asked whether it is not possible to slow down the tempo somewhat, to put a check on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible! The tempo must not be reduced! On the contrary, we must increase it as much as is within our powers and possibilities.   This is dictated to us by our obligations to the workers and peasants of the USSR. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the working class of the whole world.

To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old Russia was the continual beatings she suffered because of her backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She was beaten by the Japanese barons. All beat her because of her

backwardness, military backwardness, cultural backwardness, political backwardness, industrial backwardness, agricultural backwardness. They beat her because to do so was profitable and could be done with impunity. Do you remember the words of the prerevolutionary poet: "You are poor and

abundant, mighty and impotent, Mother Russia." Those gentlemen were quite familiar with the verses of the old poet. They beat her, saying: "You are abundant; so one can enrich oneself at your expense. They beat her, saying: "You are poor and impotent  '" so you can be beaten and plundered with impunity.  Such is the law of the exploiters-to beat the backward and the weak. It is the jungle law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak-therefore you are wrong; hence, you can be beaten and enslaved. You are mighty-therefore you are right; hence, we must be wary of you.

That is why we must no longer lag behind.

In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have one. But now that we have overthrown capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people, we have a fatherland, and we will defend its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this you must put an end to its backwardness in the shortest possible time and develop genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist system of economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution: "Either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries."

We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed.

Source:  J. V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, (Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953) pp. 454-458.