by Riazanovsky
Radishchev's philippic resulted in his being sentenced to death, changed fortunately to ten-year imprisonment in Siberia. Frightened by the French Revolution, Catherine the Great finally turned against the ideas of the Enlightenment, which she had done so much to promote. Novikov and his fellow Masons in Moscow also suffered, and their educational work came to an abrupt end. Edicts against travel and other contacts with the revolu-
tionary West multiplied, reaching absurd proportions in Paul's reign. But the import of the issue proved to be even more profound than a reaction to the French Revolution. Until 1790 the state led Russia on the path of enlightenment. From that year on, it began to apply the brakes. Radishchev's Journey meant the appearance of a radical intellectual protest in Russia, a foretaste of the radical intelligentsia.
Science and Scholarship
While secular philosophy, literary debates, and social criticism stood in the center of the Enlightenment, other aspects of culture also developed at that time. Following the West as usual, Russia proceeded to assimilate modem science, scholarship, and the arts. Science took root slowly in Russia, and for a number of decades the Russians had relatively little in this field, except a number of scholars invited from abroad, some of them of great merit. But - to underline the danger of generalizations and schemes - the one great Russian scientist of the eighteenth century appeared quite early on the scene; moreover, his achievements were very rarely if ever to be matched in the entire annals of science in Russia. This extraordinary man was Michael Lomonosov, born in a peasant family in the extreme northern province of Archangel and educated both in Russia and for five years in Germany, most of that time at Marburg University. Lomonosov, 1711-65, who has already been mentioned as a pioneer grammarian, an important literary scholar, and a gifted poet, was also a chemist, a physicist, an astronomer, a meteorologist, a geologist, a mineralogist, a metallurgist, a specialist in navigation, a geographer, an economist, and a historian, as well as a master of various crafts and a tireless inventor. Pushkin was to refer to him, appropriately, as the first Russian university. In considering the work of Lomonosov, we should remember that he lived before the time of extreme scientific specialization, when a single mind still could master many disciplines, and indeed advance them. Lomonosov represented, in other words, the Russian counterpart of the great encyclopedic scholars of the West.
Lomonosov probably did his best work in chemistry, physics, and the border area between these two sciences. In fact, he developed and in 1751 taught the first course of physical chemistry in the world, and in 1752 he published a textbook in that field. The Russian scientist's other most outstanding achievements included the discovery of the law of the preservation of matter and of energy long before Lavoisier, the discovery of atmosphere on Venus, brilliant studies in electricity, the theory of heat, and optics, and the establishment of the nature and composition of crystals, charcoal, and black earth. Lomonosov's scientific work unfortunately proved far ahead of his time, especially in Russia, where it found no
followers and was fully rediscovered only by Menshutkin and other twentieth-century scholars.
Although Lomonosov remained essentially an isolated individual, the eighteenth century was also noteworthy in Russian history for large-scale, organized scientific effort. That effort took the form of expeditions to discover, explore, or study distant areas of the empire and sometimes neighboring seas and territories. Geography, geology, mineralogy, botany, zoology, ethnography, and philology, as well as some other disciplines, all profited from these well-thought-out and at times extremely daring undertakings. Begun by Peter the Great, the expeditions led to important results even in the first half of the century. For example, Alaska was discovered in 1732. The so-called First Academic Expedition, which lasted from 1733 to 1742 and included 570 participants, successfully undertook the mammoth task of mapping and exploring the northern shore of Siberia. Numerous expeditions, often of great scholarly value, followed later in the century. Peter-Simon Pallas, a versatile and excellent German scientist in Russian service, deserves special credit for his part in them.
The Russians also applied themselves to what can be called the social sciences and the humanities. Mention has already been made of new Russian scholarship in connection with language and literature. Modern Russian study of economics dates from Peter the Great. Ivan Pososhkov, a wealthy peasant, an extraordinary critic and admirer of the first emperor, and the author of a remarkable treatise, Books about Poverty and Wealth, has often been cited as its originator. Pososhkov found his inspiration in Peter the Great's reforms and in the issues facing Russia, not in Western scholarship of which he was ignorant. The study of history too developed quickly in Russia, with the Russians profiting throughout the century from the presence of foreign scholars, such as the outstanding German historian August-Ludwig von Schlozer. Eighteenth-century Russian historians included an important administrator and collaborator of Peter the Great, Basil Tatishchev; Prince Michael Shcherbatov, who argued the case for the rights of the gentry in Catherine the Great's Legislative Commission and produced a number of varied and interesting works; and Major-General Ivan Boltin. From the time of Tatishchev, Russian historians understandably tended to emphasize the role of the monarch and the state.
The Arts. Concluding Remarks
Architecture flourished in eighteenth-century Russia because of the interest and liberality of Peter the Great and his successors. Catherine the Great proved to be a passionate builder, and the same was true of Paul, as well as of Alexander I and Nicholas I in the nineteenth century. St. Petersburg, which rose from the swamps to become one of the truly beautiful and
impressive cities of the world, remains the best monument of this imperial devotion to architecture. Baroque at the beginning of the century and the neoclassical style toward the end of the century dominated European and Russian architecture. The builders in the empire of the Romanovs included a number of gifted foreigners, notably Count Bartolomeo Rastrelli, who came as a boy from Italy to Russia, when his sculptor father was invited by Peter the Great, and who erected the Winter Palace and the Smolny Institute in St. Petersburg and the great palace in Tsarskoe Selo - now Pushkin - together with many other buildings. Some excellent Russian architects, such as Basil Bazhenov and Matthew Kazakov, emerged in the second half of the century.
Other arts also grew and developed. In the 1750's the art section of the Academy of Sciences became an independent Academy of Arts. In the field of painting, portrait painting fared best, as exemplified by the work of Dmitrii Levitsky, 1735-1822 - the son, incidentally, of a priest who painted icons. Fedot Shubin, 1740-1805, like Lomonosov a peasant from the extreme north, was the first important Russian sculptor. Having received his initial training in his family of bone carvers, he went on to obtain the best artistic education available in St. Petersburg, Italy, and France, and to win high recognition abroad as well as at home. Shubin's sculptures are characterized by expressiveness and realism.
The eighteenth century also witnessed the appearance in Russia of modern music, notably the opera, as well as ballet and the theater. All of these arts came from the West and gradually, in the course of the century, entrenched themselves in their new locale. All were to be greatly enriched in the future by Russian genius. As to theater, while Peter the Great invited German actors and later sovereigns sponsored French and Italian troupes, a native Russian theater became established only in the 1750's. Its creator was a merchant's son, Theodore Volkov, who organized a successful theater in Iaroslavl on the Volga and was then requested to do the same in the capital. Catherine the Great herself contributed to the new repertoire of Russian plays. By the end of the century Russia possessed several public theaters, a theatrical school, and a periodical, The Russian Theater, which began to appear in 1786. Furthermore, theater had won popularity among the great landlords, who maintained some fifteen private theaters in Moscow alone.
Russian culture of 1800 bore little resemblance to that of 1700. In brief, Rus
sia - that is, upper-class, educated Russia - had become Westernized. The huge effort to learn that dominated Russian culture in the eighteenth century was to bear rich fruit. Many Russians, however, from the time of Peter the Great to the present, have worried about this wholesale borrowing from the West. From Pososhkov and Lomonosov to Soviet specialists they have tried to minimize the role of the West and to emphasize native Russian
achievements. Unusual among the better pre-revolutionary scholars, this view eventually received a heavy official endorsement in the Soviet Union. As a result, many Soviet discussions of Russia and the West in the eighteenth century became ridiculous. Although common, wounded national pride is an unfortunate and usually unjustified sentiment. To be sure, the Russians not only borrowed from the West, but also assimilated Western culture. For that matter, only two major European countries, England and France, can claim a full continuity of intellectual, literary, and cultural development, and even they, of course, experienced any number of foreign influences. Besides - and to conclude - while the origin of a heritage is important to the historian, its use may well be considered still more significant. We have seen something of that use in this chapter, and shall see much more of it in our subsequent discussions of Russian culture.
XXV
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER I, 1801-25
The book of a brilliant, magnanimous reign opened! Victory is inscribed in it: the conquest of Finland, Bessarabia, Persian territories, the defeat of Napoleon and of the armies of twenty nations, the liberation of Moscow, the capture of Paris twice, the annexation to Russia of the Kingdom of Poland. Magnanimity is inscribed in it: the liberation of Europe, the placing of the Bourbons on the thrones of France, Spain, and the Two Sicilies, the Holy Alliance, the sparing of Paris. There love of learning pointed to the creation of six universities, an academy, a lyceum. There mercy wrote actions worthy of it: rescue of the unfortunate ones, generous pardon of criminals and even of those who insulted His Majesty. There justice marked the affirmation of the rights of the gentry and the law giving the accused full freedom to defend themselves. All the virtues which ennoble man and adorn a tsar mark in this book the reign of Alexander. How many sovereigns of this earth stood impressive in their power and glory, but were there many who, like him, combined humility with power and goodness to enemies with the victories? Alexander of Greece! Caesar of Rome! your laurels are spattered with blood, ambition unsheathed your sword. Our Alexander triumphed virtuously: he wanted to establish in the world the peace of his own soul.
FEDOROV
If, during the two centuries which divide the Russia of Peter the Great from the Bolshevik revolution, there was any period in which the spell of the authoritarian past might have been overcome, the forms of the state liberalized in a constitution, and the course of Russian development merged with the historic currents of the west, it is the earlier part of the reign of Alexander I. Or so, for a moment, one is tempted to think.
CHARQUES
Alexander I was twenty-three years old when, following the deposition and assassination of his father, Emperor Paul, he ascended the Russian throne. The new monarch's personality and manner of dealing with other men had thus already been formed, and it is the psychology of the emperor that has fascinated those who became acquainted with him, both his contemporaries and later scholars. Moreover, there seems to be little agreement about Alexander I beyond the assertion that he was "the most complex and most elusive figure among the emperors of Russia." This unusual sovereign has been called "the enigmatic tsar," a sphinx, and "crowned Hamlet," not to mention other similarly mystifying appellations. Strik-
ing contradictions or alleged contradictions appear in the autocrat's character and activities. Thus Alexander I was hailed as a liberal by many men, Thomas Jefferson among them, and denounced as a reactionary by numerous others, including Byron. He was glorified as a pacifist, the originator of the Holy Alliance, and in general a man who did the utmost to establish peace and a Christian brotherhood on earth. Yet this "angel" - an epithet frequently applied to Alexander I, especially within the imperial family and in court circles - was also a drill sergeant and a parade-ground enthusiast. Some students of Alexander I's foreign policy have concluded that the tsar was a magnificent and extremely shrewd diplomat, who consistently bested Napoleon. Napoleon himself, it might be added, called him "a cunning Byzantine." But other scholars, again on good evidence, have emphasized the Russian ruler's mysticism and even his growing detachment from reality.
Various elements in the emperor's background have been cited to help account for his baffling character. There was, to begin with, Alexander's difficult childhood and boyhood, in particular his ambiguous relations with his father, Paul, and his grandmother, Catherine the Great, who hated each other. Alexander spent more time with Catherine than with his parents, and he learned early the arts of flattery, dissimulation, and hypocrisy, or at least so his boyhood letters indicate. The empress took a great liking to Alexander from the very beginning and apparently wanted to make him her successor, bypassing Paul. Quite possibly only the suddenness of her death upset this plan. Education also influenced the future emperor's character, views, and activities. Catherine the Great took a personal interest in Alexander's upbringing, which was guided by the ideas of the Enlightenment. A prominent Swiss philosophe and liberal, Frederic-Cesar de LaHarpe, acted as the grand duke's chief tutor and became his close friend. Yet LaHarpe's instruction, full of progressive ideas and humane sentiments, had its disadvantages. LaHarpe, that "very liberal and garrulous French booklet," as Kliuchevsky described the tutor, and his teaching had little in common with Russian reality. The contrast between theory and practice characteristic of Alexander I's reign has been derived by some scholars from this one-sided education. The circumstances of Alexander I's accession to the throne have also been analyzed for their effect on the sovereign's character and rule. Alexander found himself in a precarious position during Paul's reign, especially because Paul thought of divorcing his wife and of disinheriting Alexander and his other sons by her. The young grand duke almost certainly knew of the conspiracy against his father, but the murder of Emperor Paul came to him apparently as a surprise and a shock. Certain critics attribute to the tragedy of his accession Alexander I's strong feeling of guilt and his later mysticism and lack of balance.
Behind Alexander I's reactions to particular incidents and situations of his life there was, of course, his basic character. Alexander I remains a mystery in the sense that human personality has not been and perhaps cannot be fully explained. Yet his psychological type is not especially uncommon, as psychiatrists, psychologists, and observant laymen attest. The emperor belonged with those exceedingly sensitive, charming, and restless men and women whose lives display a constant irritation, search, and disappointment. They lack balance, consistency, and firmness of purpose. They are contradictory. Alexander I's inability to come to terms with himself and pursue a steady course explains his actions much better, on the whole, than do allegations of cynicism or Machiavellianism. As is characteristic for the type, personal problems grew with the passage of time: the emperor became more and more irritable, tired, and suspicious of people, more dissatisfied with life, more frantically in search of a religious or mystical answer; he even lost some of his proverbial charm. The autocrat died in 1825, only forty-eight years old. However, as if to continue the mystery of Alexander I, some specialists insist that he did not die, but escaped from the throne to live in Siberia as a saintly hermit Theodore, or Fedor, Kuzmich. Based on such circumstantial evidence as the emperor's constant longing to shed the burdens of his office, and a court physician's refusal to sign the death warrant, this supposition needs further proof, although it cannot be entirely dismissed. Suicide might offer another explanation for a certain strangeness and confusion associated with the sovereign's death.
Liberalism and Reform
The Russians rejoiced at the accession of Alexander I. In place of an exacting and unpredictable tyrant, Paul
, they obtained a young ruler of supreme charm and apparently enormous promise. Alexander I seemed to represent the best of the Enlightenment - that humaneness, progressive-ness, affirmation of human dignity, and freedom, which educated Russians, in one way or another, fervently desired. The new emperor's first acts confirmed the expectations. An amnesty restored to their former positions up to twelve thousand men dismissed by Paul; the obnoxious restrictions on travel abroad and on the entry into Russia of foreigners as well as of foreign books and periodicals were abrogated; the censorship was relaxed, and private publishing houses were again allowed to open; torture in investigation was abolished; and the charters granted by Catherine the Great to the gentry and to towns regained their full force. But, of course, these welcome measures marked at best only the beginning of a liberal program. The key issues to be faced included serfdom and autocracy, together with the general backwardness of the country and the inadequacy and corruption of its