Abstract
In reaction to the stifling regime of Paul I, the first years of the reign of Alexander saw a spirit of reform seize almost all those who were close to the government and administration. As a member of the bureaucracy and with many friends among the influential new officials of the government, Speransky was naturally caught up in this spirit. Everybody talked and wrote about what was wrong with Russia and what could be done to improve the situation, and so also did Speransky.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
V. I. Semevskii, “Pervyi politicheskii traktat Speranskogo”, Russkoe Bogatstvo (1907), No. 1, pp. 62–63 — hereafter cited as “Pervyi politicheskii traktat.”
“Pervyi politicheskii traktat,” pp. 64-65.
ibid., pp. 66-67.
ibid., p. 67.
ibid., p. 65 (note), 68.
ibid., p. 69. By state here, Speranskii meant the nation.
ibid., p. 68.
ibid., pp. 74-75. This is strongly reminiscent of 18th century complaints, in particular those of Radishchev.
Cf. Istoriia Moskvy, vol. III (Moscow 1954), pp. 71-74 and the notes to the interesting memoirs of S. P. Zhikharev, Zapiski sovremennika, 2 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad 1934).
“Pervyi politicheskii traktat”, pp. 62, 70-71.
ibid., p. 69 and also p. 71 for a restatement of the last quoted idea. It may be of interest to note the similarity Speransky’s reasoning bears to the ideas and arguments of the Slavophile publicist A. I. Koshelev (cf. my article, “Russia after the Emancipation — views of a gentleman-farmer,” Slavonic & East European Review, XXIX, No. 73 [June 1951], pp. 470-485).
“Pervyi politicheskii traktat,” p. 67.
J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (London 1952), pp. 43–49 passim.
“Pervyi politicheskii traktat,” pp. 73-74. One seems to hear an echo of medieval theories on rightful kingship and of Joseph de Maistre’s evaluation of the French Revolution.
“Pervyi politicheskii traktat,” p. 72, and pp. 70-72 passim for all the preceding.
ibid., pp. 73, 76-77. The idea of the divisibility of property among all children might have been inspired by the sad results of Peter the Great’s efforts at introducing primogeniture into the legal relations and traditions of the Russian nobility. It is questionable that primogeniture rights to status alone could have been preserved more successfully, as they too ran counter to Russian historical tradition and the interests of the majority of the nobles.
“Pervyi politicheskii traktat,” p. 74.
ibid., p. 78.
ibid., p. 79. There is a striking similarity between the functions of the Chambers proposed by Speransky and the Slavophile conception of the Zemskii Sobor.
“Pervyi politicheskii traktat,” p. 76.
ibid., p. 58. Speransky was soon to reverse his opinion completely on the historical origins of serfdom in Russia.
“Pervyi politicheskii traktat,” p. 80 (note), p. 76.
ibid., pp. 80-82.
ibid., pp. 50-59. The title of the paper was: “Otryvok o komissii ulozheniia— Vvedenie.”
“Pervyi politicheskii traktat,” p. 54.
ibid., p. 51.
ibid., p. 57.
ibid., pp. 54, 56, 67. The study and translation of foreign codes had been suggested in the Unofficial Committee. Count Paul Stroganov noted on the session of 10 March 1802: “Le Prince Czartoryski parla ensuite de Ia lettre qu’il avait été chargé de rédiger pour engager les plus savants jurisconsultes de l’Europe à travailler sur le système d’un code de lois. Il dit qu’il avait un brouillon, mais qu’ensuite, en conférant là-dessus avec ses collègues, on avait paru penser qu’il serait difficile de faire dans ce moment-ci un code définitif, puisque tout ce qui était relatif à l’état civil serait soumis à de grandes mutations par Ia suite, mais qu’il ne fallait songer pour le moment qu’à faire un recueil de nos oukases par ordre de matière, et que dans ce moment il fallait se borner à déterminer cet ordre.” Le Comte Paul Stroganov, vol. II, p. 108. Alexander I was impatient, however, to proceed to a definitive code; in any case, contacts were established with foreign jurists (cf. ibid., pp. 114-115). The correspondence with foreign jurists was carried on through the Russian embassies and the various Ministries of Foreign Affairs and was still maintained in 1809 (cf. the report of Caulaincourt to Napoleon, dated 15 Jan. 1809, cited in A. Vandal, Napoléon et Alexandre I, vol. II, p. 28).
“Pervyi politicheskii traktat,” p. 55, 56.
“Zapiska ob ustroistve sudebnykh i pravitel’stvennykh uchrezhdenii v Rossii (1803).” Published in Plan Gosudarstvennogo preobrazovaniia grafa M. M. Speranskogo (Moscow 1905), pp. 121-229. Hereafter cited as Zapiska 1803.
Zapiska 1803, pp. 121-122, 186.
ibid., 170, 182-184.
ibid., 156-157. On Speransky’s connections with Bentham (via the latter’s disciple Dumont who visited Russia), see chapter 7 infra.
Zapiska 1803, p. 171.
ibid., p. 172.
ibid., p. 125.
ibid., p. 127.
ibid., p. 130.
ibid., pp. 131-132.
ibid., pp. 132-138.
ibid., pp. 150-153. The “cameralist” tone is unmistakable.
ibid., pp. 189-190.
ibid., pp. 191-193, 195-198.
ibid., p. 168.
ibid., p. 169.
ibid., p. 169 (note).
ibid., p. 176.
ibid., pp. 167-168.
ibid., pp. 199-200, 201-202. In suggesting the name of Senate for this executive institution, Speransky hoped perhaps to instill greater confidence by using a familiar term, carrying with it the prestige of Peter the Great.
Zapiska 1803, p. 201. On the term soslovie, cf. pp. 162-163 below.
Zapiska 1803, pp. 203-206. The echoes of the American system should not be taken too literally.
ibid., pp. 212-213. On closer inspection, this Legislative Senate has already all the essential features of the Council of State proposed by Speransky in his plan of 1809 and established in 1810.
Zapiska 1803, pp. 217-218.
ibid., p. 219.
Le Comte Paul Stroganov, vol. II, p. 8 (as quoted above in note 3 p. 45).
Zapiska 1803, p. 187.
ibid., pp. 226-227.
ibid., pp. 228-229.
ibid., p. 229.
For full details on the existing copies of the project, see S. M. Seredonin, “K planu vseobshchego gosudarstvennogo preobrazovaniia 1809 g”, Sbornik S. F. Platonovu (St. Pbg. 1911), 533–544. The full text (cited as Plan 1809) has been published by Russkaia Mysl’ in a separate volume (Moscow 1905), along with other papers of Speransky, under the title, Plan gosudarstvennogo preobrazovaniia grafa M. M. Speranskogo.
Plan 1809, pp. 18-19, 20. Speransky defined feudalism as “absolutism tempered by material forces” (ibid., p. 17) — while this definition shows Speransky’s insight into at least one important aspect of the feudal system (i.e., the distinction between dominium and potestas) it also explains the seeming paradox of the phrase, “absolutist feudalism.” In any case, Speransky was quite aware of the function of “estates” (Stände) in the political development of the West.
Plan 1809, p. 15.
ibid., p. 16. This statement sets the Plan in a relative, historically determined framework, in contrast to the absolute (“natural”) principles of the 18th century. This “historicist” position of Speransky indicates his affinity for what Mannheim has called the “conservative style of thought.” K. Mannheim, “Conservative Thought,” Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology, (London 1953), pp. 95, 113-114, 117.
Plan 1809, pp. 19 (note), 25.
ibid., pp. 22-24 passim.
ibid., p. 28.
ibid., p. 29.
ibid., pp. 30-31.
ibid., p. 31.
ibid., p. 33.
ibid., pp. 33, 34.
Curiously enough, Speransky forgot the class of his own origin — the clergy. It may also be questioned whether the merchants were a full fledged class in Russia. Old Russia based class distinction on the relation to state obligations — tax-paying or service-performing (tiaglo or sluzhba).
Plan 1809, pp. 52-53. Here Speransky shows a more accurate conception of the origins of serfdom than he did in his first reform plan. It is a significant change, related to his growing “historical” orientation.
Plan 1809, p. 53.
ibid., p. 54.
ibid., p. 55.
ibid., p. 57. It should be noted that some peasants were already beginning to buy settled lands (under cover of third persons’ names) and exploit them for their own personal benefits.
Plan 1809, p. 60.
ibid., pp. 60-63 passim.
Speransky suggests reversion to early 18th century practice, qualified compulsory government service from which the nobility had succeeded in freeing itself under Peter III.
Plan 1809, pp. 63-64. This was an innovation compared to 18th century practice, though to some extent, it was a reversion to Muscovite traditions.
A category — not very numerous — of peasants originally of non-Russian ethnic origin who were free and owned their homesteads; it was found primarily among Cossacks in the South Eastern part of European Russia.
Plan 1809, p. 65.
ibid., pp. 66-67.
Compare the interesting parallel idea of vom Stein: “Durch eine Verbindung des Adels mit den anderen Ständen wird die Nation zu einem Ganzen verkettet, und dabei kann das Andenken an edle Handlungen, welche der Ewigkeit wert sind, in einem höheren Grade erhalten werden.” Freiherr vom Stein, “Rundschreiben an die Mitglieder des Generaldepartments (sogenannte Politische Testament), Koenigsberg 24 November 1808,” in Freiherr vom Stein, Briefwechsel, Denkschriften und Aufzeichnungen, vol. II, p. 585 (quoted in modernized spelling in W. Altmann, Ausgewählte Urkunden zur Brandenburg-Preussischen Verfassungs-und Verwaltungsgeschichte, 2. Auflage, (Berlin 1915), II. Teil, 1. Hälfte, p. 64).
Plan 1809, pp. 73-77.
Oddly enough, Speransky did not specify by what method the members of the first Duma would be selected and called together, nor is he very clear on how a Duma will be selected if the previous one is dismissed by the Emperor.
This too is very similar to the Slavophile conception of the functions of a Zemskii Sobor.
On the Duma, see Plan 1809, pp. 77-79.
ibid., pp. 79-86 passim. Speransky is not very clear as to whether the Senate takes up all cases in last resort, or only on appeal. Also, it would seem as if the decisions of the Senate could still be appealed to the Emperor, a situation which would decrease the prestige and authority of the Senate as an autonomous judicial body.
Plan 1809, pp. 87-98 passim.
Areas which have some special distinct characteristics (social, economic, political) and are located on the periphery of the Empire should be given their own particular organization. Such areas, which Speransky proposes to call regions (oblast’), include Siberia, the Caucasus, Astrakhan, the Urals, Georgia, Orenburg, the lands of the Don Cossacks.
Plan 1809, pp. 107-111, 71-72. 2 ibid., pp. 112-117.
We are not forgetting the circumstances in which Speransky had to work and that it was necessary for him to abandon some of his proposals in order to get a few of his basic ideas accepted. However, it is important to point out — against his over-enthusiastic admirers — that he left much to be desired in respect to the practical implementation of even the limited proposals of his Plan of 1809. Speransky cannot be absolved for his failure to realize that hopes are meaningless in practical politics unless they are provided with a concrete institutional foundation for their development.
On this, see the general biographies of Speransky and Istorila Pravitel’stvuiush-chego Senata za 200 let ego sushchestvovaniia and the texts of the projects relative to the Governing and Judiciary Senates in Shil’der, op. cit., vol. III.
For the details, see S. Swatikow, Die Entwürfe der Ânderung der russischen Staatsverfassung, (Heidelberg 1904) passim and Georges Vernadsky, La Charte constitutionnelle de l’Empire russe de l’an 1820 (Paris 1933), pp. 217-218.
Speransky quotes directly Montesquieu, Bentham, Blackstone, Sir Francis Bacon, Beccaria. Direct evidence of his use of Filangieri and J. J. Rousseau can be easily detected too.
See Appendix.
F. Meinecke, Vom Weltbürgertum zum Nationalstaat, (2d. ed., Berlin 1911), p. 129.
Mannheim, “Conservative Thought,” loc. cit., pp. 103, 110-111, 115.
Compare again with the parallel argument of vom Stein: “Die Regierung vervielfältigt die Quellen ihrer Erkenntnis von den Bedürfnissen der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft und gewinnt an Stärke in den Mitteln der Ausführung.” Freiherr vom Stein, “Denkschrift über die zweckmässige Bildung der obersten Behörden und der Provinzial-, Finanz-und Polizeibehörden in der preussischen Monarchie (Nassau, Juni 1807)”, Briefwechsel, Denkschriften und Aufzeichnungen vol. II, p. 228 (cited in modernized spelling from Altmann, Ausgewählte Urkunden, IL p. 23).
The original name of the body had been Council of State — see Korkunov, Russkoe gosudarstvennoe pravo II, pp. 63-64. The fact is alluded to in the Statute of the Council, 1 Jan. 1810, PSZ 24,064.
The Instruction (Nakaz) to the Nepremennyi Sovet, dated 5 April 1801, quoted by Korkunov, op. cit., II, p. 64.
For material on the Western Councils in the 18th century and a discussion of their relation to enlightened absolutism and bureaucratic forms of administration, see: O. Hintze, “Das monarchische Prinzip und die Konstitutionelle Verfassung” Staat und Verfassung (Leipzig 1941), pp. 349–379; “Der oesterreichische und der preussische Beamtenstaat im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert,” ibid., pp. 311-348; “Die Entstehung der modernen Staatsministerien,” ibid., pp. 265-310. It should be noted that the Austrian model was particularly relevant to Russia, for the Habsburg monarchy had similar problems arising from the fact that it was a multinational empire.
The degree of secrecy surrounding the preparation of the legislation for the Council of State can be gauged from the fact that Arakcheev was shown an outline of the Council’s statute only on the eve of its official publication. See V. R. Marchenko, “Avtobiograficheskie zapiski gosudarstvennogo sekretaria V. R. Mar-chenki (1782-1838),” Russkaia Statina, vol. 85 (1896), p. 485. Napoleon’s ambassador, Caulaincourt, reporting on the new Council — on 12 Feb. 1810, wrote: “(le nouveau conseil) à l’organisation duquel ni lui [Rumiantsev] ni d’autres n’avaient été appelés, et Sa Majesté me dit qu’Elle l’avait formé seule dans son cabinet avec M. Spe-ransky et que le comte de Romantzoff n’en avait eu connaissance que trois jours avant Ia publication des édits, et les autres ministres que le jour même.” Grand Duc Nicolas Mikhailowitsch, Les relations diplomatiques de Ia Russie et de Ia France … vol. IV, p. 281. The complete Plan of Speransky was discussed only by a special committee whose members were in advance favorable to it: Kochubei, Kampengauzen, Mord-vinov, Balugian’skii.
Department of State — Russia, John Quincy Adams, dispatch to the Secretary of State, No. 11, 31 January 1810.
Karamzin’s paper remained unknown to the public until the 1860s. An incomplete version was published in 1870, N. M. Karamzin, “O drevnei i novoi Rossii”, Russkii Arkhiv, VIII, (1870), pp. 2225-2350. A complete edition was published by V. V. Sipovskii, Zapiska o drevnei i novoi Rossii, St. Pbg. 1914. Dr. Richard E. Pipes is preparing an annotated English translation (with Russian text) to appear shortly.
See Korkunov, op. cit., Il, pp. 75-83 passim for an excellent statement of the legal technicalities involved in the argument.
Korkunov, op. cit., II, pp. 75-83. Other officials, contemporaries of Speransky who cannot be suspected of “constitutional” leanings used the term in this same sense of ‘board’. For example, State Secretary Olenin referred to the Council of State as this consultative soslovie; see M. M. Vinaver, “K voprosu ob istochnikakh X. toma Svoda Zakonov,” Zhurnal Ministerstva lustitsii, vol. I, No. 10 (October 1895), p. 8. The opposite view — not quite convincing in our opinion — has been best stated by Shcheglov, Gosudarstvennyi sovet v Rossii, II, p. 475.
B. Noldé, “L’autocratie russe et Ia doctrine de Ia séparation des pouvoirs dans Ia première moitié du XIXe siècle,” Revue du Droit Public et de Ia Science Politique en France et à l’Etranger, 41 (Paris 1924), pp. 5–41.
Batenkov summarized it quite well by saying it was “a definition of absolutism by itself,” Batenkov “Dannye: Provest’ o sobstvennoi zhizni,” Russkii Arkhiv, (1881), No. 2, pp. 268-269.
Plan 1809, pp. 3-4, 46-48.
Cf. the articles of Hintze in note 2 p. 158; P. Klassen, Die Grundlagen des aufgeklärten Absolutismus (Jena 1929).
Quoted by K. Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia (an introduction to the sociology of knowledge), (New York 1951), p. 106.
Contrast this to Stein’s faith in society, the nobility and bourgeoisie: “Auch meine Diensterfahrung überzeugt mich innig und lebhaft von der Vortrefflichkeit zweckmässig gebildeter Stände, und ich sehe sie als ein kräftiges Mittel an, die Regierung durch die Kenntnisse und das Ansehen aller gebildeten Klassen zu verstärken, sie alle durch Überzeugung, Teilnahme und Mitwirkung bei den Nationalangelegenheiten an den Staat zu knüpfen, den Kräften der Nation eine freie Tätigkeit und eine Richtung auf das Gemeinnützige zu geben… An die Stelle der Bürokratie muss nicht eine auf kümmerlichen und schwachen Fundamenten beruhende Herrschaft weniger Gutsbesitzer errichtet werden, sondern es kommt die Teilnahme an der Verwaltung der Provincialangelegenheiten sämtlichen Besitzern eines bedeutenden Eigentums jeder Art, damit sie alle mit gleichen Verpflichtungen und Befugnissen an den Staat gebunden sind.” Freiherr vom Stein, “Denkschrift über die zweckmässige Bildung der obersten Behörden…,” loc. cit., II, pp. 220, 225 (quoted per Altmann, Ausgewählte Urkunden, II, pp. 19, 21.). It is in respect to method that Speransky differs fundamentally from the Prussian reformer, with whom he otherwise often agrees in diagnosing the evil and in setting the ideal goal of the reforms.
Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, p. 105.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1957 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Raeff, M. (1957). Plans of Reform. In: Michael Speransky. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9304-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9304-7_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8547-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9304-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive