¹ I have been unable to find a single major work of modern English-language or Soviet scholarship dealing with the pre-Emancipation era that does not identify “Westernization” with beneficial change. Arcadius Kahan's two essays (“The Costs of ‘Westernization’ in Russia: The Gentry and the Economy in Russian History,” The Structure of Russian History, Cherniavsky, M., ed. [New York, 1970], 224–250;Google Scholar and “Continuity in Economic Activity and Policy during the Post-Petrine Period in Russia,“Journal of Economic History, 25 [1965], 61–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar) do not focus on the impact of Western economics. Marc Raeff's complex and instructive discussion of German influences in The Well-Ordered Police State: Social and Institutional Change Through Law in the Germanies and Russia, 1600–1800 (New Haven, 1983)Google Scholar does not center on the issue of “Westernization” and is not primarily concerned with economic issues. See also Rogger, Hans, National Consciousness in 18th-Century Russia (Cambridge, Mass., 1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² See discussion of this issue in a later period of Russian history in Kingston-Mann, Esther, “In Search of the True West: Western Economic Models and Russian Rural Development,” Journal of Historical Sociology, 3:1 (Spring 1990), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ A good general discussion of the politically conservative aspects of physiocracy is Holldack, Heinz, “Der Physiocratismus und die Absolute Monarchic,” Historische Zeitschrift, 145 (1932), 517–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ “Repressive modernization” in a later historical incarnation is discussed in Kingston-Mann, , “Marxism and Russian Rural Development: Problems of Experience, Evidence and Culture,”The American Historical Review, 86:4 (10 1981), 731–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Pnin, Ivan, Sochinenie, Luppol, I.K., ed. (Moscow, 1934), 121.Google Scholar

⁶ See discussion in Hoch, Steven, Serfdom and Social Control in Russia (Chicago, 1986), 15–64.Google Scholar

⁷ These local institutions periodically repartitioned land among member households according to household size, number of adult laborers, or some other collective social principle. Even in the West and South, where more privatized systems of tenure prevailed, peasants observed many of the same collectivist practices found in “commune” regions. The Russian term for commune is mir or obschina. See the useful discussion of Steven Grant, A., “Obshchina and Mir,” Slavic Review, 35:4, 636–51.Google Scholar

⁸ In 1808, one of serfowner P. A. Koshkarov's harem girls, caught running away with a groom, was severely beaten and forced to sit on a chair for a whole month, an iron collar with spokes around her neck preventing her from turning her head. There is no indication that the groom survived the severe beating that he received. In the late eighteenth- and early nineteenthcenturies, serfowners in increasing numbers freely sold families and individual family members—particularly young girls and boys—at slave markets in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and escalated their financial demands with relative indifference to peasant ability to pay. As Rodney Bohac has shown, the serfowner N. S. Gagarin was able to freely increase obrok obligations by 400 percent on his massive Manuilov estate in Tver province between 1810–14, doubling the payments between 1813–14 alone. See Semevskii, V.I., Krest'ianskii vopros v Rossii v xviii i pervoi golovine xix veka, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1888), 22;Google ScholarKolchin, Peter, Unfree Labor (Cambridge, Mass., 1987), 124–25;Google Scholar and Bohac, Rodney, “Everyday Forms of Resistance: Serf Opposition to Gentry Exactions, 1800–1861,” in Peasant Economy, Culture and Politics of European Russia, 1800–1921, Kingston-Mann, E. and Mixter, T., eds. (Princeton, 1990), 244.Google Scholar

⁹ For a valuable account of the power of the eighteenth-century gentry and state, see LeDonne, John, Ruling Russia: Politics and Administration in the Age of Absolutism (Princeton, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Donnert, E., “Russische Studenten an Englischen Universitäten im 18. Jahrhundert,” in Wegenetz Europäischen Geistes, Plaschka, R.G. and Mack, K., eds. (Munich, 1987), 127–33;Google Scholar and Sacke, Georg, “Die Moskauer Nachschrift der Vorlesungen von Adam Smith,” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, vol. 9 (1939), 351–6;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and see also Clendenning, Philip, “Eighteenth-Century Russian Translations of Western Economic Works,” Journal of European Economic History, vol. 1 (1972), 745–53.Google Scholar

¹¹ The Imperial Free Economic Society was established in 1765 by Catherine the Great as a Russian version of the agricultural societies that existed in a number of Western European countries in the eighteenth century. See Oreshkin, V.V., Vol'noe ekonomicheskoe obshchestvo v Rossii, 1765–1917 (Moscow, 1963), 1–33.Google Scholar

¹² Confino, Michael, “Le Politique de tutelle des seigneurs russes envers leur paysans vers la fin du xviii-e siècle,” Revue des Etudes Slaves, 38 (1961), 49, 60–62.Google Scholar See also Confino's magisterial studies in Domaines et seigneurs en Russie vers la fin du xvii-e siècle (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar and Systèmes agraires et progrès agricole: L'assolement triennial en Russie au xviii-e / xix-e siècles (Paris, 1969).Google Scholar

¹³ See, for example, Klingstedt, , Trudy imperatorskogo vol'nogo ekonomicheskogo obshchestva (Proceedings of the Imperial Free Economic Society, cited hereafter as TIVEO), vol. 16 (1770), 238,Google Scholar 239, and Rychkov, vol. 16 (1770), 16–17, 23–24, 56–57; Augustine, Wilson, “Notes toward a Portrait of the Eighteenth Century Russian Nobility,” Canadian Slavic Studies, 4:3 (1970), 373–425;Google Scholar and Confino, Michael, “Politique de tutelle,” 60.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For this and other examples of Bolotov's methods, see Bolotov, , Zhizn' i priklucheniia Andreia Bolotova, opisannye samim im dlia svoikh potomkov, 1738–1795, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1870–1873),Google Scholar a supplement to Russkaia starina), 434, 549–50, 637, 475–77, and TIVEO, vol. 16 (1770), 76–77,Google Scholar 82, 185, 203.

¹⁵ Bartlett, Roger, “J.J. Sievers and the Russian Peasants under Catherine II,” Jahrbücher fur geschichte Osteuropas, 32:1 (1984), 19–33,Google Scholar and see the general discussion in Jones, Robert, Provincial Development in Russia: Catherine II and Jakob Sievers (Rutgers, N.J., 1984), 152–6.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Poliakov, I.M. and Berdyshev, A.P., “A. T. Bolotov i ego trudy v oblasti sel'skoi khoziaistvennoi i biologischeskoi nauki,” in A. T. Bolotov, Izbrannye sochineniia (Moscow, 1952), 426–40,Google Scholar and Brown, A., “A Provincial Landowner: A. T. Bolotov, 1738–1833” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton, 1977).Google Scholar

¹⁷ In the 1930s and afterward, Stalin repeatedly described the policy of forced collectivization as a progressive measure whose harshness was necessitated by peasant backwardness. For some of the later pronouncements, see Stalin, quoted in Lauterbach, Richard, “Stalin at 65,” Life Magazine (01 1, 1945), 67.Google Scholar

¹⁸ In this connection, it is useful to consider Roger Bartlett's evidence of gentry hostility and indifference to the eighteenth-century efforts of Pastor J. G. Eisen, who attempted to involve peasant mothers in programs for inoculations against smallpox, instead of engaging in forcible inoculations “for the peasants' own good.” See Bartlett, “J. J. Sievers and the Russian Peasants,” 31–33.

¹⁹ Confino, “Le Politique de Tutelle,” 47–49. See also Kahan, Arcadius, The Hammer and the Knout: An Economic History of Eighteenth-Century Russia, Hellie, Richard, ed. (Chicago, 1985), 66–69.Google Scholar

²⁰ Peasant efforts are set out in Prugavin, A.S., Zaprosy naroda i obiazannosti intelligentsii v oblastiprosveshcheniia i vospitaniia (St. Petersburg, 1895), 31–52.Google Scholar See the recent study by Eklof, Ben, Russian Peasant Schools (Berkeley, 1988), 84–86.Google Scholar

²¹ Mavrodin, V.V., Klassovaia bor'ba i obshchestvenno-politicheskaia mysl' v Rossii v xiii v. (Leningrad, 1964), 170.Google Scholar

²² Even Beardé's essay was only narrowly approved for publication. Critics like Count Sievers, the brothers Orlov, and Prince M. M. Shcherbatov feared that any argument for land grants to the peasantry might be used as a justification for encroachment on gentry property. Pratt, Joan, “The Russian Free Economic Society” (Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri at Columbia, 1983), 34.Google Scholar

²³ See general discussion in Mavrodin, Klassovaia bor'ba, 169–70.

²⁴ Karataev, N.K., Ekonomicheskaia nauka v moskovskom universitete (1755–1955) (Moscow, 1956), 45–8;Google Scholar and see also Grau, C., “Zur Ideologiegeschichte in Russland und zu den deutsch-russischen Beziehungen in den sechziger/siebziger Jahren des 18 Jh.,” Jahrbuch für Geschichte der sozialistischen Länder Europas, 23:2 (04 1979), 83–97.Google Scholar

²⁵ See the discussion of Jakob's career as a German economist in Keith Tribe in Governing Economy: The Reformation of German Economic Discourse, 1750–1840 (Cambridge, England, 1988);Google Scholar and Winter, Eduard, Halle als Ausgangspunkt der deutschen Russlandkunde in 18 Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1953).Google Scholar

²⁶ Quoted in Semevskii, V.I., Krest'ianskii vopros, 319 and 313–5; see also TlVEO, vol. LXVI (1814), 82,Google Scholar 85–86. It is interesting to compare Jakob's statement with D. A. Golitsyn's reassuring eighteenth-century argument that property “gives rise to security and spiritual peace, from this peace develops curiosity, and curiosity encourages all forms of knowledge of the arts, trade and the sciences.” Shchipanov, A., lzbrannye proizvedeniia russkikh myslitelei vtoroi poloviny xviii veka (Leningrad, 1952), 25–6.Google Scholar Jakob's views were spelled out in detail in his Grundsatze der Policeygezetzebung und der Policeyanstalten (1809), a book that brought him an invitation to join the government's Ministry of Finance.

²⁷ Storch, Henri, Cours d'économie politique en exposition des principes qui determinent la prosperité des nations, vol. 6, 18–19 (Paris, 1815).Google Scholar

²⁸ Although Professor McGrew has suggested that, in contrast to Storch, most of Russia's economic liberals were proponents of political reform, it is hard to see Schlözer, Jakob, Kaiserov and Stroinovskii in this light. See McGrew, Roderick, “Dilemmas of Development: Baron Heinrich Friedrich Storch (1766–1835) on the Growth of Imperial Russia,” Jahrbucher für Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 24 (1976), 71.Google Scholar

²⁹ Storch, , Cours, vol. 3, 248–58.Google Scholar Despite Storch's caveats about the need for emancipation, the censors nevertheless considered his writings suspect. In 1815, they permitted the publication of the French edition of his book in St. Petersburg, but prohibited its appearance in a Russian translation.

³⁰ According to Storch, farm labor could not be easily routinized, and environmental and other factors could always prevent the farmer from being rewarded in proportion to his investments of labor, capital, or ingenuity.

³¹ Born in Hungary and trained at the University of Vienna, Balugianskii came to Russia in the early 1800s and served as the tutor of the future Nicholas I from 1813–7. In 1817 he was appointed rector of the University of St. Petersburg. See Kosachevskaia, E.M., M. A. Balugianskii i peterburgskii universitet pervoi chetverti xix veka (Leningrad, 1971), 52–5.Google Scholar

³² LeDonne, , Ruling Russia, 54, 95–101,Google Scholar 109, 186–9, and 347–8.

³³ Bliumin, I.G., Ocherk ekonomicheskoi mysli v Rossii v pervoi polovine xix veka (Moscow, 1940), 50–51.Google Scholar

³⁴ Pushkin, A.S., Eugene Onegin, vol. 1, Nabokov, V.N., trans. (New York, 1964), 98.Google Scholar

³⁵ Bliumin, I.G., Ocherk ekonomicheskoi mysli (Moscow, 1940), 92–9.Google Scholar

³⁶ See the careful discussion contained in Kaufman, Allen, Capitalism, Slavery and Republican Values: American Political Economy, 1819–1848 (Austin, Texas, 1982).Google Scholar

³⁷ Mordvinov believed that difficult tasks like swamp drainage would never be voluntarily undertaken by free laborers; only the compulsion imposed by the lord could ensure that the land would be improved. In a sense, “Serfdom was to be the price paid for Russia's economic development.” A detailed discussion of Mordvinov's views of serfdom is contained in Repczuk, Helma, “Nicholas Mordvinov (1754–1845): Russia's Would-Be Reformer” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1962), 196–204,Google Scholar and 206.

³⁸ Mordvinov inundated his peasants with directives ranging from crop selection to the proper swaddling of infants. When Tsar Alexander I visited his Baldar valley estate in 1818, 2,000 peasants lined the road to complain of Mordvinov's intrusiveness and cruelty. Shilder, N.K., Imperator Aleksandr pervyi, ego zhizn i tsarstvovanie, vol. 4 (St. Petersburg, 1904–1905), 103.Google Scholar

³⁹ Quoted in Repczuk, Nicholas Mordvinov, 111. Mordvinov was in no sense a thoroughgoing believer in laissez faire. Although he did not want government intervention in the master-serf relationship, he strongly supported government leadership in the subsidizing and promotion of technological and industrial development.

⁴⁰ I am indebted to Professor Jurgen Backhaus for his suggestion that the all-encompassing conception of order that inspired Mordvinov's plan might well reflect the influence of Bentham's, JeremyPanopticon (London, 1812).Google Scholar

⁴¹ The stated aim of the military colonies was to lower the burgeoning costs of state military expenditures and to provide a model for the rational improvement of living standards and productivity levels.

⁴² Fitzhugh, George, quoted in Eugene Genovese, The World the Slaveholders Made (New York, 1969), 162.Google Scholar See also the fascinating discussion between such notions of discipline and later industrial theories of “Taylorism” in Aufhauser, R. Keith, “Slavery and Scientific Management,” Journal of Economic History, 33 (10 1973), 811–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ In addition, settlers were to make use of the labor of unmarried soldiers quartered in their homes and require them to engage in farmwork in return for food and shelter.

⁴⁴ Pipes, Richard, “The Russian Military Colonies, 1810–1831,” Journal of Modern History, 22 (10 1950), 205–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Quoted in Russkii arkhiv, vol. 8 (1893), 535,Google Scholar and Russkaia starina, vol. 4 (1904), 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Khomiakov, A.S., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, 187–8;Google Scholar vol. 3, 408-9. The questions Khomiakov raises are central to current debates in English historiography. Although the revolutionary aspects of English achievements were more emphasized in older scholarship, some of the most recent research has focused on social, political, and economic continuities in modern English social history. See Mingay, G.E., “Introduction,” Arthur Young and his Times (London, 1975).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ K. D. Kavelin was probably the only member of this group who was more skeptical about the all-encompassing virtues of property and less critical of the peasant commune. See Kavelin, , Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 3 (St. Petersburg, 1897–1900), 1170.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Granovskii, T.N., Sochinenie (Moscow, 1856), vol. 1, 150–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Harvey Chisick's discussion of similar Enlightenment notions of “the people,” in The Limits of Reform in the Enlightenment (Princeton, 1981).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Netting, Anthony, “Russian Liberalism, The Years of Promise: 1842–1855” (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1967), 612.Google Scholar

⁵¹ The only exception to this general stance was the influential Moscow University legal scholar, K. D. Kavelin, who shared the political and cultural ideals of Belinskii and the young Herzen, but believed that communal and private tenure each possessed both virtues and defects.

⁵² Seligman, Ben, “The Impact of Positivism on Economic Thought,” History of Political Economy, 1:2 (1969), 258Google Scholar and 268, and see the discussion of “objectivity” and the hierarchical notions of progress that inspired the Comtean movement in Szacki, Jerzy, History of Sociological Thought (London, 1979), 177–9;Google Scholar and Spragens, Thomas, The Irony of Liberal Reason (Chicago, 1981).Google Scholar

⁵³ See discussion of the origins of Comtean influences in Utkina, N.F., Pozitivizm, antropoligicheskii materializm i nauka v Rossii (Moscow, 1975);Google ScholarShkurinov, P.S., Pozitivizm v Rossii (Moscow, 1980), 62–63;Google Scholar and Safronov, B.G., M. M. Kovalevskii kak sotsiolog (Moscow, 1960), 45–50.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See, for example, Bezobrazov, V.P., Aristokratiia i interesy dvoriantstvo (St. Petersburg, 1859).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See, for example, Politicheskoe ravnovesie i Angliia (Moscow, 1855);Google ScholarOcherk istorii politicheskoi ekonomii (St. Petersburg, 1858);Google ScholarProspekt politicheskoi ekonomii (St. Petersburg, 1858);Google Scholar and TIVEO, vol. 4 (10 1865), 328.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Maslov, E., O vlianii razlichnykh vidov pozemel'noi sobstvennosti na narodnoe bogatstvo (Kazan, 1860).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See discussion in Tsagalov, N.A., Ocherki russkoi ekonomicheskoi mysliperioda padeniia krepostnogo prava (Moscow, 1956), 357.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See, for example, Poroshin, , O zemledelii v politiko-ekonomicheskom otnoshenii (St. Petersburg, 1846),Google Scholar and Regéneration sociale de la Russie (St. Petersburg, 1860).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Kavelin, K.D., Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 4, 257–62.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Quoted in Chemyshev, I.V., Agrarno-kresf' ianskaia politika Rossii za 150 let (Petrograd, 1918), 86,Google Scholar 91.

⁶¹ Quoted in Tsybenko, A., Mirovozzrenie D. I. Pisareva (Moscow, 1969), 266.Google Scholar

⁶² Esther Kingston-Mann, “Marxism and Russian Rural Development,” 731–3.

⁶³ See, for example, Chicherin, B.N., “Obzor istoricheskago razvitiia sel'skoi obshchiny v Rossii,” Russkii vestnik, 3–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Tengoborskii, Ludwig, Études sur les forces productives de la Russie, vol. 1 (Paris, 1852), 331.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Katkov's shift astonished contemporaries like Prince Cherkasskii, who predicted (correctly) that Katkov would soon “confess his errors and turn back onto the opposite path.” See the discussion in Kitaev, V.A., Otfrondy k okhranitel'stvu: Iz istorii russkoi liberal'noi mysli 50–60x godov xix veka (Moscow, 1972), 190–192.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Quoted in Field, Daniel, The End of Serfdom: Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855–1861 (Cambridge, Mass., 1976), 444.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See especially Zaionchkovoskii, P.A., The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia (Gulf Breeze, Fla., 1978);Google Scholar and Emmons, Terence, The Russian Landed Gentry and the Peasant Emancipation of 1861 (London, 1968).Google Scholar Some of the most valuable recent Soviet and Western research on emancipation appears in The Great Reforms in Russia, Zakharova, L.G., Bushnell, John, and Eklof, Ben, eds. (Bloomington, Indiana, 1991).Google Scholar