Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:45:22.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radishchev's Political Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2019

Allen McConnell
Allen McConnell*
Affiliation:
Brown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of all the Russian political writers of the last two centuries, there is none more eloquent in his demands for justice and liberty than Aleksandr Nikolaevich Radishchev (1749-1802). Honor is due to him as the first Russian to risk his civil service career, his fortune, his family's well-being and his life itself to publish a resounding denunciation of serfdom and arbitrary government. He was the first to warn that, without timely social reforms, revolution would be inevitable and terrible; he was the first to go into exile "to blaze a trail where there was no trace," a trail "for bold men . . . for feeling hearts and for the truth . . . "

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 1958 , pp. 439 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “Ty khochesh’ znat': Kto ja?” Kallash, ed. A. N. Radishchev. Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij. I, (Moscow, 1907), 457.Google Scholar

2 Radishchev's translation was published anonymously by eighteenth-century Russia's most active apostle of Enlightenment, Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov, whose Society for the Translation of Foreign Books had been set up earlier the same year in St. Petersburg at the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Radishchev was paid from imperial funds. See Arkhiv Akademii Nauk SSSR, fond 3, opis’ 22, No. 3, 11. 8-9. Cited in G. A. Gukovskii's notes to Akademija Nauk, SSSR. Institut Literatury. A. N. Radishchev. Pol. Sobr. Soch. II, (M.-L., 1941), 407. This edition will be hereafter cited by title and volume number.

3 Pol. Sobr. Soch., II (M.-L., 1941), 282. Radishchev translated Mably's word “despotisme” by “samoderzhavstvo.“

4 Memoirs of Catherine the Great, K. Anthony trans. (N. Y., 1935), p. 326.

5 See Montesquieu, De I'Esprit des Lois, t. I, Livre II, ch. 1. Catherine wrote in her Instructions to the Commissioners for Composing a New Code of Laws (1767) that the citizens “should all be subject to the Laws,” and that “if any one Citizen could do what the Laws forbid, there would be no more Liberty,” but she made it clear that all “intermediate powers,” including courts and law-making bodies, “proceed from the supreme Power.” Chap. Ill, paragraphs 18-20; Chap. V, paragraphs 34, 38 and 39. See Reddaway, W. F., editor Documents of Catherine the Great (Cambridge, 1931).Google Scholar

6 Italics Radishchev's. The right of rebellion had been recognized long before Locke. It is found in such feudal law books as the Assizes of Jerusalem and the Etablissements de St. Louis. Deposition was approved as early as John of Salisbury, Egidius Colonna and Thomas Aquinas. There were no such feudal law books in Russia and no commentaries on deposition.

7 Pol. Sobr. Soch. II (1941), 235, footnote. Since the limits were clear, Radishchev said, “no intermediary powers were necessary.“

8 For the enthusiastic idealization of Lycurgus and of ancient Sparta by classical writers, see Jaeger, Werner, Paideia: the Ideals of Greek Culture. Trans, from the second German edition by Gilbert Highet, I (Oxford, 1939), 76–84 Google Scholar. See also Oilier, Francois, Annales de l’ Université de Lyon, Troisième Série, Lettres, Fascicule 13: Le Mirage Spartiate; Etude sur l’idéalisation de Sparte dans l’antiquitégrecque du début de l'école cynique jusqu'àla fin de la cité. (Paris, 1943)Google Scholar. Esp. Ch. V, “Polybe,” and Ch. VI, “Plutarque.“

9 Pol. Sobr. Soch. II, (1941), 238, 255. Radishchev was not a passive translator, as is shown by his footnote vigorously criticizing Mably's assertion that Lycurgus established the ephors. Conceding that Mably may cite Herodotus and Xenophon, Radishchev argued for the accounts of Aristotle and Plutarch. Pol. Sobr. Soch. II, (1941), 235 footnote.

10 The reason may be found in Radishchev's lack of experience at this time with serfdom's horrors. The Radishchev family had treated their serfs well. According to Radishchev's third son, Pavel, Radishchev's father's serfs loved their master and at the time of the Pugachev rebellion not one of the two thousand serfs revealed his hiding place, although the neighboring landlord's serfs took their master to the rebels. See P. A. Radishchev, “A. N. Radishchev,” Russkij Vestnik, 1858 t. 18, Dekabr', p. 398.

11 Pis'mo k Drugu, Zhitel'stvujushchemu v Tobolske, po Dolgu Zvanija Ego, approved by the censor in 1790. Kallash, ed. op. cit., I (Moscow, 1907), 69-75.

12 Rousseau criticized Peter for his aims rather than his brutal methods. He wrote: “Peter the Great's genius was imitative rather than genuine … Some of the things he did were good, but most were ill-timed. He saw that his subjects were barbarians … He began by endeavoring to turn them into Germans and Englishmen, when he should have been turning them into Russians.” Social Contract, Bk. II ch. viii.

13 Vol'nost’ Oda. in A. JV. Radishchev. Puteshestvie iz Peterburga v Moskvu. (M.-L., 1950), Stanza 3, p. 204. All references to stanzas are taken from this edition.

14 Chapter “Torzhok” in the Puteshestvie, p. 149. Radishchev considered the Illuminists irrational, obscurantist, and politically reactionary.

15 Zhitie Theodora Vasilievicha Ushakova s priobshcheniem nekotoryx ego Sochinenij, published in St. Petersburg at the Imperial Typography in 1789. Kallash, ed. op. cit. I, 98. See Helvetius, De L'Esprit, t. II, Discours III , chaps, xvii-xxi, esp. chap, xvii, “Du désir que tous les hommes ont d'êtres despotes, des moyens qu'ils emploient pour y parvenir, et du danger auquel le despotisme expose les rois.“

16 Puteshestvie, 54.

17 “Sofija,” Puteshestvie, 47.

18 “Spasskaja Polest’ ”, Puteshestvie, pp. 60-76.

19 Catherine's marginal notes are given in the elaborate commentary and notes to the Puteshestvie by Ja. L. Barskov, “Primechanija k Tekstu Pervogo Izdanija ‘Puteshestvija’ “ in Puteshestvie iz Peterburga v Moskvu. Tom II: Materialy k Izucheniju Puteshestvija'. (M.-L., 1935), pp. 372-74.

20 “Spasskaja Polest',” op. cit., pp. 70-75.

21 “Vydropusk,” op. cit., p. 140.

22 “Torzhok,” op. cit., p. 144.

23 “Vyshnyi Volochek,” Puteshestvie, p. 138; “Mednoe,” p. 161; “Gorodnja,” p. 177; “Khotilov,” p. 133.

24 “Khotilov,” p. 126. See also, on the nobility's greed, “Peski,” p. 187.

25 “Khotilov,” p. 133.

26 “Words are never imputed as a Crime, unless they prepare or accompany or follow the criminal Action.” (Art. 480). She warned of “the Danger of debasing the human Mind by Restraint and Oppression; which can be productive of nothing but Ignorance … “(Art. 484). Italics Catherine's. See Reddaway, op. cit., pp. 287-88.

27 “Torzhok,” p. 143. This long and important chapter contains a history of censorship from classical times to Radischev's, based largely on Beckmann's Beiträge zur Geschichte da Erfindungen B. I-V, (Leipzig, 1780-1805), Vol. I, Chap. X, “Büchercensur. Aelteste Verordnung über die Büchercensur,” pp. 95-108. See Barskov, op, cit., pp. 445-49.

28 Adarjukov, V. Ja. and Sidorov, A. A. Russkaja Kniga ot Hachala Pismennosti do 1800 goda. (Gosizdat, 1924), pp. 251-53.Google Scholar Cited by Barskov, op. cit., pp. 441-42.

