Abstract
Catherine II occupied the Russian throne for over one-third of the eighteenth century; practically all significant developments relevant to freedom of expression occur within that period. In trying to sum up its effects we may start from the self-evident assumption that in an absolute monarchy much more depends on the personality of the ruler than elsewhere; consequently it is the ruler who must take the greatest share of praise or blame for any achievements or lack thereof in any given field. To put this a little differently, the part played by the government in the developments with which we are here concerned is the most significant of all the factors involved; since the terms “Catherine” and “government” are, for the present purpose of a general summing-up, practically synonymous, her attitudes and actions are obviously crucial to the whole problem.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
For example, when Dashkova begged Catherine not to stop contributing to the Sobesednik (Letter dated 29 September 1783 quoted by Pekarsky in Materialy dlya istorii zhurnal’noy…, (Source Materials For the History of Catherine II’s Journalistic… Activities), p. 19), saying that, without her, the journal will have to close, her remarks cannot be regarded as pure flattery. Both the volume of Catherine’s contributions and their ‘reader appeal’, quite apart from their intrinsic value, were very significant indeed.
A. L. Schloezer’s oeffentliches und privat-Leben…, Erstes Fragment, Goettingen, 1802, p. 301. In actual fact, the number of books (volumes, not titles) published between 1762 and 1800 exceeded the whole output, from the introduction of printing into Russia until 1761, about three and a half times. (Cf. Knizhnaya torgovlya (The Book Trade), ed. by Muratova and Nakoryakova, M.-L., 1925, p. 92).
366 titles per year in 1790, as compared with 30 in 1760. (Russkaya kniga (Books in Russia), p. 346.
Semennikov, Radishchev…, pp. 122-3.
Under Paul the Senate lost a great deal of its executive significance, although it still acted much as before on matters which did not attract his immediate attention. The Council of State and within it the Procurator-General, can be said to have participated to some extent in the process of government, at least in the earlier part of the reign. But, all in all, the situation was much as succintly put by a contemporary foreign visitor: ‘Russia has no definite political system. All her policies consist of the Emperor’s whims’. (E. Shumigorsky, ‘Zapiska bavartsa o Rossii vremyon Imp. Pavla’ (translated from French) (A Bavarian’s Memoir on Russia at the Time of Emperor Paul), Russkaya Starina (The Russian Past), XCIX, 1899, p. 359).
Cf. Shumigorsky, Imperator Pavel 1 (The Emperor Paul I), St. P., 1907, pp. 100f. It is possible that the prominent English merchant W. Eton, who had spent many years in Russia and lived there during the reign of Paul, had this contraption in mind when ho noted that ‘every person in the Empire may now write to their Sovereign, and if they receive no answer, may address themselves personally to him’. (W. Eton, A Survey of the Turkish Empire…, London, 1799, p. 465).
Shil’der, Imperator Pavel Pervyi (Emperor Paul the First), St. P., 1901, p. 351.
Snegiryov, Zhizn’ moskovskogo mitropolita…, (Life of the Metropolitan [Platon] of Moscow), Part I, p. 95. But on the same occasion, he permitted the teaching of French at the seminary attached to the monastery of the Holy Trinity and St. Sergius, forbidden by Catherine a few years earlier.
It was staged in 1798, but forbidden after a few performances, and its author banished to Siberia. As a result of Paul’s being persuaded to see the play for himself, the sentence on Kapnist was rescinded and he himself promoted to the post of the Director of Imperial Theatres at St. Petersburg. The ban on the play was also lifted.
Cf Russkaya Starina, (The Russian Past), III, (1871), pp. 720f; Skabichevsky, p. 84.
P.S.Z., XXIV, No. 17,811 of 16 February 1797.
This was done shortly afterwards, by the edict of 29 March 1797 (P.S.Z., XXIV, No. 17,895).
3 July 1787, P.S.Z., XXIV, No. 18,032
The same tendency is evident in Paul’s policies towards the Academy of Sciences. Here the post of Director (held by P. P. Bakunin) was abolished, and the aged President, K. G. Razumovsky, replaced by G. L. Nicolai. Paul usurped some of their functions, such as the confirmation of newly elected members.
Such, in addition to those already mentioned, were the edicts of 5 October 1797 (P.S.Z., XXIV, No. 18,186); 11 December 1797 (Ibid., No. 18,265); 11 February 1798 (P.S.Z., XXV, No. 18,367).
V. V. Sipovsky, ‘Iz proshlogo russkoy tsenzury’ (From the Past of Russian Censorship), Russkaya Starina (The Russian Past), XCVIII, (1899), p. 169.
Former Deputy-Governor of St. Petersburg, not to be confused with Fyodor Tumansky mentioned below.
Sipovsky, pp. 170f.
The Riga office queried about 13% of the books received in 1797-98 and 23% in the following year. The corresponding figures for St. Petersburg are 2% and 1% while the activities of the remaining offices were even less significant. As far as works published within the Empire were concerned, the figures available for St. Petersburg for 1798 show that of 218 titles only 7, i.e. just over 3% were questioned by the censors. (Ibid., p. 446).
They were upheld in the majority of cases.
According to the data from’ sbornik predstavleniy tsenzorov’ (Collection of Censors’ Submissions), published by G. K. Repinsky in ‘Tsenzura v Rossii pri Imperatore Pavle 1797-1799’ (Censorship in Russia in the Reign of Emperor Paul), Russkaya Starina (The Russian Past), XIV, (1875), pp. 454ff, from which the examples that follow have been taken.
The respective figures are 30,219 and 18,985 (Sipovsky, p. 446).
A contemporary poet, V. V. Popugayev, welcomed this decision with the Ode on the Occasion of the Council’s Decision to Allow ‘Contrat Social’ where he struck an optimistic note that appears hardly justified under the circumstances: ‘O Russians, you are not forbidden to read the works of great men of genius, you are free to follow boldly in their footsteps…’
Cf. p. 10 above.
P.S.Z., XXV, No. 18,524.
Ibid., No. 18,939.
Notwithstanding this the tendency to appoint persons of relatively high official status and qualifications appears to have persisted. The censors appointed shortly afterwards at Vilno (for the examination of books imported via Polangen) consisted of two Poles, one of them ex-Podczaszy of Kovno, and the other a priest with the degree of a Doctor of Theology, one retired colonel with a German-sounding name, and one Jewish censor originally from Leipzig. (P.S.Z., XXV, No. 19,010).
P.S.Z., XXVI, No. 19,387.
P.S.Z., XXV, No. 18,888.
Pis’ma N. M. Karamzina k. 1. 1. Dmitrievu, (N. M. Karanzin’s Letters to I. I. Dmitriev), ed. by Ya. Grot and P. Pekarsky, St. P., 1866, Letter No. 89, p. 104. Cf. also letters Nos. 77 (p. 84) and 86 (p. 97).
L. Svetlov, ‘Radishchev i politicheskiye protsessy…’ (Radishchev and the Political Trials …), p. 68.
Cf. Kizevetter, ‘Iz istorii russkogo liberalizma-Ivan Petrovich Pnin (1773–1805 gg.)’ (From the History of Russian Liberalism — I. P. Pnin), Istoricheskiye ocherki (Historical Studies), M., 1912, p. 77. Also Berkov, Istoriya russkoy zhurnalistiki (History of Russian Periodical Press), p. 285 f.
In Parts III and IV of the Journal (1798).
Quoted by I. Ayzenshtok in ‘Frantsuzskiye pisateli v otsenkakh tsarskoy tsenzury’ … that it has pleased the Almighty to confer the Sceptre of power on one incapable of the lowest office in which the exertion of sound reason is required. The (French Writers As Seen by the Tsarist Censorship), Lit. Nasledstvo (Lit. Heritage), 33-34, M. 1939, p. 775.
Russkaya kniga, (Books in Russia), table on p. 346.
B. M., Add. Mss. 9255, Fols. 174-183.
M. F. de Pule, ‘Otets i syn’ [Memoirs of Ivan Alekseyevich Vtorov] (Father and Son), Russkiy Vestnik (The Russian Messenger), CXVII, M., 1875, pp. 123–4.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1971 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Papmehl, K.A. (1971). The Balance Sheet of Catherine’s Reign Freedom of Expression under Paul I. In: Freedom of Expression in Eighteenth Century Russia. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9101-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9101-2_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8397-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9101-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive