Documents in Russian History

Seton Hall University, Russian and East European Studies Program

http://artsci.shu.edu/reesp/documents/Sources--main.htm

Currently the following sources are available:

Muscovy, Pre-Petrine Russia

Samuel Collins: "On the Present State of Russia."

Peter the Great

Proclamation on the Introduction of the New Calendar, 1700
Decree on Single Inheritance
Pavel Miliukov on the Reforms of Peter the Great

Eighteenth Century Russia

The "Conditions" of Anna Ivanovna's Accession to the Throne
Peter III's Manifesto Freeing Nobles from Obligatory Service
The Pugachev Rebellion
Catherine the Great's Instruction to the Legislative Commission
Alexander Radishchev, Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow

Nineteenth Century Russia

Petr Chaadaev, First Philosophical Letter
Vissarion Belinsky, Letter to Gogol
Alexander II, Emancipation Manifesto, February 19, 1861
Alexander Nikitenko responds to the Emancipation Manifesto
A. V. Iartsev, Proclamation of a Populist Activist, 1874
Alexander III, Manifesto of April 29, 1881
Konstantin Pobedonostsev, Reflections of a Russian Statesman
Sources on Mixed Marriage (courtesy of Paul Werth)

The Russian Revolution, 1905-1921

Lenin, "What is to be Done."
Workers' Petition, January 9, 1905 (Bloody Sunday)
Manifesto of October 17, 1905
Manifesto of June 3, 1907 (Dissolution of the Second Duma)

The Soviet Union

Stalin on the Industrialization of the Soviet Union.
 Samuel Collins on the Court of Aleksei Mikhailovich
(1670)
Samuel Collins (1619-1670) was an English physician invited in 1660 to serve
as the personal physician of the Russian Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich. He spent
nine years in Moscow before his death. In 1671 a volume entitled "On the
Present State of Russia" was compiled by a publisher from a series of letters
written by Collins to Robert Boyle, a well-known English scientist.

I shall now give you a further description of the Czar. He is a goodly person,
about six foot high, well set, inclin'd to fat, of a clear complexion, lightish hair,
somewhat a low forehead, of a stern countenance, severe in his chastisements,
but very careful of his Subjects love. Being urged by a Stranger to make it
death for any man to desert his Colours; he answer'd, it was a hard case to do
that, for God has not given courage to all men alike. He never appears to the
people but in magnificance, and on festivals with wonderful splendor of Jewels
and Attendants. He never went to any Subjects house but his Governours when
he was thought past all recovery. His Centinels and Guards placed round about
his Court, stand like silent and immoveable Statues. No noise is heard in his
Pallace, no more than if uninhabited. None but his Domesticks are suffer'd to
approach the inward Court, except the Lords that are in Office. He never dines
publickly but on Festivals, and then his Nobility dine in his presence. At Easter
all the Nobility and Gentry, and Courtiers kiss the Emperours hand, and receive
Eggs. Every meal he sends dishes of meat to his Favourites from his own Table.
His stores of Corn, and dry'd flesh are very considerable, with these he pays his
Strelsies or Janzaries, giving them some cloth, but very little money; for they
have all Trades, and great Priviledges.

The Emperour with his Pottash, Wax and Honey, he buys Velvet, Sattin,
Damask, cloth of Gold and Broad-cloth, with which he gratifies his Officers for
their service. He hath now seven Versts off Mosco, built Work-houses for Hemp
and Flax, in that good order, beauty and capacity, that they will employ all the
poor in his Kingdom with work. He hath allotted many miles of wast Land for
that design. The Czaritza is to govern the womens side for her use and profit.
Thus the Czar improves the Manufactures of his Countrey, feeds all the
Labourers as cheap as we do our Dogs. And lays up the money that comes out
of the Cabacks, Bath stoves, Tarr, Pitch, Hemp, Flax, Honey, Wax, Cariare,
Sturgeon, Bellusa, and other salted and dry'd fish from Astracan, Cazan, the
Lake Belsira, and many other Lakes and Rivers with which the Countrey
abounds, especially Syberia in the latter. [....]

Every year towards the latter end of May the Czar goes three miles out of
Moscow, to an house of pleasure call'd Obrasausky : In English Transfiguration,
being dedicated to the Transfiguration in the Mount. And according to that,
Master 'tis good for us to be here, let us make three Tabernacles ; So the
Emperour has most magnificent Tents, his own is made of cloth of Gold, lined
with Sables. His Czaritsa's with cloth of Silver, lined with Ermines. The Princes
according to their degree. His and Czaritsa's, with those of his eleven children
and five Sisters, stand in a circle with the Church-Tent in the middle, the most
glorous show in its kind that ever I saw. There are Rails and Guards set Musquet
shot from them, beyond which no man may pass without order: For the Czar
will have none of the vulgar people to be eye-witnesses of his pastimes. Indeed
the too near approaches of the common Rabble make discovery of Princes'
infirmities, not to say vanities, Majesty is jealous of Gazers. This made
Montezume King of Mexico keep his Subjects at such a distance that they aurst
not behold him, familiarity breeds contempt, when Princes expose themselves
too much unto pulick view, they grow cheap, and are little regarded. Therefore
in a Theatre, the State is rail'd in, that the Spectators may not crowd upon the
Scenes, which show best at a distance. And so it fares with Princes, the more
they are reserv'd the more they are observ'd, the more implor'd the more
ador'd; otherwise they run a great hazard of being condemn'd, and reckon'd no
better than their Subjects, seeing an equal mortality and frailty of flesh attends
all men. When the Czar goes into the Country or fields to take his pleasure he
gives strict charge that none should interrupt him with Petitions. A Captain of
white Russia, and native of that Countrey being three years without pay, and
finding no reliefs from Peter Solticove Lord of that Province, came and press'd
too near the Czars coach; the Czar perceiving no petition in his hand, suspected
he might be an Assassinate, and with his staff (once Cxar Juans ) not unlike a
dart, intending to push the fellow away, he struck him to the heart, and he died.
The Nobility rid up to the coach, and searching what arms the man had, found
nothing but a wooden spoon, and a petition for three years Arrears, Whereupon
the Czar smote his Breast, saying, I have kill'd an innocent person, but Peter
Solticove is guilty of his blood, whom God forgive; and immediatly sending for
him, after a severe check, he turn'd him out of his place, banished him from the
Court, and appointed Nashockin that great Minister of State to take his Office,
and examine and find out the misdemeanours thereof. This hapned in June last,
and this action was but whispered, and that too with too much peril of a mans
tongue.

In the night season the Czar will go about and visit his Chancellors Desks, and
see what Decrees are pass'd, and what Petitions are unanswer'd. He has his
spyes in every corner, and nothing is done or said at any Feast, publick
Meeting, Burial or Weding but he knows it. He has spyes also attending his
Armies to watch their motions, and give a true account of their actions: These
spyes are Gentlement of small fortunes who depend on the Emperours favour
and are sent into Armies, and along with Embassadors, and are present on all
publick occasions.

'Tis death for any one to reveal what is spoken in the Czars Pallace. I being
curious to see the fine buildings for the Flax and Hemp, ask't to what end they
were built, but not a Workman durst tell me, though they know it well enough;
but they replied, God and the Emperour know best, this was all I could get from
them. The Czars children are attended with children of their own bred up with
them, and there is none of them but know their distance, and their degrees of
bowing to all sorts of persons. None dare speak a word what passes in their
Court.

NOTES

1. Strelsies. Musketeers. From the Russian Streliat', meaning to shoot. The modern transliteration
is Streltsy.

2. Versts. An old Russian unit of measurement. One verst = .66 miles.

3. Cabacks. Taverns. Standard translateration is Kabak.

4. Obrasausky. Collins is referring to the estate known as Preobrazhensky

which is located on the outskirts of Moscow.

5. Nashockin. Afanasy Ordin-Nashchokin. One of the Aleksei Mikhailovich's

key assistants during the latter part of his reign.

Excepted from Samuel Collins, On the Present State of Russia, (London, 1671)
On-line edition edited by Marshall Poe. Used with permission of the editor.
How Russians Celebrated the Year 1700
Proclamation on the Introduction of a New Calendar, December
20, 1699
The Great Sovereign ordered that it be said: It is known to the him, the Great Sovereign, that not
only in many European Christian countries, but also among the Slavic peoples, who are in full
accord with our Eastern Orthodox Church, such as: the Wallachians, Moldavians, Serbs,
Dalmations, Bulgarians, and Cherkess, subjects of the Great Sovereign himself, and all the Greeks,
from whom our Orthodox faith was received, years are counted starting eight days from the birth of
Christ, that is from the first day of January, and not from the creation of the world… And now the
1699th year from the birth of Christ has come, and next January from the first of the month will
begin the new 1700th year along with the new century. And for this good and opportune occasion,
the Great Sovereign ordered that from now on years are to be counted in the chancelleries and in all
papers and documents are to be dated from the present first of January from the birth of Christ as
1700. And as a sign of this benevolent endeavor and the new centennial era in the capital city of
Moscow, after the requisite thanks to God and singing of prayers in Churches and in the homes…
decorations are to be put up along the large streets and thoroughfares and along the gates of the
greatest houses of lay and clerical servitors. [They] should be made from the limbs and branches of
pine, yule and juniper trees in accordance with the models that are displayed at the trading court and
the pharmacy building or in whatever way seems most appropriate and decent; Poor people should
put up at least a bough or a branch on the gate or on their houses. and it should be done on time, this
coming January by the first day of this year; and this decoration is to stay in place until the seventh
day of 1700. And on the first day in January, as a sign of merriment, in congratulating each other on
the New Year and centennial era, the follow should be performed: when on the Great Red Square
the fireworks are lighted and the salute begins, the high court Boyars, and Okolnichyi, the important
officials, the most prominent people of the chancellery, military servitors and high ranking
merchants, each in his own court, should perform a triple salute from a small cannon, for those who
have them, or from several muskets or other small arms and set off several rockets, as many as can
be mustered. And in the large streets, where there is space, from January 1 to 7 bonfires should be lit
at night from logs or brush or straw. Small families should assemble in groups of five or six
households and build their fires, for those who so desire, on platforms in one two or three tar barrels,
which they should fill it with straw or brush to light. This is so that it will be within the power of the
Burgmeister to [oversee] these salutes and fires and also to have jurisdiction over these fires and
salutes and decorations.

Source: Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, v. 3, no. 1736.

Translated by Nathaniel Knight

1/18/2000
Decree on Single Inheritance, March 23, 1714
We, Peter I, Tsar and Autocrat of All Russia, etc., issue this ukaz for all the subjects of Our state, of
whatever rank or status:

The division of estates upon the death of fathers causes great harm to Our state and state interests
and brings ruin to our subjects and to the families concerned; for example:

1. Concerning Taxes. Suppose a man had 1000 [serf] households and five sons, had a fine manor, a
good table, and a sound relationship with people; if after his death this property is divided among his
children, each would receive 200 households; those children, remembering the fame of their father
and the honor of their line [rod] would not wish to live the life of an orphan; everyone can see that
the poor subjects [serfs](1) will have to supply five tables instead of one and that 200 households
cannot bear the burden (including state taxes) previously borne by 1000. Does not this practice bring
ruin to the people and harm to state interest? Because 200 households cannot make payments as
reliably to the state and to the nobleman as 1000 households could, because (as noted above) one
lord will be satisfied with [revenues from] 1000 [households] (but not from 200) and will moderate
the situation of the peasants, who will be able to pay taxes punctually to both the state and to the
lord. Consequently, division of estates brings great harm to the government treasury and ruin base
people.

2. Concerning Families. And should each of those five sons have two sons, each of them son will
receive 100 households, and should they further multiply, they will be so impoverished that they
may turn into one-household owners, with the result that [the descendants of] a glorious line, in
place of fame, will turn into villagers; there are already many examples of this among the Russian
people [rossiiskii narod].

3. On Indolence: On top of these two harms, there is yet another. Anyone who receives his bread
gratuitously, even if it is not much, will neither serve the state without compulsion nor try to
improve himself; on the contrary, each will seek any excuse to live in idleness, which (according to
Holy Scripture) is the mother of all evil.

In contrast to Item 1: If all real estate were to be handed down to one son and the others were to
inherit only movable property, then state revenues would be sounder; the nobleman would be better
off even if he should collect small amounts from a larger number [of serfs]; there will be only one
manor [dom] instead of five (as stated above); and he can show favor to his subjects [serfs]. As for
Item 2: Families will not decline, but will remain stable in all their glory and their manors shall
remain famous and renowned. Regarding Item 3: The remaining [members of the family] will not be
idle because they will be forced to earn their bread through service, teaching, trade, and so forth.
And whatever they do for their own living will also benefit the state.

Because this [new system] is intended to bring benefit, the following is proclaimed:

(a) All real estate, i.e. hereditary, service, and purchased estates, as well as homes and stores, should
neither be sold nor mortgaged but retained in the [family] line in the following manner:
(b) Whoever has sons must bequeath his real estate to one, who will inherit all; other children of
both sexes, however many there are, will be awarded movable property which either the father or
mother will divide for both sons and daughters in the amount they wish, except that the one who
inherits the real estate [will be excluded]. If someone does not have sons, but daughters only, he
should then designate one in the same manner. If someone fails to assign [his property], a
government decree will assign the real estate to the eldest son as his inheritance, while movable
property will be divided equally among the others; obviously, the same procedure is to apply to
daughters.

(c) Whoever is childless is free to leave his real estate to one of the members of his family,
whomever he wishes, and the movable [property] to his kin or even to outsiders. And if he fails to
do this, both forms of property will then be divided by a decree among the members of the line, real
estate to the closest relative and the rest to all others equally...

Translated by Daniel Field

(1) The decree uses the same word, podannye, for subjects of the sovereign (as in the first sentence)
as for “subjects” of a squire, i.e. serfs.
Pavel Miliukov on the reforms of Peter the Great.
Pavel Miliukov (1859-1943) was educated at Moscow University where he studied under V. O.
Kliuchevskii, Russia's leading historian. After completing in 1893 a pathbreaking dissertation on
State Administration under Peter the Great, Miliukov began a short-lived career teaching at
Moscow University which came to an abrupt end in 1895 when he was dismissed for his political
views. Miliukov went on to become one of the founders of the liberal Kadet party and a major
political figure in the last years of Tsarist Russia. After the revolution of 1917, in which he played a
prominent role, he continued to be active in exile as a writer, scholar and editor. The passage
below is from his major work "Outlines of the History of Russian Culture," first published in the late
1890s and revised and republished in the 1930s.

In the absence of a [consciously developed plan of reform] there remained only one feeling,
continually raising Peter above all the trifles and details in which he was constantly entangled. This
feeling was very strongly developed in Peter and was the only thing that could discipline him, take
the place of all the restraint that his upbringing could not provide. This was the feeling of
responsibility, the feeling of duty, of obligation imposed from without. It is curious how even this
consciousness of duty toward the motherland takes on the form with Peter of military discipline, the
form most comprehensible for him and for those around him... He served the fatherland – not only
as a Tsar, as the "first servant" in the manner of Frederick the Great; no – he served above all as a
drummer boy, a bombardier, a night watchman, a vice admiral...In all of Peter’s activity we find
nothing more deeply rooted, almost to the point of instinct, no other guiding idea other than this idea
of service...The feeling of duty, without a doubt, helped Peter – amidst all the fluctuations and
vicissitudes of fortune, amidst his own impulses and caprices – to hold his will steady, to outlast his
enemies, his allies, his helpers and his nation in the quest to attain the goals he had set. But this
feeling could never take the place of a clear plan or make Peter’s actions systematic.

The absence of such a plan and system, without a doubt, could only deprive the reformer of the
chance to control the reforms, the guide their progress in a fully conscious and expedient manner. In
other words, his personal influence on the reforms was significantly diminished in scope under these
circumstances. But this condition only casts into particularly sharp relief...the degree of personal
participation that nonetheless remained... One only has to go over in one’s mind the main objects of
Peter’s reform to become convinced of the truth of this point... Let us look at just one area of reform
that would seem to be the most personal, the most dependent on the will of the reformer and,
consequently the most accessible to planned implementation. Petersburg-- this was the embodiment
of all the passions and antipathies of Peter: his love for the sea and the navy, his need for wide open
space, his habit of dabbling in the external cultural environment, and his fear in the face of the
hollow hostility of the old capital. This Petrine "paradise," created, according to the picturesque
Finnish legend, entirely in the air and then lowered all at once into a marsh so that it would not sink
in separate pieces, this Petersburg also reflected not only the full substance of the reforms in
miniature, but also all of their methods. On the small patches of land, divided up by the mouth of the
Neva, Peter thrashed about for ten years without tiring, and the result was again a mass of
unproductive wasted efforts, a mass of beginnings without ends, magnificent and expensive plans
left without realization, and nothing coherent. One day Petersburg was to be on the present day
Petrograd side. And so they began to build there churches, an exchange, shops, buildings of the
colleges, and private houses, which every nobleman in service was required to build, depending on
his wealth. The next day it seemed better to move the trade and main settlement to Kronstadt. And
there again, every province had to erect an enormous stone building, in which no one would live and
which would gradually fall into ruin over time. Meanwhile, the city was emerging in a new place,
between the Admiralty and the Summer Garden, where the banks were higher and the danger from
floods not as great. And again, Peter was not satisfied. In his leisure time during his last years, a
new idea came to mind: to turn Petersburg into Amsterdam, to replace the streets with canals, and
for this to move the entire city to the very lowest place, Vasil’ev Island, which had earlier been
given in its entirety to Menshikov. To protect from floods and hostile attacks, dykes would have to
be built. And once again the entire nobility, which had already built their homes in other parts of
Petersburg, received mandatory invitations to build obligatory houses on Vasil’ev Island. Peter dies,
and the building that had started was abandoned. The houses fell into disrepair and served merely as
the butt of jokes: in other countries time creates ruins, but in Russia we build them on purpose...

The personality of Peter is visible everywhere in his reforms: his imprint lies in every detail. And it
is precisely this feature that imparts to the reforms to a significant degree it elemental nature. This
endless repetition and accumulation of experiences, this uninterrupted cyclone of destruction and
creation, and in the midst of it all a kind of inexhaustible life force which no sacrifice, no loss, no
failure has the power to break or even to stop. These are all features which are more reminiscent of
the wastefulness of nature in all its blind elemental creativity, than the political art of a statesman. In
drawing this conclusion, we must not forget yet another feature... It is precisely due to the particular
form that the reforms took that they cease to appear as a miracle and descend to the level of the
surrounding reality. They had to be the way they were in order to correspond with this reality. Their
randomness, arbitrariness, individuality, and violence are all necessary features. And despite their
sharply anti-national appearance, they are completely rooted in the conditions of national life.
Russia received the only reform that it was capable of receiving. (166)

Source: P. N. Miliukov, Ocherki po istorii russkoi kul’tury (Moscow, 1995), v. 3, pp. 161-162, 166.

Translated by Nathaniel Knight

1/18/00
 The "Conditions" of Anna
Ivanovna's Accession to the
Throne, 1730
The sudden death of the young Peter II in early 1730
threw Russia in a serious succession crisis. With no
remaining male heirs to the Romanov line, the ruling
elites dominated by the Dolgorukii and Golitsyn
families, turned to Anna Ivanovna, daughter of the
feeble-minded Ivan V and niece of Peter the Great, as
an acceptably weak and innocuous candidate for the
throne. To insure their continuing domination under
the new ruler, the elites, working through the institution
of the Supreme Privy Council created by Catherine I,
required Anna to sign a document stipulating a number
of significant restrictions on her power as a monarch.
But when Anna arrived in Moscow and news of the
"conditions" of her accession to the throne became
known, a storm of protest broke out among the nobility
who feared the power of the Supreme Privy Council. In the constitutional crisis that ensured a
number of projects and proposals were put forward. Ultimately, however, Anna, relying on the
support of the nobility and guards regiments, opted to repudiate the previously signed conditions
and restore to Russia the principle of unimpeded autocratic rule. In retrospect, some historian have
interpreted Anna's "conditions" as a precedent for constitutionalism in Russian. The text of Anna's
conditions follows:

We hereby give a most binding promise that my main concern and effort shall be not only to
maintain but to spread, as far as possible and in every way, our Orthodox faith of the Greek
Confession. Moreover, after accepting the Russian crown, I will not enter into wedlock so long as I
live; nor will I designate a successor, either in my lifetime or after. We also promise that, since the
safety and welfare of every state depends upon good counsel, we will always maintain the Supreme
Privy Council as it is at present established with its membership of eight persons. Without the
consent of this Supreme Privy Council:

1. We will not start a war with anybody.

2. We will not conclude peace.

3. We will not burden our faithful subjects with new taxes.

4. We will not promote anybody to high rank--above the rank of colonel--either in the civil or
military service, be it on land or sea, nor will we assign any important affair to anybody; the guards
and other important regiments are to remain under the control of the Supreme Privy Council.
5. We will not deprive members of the nobility [shliakhetstvo] of life, possessions, or honor without
a court of law.

6. We will not grant any patrimonies [votchiny] or villages.

7. We will not promote anyone, whether Russian or foreign, to an office at court without the advice
of the Supreme Privy Council.

8. We will not spend any revenues of state.

And [we also promise] to maintain an unalterably favorable disposition toward all our faithful
subjects. Should I not carry out or fail to live up to any part of this promise, I shall be deprived of
the Russian crown.

Translation by Daniel Field

Peter III's Manifesto Freeing Nobles from Obligatory Service:
1762
All Europe, indeed the greater part of the world, knows what difficulties and effort that Peter the
Great, wise monarch of immortal memory, Our dear sovereign grandfather and Emperor of all the
Russias, had to expend in his efforts, solely with a view to bringing benefit and welfare to
fatherland, to introduce into Russia advanced knowledge of military, civil, and political affairs.

To achieve this goal it was essential first to coerce the nobles, the chief body of the state, and
convince them of the great advantages enjoyed by enlightened states over those countless peoples
who are sunk in the depths of ignorance. Because the circumstances of the time then demanded
extreme sacrifices from Russian Nobles, he [Peter I] did not show any mercy towards them, he
forced them into military and civil service, and furthermore required noble youth to study the
various liberal arts and also useful skills; he sent [some of] them to European countries, and, to
achieve the same goal as rapidly as possible, established various schools in Russia itself.

It is true that in the beginning these innovations were burdensome and unendurable for the nobles, as
they were deprived of peace, were forced to leave their homes, were obliged against their will to
serve in the army or to perform other service, and were required to register their children. In
consequence some nobles tried to evade these requirements, for which they were fined or even
forfeited their estates, since they had shown themselves indifferent to their own best interest and that
of their descendants. These demands, though burdensome in the beginning and accompanied by
force, proved to be much advantage during the reigns of Peter the Great's successors, especially
during the reign of Our dear aunt, Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, of glorious memory, who followed
in the footsteps of her sovereign father, who supported the knowledge of political affairs and who,
by her protection, extended much useful knowledge throughout Russia. We can look with pride at
everything that has occurred, and every true son of the country will agree that great advantages have
resulted from all this. Manners have been improved; knowledge has replaced illiteracy; devotion and
zeal for military affairs resulted in the appearance of many experienced and brave generals; civil and
political concerns have attracted many intelligent people; in a word, noble thoughts have penetrated
the hearts of all true Russian patriots who have revealed toward Us their unlimited devotion, love,
zeal, and fervor. Because of all these reasons We judge it to be no longer necessary to compel the
nobles into service, as has been the practice hitherto. Because of these circumstances, and by virtue
of the authority granted to Us by the almighty, We grant freedom and liberty to the entire Russian
nobility, by Our High Imperial Grace, from this movement and forever, to all future generations.
They may continue to perform service in Our Empire or in other European countries friendly to our
State on the basis of the following rules:

1. All nobles who are presently in our service may continue as long as they wish or as long as their
health may permit; those serving in the army may request release or furlough during a campaign or
three months before a campaign; they should wait for release until the end of a war; those serving in
the army may request release or retirement permits from their superiors and must wait for these
permits; those serving Us in various capacities in the first eight ranks must apply for their release
directly to Us; other ranks will be released by the departments for which they work.

2. At their retirement We will reward all nobles who serve Us well and faultlessly by promoting
them to a higher rank, provided they have served at least one year in the rank from which they
retired; those who wish to retire from military service and enter civil service, provided there is a
vacancy for them, should be rewarded only if they have served three years in a given rank.

3. Those nobles who have retired or those who have terminated their military or civil service for Us,
but who should express a desire to re-enter the military service, shall be admitted, provided they
prove worthy of those ranks to which they belong and provided they will not be elevated to ranks
higher than those of their co-servicemen who were equal in rank at the retirement; if they should be
elevated in rank this should go into effect from the day they re-join the service over those who have
retired and also make it possible for those who have retired from one service to join other services.

4. Those nobles who, freed from Our service, who wish to travel to other European countries should
immediately receive the necessary passports from Our Foreign College under one condition:
namely, that should ever a pressing need arise, those nobles shall return home whenever they are
notified. Everyone should fulfill this request as soon as possible; those who fail to comply with it
will have their property confiscated.

5. ... [on Russians who would serve in other states.]

6. By virtue of this manifesto, no Russian nobleman will ever be forced to serve against his will; nor
will any of Our administrative departments make use of them except in emergency cases and then
only if We personally should summon them; this rule also applies to the nobility of the Smolensk
area. An exception to this rule is St. Petersburg and Moscow, where an ukaz of the Sovereign
Emperor Peter I stipulated that some men from among the retired nobles should be made available
for various needs at the Senate and at the [Heraldic] Office; We amend this Imperial rule by
decreeing that henceforth there should be selected annually thirty men to serve in the Senate and
twenty to serve in the Office. These men should be chosen by the Heraldic Office from among the
nobles living in the provinces and not from those still in service. No one should be designated by
name for this duty. Nobles themselves should decide who should be selected in the districts and
provinces. Local officials should forward the names of those so selected to the Heraldic Office and
also provide those selected with needed items.

7. Although, by this gracious manifesto we grant forever freedom to all of Our Russian nobles,
except freeholders [odnodvortsy], Our fatherly concern for them as well as for their children will
continue. These latter, We decree, should henceforth, whenever they reach twelve years of age, be
reported to the Heraldic Office in districts, provinces, or cities or wherever is most convenient. From
their parents or relatives who are bringing them up, information should be obtained about the level
of the children's education up to the age of twelve and where they would like to continue their
studies, whether within Our State in various institutions We have founded, in European countries,
or, should the means of their parents allow it, in their own homes by experienced and skillful
teachers. No nobleman should keep his children uneducated under the penalty of Our anger. Those
noblemen who have under 1000 serfs should report their children to Our Cadet Corps of the
Nobility, where they will learn everything befitting a nobleman and where they will be educated
with the utmost care. Following his education each nobleman will assume his rank in accordance
with his dignity and reward, and subsequently each may enter and continue his service as indicated
above.

8. Those nobles who presently are in Our military service as soldiers or non-commissioned officers
below the rank of oberofitser, that is, those who have failed to attain officer rank, should not be
allowed to retire unless they have served twelve years in the army.
9. We grant this gracious act to all of Our nobles for eternity as a fundamental and unalterable law;
by Our Imperial word We pledge to observe it in its entirety in the most solemn and irrevocable
manner. Our rightful successors should not alter it in any way whatsoever, as their adherence to this
decree will serve as an indispensable support for the autocratic throne of All Russia. We hope that in
return for this act Russian nobles, realizing what great concern We have shown toward them and
toward their descendants, will continue to serve Us loyally and zealously and will not withdraw
from Our service; on the contrary, that they will seek the service eagerly and will continue it as long
as possible, and will educate their children attentively in useful knowledge; those who will not
perform any service will also lead purposeless lives and will not educate their children in any useful
subject. Such people are not concerned with the general good, and We order all true sons of the
Fatherland to despise and demolish [!] them. We will not allow such people any access to Our court,
nor will We tolerate their presence at public assemblies and festivals.
The Pugachev Rebellion, 1773-1774

Pugachev's first ukaz, September, 1773

From the autocratic Emperor, our Great Sovereign Petr Fedorovich of all Russia, and so forth and so
forth and so forth. This is my personal ukaz to the Cossack army of the Iaik: Inasmuch as you, my
friends, served former tsars with your very flesh and blood, and as your fathers and grandfathers did,
so for the sake of your fatherland should you serve me, the great sovereign emperor Petr
Fedorovich. When you stand up for your fatherland, your Cossack glory will endure from
henceforth for all time and so will that of your children. You, the Cossacks and Kalmucks and
Tatars will be rewarded by me, the Sovereign Imperial Majesty Petr Fedorovich. As for those of
you who have wronged me, the Sovereign Imperial Majesty Petr Fedorovich, I, the Sovereign Petr
Fedorovich, forgive you all your wrongs and reward you with the river from source to mouth, and
lands and meadows and money and powder and shot and supplies of grain. Thus I, the great
sovereign emperor, reward you.

Petr Fedorovich

Pugachev's last ukaz, June 1774

By the grace of God We, Peter the third, Emperor and Autocrat of all Russia, and so forth and so
forth and so forth. It is declared for all the people to know. By this personal ukaz We bestow on all
those who formerly were peasants and in subjugation to the landowners, along with Our monarchic
and paternal compassion, to be dutiful slaves subject directly to Our crown. We grant them the
ancient cross and prayer, haircut and beard, freedom and liberty, and they are to be Cossacks
forever, not liable to recruitment into the army or to the soul tax or other money taxes, and We grant
them tenure of the land and the forests and the hay meadows and the fisheries and the salt lakes,
without purchase and without obrok, and we liberate all the aforementioned from the villainous
nobles and from the bribe takers in the city--the officials who imposed taxes and other burdens on
the peasants and the whole people. We wish everyone salvation of the soul and a peaceful life in
this world, for which We have tasted and suffered exile and great wrongs from those villains, the
nobles. But since now, by the power of the right hand of the Almighty, Our name now flourishes in
Russia, We accordingly do ordain by this personal ukaz: those who formerly were nobles living on
estates are enemies to Our power and disrupters of the empire and oppressors of the peasantry, and
they should be caught, executed and hanged, they should be treated just as they, who have no
Christianity, dealt with you peasants. When these enemies and villains have been eliminated, all
may enjoy peace and a quiet life that will last for all time.

Given on this, the 31st day of June, 1774

Peter

Petition of Serfs in Kungur District, Perm' Province, to

"Peter III"
Most brilliant and autocratic Great Sovereign Petr Fedorovich, Autocrat of all Russia, of Little and
White Russia, etc., etc.!

This declaration comes from the Guselinovka ward of the village of Spasskoe in Kungur District, in
the name of the entire community through its authorized representatives, Kornilo Prokopov'ev
Shiriaev and Ustin Ananienich Medvidev. It addresses the following points:

1. We your slaves have, by the grace of God, heard that Your Imperial Majesty, coming from the
southern lands in Orenburg Province, has taken on great strength. We praised God that our
beautful sun of old, after having hidden beneath the ground, now rises in the East and in its mercy
wishes to warm us, Your humble and loyal slaves, with its grace, so we peasants with one accord
bow our heads to the very ground.

2. We [Your] slaves, all the peasants of the aforementioned ward, most humbly request the tsar's
mercy from the officers and do not wish to oppose them in any way. Your Majesty did not
declare His anger and punishment towards us, so we ask the lords His officers to spare us from
the fatal sword and [ask them] to obey His [Majesty's] orders.

3. We also have a great hope that His Tsarist Majesty will mercifully spare us from the vicious, wild
poisonous animals, the boyars and officers, and break off their sharp claws--for example,
Mikhailo Ivanovich Bashmakov at the Iugov State Factories, also Aleksei Semenovich Elchanov,
and, in the town of Kungur, Aleksei Semenovich Elchanov, Dmitrii Popov. These lords make us
angry with their declarations that whoever invokes the great name of Petr Fedorovich shall be
treated like a great evildoer and done to death.

4. To this end, we slaves, all the peasants, have sent reliable people to discover the truth about Your
Majesty and to make a deep bow to the very ground before your military commanders, not to
resist them. Therefore, if you please, give them encouragement so that we slaves may know of
Your Tsarist Majesty's health, for which we slaves would have great jubilation.

5. May the humble petition of us slaves receive the gracious attention of Your Majesty, so that we
humble folk shall not suffer any harm at the hands of your troops.
The Instructions of Catherine II to the Legislative Commission of
1767
The Instructions to the Commissioners for Composing a New Code of Laws

1. The Christian Law teaches us to do mutual Good to one another, as much as possibly we can.

2. Laying this down as a fundamental Rule prescribed by that Religion, which has taken, or ought to
take Root in the Hearts of the whole People; we cannot but suppose that every honest Man in the
Community is, or will be, desirous of seeing his native Country at the very Summit of Happiness,
Glory, Safety, and Tranquillity.

3. And that every Individual Citizen in particular must wish to see himself protected by Laws,
which should not distress him in his Circumstances, but, on the Contrary, should defend him from
all Attempts of others that are repugnant to this fundamental Rule.

4. In order therefore to proceed to a speedy Execution of what We expect from such a general Wish,
We, fixing the Foundation upon the above first-mentioned Rule, ought to begin with an Inquiry into
the natural Situation of this Empire.

5. For those Laws have the greatest Conformity with Nature, whose particular Regulations are best
adapted to the Situation and Circumstances of the People for whom they are instituted. This natural
Situation is described in the three following Chapters.

Chapter I

6. Russia is an European State.

7. This is clearly demonstrated by the following Observations: The Alterations which Peter the
Great undertook in Russia succeeded with the greater Ease, because the Manners, which prevailed at
that Time, and had been introduced amongst us by a Mixture of different Nations, and the Conquest
of foreign Territories, were quite unsuitable to the Climate. Peter the First, by introducing the
Manners and Customs of Europe among the European People in his Dominions, found at that Time
such Means as even he himself was not sanguine enough to expect.

Chapter II

8. The Possessions of the Russian Empire extend upon the terrestrial Globe to 32 Degrees of
Latitude, and to 165 of Longitude.

9. The Sovereign is absolute; for there is no other authority but that which centers in his single
Person that can act with a Vigour proportionate to the Extent of such a vast Dominion.

10. The Extent of the Dominion requires an absolute Power to be vested in that Person who rules
over it. It is expedient so to be that the quick Dispatch of Affairs, sent from distant Parts, might
make ample Amends for the Delay occasioned by the great Distance of the Places.
11. Every other Form of Government whatsoever would not only have been prejudicial to Russia,
but would even have proved its entire Ruin.

13. What is the true End of Monarchy? Not to deprive People of their natural Liberty; but to correct
their Actions, in order to attain the supreme Good.

14. The Form of Government, therefore, which best attains this End, and at the same Time sets less
Bounds than others to natural Liberty, is that which coincides with the Views and Purposes of
rational Creatures, and answers the End, upon which we ought to fix a steadfast Eye in the
Regulations of civil Polity.

15. The Intention and the End of Monarchy is the Glory of the Citizens, of the State, and of the
Sovereign.

16. But, from this Glory, a Sense of Liberty arises in a People governed by a Monarch; which may
produce in these States as much Energy in transacting the most important Affairs, and may
contribute as much to the Happiness of the Subjects, as even Liberty itself.

Chapter III

17. Of the Safety of the Institutions of Monarchy.

18. The intermediate Powers, subordinate to, and depending upon the supreme Power, form the
essential Part of monarchical Government.

19. I have said, that the intermediate Powers, subordinate and depending, proceed from the supreme
Power, as in the very Nature of the Thing the Sovereign is the Source of all imperial and civil
Power.

20. The Laws, which form the Foundation of the State, send out certain Courts of judicature,
through which, as through smaller Streams, the Power of the Government is poured out, and
diffused.

21. The Laws allow these Courts of judicature to remonstrate, that such or such an Injunction is
unconstitutional, and prejudicial, obscure, and impossible to be carried into Execution; and direct,
beforehand, to which Injunction one ought to pay Obedience, and in what Manner one ought to
conform to it. These Laws undoubtedly constitute the firm and immoveable Basis of every State.

Chapter VII

61. There are means of preventing the growth of crimes, and these are the punishments inflicted by
the laws....

63. In a word, every punishment which is not inflicted through necessity is tyrannical. The Law has
its source not merely from Power [but also from] Nature....

66. All laws which aim at the extremity of rigor, may be evaded. It is moderation which rules a
people, and not excess of severity.
67. Civil liberty flourishes when the laws deduce every punishment from the peculiar nature of
every crime. The application of punishment ought not to proceed from the arbitrary will or mere
caprice of the Legislator, but from the nature of the crime....

68. Crimes are divisible into four classes: against religion, against manners [morality], against the
peace, against the security of the citizens....

74. I include under the first class of crimes [only] a direct and immediate attack upon religion, such
as sacrilege, distinctly and clearly defined by law.... In order that the punishment for the crime of
sacrilege might flow from the nature of the thing, it ought to consist in depriving the offender of
those benefits to which we are entitled by religion; for instance, by expulsion from the churches,
exclusion from the society of the faithful for a limited time, or for ever....

76. In the second class of crimes are included those which are contrary to good manners.

77. Such [include] the corruption of the purity of morals in general, either public or private; that is,
every procedure contrary to the rules which show in what manner we ought to enjoy the external
conveniences given to man by Nature for his necessities, interest, and satisfaction. The punishments
of these crimes ought to flow also from the nature of the thing [offense]: deprivation of those
advantages which Society has attached to purity of morals, [for example,] monetary penalties,
shame, or dishonor ... expulsion from the city and the community; in a word, all the punishments
which at judicial discretion are sufficient to repress the presumption and disorderly behavior of both
sexes. In fact, these offenses do not spring so much from badness of heart as from a certain
forgetfulness or mean opinion of one's self. To this class belong only the crimes which are
prejudicial to manners, and not those which at the same time violate public security, such as
carrying off by force and rape; for these are crimes of the fourth class.

78. The crimes of the third class are those which violate the peace and tranquillity of the citizens.
The punishments for them ought also to flow from the very nature of the crime, as for instance,
imprisonment, banishment, corrections, and the like which reclaim these turbulent people and bring
them back to the established order. Crimes against the peace I confine to those things only which
consist in a simple breach of the civil polity.

79. The penalties due to crimes of the fourth class are peculiarly and emphatically termed Capital
Punishments. They are a kind of retaliation by which Society deprives that citizen of his security
who has deprived, or would deprive, another of it. The punishment is taken from the nature of the
thing, deduced from Reason, and the sources of Good and Evil. A citizen deserves death when he
has violated the public security so far as to have taken away, or attempted to take away, the life of
another. Capital punishment is the remedy for a distempered society. If public security is violated
with respect to property, reasons may be produced to prove that the offender ought not in such a
case suffer capital punishment; but that it seems better and more comfortable to Nature that crimes
against the public security with respect to property should be punished by deprivation of property.
And this ought inevitably to have been done, if the wealth of everyone had been common, or equal.
But as those who have no property are always most ready to invade the property of others, to
remedy this defect corporal punishment was obliged to be substituted for pecuniary. What I have
here mentioned is drawn from the nature of things, and conduces to the protection of the liberty of
the citizens....
 Chapter VIII

80. Of Punishments.

81. The Love of our Country, Shame, and the Dread of public Censure, are Motives which restrain,
and may deter Mankind from the Commission of a Number of Crimes.

82. The greatest Punishment for a bad Action, under a mild Administration, will be for the Party to
be convinced of it. The civil Laws will there correct Vice with the more Ease, and will not be under
a Necessity of employing more rigorous Means.

83. In these Governments, the Legislature will apply itself more to prevent Crimes than to punish
them, and should take more Care to instil Good Manners into the Minds of the Citizens, by proper
Regulations, than to dispirit them by the Terror of corporal and capital Punishments.

84. In a Word, whatever is termed Punishment in the Law is, in Fact, nothing but Pain and
Suffering.

85. Experience teaches us that, in those Countries where Punishments are mild, they operate with
the same Efficacy upon the Minds of the Citizens as the most severe in other Places.

86. If a sensible Injury should accrue to a State from some popular Commotion, a violent
Administration will be at once for a sudden Remedy, and instead of recurring to the ancient Laws,
will inflict some terrible Punishment, in order to crush the growing Evil on the Spot. The
Imagination of the People is affected at the Time of this greater Punishment, just as it would have
been affected by the least; and when the Dread of this Punishment gradually wears off, it will be
compelled to introduce a severer Punishment upon all Occasions.

87. The People ought not to be driven on by violent Methods, but we ought to make Use of the
Means which Nature has given us, with the utmost Care and Caution, in order to conduct them to the
End we propose.

88. Examine with Attention the Cause of all Licentiousness; and you will find that it proceeds from
the Neglect of punishing Crimes, not from the Mildness of Punishments.

Chapter IX

97. Of the administration of Justice in general…

119. The Laws which condemn Man upon the Deposition of one Evidence only are destructive to
Liberty.

120. Two Witnesses are absolutely necessary in order to form a right Judgment: For an Accuser,
who affirms, and the Party accuses, who denies the Fact, make the Evidence on both Sides equal; for
that Reason a Third is required in order to convict the Defendant; unless other clear collateral Proofs
should fix the Credibility of the Evidence in favour of one of them.
123. The Usage of Torture is contrary to all the Dictates of Nature and Reason; even Mankind itself
cries out against it, and demands loudly the total Abolition of it. We see, at this very Time, a People
greatly renowned for the Excellence of their civil Polity, who reject it without any sensible
Inconveniencies. It is, therefore, by no Means necessary by its Nature…

156. By making the penal Laws always clearly intelligible, Word by Word, every one may calculate
truly and know exactly the Inconveniences of a bad Action; a Knowledge which is absolutely
necessary for restraining People from committing it; and the People may enjoy Security with respect
both to their Persons and Property; which ought ever to remain so, because this is the main Scope
and Object of the Laws, and without which the Community would be dissolved.

158. The Laws ought to be written in the common vernacular Tongue; and the Code, which contains
all the Laws, ought to be esteemed as a Book of the utmost Use, which should be purchased at as
small a Price as the Catechism. If the Case were otherwise, and the Citizen should be ignorant of the
Consequences of his own Actions, and what concerns his Person and Liberty, be will then depend
upon some few of the People who have taken upon themselves the Care of preserving and
explaining them. Crimes will be less frequent in proportion as the Code of Laws is more universally
read, and comprehended by the People. And, for this Reason, it must be ordained, That, in all the
Schools, Children should be taught to read alternately out of the Church Books and out of those
which contain the Laws....

193. The Torture of the Rack is a Cruelty established and made use of by many Nations, and is
applied to the Party accused during the Course of his Trial, either to extort from him a Confession of
his Guilt, or in order to clear up some Contradictions in which, he had involved himself during his
Examination, or to compel him to discover his Accomplices, or in order to discover other Crimes, of
which, though he is not accused, yet he may perhaps be guilty.

194. (1) No Man ought to be looked upon as guilty before he has received his judicial Sentence; nor
can the Laws deprive him of their Protection before it is proved that he has forfeited all Right to it.
What Right therefore can Power give to any to inflict Punishment upon a Citizen at a Time when it
is yet dubious whether he is innocent or guilty? Whether the Crime be known or unknown, it is not
very difficult to gain a thorough Knowledge of the Affair by duly weighing all the Circumstances. If
the Crime be known, the Criminal ought not to suffer any Punishment but what the Law ordains;
consequently the Rack is quite unnecessary. If the Crime be not known, the Rack ought not to be
applied to the Party accused; for this Reason, That the Innocent ought not to be tortured; and, in the
Eye of the law, every Person is innocent whose Crime is not yet proved. It is undoubtedly extremely
necessary that no Crime, after it has been proved, should remain unpunished. The Party accused on
the Rack, whilst in the Agonies of Torture, is not Master enough of himself to be able to declare the
Truth. Can we give more Credit to a Man when be is light-headed in a Fever, than when he enjoys
the free Use of his Reason in a State of Health? The Sensation of Pain may arise to such a Height
that, after having subdued the whole Soul, it will leave her no longer the Liberty of producing any
proper Act of the Will, except that of taking the shortest instantaneous Method, in the very twinkling
of an Eye, as it were, of getting rid of her Torment. In such an Extremity, even an innocent Person
will roar out that he is guilty, only to gain some Respite from his Tortures. Thus the very same
Expedient, which is made use of to distinguish the Innocent from the Guilty, will take away the
whole Difference between them; and the Judges will be as uncertain whether they have an innocent
or a guilty Person before them, as they were before the Beginning of this partial Way of
Examination. The Rack, therefore, is a sure Method of condemning an innocent Person of a weakly
Constitution, and of acquitting a wicked Wretch, who depends upon the Robustness of his Frame.
195. (2) The Rack is likewise made use of to oblige the Party accused to clear up (as they term it)
the Contradictions in which he has involved himself in the Course of his Examination; as if the
Dread of Punishment, the Uncertainty and Anxiety in determining what to say, and even gross
Ignorance itself, common to both Innocent and Guilty, could not lead a timorous Innocent, and a
Delinquent who seeks to hide his Villanies, into Contradictions; and as if Contradictions, which are
so common to Man even in a State of Ease and Tranquillity, would not increase in that Perturbation
of Soul, when he is plunged entirely in Reflections of how to escape the Danger he is threatened
with.

196. (3) To make use of the Rack for discovering whether the Party accused has not committed
other Crimes, besides that which he has been convicted of, is a certain Expedient to screen every
Crime from its proper Punishment: For a judge will always be discovering new Ones. Finally, this
Method of Proceeding will be founded upon the following Way of reasoning: Thou art guilty of one
Crime, therefore, perhaps, thou hast committed an Hundred others: According to the Laws, thou wilt
be tortured and tormented; not only because thou art guilty, but even because thou mayest be still
more guilty.

197. (4) Besides this, the Party accussed is tortured, to oblige him to discover his Accomplices. But
when we have already proved that the Rack cannot be the proper Means for searching Out the truth,
then how can it give any Assistance in discovering, the Accomplices in a Crime? It is undoubtedly
extremely easy for him, who accuses himself, to accuse others. Besides, is it just to torture one Man
for Crimes of others? Might not the Accomplices be discovered by examining the Witnesses who
were produced against the Criminal, by a strict Inquiry into the Proofs alledged against him, and
even by the Nature of the Fact itself, and the Circumstances which happened at the Time when the
Crime was committed? In short, by all the Means which serve to prove the Delinquent guilty of the
Crime he had committed ?. . .

209. Is the punishment of death really useful and necessary in a community for the preservation of
peace and good order?

210. Proofs from fact demonstrate to us that the frequent use of capital punishment never mended
the morals of a people.... The death of a citizen can only be useful and necessary in one case: which
is, when, though he be deprived of liberty, yet he has such power by his connections as may enable
him to raise disturbances dangerous to the public peace. This case can happen only when a People
either loses or recovers their liberty, or in a time of anarchy, when the disorders themselves hold the
place of laws. But in a reign of peace and tranquillity, under a Government established with the
united wishes of a whole People, in a state well fortified against external enemies and protected
within by strong supports, that is, by its own internal strength and virtuous sentiments rooted in the
minds of the citizens, and where the whole power is lodged in the hands of a Monarch: in such a
state there can be no necessity for taking away the life of a citizen....

220. A Punishment ought to be immediate, analogous to the Nature of the Crime and known to the
Public.

221. The sooner the Punishment succeeds to the Commission of a Crime, the more useful and just it
will be. Just; because it will spare the Malefactor the torturing and useless Anguish of Heart about
the Uncertainty of his Destiny. Consequently the Decision of an Affair, in a Court of Judicature,
ought to be finished in as little Time as possible. I have said before that Punishment immediately
inflicted is most useful; the Reason is because the smaller the Interval of Time is which passes
between the Crime and the Punishment, the more the Crime will be esteemed as a Motive to the
Punishment, and the Punishment as an Effect of the Crime. Punishment must be certain and
unavoidable.

222. The most certain Curb upon Crimes is not the Severity of the Punishment, but the absolute
Conviction in the People that Delinquents will be inevitably punished.

223.The Certainty even of a small, but inevitable Punishment, will make a stronger impression on
the Mind than, the Dread even of capital Punishment, connected with the Hopes of escaping it. As
Punishments become more mild and moderate; Mercy and Pardon will be less necessary in
Proportion, for the Laws themselves, at such a Time, are replete with the Spirit of Mercy.

224 .However extensive a State may be, every Part Of it must depend upon the Laws.

225. We must endeavour to exterminate Crimes in general, particularly those which are most
injurious to the Community: Consequently, the Means made use of by the Laws to deter People
from the Commission of every Kind of Crimes ought to be the most powerful, in proportion as the
Crimes are more destructive to the Public Good, and in proportion to the Strength of the Temptation
by which weak or bad Minds may be allured to the Commission of them. Consequently, there ought
to be a fixed stated Proportion between Crimes and Punishments.

226. If there be two Crimes, which injure the Community unequally, and yet receive equal
Punishment; then the unequal Distribution of the Punishment will produce this strange
Contradiction, very little noticed by any one, though it frequently happens, that the Laws will punish
Crimes which proceed from the Laws themselves.

227. If the same Punishment should be inflicted upon a Man for killing an Animal as for killing
another Man, or for Forgery, the People will soon make no Difference between those Crimes....

239. (Q. 8) Which are the most efficacious Means of preventing Crimes?

240. It is better to prevent Crimes than to punish them.

241. To prevent Crimes is the Intention and the End of every good Legislation; which is nothing
more than the Art of conducting People to the greatest Good, or to leave the least Evil possible
amongst them, if it should prove impracticable to exterminate the whole.

242. If we forbid many Actions which are termed indifferent by the Moralists, we shall not prevent
the Crimes of which they may be productive, but shall create still new Ones.

243. Would you prevent Crimes? Order it so, that the Laws might rather favour every Individual,
than any particular Rank of Citizens, in the Community.

244. Order it so, that the People should fear the Laws, and nothing but the Laws.

245. Would you prevent Crimes? Order it so, that the Light of Knowledge may be diffused among
the People.
246. A Book of good Laws is nothing but a Bar to prevent the Licentiousness of injurious Men from
doing Mischief to their fellow Creatures.

247. There is yet another Expedient to prevent Crimes, which is by rewarding Virtue.

248. Finally, the most sure but, at the same Time, the most difficult Expedient to mend the Morals
of the People, is a perfect System of Education....

Chapter XIX

439. Of the Composition of the Laws

447. Every subject, according to the order and Place to which he belongs, is to be inserted separately
in the Code of Laws -for instance, under judicial, military, commercial, civil, or the police, city or
country affairs, etc. etc

448. Each law ought to be written in so clear a style as to be perfectly intelligible to everyone, and,
at the same time, with great conciseness. For this reason explanations or interpretations are
undoubtedly to be added (as occasion shall require) to enable judges to perceive more readily the
force as well as use of the law…

449. But the utmost care and caution is to be observed in adding these explanations and
interpretations, because they may sometimes rather darken than clear up the case; of which there are
many instances [in the existing laws].

450. When exceptions, limitations, and modifications are not absolutely necessary in a law, in that
case it is better not to insert them; for such particular details generally produce still more details.

451. If the Legislator desires to give his reason for making any particular law, that reason ought to
be good and worthy of the law....

452. Laws ought not to be filled with subtile distinctions, to demonstrate the brilliance of the
Legislator; they are made for people of moderate capacities as well as for those of genius. They are
not a logical art, but the simple and plain reasoning of a father who takes care of his children and
family.

453. Real candor and sincerity ought to be displayed in every part of the laws; and as they are made
for the punishment of crimes, they ought consequently to include in themselves the greatest virtue
and benevolence.

454. The style of the laws ought to be simple and concise: a plain direct expression will always be
better understood than a studied one.

455. When the style of laws is tumid and inflated, they are looked upon only as a work of vanity and
ostentation....
511. A Monarchy is destroyed when a Sovereign imagines that he displays his power more by
changing the order of things than by adhering to it, and when he is more fond of his own
imaginations than of his will, from which the laws proceed and have proceeded.

512. It is true there are cases where Power ought and can exert its full influence without any danger
to the State. But there are cases also where it ought to act according to the limits prescribed by itself.

513. The supreme art of governing a State consists in the precise knowledge of that degree of power,
whether great or small, which ought to be exerted according to the different exigencies of affairs.
For in a Monarchy the prosperity of the State depends, in part, on a mild and condescending
government.

514. In the best constructed machines, Art employs the least moment, force, and fewest wheels
possible. This rule holds equally good in the administration of government; the most simple
expedients are often the very best, and the most intricate the very worst.

515. There is a certain facility in this method of governing: It is better for the Sovereign to
encourage, and for the Laws to threaten....

519. It is certain that a high opinion of the glory and power of the Sovereign would increase the
strength of his administration; but a good opinion of his love of justice will increase it at least as
much.

520. All this will never please those flatterers who are daily instilling this pernicious maxim into all
the sovereigns on Earth, that Their people are created for them only. But We think, and esteem it
Our glory to declare, that "We are created for Our people." And for this reason, We are obliged to
speak of things just as they ought to be. For God forbid that after this legislation is finished any
nation on Earth should be more just and, consequently, should flourish more than Russia. Otherwise,
the intention of Our laws would be totally frustrated; an unhappiness which I do not wish to survive.

521. All the examples and customs of different nations which are introduced in this work [the
Instruction] ought to produce no other effect than to cooperate in the choice of those means which
may render the people of Russia, humanly speaking, the most happy in themselves of any people
upon the Earth.

522. Nothing more remains now for the Commission to do but to compare every part of the laws
with the rules of this Instruction.

Source: The Grand Instruction to the Commissioners Appointed to Frame a New Code of Laws for
the Russian Empire: Composed by Her Imperial Majesty Catherine II. (London, 1768).
Alexander Radishchev, Journey from St.
Petersburg to Moscow. 1790
Alexander Radishchev (1749-1802) came from a moderately wealthy noble family with landholdings
in Saratov Province. He was educated in the Corps of Pages in St. Petersburg and went on to study
law and philosophy at the University of Leipzig in Germany. On his return to Russia in 1771,
Radishchev pursued a intermittent career in state service rising eventually to the post of Chief of the
St. Petersburg Customs House. In 1790, Radishchev published Journey from St. Petersburg to
Moscow, a passionate tirade against the evils of serfdom and the corruption of Russian life.
Radishchev's journey marks the first open condemnation of serfdom in Russian public life, and his
overwrought emotional portrayals, drawing heavily on the style and motifs of pre-romantic
sentimentalism, quickly drew the attention of Russian readers and the wrath of Catherine the Great.
Alarmed by the radicalism of the French Revolution, Catherine saw in Radishchev's audacity a
threat to the state and pronounced him "a rebel worse than Pugachev." Radishchev was arrested,
tried and condemned to death, a sentence which Catherine commuted to 10 years exile in Siberia.
Under Paul I, Radishchev was released from exile and his full rights as a nobleman were restored
in 1801. He committed suicide in 1802.

Mednoe.

Twice every week all of the Russian Empire is informed that N. N. or B. B. is unable or unwilling to
pay what he has borrowed, taken or what is demanded from him. The borrowed money has been
gambled away, traveled away, spent away, eaten away, drunk away, given away or has perished in
fire and water. Or N. N. or B. B. has in some other way gone into debt or incurred an obligation.
Any case will do for the announcement which reads: At ten o clock this morning, on order of the
county court or city magistrate, the real estate of retired captain T... consisting of house no. X, in
such and such a district and six male and female souls, will be sold at auction. The sale will take
place at said house. Interested parties may view the property in advance.

Everyone is interested in a bargain. The day and hour of the sale has arrived. Buyers are assembling
from all around. In the hall where the sale is to take place, the condemned are standing motionless.
An old man of 75 years, leaning on a elmwood cane, is anxious to find out into whose hands his fate
will pass, who will close his eyes. He served with the Master’s father in the Crimean campaign
under Field Marshal Munnich. At the battle of Frankfurt he carried his wounded master off the field
of battle on his shoulders. Returning home, he became the tutor for his young master. In [the
master's] childhood, he had saved the boy from drowning, jumping into the river into which he had
fallen while crossing on a ferry, and putting his life at risk, pulled him out. In [the master's] youth
he had bailed him out of prison where he had been confined for his debts incurred while serving as a
junior officer. An old women, 80 years of age, the old man’s wife, was the wet nurse for the mother
of the young master: she was the young man’s nanny and had been the housekeeper up until the very
moment when she was brought out for this auction. In all the years of her service she never wasted
anything of the master’s, never thought of her own profit in any way, never lied, and if she ever
gave occasion for annoyance it was only on account of her simple hearted scruples. A woman 40
years of age, a widow, was the wet nurse for the young master. And even now she still feels a
certain tenderness toward him. Her blood flows in his veins. She is his second mother: he owes his
life to her even more than to his natural mother. The latter had conceived him in a light-hearted
moment, and had taken no part in his infancy. His nurses brought him up. They part with him as if
with a son. A young woman, 18 year of age, her daughter and the granddaughter of the old couple.
Wild beast, monster, reprobate! Look at her, look at her crimson cheeks, at the tears pouring from
her enchanting eyes. Was it not you who, failing to entrap her innocence through flattery and
enticement or to shake her steadfastness with threat, finally resorted to deceit. Having married her to
your companion in treachery, your took his place and partook of the pleasure, which she had
disdained to share with you. She found out about your deceit. Her bridegroom touched no more her
bed, and you, deprived of the object of your desire, turned to force. Four scoundrels, executors of
your will, holding her arms and legs--- No! Let us go no further. On her brow is sorrow, in her eyes
despair. She is holding the infant, the sorrowful fruit of your deceit or violence, and the living image
of his lascivious father. Having given birth to him, she began to forget his father’s savagery, and her
heart began to feel tenderness toward the baby. She is afraid that he will fall into the hands of
another like his father. The infant... your son, barbarian, your blood. Or do you think that there is not
obligation when there is no church ceremony? Do you think that the blessing given at your order to
the hired preacher of the word of God has confirmed their union? Do you think that forced marriage
in God’s church can be called matrimony? The Almighty despises force, and delights in the wishes
of the heart; they alone are uncorrupted. O, how many acts of fornication and seduction are
committed in the name of the father of joys and the comforter of sorrows in the presence of his
witnesses, unworthy of their office! A youth of twenty five, her wedded husband, companion and
confidant of his master, who has now repented of his services. In his pocket is a knife. He grasps it
tightly; it is not hard to guess his thoughts. Fruitless zeal! You will go to another. The hand of your
master, hanging constantly above the head of the slave will bend your neck to any service. Hunger,
chill, torment and heat – all of this will stand against you. Your mind is alien to noble thoughts. You
do not know how to die. You will bend and will become a slave in spirit as well as law. And if you
take it in to your mind to resist, you will die an agonizing death in chains. There is no justice over
you both. If your tormentor does not wish to punish you himself he will become your accuser. He
will turn you over to the city justice. Justice! Where the accused has almost no power to defend
himself! Let us pass over the other unfortunates brought out for sale.

Barely had the dreaded hammer let out its hollow thud when the four unfortunates learned their fate
– tears, sobs and moans pierced the ears of the entire assembly. Even the hardest were moved.
Petrified hearts! Almost fruitless sympathy? O Quakers! If we had your hearts we would have made
a collection, bought these unfortunates and given them their freedom. Having lived many years in
each other’s embrace, these unfortunates because of this abominable auction will feel the anguish of
parting. But if the law or, better to say, barbarian custom, for this is not written in the law, allows
such contempt for humanity, who has the right to sell this infant? He is illegitimate: the law liberates
him. Stop, I will denounce this; I will save him. But if only the others could be saved along with
him. O fortune! Why have you doled out to me such a miserly share. It is only now that I begin to
feel the passion for wealth. My heart is so troubled that I jump up from amid the assembly and
giving the last pennies from my wallet to the unfortunates, I run out. On the stairway, I met a friend,
a foreigner.

"What has happened to you? You are weeping!."

"Go back" I said to him, "do not be a witness to this shameful spectacle. O, once you cursed the
barbaric custom of selling of black slaves in far off colonies of your fatherland; go back," I repeated,
"do not be a witness to our darkness lest you must reveal our shame to your countrymen in talking to
them of our customs." "I can not believe it," my friend said to me. "It is impossible that in a place
where all are allow to think and believe as they wish, such a shameful custom exists." "Do not be
astonished." I said to him, "the establishment of freedom of belief offends only priests and monks,
and even they are more interested in acquiring sheep for themselves rather than for Christ’s flock,
but freedom for rural inhabitants would offend, as they say, the right of property. And all those who
might be fighters for freedom are all great landowners, and freedom is not to be expected from their
council but from the heavy weight of enslavement itself.

Source: A. N. Radishchev, Puteshestvie iz Peterburga v Moskvu, Volnost'. (St. Petersburg: Nauka,

1992) pp. 92-94.

Translated by Nathaniel Knight

For an English translation of the full text see Aleksandr Nikolaevich Radishchev, A Journey from
St. Petersburg to Moscow (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1958).

6/09/00
Petr Chaadaev
Philosophical Letters Addressed to a Lady (1829)
Chaadaev was born in 1794 the son of wealthy nobleman. In 1812, he cut off his studies at
Moscow University to fight in the campaign against Napoleon’s invasion. He resigned his officer’s
commission in 1821, reportedly just before he was to have been appointed an adjutant of Alexander
I. In the years that followed he lived as a semi-recluse, spending much of his time abroad, and
devoting himself to intellectual pursuits. His Philosophical Letters were written in 1829, and
circulated in manuscript form for several years. In 1836 the first of the philosophical letters was
published by Nikolai Nadezhdin in the journal Telescope, apparently at the behest of Chaadaev
himself. In the uproar that followed, Nadezhdin was exiled to the Far North, the censor, Boldyrev,
was removed from his position, and Chaadaev was declared a madman. During the 1840s
Chaadaev was an active participant in the Moscow literary circles. He died in 1856.

Letter One (excerpts)

…It is one of the most deplorable traits of our strange civilization that we are still discovering truths
that are commonplace even among peoples much less advanced than we. This is because we have
never moved in concert with the other peoples. We are not a part of any of the great families of the
human race; we are neither of the West nor of the East, and we have not the traditions of either. We
stand, as it were, outside of time, the universal education of mankind has not touched us…

Look around you. Everyone seems to have one foot in the air. One would think that we are all in
transit. No one has a fixed sphere of existence; there are no proper habits, no rules that govern
anything. We do not even have homes; there is nothing to tie us down, nothing that arouses our
sympathies and affections, nothing enduring, nothing lasting. Everything passes, flows away,
leaving no trace either outside or within us. In our homes, we are like guests; to our families, we are
like strangers; and in our cities we seem like nomads, more so than those who wander our steppes,
for they are more attached to their deserts than we are to our towns...

Our memories reach back no further than yesterday; we are, as it were, strangers to ourselves. We
move through time in such a singular manner that, as we advance, the past is lost to us forever. That
is but a natural consequence of a culture that consists entirely of imports and imitation. Among us
there is no internal development, no natural progress; new ideas sweep out the old, because they are
not derived from the old but tumble down upon us from who knows where. We absorb all our ideas
ready-made, and therefore the indelible trace left in the mind by a progressive movement of ideas,
which gives it strength, does not shape our intellect. We grow, but we do not mature; we move, but
along a crooked path, that is, one that does not lead to the desired goal. We are like children who
have not been taught to think for themselves: when they become adults, they have nothing of their
their own--all their knowledge is on the surface of their being, their soul is not within them. That is
precisely our situation

Peoples, like individuals, are moral beings. Their education takes centuries, as it takes years for that
of persons. In a way, one could say that we are an exception among peoples. We are one of those
nations, which do not seem to be an integral part of the human race, but exist only in order to teach
some great lesson to the world.
Source: P. Ia Chaadaev, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i izbrannye pis'ma, t. 1, (Moscow, 1991), p.
90, 92-93.

Translated by Nathaniel Knight

The full text of the first letter can be found in English in Marc Raeff, ed., Russian Intellectual
History: An Anthology.

6/09/00
V. G.
Belinskii
Letter to N.
V. Gogol’
Gogol’, born in
Ukraine, became
Russia’s most
famous writer of
prose in the
1830s. Belinskii,
Russia’s most
influential
literary critic,
praised Gogol’s
work
extravagantly,
reading such
satirical works as
The Inspector
General and
Dead Souls as
exposés of
Russia’s social
and political ills
and thus as
blows struck for
liberation.
Gogol’s personal
views were
extremely
conservative,
however. He
made them plain
in a weird book
called Selected
Excerpts from
Correspondence
with Friends, in
which he praised
autocracy and
orthodoxy and
instructed
serfholders how
to run their
estates.
Belinskii’s
published review
of Selected
Excerpts was
unfavorable, but
subdued by the
pressure of
censorship.
 Gogol’ was
nonetheless
moved to
complain.
Belinskii wrote
this letter in
reply. It
circulated in
hundreds of
manuscript
copies and is one
of the
fundamental texts
of Russian
radicalism. It
was published in
Russia only in
1906

You are only partly right in regarding my article as that of an angered man: that epithet is too mild
and inadequate to express the state to which I was reduced on reading your book. But you are entirely
wrong in ascribing that state to your indeed none too flattering references to the admirers of your
talent. No, there was a more important reason for this. One could endure an outraged sense of self-
esteem, and I should have had sense enough to let the matter pass in silence were that the whole gist
of the matter; but one cannot endure an outraged sense of truth and human dignity; one cannot keep
silent when lies and immorality are preached as truth and virtue under the guise of religion and the
protection of the knout.

Yes, I loved you with all the passion with which a man, bound by ties of blood to his native country,
can love its hope, its honor, its glory, one of its great leaders on the path toward consciousness,
development, and progress.And you had sound reason for losing your equanimity at least momentarily
when you forfeited that love.I say that not because I believe my love to be an adequate reward for a
great talent, but because I do not represent a single person in this respect but a multitude of men, most
of whom neither you nor I have ever set eyes on, and who, in their turn, have never set eyes on you. I
find myself at a loss to give you an adequate idea of the indignation your book has aroused in all
noble hearts, and of the wild shouts of joy that were set up on its appearance by all your enemies, both
the nonliterary -- the Chichikovs, the Nozdrevs, and the mayors[1]--and by the literary, whose names
are well known to you. You see yourself that even those people who are of one mind with your book
have disowned it. Even if it had been written as a result of deep and sincere conviction, it could not
have created any impression on the public other than the one it did. And it is nobody’s fault but your
own if everyone (except the few who must be seen and known in order not to derive pleasure from
their approval) received it as an ingenious but all too unceremonious artifice for achieving a purely
earthly aim by celestial means.

Nor is that in any way surprising; what is surprising is that you find it surprising. I believe that is so
because your profound knowledge of Russia is only that of an artist, but not of a thinker, whose role
you have so ineffectually tried to play in your fantastic book. Not that you are not a thinker, but that
you have been accustomed for so many years to look at Russia from your beautiful far-away;[2] and
who does not know that there is nothing easier than seeing things from a distance the way we want to
see them; for in that beautiful far-away you live a life that is entirely alien to it; you live in and within
yourself or within a circle of the same mentality as your own that is powerless to resist your influence
on it.

Therefore you failed to realize that Russia sees her salvation not in mysticism or asceticism or pietism,
but in the successes of civilization, enlightenment, and humanity. What she needs is not sermons (she
has heard enough of them!) or prayers (she has repeated them too often!), but the awakening in the
people of a sense of their human dignity lost for so many centuries amid dirt and refuse; she needs
rights and laws conforming not to the preaching of the church but to common sense and justice, and
their strictest possible observance. Instead of which she presents the dire spectacle of a country where
men traffic in men, without even having the excuse so insidiously exploited by the American
plantation owners who claim that the Negro is not a man; a country where people call themselves not
by names but by nicknames such as Vanka, Vaska, Steshka, Palashka; a country where there are not
only no guarantees for individuality, honor and property, but even no police order, and where there is
nothing but vast corporations of official thieves and robbers of various descriptions. The most vital
national problems in Russia today are the abolition of serfdom and corporal punishment and the
strictest possible observance of at least those laws that already exist. This is even realized by the
government itself (which is well aware of how the landowners treat their peasants and how many of
the former are annually done away with by the latter), as is proved by its timid and abortive half-
measures for the relief of the white Negroes and the comical substitution of the single-lash knout by a
cat-o-three tails.

Such are the problems that prey on the mind of Russia in her apathetic slumber! And at such a time a
great writer, whose astonishingly artistic and deeply truthful works have so powerfully contributed
toward Russia’s awareness of herself, enabling her as they did to take a look at herself as though in a
mirror—publishes a book in which he teaches the barbarian landowner to make still greater profits out
of the peasants and to abuse them still more in the name of Christ and Church....[3] And would you
expect me not to become indignant?... Why, if you had made an attempt on my life I could not have
hated you more than I do for these disgraceful lines.... And after this, you expect people to believe the
sincerity of your book’s intent! No! Had you really been inspired by the truth of Christ and not by
the teaching of the devil you would certainly have written something entirely different in your new
book. You would have told the landowner that since his peasants are his brethren in Christ, and since
a brother cannot be a slave to his brother, he should either give them their freedom or, at least, allow
them to enjoy the fruits of their own labor to their greatest possible benefit, realizing, as he does, in
the depths of his own conscience, the false relationship in which he stands toward them.

And the expression “Oh, you unwashed snout, you!” From what Nozdrev and Sobakevich did you
overhear it, in order to present it to the world as a great discovery for the edification and benefit of the
peasants, whose only reason for not washing is that they have let themselves be persuaded by their
masters that they are not human beings? And your conception of the national Russian system of trial
and punishment, whose ideal you have found in the foolish saying that both the guilty and innocent
should be flogged alike? That, indeed, is often the case with us, though more often than not it is the
man who is in the right who takes the punishment, unless he can ransom himself, and for such
occasions another proverb says: Guiltlessly guilty! And such a book is supposed to have been the
result of an arduous inner process, a lofty spiritual enlightenment! Impossible! Either you are ill—
and you must hasten to take a cure, or...I am afraid to put my thought into words!...
Proponent of the knout, apostle of ignorance, champion of obscurantism and Stygian darkness,
panegyrist of Tartar morals—what are you about! Look beneath your feet—you are standing on the
brink of an abyss!... That you base such teaching on the Orthodox Church I can understand: it has
always served as the prop of the knout and the servant of despotism; but why have you mixed Christ
up in it? What have you found in common between Him and any church, least of all the Orthodox
Church? He was the first to bring to people the teaching of freedom, equality, and brotherhood and to
set the seal of truth to that teaching by martyrdom. And this teaching was men’s salvation only until
it became organized in the Church and took the principle of Orthodoxy for its foundation. The
Church, on the other hand, was a hierarchy, consequently a champion of inequality, a flatterer of
authority, an enemy and persecutor of brotherhood among men—and so it has remained to this day.
But the meaning of Christ’s message has been revealed by the philosophical movement of the
preceding century. And that is why a man like Voltaire who stamped out the fires of fanaticism and
ignorance in Europe by ridicule, is, of course, more the son of Christ, flesh of his flesh and bone of his
bone, than all your priests, bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs —Eastern or Western. Do you
really mean to say you do not know that! Now it is not even a novelty to a schoolboy.

Hence, can it be that you, the author of The Inspector General and Dead Souls, have in all sincerity,
from the bottom of your heart, sung a hymn to the nefarious Russian clergy whom you rank
immeasurably higher than the Catholic clergy? Let us assume that you do not know that the latter had
once been something, while the former had never been anything but a servant and slave of the secular
powers; but do you really mean to say you do not know that our clergy is held in universal contempt
by Russian society and the Russian people? About whom do the Russian people tell dirty stories? Of
the priest, the priest’s wife, the priest’s daughter, and the priest’s farm hand. Does not the priest in
Russia represent the embodiment of gluttony, avarice, servility, and shamelessness for all Russians?
Do you mean to say that you do not know all this? Strange! According to you the Russian people is
the most religious in the world. That is a lie! The basis of religiousness is pietism, reverence, fear of
God. Whereas the Russian man utters the name of the Lord while scratching himself somewhere. He
says of the icon: If it works, pray to it; if it doesn’t, it’s good for covering pots.

Take a closer look and you will see that it is by nature a profoundly atheistic people. It still retains a
good deal of superstition, but not a trace of religiousness. Superstition passes with the advances of
civilization, but religiousness often keeps company with them too; we have a living example of this in
France, where even today there are many sincere Catholics among enlightened and educated men, and
where many people who have rejected Christianity still cling stubbornly to some sort of god. The
Russian people is different; mystic exaltation is not in its nature; it has too much common sense, a too
lucid and positive mind, and therein, perhaps, lies the vastness of its historic destinies in the future.
Religiousness has not even taken root among the clergy in it, since a few isolated and exceptional
personalities distinguished for such cold ascetic contemplation prove nothing. But the majority of our
clergy has always been distinguished for their fat bellies, scholastic pedantry, and savage ignorance.
It is a shame to accuse it of religious intolerance and fanaticism; instead it could be praised for
exemplary indifference in matters of faith. Religiosity among us appeared only in the schismatic sects
who formed such a contrast in spirit to the mass of the people and who were numerically so
insignificant in comparison with it.

I shall not expatiate on your panegyric to the affectionate relations existing between the Russian
people and its lords and masters. I shall say point-blank that panegyric has met sympathy nowhere
and has lowered you even in the eyes of people who in other respects are very close to you in their
views. As far as I am concerned, I leave it to your conscience to admire the divine beauty of the
autocracy (it is both safe and profitable), but continue to admire it judiciously from your beautiful far-
away: at close quarters it is not so attractive, and not so safe.... I would remark but this: when a
European, especially a Catholic, is seized with religious ardor he becomes a denouncer of iniquitous
authority, similar to the Hebrew prophets who denounced the iniquities of the great ones of the earth.
We do quite the contrary: no sooner is a person (even a reputable person) afflicted with the malady
that is known to psychiatrists as religiosa mania than he begins to burn more incense to the earthly
god than to the heavenly one, and so overshoots the mark in doing so that the former would fain
reward him for his slavish zeal did he not perceive that he would thereby be compromising himself in
society’s eyes.... What a rogue our fellow the Russian is!

Another thing I remember you saying in your book, claiming it to be a great and incontrovertible
truth, is that literacy is not merely useless but positively harmful to the common people. What can I
say to this? May your Byzantine God forgive you that Byzantine thought, unless, in committing it to
paper, you knew not what you were saying.... But perhaps you will say: “Assuming that I have erred
and that all my ideas are false, but why should I be denied the right to err and why should people
doubt the sincerity of my errors?” Because, I would say in reply, such a tendency has long ceased to
be a novelty in Russia. Not so very long ago it was drained to the lees by Burachok [an advocate of
“official nationality”] and his fraternity. Of course, your book shows a good deal more intellect and
talent (though neither of these elements is very richly represented) than their works; but then they
have developed your common doctrine with greater energy and greater consistence; they have boldly
reached its ultimate conclusions, have rendered all to the Byzantine God and left nothing for Satan;
whereas you, wanting to light a taper to each of them, have fallen into contradiction, upholding, for
example, Pushkin, literature, and the theater, all of which, in your opinion, if you were only
conscientious enough to be consistent, can in no way serve the salvation of the soul but can do a lot
toward its damnation.

Whose head could have digested the idea of Gogol’s identity with Burachok? You have placed
yourself too high in the regard of the Russian public for it to be able to believe you sincere in such
convictions. What seems natural in fools cannot seem so in a man of genius. Some people have been
inclined to regard your book as the result of mental derangement verging on sheer madness. But they
soon rejected such a supposition, for clearly that book was not written in a single day or week or
month, but very likely in one, two, or three years; it shows coherence; through its careless exposition
one glimpses premeditation, and the hymn to the powers-that-be nicely arranges the earthly affairs of
the devout author. That is why a rumor has been current in St. Petersburg to the effect that you have
written this book with the aim of securing a position as tutor to the son of the heir apparent. Before
that, your letter to [Minister of Education] Uvarov became known in St. Petersburg, wherein you say
that you are grieved to find that your works about Russia are misinterpreted; then you evince
dissatisfaction with your previous works and declare that you will be pleased with your own works
only when the Tsar is pleased with them. Now judge for yourself. Is it to be wondered at that your
book has lowered you in the eyes of the public both as a writer and still more as a man?

As far as I can see, you do not properly understand the Russian public. Its character is determined by
the condition of Russian society in which fresh forces are seething and struggling for expression; but
weighed down by heavy oppression, and finding no outlet, they induce merely dejection, weariness,
and apathy. Only literature, despite the Tartar censorship, shows signs of life and progressive
movement. That is why the title of writer is held in such esteem among us; that is why literary
success is easy among us even for a writer of little talent. The title of poet and writer has long since
eclipsed the tinsel of epaulets and gaudy uniforms. And that especially explains why every so-called
liberal tendency, however poor in talent, is rewarded by universal notice, and why the popularity of
great talents that sincerely or insincerely give themselves to the service of orthodoxy, autocracy, and
nationality declines so quickly. A striking example is Pushkin who had merely to write two of three
verses in a loyal strain and don the kammeriunker’s [courtier’s] livery to forfeit popular affection
immediately! And you are greatly mistaken if you believe in all earnest that your book has come to
grief not because of its bad trend, but because of the harsh truths alleged to have been expressed by
you about all and sundry. Assuming you could think that of the writing fraternity, but then how do
you account for the public? Did you tell it less bitter home truths less harshly and with less truth and
talent in The Inspector General and Dead Souls? Indeed, the old school was worked up to a furious
pitch of anger against you, but The Inspector General and Dead Souls were not affected by it, whereas
your latest book has been an utter and disgraceful failure. And here the public is right, for it looks
upon Russian writers as its only leaders, defenders, and saviors against Russian autocracy, orthodoxy,
and nationality, and therefore, while always prepared to forgive a writer a bad book, will never forgive
him a pernicious book. This shows how much fresh and healthy intuition, albeit still in embryo, is
latent in our society, and this likewise proves that it has a future. If you love Russia, rejoice with me
at the failure of your book!

I would tell you, not without a certain feeling of self-satisfaction, that I believe I know the Russian
public a little. Your book alarmed me by the possibility of its exercising a bad influence on the
government and the censorship, but not on the public. When it was rumored in St. Petersburg that the
government intended to publish your book in many thousands of copies and to sell it at an extremely
low price, my friends grew despondent; but I told them then and there that the book, despite
everything, would have no success and that it would soon be forgotten. In fact it is now better
remembered for the articles that have been written about it than for the book itself. Yes, the Russian
has a deep, though still undeveloped, instinct for truth.

Your conversion may conceivably have been sincere, but your idea of bringing it to the notice of the
public was a most unhappy one. The days of naive piety have long since passed, even in our society. It
already understands that it makes no difference where one prays and that the only people who seek
Christ and Jerusalem are those who have never carried Him in their breasts or who have lost Him. He
who is capable of suffering at the sight of other people’s sufferings and who is pained at the sight of
other people’s oppression bears Christ within his bosom and has no need to make a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem. The humility you preach is, first of all, not novel, and, second, it savors on the one hand of
prodigious pride, and on the other of the most shameful degradation of one’s human dignity. The idea
of becoming a sort of abstract perfection, of rising above everyone else in humility, is the fruit of
either pride or imbecility, and in either case leads inevitably to hypocrisy, sanctimoniousness, and
incomprehensibility. Moreover, in your book you have taken the liberty of expressing yourself with
gross cynicism not only of other people (that would be merely impolite) but of yourself -- and that is
vile, for if a man who strikes his neighbor on the cheek evokes indignation, the sight of a man striking
himself on the cheek evokes contempt. No, you are not illuminated; you are simply beclouded; you
have failed to grasp either the spirit or the form of Christianity of our time. Your book breathes not the
true Christian teaching but the morbid fear of death, of the devil and of hell! And what language, what
phrases! “Every man hath now become trash and a rag” -- do you really believe that in saying hath
instead of has you are expressing yourself biblically? How eminently true it is that when a man gives
himself wholly up to lies, intelligence and talent desert him. If this book did not bear your name, who
would have thought that this turgid and squalid bombast was the work of the author of The Inspector
General and Dead Souls?
So far as I myself am concerned, I repeat: You are mistaken in taking my article to be an expression of
vexation at your comment on me as one of your critics. Were this the only thing to make me angry I
would have reacted with annoyance to it alone and would have dealt with all the rest with unruffled
impartiality. But it is true that your criticism of your admirers is doubly bad. I understand the
necessity of sometimes having to rap a silly man whose praises and ecstasies make the object of his
worship look ridiculous, but even this is a painful necessity, since, humanly speaking, it is somehow
awkward to reward even false affection with enmity. But you had in view men who, though not
brilliantly clever, are not quite fools. These people, in their admiration of your works, have probably
uttered more ejaculations than talked sense about them; still, their enthusiastic attitude toward you
springs from such a pure and noble source that you ought not to have betrayed them completely to
your common enemies and accused them, into the bargain, of wanting to misinterpret your works.
You did that, of course, while carried away by the main idea of your book and through indiscretion,
while Viazemskii, that prince in aristocracy and helot in literature, developed your idea and printed a
denunciation against your admirers (and consequently mostly against me). He probably did this to
show his gratitude to you for having exalted him, the poetaster, to the rank of great poet, if I
remember rightly for his “pithless, dragging verse.” That is all very bad. That you were merely biding
your time in order to give the admirers of your talent their due as well (after having given it with
proud humility to your enemies) —I was not aware; I could not, and, I must confess, did not want to
know it. It was your book that lay before me and not your intentions: I read and reread it a hundred
times, but I found nothing in it that was not there, and what was there deeply offended and incensed
my soul.

Were I to give free rein to my feelings this letter would probably grow into a voluminous notebook. I
never thought of writing you on this subject, though I longed to do so and though you gave all and
sundry printed permission to write you without ceremony with an eye to the truth alone. Were I in
Russia I would not be able to do it, for the local “Shpekins” open other people’s letters not merely for
their own pleasure but as a matter of official duty, for the sake of informing. This summer incipient
consumption has driven me abroad, and [the poet] Nekrasov has forwarded me your letter to
Salzbrunn, which I am leaving today with Annenkov for Paris via Frankfort-on-Main. The unexpected
receipt of your letter has enabled me to unburden my soul of what has accumulated there against you
on account of your book. I cannot express myself by halves, I cannot prevaricate; it is not in my
nature. Let you or time itself prove to me that I am mistaken in my conclusions. I shall be the first to
rejoice in it, but I shall not repent what I have told you. This is not a question of your or my
personality; it concerns a matter that is of greater importance than myself or even you; it is a matter
that concerns the truth, Russian society, Russia. And this is my last concluding word: If you have had
the misfortune of disowning with proud humility your truly great works, you should now disown with
sincere humility your last book, and atone for the dire sin of its publication by new creations that
would be reminiscent of your old ones.

SALZBRUNN

July 15, 1847

Translation and Annotations by Daniel Field

[1] These and, except as indicated, other persons named by Belinskii are characters in Gogol’s fiction.
[2] A quotation from Gogol’s Dead Souls. Gogol’ wrote Selected Excerpts while he was in Rome.

[3] Here and below, the elipses are in the text.

 Alexander II

The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia

Manifesto of February 19, 1861

This is the ceremonial preamble to the hundreds of pages of statutes spelling out the terms
of the abolition of serfdom. It was ghost-written by the Metropolitan of Moscow, who
opposed the reform.

By the Grace of God WE, Alexander II, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, King of Poland,
Grand Duke of Finland, etc., make known to all OUR faithful subjects:

Called by Divine Providence and by the sacred right of inheritance to the Russian throne of
OUR ancestors, WE vowed in OUR heart to respond to the mission which is entrusted to
Us and to surround with OUR affection and OUR Imperial solicitude all OUR faithful
subjects of every rank and condition, from the soldier who nobly defends the country to the
humble artisan who works in industry; from the career official of the state to the plowman
who tills the soil.

Examining the condition of classes and professions comprising the state, WE became
convinced that the present state legislation favors the upper and middle classes, defines
their obligations, rights, and privileges, but does not equally favor the serfs, so designated
because in part from old laws and in part from custom they have been hereditarily
subjected to the authority of landowners, who in turn were obligated to provide for their well
being. Rights of nobles have been hitherto very broad and legally ill defined, because they
stem from tradition, custom, and the good will of the noblemen. In most cases this has led
to the establishment of good patriarchal relations based on the sincere, just concern and
benevolence on the part of the nobles, and on affectionate submission on the part of the
peasants. Because of the decline of the simplicity of morals, because of an increase in the
diversity of relations, because of the weakening of the direct paternal relationship of nobles
toward the peasants, and because noble rights fell sometimes into the hands of people
exclusively concerned with their personal interests, good relations weakened. The way was
opened for an arbitrariness burdensome for the peasants and detrimental to their welfare,
causing them to be indifferent to the improvement of their own existence.

These facts had already attracted the attention of OUR predecessors of glorious memory,
and they had adopted measures aimed at improving the conditions of the peasants; but
these measures were ineffective, partly because they depended on the free, generous
action of nobles, and partly because they affected only some localities, by virtue of special
circumstances or as an experiment. Thus Alexander I issued a decree on free
agriculturists, and the late Emperor Nicholas, OUR beloved father, promulgated one dealing
with serfs: in the Western provinces, inventory regulations now determine the peasant land
allotments and their obligations. But decrees on free agriculturists and [western] serfs have
been carried out on a limited scale only.

WE thus became convinced that the problem of improving the condition of serfs was a
sacred inheritance bequeathed to Us by OUR predecessors, a mission which, in the course
of events, Divine Providence has called upon Us to fulfill.

WE have begun this task by expressing OUR confidence toward the Russian nobility, which
has proven on so many occasions its devotion to the Throne, and its readiness to make
sacrifices for the welfare of the country.

WE have left to the nobles themselves, in accordance with their own wishes, the task of
preparing proposals for the new organization of peasant life—proposals that would limit
their rights over the peasants, and the realization of which would inflict on them [the nobles]
some material losses. OUR confidence was justified. Through members of the provincial
committees, who were entrusted [with the task] by the corporate organizations of the
nobility in each province, after collecting the necessary data, have formulated proposals on
a new arrangement for serfs and their relationship with the nobles.

These proposals were diverse, because of the nature of the problem. They have been
compared, collated, systematized, rectified and finalized in the Main Committee instituted
for that purpose; and these new arrangements dealing with the peasants and household
serfs1[1] of the nobility have been examined in the Council of State.

Having invoked Divine assistance, WE have resolved to execute this task.

On the basis of the above-mentioned new arrangements, the serfs will receive in time the
full rights of free rural inhabitants.

The nobles, while retaining their property rights to all the lands belonging to them, grant the
peasants perpetual use of their household plots in return for a specified obligation; and, to
assure their livelihood as well as to guarantee fulfillment of their obligations toward time
government, [the nobles] grant them a portion of arable land fixed by the said arrangements
as well as other property.

While enjoying these land allotments, the peasants are obliged, in return, to fulfill
obligations to the noblemen fixed by the same arrangements. In this status, which is
temporary, the peasants are temporarily bound.

At the same time, they are granted the right to purchase their household plots, and, with the
consent of the nobles, they may acquire in full ownership the arable lands and other
properties which are allotted them for permanent use. Following such acquisition of full
ownership of land, the peasants will be freed from their obligations to the nobles for the land
thus purchased and will become free peasant landowners.

A special decree dealing with household serfs will establish a temporary status for them,
adapted to their occupations and their needs. At the end of two years from the day of the
promulgation of this decree, they shall receive full freedom and some temporary benefits.

In accordance with the fundamental principles of these arrangements, the future

organization of peasants and household serfs will be determined, the order of general
peasant administration will be established, and the rights given to the peasants and to the
household serfs will be spelled out in detail, as will the obligations imposed on them toward

1
the government and the nobles.

Although these arrangements, general as well as local, and the special supplementary rules
affecting some particular localities, estates of petty nobles, and peasants working in
factories and enterprises of the nobles, have been as far as possible adapted to economic
necessities and local customs; nevertheless, to preserve the existing order where it
presents reciprocal advantages, WE leave it to the nobles to reach a voluntary
understanding with the peasants and to reach agreements on the extent of the land
allotment and the obligations stemming from it, observing, at the same time, the established
rules to guarantee the inviolability of such agreements.

This new arrangement, because of its complexity, cannot be put into effect immediately, an
interval of not less than two years is necessary. During this period, to avoid all
misunderstanding and to protect public and private interests, the order actually existing on
the estates of nobles should be maintained until the new order shall become effective.

Towards that end, WE have deemed it advisable:

1. To establish in each province a special Office of Peasant Affairs, which will be entrusted
with the affairs of the peasant communes established on the estates of the nobility.

2. To appoint in every district arbiters of the peace to solve all misunderstandings and
disputes which may arise from time new arrangements and to organize from these justices
district assemblies.

3. To organize Peace Offices on the estates of the nobles, leaving the village communes as
they are, and to open cantonal offices in the large villages and unite small village
communes under one cantonal office.

4. To formulate, verify, and confirm in each village commune or estate a charter which will
specify, on the basis of local conditions, the amount of land allotted to the peasants for
permanent use, and the scope of their obligations to the nobleman for the land as well as
for other advantages which are granted.
5. To put these charters into practice as they are gradually approved on each estate, and to
put them into effect everywhere within two years from the date of publication of this
manifesto.

6. Until that time, peasants and household serfs must be obedient towards their nobles, and
scrupulously fulfill their former obligations.

7. The nobles will continue to keep order on their estates, with the right of jurisdiction and of
police, until the organization of cantons and of cantonal courts.

Aware of the unavoidable difficulties of this reform, WE place OUR confidence above all in
the graciousness of Divine Providence, which watches over Russia.

WE also rely upon the zealous devotion of OUR nobility, to whom WE express OUR
gratitude and that of the entire country as well, for the unselfish support it has given to the
realization of OUR designs. Russia will not forget that the nobility, motivated by its respect
for the dignity of man and its Christian love of its neighbor, has voluntarily renounced
serfdom, and has laid the foundation of a new economic future for the peasants. WE also
expect that it will continue to express further concern for the realization of the new
arrangement in a spirit of peace and benevolence, and that each nobleman will bring to
fruition on his estate the great civic act of time entire group by organizing the lives of his
peasants and his household serfs on mutually advantageous terms, thereby setting for the
rural population a good example of a punctual and conscientious execution of the state’s
requirements.

The examples of the generous concern of the nobles for the welfare of peasants, amid the
gratitude of the latter for that concern, give Us the hope that a mutual understanding will
solve most of the difficulties, which in some cases will be inevitable during the application of
general rules to the diverse conditions on some estates, and that thereby the transition from
the old order to time new will be facilitated, and that in the future mutual confidence will be
strengthened, and a good understanding and a unanimous tendency towards the general
good will evolve.

To facilitate the realization of these agreements between the nobles arid the peasants, by
which the latter may acquire full ownership of their household plots and their houses, the
government will lend assistance, under special regulations, by means of loans or transfer of
debts encumbering an estate.

WE rely upon the common sense of OUR people. When the government advanced the
idea of abolishing serfdom, there developed a partial misunderstanding among the
unprepared peasants. Some were concerned about freedom and not concerned about
obligations. But, generally, the common sense of the nation has not wavered, because it
has realized that every individual who enjoys freely the benefits of society owes it in return
certain positive obligations; according to Christian law every individual is subject to higher
authority (Romans, chap. xiii., 1); everyone must fulfill his obligations, and, above all,
render tribute, dues, respect, and honor (Ibid., chap. xiii., 7). What legally belongs to
nobles cannot be taken away from them without adequate compensation, or through their
voluntary concession; it would be contrary to all justice to use the land of the nobles without
assuming corresponding obligations.

And now WE confidently expect that the freed serfs, on the eve of a new future which is
opening to them, will appreciate and recognize the considerable sacrifices which the nobility
has made on their behalf.

They should understand that by acquiring property and greater freedom to dispose of their
possessions, they have an obligation to society and to themselves to live up to the letter of
the new law by a loyal and judicious use of the rights which are now granted to them.
However beneficial a law may be, it cannot make people happy if they do not themselves
organize their happiness under protection of the law. Abundance is acquired only through
hard work, wise use of strength and resources, strict economy, and above all, through an
honest God-fearing life.

The authorities who prepared the new way of life for the peasants and who will be
responsible for its inauguration will have to see that this task is accomplished with calmness
and regularity, taking advantage of the time allotted, in order not to divert the attention of
cultivators away from their agricultural work. Let them zealously work the soil and harvest
its fruits so that they will have a full granary of seeds to return to the soil which will be theirs.

And now, Orthodox people, make the sign of the cross, and join with Us to invoke God’s
blessing upon your free labor, the sure pledge of your personal well being and the public
prosperity.

Given at St. Petersburg, March 3, the year of Grace 1861, and the seventh of OUR reign.

Alexander

[1]dvorovye
2
-- serfs who did not hold allotments of land; most of
them worked as domestic servants or craftspeople.

2
Alexander Nikitenko responds to the
Emancipation of the Serfs, 1861
Alexander Nikitenko was born a serf of the Sheremetev family in Voronezh Province in
1803. Through an extraordinary concurrent of events, Alexander was able to receive an
education, develop his intellectual abilities and ultimately, in 1825, obtain his freedom.
He went on to become a professor of literature at St. Petersburg University. Throughout
his life Nikitenko kept a detailed diary of his daily activities and responses to ongoing
events. Published soon after his death, the diary provides a intimate view of Russian
intellectual and cultural life. In the passage below, Nikitenko reports his reaction to
learning of the emancipation of the serfs.

March 5 [1861], Sunday. A great day: the manifesto on freedom for the peasants. They
brought it to me around noon. With an inexpressible feeling of joy, I read through this
precious act the likes of which has surely not been seen throughout the thousand year
history of the Russian people. I read it aloud to my wife and children and one of our
friends in the study before the portrait of Alexander II at whom we all gazed with deep
reverence and gratitude. I tried to explain to my ten year old son as simply as I could the
meaning of the manifesto, and I instructed him to enshrine forever in his heart the fifth of
March and the name of Alexander II the Liberator.

I could not say sitting at home. I had an urge to go outside and wander through the
streets and, as it were, merge into the reborn people. At intersections announcements
were posted from the Governor-General and around each of them clumps of people were
assembled: one read while the others listed. Constantly the words "decree on liberty,"
and "freedom" rose up to met the ear. One person, reading the announcement and
having reached the please where it was said that household serfs were remain in
obedience to their master for two years, exclaimed with indignation: "The devil take this
paper! Two years--as if I'm really going to obey!." The others were silent.

From among my acquaintances, I met up with Galakhov. "Christ has risen!"(1) I said to
him. "Truly he has risen," he answered, and together we expressed our common joy.
Then I dropped in on Rebinder. He order that champagne be served and we each drank a
glass in honor of Alexander II.

(1). "Christ has risen" (Khristos voskres!) The tradition Russian orthodox Easter
greeting.

Source: Aleksandr Nikitenko, Dnevnik v trekh tomakh (Leningrad: gosudarstvennoe

izdatel'stvo khudozhenstvennoi literatury, 1955), v. 2, pp. 179-180.
Translated by Nathaniel Knight

3/15/03
Proclamation by A. V. Iartsev (October, 1873)

Iartsev produced this text early in 1874 while under interrogation for his
involvement in the "movement to the people;" he represented it as a faithful
transcript of a talk he had given to some construction workers.

Brothers! You can't deny that you are deceived at every step, that your
labor benefits only the rich and the contractors. That's what you are thinking
about--how to escape from this. The government doesn't think of improving
your situation, it just wants to collect a bit more money to pay its functionaries
and gather armies, so it can strut before other states. In Samara Province, in
what you call the low country, such grain used to grow there that they still talk
about it to this day, but now the common people is dying from hunger there,
now they are eating all kinds of garbage. That's because the peasants there
have little land, and with taxes, everything they might save for a hungry year
is squeezed out. Now there is a drought, and death is among them. I have
heard there is talk among you of equalizing the land. Well, you have nothing
to expect from the government in that, for it is well fed and the well-fed don't
understand the hungry. But here is how you can do it yourselves, and
abolish obrok at the same time. You should learn to read and learn
everything you should know. Of course, at first not many of you can manage
that, but when some do learn, they will teach others, and so on. When the
greater part of the common people is learned enough to know how things
should be, then all this can be done. Most important, you will get some
sense only when you yourselves are good, when you stop envying one
another but look on one another as brothers, and help one another in trouble.
When you have achieved all of this, elect from among yourselves your
chosen men--good and honest and intelligent people--who will govern you.
You yourselves can keep an eye on them, so that they do everything
according to the law, since everyone will know the laws and all the rules.
Even now there is the zemstvo assembly, but none of you can make any
sense out of what goes on there. The peasants don't elect as delegates
those that can be counted on but those who offer the most vodka. That's who
gets elected when the common people is in darkness and is bad itself, the
 elections don't do any good. Stenka Razin and Pugachev were concerned
about improving the way people live, but they did not do any good, because
the common people was very backward, did not understand what was good
for it, but listened to any scoundrel; much blood flowed, but no good was
done. And all this was because everyone worried only about himself, and
didn't think of others. And so, brothers, stand one for all and all for one, and
only then can you get rid of taxes and the draft and equalize the land. But
until then study and improve yourselves.

Translated by Daniel Field

3/26/02

3
[1]. Here, taxes to the state.

[2].
4
Leaders of insurrections in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

3
4
 Alexander III
Manifesto of April 29, 1881

We proclaim this to all Our faithful subjects: God in His ineffable judgment has
deemed it proper to culminate the glorious reign of Our beloved father with a
martyr's death, and to lay the Holy duty of Autocratic Rule on us.

Submitting to the will of Providence and the Law on the inheritance of

Sovereignty, We assume this burden in a terrible hour of universal popular
grief and terror, averring before the countenance of the Most High that,
imparting this Authority to Us in so difficult and troublesome a time, He will not
withhold his All-powerful help from us. We also aver that the fervid prayers of
the pious people, which is celebrated in all the world for its love and devotion
to its Sovereigns, will draw Divine blessing down upon Us and upon the labor
of governing that lies before Us.

Our father reposing in God, having assumed from God the Autocratic power for
the benefit of the people in his stewardship, remained faithful even unto death. It
was not so much by stern orders as by goodness and kindness, which are also
attributes of power, that He carried out the greatest undertaking of His reign--the
emancipation of the enserfed peasants. In this he was able to elicit the
cooperation of the noble [serf-] holders themselves, who always quick to the
summons of the good and honorable. He established Justice in the Realm and,
having made his subjects without exception free for all time, He summoned them
to take charge of local administration and public works. May His memory be
blessed through the ages!.

The base and wicked murder of a Russian Sovereign by unworthy monsters from
the people, done in the very midst of that faithful people, who were ready to lay
down their lives for Him--this is a terrible and shameful matter, unheard of in
Russia, which has darkened Our entire land with grief and terror. But in the midst
of Our great grief, the voice of God orders Us courageously to undertake, in
deference to Divine intention, the task of ruling, with faith in the strength and
rightness [istina] of autocratic power. We are summoned to reaffirm that Power
and preserve it for the benefit of the people from any encroachment.

Courage to the hearts, now overcome by confusion and terror, of our faithful
subjects, who all love the Fatherland and have from generation to generation
been devoted to the Hereditary Tsarist Power! Under its shelter and in unbroken
union with it, Our land has more than once experienced great tumults and
passed, with faith in the God who ordains its fate, through grievous experiences
and misfortunes and on to new power and glory.

Dedicating ourself to Our great Service, we appeal to Our faithful subjects to

serve Us and the State truly and faithfully, so that the foul treason which shames
the Russian land may be uprooted, faith and morality be reaffirmed, children be
reared rightly, falsehood and spoliation be exterminated, and order and justice be
imparted to the activities of the institutions given to Russia by her Benefactor, Our
Beloved Father.

Alexander

St. Petersburg, 29 April 1881

Translated by Daniel Field

3/26/02
Konstantin Pobedonotsev,
The Ideologist of Russian Reaction.
Konstantin Pobedonotsev (1827-1907) was a legal scholar who rose through the ranks of the
Imperial bureaucracy and played an important role in the writing of the judicial reforms of 1864. In
1865, he became a tutor to the Imperial family and directed the education of the future Alexander
III. In 1880, he was appointed procurator of the Holy Synod, an office he would hold until 1905.
With the ascent to the throne of his former pupil in 1881, he attained tremendous influence within
the government. Not least of his achievements was his personal supervision of the education of
Nicholas II. Pobedonotsev was viewed by Russian liberals as the incarnation of reaction, a cold and
sinister presence whose ideological intransigence kept Russia mired in backwardness and
oppression.

On Parliamentary Democracy
On "Freedom of the Press"
On the Nature of Power
On Education

On Parliamentary Democracy:

What is this freedom by which so many minds are agitated, which inspires so many insensate
actions, so many wild speeches, which leads the people so often to misfortune? In the democratic
sense of the word, freedom is the right of political power, or, to express it otherwise, the right to
participate in the government of the State… Forever extending its base, the new Democracy now
aspires to universal suffrage - a fatal error, and one of the most remarkable in the history of
mankind. By this means, the political power so passionately demanded by Democracy would be
shattered into a number of infinitesimal bits, of which each citizen acquires a single one. What will
he do with it, then? how will he employ it? In the result it has undoubtedly been shown that in the
attainment of this aim Democracy violates its sacred formula of "Freedom indissolubly joined with
Equality." It is shown that this apparently equal distribution of "freedom" among all involves the
total destruction of equality. Each vote, representing an inconsiderable fragment of power, by itself
signifies nothing; an aggregation of votes alone has a relative value… In a Democracy, the real
rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their henchmen, the mechanics who so skillfully
operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this
kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any
despot or military dictator might rule it… The history of mankind bears witness that the most
necessary and fruitful reforms - the most durable measures - emanated from the supreme will of
statesmen, or from a minority enlightened by lofty ideas and deep knowledge, and that, on the
contrary, the extension of the representative principle is accompanied by an abasement of political
ideas and the vulgarisation of opinions in the mass of the electors…

Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of the sovereignty of the people, the
principle that all power issues from the people, and is based upon the national will - a principle
which has unhappily become more firmly established since the time of the French Revolution.
Thence proceeds the theory of Parliamentarism, which, up to the present day, has deluded much of
the so-called "intelligentsia," and unhappily infatuated certain foolish Russians. It continues to
maintain its hold on many minds with the obstinacy of a narrow fanaticism, although every day its
falsehood is exposed more clearly to the world.

In what does the theory of Parliamentarism consist? It is supposed that the people in its assemblies
makes its own laws, and elects responsible officers to execute its will. Such is the ideal conception.
Its immediate realisation is impossible. The historical development of society necessitates that local
communities increase in numbers and complexity; that separate races be assimilated, or, retaining
their polities and languages, unite under a single flag, that territory extend indefinitely: under such
conditions direct government by the people is impracticable. The people must, therefore, delegate its
right of power to its representatives, and invest them with administrative autonomy. These
representatives in turn cannot govern immediately, but are compelled to elect a still smaller number
of trustworthy persons - ministers - to whom they entrust the preparation and execution of the laws,
the apportionment and collection of taxes, the appointment of subordinate officials, and the
disposition of the militant forces.

In the abstract this mechanism is quite symmetrical: for its proper operation many conditions are
essential. The working of the political machine is based on impersonal forces constantly acting and
completely balanced. It may act successfully only when the delegates of the people abdicate their
personalities; when on the benches of Parliament sit mechanical fulfillers of the people's behests;
when the ministers of State remain impersonal, absolute executors of the will of the majority; when
the elected representatives of the people are capable of understanding precisely, and executing
conscientiously, the programme of activity, mathematically expressed, which has been delivered to
them. Given such conditions the machine would work exactly, and would accomplish its purpose.
The law would actually embody the will of the people! administrative measures would actually
emanate from Parliament: the pillars of the State would rest actually on the elective assemblies, and
each citizen would directly and consciously participate in the management of public affairs.

Such is the theory. Let us look at the practice. Even in the classic countries of Parliamentarism it
would satisfy not one of the conditions enumerated. The elections in no way express the will of the
electors. The popular representatives are in no way restricted by the opinions of their constituents,
but are guided by their own views and considerations, modified by the tactics of their opponents. In
reality, ministers are autocratic, and they rule, rather than are ruled by, Parliament. They attain
power, and lose power, not by virtue of the will of the people, but through immense personal
influence, or the influence of a strong party which places them in power, or drives them from it.
They dispose of the force and resources of the nation at will, they grant immunities and favours,
they maintain a multitude of idlers at the expense of the people, and they fear no censure while they
enjoy the support in Parliament of a majority which they maintain by the distribution of bounties
from the rich tables which the State has put at their disposal. In reality, the ministers are as
irresponsible as the representatives of the people. Mistakes, abuse of power, and arbitrary acts, are
of daily occurrence, yet how often do we hear of the grave responsibility of a minister? It may be
once in fifty years a minister is tried for his crimes, with a result contemptible when compared with
the celebrity gained by the solemn procedure.

Thus the representative principle works in practice. The ambitious man comes before his fellow-
citizens, and strives by every means to convince them that he more than any other is worthy of their
confidence. What motives impel him to this quest? It is hard to believe that he is impelled by
disinterested zeal for the public good. . . .

On the day of polling few give their votes intelligently; these are the individuals, influential electors
whom it has been worth' while to convince in private. The mass of electors, after the practice of the
herd, votes for one of the candidates nominated by the committees. Not one exactly knows the man,
or considers his character, his capacity, his convictions; all vote merely because they have heard his
name so often. It would be vain to struggle against this herd. If a level-headed elector wished to act
intelligently in such a grave affair, and not to give way to the violence of the committee, he would
have to abstain altogether, or to give his vote for his candidate according to his conviction. However
he might act, he could not prevent the election of the candidate favored by the mass of frivolous, in
different, and prejudiced electors.

In theory, the elected candidate must be the favorite of the majority; in fact, he is the favorite of a
minority, sometimes very small, but representing an organized force, while the majority, like sand,
has no coherence, and is therefore incapable of resisting the clique and the faction. In theory, the
election favors the intelligent and capable; in reality, it favors the pushing and impudent. It might be
thought that education, experience, conscientiousness in work, and wisdom in affairs, would be
essential requirements in the candidate; in reality, whether these qualities exist or not, they are in no
way needed in the struggle of the election, where the essential qualities are audacity, a combination
of impudence and oratory, and even some vulgarity, which invariably acts on the masses; modesty,
in union with delicacy of feeling and thought, is worth nothing. . . .

…By nature, men are divided into two classes - those who tolerate no power above them, and
therefore of necessity strive to rule others; and those who by their nature dread the responsibility
inseparable from independent action, and who shrink from any resolute exercise of will. These were
born for submission, and together constitute a herd* which follows the men of will and resolution,
who form the minority. Thus the most talented persons submit willingly, and gladly entrust to
stronger hands the control of affairs and the moral responsibility for their direction. Instinctively
they seek a leader, and become his obedient instruments, inspired by the conviction that he will lead
them to victory-and, often, to spoil. Thus all the important actions of Parliament are controlled by
the leaders of the party, who inspire all decision, who lead in combat, and profit by victory. The
public sessions are no more than a spectacle for the mass. Speeches are delivered to sustain the
fiction of Parliamentarism, but seldom a speech by itself affects the decision of Parliament in a
grave affair. Speechmaking serves for the glory of orators, for the increase of their popularity, and
the making of their careers; only on rare occasions does it affect the distribution of votes. Majorities
and minorities are usually decided before the session begins. Such is the complicated mechanism of
the Parliamentary farce; such is the great political lie which dominates our age. . . .

Such is the Parliamentary institution, exalted as the summit and crown of the edifice of State. It is
sad to think that even in Russia there are men who aspire to the establishment of this falsehood
among us; that our professors glorify to their young pupils representative government as the ideal of
political science; that our newspapers pursue it in their articles and feuilletons, under the name of
justice and order, without troubling to examine without prejudice the working of the parliamentary
machine. Yet even where centuries have sanctified its existence, faith already decays; the Liberal
intelligence exalts it, but the people groans under its despotism, and recognizes its falsehood. We
may not see, but our children and grand children assuredly will see, the overthrow of this idol,
which contemporary thought in its vanity continues still to worship. . . .
On "Freedom of the Press:"

In our age the judgment of others has assumed an organized form, and calls itself Public Opinion. Its
organ and representative is the Press. In truth, the importance of the Press is immense, and may be
regarded as the most characteristic fact of our time - more characteristic even than our remarkable
discoveries and inventions in the realm of technical science. No government, no law, no custom can
withstand its destructive activity when, from day to day, through the course of years, the Press
repeats and disseminates among the people its condemnations of institutions or of men.

What is the secret of this strength? Certainly not the novelties and sensations with which the
newspaper is filled, but its declared policy--the political and philosophical ideas propagated in its
articles, selection and classification of its news and rumours, and the peculiar illumination which it
casts upon them. The newspaper has usurped the position of judicial observer of the events of the
day; it judges not only the actions and words of men, but affects a knowledge of their unexpressed
opinions, their intentions, and their enterprises; it praises and condemns at discretion; it incites
some, threatens others; drags to the pillory one, and others exalts as idols to be adored and examples
worthy of the emulation of all. In the name of Public Opinion it bestows rewards on some, and
punishes others with the severity of excommunication. The question naturally occurs: Who are these
representatives of this terrible power. Public Opinion? Whence is derived their right and authority to
rule in the name of the community, to demolish existing institutions, and to proclaim new ideals of
ethics and legislation?

But no one attempts to answer this question; all talk loudly of the liberty of the Press as the first and
essential element of social well-being. Even in Russia, so libeled by the lying Press of Europe, such
words are heard. Our so-called Slavophiles, with amazing inconsistency, share the same delusion,
although their avowed object is to reform and renovate the institutions of their country upon a
historic basis. Having joined the chorus of Liberals, in alliance with the propagandists of revolution,
they proclaim exactly in the manner of the West: "Public Opinion-that is, the collective thought,
guided by the natural love of right in all - is the final judge in all matters of public interest; therefore
no restriction upon freedom of speech can be allowed, for such restriction can only express the
tyranny of the minority over the will of the mass."

Such is a current proposition of the newest Liberalism. It is accepted by many in good faith, and
there are few who, having troubled to analyze it, have discerned how it is based upon falsehood and
self-deception. It conflicts with the first principles of logic, for it is based on the fallacious premise
that the opinions of the public and of the Press are identical.

To test the validity of this claim, it is only needful to consider the origin of newspapers, and the
characters of their makers.

Any vagabond babbler or unacknowledged genius, any enterprising tradesman, with his own money
or with the money of others, may found a newspaper, even a great newspaper. He may attract a host
of writers and feuilletonists, ready to deliver judgment on any subject at a moment's notice; he may
hire illiterate reporters to keep him supplied with rumors and scandals. His staff is then complete.
From that day he sits in judgment on all the world, on ministers and administrators, on literature and
art, on finance and industry. . .
This phenomenon is worthy of close inspection, for we find in it the most incongruous product of
modern culture, the more incongruous where the principles of the new Liberalism have taken root,
where the sanction of election, the authority of the popular will, is needed for every institution,
where the ruling power is vested in the hands of individuals, and derived from the suffrages of the
majority in the representative assemblies. For the journalist with a power comprehending all things,
requires no sanction. He derives his authority from no election, he receives support from no one. His
newspaper becomes an authority in the State, and for this authority no endorsement is required. The
man in the street may establish such an organ and exercise the concomitant authority with an
irresponsibility enjoyed by no other power in the world. That this is in no way exaggeration there
are innumerable proofs. How often have superficial and unscrupulous journalists paved the way for
revolution, fomented irritation into enmity, and brought about desolating wars! For conduct such as
this a monarch would lose his throne, a minister would be disgraced, impeached, and punished; but
the journalist stands dry above the waters he has disturbed, from the ruin he has caused he rises
triumphant, and briskly continues his destructive work.

This is by no means the worst. When a judge has power to dishonor us, to deprive us of our property
and of our freedom, he receives his power from the hands of the State only after such prolonged
labor and experience as qualify him for his calling. His power is restricted by rigorous laws, his
judgments are subject to revision by higher powers, and his sentence may be altered or commuted.
The journalist has the fullest power to defame and dishonor me, to injure my material interests, even
to restrict my liberty by attacks which force me to leave my place of abode. These judicial powers
he has usurped; no higher authority has conferred them upon him; he has never proven by
examination his fitness to exercise them; he has in no way shown his trustworthiness or his
impartiality; his court is ruled by no formal procedure: and from his judgment there lies no appeal…

It is hard to imagine a despotism more irresponsible and violent than the despotism of printed words.
Is it not strange and irrational, then, that those who struggle most for the preservation of this
despotism are the impassioned champions for freedom, the ferocious enemies of legal restrictions
and of all interference by the established authority. We cannot help remembering those wise men
who went mad because they knew of their wisdom.

On the Nature of Power:

. . . In human souls there exists a force of moral gravity which draws them one to another; and
which, made manifest in the spiritual interaction of souls, answers an organic need. Without this
force mankind would be as a heap of sand, without any bond, dispersed by every wind on every
side. By this inherent force, without preparatory accord, are men united in society. It impels them
out of the crowd of men to seek for leaders with whom to commune, whom to obey, and whose
direction to seek. Inspired by a moral principle, this instinct acquires the value of a creative force,
uniting and elevating the people to worthy deeds and to great endurance…

To live without power is impossible. After the need of communion the need of power is of all
feelings most deeply rooted in the spiritual nature of man. Since the day duality entered into his
soul, since the day the knowledge of good and evil was vouchsafed to him, and the love of good and
justice rose in his soul in eternal conflict with evil and injustice, for him there has been no salvation
save to seek sustenance and reconciliation in a high judge of this conflict; in a living incarnation of
the principle of order and of truth. And, whatever may be the disenchantment, the betrayal, the
afflictions which humanity has suffered from power, while men shall yearn for good and truth, and
remember their helplessness and duality, they can never cease to believe in the ideal of power, and
to repeat their efforts for its realization. Today, as in ancient times, the foolish say in their hearts:
There is no God, no truth, no good, no evil; and gather around them pupils equally foolish,
proclaiming atheism and anarchy. But the great mass of mankind stands firm in its faith in the
supreme principle of life, and, through tears and bloodshed, as the blind seeking a guide, seeks for
power with imperishable hope, notwithstanding eternal betrayal and disillusion.

Thus the work of power is a work of uninterrupted usefulness, and in reality a work of renunciation.
How strange these words must seem beside the current conception of power! It is natural, it would
seem, for men to flee and to avoid renunciation. Yet all seek power, all aspire to it; for power men
strive together, they resort to crime, they destroy one another, and when they attain power they
rejoice and triumph. Power seeks to exalt itself, and words pass through our heads as something in
no way concerning us, as Yet the immutable, only true ideal of power is embodied in the words of
Christ: "Whosoever of you will be the first shall be servant of all." These words pass through our
heads as something in no way concerning us, as especially addressed to a vanished community in
Palestine. In reality, they apply to all power, however great, which, in the depth of conscience, does
not recognize that the higher its throne, the wider the sphere of its activity, the heavier must become
its fetters, the more widely must open before it the roll of social evils, stained by the weeping of pity
and woe, and the louder must sound the crying and sobbing of injustice which demands redress. The
first necessity of power is faith in itself and in its mission. Happy is power when this faith is
combined with a recognition of duty and of moral responsibility! Unhappy is it when it lacks this
consciousness and leans upon itself alone! Then begins the decay which leads to loss of faith, and in
the end to disintegration and destruction.

Power is the depository of truth, and needs, above all things, men of truth, of clear intellects, of
strong understandings, and of sincere speech, who know the limits of yes and no, and never
transcend them, whose thoughts develop clearly in their minds, and are clearly expressed by their
words. Men of this nature only are the firm support of power, and its faithful delegates. Happy is the
power which can distinguish such men, appreciate their merit, and firmly sustain them! Unhappy is
the power which wearies of such natures, promoting men of complaisant character, flexible
opinions, and flattering tongues!

On Education:

… Take, for instance, the phrases, repeated unto weariness among us, and everywhere: Free
Education, Obligatory Attendance, the Restriction of Child-Labour During the Years of Obligatory
Attendance. There can be no question that learning is light, and that ignorance is darkness, but in the
application of this rule we must take care to be ruled by common-sense, and so to abstain from
violating that freedom, of which we hear so much, and which our legislators so ruthlessly restrict.
Inspired by an idle saying that the schoolmaster won the battle of Sadowa, we multiply our model
schools and schoolmasters, ignoring the requirements both of children and of parents, of climate,
and of nature itself. We refuse to recognize, what experience has shown, that the school is a
deceptive formality where its roots have taken no hold among the people, where it fails to meet the
people's necessities, and to accord with the economy of its life. That school alone is suited to the
people which pleases them, and the enlightening influence of which they see and feel; but all
schools are repugnant to them to which they are driven by force, under threats of punishment, or
which are organized, in ignorance of the people's tastes and necessities, on the fantasies of
doctrinaires. In such schools the work becomes mechanical; the school resembles an office with all
the formality and weariness which office life involves. The legislator is satisfied when he has
founded and organized in certain localities a certain number of similar institutions adorned with the
inscription - School. For these establishments money must be raised; attendance is secured under
penalty; a great staff of inspectors is organized whose duty it is to see that parents and poor and
working men send their children to school at the established age. Already all Governments have
transgressed the line at which public instruction begins to show its reverse side. Everywhere official
education flourishes at the expense of that real education in the sphere of domestic, professional, and
social life which is a vital element of success.

But infinite evil has been wrought by the prevalent confusion of knowledge and power. Seduced by
the fantasy of universal enlightenment, we confuse education with a certain sum of knowledge
acquired by completing the courses of schools, skillfully elaborated in the studies of pedagogues.
Having organized our school thus, we isolate it from life, and secure by force the attendance of
children whom we subject to a process of intellectual training in accordance with our program. But
we ignore or forget that the mass of the children whom we educate must earn their daily bread, a
labour for which the abstract notions on which our programs are constructed will be vain; while in
the interests of some imaginary knowledge we withhold that training in productive labour which
alone will bear fruit. Such are the results of our complex educational system, and such are the causes
of the aversion with which the masses regard our schools, for which they can find no use.

The vulgar conception of education is true enough, but unhappily it is disregarded in the
organization of the modern school. In the popular mind the function of a school is to teach the
elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic, and, in union with these, the duty of knowing, loving,
and fearing Cod, of loving our native land, and of honoring our parents. These are the elements of
knowledge and the sentiments which together form the basis of conscience in man, and give to him
the moral strength needed for the preservation of his equilibrium in life, for the maintenance of
struggle with the evil impulses of his nature and with the evil sentiments and temptations of the
mind. It is an unhappy day when education tears the child from the surroundings in which he first
acquired the elements of his future calling, those exercises of his early years through which he
acquires, almost unconsciously, the taste capacity for work. The boy who wishes to become a
bachelor or the master of arts must begin his studies at a certain age, and in due time pass through a
given course of knowledge; but the vast majority of children must learn to live by the work of their
hands. For such work physical training is needed from the earliest age. To close the door to such
preparation, that time may be saved for the teaching of schools, is to place a burden upon the lives of
the masses who have to struggle for their daily bread, and to shackle in the family the natural
development of those economic forces which together constitute the capital of the commonwealth.
The sailor qualifies for his calling by spending his boyhood on the sea; the miner prepares for his
work by early years spent in the subterranean passages of mines. To the agriculturist it is even more
essential that he shall become accustomed for his future work, that he may learn to love it in
childhood, in the presence of nature, beside his herds and his plough, in the midst of his fields and
his meadows.

Yet we waste our time discussing courses for elementary schools and obligatory programs which are
to be the bases of a finished education. One would include an encyclopedic instruction under the
barbarous term Rodinovyedenie (knowledge of the fatherland); another insists on the necessity for
the agriculturist to know physics, chemistry, agricultural economy, and medicine; while a third
demands a course of political economy and jurisprudence. But few reflect that by tearing the child
from the domestic hearth for such a lofty destiny, they deprive his parents of a productive force
which is essential to the maintenance of the home, while by raising before his eyes the mirage of
illusory learning they corrupt his mind, an subject it to the temptations of vanity and conceit.

Source: K. P. Pobyedonotseff, Reflections of a Russian Statesman, trans. R. C. Long (London: Grant

Richard & Co., 1898). Revised by Nathaniel Knight.
Primary Sources on Mixed Marriages in the Russian
Empire

Marriage represented a crucial institution for Imperial Russia and indeed as a

foundation for the existing social and even political order. But while civil marriage
had begun to make its appearance in other European countries, marriage in Russia
remained a resolutely religious affair and continued to be regulated by the rules of
the empire's various faiths, which included Orthodoxy, Uniatism (until 1875),
Catholicism, Protestanism, Armeno-Gregorianism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and
"paganism." Below are some of the relevant sections of the law regulating marriage:

Art. 61. Persons of all the Christian confessions are freely permitted in
Russia to enter marriages with one another by the rituals and rules of their
churches, without requesting special permission from the civil government,
but with the observance of the limitations established for those confessions.

Art. 65. Marriages of persons of all the Christian confessions must be

concluded by their law [i.e., by the rules of their confession] and by the
clergy of the church to which those entering marriage belong; but those
marriages are also considered to be valid when, in the absence of a pastor or
priest of their religion in the given location, the marriage is performed by an
Orthodox priest, but in such a case the conclusion and dissolution of those
marriages are dictated by the rules and rituals of the Orthodox church.

Art. 90. [The members of] each ethnicity and people, not excluding pagans,
are allowed to enter into marriage by the rules of their law [i.e., their religion]
or by accepted customs, without the participation of civil authorities or of
Christian religious authorities.[1]

The matter was clear enough, then, when both bride and groom were of the same
confession. But what about those cases when two persons confessing different
religious wished to enter marriage? In such cases, the law made the following basic
provisions:

Art. 85. For Russian subjects of Orthodox and Roman Catholic confessions
marriages with non-Christians, and [for subjects] of the Protestant confession
marriages with pagans, are entirely prohibited.

Art. 72. Marriages of persons of Orthodox confession with persons of Roman

Catholic confession, concluded only by Roman Catholic priests, are
 considered invalid until such time that the marriage has been performed by
an Orthodox priest.

Art. 76. If the groom or the bride belongs to the Orthodox confession [and
the other to another confession], in such a case everywhere, except Finland
(for whose native inhabitants in the next article (68) an exception is
provided), the following is required: 1) that persons of other confessions,
entering into marriage with persons of the Orthodox confession, give a
written promise that they will not revile their spouses, nor incline them
through enticement, threats or any other means to accept their faith, and that
children born in this marriage will be baptized and raised in the rules of the
Orthodox confession… ; 2) that in the conclusion of such marriages all the
rules and precautions that have been established generally for marriages
between persons of the Orthodox confession are executed and observed
without fail; 3) [and] that such marriages be concluded by an Orthodox priest
in an Orthodox church…. It is forbidden to accept requests for permission to
perform the rite of marriage by the rules of a foreign [non-Orthodox] church
alone [i.e., to accept requests for exceptions].[2]

Of course, if a non-Orthodox person converted to Orthodoxy prior to a marriage to

an Orthodox person, then the stipulations on mixed marriage would disappear. It
was impossible, however, for an Orthodox person to convert to another faith, for
until 1905 the following law was in effect:

Those born into the Orthodox faith, as well as those who convert to it from
other faiths, are forbidden from leaving it [Orthodoxy] and accepting another
faith, even a Christian one.[3]

This circumstance should be kept in mind as one considers the following archival
file. The file dates to 1896 and begins when an Orthodox priest reported the
intention of his parishioner, Venedikta Volkovich, to marry a Catholic, Mikhail
Matsekevich. The matter was complicated by the fact that Venedikta's religious
sympathies, despite her formal Orthodox status, were clearly Catholic and the
couple was eager to have their marriage sanctified by Catholic rite. The Orthodox
priest wrote that Venedikta, "despite the admonitions to which she was subjected
more than once in October to return to the bosom of the Orthodox church and to
enter a legal marriage with Mikhail Matsukevich by Orthodox ritual, remains
recalcitrant." Indeed, Venedikta's relacitrance had already led Orthodox authorities
to request that the local Procurator initiate legal proceedings against her, since
"apostasy" from Orthodoxy was illegal. Meanwhile, the groom, Mikhail
Matsukevich, knowing that "mixed" marriages legally required an Orthodox
ceremony, nonetheless appealed to the Orthodox Archbishop of Lithuania to permit
a Catholic ceremony instead. Noting that he had now lived with Venedikta out of
wedlock for ten years and that they had already given birth to a daughter,
Matsukevich contested the claim that his bride was actually Orthodox. She had
always taken communion in the local Catholic church and her father had been
included in the list of Orthodox parishioners "by mistake." As a result of these
circumstances, Matsukevich wrote to the Archibishop,

Roman Catholic priests do not agree to marry me to her [Venedikta] by

Roman Catholic ritual without the permission of Your Eminence. And since I
am a Catholic and Venedikta Petrovna Volkovich, who was been living with
me out of wedlock up until now, is not to be found on the list of the
Orthodox, I humbly request Your Eminence to permit me to be married to
her by Roman Catholic rite, out of consideration of the fact that if I do not
receive such permission, then I will leave her and she will be compelled to
live in debauchery. I submit this petition because I do not wish to offend her
and [would like] to live with her as God commands, but under no
circumstance am I willing, nor will I agree, to change my native faith for her
sake. And so falling to the holy feet of Your Eminence, I most humbly
request that you render me divine mercy and present me with a favorable
resolution as to what I should do with her [Venedikta]: marry her by Roman
Catholic rite or renounce her, since all priests send me to your Eminence, and
I would not like to live like a beast, however if you do not permit me [to
marry by Catholic rite] then I will commit a sin and will marry another
[woman] and will renounce Venedikta. (27 June 1896)

The Lithuanian Orthodox Ecclesiastical Consistory rejected Matsukevich's request,

"in light of the information provided in the protocol [on this case] and in light
of the fact that the peasant Venedikta Petrovna Volkovich must confess the
Orthodox church and may be married only in the Orthodox church by
Orthodox rite." (13 December 1896).[4]

While there is no indication as to what occurred in this case thereafter, in general

the confessional order in Russia changed significantly in 1905, when a new decree
on religious toleration lifted certain restrictions on religious conversion. That
decree, dated 17 April 1905, provided that from that point forward the state was

To recognize that apostasy from the Orthodox faith into another Christian
confession or religious teaching is not subject to prosecution and should not
involve any consequences that are unfavorable with respect to personal or
civil rights; moroever upon attainment of majority the apostate from
Orthodoxy is recognized as belonging to the religious confession or teaching
 that he or she has chosen.[5]

This new law was important for the second case provided here, which began in 1909
when the Governor of Vilna province wrote to the Orthodox Archibichop Nikandr
concerning the marriage of an Orthodox man (Vikentii Kovchik) and a Catholic
woman (Emily Orlovskaia). The local Orthodox priest refused to marry the couple
until Emily converted to Orthodoxy, which she refused to do. The couple therefore
turned to the Governor, in the hope that he would authorize the Catholic church to
perform the service instead. Having laid out the circumstances of the case, the
Governor wrote to the Archbishop:

Recognizing that the condition set by the [Orthodox] priest of Malo-

Mozheiskii church is not based on the law, and concerned that this demand
could compel the petitioner Kovchik to convert to Catholicism, I consider my
duty to forward the noted petition of Kovchik and Orlovskaia for
consideration by Your Eminence. (6 May 1909).

Kovchik and Orlovskaia's petition to the Governor read as follows:

"We the petitioners wish to enter into a legal marriage, but since Kovchik is
of the Orthodox faith and belongs to the Malo-Mozheiskii parish, and
Orlovskaia is of the Roman Catholic confession and belongs to the
Zholudskii parish, neither the Malo-Mozheiskii [Orthodox] priest, nor the
Zholudskii Catholic priest wishes to give us the marital crown, the former
without the conversion of Orlovskaia to the Orthodox faith, and the latter
without the conversion of Kovhcik to the Roman Catholic faith. But each one
of us wishes to remain in the faith into which he or she was born.
And for this reason we have the honor of most humbly requesting
Your Excellency to issue a directive instructing the Vilnius Roman-Catholic
Spiritual Consistory to order the priest of the Zholudskii Roman Catholic
church to give us the [marital] crown without the conversion of Kovchik to
the Roman Catholic confession, since the Orthodox Church and the Roman
Catholic church confess belief in the same Jesus Christ, and each person
finds it more pleasant to pray in the language in which he or she was
instructed from childhood. (27 April 1909).

The Lithuanian (Orthodox) Spiritual Consistory, having considered the case,

ordered the local Orthodox priest, in light of Orlovskaia's refusal to accept
Orthodoxy, "to marry Kovchik and Orlovskaia without delay, if there are no legal
obstacles, with the observation of all legal precautions and with the taking of the
appopriate pre-marital signature" (13 May 1909). The "legal obstacles" referred to
her concerned above all ascertaining that the groom and bride were not close
relatives. Later in May, 1909 the Orthodox priest of Malo-Mozheiskii parish offered
the following explanation of the circumstances in resposne to the Consistory's order
of May 13:

"In response to my suggestion to the brother of the groom, Nikita, who came
to me as a messenger on May 21 with a paper from Mr. Governor and the
resolution of Your Eminence concerning the marriage of Maksim Kovchik,
of the Orthodox confession, with Emily Orlovskaia, of the Roman Catholic
confession, I declared my willingness to marry them on May 22 in the
Malomozheiskii church: But on the appointed day they did not appear. It
turned out, based on [my] questioning of their fellow villagers, that Emily
Orlovskaia, fanaticized by the Zheludskii Catholic priest, entirely refuses to
be married in an Orthodox church and demands of her groom that he accept
Catholicism, something that the entire Kovchik family refuses. Being a
frightful fanatic, Emily Orlovskaia speaks about the Orthodox church using
the most offensive language that I cannot even repeat. She has been selected
by the Catholic priests as an instrument for leading [Orthodox people] astray.
At the present time she is showing everyone the paper from Mr. Governor in
which it is stated that the marriage should be concluded first in the Orthodox
church, and then in the Catholic church, in which, without any doubt,
Kovchik will be led astray into Catholicism. The marriage of Orthodox
[people] with Catholics is the most certain means for leading them astray,
since under the influence of the Catholic majority in the village the apostasy
of Orthodox [people] is inevitable. In the parish entrsuted to me there have
been cases of apostasy only in [confessionally] mixed families, and for this
reason I have tried and continue to try to prevent mixed marriages in my
parish in every way possible, very often subjecting myself, as a result, to
insults and complaints to the authorities." (24 May 1909).

And with this the file ends.[6]

Materials gathered and translated by

Paul W. Werth

[1] Articles of vol. 10, part 1 of Svod Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, reproduced in Ia. A. Kantorovich,
Zakony o vere i veroterpimost' (St. Petersburg, 1899).
[2] Kantorovich, Zakony, pp. 74-75. Mixed marriages in Finland were performed by the rites of both
churches and the children were raised in the religion of their father (article 68).
[3] Kantorovich, Zakony, p. 18 (article 36 of Ustav o preduprazhdenii i presechenii prestuplenii).
[4] Lithuanian State Historical Archive (Vilnius), collection 605, register 9,file 423.
[5] Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, 3rd series, no. 26126 (17 April 1905), pp. 258-59.
[6] Lithuanian State Historical Archive, collection 605, register 9, file 299
Vladimir Ilich Lenin: What is to be Done? (1902)
At the time when he wrote "What is to be Done," Lenin was a young Russian emigre recently
returned from Siberian exile and living in Geneva, Switzerland. His work on the Russian Social
Democratic newspaper "Iskra" (The Spark), brought him into the center of a debate raging in
European Marxist circles over the "revisionist" ideas of Eduard Bernstein. The problem was all the
more urgent for Lenin since some Russian Marxists, known as "economists," were advocating
Bernstein's approach, arguing that the Social Democratic party in Russia should focus on legal
activities aimed at improving the economic well being of the working class. Lenin's response was
the long pamphlet "What is to be Done," a vigorous polemic in which he sketched out a new vision
of a Marxist revolutionary party. The following are selected excerpts from the larger work.

It is no secret that two trends have taken form in the present-day international Social-Democracy.
The conflict between these trends now flares up in a bright flame, and now dies down and smolders
under the ashes of imposing "truce resolutions." The essence of the "new" trend, which adopts a
"critical" attitude towards "obsolete dogmatic" Marxism, has been presented clearly enough by
Bernstein, and demonstrated by Millerand.

Social-Democracy must change from a party of the social revolution into a democratic party of
social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of
symmetrically arranged "new" arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting
Socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of
view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of the growing impoverishment,
the process of proletarianisation and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept,
"ultimate aim," was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was
completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied
was the theory of the class struggle on the grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly
democratic society, governed according to the will of the majority, etc.

Thus, the demand for a decisive turn from revolutionary Social-Democracy to bourgeois social-
reformism was accompanied by a no less resolute turn towards bourgeois criticism of all the
fundamental ideas of Marxism....

He who does not deliberately close his eyes cannot fail to see that the new "critical" trend in
socialism is nothing more nor less than a new variety of opportunism. And if we judge people not by
the glittering uniforms they don, not by the high-sounding appellations they give themselves, but by
their actions, and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that "freedom of criticism" means
freedom for an opportunistic trend in Social-Democracy, the freedom to convert Social-Democracy
into a democratic party of reform, the freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements
into Socialism....

Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This thought cannot be
insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in
hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity... Our Party is only in process
of formation, its features are only just becoming outlined, and it is yet far from having settled
accounts with other trends of revolutionary thought, which threaten to divert the movement from the
correct path.... The national tasks of Russian Social-Democracy are such as have never confronted
any other socialist party in the world.... The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party
that is guided by the most advanced theory....

The systematic strikes [of the 1890s in St. Petersburg] represented the class struggle in embryo, but
only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes were simply trade union struggles, but not yet
Social-Democratic struggles. They marked the awakening antagonisms between workers and
employers, but the workers were not, and could not be, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism
of their interests to the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e., theirs was not yet
Social-Democratic consciousness. In this sense, the strikes of the nineties despite of the enormous
progress they represented as compared with [earlier] "revolts ," remained a purely spontaneous
movement.

We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It
could only be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working
class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the
conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the
government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories
elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. By their social
status, the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the
bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-
Democracy arose quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement, it
arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary
socialist intelligentsia… Hence, we had both the spontaneous awakening of the masses of the
workers, the awakening to conscious life and conscious struggle, and a revolutionary youth, armed
with the Social-Democratic theory, eager to come into contact with the workers…

Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves
in the process of their movement, the only choice is--either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is
no middle course (for humanity has not created a "third" ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn
by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle the
socialist ideology in any way, to turn away from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen
bourgeois ideology.

The political struggle of Social-Democracy is far more extensive and complex than the economic
struggle of the workers against the employers and the government. Similarly (indeed for that
reason), the organization of a revolutionary Social-Democratic party must inevitably be of a kind
different from the organisation of the workers designed for this struggle. A workers' organization
must in the first place be a trade organization; secondly, it must be as broad as possible; and thirdly,
it must be as little clandestine as possible (here, and further on, of course, I have only autocratic
Russia in mind). On the other hand, the organizations of revolutionaries must consist first, foremost
and mainly of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (that is why I speak of
organizations of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). In view of this common
feature of the members of such an organization, all distinctions as between workers and
intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories must be
obliterated. Such an organization must of necessity be not too extensive and as secret as possible....
I assert: 1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders
maintaining continuity; 2) that the broader the popular mass drawn spontaneously drawn into the
struggle, forming the basis of the movement and participating in it, the more urgent the need for
such an organization, and the more solid this organization must be (for it is much easier for
demagogues to side track the more backward sections of the masses); 3) that such an organization
must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; 4) that in an
autocratic state, the more we confine the membership of such an organization to people who are
professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and to have been professionally trained in the art of
combatting the political police, the more difficult will it be to wipe out such an organization, and 5)
the greater will be the number of people of the working class and of the other classes of society who
will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it…

Our worst sin with regard to organization is that by our amateurishness we have lowered the
prestige of revolutionaries in Russia. A person who is flabby and shaky on questions of theory, who
has a narrow outlook, who pleads the spontaneity of the masses as an excuse for his own
sluggishness, who resembles a trade union secretary more than a spokesman of the people, who is
unable to conceive of a broad and bold plan that would command the respect even of opponents, and
who is inexperienced and clumsy in his own professional art - the art of combating the political
police - why, such a man is not a revolutionary but a wretched amateur!

Source: V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, (Moscow, 1964), v. 5, pp. 352-353, 354-355, 369-370, 374-
375, 389, 452-453, 464.

Translation revised and edited by Nathaniel Knight

6/09/00
 Petition Prepared for Presentation to Nicholas II

on "Bloody Sunday" (January 9, 1905)

Sovereign!

We, workers and inhabitants of the city of St. Petersburg, members of various sosloviia
(estates of the realm), our wives, children, and helpless old parents, have come to you, Sovereign, to
seek justice and protection. We are impoverished and oppressed, we are burdened with work, and
insulted. We are treated not like humans [but] like slaves who must suffer a bitter fate and keep
silent. And we have suffered, but we only get pushed deeper and deeper into a gulf of misery,
ignorance, and lack of rights. Despotism and arbitrariness are suffocating us, we are gasping for
breath. Sovereign, we have no strength left. We have reached the limit of our patience. We have
come to that terrible moment when it is better to die than to continue unbearable sufferings.

And so we left our work and declared to our employers that we will not return to work until
they meet our demands. We do not ask much; we only want that without which life is hard labor
and eternal suffering. Our first request was that our employers discuss our needs together with us.
But they refused to do this; they denied us the right to speak about our needs, on the grounds that the
law does not provide us with such a right. Also unlawful were our other requests: to reduce the
working day to eight hours; for them to set wages together with us and by agreement with us; to
examine our disputes with lower-level factory administrators; to increase the wages of unskilled
workers and women to one ruble per day; to abolish overtime work; to provide medical care
attentively and without insult; to build shops so that it is possible to work there and not face death
from the awful drafts, rain and snow.

Our employers and the factory administrators considered all this to be illegal: every one of
our requests was a crime, and our desire to improve our condition was slanderous insolence.

Sovereign, there are thousands of us here; outwardly we are human beings, but in reality
neither we nor the Russian people5[1] as a whole are provided with any human rights, even the right

5[1]. Here and elsewhere in the petition narod, a singular noun.

to speak, to think, to assemble, to discuss our needs, or to take measure to improve our conditions.
They have enslaved us and they did so under the protection of your officials, with their aid and with
their cooperation. They imprison and send into exile any one of us who has the courage to speak on
behalf of the interests of the working class and of the people. They punish us for a good heart and a
responsive spirit as if for a crime. To pity a downtrodden and tormented person with no rights is to
commit a grave crime. The entire working people and the peasants are subjected to the proizvol
(arbitrariness) of a bureaucratic administration composed of embezzlers of public funds and thieves
who not only have not concern at all for the interests of the Russian people but who harm those
interests. The bureaucratic administration has reduced the country to complete destitution, drawn it
into a shameful war, and brings Russia ever further towards ruin. We, the workers and the people,
have no voice in the expenditure of the enormous sums that are collected from us. We do not even
know where the money collected from the impoverished people goes. The people is deprived of any
possibility of expressing its wishes and demands, or of participating in the establishment of taxes
and in their expenditure. Workers are deprived of the possibility of organizing into unions to defend
their interests. Sovereign! Does all this accord with the law of God, by Whose grace you reign?
And is it possible to live under such laws? Would it not be better if we, the toiling people of all
Russia, died? Let the capitalists--exploiters of the working class--and the bureaucrats--embezzlers of
public funds and the pillagers of the Russian people--live and enjoy themselves.

Sovereign, this is what we face and this is the reason that we have gathered before the walls
of your palace. Here we seek our last salvation. Do not refuse to come to the aid of your people;
lead it out of the grave of poverty, ignorance, and lack of rights; grant it the opportunity to
determine its own destiny, and deliver it from them the unbearable yoke of the bureaucrats. Tear
down the wall that separates you from your people and let it rule the country together with you.
You have been placed [on the throne] for the happiness of the people; the bureaucrats, however,
snatch this happiness out of our hands, and it never reaches us; we get only grief and humiliation.
Sovereign, examine our requests attentively and without any anger; they incline not to evil, but to
the good, both for us and for you. Ours is not the voice of insolence but of the realization that we
must get out of a situation that is unbearable for everyone. Russia is too big, her needs are to
diverse and many, for her to be ruled only by bureaucrats. We need popular representation; it is
necessary for the people to help itself and to administer itself. After all, only the people knows its
real needs. Do not fend off its help, accept it, and order immediately, at once, that representatives of
the Russian land from all classes, all estates of the realm be summoned, including representatives
from the workers. Let the capitalist be there, and the worker, and the bureaucrat, and the priest, and
the doctor and the teacher--let everyone, whoever they are, elect their representatives. Let everyone
be free and equal in his voting rights, and to that end order that elections to the Constituent
Assembly be conducted under universal, secret and equal suffrage.

This is our main request, everything is based on it; it is the main and only poultice for our
painful wounds, without which those wounds must freely bleed and bring us to a quick death.

But no single measure can heal all our wounds. Other measures are necessary, and we,
representing of all of Russia's toiling class, frankly and openly speak to you, Sovereign, as to a
father, about them.

The following are necessary:

I. Measures against the ignorance of the Russian people

and against its lack of rights

1. Immediate freedom and return home for all those who have suffered for their political and
religious convictions, for strike activity, and for peasant disorders.

2. Immediate proclamation of the freedom and inviolability of the person, of freedom of speech and
of the press, of freedom of assembly, and of freedom of conscience in matters of religion.

3. Universal and compulsory public education at state expense.

4. Accountability of government ministers to the people and a guarantee of lawful administration.

5. Equality of all before the law without exception.

6. Separation of church and state

II. Measures against the poverty of the people

1. Abolition of indirect taxes and their replacement by a direct, progressive income tax.

2. Abolition of redemption payments, cheap credit, and the gradual transfer of land to the people.
3. Naval Ministry contracts should be filled in Russia, not abroad.

4. Termination of the war according to the will of the people.

III. Measures against the oppression of labor by capital

1. Abolition of the office of factory inspector.

2. Establishment in factories and plants of permanent commissions elected by the workers, which
jointly with the administration are to investigate all complaints coming from individual
workers. A worker cannot be fired except by a resolution of this commission.

3. Freedom for producer-consumer cooperatives and workers' trade unions--at once.

4. An eight-hour working day and regulation of overtime work.

5. Freedom for labor to struggle with capital--at once.

6. Wage regulation--at once.

7. Guaranteed participation of representatives of the working classes in drafting a law on state

insurance for workers--at once.

These, sovereign, are our main needs, about which we have come to you; only when they are
satisfied will the liberation of our Motherland from slavery and destitution be possible, only then
can she flourish, only then can workers organize to defend their interests from insolent exploitation
by capitalists and by the bureaucratic administration that plunders and suffocates the people. Give
the order, swear to meet these needs, and you will make Russia both happy and glorious, and your
name will be fixed in our hearts and the hearts of our posterity for all time--but if you do not give
the order, if you do not respond to our prayer, then we shall die here, on this square, in front of your
palace. We have nowhere else to go and no reason to. There are only two roads for us, one to
freedom and happiness, the other to the grave. Let our lives be sacrificed for suffering Russia. We
do not regret that sacrifice, we embrace it eagerly.

Georgii Gapon, priest

Ivan Vasimov, worker.

Translated by Daniel Field
 Manifesto of October 17, 1905

We, Nicholas II, By the Grace of God Emperor and Autocrat of all Russia, King of Poland,
Grand Duke of Finland, etc., proclaim to all Our loyal subjects:

Rioting and disturbances in the capitals [i.e. St. Petersburg and the old capital, Moscow] and in
many localities of Our Empire fill Our heart with great and heavy grief. The well-being of the
Russian Sovereign is inseparable from the well-being of the nation, and the nation's sorrow is
his sorrow. The disturbances that have taken place may cause grave tension in the nation and
may threaten the integrity and unity of Our state.

By the great vow of service as tsar We are obliged to use every resource of wisdom and of Our
authority to bring a speedy end to unrest that is dangerous to Our state. We have ordered the
responsible authorities to take measures to terminate direct manifestations of disorder,
lawlessness, and violence and to protect peaceful people who quietly seek to fulfill their duties.
To carry out successfully the general measures that we have conceived to restore peace to the
life of the state, We believe that it is essential to coordinate activities at the highest level of
government.

We require the government dutifully to execute our unshakeable will:

(1.) To grant to the population the essential foundations of civil freedom, based on the
principles of genuine inviolability of the person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and
association.

(2.) Without postponing the scheduled elections to the State Duma, to admit to participation in
the duma (insofar as possible in the short time that remains before it is scheduled to convene)
of all those classes of the population that now are completely deprived of voting rights; and to
leave the further development of a general statute on elections to the future legislative order.

(3.) To establish as an unbreakable rule that no law shall take effect without confirmation by
the State Duma and that the elected representatives of the people shall be guaranteed the
opportunity to participate in the supervision of the legality of the actions of Our appointed
officials.

We summon all loyal sons of Russia to remember their duties toward their country, to assist in
terminating the unprecedented unrest now prevailing, and together with Us to make every effort
to restore peace and tranquility to Our native land.

Given at Peterhof the 17th of October in the 1905th year of Our Lord and of Our reign the
eleventh.

Nicholas

Translated by Daniel Field

 Imperial Manifesto of June 3, 1907
The Second State Duma, which convened in March 1907 proved to be just
as unwieldy and intransigent from the standpoint of the state as its
predecessor, which had been dissolved the previous year. Frustrated by
the deputies' refusal to consider his proposals, Prime Minister Petr Stolypin
prevailed upon Tsar Nicholas II to dissolve the Second Duma as well.
Drawing on the authority of Article 87 of the Fundamental Laws, which
allowed the government to legislate by decree in the absence of a Duma,
Stolypin then orchestrated a comprehensive revision of the electoral law in
order to insure a conservative majority in the next Duma. The following
manifesto, issued by Nicholas II, justifies the government's actions.

We proclaim to all Our faithful subjects:

Since the time of the dissolution of the first State Duma, the government
has, in accord with Our orders and instructions, undertaken a consistent
series of measures to bring peace to the country and establish a proper
course for affairs of state.

The Second State Duma, which we convened, was called upon to facilitate,
in accord with Our Sovereign will, the restoration of peace to Russia: first of
all, by legislative work, without which it is impossible for the state to live or
for its structure to be perfected; also, by reviewing the budget of revenues
and expenditures, to ensure that the economic activities of the state are
being conducted correctly; and finally, by rationally exercising the right of
interrogating government officials, with a view to strengthening truth and
justice everywhere.

These obligations, which We entrusted to elected deputies from the

population, laid upon them a weighty responsibility and a holy duty to make
use of their rights reasonably, working for the benefit and enhancement of
the Russian state.

Such was Our thought and will in granting the population new foundations
for the life of the state. To Our dismay, a substantial part of the membership
of the Second State Duma did not justify our expectations. Many of those
sent by the population did not undertake their work with a pure heart and
with a desire to strengthen Russia and improve its institutions, but rather
with a flagrant intention of increasing turmoil and encouraging the
disintegration of the state.

The activity of these persons in the State Duma either did not under take
any review at all of the sweeping measures Our government had developed,
or it delayed discussing them or else it rejected them, not even hesitating to
turn down laws which would punish the overt celebration of criminality or
severely punish those who sow disorder in the armed forces. By refusing to
discuss murders and violence, the State Duma failed to render moral
support to the government in the matter of restoring order, and Russia, to
her shame, continued to experience criminal sedition.

The State Duma's dilatory review of the state budget caused difficulty in the
timely satisfaction of many pressing needs of the common people.

A significant part of the Duma perverted the right of interrogating the

government into a means of struggle with the government and of arousing
mistrust for it among wide segments of the population.

Finally there was accomplished a deed unheard of in the annals of history.

The judicial authorities discovered that a whole section of the State Duma
was involved in a conspiracy against the state and the authority of the tsar.
When Our government demanded that the fifty-five members of the Duma
who were accused of this crime be suspended, pending the outcome of the
trial, and that the most seriously implicated of them be confined under
custody, the State Duma did not immediately carry out this lawful demand of
the authorities, which did not admit of any delay.

All of this moved Us to dissolve the Second State Duma by an ukaz to the
Senate of June 3; the new Duma is to be convened on November 1 of this
year.
But, trusting in Our people's love for the motherland and in its statesmanlike
wisdom (gosudarstvennyi razum), We see the cause of the twofold failure in
practice of the State Duma in the fact that this legislative institution was full
of members who did not truly express the needs and desires of the people,
and this was due to the novelty of the situation and to defects in the electoral
law.

Hence, leaving in force all the rights given to Our subjects by the Manifesto
of October 17, 1905, and by the fundamental laws, We have made a
decision to change only the means by which the people's elected
representatives are summoned to the State Duma, so that every part of the
people can have its own chosen men in the Duma.

Since it was created to strengthen the Russian state, the State Duma should
also be Russian in spirit. The other nationalities of which the population of
Our realm is composed should have their spokesmen in the State Duma, but
they should not and will not be there in such number as to give them the
possibility of decisive influence on purely Russian questions. In those
border areas of the state where the population has not attained an adequate
level of citizenship, elections to the State duma must temporarily be brought
to an end.

All these changes in the election system cannot be enacted through the
ordinary legislative route, that is, through the very State Duma whose
composition We have pronounced unsatisfactory. Only the authority that
granted the first electoral law, the historical authority of the Russian tsar, is
adequate to abolish that law and replace it with a new one.

The Lord God had entrusted Us with monarchical authority over Our people.
It is before His throne that We shall give account for the fate of the Russian
realm. From this realization We derive a firm resolve to carry through to the
end the transformation of Russia which we have undertaken, and so grant to
her a new electoral law, which We have ordered the Senate to promulgate.

We expect our faithful subjects to follow the path We have indicated and
render unanimous and ardent service to the motherland, whose sons have
in all times been a solid support to her strength, grandeur and glory.

Given at Peterhof on the 3rd day of June in the 1907th year since the birth of
Christ and in the thirteenth year of our reign.

NICHOLAS
Joseph V. Stalin. On the Industrialization of Russia.
Speech to industrial managers, February 1931.

The late 1920s brought to the Soviet Union both the consolidation of Joseph Stalin's authority as
preeminant leader, and a "great break" in political and economic policy marked by forced
collectivization and breakneck industrialization. In the speech below, Stalin addressed those who
criticized the pace of industrialization and in so doing revealed his conception of Russian history.

It is sometimes asked whether it is not possible to slow down the

tempo somewhat, to put a check on the movement. No,
comrades, it is not possible! The tempo must not be reduced! On
the contrary, we must increase it as much as is within our
powers and possibilities. This is dictated to us by our
obligations to the workers and peasants of the USSR. This is
dictated to us by our obligations to the working class of the
whole world.

To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those

who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No,
we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old Russia
was the continual beatings she suffered because of her
backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol khans. She was
beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by the Swedish
feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian
gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She
was beaten by the Japanese barons. All beat her because of her
backwardness, military backwardness, cultural backwardness, political backwardness, industrial
backwardness, agricultural backwardness. They beat her because to do so was profitable and could
be done with impunity. Do you remember the words of the prerevolutionary poet: "You are poor and
abundant, mighty and impotent, Mother Russia." Those gentlemen were quite familiar with the
verses of the old poet. They beat her, saying: "You are abundant; so one can enrich oneself at your
expense. They beat her, saying: "You are poor and impotent '" so you can be beaten and plundered
with impunity. Such is the law of the exploiters-to beat the backward and the weak. It is the jungle
law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak-therefore you are wrong; hence, you can be
beaten and enslaved. You are mighty-therefore you are right; hence, we must be wary of you.

That is why we must no longer lag behind.

In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have one. But now that we have overthrown
capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people, we have a fatherland, and we will
defend its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its
independence? If you do not want this you must put an end to its backwardness in the shortest
possible time and develop genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist system of economy.
There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution: "Either perish,
or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries."

We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in
ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed.

Source: J. V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, (Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953)
pp. 454-458.