29 See Laserson, Max, “Radischev, Admirer of the Transatlantic Republic,” The American Impact on Russia, 1784-1917, (New York, 1950), pp. 52–71 Google Scholar and Thaler, Roderick P., “Radischev, Britain, and America,” in Hugh McLean, Martin Malia and George Fischer, Jr., eds., Russian Thought and Politics, (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), pp. 59–75.Google Scholar

30 “O Zakonopolozhenii, “Pol. Sobr. Sock, III, (M.-L., 1952), 147 and “Razroznenye Zapiski,” ibid., III, 47. Radischev forgot Montesquieu's exception, the confederation. See Montesquieu, op. cit., t. I, Livre IX, Chap. 1.

31 “Sokrashchennoe Povestvovanie o Priobretenii Sibiri,” Pol. Sobr. Soch., II (M.-L., 1942), 145. Radischev found that popular assemblies in his own day survived in small towns and the countryside.

32 “Khotilov,” Puteshestvie, p. 125.

33 Ibid. It did not mean Mably's communism. See V. P. Semennikov, Radishehev. Ocherki i Issledovanija. (M.-Pgr., 1923), pp. 62-63. This work remains the best study of Radishehev.

34 “Vydropusk,” Puteshestvie, p. 80.

35 “Novgorod,” Puteshestvie, p. 80

36 “Torzhok,” Puteshestvie, p. 156. The first instance of suppression took place in the earliest days of the National Assembly. On May 7, 1789, the May 2 issue of the periodical Etats Généraux was suppressed. See Mercure de France Dédiéau Roi par une Sociétédes Gens de Lettres, 1789, No. 20, 16 mai, p. 128.

37 “Novgorod,” Puteshestvie, p. 83.

38 “O Sokrashchennom Povestvovanie o Priobretenii Sibir,” Pol. Sobr. Soch., II , (1942), 147.

39 Kallash, ed. op. cit., I (Moscow, 1907), 462.

40 See V. V. Mijakovskij, “ ‘Pesn’ Istoricheskaja’ A. N. Radishcheva i ‘Considérations’ Montesk'e” in Zhurnal Min. Nar. Prosv., Novaja Serija, February, 1914, pp. 236-48.

41 Kallash, ed. op. cit., I, 419. Radischev did not condemn conquest on principle. He wrote in Bova (ca. 1798): “Russian warriors boldly sailed to the walls of Byzantium, fixing firmly on them the glorious Russian flag.” Could it happen again? Radischev wrote, “I am not a prophet, but I know this: it will be.” Kallash, op. cit., I, 392.

42 I. M. Trotskij, “Zakonodatel'nie Proekty Radishcheva,” in Akademija Nauk, Institut Russkoj Literatury, Radishchev. Materialy (Moscow, 1936), pp. 72-74

43 Kallash, op. cit., I, 410-12, 430-32.

44 “Zapiski N. S. Il'inskogo,” Russkij Arkhiv (1789), kn. 12, p. 418.

45 See David M. Lang, “Radischev and the Legislative Commission of Alexander I,” American Slavic and East European Review, Vol. 6 (1947), pp. 11-24 for an illuminating account, and I. M. Trotskij, op. cit., 9-140.

46 For the traditional version, see Pavel A. Radischev, op. cit., pp. 422-23; for criticism of it, see I. M. Trotskij, op. cit., 72-73.

47 M. I. Sukhomlinov, A. N. Radishchev, avtor ‘Puteshestvie', (Spb., 1883), p. 17 and Prince D. S. Mirsky, A History of Russian Literature, ed. F. J. Whitfield, (New York, 1949), p. 58.

48 Puteshestvie, p. 41.

49 A. S. Pushkin, Sochinenija. V, (1882), 347-48.

50 “O Geloveke, o ego Smertnosti i Bessmertii,” Pol. Sobr. Sock. II (1941), 128-29.

51 “Pesn’ Istoricheskij,” Kallash, ed. op. cit., I, 423.

52 Letter to Count Voroncov, June 3, 1795, Pol. Sobr. Soch. III (M.-L., 1952), 476.

53 “Opyt o Zakonodatelstve,” Pol. Sobr. Sock, III (1952), 10.

54 “Sokrashchennoe Povestvovanie,” Pol. Sobr. Soch., III (M.-L., 1952), 151.

55 Ibid., 146.

56 Ibid., 146-47. The Puteshestvie is a long paean to the virtues of the long-suffering Russian people. On the Russian's lack of vindictiveness, see “Peski“; on his patience and endurance, “Zaicovo“; his family feeling, “Edrovo.“

57 “Pesni, Petye na Sostiazanija v Chest’ Drevnim Slavjanskim Bozhestvam,” Kallash, ed. op. cit.,1, 72-73.

58 Borozdin, N. I. Lapshin and P. E. Shchegolev, eds. A. N. Radischev. Pol. Sobr. Sock I (Spb., 1907), ix. Miljukov also considered Mably most influential: Rousseau was “too abstract” and Montesquieu “too opportunistic.” Mably “combined the logic of the first with the practicality of the second.” P. N. Miljukov, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoj Kul'tury. III (Paris, 1930), 456.

59 De la Ligislation (1776) II, 31.

60 Letter to Count Voroncov, February 17, 1792, Pol. Sobr. Soch., III (1952), 405.

61 “O Dobrodeteljakh,” ibid., p. 29.

62 “Pesn’ Istoricheskii, Kallash, ed. op. cit., I, 424.

63 “O Zakonopolozhenii,” Pol. Sobr. Soch., III (1952), 147.

64 Pol. Sobr. Sock, III, 47.

65 Mjakotin, Ma tare Obshchestvennosti, p. 36.

66 A. I. Nezelenov, Sobr. Soch. t. IV: Literaturnye Napravlenie v Ekaterinskuju Epokhu, (Spb., 1889), 338.

67 V. V. Mijakovski, Kniga i Revoljutsija, No. 3-4, 1920, p. 31.

68 Osherovic, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoj Ugolovno-pravovoj Mysli, (Moscow, 1946), p. 172.

69 Vilen'skaja, , “Radischev, pervyi ideolog krestjanskoj revoljucii,” Istoricheskie £apiski, t. 34 (Moscow, 1950), 302.Google Scholar

70 V. S. Pokrovskij, Obshchestvenno-politicheskie i Pravovye vzgljady Radischeva, (M., 1952), 7. S. A. Pokrovskij finds, however, that V. S. Pokrovskij is frequently guilty of backsliding. Pokrovskij's, S. A. Gosudarstvenno-pravovye Vzgljady Radischeva (Moscow, 1956)Google Scholar is the work of an able cultural gunslinger, keen-eyed, hard-riding and quick on the draw, patrolling the huge ranges of Soviet writing on Radishchev's political thought and cutting down all who hint that Radishchev's was not “monolithically revolutionary.” It has a full bibliography at the end (pp. 284-98), including twenty-one postwar doctoral dissertation titles.

71 David M. Lang, “Some Western Sources of Radishchev's Political Thought,” Revue des Etudes Slaves, t. 25, fasc. 1 (1949), 86. Lang notes Radishchev's borrowings from Helvetius, Mably, Raynal, Volney, and Boulanger. Half the article is devoted to a valuable demonstration of Raynal's influence on the tone of the Puteshestvie. See also Barskov, op. cit., 350- 511 for many suggestive parallels.

72 He considered Helvétius’ proofs that all men have equal natural ability unconvincing. “O Cheloveke,” Pol. Sobr. Sock, II (1947), 59, 372-73.

73 Letter to Voroncov, July 31, 1784. Pol. Sobr. Soch. III (1952), 308-10.