Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:12:57.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State and Nobility in the Ideology of M. M. Shcherbatov

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Marc Raeff
Marc Raeff*
Affiliation:
Clark University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Russia, modern political thought made its appearance in the last third of the eighteenth century; the major stimulant for the debate was the “revolution” (Pushkin's definition) wrought by Peter the Great. Political thinking did not develop much earlier, except for an episodic manifestation in 1730, because it took educated Russian society almost half a century to assimilate the impact of Peter's reign. The “debate” of 1730 was not so much an expression of opposing ideas and concepts (there was an amazing degree of agreement on these), as an emotional reaction to a conflict in social interests. Of course, by the time of the last third of the eighteenth century, the “revolution” of Peter the Great had affected the entire country and created social and cultural conditions which in turn produced some very real problems that cried for solution.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , October 1960 , pp. 363 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1960

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 For biographical data on Shcherbatov, see: Fursov, V., “Shcherbatov, Mikh. Mikh.,” Russkij Biograficheskij Slovar', Shchapov-Jushnevskij, ed. (St. Petersburg, 1912), pp. 104-24Google Scholar; Miakotin, V. A., “Dvorjanskij publicist Ekaterininskoj epokhi” in Iz istorii russkogo obshchestva, (St. Petersburg, 1906), pp. 102–66Google Scholar; Chechulin, N. D., “Khronologija i spisok (1900), No. VIII, pp. 346–47Google Scholar.

2 Shcherbatov was a very versatile figure and has left a name in the history of literature, economic thought, historiography, social and political events. His ideology was far from being as simple as most writers have claimed (“reactionary aristocrat and defender of serfdom”). It would repay close analysis. In general, it seems fair to say that he advocated a curious blend of absolutism and aristocratic “constitutionalism” based on serfdom (though he condemned specific malpractices) and a rigid, “corporative” division of society. In a sense, he foreshadowed the so-called “Senatorial party” of first decade of the reign of Alexander I. For Shcherbatov's contributions to historiography and economic thought, see (in addition to the works in note 1) : P. N. Miljukov, Glavnye techenija russkoj istoricheskoj mysli, I, (2d ed.) ; (Moscow, 1898 Ch. II, sect. 2 and Ch. Ill, sect. 2 N. L. Rubinshtein, Russkaja istoriografija (Moscow-Leningrad, 1941), pp. 116–37 (bibl., p. 116); PashkovA., ed. Istorija russkoj ekonomicheskoj mysli, Vol.I, part 1 (Moscow, 1955), pp. 465–80 (bibl., p. 737).Google Scholar

3 Polenov, D. V., Sergeevich, V. I., Chechulin, N.D. (eds.), Istoricheskie svedenija o Ekaterininskoj komissii dlja sochinenija Proekta Novogo Ulozhenija, Sbornik Imperatorskogo Rossijskogo Istoricheskogo Obshchestva; Vol. IV (1869) pp. 192–93 (24th session, 17 Sept. 1767). Hereafter, this source will be cited Sbornik IRIO and volume number. Cf. also Sochinenija knjaz'ja M. M. Shcherbatova, vol. I, I. P. Khrushchev, ed. (St. Petersburg, 1896), pp. 186–87,219,221.Google Scholar

4 Sochinenija, I, 19; cf. also Sbornik IRIO, VIII, 107.Google Scholar

5 Sbornik IRIO, IV, 150; also in Sochinenija, 1, 57.

6 Incidentally, this coincided with the position taken by Catherine II in the Nakaz, Ch. XV, §§ 360, 361, 363.Google Scholar

7 Sbornik IRIO, IV, 150; also Sochinenija, I, 56

8 “ … it is possible that among plowmen we would find many Alexanders and Caesars…, but should we therefore search in the fields for Alexanders, Caesars, and Scipios at the risk of making thousands of mistakes?” Sochinenija, I, 237–38 (“Razmyshlenie o dvorjanstve”).

9 Shcherbatov, M. M., Neizdannye sochinenija (Moscow, 1935), pp. 59–60 (“Zamechanija na Bol'shoj Nakaz Ekateriny II”).Google Scholar

10 Sbornik IRIO, IV, 160; “Razmyshlenie o dvorjanstve,” Sochinenija, I, 229.

11 “This name [of nobleman] compels them [noblemen] to serve with particular zeal their fatherland and sovereign, and to this end they endeavor to prepare themselves through education.” Sbornik IRIO, VIII, 107; also Sochinenija, I, 114.

12 Behind the criticism of details and inadequacies, and along with proposals for improvement, we find expressions of Shcherbatov's positive evaluation of the progress accomplished in Russia in the eighteenth century in his essay “O sposobakh prepodavanija raznye nauki,” Sochinenija, vol. II (Khrushchev, I. P. and Voronov, A. G., eds.) (St. Petersburg, 1898), pp. 439–602Google Scholar.

13 “Zamechanija na Bol'shoj Nakaz,” op. cit., p. 49; Sbornik IRIO, XXXVI, 311.

14 Sbornik IRIO, IV, 152 and Sochinenija I, 61; also cf. Sbornik IRIO, VIII, 57–58. I am well aware that there was a very selfish side to Shcherbatov's argument. His defense of noble serf ownership monopoly has been a frequent subject of comment and analysis. And for purposes of the present article, it is not germaine.

15 Sbornik IRIO, IV, 152; Sbornik IRIO, XXXII, 184; also Sochinenija, I, 15.

16 “Rassuzhdenie o nyneshmen v 1787 g. pochti povsemestnom golode v Rossii, o sposobakh onomu pomoch' i vpred predupredit' podobnoe neschastie,” Sochinenija, I, 659–60.

17 Sbornik IRIO, IV, 151–52; also Sochinenija, I, 59.

18 Sbornik IRIO, IV, 299–300; also Sochinenija, I, 263. I realize, of course, that Shcherbatov had to take this position not to alienate completely a large segment of the existing nobility. Yet the fact that he had to bow to the idea of ennoblement through promotion and acquiesce to its rationale is significant in itself.

19 Sbornik IRIO, IV, 150; also Sochinenija, I, 55.

20 “Primechanija vernogo syna otechestva na dvorjanskie prava…,” Sochinenija, I, 323–25.

21 Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellchaft, (4. Aufl.) (Tubingen, 1956), pp. 144–46. All political and legal histories of eighteenth century Russia provide ample material for the bureaucratization of social and political institutions

22 “Razmyshlenija o zakonodatel'stve voobshche,” Sochinenija, I, 390.

23 “Primechanija vernogo syna otechestva na dvorjanskie prava na manifest,” Sochinenija, I, 291.

24 “Razmyshlenie o dvorjanstve,” Sochinenija, I, 226, also 225, 227.

25 “Razmyshlenie o dvorjanstve,” Sochinenija, I, 247; “Zamechanija na Bol'shoj Nakaz,” op. cit., p. 59.

26 “Razmyshlenie o dvorjanstve,” Sochinenija, I, 224.

27 Sbornik IRIO, XXXII, 489–90.

28 “Zamechanija na Bol'shoj Nakaz,” op. cit., p. 59.

29 Sochinenija, I, 88.

30 “The fatherland requires more the service that originates in love than the one [originating] in compulsion … ” Sbornik IRIO, XXXVI, 20.

31 Thus, the compulsory measures of Peter the Great were no more necessary in Shcherbatov's time when the nobility had become quite enlightened as a class, though individual exceptions might still be found. For example, see Sbornik IRIO, IV, 150.

32 Weber, M., op. cit., pp. 124, 140.Google Scholar

33 “Proekt o narodnom izuchenii,” Sochinenija, I, 741, 742, 743.

34 “Primechanija vernogo syna … na dvorjanskie prava …,” Sochinenija, I, 299; “Puteshestvie v zemlju Ofirskuju, g-na S …, shvetskogo dvorjanina,” Sochinenija, I, 751.

35 “Razmyshlenija o zakonodatel'stve voobshche,” Sochinenija, I, 395.

36 S.V. Eshevskij, , “O povrezhdenii nravov v Rossii (sochinenie kn. Shcherbatova, M. M.)” Sochinenija po russkoj istorii (Moscow, 1900), p. 272.Google Scholar

37 See for example, the ode Shcherbatov composed on the accession of Elizabeth and which is actually a paean of praise for Peter, Neizdannye Sochinenija, p. 169; or his upbraiding of Nekljudov for implicitly disparaging Peter the Great in his address to Catherine II, “Otvet grazhdanina na rech' govorennuju E.I.V.—u. Ober-Prokurorom Senata Nekljudovym, po prichine torzhestva shvedskogo mira 179g, sentjabrja 5—go chisla,” Sochinenija, II, 121. As an historian, Shcherbatov displayed great enthusiasm and energy in publishing the papers of Peter the Great and in ordering the files of the Emperor's private chancery.

38 “Primernoe vremjaischislitel'noe polozhenie …, ” Sochinenija, II, 13–17.

39 “Razmyshlenie o dvorjanstve,” Sochinenija, I, 250.

40 “Rassmotrenie o porokakh i samovlastii Petra Velikogo,” Sochinenija, II, 40.

41 “Primernoe vremjaischislitel'noe polozhenie … ”, Sochinenija, II, 20.

42 “O povrezhdenii nravov v Rossii,” is printed in Sochinenija, II, 133–246. I used another edition that was more readily accessible to me at the time of writing, ninth fascicle of Russkaja Zhizn' (Moscow, 1908), to which all references will be made. Here, see pp. 21, 31.

43 O povrezhdenii nravov, pp. 12 ft, 21 ff.Google Scholar

44 “Zamechanija na Bol'shoj Nakaz…” Neizdannye sochinenija, p. 19.

45 “Puteshestvie v zemlju Ofirskuju, g—na S …, Shvetskogo dvorjanina” in Sochinenija, I, 749–1060. The work has remained incompleted. Besides the titles cited in note 1, the following studies deal at length with the “Voyage“: N. D. Chechulin, “Russkij social'nyi roman XVIII, v.” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshchenija, 327 ( Jan., 1900), pp. 115–66; A. A. Kizevetter, “Russkaja utopija XVIII v.”, in Istoricheskie ocherki (Moscow, 1912), pp. 37–56.

46 Shcherbatov also used the novel to criticize specific failings of Catherine II's Russia and also to point out the errors and omissions in Peter's work. For example, it had been wrong to move the capital from its central location to the seashore; it would have been desirable to establish military settlements to support a professional militia; Sochinenija, pp. 796, 905.

47 For example, Sochinenija, I, 952, ff on the role of police supervision of all aspects of life on Ofir. It should be noted here that Shcherbatov had been a Free Mason and the Land of Ofir had many traits in common with the Masonic Utopias of the period.

48 Sochinenija, I, 848, 901.

49 Sochinenija, I, 858, 861, 918.

50 Eshevskij, “O povrezhdenii nravov … ”, op. cit., p. 288.

51 O povrezhdenii nravov, pp. 84–85. For this reason, Shcherbatov also denied the complete determinism of “objective,” impersonal forces, like climate. In opposition to Montesquieu he emphasized the role of moral individual leadership. Cf. “Zamechanija na Bol'shoj Nakaz,” Neizdannye sochinenija, pp. 21, 32, 33, 38.

52 “Raznye rassuzhdenija o pravlenii,” Sochinenija, I, 346.

53 “Rassuzhdenija o pravlenii,” Sochinenija, I, 340.

54 “Rassuzhdenija o pravlenii,” Sochinenija, I, 347; “Razmyshlenija o zakonodatel'stve voobshche,” Sochinenija, I, 367–69. It is true that Shcherbatov, now and then, did point out the limiting factor of objective conditions, the value of selected historical precedents. But these caveats played a subordinate role in his ideology.

55 MI need not emphasize that the preceding is an attempt at describing the subjective reactions of Russian thinkers in the eighteenth century. It does not imply any “objective,” scholarly evaluation of Peter the Great's reign, nor an historical judgment on Muscovite Russia.

56 MI t may be observed that even the Slavophiles, and their various epigoni, did not really care for the “objective” historical past of Russia. For them the Russian past was a sort of Golden Age to which they wanted to return, it was a retrospective Utopia. There were a few individual thinkers who tried to incorporate Russian history meaningfully and dynamically into their political thinking (Karamzin, Pushkin, Samarin, Chicherin, Struve, to mention the best known). But characteristically, in this respect, they had a very limited impact and almost no following.