Introduction

Notes

Introduction

1. Marc Raeff, “Les Slavs; Les Allemands et les ‘Lumières,” Canadian Slavic Studies 1, no. 4 (1967): 521–51. See also idem, “The Well- Ordered Police State and the Development of Modernity in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth Century Europe,” in Mark Raeff, Political Ideas and Institutions in Imperial Russia (Oxford: Westview Press, 1994), 317–22; On natural law in Russia, see also Thomas Nemeth, “Kant in Russia: The Initial Phase,” Studies in Soviet Thought 36, no. 1 (1988): 79–110; “Kant in Russia: The Initial Phrase (Cont’d),” Studies in Soviet Thought 40 (Dec 1990): 293–338; A. N. Kruglov, Filosofiia Kanta v Rossii v kontse XVIII–pervoi polovine XIX vekov (Moscow, 2009). 2. See Derek Offord, Portraits of Early Russian Liberals: A Study of the Thought of T. N. Granovsky, V. P. Botkin, P .V. Annenkov, A. V. Druzhinin and K. D. Kavelin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 3; Laura Engelstein, Slavophile Empire: Imperial Russia’s Illiberal Path (Cornell University Press: Ithaca, 2009), 4. 3. See, for instance, the biographies of Timofei Granovskii and Boris Chicherin, Offord, Portraits of Early Russian Liberals, 45–105; Priscilla Roosevelt, Apostle of Russian Liberalism: Timofei Granovsky (Newtonville, Mass.: Oriental Research Partners, 1986); G. M. Hamburg, Boris Chicherin and Early Russian Liberalism, 1828–1866 (Stanford University Press, 1992). 4. On the lack of interest in the bourgeois values among the Russian liberals, see Derek Offord, “ ‘Lichnost’: Notions of Individual Identity,” in Constructing Russian Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881–1940, eds. Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 15; Frances Nethercott, “Russian Liberalism and the Philosophy of Law,” in A History of Russian Philosophy, 1830–1930, G. M. Hamburg and Randall Pool, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 256; Richard Wortman, “Property Rights, Populism, and Political Culture,” in Civil Rights in Imperial Russia, eds. Olga Crisp and Linda Edmondson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 14. It is, however, an exaggeration to say, as Szamuely did, that “Russian political literature, from Radishchev to Lenin, contains not a sin- gle work on legal theory, constitutionalism, the rights of man, the natural law or kindred subjects.” See T. Szamuely, The Russian Tradition (London: McGraw- Hill, 1974), 171. Andrzej Walicki convincingly argued that among the mid-to- late-nineteenth- century thinkers there were a number of legal philosophers who made the defense of law and property right central to their writings. See Andrzej Walicki, Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). On the philosophy of individualism in the West, see Steven Lukes, Individualism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1973). 5. On the dichotomies on the Slavophiles’ and Westernizers’ thought, see G. M. Hamburg and Randall Poole, “The Humanist Tradition in Russian Philosophy,” in A History of Russian Philosophy, 11–13; Offord, “Alexander Herzen,” in ibid., 52–68; idem, “ ‘Lichnost’,” 20; Leonard Schapiro, “Liberalism in Russia,” in

199 200 Notes to Pages 4–6

idem, Russian Studies, ed. Ellen Darrendorf with an introduction by Harry Willetts (London: Collins, 1986), 47. 6. See Offord, “ ‘Lichnost’,” 15. 7. For Russia’s social history, see Elise Kimberling Wirtschafter, Social Identity in Imperial Russia (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1997). 8. For the gentry’s attitude toward serfs, see Esther Kingston- Mann, In Search of True West (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 51, 83–5. 9. F. N. Smirnov, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskie i pravovye vzgliady A. P. Kunitsyna” (Kandidat. Diss., Moscow, 1966), 19. See also idem, “Delo russkogo prosvetitelia pravoveda A. P. Kunitsyna,” Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1964, no. 1:63–5; idem, “A. P. Kunitsyn i dekabristy,” Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1961, no. 5:60–9; idem, “Mirovozzrenie A. P. Kunitsyna,” Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1963, no. 5:74–85. 10. A. F. Zaitsev, Mirovozzrenie A. P. Kunitsyna. Avtoreferat dissertatsii (Moscow, 1951), 3, 9. 11. Z. A. Kamenskii, Filosofskie idei russkogo prosveshcheniia (Moscow, 1971), 44, 46, 49. 55. For similar remarks, see I. Ia. Shchipanov, Filosofiia russkogo prosveshcheniia (Moscow, 1977), 247, 250, 252. Other Soviet historians of the 1960s and 1970s tried to avoid such labels, but their articles on Kunitsyn, treating as they are only selected aspects of his work, do not amount to a comprehensive exam- ination of his ideas. See V. N. Speranskii, “Sotsial’no- politicheskie vzgliady A. P. Kunitsyna,” Uchenye zapiski Gor’kovskogo gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 72 (1964): 823–88; I. I. Solodkin “Ugolovno-pravovye vozzreniia A. P. Kunitsyna,” Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta, 1966, no. 11:122–7; N. M. Mikhailovskaia, “A. P. Kunitsyn v zhurnale Syn Otechestva,” Voprosy istorii i teorii literatury, 1966, no. 11:165–70; N. Iu. Kalitkina, “A. P. Kunitsyn—professor Peterburgskogo universiteta,” Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta, Seriia Ekonomika, Filosofiia, Pravo, 1969, no. 5:147–9; N. Ia. Kuprits, “A. P. Kunitsyn—uchitel’ Pushkina i pravoved,” Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 1978, no. 3:106–12. 12. The best biography of Kunitsyn in Russian is an article- length study by M. A. Liubavin, Litseiskie uchitelia Pushkina i ikh knigi (St. Petersburg, 1997), 25–71; See also Iu. D. Margolis and G. A. Tishkin, Edinym vdokhnoveniem. Ocherki istorii universitetskogo obrazovaniia v Peterburge v kontse XVIII-pervoi polovine XIX veka (St. Petersburg, 2000), 133–49; O. A. Iatsenko “A. P. Kunitsyn: nevostrebovannoe nasledie,” Veche, 1995, no. 2:25–41. 13. The term “early liberalism” is now often applied to the era of Nicholas I. See Anthony Netting, “Russian Liberalism: The Years of Promise: 1842–1855” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1967); Derek Offord, Portraits of Early Russian Liberals. By contrast, Hamburg associates the same period with proto- liberalism. He argues that “Russian liberalism in the programmatic sense did not exist before 1855. Earlier, the leading doctrines of Russian social thought were Westernism and Slavophilism.” See G. M. Hamburg, Boris Chicherin,11. Leaving aside a contentious issue of the chronology of Russian liberalism, these are excellent studies that reveal the richness and complexity of Russian intellectual life in the mid- nineteenth century. In his recent review of Russian and Anglophone historiography of Russian liberalism, Konstantin Shneider also identifies mid 1850s as “the early stage in the development of Russian liberalism.” See, Konstantin Shneider, “Was There an “Early Russian Liberalism”? Perspectives from Russian and Anglo-American Historiography,” Kritika 7, no. 4 (2006): 825–41. 14. On Speranskii’s liberalism see John Gooding, “The Liberalism of Michael Speransky,” The Slavonic and East European Review 64, no. 3 (1986): 401-24. Notes to Pages 6–9 201

Leontovitch in his pioneering work on Russian liberalism was primarily interested in the enlightened monarchs and reforming bureaucrats. See V. V. Leontovitch, Geschichte des Liberalismus in Russland (Frankfurt- am- Main, 1957), also published in Russian, Istoriia liberalizma v Rossii 1762–1914 (Paris, 1980). 15. See James Flynn, The University Reform of Tsar Alexander I 1802–1835 (Washington: The Catholic University Academic Press, 1988), 110; Cynthia Whittaker, The Origins of Modern Russian Education: An Intellectual Biography of Count Sergei Uvarov, 1786–1855 (Dekalb, Ill: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984), 78, 81. 16. Barry Hollingsworth, “A. P. Kunitsyn and the Social Movement in Russia under Alexander I,” Slavonic and East European Review 43, no. 100 (1964): 116–28. 17. Marc Raeff, “Some Reflections on Russian liberalism,” Russian Review 18, no. 3 (1959); William H. Chamberlin, “The Short Life of Russia Liberalism,” Russian Review 26, no. 2 (1967); As Medushevskii put it, “it is much more interesting to study the history of liberalism than the history of liberals, that is the real contribution of liberal ideology into creating a new society and its political institutions.” See A. N. Medushevskii, Istoriia Russkoi sotsiologii (Moscow, 1993), 110–111. In Russian scholarship, the ideology of liberalism is often associated with the capitalist phase of Russian economy. See, for instance, V. Pustarnakov, Liberalizm v Rossii (Kazan’, 2002), 20–1. For a detailed review of Russian scholarship on the history of liberalism, see V. Shelokhaev, “Russian Liberalism in Terms of Historiography and Historiosophy,” Social Sciences 30 (June 1999) online via CIAO www.ciaonet.org. 18. Marc Raeff, “Some Reflections on Russian liberalism,” 226. 19. Chamberlin, “The Short Life of Russia Liberalism,” 144. 20. My understanding of Western liberalism is shaped by the works of Willson H. Coates and Hayden V. White, The Ordeal of Liberal Humanism: An Intellectual History (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970), 3–51; and John Gray, Liberalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995). 21. For similar views, see V. Shelokhaev, “Russian Liberalism in Terms of Historiography and Historiosophy,” Social Sciences 30, no. 2 (1999) online via CIAO www.ciaonet.org. 22. The idea that liberal- minded intellectuals in Russia were able to “implicitly challenge the official obscurantism” was developed by Derek Offord. See Offord, xi. 23. Based on these criteria, he classified K. Kavelin as a Westernizer rather than liberal. See Daniel Field, “Kavelin and Russian Liberalism,” Slavic Review 32, no. 1 (1973): 59–78. 24. Field also proposed a destriptive approach, while rejecting the validity of the term “liberal.” See Ibid. 25. Netting, 10. 26. Ibid., 12. 27. Offord, xiii. 28. Some steps in this direction were made in Russian scholarship. See E. L. Rudnitskaia, “Aleksander Ivanovich Turgenev,” in Rossiiskie liberaly, eds. B. S. Itenberg and V. V. Shelokhaev (Moscow, 2001), 15–52; P. V. Akulshin, P. A. Viazemskii: Vlast’ i obschestvo v dorevolutsionnoi Rossii (Moscow, 2001); D. Osipov, Filosofiia russkogo liberalizma XIX–nachalo XX v. (St. Petersburg, 1996); A. V. Gogolevskii, Ocherki istorii russkogo liberalisma XIX–n.XX v. (St. Petersburg, 1996); The fact that Walicki in his pioneering study of legal philosophers omit- ted to mention any thinkers of the early nineteenth century inadvertently strengthened the current view of the lateness of Russian liberal tradition. 202 Notes to Pages 10–15

29. See Coates and White 2:6.

1 Formative Years

1. P. A. Nikolaev, ed., Russkie pisateli 1800–1917. Biograficheskii slovar’ (Moscow, 1994), 3:229. 2. Gregory L. Freeze, The Russian Levities: Parish Clergy in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977), 22, 34, 37; P. V. Znamenskii, Dukhovnye shkoly v Rossii do reformi 1808 (St. Petersburg, 2001), 550–1, 555. 3. Freeze, The Russian Levities, 89. 4. P. V. Znamenskii, 567, 563–4. 5. M. A. Liubavin, 26. 6. On the clergy’s income and living status, see V. A. Fedorov, Ruskaia pravoslavnaia tserkov’ i gosudarstvo v sinodal’nyi period (1700–1917) (Moscow, 2003), 40–1. 7. Znamenskii, 761, 753–4; Freeze, The Russian Levities, 95, 110. 8. Freeze, The Russian Levities, 90–4. In the eighteenth century, the average salary of the upper- level teacher was sixty rubles; of the lower level, twenty to thirty rubles; Znamenskii, 663, 268–30. Even in the early nineteenth century, when allowance was substantially increased, living and study conditions in many seminaries were shockingly poor. See, for instance, the memoirs of the village priest Ivan Beliustin in Fedorov, 351–68. 9. Znamenskii, 677. 10. Znamenskii, 471–601. 11. V. Kolosov, Istoria Tverskoi dukhovnoi seminarii (Tver’, 1889), 144, 240. 12. The reminiscences of Konstantin Arsen’ev, Kunitsyn’s future colleague in the Pedagogical Institute, who went through the years of study in Kostroma Ecclesiastical Seminary in the early nineteenth century, provide a good illus- tration of the level of teaching in provincial seminaries. He wrote, “Teachers were favorable to me but I acquired little knowledge. The reason for that was ignorance and inability of the teachers. They . . . taught what they themselves had learned in twenty, thirty years . . . used old textbooks and forced us to memorize everything by heart . . . only frequent exercises in composition and knowledge of the German language were of benefit to me in the later years.” See P. Pekarskii, Istoricheskie bumagi K. I. Arsen’eva (St. Petersburg, 1872), 2. 13. A. F. Abramov, “Khristian Vol’f v russkoi dukhovno-akademicheskoi filosofii,” in Khristian Vol’f i filosofiia v Rossii, ed. A. V. Zhuchkov (St. Petersburg, 2001), 190, 198; [Ch. Baumeister] Kh. Baumaistera metafizika (Moscow, 1764). It was republished in 1789 and 1894. A revised edition appeared in 1809. [idem.] Nravouchitel’naia filosofiia, soderzhashchaia estestvennoe pravo, etiku, politiku, ekonomiiu i drugie veshchi, dlia znaniia nuzhnye i poleznye, trans. D. Sin’kovskii (Moscow, 1788); [idem] Khristiana Baumeistera nravouchitel’naia filosofiia v pol’zu blagorodnogo iunoshestva (Moscow, 1788). 14. Similarly, Baumeister’s textbook on metaphysics contained in a condensed form Wolffian Ontology, Cosmology, Psychology and Natural Theology. Unlike Wolff’s other disciples in the eighteenth century, Baumeister was rather an uncritical Wolffian, whose major objection concerned Wolff’s idea of pre- established harmony, which Baumeister tended to treat as no more than a hypothesis. See Abramov, 200, 197. Notes to Pages 15–19 203

15. For an analysis of Wolffian philosophy, see Lewis W. Beck, Early German Philosophy: Kant and His Predecessors (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969), 256–75; Ian Hunter, Rival Enlightenments: Civil and Metaphysical Philosophy in Early Modern Germany (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 266–70; Charles A. Corr, “Christian Wolff and Leibniz,” Journal of the History of Ideas 36, no. 2 (1975): 241–62. 16. [Ch. Baumeister] Nravouchitel’naia filosofiia (Moscow, 1788), 245, 292. 17. On educational reforms, see James T. Flynn, The University Reform of Tsar Alexander I 1802–1835 (Washington: The Catholic University Academic Press, 1988), 20–8; William H. Johnson, Russia’s Educational Heritage (New York: Octagon, 1969), 63–87, 109–33. 18. Znamenskii, 585. 19. [Rossiia. Ministerstvo narodnogo prosveshcheniia] Sbornik postanovlenii po ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniia (St. Petersburg, 1864), 2:187 (henceforth cited as Sbornik postanovlenii). The Institute accepted one class every three years and, starting from 1806, every four years. By the fourth admission, students’ social background became more heterogeneous. On the Teacher’s Gymnasium and Institute, see M. F. Shabaeva, Ocherki istorii shkoly i pedagogicheskoi mysli narodov SSSR XVIII–pervaia polovina XIX v (Moscow, 1973), 275–6; Johnson, 109–33; Iu. D. Margolis and G. A. Tishkin, Otechestvu na pol’zu, a Rossianam na slavu. Iz istorii universitetskogo obrazovaniia v Peterburge v XVIII–nachale XIX v (Leningrad, 1988), 3–4. 20. TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, op.1, d. 86, ll. 1–4; d. 145, ll. 1–11; d. 115, ll. 1–10. 21. TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, op. 1, d. 189, l. 1. 22. One of such complaints was met with an explicit prohibition of beating the students issued to the steward (econom). See TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, op. 1, d. 184, ll. 1–1ob. 23. TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, op. 1. d. 147, l. 1. The case is dated by 1806 when Russia entered the fourth anti- Napoleonic coalition, which increased the need for recruits. In 1811 the Ministry of Education officially announced that this measure could be applied to state- supported students in any Russian institution. See Sbornik postanovlenii 1:632. 24. Sbornik postanovlenii 1:222, 223–4. 25. Ibid. 224. 26. TsGIA(SPb), f. 14, op. 1, d. 71, 1. 1. 27. TsGIA(SPb) f. 13, op. 1, d. 260, ll. 1–4. 28. M. I. Sukhomlinov, Issledovaniia i stat’i po russkoi literature i prosveshcheniu, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1889), 1:60–1; Flynn, The University Reform, 122. 29. Sbornik postanovlenii 1:215–19. 30. Ibid., 206. 31. David Edwards, “Count Joseph de Maistre and Russian Educational Policy, 1803–1828,” Slavic Review 36, no. 1 (1977): 55. 32. Sbornik postanovlennii 1:206–7. 33. Kosachevskaia’s statement that professors of “Karpato- Ruthinian” origin were able to teach in Russian needs to be qualified. See E. M. Kosachevskaia, M. A. Balug’ianskii i Peterburgskii universitet pervoi chetverti XIX veka (Leningrad, 1971), 73. Indeed, professor of philosophy from L’vov University Petr Lodii and professor of law Kukol’nik from Zamost’e Lyceum had no difficulty teaching in Russian, but Balug’ianskii’s Russian in those years was far from satisfactory, as attested by Alexander Turgenev. See Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh, 204 Notes to Pages 20–21

ed. E. Tarasov, 6 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1911–1921), 2:404. The Iinstitute also had French- and German- speaking professors who taught in their native lan- guages. The archive of the institute contains many documents penned by foreign faculty at one time or another, all of which were written in French or German. For a biography of P. Lodii and V. Kukol’nik, see T. Baitsura, Zakarpatoukrainskaia intelligentsia v Rossii v pervoi polovine XIX veka (Priashev, 1971), 27–54. 34. Sbornik postanovlenii 1:216. On Sonnenfels, see Robert A. Kann, A Study in Austrian Intellectual History (London: Thames and Hudson, 1960), 146–258. For cameralist ideas in Russia, see Marc Raeff, “The Well- Ordered Police State,” 319–21. 35. Esther Kingston- Mann, “In the Light and Shadow of the West: The Impact of Western Economics in Pre- Emancipation Russia,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 33, no. 1 (1991): 95–6. For reception of Smith’s ideas in nineteenth-century Russia, see also Susan P. McCaffray, “What Should Russia Be? Patriotism and Political Economy in the Thought of N. S. Mordvinov,” Slavic Review 59, no. 3 ( 2000): 575–82; Roderick McGrew, “Dilemmas of Development: Baron Heinrich Friedrich Storch (1766–1835) on the Growth of Imperial Russia,” in Adam Smith Across the Nations Translations and Perceptions of Wealth of Nations, ed. Cheng- chung Lai (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 288–9; Andrei Anikin, “Adam Smith in Russia” in Adam Smith: International Perspectives, ed. Hiroshi Mizuta and Chunei Sugiyama (New York: St. Martin Press, 1993), 252–4. 36. Balug’ianskii published some of his lecture material in The Journal of Statistics (Statisticheskii Zhurnal). These articles contain his lectures on the ideas of mer- cantilists, physiocrats, and Smith. The (unpublished) lectures of his student Arsen’ev also provide some information about the nature of Balug’ianskii’s course. See M. Balug’ianskii, “O natsional’nom bogatstve,” “Stat’ia teor- eticheskaia o razdelenii i oborote bogatstva,” Statisticheskii Zhurnal, Vol. 1–2 (St. Petersburg, 1806–1807). For Balug’ianskii’s biography and analysis of Arsen’ev’s lecture notes, see E. M. Kosachevskaia, M. A. Balug’ianskii i Peterburgskii universitet,; idem, “M. A. Balug’ianskii v Peterburgskom universitete,” in Ocherki po istorii Leningradskogo universiteta, ed. N. G. Sladkevich (Leningrad, 1962), 39–67. 37. Statisticheskii zhurnal 1, pt. 2:38. Cf. Smith’s definition of slavery, which he applied to Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe: “Whatever cultivation and improvement could be carried on by means of such slaves, was property carried on by their master . . . The seed, the cattle, and the instruments of husbandry were all his . . . such slaves could acquire nothing but their daily sustenance.” Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. R. Campbell and A. S. Skinner, 2 vols (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1979), 1:387. 38. Statisticheskii zhurnal 1, pt. 1:33–5, 76. 39. Kosachevskaia, “M. A. Balugianskii,” 46–8. 40. Ibid., 51; Susan Smith- Peter, “Defining the Russia People: Konstantin Arsen’ev and Russian Statistics before 1861,” History of Science 45, no. 1 (2007): 47–64. 41. See A. Nikitenko, “Alexander Ivanovich Galich byvshii professor filosofii v Peterburgskom universitete,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia CXLI (1869): 5. 42. Istoricheskie bumagi, 6. Notes to Pages 21–24 205

43. Nikitenko, “Alexander Ivanovich Galich,” 4–5. 44. Istoricheskie bumagi, 5; TsGIA (SPb), f. 13, op.1, d. 249, ll.1–17. 45. TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, op. 1, d, 577, l. 1. The titles of the textbooks, which Lodii was supposed to use, were not specified in the instructions. According to Fel’dshtein, it was Martini, De Lege naturali Positiones (Vienna, 1782) and [F. Zeiller] F. Tseiler, Chastnoe Estestvennoe pravo (St. Petersburg, 1809). See G. S. Fel’dshtein, “Glavnye techeniia v istorii prava Rossii,” Vremennik Demidovskogo Iuridicheskogo litseia 103 (Yaroslavl’, 1910), 492. See also Baitsura, 130. On Martini, see Michael Hebeis, Karl Anton von Martini (1726–1800), Leben und Werk (Frankfurt-am- Mein, 1996), 54–63, 69–107; Mathew W. Finkin, “Menschenbild: The Concept of the Employee as a Person in Western Law,” Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal 23, no. 4 (2002): 611; Paul Silverman, “The Cameralist Roots of Menger’s Achievement,” in Carl Menger in His Legacy in Economics, ed. Bruce Caldwell (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 79. On Martini’s textbook in Russia, see Chapter 5. 46. See V. V. Grigor’ev, S. Peterburgskii universitet v techenie pervykh piatidesiati let ego sushchestvovaniia (St. Petersburg, 1870), 12–13. Lodii’s own textbook on natural law published in 1828 relied heavily on Martini’s textbook. For more on Martini and Zeiller in Russia, see Chapters 5 and 7. 47. To compare, the annual salary of a full professor at the university was 2,000 rubles. 48. TsGIA(SPb) f. 13, op. 1, d. 260, l. 1–3. 49. TsGIA(SPb), f.13, op. 1, d. 231, l, 4. 50. Semen Desnitskii and Ivan Tret’iakov were among the most famous benefi- ciaries of this program in the second half of the eighteenth century. Both became professors of Moscow University and early disseminators of A. Smith’s ideas in Russia. See Norman W. Taylor, “Adam Smith’s First Russian Disciple,” in Adam Smith Across Nations, 248–61; A. N. Brown, “The Father of Russian Jurisprudence: The Legal Thought of S. E. Desnitskii,” in Russian Law in Historical Perspective, ed. E. Butler (Leyden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1977), 117–42. 51. One student wrote: “Since that time the thought of going abroad entered my mind. This thought was my favorite dream throughout all my student years. It stimulated my diligence. I made every effort to excel my classmates.” This student was selected to study abroad in 1810, but the trip was can- celled because of the financial difficulties prior to the Napoleonic Wars. See Pekarskii, 4, 8. 52. Sbornik postanovlenii 1:461. 53. TsGIA(SPb) f. 13, op. 1, d. 231, ll. 91–5. 54. Ibid. l. 93. 55. P. M. Maikov, Vtoroe otdelenie sobstevennoi ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva kantseliarii 1826–1882 (St. Petersburg, 1906), 60; P. M. Maikov, “Speranskii i studenty zakonovedeniia,” Russkii Vestnik 263 (August 1899), 680. 56. Shabaeva, 275. 57. On the fate of M. Plisov, professor of political economy, and A. Galich, professor of philosophy, see Flynn, The University Reform, 112. 58. The only book- long study of N. Turgenev in Western scholarship is the unpublished doctoral dissertation written more than forty years ago by B. Hollingsworth. See B. Hollingsworth, “Nicholas Turgenev: His Life and Works” (Ph.D. Diss., Cambridge University, 1966). Russian scholarship on Turgenev dates back to the early Soviet period and is considerably flawed in a typical 206 Notes to Pages 24–25

Marxist manner. See E. Tarasov, Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev v Aleksandrovskuu epokhu (Samara, 1924); A. N. Shebunin, N. I. Turgenev (Moscow, 1925); A. N. Shebunin, “Brat’ia Turgenevy i dvorianskoe obshchestvo Aleksandrovskoi epokhi,” in Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev Pis’ma, ed. N. G. Svirin (Moscow, 1936), 5–86. 59. See Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:132–3, 139. 60. Ibid. 325, 333. 61. See TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, d. 623, l.1–3. Despite his own financial difficulties, Kunitsyn asked Alexander Turgenev, Nicholas’s older brother, to establish a monthly allowance of ten rubles for his brother in St. Petersburg, which Kunitsyn was to repay to Nicholas to avoid losses in sending money from abroad. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenvykh contains Kunitsyn’s letter to Alexander Turgenev where he thanked him for news about his brother (of whom he heard nothing for two years and already considered him deceased), and asked Alexander to “alleviate the fate of the unfortunate young man.” Kunitsyn’s brother studied in the seminary but was conscripted into the army for his hot temper and lack of diligence. Nevertheless, Kunitsyn wrote warmly about his brother, trying to justify his behavior. See Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:328–9. Alexander helped to find for Kunitsyn’s brother (who could no longer serve in the army because of his injuries) a small position in A. Arakcheev’s chan- cellery and provided the monthly allowance, but Nicholas refused to accept Kunitsyn’s money, knowing that he himself “has very little to live on.” See Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:394, 361, 364, 368, 370, 376. 62. Ibid. 267, 298, 392, 272, 331. 63. Ibid. 267; and similar statements, ibid. 203, 208. 64. N. Turgenev recorded his recurring feelings of boredom, anguish (toska), and suffering ever since he began his diary in 1806 (that is, two years before his departure for Germany) and long after his return. Far from being an objective description of his otherwise comfortable life punctuated with regular social diversions, this experience was an expression of the sublime sensibility, which presupposed an element of purifying and enlightening moral suffering. “It is only through sufferings,” he wrote, “that a man can learn the value of future life and the emptiness of present [existence]. Having accustomed to endure and suffer, he necessarily learns to despise Fortuna’s inconstancy, [he] learns to philosophize and through that, finds consolation for his misfortunes and becomes happier.” See Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevikh 1:6. 65. Ibid. 213. 66. Ibid. 305. 67. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 2:25–6; 29, 42. 68. Ibid. 42. The vice- rector’s unflattering opinion of German students was not unwarranted. Both Alexander and Nicholas (several years later) indignantly noted that many students used to sleep even at the interesting lectures. See Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:372; 2:29. 69. Ibid., 1:267. 70. His brother Alexander was less affected by this prejudice. In one of his letters to Alexander, Nicholas, speaking of Germans in his usual tone, wrote: “You seem to have lived long enough in Germany but still love this people.” Ibid. 331. 71. Ibid. 337. 72. Ibid. 334. Notes to Pages 26–29 207

73. Ibid. 296–7. 74. Ibid. 270, 279, 305. 75. “Last Sunday Sergei arrived and my desert bloomed. I asked him a lot of questions about Russia and from all [he said] I can see that . . . everything humiliated itself (sic) and is humiliated, everything is in awful and most strange disarray.” See Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:270. 76. Ibid. 296. 77. M. L. Wischnitzer, Die Universität Göttingen und die Entwicklung der liberalen Ideen in Russland im ersten Viertel des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1907), 17–39. 78. E. Tarasov, “Russkie Gettingentsy v pervoi chetveti XIX veka i ikh vliianie na razvitie liberalizma v Rossii,” Golos Minuvshego (July 1914): 195–209. 79. Keith Tribe, Governing Economy: the Reformation of German Economic Discourse 1750–1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 133–182. 80. David Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination: the German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1997), 61–2. 81. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:361, 362, 379, 396. See also Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev. Pis’ma, 238–43. 82. Quoted from Tarasov, “Russkie Gettingetsy,” 208. 83. Lindenfeld, 61. 84. For Heeren’s treatment of English history, see Charles E. McClelland, The German Historians and England: A Study in Nineteenth Century Views (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 35–7. 85. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:362; Heeren’s lectures “on the history of last three centuries” were published as a textbook. In the introductory chapter, which impressed Turgenev so much, Heeren elaborated on the subject of history as he understood it, his methods of historical investigation, and major principles governing the history of “states- system.” A. H. L. Heeren, A Manual of the History of the Political System of Europe and Its Colonies, 5th ed. (London, 1833), 5–12. 86. “No doubt the temptation is great for a minister to obtain a majority by any means in his power; but what must that nation at last have become, whose representatives were nothing more than a herd of men for sale!” Ibid., 266. 87. Ibid., 252. 88. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:207–8. 89. For a shift in political sentiments, see James Sheehan, German History 1770– 1866 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 211–18, 360–1; Charles E. McClelland, 28–9. 90. According to Peter Reill, it was during his stay in Russia in the years 1761–7 that he developed a critical stance toward absolute monarchy. Upon return- ing, in addition to his teaching activity, he engaged in a publication of the political journal, Staatsanzeigen, which contributed to the emergence of “a public mind” in Germany. The journal fell prey to the preventative policy of suppression undertaken by German governments in 1794. See Peter H. Reill, The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), 139–40. See also Frederick Hertz, The Development of German Public Mind (New York: Macmillan Company, 1962), 409–14; Sheehan, 199. 91. Alexander Turgenev described his impressions of Schlözer’s lecture on tyranny in his diary. He wrote, “After he ascribed rights and duties to both the ruler and the subjects, after he admitted rebellions in case of tyranny, [and] 208 Notes to Pages 29–32

even allowed people to punish their ruler, after that, following common sense . . . he assuaged his meek students by saying that . . . this action is always accompanied by such a danger that it is better to endure [the tyranny] until Providence itself wishes to free people from the iron scepter.” Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 2:240. 92. On historical school of jurisprudence, see J. M. Kelly, A Short History of Western Legal Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 320–3; N. M. Korkunov, General Theory of Law (New York: A. M. Kelley, 1968), 143–52. 93. Wischnitzer, 35. 94. In addition to having some personal animosity toward Hugo for his treatment of students (the details of which Turgenev left out of his account), he was deeply disappointed by the quality of Hugo’s lectures on natural and Roman law and rarely spared him an abusive word in his diary. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:226, 239, 284, 292. On Hugo, see G. P. Gooch, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1952), 39. 95. Korkunov, 148–50. 96. Contrary to Wischnitzer’s argument, Turgenev’s sense of justice, which ulti- mately led him to advocate abolition of serfdom, did not originate from his studies in Göttingen. Entries made by Turgenev in his diary a year before his departure for Germany unmistakably show that he was deeply concerned about the ignorance of the Russian people, social injustice, poverty, and even maltreatment of animals (a sensitivity uncommon in Russia at that time). Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:31–2, 61, 74. 97. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:327. 98. Turgenev frequented auctions to buy secondhand books. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh, 2:484. 99. TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, op. 1, d. 970, l. 1. In a letter to his brother Nicholas, Alexander Turgenev mentioned that “Kunitsyn gave me to read Flasson, whose book is now impossible to buy here, equally so in Paris.” Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 2:484. Turgenev apparently meant the book by Gatton de Ranis de Flasson, Histoire générale et raisonnée de la diplomatie française; ou de la poli- tique de la France depuis la fondation de la monarchie jusqu’a la fin du regne de Lois XVI (Paris, 1811). 100. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 2:296.

2 Years in the Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum

1. TsGIA(SPb), f.13, op.1, d. 934, ll. 1–3ob. 2. The requirements were set up in the “Regulations concerning the Lyceum (in Tsarskoe Selo)”: “In appointing teachers and other staff, a great caution should be exercised concerning their morality in addition to the required professional qualities, so that they guided youth by their examples and instruction . . . ” See Sbornik postanovlenii 1:558. 3. TsGIA(SPb), f.13, op. 1, d. 886, l. 2. On his way to Russia, Kunitsyn wrote Turgenev a letter in which he mentioned, albeit in a rather light tone, that he was broke. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 1:415. 4. Sbornik postanovlenii 1:557. 5. B. Meilakh, Pushkin i ego epokha (Moscow, 1958), 25–6. Razumovskii was influenced by the ideas of conservative-minded Count Joseph de Notes to Pages 32–35 209

Maistre, who came to Russia as the Sardinian envoy and succeeded in spreading Catholicism and the fashion for Jesuit education among the Russian elite in St. Petersburg. According to Edwards, Maistre’s activity marked the beginning of the drift toward a more conservative political line, which, among other causes, resulted in Speranskii’s fall. Edwards, 68–9. On the Lyceum’s curriculum, see also M. Raeff, Michael Speransky: Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772–1839 (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1957) 59–64; A. Sinel, “The Socialization of the Russian Elite, 1811–1917. Life at the Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum and the School of Jurisprudence,” In Russian History 3 (1976): 26–7. 6. See K. Ia. Grot, Pushkinskii Litsei (St. Petersburg, 1998), 137; Meilakh, 46; P. Ferretti, A Russian Advocate of Peace: Vasilii Malinovskii (1765–1814) (London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999), 84. 7. Sbornik postanovlenii 1:557–8. 8. Sbornik postanovlenii 1:560–1. 9. Ibid. 567. 10. P. V. Annenkov, Pushkin v Aleksandrovskuu epokhu (1874; reprint, Minsk, 1998), 37–8; Sinel, 20–1. Among those whose poesy was published in contempo- rary journals were A. Del’vig, V. Kiukhel’beker, and A. Illichevskii. For their biographies, see M. Rudenskaia and S. Rudenskaia, Oni uchilis’ s Pushkinym (Leningrad, 1976). Many other students tried composing verses, which they presented in the Lyceum’s handwritten journals edited by students themselves. Their literary output is available in Grot, Pushkinskii litsei, 187–401. 11. The letter of S. L. Pushkin to Prince Viazemskii is published in Grot, Pushkinskii litsei, 137. 12. D. L. Schlafly, “True to the Ratio Studiorum? Jesuit Colleges in St. Petersburg,” History of Education Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1997): 428. 13. Kunitsyn, Nastavlenie vospitannikam chitannoe pri otkrytii Imperatorskogo Tsarskosel’skogo litseia (SPb., 1811). Reprinted in Antologiia pedagogicheskoi mysli Rossii pervoi poloviny XIX v., ed. M. I. Kondakov (Moscow, 1987), 147–53. 14. I. I. Pushchin, Zapiski o Pushkine (Moscow, 1979), 36. 15. Antologiia pedagogicheskoi mysli, 141. 16. Ibid., 141. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid., 142. 19. Liubavin, 29. On Alexander’s liberal views in the early part of his reign, see E. E. Roach, “The Origin of Alexander I’s Unofficial Committee,” Russian Review 28, no. 3 (1969): 315–26. 20. TsGIA(SPb), f. 3727, d.11, op.1, l. 3. 21. Liubavin, 29. 22. Pushchin, 37. 23. L. N. Maikov and B. L. Modzalevskii (eds), Al’bom Pushkinskoi iubileinoi vystavki (Moscow, 1899), 19. 24. According to the undocumented words of the future tsar Nicholas I cited by Seleznev, the Lyceum owed its privileged status to the idea of educating Alexander I’s brothers in some formal institution rather than by means of traditional private tutoring. However, according to one explanation, in 1811, as the relations with Napoleon worsened, the tsar’s thoughts turned in a different direction. According to another version, the plan did not materialize because of the empress’s unwillingness to allow grand dukes 210 Notes to Pages 35–36

to mingle with young people of lower social origin. I. Seleznev, Istoricheskii ocherk imperatorskago byvshego tsarskosel’skogo nyne aleksandrovskago litseia za pervoe ego piatidesiatiletie s 1811 po 1861 god (St. Petersburg, 1861), 16; D. Kobeko, Imperatorskii Tsarskosel’skii litsei, nastavniki i pitomtsy 1811–1843 (St. Petersburg, 1911), 2. 25. Postanovlenie o Litsee (St. Petersburg, 1810), 34. With the encouragement of E. Engel’gardt, students developed an interest in gardening, which served both as a recreational and educational activity. See I. Seleznev, 174. 26. Pushchin, 42. 27. Seleznev, 177. 28. Tsarskoe Selo is located some sixteen miles south of St. Petersburg. 29. In the Jesuit College, students had individual rooms, which were equipped with a special peeping hole for surveillance. In the words of one of the students, “every minute a searching eye of the tutor appeared in the door opening, making even the most modest and diligent student tremble.” See Annenkov, 45. The recollections of lyceist A. Illichevskii contrast markedly with the experience of the Jesuit students: “Thank God! At least liberty reigns here (and liberty is a golden thing!), there is no boring requirement to sit a ses places . . . we associate with our superiors without fear, [we] joke and laugh with them.” For Illichevskii’s letters, see Grot, Pushkinskii litsei, 74. 30. How lenient the authorities were to the students could be judged from the episode described by I. Pushchin in his memoirs. Along with Pushkin and Malinovskii (a son of the first director), Pushchin procured a bottle of liquor, which they shared with other students. Their excessively cheerful behavior did not go unnoticed. The three of them took all blame on themselves, and although the news about this misdeed reached the Minister of Education, students received a mild punishment. They were obliged to kneel during the morning and evening prayers; during the meal they were moved to the farthest end of the table, and, finally, their names were put on the “black record.” However, due to the intercession of Engel’gardt, this episode did not result in lower graduation rank. See Pushchin, 47–50. 31. Sinel, 8–9, 13, 15. 32. Sinel, 11. For a full list of items that students received, see Seleznev, 178–9. Friendship formed by many of the lyceists lasted a lifetime. As their correspondence testifies, they continued to support each other morally and, whenever necessary, materially. In 1852, lyceist Matiushkin, by that time a well- known marine explorer, collected money to buy a piano for Pushchin’s daughter. Deeply touched, Pushchin wrote in reply that it was the first piano in their distant Siberian town. See M. Rudenskaia and S. Rudenskaia, 110. 33. Pushchin, 44. 34. Sbornik postvanovlenii 1:558. 35. Meilakh, 36; Ferretti, 199. 36. A. G. Bolebrukh, Kritika feodal’no-krepostnicheskogo stroia v trudakh russkikh i ukrainskikh prosvetitelei XVIII–nach XIX v. (Dnepropetrovsk, 1988), 39–48; Ferretti, 145–77. 37. V. F. Malinovskii, “Iz dnevnika,” in Russkie prosvetiteli ot Radishcheva do dekabristov, ed. I. Shchipanov (Moscow, 1966), 1:260–1. 38. Malinovskii’s recent biographer believes otherwise, seeing the appointment of Kunitsyn and other liberal- minded professors as proof of Malinovskii’s liberalism. See Ferretti, 186, 199. However, the right to recruit faculty belonged to minister Razumovskii, who chose Kunitsyn upon the recommendation of Notes to Pages 37–42 211

the Pedagogical Institute at about the same time as Malinovskii was offered his position. Students’ memoirs are also silent about Malinovskii’s political liberalism. See TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, op. 1, d. 934, ll.1–3. 39. See Grot, Pushkinskii litsei, 50. 40. Pushchin, 44. 41. Four hundred to six hundred copies of it appeared weekly from 1812 to 1829. See L. N. Stepanov, “Kritika i zhurnalistika dekabristskogo dvizheniia,” in Ocherki po istorii russkoi zhurnalistiki i kritiki, ed. P. N. Berkov et al. (Leningrad, 1950), 1:199–210. 42. “Who are the allies of Russian people,” one author asked, “the first is God . . . the second are freedom, Fatherland and honor . . . the third are courage, anger and revenge, the fourth allies are quiet players . . . ” See Syn Otechestva 1, no. I (1812): 10. 43. Kutuzov’s report about substantial Russian losses and the impossibility of holding the Borodino area had been intentionally removed from the official announcement. See A. G. Tartakovskii, Voennaia publitsistika 1812 goda (Moscow, 1967), 58–61; Eugene Tarle, Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia 1812 (London, 1942), 97–8. 44. A. Kunitsyn, “Poslanie k russkim,” Syn Otechestva 1, no. V (1812): 174, 175. 45. On Rostopchin, see Tartakovskii, 156–7. 46. A. Kunitsyn, “Poslanie k russkim,” 179. 47. Ibid., 181. 48. Tarle, 182, 214–218, 235. 49. A. P. Kunitsyn, “Zamechaniia na nyneshniuiu voinu,” Syn Otechestva 2, no. VIII (1812): 51–2. 50. Kunitsyn, moreover, twisted the allegory for his purposes. Comparison with the lion is hardly appropriate, since according to the biblical story, Samson killed the lion in self- defense when the beast attacked him. 51. In reply to Engel’gardt’s first letter to Siberia, Pushchin wrote: “I am so grate- ful to you for your attention to my poor sisters after my misfortunes, news about your visit to them was of great consolation to me and a proof of your friendship . . . I often recall your words that it is easy to live when life is good but one has to be content when life is hard.” See Pushchin, 90. 52. Ibid., 57; T. J. Binyon, Pushkin: A Biography (London: Harper Collins Publishers, 2002), 22–3. 53. Ibid., 62. Pushchin specifically mentions that he was their “frequent guest.” Evidently, students of the upper year were allowed occasional leaves from the Lyceum. On Koloshin, see S. V. Mironenko (ed). Dekabristy: Biograficheskii spravochnik (Moscow, 1988), 82–3. 54. M. Rudenskaia and S. Rudenskaia, 67. 55. One student was expelled in 1813 on suspicion of homosexuality. See Binyon, 20 n. 56. Lengthy excerpts of this report are available in B. Bazanov, Vol’noe obschestvo liubitelei rosskiiskoi slovestnosti (Petrozavodsk, 1949), 176. 57. Modzalevskii discovered the identity of the writer by his handwriting. See B. L. Modzalevskii, Pushkin i ego sovremenniki (St. Petersburg, 1999), 87. 58. For the full text of the memo, see Modzalevskii, 88–96. 59. Kobeko, 262–6. 60. Pushkin’s acquaintance with hussars found expression in a number of his early verses. See V. Tomashevskii, Pushkin, 2 vols (Moscow, 1990), 1:85. 61. Kobeko, 100–1. 212 Notes to Pages 43–47

62. TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, op.1, d. 59, l. 2. The report did not specify titles of the books, only the names of the authors. It included, among others, the names of Jakob, Schmalz, Hufeland, and Klein. 63. TsGIA(SPb), f. 11, op. 1, d. 2a, ll.14, 30. 64. K. Ia. Grot, Pushkin, ego litseiskie tovarishchi i nastavniki (St. Petersburg, 1899), 228. 65. TsGIA(SPb), f.11, op. 1, d. 3727, l. 18; On Jakob, see Franklin A. Walker, “The conservative face of a radical Kantian in Prussia and Russia: the case of Ludwig Heirich von Jakob (1759–1827),” Germano-Slavica (2002): 3–15. For more on Jakob’s publications in Russia, see Chapter 5. 66. Annenkov, 33. 67. “Our professors,” one student recalled, “assigned much . . . copying out by itself took much time and was most boring.” See K. Ia. Grot, Pushkinskii litsei, 45. 68. TsGIA(SPb), f. 11, op.1, d. 3727, l. 4. 69. TsGIA(SPb), f.11, op.1, d. 59, l.2. 70. TsGIA SPb, f. 11, op. 1, d, 3727, l. 6. 71. Liubavin, 30. 72. Pushchin, 52. 73. His classmate Illichevskii wrote an epigram hinting that a well- born prince does not need to study so hard. “Have fun, mon Prince, why study? / run away from books like from trouble / why must you struggle with the book / the hell with it, you are your excellency / diamonds and money you have / isn’t it enough to get the ranks . . . ” Another anonymous epigram said: “O, vanity of vanities! / O, when you lose your pen, you, first scribbler of the Lyceum! / You will lose your sight, what then will happen to you.” Quoted from B. Meilakh, “Introduction,” in “Litseiskie lektsii po zapisiam A. M. Gorchakova,” Krasnyi akrhiv 80, no. 1 (1937), 74–5. Translation is mine. 74. These lectures were first published in a slightly abridged form in 1937. See “Litseiskie lektsii (po zapisiam A. M. Gorchakova),” Krasnyi arkhiv 80, no. 1 (1937), 75–129. “Encyclopedia of rights” was also published in Izbrannye sotsial’no- politicheskie i filosofskie proizvedeniia dekabristov, ed. I. Shchipanov (Moscow, 1951), 1:591–654. 75. See, for instance, Balug’ianskii, “O natsional’nom bogatstve,” in Statisticheskii Zhurnal, Vol. 1, pt. II, 38. 76. “Litseiskie lektsii,” 124. 77. Ibid., 121. 78. “Litseiskie lektsii,” 121. 79. Meilakh, 43. 80. Esther Kingston- Mann, In Search of True West (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 46, 65–6; Kingston- Mann, “In the Light and Shadow of the West,” 95–6. See also Susan P. McCaffray, 581–5. 81. On barshchina and obrok, see Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), 394, 572. 82. McCaffray, 591–4. 83. For the attitude toward protectionism and Russia’s economic conditions, see Pustarnakov, Liberalism v Rossii, 44. 84. Brothers Turgenev and Prince Viazemskii serve as an example. See Chapter 4. Notes to Pages 48–51 213

85. TsGIA(SPb), f. 11, op. 1, d. 64, l. 1. 86. See Tribe, 28–34, 119–49; Lindenfeld, 55–66. 87. TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, op.1, d. 59, l. 2. 88. Schmalz served at the University of Königsberg (1789–1803), University of Halle (1803–6), and the University of Berlin (1807–10). He was one of the first in Germany to incorporate Kantian ideas into his textbooks and courses, but his acceptance of Kant, although more evident in his later works, remained limited due to his political caution. He was initially reform- minded, support- ing the emancipation of serfs and efforts at economic modernization undertaken by the government of Stein. However, after the Napoleonic Wars, he took up a conservative position in the controversy over the course of the reform program, rejecting the need for further liberalization of Prussia’s political order. On Schmalz’s reception of Kant, see Hans-Christof Kraus, Theodor Anton Heinrich Schmalz (1760–1831) (Frankfurt-am- Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1999), 305, 331; See also Tribe, 160; Marlon W. Grey, “Prussia in Transition: Society and Politics under the Stein Reform Ministry of 1808,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 76, no. 1 (1986): 38. 89. Kunitsyn must have used Schmalz’s, Das Natürliche Staatsrecht (Königsberg, 1794). Further references will be to this edition. 90. This mode of discourse originated from Wolffian works. According to Knud Haakonssen, “Wolff presents the three basic forms of state as if they all in principle can be morally legitimate under natural law. This points to the formalism of the Latin work in which the fundamental question is not one of moral goodness or badness of state forms but of juridical fact, namely what can parties in a given form of state be said to have ‘agreed’ in a ‘contract’?” See K. Haakonssen, “German natural law,” in The Cambridge History of Eighteenth Century Political Thought, eds. Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1:275. 91. Quoted from Kraus, 400. 92. “Litseiskie lektsii,” 109. The term “postanovleniia” appeared, for instance, in Alexander I’s famous speech in the Polish Seim. See N. N. “O sostoianii inostrannykh krest’ian,” Syn Otechestva 45, no. XVII (1818): 184. See also Chapter 3. 93. Schmalz, Das Natürliche Staatsrecht, 115. 94. It was the distinction between morality and law that the German critics of Schmalz found lacking in his works. See Kraus, 309. 95. “Litseiskie lektsii,” 91–2. 96. See Schmalz, Das Natürliche Staatsrecht, 19–39. 97. “Litseiskie lektsii,” 93. 98. Ibid., 102. 99. This part bears close resemblance to Schmalz’s chapter “Hypothetical State Law”; however, they are not identical. For instance, if Schmalz identifies the end of the state in general terms—as “security of the people,” Kunitsyn is more explicit about the duty of the sovereign to respect people’s rights. See Schmalz, Das Natürliche Staatsrecht, 63. 100. “Litseiskie lektsii,” 110. Compare Schmalz’s definition of tyranny: “The sovereign has the duty to provide the security of the state and each individual subject.” “If somebody becomes a sovereign for the purposes that are not the ends of the state, this constitutes the highest abuse—a tyranny.” Schmalz, Das Natürliche Staatsrecht, 63. 214 Notes to Pages 52–57

101. “Litseiskie lektsii,” 108, 103. The provision about the right to social privileges as conditioned by the service to the state is borrowed from Schmalz. The segments about legal equality and publicity of the law are similar in both works. See Schmalz, Das Natürliche Staatsrecht, 80–3. 102. Ibid., 107. 103. Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 100. 104. Ibid. 105. “Litseiskie lektsii,”108; Cf. Schmalz, Das Natürliche Staatsrecht, 106–7. 106. Kunitsyn, “Izobrazhenie vzaimnoi sviazi,” in Russkie prosvetiteli 2:177. 107. On Kant’s view of the sciences of state, see Lindenfeld, 56–7. 108. Kunitsyn, “Izobrazhenie,” 178. 109. Ibid., 180. 110. Ibid. To compare, Kant argued that “a state has only a negative right to pre- vent public teachers from exercising an influence on the visible political commonwealth that might be prejudicial to public peace.” See Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 102. 111. Ibid., 187–8. 112. Ibid. 113. A. Pushkin, “19 Oktiabria,” in A. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Moscow, 1994), 2, pt. 2, 918. Translation is mine. 114. On Pushkin’s political views, see S. L. Frank, Etiudy o Pushkine (Munich, 1957), 28–57; Leonard Schapiro, Rationalism and Nationalism in Russian Nineteenth-Century Political Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 53–8; J. Thomas Shaw, “Introduction,” in The Letters of Alexander Pushkin Three Volumes in One, trans. J. T. Shaw (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), 37–40; C. Whittaker, Introduction to Alexander Pushkin, Epigrams and Satirical Verse, ed. Cynthia Whittaker (Ann Arbor: Ardis Publishers, 1984), 1–7; Stephenie Sandler provides insightful literary analysis of Pushkin’s exile poetry. In deconstructing his use of rhetori- cal devices, she also makes some comments on his understanding of the poet’s civic responsibility. See Stephanie Sandler, Distant Pleasures: Alexander Pushkin and the Writing of Exile (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989). 115. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii 2, pt. 1, 43–4. Translation is mine. 116. Ibid., 82. Translation is mine. Sandler argues that in “The Village” and some of his later verses Pushkin explores the question of the poet’s civic responsibility and his chances of affecting political cause. According to Sandler, “The Village” (which she translates as “The Countryside”) “introduces the poetics of Pushkin’s verse . . . where the questions of oppression and expression are posed so distantly that, despite the clarity of Pushkin’s political vision, the resulting verse can sound provocative, fine and persuasive, yet safe.” See Sandler, 25. Although “The Village” did not occasion the tsar’s displeasure (see later), it was not safe enough to be published in Russia. Given the government’s ban on public discussion of serfdom (See Chapter 3), Pushkins’s “Village” was an act of conscious opposition. 117. Ibid., 83. 118. Quoted from Binyon, 55. 119. See Whittaker, Introduction to Alexander Pushkin, 24. In the verse, Pushkin mentions Ivan Gorgoli, chief of St. Petersburg police. See Ibid. 120. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii 2, pt. 1, 66. Translation is mine. 121. Tomashevskii, 1:35. Notes to Pages 58–60 215

122. Robin Edmonds, Pushkin The Man and His Age (London: Macmillan, 1994), 46. 123. Two notebooks recently discovered in Per’m and identified (by the handwriting) as Kunitsyn’s contained Pushkin’s “The Village” and “Ode. Liberty” along with the verses of other liberal- minded poets. The last entry in these notebooks was made in 1825. A historian who discovered and identified them believes that after the Decembrist uprising Kunitsyn removed them from his St. Petersburg apartment out of precaution. See A. G. Nikitin, Sekretnaia rukopis’ Pushkina (Moscow, 1992), 219–37. 124. Sbornik postanovlenii 1:829–74. 125. According to the decree of 1809, those officials who were entitled to these ranks by the seniority of their service and “perfect recommendations of his superior” had to pass university examinations in four disciplines—philology; law, including natural, roman, and private civil law; history, both national and European; and mathematical and physical sciences. See Sbornik postanovlenii 1:510–17. 126. M. Nechkina, ed., Vosstanie dekabristov (Moscow, 1984), 18:164. 127. TsGIA, f. 11, op.1, d. 3727, l.l., 6–7.

3 Kunitsyn in the Son of Fatherland

1. See Alexander Martin, Romantics, Reformers, Reactionaries. Russian Conservative Thought and Politics in the Reign of Alexander I (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1997), 8–10; Joseph Bradley, “Subjects into Citizens, Civil Society, and Autocracy in Tsarist Russia,” The American Historical Review 107, no. 4 (2002): 1095–6. 2. Lina Bernstein, “Women on the verge of a new language: Russian salon hostess in the first half of the nineteenth century,” in Russia—Women—Culture, eds. E. Goscilo and B. Holmgren (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 223. 3. F. F. Vigel’, Zapiski (Moscow, 1928), 2:157. 4. For instance, behind the controversy over the Russian literary style that raged between Alexander Shishkov and Nicholas Karamzin there was the thorny question of Russia’s national identity and her relation to European enlightenment. See Martin, 15–38. 5. N. Turgenev, “V tainom obshchestve,” in Izbrannye sotsial’no-politicheskie i filosofskie proizvedeniia dekabristov 1:224. 6. Vigel’, 154. 7. S. I. Murav’ev- Apostol, “Pokazaniia,” in Izbrannye sotsial’no-politicheskie i filosofskie proizvedeniia dekabristov, 2:199. 8. V. A. Sollogub, Vospominaniia (Moscow, 1999), 37. 9. The correspondence between Viazemskii and Alexander Turgenev, which they kept from 1812 to 1845, fills four thick volumes. Pushkin left a collection of more than 600 letters, a large part of which was addressed to Viazemskii and Alexander Turgenev. The letters of Nicholas Turgenev to his brothers Alexander and Sergei comprise three volumes. See Ostaf’evskii arkhiv kniazei Viazemskikh, ed. V. I. Santov. Vols. 1–4 (St. Petersburg, 1899– 1913); Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev. Pis’ma k bratu S. I. Turgenevu, ed. N. G. Svirin (Moscow, 1936); Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh, Vols. 1, 3, 5., also reprinted in 216 Notes to Pages 61–64

Dnevniki i pis’ma Nikolaia Ivanovicha Turgeneva, ed. E. Tarasov, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1976); The Letters of Alexander Pushkin Three Volumes in One, trans. J. T. Shaw (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967). 10. See, for instance, Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 1:102–3, 105–7, 137, 169, 222. 11. For instance, when Viazemskii approached the tsar with a proposition to authorize a society for discussing the issue of emancipation, Nicholas Turgenev received the news about it from his brother Alexander. He then wrote to Viazemskii: “We all read your wonderful letter to my brother with great pleasure . . . your thoughts about emancipation of serfs are in full agree- ment with the opinion of those people who think about this issue here [in Russia].” See Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 2:21. For similar exchanges, see ibid. 1:117, 121, 170, 180; Pushkin, The Letters, 65, 87, 104, 107, 109. 12. L. N. Brodskii, Literaturnye salony i kruzhki n.n. XIX v (Moscow, 1951), 92–6; Kobeko, 255; on Ponomareva’s salon, see also Bernstein, 211. 13. See Tomashevskii, 1:130. 14. Elise Kimberling Wirtschafter, “Russian Legal Culture and the Rule of Law,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 7, no. 1 (2006): 62. 15. Andrew Verner, The Crisis of Russian Autocracy: Nicholas II and the 1905 Revolution (Princeton University Press: New Jersey, 1990), 49. 16. See Richard Wortman, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976), 15–16; George Yaney, “Law, Society and the Domestic Regime in Russia, in Historical Perspective,” The American Political Science Review 59, no. 2 (1965): 386–7. 17. Verner, 53. The impression of the tsar’s omnipotence is strongly conveyed by the memoirs of Viazemskii and Nicholas Turgenev. 18. Yaney argues that the same approach was practiced at all levels of the government, with personal connections or bribes being a better means of achieving justice than proceeding through regular legal practices. See Yaney, 380, 383, 385. 19. M. A. Fonvizin, “Iz zapisok,” in Izbrannye sotsial’no-politicheskie i filosofskie proizvedeniia dekabristov 1:372. On the military colonies, see David Saunders, Russia in the Age of Reaction and Reform 1801–1881 (Longman: London, 1992), 80–1, 246. 20. Saunders, 59–61, 70–1. 21. Elise Kimberling Wirtschafter, Social Identity in Imperial Russia (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1997), 30; Yaney, 384. In his letters to Dmitriev, Karamzin mentioned the story of one noblewoman who was accused of tax evasion and sentenced to hard labor contrary to the conditions of the Charter to the Nobility. Her sentence was revoked only after Karamzin had solicited the tsar about her case. See N. Karamzin, Pis’ma k I .I. Dmitrievu (St. Petersburg, 1866), 261–2. 22. Saunders, 59. 23. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 2:56; also, 73. 24. Ibid. 1:350; Ibid. 2:65; Pushkin often complained about lost letters. See for instance, Pushkin, The Letters, 82, 107. 25. To this Viazemskii replied: “Send me the verses. Why are you such a coward? I am not afraid of anything or anyone . . . It is all right that the walls might not only see and hear but talk.” See Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 1:335, 342. 26. Thomas Shaw, Introduction, 36. See, for instance, The Letters of Alexander Pushkin, 82, 89, 147. Notes to Pages 65–69 217

27. On the 1804 censorship statute, see Charles A. Ruud, Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804–1906 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 26–30. The literature on Russian journalism in the early nineteenth century, both in English and Russian, is scarce. Far more attention has been paid to the later periods, when Russian journalism became more mature and professional. See A. I. Komarov, “Zhurnalistika i kritika 1800–1810x godov,” in Ocherki po istorii russkoi zhurnalistiki 1:155–74; William Mills Todd III, “Periodicals in literary life of the early nineteenth century,” in Literary Journals in Imperial Russia, ed. Deborah A. Martinsen (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 37–41. 28. On Karamzin’s journalism, see A. Cross, “N. M. Karamzin’s ‘Messenger of Europe’ (Vestnik Yevropy), 1802–3,” Forum for Modern Language Studies 5, no. 1 (1969): 1–22. 29. Samuel Ramer, “Vasilii Popugaev, the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and the Arts, and the Enlightenment Tradition in Russia,” Canadian- American Slavic Studies 16, no. 16 (1982): 506–8; Allison Blakely, “American Influences on Russian Reformist Thought in the Era of the French Revolution,” Russian Review 52, no. 4 (1993): 465–6. 30. A. V. Zapadov, ed., Istoriia Russkoi zhurnalistiki XVIII–XIX vekov (Moscow, 1963), 109–12. 31. Ibid., 112. 32. Ibid., 116, 127. On Shishkov, see Martin, 26–27, 116–17. 33. Syn Otechestva 35, no. IX (1817): 2–3. 34. Vestnik Evropy 92, no. 7 (1817): 229; ibid., 96, no. 6 (1817): 74–6. In 1817 Syn Otechestva enthusiastically welcomed the upcoming establishment of the constitutional monarchy in Württemberg, where Alexander’s sister reigned as the consort of the king. It offered its readers a detailed account of the Württemberg constitution, which listed many civil freedoms unknown in Russia. See Syn Otechestva 35, no. I (1817): 28; ibid., 36, no. 12 (1817): 2; ibid., 36; ibid., no. 21 (1817): 2–3. 35. Syn Otechestva 41 (1817): 259. 36. Syn Otechestva 41 (1817): 260. 37. “Vzgliad na 1817 god,” Syn Otechestva 43, no. I (1818): 43. 38. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 2:53. 39. Ibid., 28. Kamchatka is a region in the Russian Far East. 40. Ibid. 1:107–8; For similar remarks, see Ibid. 2:26, 148. 41. Ibid. 2:56, 73. 42. The speech is available in Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 1:472-75. Viazemskii was officially commissioned to translate it from French into Russian. 43. Ibid. 1:476. 44. Allen McConnel, Tsar Alexander I Paternalistic Reformer (Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1970), 153. 45. Turgenev, “V tainom obshchestve,” in Izbrannye sotsial’no-politicheskie i filosofskie proizvedeniia dekabristov 1:225. One of the future Decembrists, Sergei Murav’ev- Apostol, confessed during the investigation that Alexander’s intentions regarding the enlargement of Poland caused the members of the “Union of Welfare” to contemplate for the first time the idea of killing the tsar. See Sergei Murav’ev- Apostol, “Pokazaniia,” Izbrannye sotsial’no-politicheskie i filosofskie proizvedeniia dekabristov 2:194, 203. 218 Notes to Pages 69–74

46. A. Kunitsyn, “O Konstitutsii,” Syn Otechestva 45, No. XVIII (1818): 202. The title page features both Kunitsyn’s name and his academic title. 47. Ibid., 202–3. 48. See B. Fontana, Introduction to Political Writings, by B. Constant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 20–2, 40–1. Kunitsyn was a perceptive reader to discern Constant’s theory of modern liberty from his early writings before Constant expressed it in a more coherent form. 49. Kunitsyn, “O Konstitutsii,” 204. 50. Ibid., 205. 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid., 205–6. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid., 210. 55. Quoted from Fontana, Introduction, 40. 56. Karamzin, Pis’ma, 236. 57. On the fate of the constitutional projects in Alexander I’s reign, see Raeff, Michael Speransky, 35–8; 137–67. 58. On the Polish constitution, see Frank W. Thackeray, Antecedents of Revolution Alexander I and the Polish Kingdom, 1815–1825 (New York: Boulder, 1980), 17–18. 59. On Uvarov’s political views, see Cynthia Whittaker, The Origins of Modern Russian Education, 34–56. 60. Kunitsyn, “Rassmotrenie rechi G. Prezidenta Akademii Nauk i Popechitelia Sanktpeterburgskogo Uchebnogo okruga, proiznesennoi im na publichnom torzhestvennom sobranii Glavnogo Pedagogicheskogo Institute 22 marta 1818 goda,” Syn Otechestva 46, no. XXIII (1818): 137. 61. Nicholas Turgenev, who read the early draft of this article, later commented in his letter to Sergei that “censorship distorted a lot” in it. See Turgenev, Pis’ma, 263. 62. S. Uvarov, Rech’ prezidenta Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk [S. S. Uvarova] popechitelia Sanktpeterburgskogo uchebnogo okruga v torzhestvennom sobranii Glavnogo Pedagogicheskogo instituta, 22 marta 1818 g. (St. Petersburg, 1818), 3. 63. [Kunitsyn], “Rassmotrenie rechi,” 139. 64. Ibid., 146. 65. Uvarov, 5. 66. [Kunitsyn], “Rassmotrenie rechi, (okonchanie),” 174–5. 67. S. Uvarov, Rech’ prezidenta Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk [S. S. Uvarova] popechitelia Sanktpeterburgskogo uchebnogo okruga (St. Petersburg, 1818), 39. 68. Kunitsyn, “Rassmotreniie rechi G. Prezidenta Akademii Nauk i Popechitelia Sanktpeterburgskogo Uchebnogo okruga, proiznesennoi im na publichnom torzhestvennom sobranii Glavnogo Pedagogicheskogo Institute 22 marta 1818 goda (okonchanie),” Syn Otechestva 46, no. XXIV (1818): 189–90. 69. Ruskoi dvorianin Pravdin “Sravnenie Russkih Krest’ian s inozemnymi,” Dukh Zhurnalov 24, book 49 (1817): 343–70 (981–1109). The article has double pagination. 70. Marc Raeff, “At the Origins of a Russian National Consciousness: Eighteenth Century Roots and Napoleonic Wars,” The History Teacher 25, no. 1 (1991): 12–13. Peter Kolchin makes an interesting comparison between Russian serfdom and American slavery, pointing out that public defense of serfdom was disappearing precisely at a time when American pro-slavery ideologists became ever more vocal. See Peter Kolchin, Unfree Labor American and Russian Serfdom (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 178–9. Notes to Pages 74–80 219

71. On Smith in Russia, see Chapter 2. 72. See A. Cross, “N. M. Karamzin’s ‘Messenger of Europe,” 15–16. 73. On the controversy over capitalism, see Walicki, The Slavophile Controversy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 431–55; Walicki, The Controversy over Capitalism: Studies in the Social Philosophy of the Russian Populists (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969); Esther Kingston-Mann, In Search of the True West (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 69–91; Pustarnakov, Liberalism v Rossii, 57, 69. 74. See Blum, 424–5, 434. 75. Russkoi dvorianin Pravdin, 356. 76. On the obrok system, see Edgar Melton, “Enlightened Seigniorialism and Its Dilemmas in Serf Russia, 1750–1830,” The Journal of Modern History 62, no. 4 (1990): 682. Nicholas Turgenev associated the obrok system with the lighter form of serfdom exploitation. See N. Turgenev, Pis’ma, 263; Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:131. 77. Here Pravdin alluded to widespread fear prior to the war that peasants might revolt against their landlords, taking advantage of the war situation. 78. Russkoi dvorianin Pravdin, 370. 79. N. N. “O sostoianii inostrannykh krest’ian,” Syn Otechestva 45, no. XVII (1818): 63–4. 80. Ibid., 165–6. 81. Ibid., 168. 82. Ibid., 172–3. 83. Ibid., 180. 84. Ibid., 180. 85. Ibid., 184. 86. On Russian Anglophilia, see A. Cross, Anglo- Russia Aspects of Cultural Relations Between Great Britain and Russia in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century (Oxford: Berg, 1993), 93–112. 87. John H. Gleason, The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain A Study of the Interaction of Policy and Opinion (New York: Octagon Books, 1972), 1–9. 88. Quoted from E. Kingston- Mann, In Search of the True West, 69. 89. On the views of Herzen and Belinskii, see Walicki, The Slavophile Controversy, 431–9. 90. Under Peter the Great the distinction between lands granted in exchange for service and patrimonial landed possessions was abolished because service became compulsory for all noblemen. In 1762 the nobility received freedom from mandatory service, followed by Catherine II’s Charter to the Nobility in 1785, which granted them full property rights over their estates. See Wirtschafter, Social Identity in Russia, 25–6. 91. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:225. On Iakushkin, see Bokova, 337. Nicholas I, while viewing serfdom as evil, did not abolish it because he equally feared to emancipate serfs without the land and to take away the nobility’s land, which he thought would be a violation of their property rights. See Leontovitch, Istoria liberalisma v Rossii, 137. 92. See Blum, 571–3. Two decades later, in 1842, when Minister Kiselev proposed to emancipate peasants without the land but with the right to acquire property and certain guarantees that they would not be evicted from the landlord’s land, many nobles thought it was some sort of conspiracy. The landlords, moreover, were to retain extensive police and administrative authority over their ten- ants. See ibid., 548–9; Kingston- Mann, In Search of the True West, 87, 222, n.51. 93. Blum, 543–4. 220 Notes to Pages 80–88

94. Quoted from V. I. Semevskii, Politicheskie i obshchestvennye idei Dekabristov (St. Peterburg, 1909), 607. See also S. S. Landa, Dukh Revolutsionnykh preobrazovanii Iz istorii formirovaniya ideologii i politicheskoi organizatstii dekabristov 1816–1825 (Moscow, 1975), 115. 95. This attitude is implicit in their epistolary writings. 96. Quoted from Speranskii, 830. 97. Pis’ma, 261. 98. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 1:137. 99. Ibid., 105. 100. Ibid., 103. 101. Akulshin came to the same conclusion about Viazemskii’s aristocratic limitations while examining his Arzamas projects. See P. V. Akulshin, P. A. Viazemskii, 37–8, 84–6. 102. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 1:137. 103. See Chapter 6. 104. Kunitsyn, “Nekotorye mysli o neobkhodimosti mogushchestvennoi vneshnei zashchity bezopasnosti i spokoistviia gosudarstv,” Syn Otechestva 51, no. II (1818): 50. 105. Kunitsyn, “Nekotorye mysli,” 51–2. 106. Ibid., 58. 107. Kunitsyn, “Nekotorye mysli,” 64. 108. Kunitsyn, “Nekotorye mysli (okonchanie),” 105. 109. Ibid., 101. 110. See Raeff, “At the Origins of a Russian National Consciousness,” 12–13. 111. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 1:348. 112. Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev Pis’ma, 287. 113. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 1:230. Viazemskii suspected, it appears, that the actress who caused spectators’ displeasure in the theater enjoyed the special favor of someone in the Russian administration in Poland. 114. Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev Pis’ma, 287.

4 Kunitsyn and Nicholas Turgenev: “The Society of the Year 1819”

1. Stein abolished serfdom and all class distinctions affecting occupations and the tenure of land. The principle of free trade in land established in 1807 also served to remove the vestiges of the Prussian feudal system. 2. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 2:332. 3. Ibid., 333. 4. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 2:334. 5. Ibid., 3:9. 6. A. Turgenev, Politicheskaia proza, ed. A. L. Osipovata (Moscow, 1990), 161. 7. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:22, 25, 180, 190, 209. 8. Ibid., 5. 9. Ibid. 3:7. See also Ibid., 93. 10. Arzamas i arzamasskie protokoly, ed. M. S. Borovkova- Maikova (Leningrad, 1933), 240–1. 11. Quoted from B. Hollingsworth, “Arzamas: Portrait of a Literary Society,” The Slavonic and East European Review 44, no. 103 (July 1966): 323–4. 12. Soviet historians argued that the society ceased to exist because more conservative members could not accept the changes and initiatives proposed Notes to Pages 88–96 221

by the new liberal Arzamasians. In contrast to this view, Hollingsworth believed that the plan for the journal did not cause any objections from other members and the main reason for the society’s disintegration was the departure of some members from Russia. At the same time, Hollingsworth admitted that the views of some Arzamasians were conservative. See B. Hollingsworth, “Arzamas,” 306 –26. 13. N. Turgenev, “Opyt teorii nalogov,” in U istokov finansovogo prava, ed. A. N. Kozyrin (Moscow, 1998), 121. 14. Ibid., 123, 129. 15. Ibid., 177, 229. 16. Kunitsyn, “Rassmotrenie knigi: Opyt Teorii Nalogov, sochinennoi Nikolaem Turgenevym,” Syn Otechestva 51, no. IV (1818): 207–24; Kunitsyn, “Rassmotrenie knigi: Opyt Teorii Nalogov, sochinennoi Nikolaem Turgenevym (okonchanie),” Syn Otechestva 51, no. V (1818): 258–71. 17. Kunitsyn, “Rassmotrenie,” 209–10. 18. Second edition, also published in the private typography, came out in 1819. 19. See Raeff, Michael Speransky, 104. Speranskii planned to impose a temporary income tax on the landowners. The latter considered this measure to be a violation of their class privileges. 20. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 1:171. 21. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:236. 22. Ibid., 140. 23. Ibid., 150. 24. In 1828, when peasants found themselves unable to pay the agreed sum as a result of the economic crisis, Turgenev allowed his steward to revert to the system of labor dues. The same year, Alexander Turgenev made a decision to sell their serfs and lands to the treasury, whereby the serfs acquired a status of state peasants. This decision, it appears, was dictated not only by the long- cherished desire to give serfs personal freedom but also by the increased difficulties in managing the estate and the need to collect a large sum of money for Nicholas, who was going to get married in France. See Shebunin, “Brat’ia Turgenevy,” 83–6. 25. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 1:310. 26. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 2:333. 27. Ibid., 3:142. 28. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:181. 29. Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev Pis’ma, 282. 30. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:367. 31. Pushchin, 66–7. 32. Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev Pis’ma, 274. 33. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:370. 34. Ibid., 185. 35. Ibid., 379. 36. Ibid., 397. In his diary Turgenev mentioned that he wrote a section on serfdom, which would apparently explain how this provision of rights was to be applied to serfs, but this section has not survived. 37. See Melton, 696. 38. Arkhiv Brat’ev Turgenevykh, 3:187. 39. Ibid., 191. 40. See Chapter 3. 41. Quoted from Marc Raeff, The Decembrist Movement (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1966), 67–99. 222 Notes to Pages 96–99

42. See Landa, 203. 43. S. V. Zhitomirskaia, “Kniga Nikolaiia Turgeneva ‘Rossiia i russkie’ i ee sudba,” in Nicholai Turgenev, Rossiia i russkie, ed. S. V. Zhitomirskaia (Moscow, 2001), 625. 44. V. I. Semevskii, Politicheskie i obshchestvennie idei Dekabristov (St. Petersburg, 1909), 441; Zhitomirskaia, 636–7. 45. Hollingsworth, “Nicholas Turgenev,” 128. 46. Ibid., 112. 47. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:160. 48. Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev Pis’ma, 274. In his diary he recorded the moment when the thought of organizing a journal occurred to him. The entry is dated December 31, 1818. See Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:181. 49. Iu. G. Oksman, ed., Dekabristy: Otryvki iz istochnikov (Moscow, 1926), 118. 50. See V. M. Bokova, Epokha Tainykh obshchestv: Russkie obshchestvennie ob’edineniia pervoi treti XIX v. (Moscow, 2003), 383–4; A. N. Pypin, Religioznye dvizheniia pri Aleksandre I (Petrograd, 1916), 448. 51. M. Nechkina, Dvizhenie dekabristov, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1955), 1:350. Following the Soviet historians, it has long been believed that Alexander I refrained from open repressions against the society (to avoid unnecessary publicity) but found an opportunity to dismiss the army officers mentioned by Gribovskii. However, Bokova convincingly showed that these officers left the army for personal reasons, while others received career promotions. See Bokova, 358–90. 52. A. Fomin, K istorii voprosa o razvitii v Rossii obshchestvennih idei v nachale XIX veka (Petrograd, 1915), 36. Fomin tended to accept Turgenev’s self- justification as a true statement of his political moderation. He classified Turgenev as a liberal—a designation that Soviet historians rejected. The latter, however, could never satisfactorily explain why supposedly radically minded Turgenev with- drew from the Decembrist movement precisely at a time when it grew more radical. See, for instance, M. Nechkina, Dvizhenie dekabristov, 2 vols (Moscow, 1955). 53. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 2:332. 54. Ibid. 3:103. 55. Quoted from Rudnitskaia, “Aleksandr Ivanovich Turgenev,” 30. 56. Hollingsworth concluded that Turgenev was neither “the moderate liberal” as pre- revolutionary scholars portrayed him, nor a radical as Soviet historians argued. Rather, “in the period 1816–1824 he oscillated between the moderate and essentially practical demands, sketched in his diary, and more conspira- torial and revolutionary ideas.” See Hollingsworth, “Nicholas Turgenev,” 474. It is a fairly accurate characterization of Turgenev’s political views, although Hollingsworth understates the main reason for Turgenev’s hesitations—his love for the tsar that remained steadfast even when Turgenev despaired over the conditions of Russian life. Hollingsworth’s general characterization of Turgenev as “Decembrist” also needs to be qualified in view of Turgenev’s retreat from the movement. 57. See Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:253; 188, 190–3. 58. Ibid., 211. 59. Ibid., 421. 60. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:430. 61. Quoted from V. I. Semevskii, Krest’ianskii vopros v Rossii v XVIII i pervoi polovine XIX veka (St. Petersburg, 1888), 1:454. Notes to Pages 99–102 223

62. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 2:14–45; Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:231–232; See also A. V. Predtechenskii, Ocherki obschestvenno- politicheskoi istorii Rossii v p.p. XIX veka (Moscow- Leningrad, 1957), 350–1. 63. N. Turgenev, Rossiia i Russkie, ed. S. V. Zhitomirskaia (Moscow, 2000), 253. 64. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:303; Semevskii, Krest’ianskii vopros v Rossii 1:468–75. 65. Quoted from Landa, 96–7. 66. It is an issue of contention in the historiography of Russia whether the Decembrists were liberals or revolutionaries. John Gooding has correctly argued that contrary to the Soviet interpretation, the Decembrism was not a uniform ideology. The distinction between the ideas of Pestel’ and those of Murav’ev, the two leading Decembrists, points to the existence of radical- Jacobin and liberal currents within the Decembrist movement. Gooding thus believes that until the moment of its demise the movement combined liberal and radical currents whose corresponding ideals were not easily reconcila- ble. See John Gooding, “The Decembrists in the Soviet Union,” Soviet Studies XL, no. 2 (1998): 196–209. Similar interpretation was adopted by Schapiro. See Schapiro, 24. However, Gooding’s proposed term “liberal Decembrist” obscures the fact that even those Decembrists who advocated the idea of representative monarchy rather than republican order were willing to go as far as the revolution to see it established in Russia, whereas liberals advocated the same idea without ever contemplating the revolutionary tactics. It is notable that some of the early Decembrists defined their movement in terms of its phases rather than currents. The creation of the Northern Society, which sifted away “unreliable” members of the Union of Welfare, served as a dividing line between liberal and revolutionary Decembrism. As General Orlov saw it, the members of “the Union of Welfare were under the influence of strictly liberal ideas, no revolutionary ideas had yet entered their minds.” Only in its early stages, therefore, can Decembrism be associated with the liberal movement. See M. F. Orlov, “Zapiska o tainykh oshchestvakh,” in Izbrannye sotsial’no- politicheskie proizvedeniia dekabristov 2:310. 67. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 2:153. 68. Ibid., 191. 69. Akulshin, 58–60, 131–2. 70. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 6:221. 71. A. Turgenev, Politicheskaia proza, 149. 72. On Turgenev’s remaining years, see Gleb Struve, “Alexander Turgenev, Ambassador of Russian Culture in Partibus Infidelium,” Slavic Review 29, no. 3 (1970): 444–59. 73. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 6:268. His letters abound with solicitations for various people in need. See Alexander Turgenev, Pis’ma Alexandra Turgeneva Bulgakovym, ed. I. K. Luppol (Moscow, 1939). 74. The Letters of Alexander Pushkin, 146. This promise saved him from a harsher punishment. When the two years expired, Pushkin wrote a caustic epigram on the tsar. See Binyon, 103, 175. The main reason for Pushkin’s second exile in 1824 was religious rather than political pronouncement. In a private letter, which became known to the authorities, Pushkin carelessly revealed his fascination with the atheistic ideas of the English philosopher William Hutchinson. In Russia, where Orthodox religion was part of the official ideology embodied in the principle “Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality,” atheistic beliefs were taken seriously. See Binyon, 175. 224 Notes to Pages 102–105

75. Pushkin, The Letters, 138, 171, 145. Sandler provides an insightful analysis of how Pushkin expressed his loneliness in the poem “To Ovid” written during his first exile. See Sandler, 39–56. 76. Pushkin, The Letters, 111; For a different interpretation of this period in Pushkin’s life, see Sam Driver, “Puškin and Politics: The Later Works,” Slavic and East European Journal, vol. 25, no. 3 (1981), 7. 77. Ibid., 136. It was not until Pushkin decided to marry and settle down into his new life that his father made him a gift of 200 serfs, whom Pushkin mortgaged in 1831 for 11,428.58 silver rubles; Ibid., 410, 461. 78. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, Vol. 2, pt. 1, 269. 79. See Whittaker, Introduction to Alexander Pushkin, Epigrams and Satirical Verse, 5. 80. See S. L. Frank, Etiudy o Pushkine (Munich, 1957), 28–57; Schapiro, 53–8; J. Thomas Shaw, Introduction to The Letters of Alexander Pushkin, 36–40. On Pushkin’s attitude toward aristocracy of blood, see also Binyon, 185. 81. Whittaker, Introduction, 5. 82. Pushkin, The Letters, 655. 83. Ibid., 660. 84. Sandler, 189.

5 The Natural Law Tradition in Russia

1. Teaching of natural law in Russia has not been a subject of special study so far, despite its direct bearing upon the issue of liberalism. Marc Raeff main- tained in a number of his interpretative articles that German natural law, transmitted via German visiting teachers, had dominated the Russian philosophical curriculum in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and had important implications for Russian intellectual development. However, Raeff focused on the larger picture rather than a detailed treatment of individual professors and their works. See Marc Raeff, “Les Slavs; Les Allemands, 521–51; idem, “The Well- Ordered Police State,” 317–22. Walter Gleason adopted Raeff’s argument in his study of the group of eighteenth- century Russian enlighteners, but the lack of empirical evidence in his work prompted some of his critics to doubt the direct impact of the German professors upon the Russian students. See Walter Gleason, Moral Idealists, Bureaucracy and Catherine the Great (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1981), 58; Max J. Okenfuss, review of Moral Idealists, Bureaucracy and Catherine the Great by Walter Gleason, The American Historical Review 88, no. 4 (1983): 1025–6. A few specific facts regarding the government’s changing attitude toward the teaching of natural law in Russia were provided in Wortman’s innovative work on Russian “legal consciousness.” See Wortman, The Development, 33–2, 38–42; Thomas Nemeth, in his pioneering study on the reception of Kantian ideas in Russia, made an important contribution to this topic by systematiz- ing the relevant historical evidence. However, Nemeth did not examine non- Kantian natural law and, more importantly, his review of the Kant- inspired theories of law in Russia was based on the secondary literature that was only available to him. The fragmentary quotations that he could cull from Soviet studies led him to characterize these professors as more consistent Kantians than was the case. The difficulty of obtaining the textbooks on natural law published in Russia (most of which are extremely rare) may account for the Notes to Pages 105–107 225

lack of studies in this field. See Thomas Nemeth, “Kant in Russia: The Initial Phase,” 79–110; idem “Kant in Russia: The Initial Phase (Cont’d),” 293–338. See also Introduction, n. 1. More recently, James Warhola examined the reasons why natural law did not develop in Russia in the same way it did in the West. His article, however, leaves the reader with the impression that natural law theories were entirely absent in Russia. See James W. Warhola, “Revisiting the Russian ‘Constrained Autocracy’: ‘Absolutism’ and Natural Rights Theories in Russia and the West,” in Civil Society and the Search for Justice in Russia, eds. Christopher Marsh and Nicholas K. Gvozdev (Oxford: Lexington Books, 2002), 33. The latest work on natural law in Russian scholarship, Filosofiia Kanta v Rossii, presents many new facts about the dissemi- nation and reception of Kantian ideas, especially his critical philosophy, in Russia, but its analysis of individual Kantians is rather sketchy. See A. N. Kruglov, 270. Filosofiia Kanta v Rossii v kontse XVIII – pervoi polovine XIX vekov (Moscow, 2009). 2. Each university had its own typography, according to the Statute of 1804. See Sbornik postanovlenii 1:257; See also, Petrov, Formirovanie 1:294. 3. See Petrov, Formirovanie 1:147, 151. The objectives of law teachers were spelled out, for instance, in the Regulations for the Dorpat University. They were expected to “show [a student] his political relations with the government, different social orders and private individuals”—the task that was in keeping with the general objective of educating loyal civil servants and patriotic citizens. See Sbornik postanovlenii 1:106. In 1810 Count de Maistre tried to warn Minister of Education Razumovskii that the government was making a mis- take in inviting German teachers from Protestant universities to Russia and that Kant (much like all philosophy stemming from Protestant roots) was a threat to established political order. Despite Razumovskii’s favorable attitude toward de Maistre, he had to be cautious about the advice of the count, who pushed his own agenda of spreading Jesuit religion and system of education in Orthodox Russia. Eventually, their friendship undermined Razumovskii’s position in the government. In any case, de Maistre’s warning came after the principles of the education reform had been established. N. Murav’ev, a member of Alexander I’s unofficial committee who played a leading role in the reform, held Protestant universities and especially Göttingen in high regard, recruiting many of the professors through Christopher Meiners, a well- known historian from Göttingen University. On Razumovskii’s correspondence with de Maistre, see, A. A. Vasil’chikov, Semeistvo Razumovskikh, Vol. 2 (St. Petersburg, 1880), 102, 276–7. Maistre’s letters to Razumovskii are published in the appendix (248–87). On Murav’ev, see Petrov, Formirovanie 1:147; Flynn, 118–19. 4. In his work on the German sciences of state, Lindenfeld mentions that many Kantian German followers who initially belonged to the cameralist tradition used his ideas in a deliberately selective manner. See Lindenfeld, 58. The same is certainly true of the Kantians who came to Russia. 5. F. Neumann, “Types of Natural Law,” in idem, The Democratic and Authoritarian State (Free Press, New York, 1957), 70. 6. The term was coined by Chris Thornhill in his German Political Philosophy: The Metaphysics of Law (London: Routledge Press, 2007), 7. 7. See Thornhill, 72–5; Haakonssen, “German natural law,” 251–60. 8. The corpus of Wolffian writing comprises more than twenty-six works. Seeking to make his philosophy available to the wider reading audience, Wolff 226 Notes to Pages 108–110

wrote his works in both German and Latin. On Wolff, see Thornhill, 89–92; Haakonssen, “German natural law,” 268–78; J. B. Schneewind, The Invention of Autonomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 432–44. 9. Wolff’s Vernünftige Gedanken von dem gesellschaftlichen Leben der Menschen, und insonderheit dem gemeinen Wesen (Rational Thoughts on the Social Life of Man and in Particular on Society) underwent five editions between 1721 and 1740. 10. Haakonssen, “German Natural Law,” 275–77. 11. Thornhill, 58. 12. See Paul E. Sigmund, Natural Law in Political Thought (Cambridge: Wintrop Publishers, 1971), 65; Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953), 166–86; Diethelm Klippel, “The True Concept of Liberty: Political Theory in Germany in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century,” in The Transformation of Political Culture. England and Germany in the Late Eighteenth Century, ed. Eckhart Hellmuth (London: Oxford University Press, 1990), 447–66; Tribe, 28–31; Wolfe traces this development to the thought of Locke rather than Hobbes. See Christopher Wolfe, Natural Law Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 162–3. 13. Johann Jacob Moser and Justus Möser, for instance, defended the liberties of the estates (such as freedom of conscience and religion as well as the rights of territorial parliaments) against royal absolutism, but their ideas did not amount to liberal constitutionalism. Instead of natural law arguments, both thinkers justified their claims by reference to the traditional legal order of the Habsburg Empire, which presupposed a balance between the emperor, the imperial estates, and the territorial princes. (Their discourses marked a departure from naturalist to positivist jurisprudence in Germany—a tendency that would be temporarily halted by Kant’s revitalized interpretation of natural law.) More explicitly liberal were the ideas of August Ludwig Schlözer, who argued that human beings possess social rights rooted in their natural incli- nations, which the state is obliged to respect and that the power of the monarch should be legally delimited. See Thornhill, 94–5; and Klippel, 455–6. 14. For a good analytical summary of Kant’s ideas, see Thornhill, 98–110, 279–90; Christine M. Korsgaard, Introduction to Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), vii–xxx; Roger Sullivan, Introduction to The Metaphysics of Morals by I. Kant, ed. and trans. Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), vii–xxvi. 15. Kant, Groundwork, 31. 16. Ibid., 38. 17. Marc Raeff, “The Enlightenment in Russia and Russian Thought in the Enlightenment,” 26–47; idem, arc Raeff, “The Well- Ordered Police State,” 309–27. 18. On Peter’s plans for the Academy of Science, see James McClelland, Autocrats and Academics. Education, Culture and Society in Tsarist Russia (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 21–3. 19. Samuel Pufendorf, O dolzhnosti cheloveka i grazhdanina po zakonu estestvennomu (St. Petersburg, 1726); idem, Vvedenie v Istoriiu Evropeiskuiu (St. Petersburg, 1718). Second edition came out in 1723. Idem, Vvedenie v Istoriiu znatneishikh evro- peiskikh gosudarstv (St. Petersburg, 1767); second edition was published 1777. In the early nineteenth century, Pufendorf’s works were still deemed useful for the Russian reader. His Politicheskoe rassuzhdenie Samuila Pufendorfa o soglasii politiki istinnoi s religieiu khristianskoiu was published in St. Petersburg in 1815. Notes to Pages 111–113 227

20. Introduction à la jurisprundence naturelle. (St. Petersburg, 1767). He left the Academy in 1757. See V. F. Pustarnakov, Universitetskaia filosofiia v Rossii. Idei, personalii, osnovnie tsentry (Moscow, 2003), 711–712; Wortman, The Development, 25; Pekarskii, 172. 21. Wortman, The Development, 25. 22. Haakonssen, “German natural law,” 277, 763. 23. Daniel Nettelbladt, Nacha’lnoe osnovanie vseobshchei estestvennoi iurisprudentsii prinorovlennoe k upotrebleniu osnovanii polozhitel’noi iurisprudentsii (Moscow, 1770). 24. Merio Scattola, “Before and After Natural Law. Models of Natural Law in Ancient and Modern Times,” in Natural Law Theories in the Early Enlightenment: Context and Strategies, eds. Tim Hochstrasser and P. Schröder (Kluwer: Dordrecht, 2003), 21. 25. A historian of Moscow University, Shevyrev had a very low opinion of Dilthey’s works, considering them immature from a scholarly point of view. See S. Shevyrev, Istoriia Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo Universiteta (Moscow, 1855), 92; A. Kapustin, who wrote a long entry on Dilthey in the biographical dictionary, also considered Dilthey’s juridical works rather superficial and unsystematic, which he ascribed to Dilthey’s insufficient knowledge of Russian laws and morals, as well as his attempt to apply Roman legal cat- egories to Russian law. See Biograficheskii slovar’ professorov i prepodavatelei Moskovskogo Imperatorskogo universiteta 1755–1833, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1855), 1:305–8. Nevertheless, Dilthey’s work on commercial law was one of the first of its kind and underwent three editions. F. G. Dil’tei, Nachal’nye osnovaniia vekse’lnogo prava (Moscow, 1787). Second and third editions appeared in 1794 and 1801. 26. Shevyrev, 129, 146, 187; Pustarnakov, Universitetskaia filosofiia, 454. Langer’s work was entitled Slovo o nachale i rasprostranenii polozhitel’nykh zakonov i o nerazryvnom soiuze filosofii s ih ucheniem. (Moscow, 1766). 27. In one of the speeches, he regretted the fact that the works of such English philosophers as Hobbes, Locke, Sidney, and Harrington are published in Britain but “are not being taken note in any other state.” Quoted from A. H. Brown, “The Father of Russian Jurisprudence: The Legal Thought of S. E. Desnitskii,” in Russian Law in Historical and Political Perspectives, ed. Willia Butler (Leyden, A. W. Sijthoff, 1977), 124. 28. On Catherine’s attitude toward and borrowing from the European thought, see Isabel de Madariaga, Politics and Culture in Eighteenth- Century Russia (Longman, 1998), 195–296. 29. [John Locke] Lokk, O vospitanii detei (Moscow, 1759). Second and third editions appeared in 1760 and 1769, respectively. 30. For a list of translations, see Pustarnakov, Universitetskaia filosofiia, 747–844; I. P. Kondakov, ed., Svodnyi katalog russkoi knigi grazhdanskoi pechati XVIII veka, 5 vols. (Moscow, 1964); N. N. Mel’nikova, Izdaniia Moskovskogo universiteta 1756–1779 ( Moscow, 1955). 31. See Gleason, Moral Idealists, 5–6. 32. Tribe, 119–82. 33. Lindenfeld, 40–1. 34. Hugh James Rose, A New General Biographical Dictionary (London, 1857), 3:387; Pustarnakov, Universitetskaia filosofiia, 303. 35. Fel’dshtein, 474. 36. Shevyrev, 228–9. 228 Notes to Pages 113–116

37. Pustarnakov, Universitetskaia filosofiia, 691. Shevyrev also mentions that Schaden introduced students to the fundamentals of Kantian moral philosophy. See Shevyrev, 229. 38. Shevyrev, 297, 322; I. Ia. Shchipanov, ed., Istoriia filososofskoi mysli v Moscovskom universitete (Moscow, 1982), 19. 39. Z. A. Kamenskii “I. Kant v russkoi filosofii nachala 19 veka,” Vestnik istorii mirovoi kul’tury 19, no. 1 (1960), 52. 40. Franklin A. Walker, “ ‘Renegade’ Monks and Cultural Conflict in Early Nineteenth-Century Russia: The Russia of I. A. Fessler and J. B. Shad,” Religion, State and Society 28, no. 4 (2000): 350. 41. [Kant] Kantovo osnovanie dlia metafiziki nravov (Moscow, 1803); [Idem] Nabliudeniia ob oshchushchenii prekrasnogo i vozvyshennogo (St. Petersburg, 1804); [Idem] Kantova Filosofiia, perevod s frantsuzskogo P. Petrovym. pt. 1. (St. Petersburg, 1807). The last edition was a translation of Charles Villers’ Philosophie de Kant, ou Principles Fondamentaux de La Philosophie Transcendentale. Only Part One of this book was published in Russia. 42. Quoted from Kruglov, 114. 43. Quoted from Kamenskii, “I. Kant v russkoi filosofii nachala 19 veka,” 53, n. 9. See also Kruglov, 121. 44. Ibid.; See also Kruglov, 121. 45. Biograficheskii slovar’ professorov i prepodavatelei Moskovskogo universiteta, 1:126–7; Iu. A. Andreev, Moskovskii Universitet v obshchestvennoi i kul’turnoi zhizni Rossii nachala XIX veka (Moscow, 2000), 99. 46. As Karamzin once put it, “Many of these scholars are prominent, few are useful; for the students being unable to understand these foreign instructors and are so few in number that the latter lose all desire to appear in class.” Quoted from James McClelland, 23. Some foreign professors left similar observations about the quality of the Russian students. See Andreev, Moskovskii Universitet, 100. 47. D. I. Bagalei, Opyt istorii Khar’kovskogo universiteta, 2 vols. (Khar’kov, 1893), 1:582. 48. Even students sent to Germany for further training were directed to consult with their teachers before reading any original writings in philosophy. See Sbornik postanovlenii 1:463–5. 49. On Reinhard, see Biograficheskii slovar professorov i prepodavatelei Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo universiteta 2:328–9; Pustarnakov, 558; A. Iu. Andreev, Lektsii po istorii Moskovskogo Universitet. 1755–1855 (Moscow, 2001), 164–5. 50. Andreev, Lektsii, 165; Nechkina, Griboedov i dekabristy (Moscow, 1951), 83. 51. Andreev, Lektsii, 165. 52. [Ch. Reinhard] Khristian Filip Reingard, Sistema moral’noi filosofii (Moscow, 1807), xvi. 53. Ibid., xv–xvi. In his Natural Law Reinhard also commented that Kant’s definition of original moral law “somewhat suffers from the ambiguity of the word freedom.” See Reingard, Estestvennoe pravo, 20. 54. Reingard, Estestvennoe pravo, xxiv. 55. See W. Kersting, “Politics, freedom, and order: Kant’s political philosophy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Kant, ed., Paul Guyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 353–4. According to Kant “The act by which a people forms itself into a state is the original contract. Properly speaking, the original contract is only the idea of this act, in terms of which alone we can think of Notes to Pages 116–118 229

the legitimacy of a state.” “The idea of a social contract . . . would not exist as a fact . . . but only as a rational principle for judging any lawful public constitution.” See Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 92; Kant’s Political Writings, 83. 56. “Civil society cannot be based on a contract; for practical reason obliges us to live under the government . . . the power of the government is based not on a contract but on a prescription of reason or on a moral law . . . ” See Reingard, Sistema, 298–9. 57. Ibid., 297. 58. According to Kant, “Every state contains three powers, i.e. the universally united will is made up of three separate persons. These are the ruling power (or sover- eignty) in the person of the legislator . . . the executive power . . . and the judicial power . . . They can be likened to the three propositions in a practical operation of reason: the major premise, which contains the law of the sovereign will, the minor premise, which contains the command to act in accordance with the law . . . and the conclusion which contains the legal decision.” See Kant’s Political Writings, 138. For Kant, the division of power is a necessary component of representative government, which alone fulfills the requirement of individual freedom. “For any form of government which is not representative is essentially an anomaly, because one and the same person cannot be the legislator and the executor of his own will, just as the general proposition in logical reasoning cannot at the same time be a secondary proposition subsuming the particular within the general.” See Ibid., 101. Reinhard, by contrast, uses the analogy of a syllogistic argument to prove the interdependence of three powers and the need to keep them united in one hand. See Reingard, Sistema, 216. Separation of powers in his view produces confusion and internal disagreements between the holders of the power: “We call mixed government the one in which all power is divided in some way among different heads, so that it does not have any unity and thus no true head . . . it seems impossible that the mixed government would be capable of preserving its own unity, public peace and security.” Reinhard further proves the need for maintaining all three powers in one hand by com- paring them to the components of a syllogistic structure. See Ibid., 210. 59. Roger J. Sullivan, xiv–xv. 60. Reingard, Sistema, 300. In Kant, by contrast, “The legislative power can belong only to the united will of the people.” See Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 91. 61. Reingard, Sistema, 291. 62. Reingard, Sistema, 281. See also Reingard, Estestevnnoe pravo, 44–5. 63. Reingard, Sistema, 114. 64. On Buhle, see Marinus Wes, Classics in Russia 1700–1855 (New York: E. J. Brill, 1992), 97–104. Pustarnakov only mentions that Buhle “was presented to the Emperor.” See Pustarnakov, Universitetskaia filosofiia, 235–326. 65. See Gustav Shpet, Ocherk razvitiia russkoi filosofii (Petrograd, 1922), 89; V. V. Zenkovskii, A History of Russian Philosophy, 2 vols. (Routledge: London, 1953), 1:115. 66. Quoted from Nemeth, “Kant in Russia: The Initial Phase,” 89. Nemeth quotes French historian Koyré. 67. Johann Gottlieb Buhle, Lehrbuch des Naturrechts (Göttingen, 1798), 237–8. 68. Ibid., 235, 251–2. 69. Ibid., 277–9. 70. Ibid., 290–1. 230 Notes to Pages 119–121

71. Ibid., 238-41. To give another example, speaking of serfs, Buhle argued that “the children of serfs are themselves not serfs” (by birth), but he added that “in order to protect their rights, the state may require them to become serfs.” See Ibid., 290. 72. Ibid., 241–2. 73. Ibid., 242–3. 74. Ibid., 305. 75. Walker, “The conservative face of a radical Kantian in Prussia,” 3–15; See also Lindenfeld, 64–6. 76. In 1808 Jakob petitioned the curator of Khar’kov educational district about an increase of his salary, referring to the fact that Königsberg University offered him better remuneration. Although the Main School Administration acknowledged that “according to persons knowledgeable in German scholarship, professor Jakob enjoys almost the top status among the scholars of his field,” his petition was declined. See [Rossiia. Ministerstvo narodnogo prosveshcheniia] Sbornik rasporiazhenii po ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniia, 16 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1866–1907), 1:151–2 (henceforth cited as Sbornik rasporiazhenii). 77. [L. Jakob] Liudvig Iakob, Kurs filosofii dlia gimnazii Rossiiskoi Imperii, 6 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1811–14). The first six volumes included logic, grammar, psychology, moral philosophy, esthetics, and literary theory. Each part of this edition also came out as separate books in 1815–16. Parts Seven and Eight (Public Economy and Natural and International People’s Law) were published in 1817. 78. [L. Jakob] Liudvig Genrikh Iakob, Kurs filosofii dlia gimnazii Rossiiskoi Imperii. Chast chetvertaia soderzhaschaia nravouchitel’nuu filosofiiu (St. Petersburg, 1816), 5–11, 45–6. 79. Walker also noted this tendency in Jakob. As Walker remarked: “He applied Kant’s principle of the autonomy of the reason not to question of political authority, but to urge control over sensual passions.” See Walker, “The Conservative Face of a Radical Kantian,” 6. 80. Iakob, Nravouchitel’naia Filosofiia, 124. 81. Ibid., 83, 79. Cf. in Kant: “Be no man’s lackey.” See Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 188. 82. Iakob, Estestvennoe i narodnoe pravo, 9. 83. Ibid., 9–10, 15. 84. Jakob specifies these rights in the following way: “he [an individual] is a person (litso) that is a being which has an end in itself and should not serve others as a mere means”; “he is entitled to freedom and should not serve others as a mere means”; “he is entitled to freedom, that is to the independence of his will from the will of others”; and lastly, since “his rights are as valid as the rights of others, all people regarding their rights are perfectly equal.” Ibid., 14–15. 85. Ibid., 21–2. 86. Ibid., 28. 87. Ibid., 117. Walker noted that the Russian translation of Jakob’s psychology replaced the word “constitution” for “enactment” (postanovlenie), apparently for reasons of Jakob’s political sensitivity. See Walker, “The Conservative Face,” 9. The text of Natural Law does include the Russian term “constitution,”(konstitutsiia), although its meaning does not necessarily imply the idea of institutional limitations on the monarch’s will. As is clear Notes to Pages 122–128 231

from Jakob’s further explanations, a constitution simply codifies the exist- ing arrangement of power; a state in which an unlimited ruler obeys laws and promotes public good only out of his own goodwill would also have a constitution. 88. Ibid., 78–83. 89. Ibid., 118–19. 90. Ibid., 103–4, 115, 73. 91. Ibid., 108, 114, 118. 92. Ibid., 108, 116. 93. Ibid., 126. 94. Ibid., 63. 95. Semevskii, Krest’ianskii vopros v Rossii, 1:313–15; Walker, “The Conservative Face,” 8. 96. [F. Snell] Nachal’nogo kursa filosofii chast’ chetvertaia. Nravouchenie i Estesvennoe pravo. Sochinenie g. Snellia. (Kazan’, 1814), 13. 97. Ibid., 29. 98. Ibid., 133. 99. Ibid. 100. Ibid. 101. Ibid., 120. 102. Ibid., 132. 103. Kant, “What Is Enlightenment?” in Kant’s Political Writings, 55. 104. Kant expressed this idea in his Theory and Practice: “Every member of the commonwealth must be entitled to reach any degree of rank which a subject can earn through his talent, his industry and his good fortune. And his fellow-subjects may not stand in his way by hereditary prerogatives or privileges of rank.” See Kant’s Political Writings, 75. 105. Kant wrote, “A public law which defines for everyone that which is permit- ted and prohibited by right, is the act of a public will, from which all right proceeds . . . and this requires no less than the will of the entire people (since all men decide for all and each decides for himself). For only towards oneself can one never act unjustly . . . thus an individual will cannot legislate for a commonwealth.” See Kant’s Political Writings, 77. “If the mode of government is in accord with the concept of right, it must be based on the representative system.” See Ibid., 102. 106. Tsvetaev retired in 1831, but was asked to return in 1833 to teach Roman law. See F. A. Petrov, Formirovanie sistemy universitetskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii, 4 vols (Moscow, 2002), 2:280–3; Pustarnakov, Universitetskaia filosofiia, 677. 107. Lev Tsvetaev, Kratkaia teoriia zakonov (Moscow, 1810), 7. 108. Ibid., 8–12. 109. Ibid., 17. 110. Ibid., 29. 111. Ibid., 30. 112. Lev Tsvetaev, Pervye nachala prava estestvenogo (Moscow, 1816). 113. Ibid., 1. 114. Ibid., 13. 115. Ibid., 10–12. 116. Ibid., 27–47. 117. Ibid., 49. 118. Ibid., 53. 232 Notes to Pages 129–134

119. Henry E. Strakosch, State Absolutism and the Rule of Law: The Struggle for the Codification of Civil Law in Austria 1753–1811 (Sydney: University Press, 1967), 206–15. 120. TsGIA(SPb), f. 13, op. 1, d, 577, l. 1. On Lodii, see also Chapter 1. 121. [F. Zeiller] Tseiler, Estestvennnoe chastnoe pravo sochinennoe Fransua fon Tseilerom professorom v universitete Venskom i chlenom zakonopolozhennoi komissii (St. Petersburg, 1809), 13. 122. Ibid., 72. 123. Ibid., 84. 124. Ibid., 221. 125. Ibid., 34. 126. Three earlier editions of Metaphysics were published in 1764, 1789, and 1794. Moral Philosophy came out in 1783 and 1788. See Chapter 1. See also E. A. Ovchinnikova, T. V. Chumakova, “Filosophiia v Sankt-Peterburgskom universitete (pervaia polovina XIX veka),” in Peterburg na filosofskoi karte mira, ed. T. V. Artem’eva (St. Petersburg, 2002), 71. 127. I. M. Solov’ev, ed., Russkie universitety v ikh ustavakh i vospominaniiakh sovremennikov (St. Petersburg, 1914), 85 (henceforth, Russkie universitety). See also A. Iu. Andreev, Lektsii, 166. 128. Ivan Naumov, Estestvennoe pravo, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1808–1809), 1:35–7, 54–6. 129. Ibid., 22. 130. Ibid., 54. 131. Ibid., 57. 132. Ibid., 60. 133. Ibid., 69. 134. Ibid., 70. 135. Ibid., 2:3. 136. The German edition of this book was published in 1799 and was based on the Latin edition of 1770. See Gregor Lässer, “Martinis Naturrechtslehre als Haupquelle für Privatrecht,” in Karl Anton von Martini, ed. Heinz Barta (Vienna, 2007), 136. According to Grigor’ev, Lodii used the 1782 Latin edition. See Grigor’ev, 49. In Khar’kov University Prof. B. Reit used it during the 1814 academic year. See Fel’dshtein, 471. 137. He was the author of West- Galician Code of 1797, which served as a model for the Austrian General Code of 1811 created in large part by his student Franz von Zeiller. On Martini as a reformer, see Hebeis, 54–63, 69–107. See also Mathew W. Finkin “Menschenbild: The Concept of the Employee as a Person in Western Law,” Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal 23, no. 4 (2002): 611; Paul Silverman, “The Cameralist Roots of Menger’s Achievement,” in Bruce Caldwell, ed., Carl Menger in His Legacy in Economics (Duke University Press, 1990), 79. 138. Hebeis, 139, 154. 139. Karl Anton von Martini, Lehrbegriff des Naturrechts (Vienn, 1799), 43–4. 140. Ibid., 44–5. 141. Ibid., “von den unfollcommenen Pflichten gegen Undere,”128–36; Hebeis, 157. 142. Martini,122. 143. Hebeis, 157. 144. Martini, 115–16. Notes to Pages 134–141 233

145. Martini, 296–9. 146. Martini, 269. 147. Ibid., 271. 148. Ibid., 269, 262. 149. [T. Schmalz] Fedor, Shmal’ts, Pravo estestvennoe (St. Petersburg, 1820). Judging from the fact that the textbook was dedicated to Balug’ianskii, the translator was probably his former student, knowledgeable enough to pro- duce the interpretative translation of this sort. 150. Ibid., vii. 151. Ibid., 7, 21. 152. Ibid., 10. This argument suggests that Sergeev himself did not fully understand his concept of a priori natural law. 153. See Kraus, 396; Already in the early nineteenth century, and especially after 1815 when Prussian liberals demanded to deepen political reforms, Schmalz assumed a conservative position, advocating an unlimited monarchy against the Kantian vision of the representative state. See Ibid. 154. Shmal’ts, 39–42. 155. Ibid., 59–63. 156. Ibid., 50. 157. Ibid., 65–9. Schmalz rarely seems to have used Kant’s own formulations. Compare, for instance, Schmalz’s explanation of the innate rights with that of Kant: “Freedom (independence from being constrained by another’s choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law, is the only original right belonging to every man by virtue of his humanity. This principle already involves the following authorizations . . . innate equality, that is independence from being bound by others to more than one can in turn bind them; hence a human being’s quality of being his own master, as well as being a human being beyond reproach . . . ” See Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 30. 158. Shmal’ts, 78–9. 159. See Chapter 2. 160. Ibid., 106–7. 161. Ibid., 107–8. 162. Ibid., 110. 163. See Walker, “ ‘Renegade’ Monks,” 351–2. 164. Quoted from Bagalei, Opyt istorii 1:659. 165. Ibid., 660. 166. N. A. Lavrovskii, “Epizod iz istorii Kharkovskogo universiteta,” Chteniia v Obschestve Istorii i Drevnostei Rossiiskikh (April–June 1873), bk. 2, pt. 2:49–51. 167. Quoted from D. I. Bagalei, Udalenie professora Shada iz Khar’kovskogo universiteta (Khar’kov, 1899), 20–1. 168. Walker, “ ‘Renegade’ Monks,” 353. 169. The price of the book was five or seven rubles, depending on the quality of paper. 170. Nemeth, “Kant in Russia: The Initial Phase (Cont’d),” 321. 171. For reading interests in early nineteenth-century Russia see also Miranda Beaven, “Readership in Early Nineteenth-Century Russia: Recent Soviet Research,” Slavic Review 43, no. 2 (1984): 276–80. Twenty-five Decembrists studied in Moscow University at that time. See Z. A. Kamenskii, “Kant in Rossii (kon. XVIII–p.chetv. XIX v.),” in Filosofiia Kanta i sovremennost’, ed. T. I. Oizerman (Moscow, 1974), 302. 234 Notes to Pages 141–144

172. This rule had been established by the Statute of 1804. See Petrov, Formirovanie 1:297. 173. Kamenskii, “Kant in Russia,” 294. Alexander Turgenev recorded his impression of Kant’s philosophy: “I listened [a lecture about] Kant’s system. It is difficult but I am impressed.” See A. Turgenev, Politicheskaia proza, 164. 174. Koshelev also mentions that sometimes meetings were devoted to critiqu- ing philosophical essays written by the members of the society, but for most part they focused on discussing their readings in German philosophy. See A. Koshelev, Zapiski Aleksandra Ivanovicha Kosheleva (Berlin, 1884), 12. 175. See V. E. Evgrafova ed., Filosofskie i obshchestvenno- politicheskie proizvedeniia Petrashevtsev (Moscow, 1953), 113, 188, 189, 288, 289, 408, 590, 658. 176. N. I. Lorer, Zapiski Dekabrista (Irkutsk, 1984), 267; N. P. Ogarev, Izbrannye sotsial’no- politicheskie i filosofskie proizvedeniia, ed., M. Iovchuk (Moscow, 1956), 2:46; Kruglov also found plenty of evidence to argue that Kantian critical philosophy was more familiar to Russians than it was previously believed. They did not appreciate it as much as they did Kant’s ethics, but, as Kruglov points out, in other European countries during the early nineteenth century, with the exception of Germany itself, the reception of Kant was not much different. See Kruglov, 488–91.

6 Kunitsyn on Natural Law

1. The textbook was originally published in two parts in 1818 and 1820. Kunitsyn, Pravo estestvennoe, 2 vols (St. Petersburg, 1818–20). It was republished in Russkie prosvetiteli 2:204–359. All references in this chapter are made to this later edition. 2. On Kant’s reinterpretation of the epistemological foundations of the natural law tradition, see Haakonssen, “German natural law,” 283; Mary Gregor, “Kant on Natural Rights,” in Kant and Political Philosophy, eds. Ronald Breiner and William Booth (New Haven, Yale University Press: 1993), 52–3; Leonard Krieger, “Kant and the Crisis of Natural Law,” Journal of the History of Ideas 26, no. 2 (1965): 191–210. 3. See Chapter 1. 4. Kunitsyn, Pravo Estestvennoe, 204. 5. Marc Raeff, “Filling the Gaps between Radishchev and the Decembrists,” Slavic Review 26, no. 3 (1967): 410; Fel’dshtein, 471; Hollingsworth took a more cautious position by arguing that on various points Kunitsyn departed from Kant. However, Hollingsworth was unable to expand on this argument within the frameworks of his short introductory article. Hollingsworth, “A. P. Kunitsyn,”127. 6. B. S. Osherovich, Ocherki po istorii russkoi ugolovno- pravovoi mysli (Moscow, 1946), 130. 7. Hollingsworth, “A. P. Kunitsyn,” 127; Schapiro, 49. 8. Smirnov, “Obshchestvenno- politicheskie i pravovye vzgliady Kunitsyna,” 19. 9. Soviet historians saw Kunitsyn as a “linking chain between enlighteners and the noble revolutionaries.” See I. Ia. Shchipanov, “Prosvetitel’skie dok- triny v Rossii v kontse XVIII–nachale XIX veka,” in Russkie prosvetiteli 1:12; A. P. Kuprits, 107. Notes to Pages 144–149 235

10. Smirnov, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskie i pravovye vzgliady Kunitsyna,” 19. 11. Korkunov, 348. Raeff’s introductory analysis also implies this view. See Raeff, “Between Radishchev and the Decembrists,” 410. 12. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 279, 292, 328. 13. Ibid., 206. 14. Ibid., 206. 15. Ibid., 207. Compare to Kant: “Freedom of choice is this independence from being determined by sensible impulses.” See Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 13. 16. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 207. 17. Ibid., 209. 18. Ibid., 222. 19. For this section Kunitsyn might have used the textbook by Gotlieb Hufeland, Versuch Über den Grundsatz des Naturrechts (Jena, 1785), where Hufeland sur- veyed natural law theories from Grotius to Kant and came to the conclusion that Kant was the most convincing in explaining the foundations of moral freedom and obligation. Hufeland studied in Leipzig and Göttingen, after which he taught the course of natural law in Jena, Würzburg, and Landshut until 1808, when he left the profession to assume the office of Bürgermeister of Danzig. The English- speaking literature on German theo- rists of natural law is extremely scarce. Some comments can be found in T. J. Hochstrasser, Natural Law Theories in the Early Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 206; Tribe, 159; Steven Lestition, “Kant and the End of Enlightenment in Prussia,” Journal of Modern History 65, no. 1 (1993): 71. 20. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 219–20. 21. See J. B. Schneewind, “Autonomy, Obligation and Virtue: An Overview of Kant’s Moral Philosophy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Kant, 316. 22. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 219. 23. Ibid., 222. 24. For Kant’s religious thought, see Schneewind, “Autonomy, Obligation and Virtue,” 331–2; Paul Guyer, “Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right,” in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals. Interpretative Essays, ed. Mark Timmons (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 37. 25. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 231–3. 26. Ibid., 235–6. 27. Ibid., 238–9. 28. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 239–40. 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid., 240. 31. “Man’s freedom as a human being, as a principle for the constitution of a commonwealth, can be expressed in the following formula. No- one can compel me to be happy in accordance with his conception of the welfare of others, for each man may seek his happiness in whatever way he sees fit . . . Under . . . paternal government, the subjects, as immature children cannot distinguish what is truly useful or harmful to themselves . . . Such a government is the greatest conceivable despotism.” See Kant, “Theory and Practice,” in Kant’s Political Writings, 74. 32. Cf. Kant, “Every member of the commonwealth must be entitled to reach any degree of rank which a subject can earn through his talent . . . no member 236 Notes to Pages 149–154

of the commonwealth can have hereditary privileges as against his fellow- subjects” Ibid., 76. 33. “To seek prosperity for its own sake is not directly a duty, but indirectly it can be seen as a duty, that of warding off poverty insofar as this is a great temptation to vice. But it is not my happiness but the preservation of my moral integrity that is my end and also my duty.” Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 152. 34. Ibid., 237. 35. Ibid., 237. 36. Gregory L. Freeze, “Russian Orthodoxy: Church, People and Politics in Imperial Russia,” in The Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2, Imperial Russia, 1689–1917, ed., Dominic Lieven (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 296. On the Bible Society in Russia, see Judith Zacek, “The Russian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church,” Church History 35, no. 4 (1966): 411–37; Raffaella Faggionato, “From a Society of the Enlightened to the Enlightenment of Society: The Russian Bible Society and Rosicrucianism in the Age of Alexander I,” Slavonic and East European Review 79, no. 3 (2001): 479. 37. Jesuits were expelled from the two capitals in 1815 and from the Russian Empire in 1820. On Jesuits in Russia, see James T. Flynn, “The Role of Jesuits in the Politics of Russian Education, 1801–1820,” The Catholic Historical Review 56, no. 2 (1970): 249–65. 38. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 251. 39. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 246. 40. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 260. 41. Nemeth, “Kant in Russia: The Initial Phase (Cont’d),” 337. 42. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 241–2, 324. 43. Ibid., 287. Cf. in Kant: “ . . . the relation of the married persons to each other is a relation of Equality in regards to the mutual possession of their Persons . . . consequently marriage is only truly realized in Monogamy; for in the relation of polygamy the person who is given away on the one side gains only a part of the one to who that person is given up and therefore becomes a mere res.” Kant, The Philosophy of Law, ed. W. Hastie (Edinburgh, 1887), 1. 44. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 289; Cf. in Kant, The Philosophy of Law, 12. 45. Ibid., 290. 46. Ibid., 299. 47. See Chapter 3. 48. In the textbook, Kunitsyn termed “democratic form” what in lectures he described as “republican form.” Despite the change in terms, the content of these two segments is the same. 49. Ibid., 293. 50. Ibid., 294. 51. Ibid., 295. Kunitsyn might have drawn this idea from Spinoza, whose theory of natural law he otherwise explicitly rejected. He wrote: “Although it is a great nonsense to postulate force as the foundation of law, this opinion had its proponents, one of whom was Spinoza . . . ” Ibid., 221. On Spinoza, see J. W. Gough, The Social Contract (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 113. 52. Compare to Kant: “It is not experience or any kind of factual knowledge which makes public legal coercion necessary. On the contrary, even if we imagine men to be as benevolent and law-abiding as we please, the a priori Notes to Pages 155–159 237

rational idea of a non-lawful state will still tell us that before a public and legal state is established, individual men, peoples and states can never be secure against acts of violence from one another . . . thus the first decision the individual is obliged to make, if he does not want to renounce all concepts of right . . . ” Kant’s Political Writings, 137. On Kantian nonvoluntaristic interpretation of the idea of contract, see Kersting, 353–8. 53. “The state of nature [is] . . . a state of society in which justice is absent . . . for this reason, everyone may use violent means to compel another to enter into a juridical state of society.” Kant, The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, 76. 54. On Pufendorf, see Gough, 119–24. 55. In the Natural Law Kunitsyn was ambiguous whether the state of nature should be understood as a historical fact, or, as in Kant, a purely hypothetical assumption, not to be taken literally. In writing about the natural conditions and the contracts that follow, he always employs present rather than past tense, which might indicate the Kantian use of this concept; at the same time, unlike Kant, Kunitsyn nowhere explicitly denies its historicity. 56. Barry Hollingsworth, “A. P. Kunitsyn,” 128. 57. On Kant’s use of the term “general will” and Rousseau’s influence on Kant, see also Kersting, 355; Williams, 165; Frederick C. Beiser, “Kant’s Intellectual Development 1746–81,” in The Cambridge Companion to Kant, 43–4. 58. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 317–18. It is notable that Kunitsyn used the neutral term “vlastitel” rather than “svoevlastitel,” which connoted the idea of autocratic rule, as was the case with the works of Jakob, for instance. 59. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 299. 60. Ibid., 276. 61. Ibid., 306. 62. Ibid., 306. 63. Ibid., 297. 64. Ibid., 320. 65. Ibid., 306–7. 66. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 303. 67. Ibid., 308. He might have borrowed the idea from Schmalz. See Schmalz, Das Natürliche Staatsrecht, 88–90. 68. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 314. 69. Ibid., 314. In Kant this right “ . . . entitles the public authority to see that no secret society, political or religious exists among the people that can exert a prejudicial influence upon the public Weal.” See Kant, The Philosophy of Law, 185. 70. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 314. 71. Ibid., 315. Cf. Kant: “when it is required by the Police, no such secret society may refuse to lay open its constitution. But visitation and search of private houses by the Police, can only be justified in a case of Necessity; and in every particular instance, it must be authorized by a higher authority.” Kant, Philosophy of Law, 185–6. 72. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 317. 73. Ibid., 218– 219. 74. Ibid., 316. Schmalz makes a similar point that the ruler might misuse his power under the guise of protecting public good. However, he conceded no possibility of resistance or public scrutiny of the ruler as a way to counteract the abuse because the subjects, according to Schmalz (both as a community 238 Notes to Pages 159–166

and private individuals), relinquished their power of the judgment through the contract of submission. See Schmalz, 59–6, 77. Kraus, 388, 400. 75. Ibid., 318. 76. Ibid., 317. 77. Ibid., 321. 78. Kunitsyn, Pravo, 328. 79. Ibid., 338. 80. Ibid., 340. 81. Ibid., 349.

7 In the Midst of Conservative Reaction

1. On Russian nationalist and religious conservatism, see the excellent study by Martin, 15–143; Zacek, 411–37. The most detailed account in Russian can be found in Pypin, 1–144. 2. Quoted from F. Petrov, Rossiiskie universitety v pervoi polovine. XIX veka, Vol. 2, pt. 3 (Moscow, 1999), 70. 3. Ibid., 71. 4. Martin, 156, 170–84; Whittaker, “From Promise to Purge: The First Years of St. Petersburg University,” Paedagogica Historica 18 (1978): 158. 5. Sbornik rasporiazhenii 1:321. 6. Ibid., 322–31. 7. See Fly nn, The University Reform, 84–103. 8. Quoted from Flynn, The University Reform, 94. 9. Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia (May 1821), 42. 10. Ibid., 45. 11. IRLI, f. 263, op 3, d. 6, l. 62. 12. On Uvarov’s attitude toward secondary education, see Whittaker, The Origins, 62–5. 13. I. Aleshintsev, Istoriia gimnazicheskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1912), 61–6. 14. A. Nikitenko, Dnevnik, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1955), 1:34. Alexander Nikitenko was a former serf of Count Sheremet’ev, who gained personal emancipation due to the intercession of Prince Golitsyn and later, Ryleev, who noticed his zeal for study. Nikitenko graduated from St. Petersburg University where he then served as professor of philology in addition to his duties as a district censor. His diary provides some insightful observations and comments on the conditions of Russian education, censorship, and society in the Russia of Nicholas I and Alexander II. 15. S. V. Rozhdestvenskii, Istoricheskii obzor deiatel’nosti ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 1802–1902 (St. Petersburg, 1902), 118. 16. D. Runich “Iz zapisok D. P. Runicha,” Russkaia Starina (May 1901), 377–8. 17. Main Pedagogical Institution did not qualify for these privileges, and by the time it received the official statute, the system of university censorship was abolished. 18. “O poruchenii Uchenomu Komitetu nadzora za izdaniem uchenykh knig,” Sbornik rasporiazhenii 1:319–20. 19. Quoted from Sukhomlinov 1:469. For an extended discussion of the censorship reform, see Ruud, 43–55. 20. Liubavin, 20–4. Notes to Pages 166–172 239

21. This requirement was introduced in April 1817. See Sbornik postanovlenii 1:896. 22. Quoted from Liubavin, 37. 23. Historians tend to take at face value Grech’s characterization of Runich as nothing more but “Magnitskii’s caricature.” See Whittaker, “From Promise to Purge,” 156. 24. This work is preserved in a manuscript form in Runich’s personal archive in IRLI, f. 263. 25. IRLI, F. 263, op. 3, d. 12, l. 25. 26. Ibid., l.27 ob, 28. 27. Ibid., l.29. 28. Ibid., l.27, 27ob. 29. Liubavin, 38–9. 30. Whittaker, “From Promise to Purge,” 160. See also Turgenev’s impression of Semenovskii regime’s uprising. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:244. 31. IRLI, f. 288, op. 1, d. 8, ll. 5–16ob. 32. Sukhomlinov, 1:215. 33. Quoted from Liubavin, 46. 34. Ibid. 35. IRLI, f. 263, op 3, d. 6, l. 61. 36. Quoted from Liubavin, 53. 37. TsGIA, f. 11, op. 1, d. 148, l. 10. 38. Liubavin, 56, 58. The archive of the journal Russian Antiquity (Russkaia Starina), which was published from 1870 to 1918, contains a set of notes taken on Kunitsyn’s Natural Law. Interestingly, the author (whose name is not known) only selected the paragraphs containing the discussion of human natural rights and the notion of autonomy. The exact date of the document is also not known. However, judging from the quality of the paper, it was written in the nineteenth century. See IRLI, f. 265, op. 2, d. 1379, ll. 1–4. 39. A. Turgenev, Khronika Russkogo. Dnevniki (Moscow- Leningrad, 1964), 435. 40. Dekabrist N. Turgenev, 65. 41. This episode is described in Whittaker, The Origins, 83; and Flynn, The University Reform, 110. 42. Meilakh, 70. 43. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv 2:176. 44. Quoted from Liubavin, 38. 45. Petrov, Rossiiskie universitety 2, pt. 3:101; Rozhdestvenskii, 126. 46. IRLI, f. 263, op. 3, d. 28, l. 1ob. 47. Ibid., d.9., l. 4. IRLI, f.263, op.3, d. 47, l. 25; d. 9, l. 3 ob., 4. 48. ILRI, f. 263, op.3, d. 25, l. 1–l ob. 49. IRLI, f. 263, op. 3, d. 27, l. 67. 50. Ibid., l. 68 ob. 51. TsGIA(SPb), f. 263, op. 3, d. 27, l. 72–83. 52. TsGIA(SPb), f. 263, op. 3, d. 25, l.1–2ob. Sukhomlinov mentions that it was used in Kazan’ University in the early 1820s. (Sukhomlinov, 1:235.) Also, when Nezhin Gymnasium (founded in 1820) obtained permission to intro- duce a course on natural law in 1823, its council received a directive to use Martini’s Positiones. See Mashinskii, 45. Lodii employed it in his courses until he produced in 1828 his own textbook, using Martini as his main source. According to Grigor’ev, in 1821 Lodii reported to the council of St. Petersburg 240 Notes to Pages 172–177

University that “all Austrian universities use Martini for teaching natural law.” See Grigor’ev, 12. 53. Flynn, The University Reform, 111–12. 54. Documents on trial proceedings are printed in Sukhomlinov, 1:271–337. 55. Quoted from Sukhomlinov, 1:283. 56. Runich, 385. 57. S. V. Rozhdestvenskii, ed. Materialy dlia istorii uchebnykh reform v Rossii v XVIII–XIX vekakh (St. Petersburg, 1810), lxxvii. 58. Runich, 626–7. This tirade, for all its unflattering conservative fanaticism, suggests that Runich had always remained sincere in his convictions. 59. IRLI, f. 263, op 3, d. 6. 60. A. Voronov, Istoriko- statisticheskoe obozrenie uchebnykh zavedenii Sankt- Peterburgskogo uchebnogo okruga (St. Petersburg, 1899), 216–17. 61. IRLI, f. 263, op 3, d. 6, l. 4; 62. IRLI, f. 263, op 3, d. 6, l. 4. 63. Ibid., 6. 64. He wrote: “Kantian philosophy . . . does not allow any principles of loyalty other than the one based on pure reason, that is enthusiasm which always leads towards criticism of all institutions of social order and praise for democratic undertakings.” Ibid., 41. 65. Ibid., 38. 66. E. M. Feoktistov, Magnitskii (St. Petersburg, 1865), 182–97. 67. Photius’s religious fanaticism was indeed remarkable (although Nicholas I remained unimpressed and was quite irritated by Photius’s posture as a saint). Removed from the court, Photius died from excessive fasting. On Photius, see Joseph L. Wieczynski, “Apostle of Obscurantism: The Archimandrite Photius of Russia (1792–1838),” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 22 (1971): 319–31. 68. IRLI, f. 263, op 3, d. 6, l. 38. 69. Feoktistov, 200. 70. See S. Mashinskii, Gogol’ i ‘delo o vol’nodumstve,’ (Moscow, 1959), 85–210; All the archival documents pertaining to the “case of freethinking” in Nezhin were published in D. Iofanov, N. V. Gogol’: detskie i iunosheskie gody (Kiev, 1951), 263–418. 71. Quoted from Mashinskii, 93, 107. 72. See Mashinskii, 180–210. 73. Petrov, Formirovanie 3:64–5. 74. On the foundation of new types of schools for peasants, see Ibid., 65. 75. Nikitenko, Dnevnik 1:128–9. 76. Pustarnakov, Universitetskaia filosofiia, 527. Franz Samuel Karpe taught philosophy in Vienna from 1786 to 1806. In Austria his Compediaria Philosophiae moralis institutio (Vienna 1804) was among the textbooks approved by the court censors for teaching purposes. See Rudolf Haller “On the Historiography of Austrian Philosophy,” in Rediscovering the Forgotten Vienna Circle, ed. Thomas Uebe (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991), 44. 77. Pal’min started his teaching career in Kazan’ University. During the university purges he took Magnitsky’s side against his colleges but was unable to continue in Kazan’ in view of his poor reputation among the faculty. Due to Runich’s assistance he obtained a teaching position at St. Petersburg University. See Pustarnakov, Universitetskaia filosofiia, 527; Nikitenko, Dnevnik 1:11–12, 117. Incidentally, Pal’min was listed among the subscribers Notes to Pages 177–180 241

to Schmalz’s book, but he apparently did not dare using even this cautious book for his courses. 78. Pustarnakov, 634. 79. P. Lodii, Teoriia obschih prav soderzhaschaia v sebe filosofskie ucheniia o estestvennom vseobschem gosudarstvennom prave (St. Petersburg, 1828), 17–25. 80. Ibid., 88. 81. Ibid., 37. 82. Ibid., 106. 83. In his academic publications during the 1820s he focused on the study of private and Roman law: Lev Tsvetaev, Pervye nachala prav chastnogo i obshchego, s prisovokuplenie osnovanii narodnogo prava (Moscow, 1823); Uchebnaia kniga rimskgogo grazhdanskogo prava (Moscow, 1834); Osnovaniia prava chastnogo grazhdanskogo (Moscow, 1825); Pevye nachala politicheskoi ekonomii (Moscow, 1823). 84. D. Miliutin, Vospominaniia general-fel’dmarshala D. A. Miliutina (Moscow, 1997), 1:93. 85. Iakov Kostenetskii, “Vospominaniia iz moei studencheskoi zhizni,” Russkii Arkhiv 25, book 1 (1887): 232. Kostenetskii belonged to those critically thinking students who aroused the government’s suspicion. In 1833 he was expelled from the university, deprived of his noble title, and sent to Caucasus as a simple soldier. He showed himself to be a brave soldier during the Turkish War and was rewarded with a promotion to the officer’s rank. He retired in 1839 to devote himself to writing and, later, zemstvo activity. 86. Petrov, Formirovanie 2:127–8. On the development of legal training in Russia, see also Wortman, The Development, 42–5. 87. Quoted from L. I. Nasonkina, Moskovskii universitet posle vosstaniia dekabristov (Moscow, 1972), 66. 88. Quoted from Petrov, Formirovanie 2:135. This episode is described in some detail in the memoirs of A. D. Galakhov (1807–1892), a now almost forgotten literary figure who studied in Moscow University at that time. See A. D. Galakhov, Zapiski cheloveka (Moscow 1999), 90–2. 89. On Davydov, see Pustarnakov, Universitetskaia filosofiia v Rossii, 376–8; Nasonkina, 63–6; Petrov, Formirovanie, 2:129–38. Using an outdated Soviet source on the history of Moscow University, Flynn mistakenly argued that Moscow University was spared any trouble with the authorities because Obolenskii protected the faculty from ideological purges by using his social connections. “Kunitsyn’s book,” he argues, “was condemned as evidence of ‘evil’ at work at St. Petersburg University, because Runich said it was. Davydov’s very similar book was not evidence of evil at Moscow . . . because Obolenskii said it was not.” This argument supports Flynn’s thesis that purges in Kazan’ and St. Petersburg were acts of individual obscurantists that had no significant conse- quences for other universities. See Flynn, The University Reform, 144, 155–6, 159. 90. Nikitenko, Dnevnik 1:242. His flattery of Uvarov became an object of V. Belinskii’s public derision. Ibid., 506. n. 199. 91. Quoted from W. B. Lincoln, Nicholas I: Emperor and Autocrat of All Russians (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1989), 57. See also Wortman, The Development, 44–6. 92. ZhMNP, 1834, pt. 1:v–vi. 93. In 1834 the Journal published a long article on the ideas of Louis Bautain, a professor of philosophy in Strasburg University who explored in his works 242 Notes to Pages 180–186

the relationship between reason and faith. At the core of his philosophy was the idea that Revelation serves as the only source of truth and certi- tude for mankind. Nikitenko mentions in his diary that Uvarov “ordered that all professors of philosophy and related sciences follow this article in their teaching.” See A. Kraevskii, “Sovremennoe sostoianie filosofii vo Frantsii i novaia sistema sei nauki osnovyvaemaia Botenom,” ZhMNP, 1834, pt. 1:317–77; Nikitenko, Dnevnik 1:144. 94. ZhMNP, part VXXVII (1853): 153. The teaching of philosophy was reinstated in the liberal Statute of 1863. 95. Joseph N. Moody, French Education since Napoleon (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1978), 27, 211, n. 19. 96. See Thornhill, 130–57; Kelly, 272–4. 97. Russkie university v ikh ustavakh i vospominaniiakh, 122–3. See also Flynn, The University Reform, 205. 98. Koshelev, 8–9; Russkie universitety v ikh ustavakh i vospominaniiakh, 33, 85, 93, 104. 99. Nasonkina, 119. 100. Nikitenko, Dnevnik 1:72, 79. 101. Koshelev, 39. 102. See Hamburg, 46- 66. 103. Quoted from Nasonkina, 115. 104. Flynn, The University Reform, 27–215. 105. Moskovskii universitet v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, ed. P. A. Zaionchkovskii (Moscow, 1956), 57. 106. Ibid., 22. 107. Ibid., 123, also 22, 26, 53. 108. Nasonkina, 128–51. Most of his liberal verses were about the oppression of individual freedom in Russia. In prison he wrote a short verse that expressed both his despair and defiance. “If there is no means to save oneself / From oppression and chains / Then life is worse than hundred deaths /And free person has to finish his life free. See A. I. Polezhaev, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy (Leningrad, 1957), 66–7. Translation is mine. 109. Nasonkina, 151–5. 110. [A. Benkendorf] “Graf A. Benkendorf o Rossii v 1827–1830 (Ezhegodnye otchety III otdeleniia i politsii zhandarmov,” Krasnyi arkhiv 37 (1929), 149–50. 111. Ibid., 165–9. 112. Moskovskii universitet v vospominaniiakh, 125.

Epilogue

1. Magnitskii was charged with embezzlement of Kazan’ University funds. See Flynn, The University Reform, 165–6. Runich was dismissed in 1826. He lived the rest of his life in retirement and died in 1860. See Martin, 201. 2. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh 3:260. 3. Ibid., 337; TsGIA, f. 11, op.1, d. 3727, l. 8. 4. See Chapter 3 on Kunitsyn’s article “About Constitution.” 5. Charles Breunig, The Age of Revolution and Reaction, 1789–1850 (New York: Norton Company, 1977), 138–41. 6. Kunitsyn, “Obozrenie 1821 goda,” Syn Otechestva 76, no. XII (1822): 194. Notes to Pages 187–191 243

7. Kunitsyn, “Obozrenie 1821 goda. Prodolzhenie,” Syn Otechestva 76, no. XVI (1822): 44–55. 8. On Moscow Telegraph, see William Mills Todd III, “Periodicals in the Early Nineteenth Century,” in Literary Journalism in Imperial Russia, ed. Deborah Martinsen (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 37–63. 9. Vosstanie dekabristov: materiali i dokumenti, ed. M. N. Pokrovskii (M.-L. 1925), 1:226. 10. Ibid. 11:36. It is not clear why he refers to the Institute as the Academy. 11. Ibid. 18:164. 12. TsGIA(SPb), f. 11, op. 1, d. 3727, l.10. 13. Raeff, Michael Speransky, 174–6. 14. A. Kunitsyn, “Zamechaniia na knigu Osnovaniia Rossiiskago Prava, izdannuiu Komissieu Sostavleniia Zakonov,” Syn Otechestva 51, no. VI (1819): 241–52; “Pribavlenie pervoe k zamechaniiam,” Syn Otechestva 54, no. XXXIII (1819): 281–310. 15. [Gustav] Rosenkampf, “Otvet na zamechaniia na knigu: Osnovaniia Rossiiskogo Prava, napechatannie v shestoi knizhke Syna Otechestva,” Syn Otechestva 52, no. XII (1819): 242–3. 16. A. Kunitsyn, “Zamechaniia,” 242–4. 17. Kunitsyn, “Pribavlenie pervoe (okonchanie),” Syn Otechestva 55, no. XXXIV (1819): 12–13. 18. Baron Rosenkampf, “Otvet na zamechaniia na knigu: Osnovaniia Rossiiskogo Prava, napechatannye v shestoi knishke Syna Otechestva,” Syn Otechestva 52, no. XII (1819): 245. 19. On the committee’s work after 1825, see P. M. Maikov, Vtoroe otdelenie, 102–216; Ruzhitskaia, Zakonodatel’naia deyatel’nost v tsarstvovanie Imperatora Nikolaia I (Moscow, 2005), 210–1. 20. Speranskii became the de facto chair of the project, while Balugianskii—a figure less objectionable to the Russian establishment—held an official title. Raeff, Speransky, 326–7. 21. P. M. Maikov, “Speranskii i studenty zakonovedeniia,” Russkii Vestnik (August 1899), 610–12; Ia. Barshev, Istoricheskaia zapiska o sodeistvii vtorogo otdeleniia sobstvennoi ego imperatorskogo velichestva kantseliarii razvitiiu iuridicheskikh nauk v Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1876), 6–12. 22. P. M. Maikov, Vtoroe otdelenie, 60. After the university purges of the early 1820s, the need for trained jurists was so tangible that various universities petitioned Speranskii and the Minister of Education to assign these students to law chairs. See P. Maikov, “Speranskii i studenty zakonovedeniia,” Russkii Vestnik (October 1899), 680–1; Nikitenko, Dnevnik 1:173. 23. On Savigny, see Karl Mollnau, “Contributions of Savigny to the Theory of Legislation,” The American Journal of Comparative Law 37, no. 1 (1989): 81–93. 24. Nikitenko, Dnevnik 1:146–7. 25. Ibid., 173. 26. Ibid.; Alexander Koshelev, an official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who traveled to Europe in 1831, also noted anti-Russian and pro- Polish sentiments among the Frenchmen. See Koshelev, 40. 27. He was presented with the box decorated with diamonds and the emperor’s initials. TsGIA, f. 11, op.1, d. 3727, l.13. 28. P. M. Maikov, O svode zakonov Rosskiiskoi Imperii (Moscow, 2006), 68. Incidentally, it was far from the only case of concealing certain inconvenient 244 Notes to Pages 191–192

laws from the public. Speranskii took care to find such laws and consult Nicholas I concerning their publication. Excluded, for instance, was a mani- festo of 1826 concerning peasant disturbances, which allowed landlords “to act secretly” (bez oglaski). All other decrees containing this formula were also left unpublished. See P. Maikov, Vtoroe Otdelenie, 165–6. 29. Ibid., 69. 30. Raeff, Michael Speransky, 327. 31. Kunitsyn, Istoricheskoe izobrazhenie drevnego sudoproizvodstva v Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1843); Liubavin, 63. 32. This number included male serfs only, who counted as tax obligated. The actual number, therefore, was significantly higher. See Melton, 682, n. 32. 33. On Instructions, see Ibid., 680–708. 34. Nikitin, 198–211. 35. See his obituary in Russkii Invalid no. 277 (1840): 113. 36. TsGIA, f. 11, op. 1, d. 3727, l.13. 37. Ibid. Bibliography

1. Archival Sources

TsGIA(SPb) Tsentral’nyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv v Sankt Peterburge f. 11 Archive of A. Kunitsyn f. 13 Archive of Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum f. 14 Archive of St. Petersburg University

IRLIInstitut Russkoi Literatury i Iskusstva f. 263 Archive of D. Runich f. 288 Archive of A. Sturdza

2. Works by Kunitsyn

Kunitsyn, A. P. Nastavlenie vospitannikam chitannoe pri otkrytii Imperatorskogo tsarskosel’skogo litseia. St. Petersburg, 1811. Reprinted in Kondakov, M. I., ed. Antologiia pedagogicheskoi mysli Rossii pervoi poloviny XIX v. Moscow, 1987, 147–53. ———. “Poslanie k russkim.” Syn Otechestva 1, no. V (1812): 173–81. ———.“Zamechaniia na nyneshniuiu voinu.” Syn Otechestva 2, no. VIII (1812): 45–8. ———. Izobrazhenie vzaimnoi sviazi gosudarstvennykh svedenii. St. Petersburg, 1817. Reprinted in Shchipanov I., ed. Russkie prosvetiteli ot Radishcheva do dekabristov. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1966, 176–88. ———. Pravo estestvennoe. 2 vols. St. Petersburg, 1818–20. Reprinted in Shchipanov I., ed. Russkie prosvetiteli ot Radishcheva do dekabristov. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1966, 204–351. ———. “O sostoianii inostrannykh krest’ian.” Syn Otechestva 45, no. XVII (1818): 162–86. ———. “O konstitutsii,” Syn Otechestva 45, no. XVIII (1818): 202–11. ———. “Rassmotrenie rechi G. Prezidenta Akademii Nauk I Popechitelia Sanktpeterburgskogo Uchebnogo okruga., proiznesennoi im na publichnom torzhestvennom sobranii Glavnogo Pedagogicheskogo Instituta 22 marta 1818 goda,” Syn Otechestva 46, no. XXIII (1818): 136–46. ———. “Rassmotreniie rechi G. Prezidenta Akademii Nauk i Popechitelia Sanktpeterburgskogo Uchebnogo okruga., proiznesennoi im na publichnom torzhestvennom sobranii Glavnogo Pedagogicheskogo Instituta 22 marta 1818 goda (okonchanie).” Syn Otechestva 46, no. XXIV (1818): 174–91. ———. “Nekotorye mysli o neobkhodimosti mogushchestvennoi vneshnei zashchity bezopasnosti i spokoistviia gosudarstv.” Syn Otechestva 51, no. II (1818): 49–66. ———. “Nekotorye mysli o neobkhodimosti mogushchestvennoi vneshnei zashchity bezopasnosti i spokoistviia gosudarstv (okonchanie).” Syn Otechestva 51, no. III (1818): 97–106.

245 246 Bibliography

Kunitsyn, A. P. “Rassmotrenie knigi: Opyt Teorii Nalogov, sochinennoi Nikolaem Turgenevym.” Syn Otechestva 51, no. IV (1818): 207–24. ———. “Rassmotrenie knigi: Opyt Teorii Nalogov, sochinennoi Nikolaem Turgenevym (okonchanie).” Syn Otechestva 51, no. V (1818): 258–71. ———. “Zamehaniia na knigu Osnovaniia Rossiiskogo Prava, izdannuiu Komissiei Sostavleniia Zakonov.” Syn Otechestva 51, no. VI (1819): 241–52. ———. “Pribavlenie pervoe k zamechaniiam na Osnovaniia Rossiiskogo Prava.” Syn Otechestva 55, no. XXXIII (1819): 290–310. ———. “Pribavlenie pervoe k zamechaniiam na Osnovaniia Rossiiskogo Prava (okonchanie).” Syn Otechestva 55, no. XXXIV (1819): 3–18. ———. “Obozrenie 1821 goda,” Syn Otechestva 76, no. XII (1822): 193–213. ———. “Obozrenie 1821 goda (okonchanie).” Syn Otechestva 76, no. XVI (1822): 44–55. ———. “Entsiklopediia prav.” In Shchipanov I., ed. Izbrannye sotsial’no-politicheskie i filosofskie proizvedeniia dekabristov. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1951, 591–654. ———. Istoricheskoe izobrazhenie drevnego sudoproizvodstva v Rossii. St. Petersburg, 1843. ———. “Litseiskie lektsii (po zapisiam A. M. Gorchakova).” Krasnyi arkhiv 80, no. 1 (1937): 75–129.

3. Printed Primary Sources

Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh. Edited by E. Tarasov. 6 vols. St. Petersburg, 1911–21. Borovkova-Maikova M. S., ed. Arzamas i arzamasskie protokoly. Leningrad, 1933. Balug’ianskii, M. “Natsional’noe bogatsvo. Izobrazhenie razlichnykh khoziaist- vennykh sistem.” Statisticheskii Zhurnal izdavaemyi Karlom Germanom. 2 vols. St. Petersburg, 1806–7. [Baumeister Ch.] Baumeister Kh. Nravouchitel’naia filosofiia, soderzhashchaia estestvennoe pravo, etiku, politiku, ekonomiiu i drugie veshchi, dlia znaniia nuzhnye i poleznye. Per. s latinskogo D. Sin’kovskim. Moscow, 1788. [Benkendorf A.] “Graf A. Benkendorf ‘O Rossii v 1827–1830 (Ezhegodnye otchety III otdeleniia i politsii zhandarmov.’ ” Krasnyi arkhiv 37 (1929): 138–74. Buhle, Johann Gottlieb. Lehrbuch des Naturrechts. Göttingen, 1798. Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev Pis’ma k bratu S. I. Turgenevu. Edited by N. Svirin. Moscow, 1936. Galakhov, A. D. Zapiski cheloveka. Moscow, 1999. Heeren, A. H. A Manual of the History of the Political System of Europe and its Colonies. London, 1833. [Jakob, L.] Iakob, Liudvig. Kurs Filosofii dlia gimnazii Rossiiskoi Imperii. Chast’ chetvertaia soderzhashchaia nravouchitelnuu filosofiiu. St. Petersburg, 1814. ———. Estestvennoe i narodnoe pravo. St. Petersburg, 1817. Kant. I. The Philosophy of Law. Edited by W. Hastie. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887. ———.Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ———. The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ———. Kant’s Political Writings. Edited by Hans Reiss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Karamzin, N. Pis’ma k I. I. Dmitrievu. St. Petersburg, 1866. Bibliography 247

Koshelev, A. Zapiski Aleksandra Ivanovicha Kosheleva. Berlin, 1884. Kostenetskii, Iakov. “Vospominaniia iz moei studencheskoi zhizni.” Russkii Arkhiv 25, book 1 (1887): 99–117. Lodii, P. Teoriia obschih prav soderzhaschaia v sebe filosofskie ucheniia o estestvennom vseobschem gosudarstvennom prave. St. Petersburg, 1828. Malinovskii, V. F. “Iz dnevnika.” In Russkie prosvetiteli ot Radishcheva do dekabristov, edited by I. Shchipanov. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1966, 249–70. Martini von, Karl Anton. Lehrbegriff des Naturrechts. Vienna, 1799. Miliutin, D. Vospominaniia general- fel’dmarshala D. A. Miliutina. Moscow, 1997. Naumov, Ivan. Estestvennoe pravo. 2 vols. Moscow, 1808–9. Nikitenko, A. V. Dnevnik. 3 vols. Moscow, 1955. Oksman, Iu., ed. Dekabristy: Otryvki iz istochnikov. Moscow, 1926. Ostaf’evskii arkhiv kniazei Viazemskikh. Edited by V. I. Santov. Vols. 1–2. St. Petersburg, 1899–1913. Postanovlenie o litsee. St. Petersburg, 1810. Pravdin, Russkoi dvorianin. “Sravnenie Russkih krest’ian s inozemnymi.” Dukh Zhurnalov 24, book 49 (1817): 343–70 (981–1008). Pushchin, I. I. Zapiski o Pushkine. Moscow, 1979. Pushkin, Alexander. The Letters of Alexander Pushkin. Translated with introduction and notes by J. T. Shaw. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967. ———. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1994. Pushkin Threefold: Narrative, Lyric, Polemic and Ribald Verse. Translated by Walter Arndt. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1972. [Reinhard, Christian] Reingard, Khristian Filip. Sistema moral’noi filosofii. Moscow, 1807. ———. Estestevnnoe pravo. Kazan’, 1816. Rosenkampf [Gustav.] “Otvet na zamechaniia na knigu: Osnovaniia Rossiiskogo Prava, napechatannye v shestoi knizhke Syna Otechestva.” Syn Otechestva 52 no. XII (1819): 241–72. Runich, D. “Iz zapisok D. P. Runicha.” Russkaia Starina (May 1901): 373–94. [Rossiia. Ministerstvo narodnogo prosveshcheniia.] Sbornik postanovlenii po ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniia. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg. 1875. [Rossiia. Ministerstvo narodnogo prosveshcheniia.] Sbornik rasporiazhenii po ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1866. [Snell, F.] Snell’, Fridrikh. Nachal’nogo kursa filosofii chast chetvertaya. Nravouchenie i Estesvennoe pravo. Kazan’, 1814. Schmalz, T. Das Natürliche Staatsrecht. Königsberg, 1794. [Schmalz, T.] Shmal’ts, Fedor. Pravo Estestvennoe. St. Petersburg, 1820. Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited by R. Campbell and A. S. Skinner. 2 vols. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1979. Sollogub, V. A. Vospominaniia. Moscow, 1999. Solov’ev, I. M., ed. Russkie universitety v ikh ustavakh i vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. St. Petersburg, 1914. Tsvetaev, Lev. Kratkaia teoriia zakonov. Moscow, 1810. Tsvetaev, Lev. Pervye nachala prava estestvenogo. Moscow, 1816. Turgenev, Alexander. Pis’ma Alexandra Turgeneva Bulgakovym, ed. I. K. Luppol Moscow, 1939. ———. Khronika Russkogo. Dnevniki. Moscow- Leningrad, 1964. ———. Politicheskaia proza. Moscow, 1990. Turgenev, N. “Opyt teorii nalogov.” In U istokov finansovogo prava. Edited by A. N. Kozyrin. Moscow, 1998, 121–273. 248 Bibliography

Turgenev, N. Rossiia i Russkie. Edited by S. V. Zhitomirskaia. Moscow, 2000. Uvarov, S. Rech’ prezidenta Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk [S. S. Uvarova] popechitelia Sanktpeterburgskogo uchebnogo okruga. St. Petersburg, 1818. Vigel’, V. V. Zapiski. Moscow, 1928. [Zeiller, F.] Tseiler, F. Estestvennnoe chastnoe pravo sochinennoe Fransua fon Tseilerom professorom v universitete Venskom i chlenom zakonopolozhennoi komissii. St. Petersburg, 1809.

4. Secondary Sources:

Abramov, A. F. “Khristian Vol’f v Russkoi dukhovno-akademicheskoi filosofii.” In Khristian Vol’f i filosofiia v Rossii, edited by V. A. Zhuchkov, 189–209. St. Petersburg, 2001. Akulshin, P. V. P. A. Viazemskii. Vlast’ i obschestvo v dorevolutsionnoi Rossii. Moscow, 2001. Aleshintsev, I. Istoriia gimnazicheskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii. St. Petersburg, 1912. Andreev, A. Iu. Lektsii po istorii Moskovskogo Universiteta. 1755–1855. Moscow, 2001. ———. Moskovskii Universitet v obshchestvennoi i kul’turnoi zhizni Rossii nachala XIX veka. Moscow, 2000. Anikin, Andrei. “Adam Smith in Russia.” In Adam Smith: International Perspectives, edited by Hiroshi Mizuta and Chunei Sugiyama, 251–60. New York: St. Martin Press, 1993. Annenkov, P. V. Pushkin v Aleksandrovskuu epokhu. 1874. Reprint. Minsk, 1998. Bagalei, D. I. Opyt istorii Khar’kovskogo universiteta. Vol.1. Khar’kov, 1893. ———. Udalenie professora Shada iz Khar’kovskogo universiteta. Khar’kov, 1899. Baitsura, T. Zakarpatoukrainskaia intelligentsia v Rossii v pervoi polovine XIX veka. Priashev, 1971. Barshev, Ia. Istoricheskaia zapiska o sodeistvii vtorogo otdeleniia sobstvennoi ego imperatorskogo velichestva kantseliarii razvitiiu iuridicheskikh nauk v Rossii. St. Petersburg, 1876. Bazanov, B. Vol’noe obshchestvo liubitelei rosskiiskoi slovestnosti. Petrozavodsk, 1949. Beaven, Miranda. “Readership in Early Nineteenth-Century Russia: Recent Soviet Research.” Slavic Review 43, no. 2 (1984): 276–80 Beck, Lewis W. Early German Philosophy: Kant and His Predecessors. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969. Beiser, Frederick C. “Kant’s Intellectual Development 1746–81.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Paul Guyer, 26–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Bernstein, Lina. “Women on the Verge of a New Language: Russian Salon and Their Hostess in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century.” In Russia—Women— Culture, edited by E. Goscilo and B. Holmgren, 209–24. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996. Binyon, T. J. A. Pushkin: A Biography. London: Harper Collins Publishers, 2002. Biograficheskii slovar’ professorov i prepodavatelei Moskovskogo Imperatorskogo universiteta 1755–1833. 2 vols. Moscow, 1855. Blakely, Allison. “American Influences on Russian Reformist Thought in the Era of the French Revolution.” Russian Review 52, no. 4 (1993): 451–71. Blum, Jerome. Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. Bokova, V. M. Epokha tainykh obshchestv: Russkie obshchestvennie ob’edineniia pervoi treti XIX v. Moscow, 2003. Bibliography 249

Bradley, Joseph. “Subjects into Citizens, Civil Society, and Autocracy in Tsarist Russia.” The American Historical Review 107, no. 4 (2002): 1094–123. Bramsted, E. K. and K. J. Melhuish, eds. Western Liberalism A History from Locke to Croce. London: Longman, 1978. Breunig, Charles. The Age of Revolution and Reaction, 1789–1850. New York: Norton Company, 1977. Brodskii, L. N., ed. Literaturnye salony i kruzhki n.n. XIX v. Moscow, 1951. Brown, A. N. “The Father of Russian Jurisprudence: The Legal Thought of S. E. Desnitskii.” In Russian Law in Historical Perspective, edited by E. Butler, 117–42. Leyden 1977. Chamberlin, William H. “The Short Life of Russian Liberalism.” Russian Review 26, no. 2 (1967): 144–52. Fontana, B. Introduction to Political Writings, by Benjamin Constant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Corr, Charles A. “Christian Wolff and Leibniz.” Journal of the History of Ideas 36, no. 2 (1975): 241–62. Cross, A. “N. M. Karamzin’s ‘Messenger of Europe’ (Vestnik Evropy), 1802–3.” Forum for Modern Language Studies 5, no. 1 (1969): 1–22. ———. Anglo- Russica: Aspects of Cultural Relations Between Great Britain and Russia in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Berg, 1993. Driver, Sam. “Puškin and Politics: The Later Works.” Slavic and East European Journal, vol. 25, no. 3 (1981): 1–23. Edwards, David. “Count Joseph de Maistre and Russian Educational Policy, 1803– 1828.” Slavic Review 36, no. 1 (1977): 54–75. Engelstein, Laura. Slavophile Empire: Imperial Russia’s Illiberal Path. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, 2009. Faggionato, Raffaella. “From a Society of the Enlightened to the Enlightenment of Society: The Russian Bible Society and Rosicrucuanism in the Age of Alexander I.” Slavonic and East European Review 79, no. 3 (2001): 459–87. Fedorov, V. A. Ruskaia pravoslavnaia tserkov’ i gosudarstvo v sinodal’nyi period (1700– 1917). Moscow, 2003. Fel’dshtein, G. S. “Glavnye techeniia v nauke ugolovnogo prava v Rossii,” Vremennik Demidovskogo iuridicheskogo litseia 103. Yaroslavl’, 1910. Feoktistov, E. M. Magnitskii. St. Petersburg, 1865. Ferretti, Paola. A Russian Advocate of Peace: Vasilii Malinovskii (1765–1814). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. Field, Daniel. “Kavelin and Russian Liberalism,” Slavic Review 32, no. 1 (1973): 59–78. Finkin, Mathew W. “Menschenbild: The Concept of the Employee as a Person in Western Law.” Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal 23, no. 4 (2002): 577–638. Flynn, James T. The University Reform of Tsar Alexander I 1802–1835. Washington: The Catholic University Academic Press, 1988. Fomin, A. K istorii voprosa o razvitii v Rossii obshchestvennih idei v nachale XIX veka. Petrograd, 1915. Frank, S. L. Etiudy o Pushkine. Munich, 1957. Frede, Victoria. “Materialism and the Radical Intelligentsia: The 1860s.” in A History of Russian Philosophy, 1830–1930, edited by G. M. Hamburg and Randall Pool, 69–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Freeze, Gregory L. The Russian Levities: Parish Clergy in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977. 250 Bibliography

Freeze, Gregory L. “Russian Orthodoxy: Church, People and Politics in Imperial Russia.” In The Cambridge History of Russia. Vol. 1. Imperial Russia, 1689–1917, edited by Dominic Lieven, 284–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Gazhiev, K. S. Politologiia. Moscow, 1994. Gleason, John H. The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain A Study of the Interaction of Policy and Opinion. New York: Octagon Books, 1972. Gleason, Walter. Moral Idealists, Bureaucracy and Catherine the Great. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1981. Gogolevskii, A. V. Ocherki istorii russkogo liberalisma XIX-n. XX v. St. Petersburg, 1996. Gooch, G. P. History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century. London, 1952. Gooding, John. “The Decembrists in the Soviet Union.” Soviet Studies XL, no. 2 (1998): 196–209. ———. “The Liberalism of Michael Speransky.” The Slavonic and East European Review 64, no. 3 (1986): 401–24. Gough, J. W. The Social Contract. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. Gregor, Mary. “Kant on Natural Rights.” In Kant and Political Philosophy, edited by Ronald Beiner and William Booth, 50–76. New Haven, Yale University Press: 1993. Grey, M. W. “Prussia in Transition: Society and Politics under the Stein Reform Ministry of 1808.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 76, no. 1 (1986):1–175. Grot, K. Ia. Pushkinskii Litsei. St. Petersburg, 1998. ———. Pushkin, ego litseiskie tovarishchi i nastavniki. St. Petersburg, 1899. Guyer, Paul. “Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right.” In Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals. Interpretative Essays, edited by Mark Timmons, 23–64. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Haakonssen, Knud. “German Natural Law.” In The Cambridge History of Eighteenth Century Political Thought, edited by Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler, 251–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Haller, Rudolf. “On the Historiography of Austrian Philosophy.” In Rediscovering the Forgotten Vienna Circle, edited by Thomas Uebe, 41–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991. Hamburg, G. M. Boris Chicherin & Early Russian Liberalism (1828–1866). Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. Hamburg G. M. and Randall, Poole. “The Humanist Tradition in Russian Philosophy.” In A History of Russian Philosophy, 1830–1930, edited by G. M. Hamburg and Randall Pool, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Hebeis, Michael. Karl Anton von Martini (1726–1800), Leben und Werk. Frankfurt-am- Main, 1996. Henrich, Dieter. “On the Meaning of Rational Action in the State.” In Kant and Political Philosophy, edited by Ronald Beiner and Williams Booth, 97–116. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Hertz, Frederick. The Development of German Public Mind. London: Macmillan, 1962. Hochstrasser, T. J. Natural Law Theories in the Early Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Hollingsworth, B. “Nicholas Turgenev. His Life and Works.” PhD Diss., Cambridge University, 1966. ———. “A. P. Kunitsyn and the Social Movement in Russia under Alexander I.” Slavonic and East European Review 43, no. 100 (1964): 116–28. Bibliography 251

Hollingsworth, B. “Arzamas: Portrait of a Literary Society.” The Slavonic and East European Review 44 (July 1966): 306–26. Hunter, Ian. Rival Enlightenments Civil and Metaphysical Philosophy in Early Modern Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Iatsenko, O. A. “A. P. Kunitsyn: nevostrebovannoe nasledie.” Veche, 1995, no. 2: 25–41. Iofanov, D. N. V. Gogol’: Detskie i iunosheskie gody. Kiev, 1951. Itenberg V. V., and B. S. Shelokhaev, eds. Rossiiskie liberaly. Moscow, 2001. Johnson, William H. Russia’s Educational Heritage. New York: Octagon Books, 1969. Kalitkina, N. Iu. “A. P. Kunitsyn—professor Peterburgskogo Universiteta.” Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta, Seriia Ekonomika, Filosofiia, Pravo, 1969, no. 5: 147–49. Kamenskii Z. A. “I. Kant v russkoi filosofii nachala 19 veka.” Vestnik istorii mirovoi kul’tury 19, no. 1 (1960): 49–66. ———. Filosofskie idei russkogo prosveshcheniia. Moscow, 1971. Kann, Robert A. A Study in Austrian Intellectual History. London: Thames and Hudson, 1960. Kelly, J. M. A Short History of Western Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Kersting, W. “Politics, Freedom, and Order: Kant’s Political Philosophy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Paul Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, 342–66. Kingston- Mann, Esther. In Search of True West (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. ———. “In the Light and Shadow of the West: The Impact of Western Economics in Pre- Emancipation Russia.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 33, no. 1 (1991): 86–105. Kistiakovskii, Bogdan. “In Defense of Law.” In Signposts: A Collection of Articles on the Russian Intelligentsia. Translated and edited by Marshall Shatz, 91–113. Irvine, Calif.: C. Schlacks Jr., 1986. Klippel, Diethelm. “The True Concept of Liberty: Political Theory in Germany in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century.” In The Transformation of Political Culture. England and Germany in the Late Eighteenth Century, edited by Eckhart Hellmuth, 447–66. London: Oxford University Press, 1990. Kobeko, D. Imperatorskii Tsarskosel’skii litsei, nastavniki i pitomtsy 1811–1843. St. Petersburg, 1911. Kolchin, Peter. Unfree Labor American and Russian Serfdom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987. Kolosov, V. Istoria Tverskoi dukhovnoi seminarii. Tver’, 1889. Komarov, A. I. “Zhurnalistika i kritika 1800–1810x godov.” In Ocherki po istorii russkoi zhurnalistiki, edited by P. N. Berkov. Vol. 1, 155–74. Moscow, 1955. Kondakov, I. P., ed. Svodnyi katalog russkoi knigi grazhdanskoi pechati XVII veka. 5 vols. Moscow, 1964. Korkunov, N. M. General Theory of Law. New York: A. M. Kelley, 1968. Korsgaard, Christine. Introduction to Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by I. Kant. Edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Kosachevskaia, E. M. M. A. Balug’ianskii i Peterburgskii universitet pervoi chetverti XIX veka. Leningrad, 1971. 252 Bibliography

Kosachevskaia, E. M. “M. A. Balugianskii v Peterburgskom Universitete.” In Ocherki po istorii Leningradskogo Universiteta, edited by N. G. Sladkevich, 39–67. Leningrad, 1962. Kraevskii, A. “Sovremennoe sostoianie filosofii vo Frantsii i novaia sistema sei nauki osnovyvaemaia Botenom.” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia, 1834, pt. 1:317–77. Kraus, Hans- Christof. Theodor Anton Heinrich Schmalz (1760–1831). Frankfurt-am- Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1999. Kruglov, A. N. Filosofiia Kanta v Rossii v kontse XVIII – pervoi polovine XIX vekov. Moscow, 2009. Kuprits, N. Ia. “A. P. Kunitsyn—uchitel’ Pushkina i pravoved.” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 1978, no. 3:106–12. Landa, S. S. Dukh Revolutsionnykh preobrazovanii. Iz istorii formirovaniya ideologii i politicheskoi organizatstii dekabristov 1816–1825. Moscow, 1975. Lavrovskii, N. A. “Epizod iz istorii Kharkovskogo universiteta.” Chteniia v Obschestve Istorii i Drevnostei Rossiiskikh (April–June 1873), book 2, pt. 2:1–58. Lässer, Gregor. “Martinis Naturrechtslehre als Haupquelle für Privatrecht,” in Karl Anton von Martini, edited by Heinz Barta, 135–96. Vienna, 2007. Leontovitch, V. V. Istoriia Liberalizma v Rossii 1762–1902. Paris, 1980. Lestition, Steven. “Kant and the End of Enlightenment in Prussia.” Journal of Modern History 65, no. 1 (1993): 57–112. Lincoln, W. B. In the Vanguard of Reform Russia’s Enlightened Bureaucrats 1825–1861. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1982. ———. Nicholas I Emperor and Autocrat of All Russians. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1989. Lindenfeld, David. The Practical Imagination, German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1997. Liubavin, M. A. Litseiskie uchitelia Pushkina i ikh knigi. St. Petersburg, 1997. Lukes, Steven. Individualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1973. Maikov, L. N., and B. L. Modzalevskii., eds. Al’bom Pushkinskoi iubileinoi vystavki. Moscow, 1899. Maikov, P. “Speranskii i studenty zakonovedeniia.” Russkii Vestnik (August 1899): 609–27; (October 1899): 673–83. ———. Vtoroe otdelenie sobstevennoi ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva kantseliarii. 1826– 1882. St. Petersburg, 1906. ———. O svode zakonov Rosskiiskoi Imperii. Moscow, 2006. Margolis. Iu. D., and G. A. Tishkin. Edinym Vdohnoveniem. Ocherki Istorii Universitetskogo Obrazovaniia v Peterburge v kontse XVIII- pervoi polovine XIX veka. St. Petersburg, 2000. ———. Otechestvu na Po’lzu, a Rossianam na Slavu. Iz Istorii Universitetskogo Obrazovaniia v Peterburge v XVIII-nachale XIX v. Leningrad, 1988. Martin, Alexander. Romantics, Reformers, Reactionaries. Russian Conservative Thought and Politics in the Reign of Alexander I. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1997. Mashinskii, S. Gogol’ i ‘delo o vol’nodumstve. Moscow, 1959. McCaffray, Susan P. “What Should Russia Be? Patriotism and Political Economy in the Thought of N. S. Mordvinov.” Slavic Review 59, no. 3 (2000): 572–96. McClelland, Charles E. The German Historians and England: A Study in Nineteenth Century Views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. McClelland, James. Autocrats and Academics. Education, Culture and Society in Tsarist Russia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Bibliography 253

McGrew, Roderick. “Dilemmas of Development: Baron Heinrich Friedrich Storch (1766–1835) on the Growth of Imperial Russia.” In Adam Smith Across the Nations Translations and Perceptions of Wealth of Nations, edited by Cheng- chung Lai, 282–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Medushevskii, A. N. Istoriia Russkoi sotsiologii. Moscow, 1993. Meilakh, B. Introduction to “Litseiskie lektsii po zapisiam A. M. Gorchakova. [Introduction].” Krasnyi akrhiv 80, no. 1 (1937): 75–90. Mel’nikova, N. N. Izdaniia Moskovskogo universiteta 1756–1779. Moscow, 1955. Melton, Edgar. “Enlightened Seigniorialism and Its Dilemmas in Serf Russia, 1750–1830.” The Journal of Modern History 62, no. 4 (1990): 675–708. Mikhailovskaia, N. M. “A. P. Kunitsyn v zhurnale Syn Otechestva.” Voprosy istorii i teorii literatury, 1966, no. 11:165–70. Minaeva, N. V. Pravitel’stvennaia konstitutsiia i peredovoe obshchestvennoe mnenie v Rossii v nachale XIX. Saratov, 1982. Mironenko, S. V., ed. Dekabristy: Biograficheskii spravochnik. Moscow, 1988. Modzalevskii, B. L. Pushkin i ego sovremenniki. St. Petersburg, 1999. Mollnau, Karl. “Contributions of Savigny to the Theory of Legislation.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 37, no. 1 (1989): 81–93. Moody, Joseph N. French Education since Napoleon. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1978. Nasonkina, I. L. Moskovskii universitet posle vosstaniia dekabristov. Moscow, 1972. Nechkina, M. Griboedov i dekabristy. Moscow, 1951. ———. Dvizhenie dekabristov. 2 vols. Moscow, 1955. ———., ed. Vosstanie dekabristov. Vol. 18. Moscow, 1984. Nemeth, Thomas. “Kant in Russia: The Initial Phase.” Studies in Soviet Thought 36, no. 1 (1988): 79–110. ———. “Kant in Russia: The Initial Phase (Cont’d)” Studies in Soviet Thought 40, no. 4 (1990): 293–338. Nethercott, Frances. “Russian Liberalism and the Philosophy of Law.” In A History of Russian Philosophy, 1830–1930, edited by G. M. Hamburg and Randall Pool, 248–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Netting, A. “Russian Liberalism: The Years of Promise: 1842–1855.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1967. Nikitenko, A. “Alexander Ivanovich Galich byvshii professor filosofii v Peterburgskom universitete.” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia CXLI (1869): 1–86. Nikitin, A. G. Sekretnaia rukopis’ Pushkina. Moscow, 1992. Nikolaev, P. A., ed. Russkie pisateli 1800–1917. Biograficheskii slovar’. Vol. 3. Moscow, 1994. Offord, D. Portraits of Early Russian Liberals: A Study of the Thought of T. N. Granovsky, V. P. Botkin, P. V. Annenkov, A. V. Druzhinin and K. D. Kavelin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. ———. “Alexander Herzen.” In A History of Russian Philosophy, 1830–1930, edited by G. M. Hamburg and Randall Pool, 52–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ———. “ ‘Lichnost’: Notions of Individual Identity.” In Constructing Russian Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881–1940, edited by Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd, 13–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Oizerman T. I., ed. Filosofiia Kanta i sovremennost’. Moscow, 1974. Osipov, I. D. Filosofiia russkogo liberalizma XIX-nachalo XX v. St. Petersburg, 1996. 254 Bibliography

Ovchinnikova, E. A., and T. V. Chumakova. “Filosophiia v Sankt- Peterburgskom universitete (pervaia polovina XIX veka).” In Peterburg na filosofskoi karte mira, edited by T. V. Artem’eva, 65–83. St. Petersburg, 2002. Pekarskii, P. Istoricheskie bumagi K. I. Arsen’eva. St. Petersburg, 1872. Petrov, F. A. Formirovanie sistemy universitetskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii. 4 vols. Moscow, 2002. ———. Rossiiskie universitety v pervoi polovine XIX veka. 2 vols. Moscow, 1999. Predtechenskii, A. V. Ocherki obschestvenno- politicheskoi istorii Rossii v p.p. XIX veka. Moscow- Leningrad, 1957. Pustarnakov, V. F. Universitetskaia filosofiia v Rossii. Idei, personalii, osnovnie tsentry. Moscow, 2003. ———. Liberalizm v Rossii. Kazan’, 2002. Pypin, A. N. Religioznye dvizheniia pri Aleksandre I. Petrograd, 1916. Raeff, Marc. Michael Speransky: Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772–1839. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1957. ———. “Some Reflections on Russian Liberalism.” Russian Review 18, no. 3 (1959): 218–30. ———.Plans for Political Reform in Imperial Russia, 1730–1905. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966. ———. The Decembrist Movement. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- Hall, 1966. ———. “Les Slavs, Les Allemands et les ‘Lumières.” Canadian Slavic Studies 1, no. 4 (1967): 521–51. ———. “Filling the Gaps between Radishchev and the Decembrists.” Slavic Review 26, no. 3 (1967): 395–413. ———. “The Enlightenment in Russia and Russian Thought in the Enlightenment.” In The Eighteenth Century in Russia, edited by J. G. Garrard, 26–47. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. ———. “Andrei I. Turgenev and His Circle.” In Revolution and Politics in Russia, edited by Alexander and Janet Rabinovich, 39–54. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972. ———. “At the Origins of a Russian National Consciousness: Eighteenth Century Roots and Napoleonic Wars.” The History Teacher 25, no. 1 (1991): 7–18. ———. “The Well-Ordered Police State and the Development of Modernity in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth Century Europe.” In Marc Raeff, Political Ideas and Institutions in Imperial Russia, 309–27. Oxford: Westview Press, 1994. Ramer, Samuel. “Vasilii Popugaev, the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and the Arts, and the Enlightenment Tradition in Russia.” Canadian- American Slavic Studies 16, no. 16 (1982): 491–512. Reill, Peter H. The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. Roach, Elo E. “The Origin of Alexander I’s Unofficial Committee.” Russian Review 28, no. 3 (1969): 315–26. Roosevelt, Priscilla. Apostle of Russian Liberalism: Timofei Granovsky. Newtonville, Mass.: Oriental Research Partners, 1986. Rose, Hugh James. A New General Biographical Dictionary. Vol. 3. London, 1857. Rozhdestvenskii, S. V. Istoricheskii obzor deiatel’nosti ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 1802–1902. St. Petersburg, 1902. ———. ed. Materialy dlia istorii uchebnykh reform v Rossii v XVIII- XIX vekakh. St. Petersburg, 1810. Rudenskaia, M., and S. Rudenskaia. Oni uchilis’ s Pushkinym. Leningrad, 1976. Bibliography 255

Rudnitskaia, E. L. “Aleksander Ivanovich Turgenev.” In Rossiiskie liberaly, edited by B. S. Itenberg and V. V. Shelokhaev, 15–52. Moscow, 2001. Ruud, Charles A. Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804– 1906. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982. Ruzhitskaia, I. V. Zakonodatel’naia deyatel’nost v tsarstvovanie Imperatora Nicholaia I. Moscow, 2005. Sandler, Stephanie. Distant Pleasures: Alexander Pushkin and the Writing of Exile. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989. Saunders, David. Russia in the Age of Reaction and Reform 1801–1881. Longman: London, 1992. Scattola, Merio. “Before and After Natural Law. Models of Natural Law in Ancient and Modern Times.” In Natural Law Theories in the Early Enlightenment: Context and Strategies, edited by Tim Hochstrasser and P. Schröder, 1–30. Kluwer: Dordrecht, 2003. Schapiro, Leonard. Rationalism and Nationalism in Russian Nineteenth- Century Political Thought. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1967. ———. Russian Studies, edited by Ellen Darrendorf with an introduction by Harry Willetts. London: Collins, 1986. Schlafly, Daniel L. “True to the Ratio Studiorum? Jesuit Colleges in St. Petersburg.” History of Education Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1997): 421–34. Schneewind, J. B. “Autonomy, Obligation and Virtue: An Overview of Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Paul Guyer, 309–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ———. The Invention of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Seleznev, I. Istoricheskii ocherk imperatorskago byvshego tsarskosel’skogo nyne aleksandrovskago litseia za pervoe ego piatidesiatiletie s 1811 po 1861 god. St. Petersburg, 1861. Shabaeva, M. F. Ocherki istorii shkoly i pedagogicheskoi mysli narodov SSSR XVIII- pervaia polovina XIX v. Moscow, 1973. Shchipanov, I. Ia. Filosofiia russkogo prosveshcheniia. Moscow, 1977. ———., ed. Istoriia filososofskoi mysli v Moscovskom universitete. Moscow, 1982. Sheehan, James. German History 1770–1866. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. Shneider, Konstantin. “Was There an ‘Early Russian Liberalism’? Perspectives from Russian and Anglo-American Historiography.” Kritika 7, no. 4 (2006): 825–41. Sigmund, Paul E. Natural Law in Political Thought. Cambridge: Wintrop Publishers, 1971. Sinel, A. “The Socialization of the Russian Elite, 1811–1917. Life at the Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum and the School of Jurisprudence.” Russian History 3, no. 1 (1976): 1–31. Smirnov, F. N. “A. P. Kunitsyn i dekabristy.” Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1961, no. 5:60–9. ———. “Mirovozzrenie A. P. Kunitsyna.” Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1963, no. 5:74–85. ———. “Delo russkogo prosvetitelia pravoveda A. P. Kunitsyna.” Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1964, no. 1:63–5. ———. “Obshchestvenno- politicheskie i pravovye vzgliady Kunitsyna.” Kandidat. Diss., Moscow, 1966. ———. Obshchestvenno- politicheskie i pravovye vzgliady Kunitsyna. Avtoreferat dissertatsii. Moscow, 1966. 256 Bibliography

Smith-Peter, Susan. “Defining the Russia People: Konstantin Arsen’ev and Russian Statistics before 1861.” History of Science 45, no. 1 (2007): 47–64. Solodkin, I. I. “Ugolovno-pravovye vozzreniia A. P. Kunitsyna.” Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta, 1966, no. 11:122–7. Speranskii, V. N. “Sotsialno- politicheskie vzgliady A. P. Kunitsyna.” Uchenye zapiski Gor’kovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 72 (1964): 823–88. Strakosch, Henry E. State Absolutism and the Rule of Law: The Struggle for the Codification of Civil Law in Austria 1753–1811. Sydney: University Press, 1967. Strauss, Leo. Natural Right and History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953. Struve, Gleb. “Alexander Turgenev, Ambassador of Russian Culture in Partibus Infidelium.” Slavic Review 29, no. 3 (1970): 444–59. Sukhomlinov, M. I. Issledovaniia i stat’i po russkoi literature i prosveshcheniiu. Vol. 1 St. Petersburg, 1889. Szamuely, T. The Russian Tradition. London: Secker & Warburg, 1974. Tarasov, E. “Russkie Gettingentsy v pervoy chetveti XIX veka i ikh vliianie na razvitie liberalizma v Rossii.” Golos Minuvshego (July 1914), 195–209. ———. Dekabrist N. I. Turgenev v Aleksandrovskuu epokhu. Samara, 1924. Tarle, Eugene. Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia 1812. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1942. Tartakovskii, A. G. Voennaia publitsistika 1812 goda. Moscow, 1967. Taylor, Norman W. “Adam Smith’s First Russian Disciple.” In Adam Smith Across Nations Translations and Receptions of Wealth of Nations, edited by Cheng-Chung Lai, 248–61. Oxford University Press, 2000. Thackeray, Frank W. Antecedents of Revolution. Alexander I and the Polish Kingdom, 1815–1825. New York: Boulder, 1980. Thornhill, Chris. German Political Philosophy: The Metaphysics of Law. London: Routledge Press, 2007. Todd III, William Mills. “Periodicals in the Early Nineteenth Century.” In Literary Journalism in Imperial Russia, edited by Deborah Martinsen, 37–63. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Tomashevskii, B. Pushkin. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1990. Tribe, Keith. Governing Economy: The Reformation of German Economic Discourse 1750–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Tuck, Richard. The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Verner, Andrew. The Crisis of Russian Autocracy: Nicholas II and the 1905 Revolution. Princeton University Press: New Jersey, 1990. Voronov, A. Istoriko- statisticheskoe obozrenie uchebnykh zavedenii Sankt- Peterburgskogo uchebnogo okruga. St. Petersburg, 1899. Walicki, Andrzej. Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. ———. The Controversy over Capitalism: Studies in the Social Philosophy of the of the Russian Populists. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. ———. The Slavophile Controversy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Walker, Franklin A. “ ‘Renegade’ Monks and Cultural Conflict in Early Nineteenth- Century Russia: The Russia of I. A. Fessler and J. B. Schad.” Religion, State and Society 28, no. 4 (2000): 347–58. Walker, Franklin A. “The Conservative Face of a Radical Kantian in Prussia and Russia: The Case of Ludwig Heirich von Jakob (1759–1827).” Germano-Slavica 13 (2002): 3–15. Bibliography 257

Warhola, James W. “Revisiting the Russian ‘Constrained Autocracy’: ‘Absolutism’ and Natural Rights Theories in Russia and the West.” In Civil Society and the Search for Justice in Russia, edited by Christopher Marsh and Nicholas K. Gvozdev, 19–40. Oxford: Lexington Books, 2002. Whittaker, Cynthia. “From Promise to Purge: the First Years of St. Petersburg University.” Paedagogica Historica 18 (1978): 148–67. ———. The Origins of Modern Russian Education: An Intellectual Biography of Count Sergei Uvarov, 1786–1855. DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984. Wieczynski, Joseph L. “Apostle of Obscurantism: the Archimandrite Photius of Russia (1792–1838).” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 22 (1971): 319–31. Williams, Howard. Kant’s Political Philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. Wischnitzer, M. L. Die Universität Göttingen und die Entwiklung der liberalen Ideen in Russland im ersten Viertel des 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1907. Wolfe, Christopher. Natural Law Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Wortman, R. The Development of Russian Legal Consciousness. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976. ———. “Property Rights, Populism, and Political Culture.” In Civil Rights in Imperial Russia, edited by Olga Crisp and Linda Edmondson, 13–33. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1989. Zacek, Judith. “The Russian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church.” Church History 35, no. 4 (1966): 411–37. Zaitsev, A. F. Mirovozzrenie A. P. Kunitsyna. Avtoreferat dissertatsii. Moscow, 1951. Zhitomirskaia, S. V. “Kniga Nikolaiia Turgeneva ‘Rossiia i russkie’ i ee sud’ba.” In N. Turgenev, Rossiia i russkie. Edited by S. V. Zhitomorskaia, 623–654. Moscow, 2001. Znamenskii, P. V. Dukhovnye shkoly v Rossii do reformy 1808. St. Petersburg, 2001. Zapadov, A. V., ed. Istoriia Russkoi zhurnalistiki XVIII–XIX vekov. Moscow, 1963. Zenkovskii, V. V. A History of Russian Philosophy. Vol. 1. Routledge: London, 1953. Index

Abramov, A. F., 202 Brodskii, L. N. 216 Achenwall, Gottfried, 113, 121 Brown, A. N., 205, 227 Akulshin, P. V., 201, 220, 223 Buhle, 117–19, 127, 229 n. 64, 230 n. 71 Aleshintsev, I., 238 Bulgarin, Faddei, 41–2 Alexander I, 1, 6, 22, 34, 37, 38–9, 42, 56, Burlamaquy, Jean-Jacque, 121 59, 61–4, 68, 70, 97, 98, 99–101, 103, 139, 150, 153, 161, 165, 173, 174, 175, Cameralist philosophy, 19–20, 21, 22, 188, 209 n. 42, 217 n. 42, 222 n. 51 27, 48, 52, 118, 126, 143, 178, 193, 204 Alexander II, 21, 103, 184 n. 34 Andreev, Iu. A., 228, 232 Catherine the Great, 15, 17, 94, 105, 111, Anikin, Andrei, 204 112, 164, 175, 188, 219 n. 90 Annenkov, P. V., 209, 210, 212 Chamberlin, William, 7, 201 Aristotle, 112 Cicero, 112 Arsen’ev, Konstantin, 21, 172, 173, Civil society, in Russia, 7, 59–61 202 n. 12, 204 n. 36 Coates, Willson, 201, 202 Arzamas society, 87–8, 96, 98, 101, 220 Code Napoleon, 126, 190 n. 101, 221 n. 12 Codification project, 62, 173, 189–90 Colonies, military, 64 Bagalei, D. I., 228, 233 Conservatism, in Russia, 38, 41–2, 62, 64, Baitsura, T., 204, 205 66, 71, 74–5, 80, 82, 84, 99–100, 106, Balug’ianskii, Mikhail, 19–20, 43, 45, 121, 131, 137, 139, 161–76, 179–81, 187 168, 172, 173, 180, 189 Constant, Benjamin, 69, 70, 218 n. 48 Barshev, Ia., 243 Crisp, Olga, 199 Baumeister, Christian, 15–16, 21, 130, Cross, Anthony, 217, 219 177, 202 n. 14 Bause, Theodore, 113 Davydov, Ivan, 171, 179, 241 n. 89 Bazanov, B., 211 Decembrists, the, 60, 92, 95–7, 100, 140, Beaven, Miranda, 233 183, 187, 193, 197, 217 n. 45, 222 n. 52, Beccaria, Cesare, 30, 112 n.56, 223 n. 66 Beck, Lewis, 203 Desnitskii, Semen, 111–12, 205 n. 50 Beiser, Frederick, 237 Dilthey, Henrich, 111, 227 n. 25 Belinskii, Vissarion, 79, 231 n. 90 Driver, sam, 224 Benkendorf, Count, 97, 183–4, 242 n. 110 Bentham, Jeremy, 30, 88, 126 Edmonds, Robin., 215 Bernstein, Lina, 215 Education system in Russia, 89, 137–8, Bestuzhev, Nicholas, 140 176, 182, 194; and courses in natural Bible Society, in Russia, 150, 161–2, 174, law, 105–6, 110–11, 114, 138–9, 326 n. 36 152, 162, 165, 168, 173–4, 179–80; Bilevich, Mikhail, 175 ecclesiastic, 13–15, 17; importance of, Binyon, T. J., 211, 214, 223, 224 59, 139–40, 181–4; reforms of, 1–3, Blakely, Allison, 217 16–23, 31–2, 103, 110, 162–5, 170–2, Blum, Jerome, 212, 219 n. 92 176, 194, 197, 225 n. 3 Bokova, V. M., 219, 220 n. 51 Edwards, David, 203, 209 Bolebrukh, A. G., 210 Engel’gardt, Egor, 32, 40, 46, 143, 169, Bradley, Joseph, 215 210 n. 25, n. 30, 211 n. 51 Breunig, Charles, 242 Engelstein, Laura, 199 Briantsev, Professor, 130 Evgrafova, V. E., 234

259 260 Index

Faggionato, Raffaella, 236 Hobbes, Thomas, 108, 111, 113, 121, 153–5, Fedorov, V. A., 202 155, 164, 171, 226 n. 12, 227 n. 17 Fel’dshtein, G. S., 205, 227, 232, 234 Hochstrasser, Tim, 227, 235 Ferretti, Paola, 209, 210 d’Holbach, Baron, 66 Fessler, Ignatius, 114 Hollingsworth, Barry, 6, 96, 201 n. 16, Fichte, Johann, 113, 121, 138, 179 234 n. 5, 237 n. 56 Field, Daniel, 7–8, 201 n. 23, n. 24 Hufeland, Gottlieb, 48, 212 n. 62 Finkin, Mathew, 205 Hugo, Gustav, 26, 29, 208 n. 94 Flynn, James, 201, 203, 205, 225, 236, Hunter, Ian, 203 238, 239, 240, 241 n. 89, 242 Fomin, Alexander, 97, 222 n. 52 Iatsenko, O. A., 200 Fotii, 174, 240 n. 67 Illichevskii, A., 210 n. 29, 212 n. 73 Frank, S. L., 214, 224 Individualism, philosophy, 3–5, 70, Freeze, Gregory, 202, 236 103, 106, 107, 108–10, 130, 141, 143, French Revolution of 1789, 28, 69 148, 155, 166, 168, 194–5; see also Fuss, Nikolai, 166, 168 Kunitsyn Intelligentsia, the, 3, 12, 37, 103 Galich, Alexander, 21, 172, 177, 182 Iofanov, D., 240 Gleason, Walter, 224 n. 1, 227 Itenberg, B. S., 201 Glinka, Fedor, 92, 96, 97, 130, 140; see also Decembrists Jakob, Ludwig, von., 43, 119–23, 124, 125, Gogolevskii, A. V., 201 153, 212 n. 62, 230 n. 76, n. 84, n. 87 Golitsyn, Alexander, 139, 161–2, 169, Johnson, William, 203 170, 174–5, 185, 238 n. 14 Journal of the Free Society of the Lovers of Gooch, G. P., 208 Literature, Science and Art, 65; see also Gooding, John, 200, 223 n. 66 Popugaev Gorchakov, Prince, 35, 44, 197, 212 n. 73 Journalism, in Russia, 64–8 Göttingen University, 1, 5, 18, 23–30, 43, 85, 88, 113, 114, 117, 126, 208 n. 96, Kaidanov, Ivan, 30, 165 225 n. 3, 235 n. 19 Kalitkina, N. Iu., 200 Gough, J. W., 236, 237 Kamchatka, 67, 217 n. 39 Granovskii, Timofei, 182, 199 n. 2, n. 3 Kamenskii, Z. A., 6, 200, 228, 233, 234 Gray, John, 201 Kann, Robert, 204 Grech, Nikolai, 67, 239 n. 21 Kant, Immanuel, 2, 4, 5, 11, 15, 19, 43, Grey, Marlon, 213 105–6, 109–10, 113, 114–16, 125–6, Gribovskii, Mikhail, 92, 97, 222 n. 51 130, 137, 140–2, 155, 214 n. 110, 228 Grigor’ev, V. V., 205, 232 n. 136, n. 55, 231 n. 104, n. 105, 235 n. 15, 239 n. 52, 240 n. 19, n. 24, n. 31, n. 32, 236 n. 33, n. Gross, Christian, 110 41, n. 43, n. 52, 237 n. 53, n. 55, n. Grot, K. Ia., 209, 210, 211, 212 69, n. 71; and Buhle, G, 117–18; and Grotius, 110, 121, 235 n. 19 Feofilakt, archbishop, 114; and Hugo, Guyer, Paul, 228, 235, 248, 251, 255 29; and Jakob, 43, 119–23; and Lodii, 21; and Lubkin, 124–5; and Mellman, Haakonssen, Knud, 213, 225, 226, 227, 234 114; and Reinhard, 115–17; and Schad, Haller, Rudolf, 240 138; and Schaden, 113; and Schmalz, Hamburg, Gary, 199, 200 n. 13, 242, 249 135–7; and Sergeev, 135; and Snell, Hebeis, Michael, 205, 232 124–5; and Tsvetaev, 126–7; and Heeren, Arnold, 26, 28–9, 207 Villers, 114; and Zeiller, 21, 128–30, Hegel, Georg, 4, 181, 182 171; see also Kunitsyn, and Kant Hermann, Karl, 172 Karamzin, Nikolai, 65, 71, 102, 161, 170, Hertz, Frederick, 207 215 n. 4, 216 n. 21 Herzen, Alexander, 4, 79 Karazin, Nikolai, 41 Historical school of jurisprudence, 29, Karpe, Franz, 177 190; see also Hugo, Savigny Kavelin, Konstantin, 182, 199 Index 261

Kazan’ University, 16, 124, 138, 163, 166, 153–4, 155; and Hufeland, 48, 225 n. 176–7, 239 n. 52, 240 n. 77, 241 n. 89, 19; and Hugo, 29; on human nature, 242 n. 1 145–6, 153; on individual autonomy, Kelly, J. M., 208, 242 71, 143, 147–8, 155–7; on individual Kersting, W., 228, 237 rights, 50, 70, 76, 145, 147–8, 154–8; Khar’kov University, 16, 41, 119–20, 132, on individual well-being, 145, 148–9, 138, 139, 162, 190, 232 n. 136 156; and Jakob, 43, 153, 212 n. 62; Kingston-Mann, Esther, 200, 204, 212, and journalistic writings, 37–8, 69–83, 219 89–90, 185–7, 188–9; and Kant, 4–5, Kiukhel’beker, Vil’gel’m, 40, 209 n. 5 11, 15, 43, 48, 49–50, 52–4, 83, 143, Klein, Ernst, 48, 212 n. 62 144, 145–6, 148–60; and Klein, 48; Klippel, Diethelm, 226 and liberal individualism, 5, 70, 106, Kobeko, Dmitrii, 42, 210, 221, 216 143, 148, 155–7, 166, 194–6; and Kolchin, Peter, 218 Locke, 150, 155; and Lyceum, 31, 33–5, Koloshin, Pavel, 40, 92, 140, 187 42–4, 58; lyceum courses, 42–3, 45–55; Kolosov, V., 202 and Main School Administration, Komarov, A. I., 217 167–9; on marriage, 151–2; “Message Kondakov, I. P., 227 to the Russians,” 38; on nations’ law, Korf, Baron, 43, 44 160; and Polish Constitution of 1818, Korkunov, N. M., 208, 235 68–9, 78, 153; on property rights, Korsgaard, Christine, 226 45–7, 51–2, 70, 77–80, 150–2, 156–8, Kosachevskaia, E. M., 203, 204 160, 195, 196; and Pufendorf, 153–4, Koshelev, Alexander, 182, 234 n. 174, 155; and Pushkin, 55; and 242, 243 n. 26 Radishchev, 144; on religious Kostenetskii, Iakov, 178, 241 n. 85 toleration, 149–50; on representative Kraevskii, A., 242 assembly, 70, 73, 152; reputation as Kraus, Hans-Christof, 233, 238 a teacher, 34, 43–4; and Rousseau, Kruglov, A., 199, 225, 228, 234 n. 176 144, 153, 155–6; and Runich, 166–8; Kunitsyn, Alexander, 1–5, 10; “About and salons, 61; and Schmalz, 48, Constitution,” 69–71; as advisor 49–50, 53, 136, 140, 143, 212 n. 62; to the Stroganov family, 192; and on serfdom, 45, 47, 73–4, 76–81; Alexander I, 33, 70, 78, 97, 153, 195, service promotions, 185, 192; and 213 n. 92; awards, 36, 58, 185, 192; Smith, 5, 11, 27, 43, 45, 48, 50, 55, and Beccaria, 30; and Bentham, 30; 79, 195 ; on the social contract, 51, and cameralist thought, 26–7, 48–9, 155–6, 158; social origin of, 13; on 52–5, 112, 142–3, 194; on categorical social privileges, 148, 157; “Some imperative, 146; and codification observations about the current war,” project, 3, 188–91; on the common 38–9; “Some thoughts concerning will, 155–7; and Constant, 69, 218 n. the need for external security,” 82–3; 48; and the Decembrists, 58, 97–8, speech at the Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum, 187, 197, 215 n. 123; on distinction 33–4; and Spinoza, 236 n. 51; and St. between law and ethics, 145–6; early Petersburg Pedagogical Institute, education, 13–16; on equality, human 20–3, 89; and St. Petersburg and legal, 145–6, 147, 151, 157; on University, 11, 97, 169, 192; on the equality of opportunity, 148, 151; on state of nature, 50–1, 82, 153–5; European revolutions of 1820–21, study abroad, 22–4, 228 n. 48; on 185–6; on freedoms, ancient, 69–70; taxation, 89; and Turgenev, A., 9, 81, on freedoms, civil, 69–70, 72, 78, 157, 169–70; and Turgenev, N., 9, 10, 11, 12, 159; on freedoms, modern, 69–70; on 24–6, 30, 61, 85, 89–90, 92–3, freedoms, political, 69–70, 78; on the 95, 97, 185, 193, 208 n. 3, 218 n. 61; French revolution of 1789, 69, 78; and and Uvarov, 71–3; and Wolff, Göttingen University, 1, 5, 23–30, 144, 146 43; Historical Study of Ancient Russian Kuprits, N. Ia., 200 Jurisprudence, 191–2; and Hobbes, Kutuzov, Mikhail, 38–9 262 Index

Landa, S. S., 220, 222, 223 Mel’nikova, N. N., 227 Langer, Karl, 111 Melton, Edgar, 192, 219, 221, 244 Lässer, Gregor, 232 Mikhailovskaia, N. M., 200 Laval, Count, 168, 169, 174 Ministry of Education, 20, 22–3, 31, Lavrovskii, N. A., 233 129, 137–8, 162, 165; and natural law, Law, in Russia. See Legal system; Natural 162–8, 170–1, 175, 179–80 law; Roman law Mironenko, S. V., 211 Legal system, in Russia, 61–2, 216 n. 21 Modzalevskii, B. L., 211 Leibnitz, Gottfried, 110 Mollnau, Karl, 243 Leontovitch, V., 200 n. 14, 219 Montesquieu, Charles-Louis, 112, 126 Lestition, Steven, 235 Moody, Joseph, 242 Liberalism, in historiography of Russia, Mordvinov, Nikolai, 46, 184 6–9, 11, 199–201, 207, 210, 220 n. 12, Moscow University, 126, 141, 178–9, 181, 222 n. 52, n. 56, 223 n. 66; in Russia, 182 3, 4, 26, 42, 59–61, 62–3, 65, 69, 71, Moser, Johann Jacob, 226 n. 13 80–1, 86–7, 93–5, 99–103, 137–8, Möser, Justus, 226 n. 13 182–5, 242 n. 108 Murav’ev, Nikolai, 92 Lincoln, W. B., 241 Murav’ev-Apostol, Sergei, 60 Lindenfeld, David, 207, 213, 214, 225 n. 4, 227, 230 Napoleonic Wars, 28, 37, 42, 57, 66, 83, Liubavin, M. A., 200, 202, 209, 212, 238, 93 239, 244 Nasonkina, L. I., 241, 242 Locke, John, 108, 112, 116 Natural law, as academic discipline Lodii, Petr, 21, 129, 175, 177–8 in Russia, 1–4, 21, 58, 103, 105–6, Lorer, N. I., 234 110–43, 162–5, 170–6, 179–80, 193, Lubkin, Professor, 124–5 225 n. 3; in Europe, absolutist, 107–8, Lukes, Steven, 199 115, 118–19, 131–4, 213 n. 90, 225 n. 8, 226 n. 13; in historiography of Russia, Machiavelli, Niccolo, 164 5, 224 n. 1; liberal, 108–10, 226 n. 13 Magnitskii, Mikhail, 163–5, 166, 173, Naumov, Ivan, 131–2, 232 175, 185, 186 Nechkina, M., 215, 222, 228 Maikov, L. N., 209 Nemeth, Thomas, 199, 224 n. 1, 225, Maikov, P. M., 205, 243–4 229, 233, 236 Main School Administration, 12, 162, Nethercott, Frances, 199 164–70, 173–5, 230 n. 76; see also Netting, Anthony, 8, 9, 200, 201 Ministry of Education Nettlebladt, Daniel, 111 Maistre, Joseph de, 209 n. 5, 225 n. 3 Neumann, F., 225 Malinovskii, Vasilii, 33, 36–7, 39, Nezhin gymnasium, 175–6 210 n. 38 Nicholas I, 101, 172–3, 183, 190 Margolis, Iu. D., 200, 203 Nikitenko, Alexander, 164, 177, 179, 190, Martin, Alexander, 217, 238 191, 204, 205, 238 n. 14, 240, 241, 242 Martini, Karl, 21, 132–4, 172, 175, 175, n. 93, 243 205 n. 46, 232 n. 137 Nikitin, A. G., 215 n. 123, 244 Martynov, Ivan, 66, 168 Nobility, in Russia, 5, 19, 20, 33, 42, Mashinskii, 239, 240 46–7, 57, 59, 64, 75, 79–80, 82, 83, 85, McCaffray, Susan, 204, 212 91, 98, 100, 102–3, 112, 115, 140, 151, McClelland, Charles, 207 161, 188, 195, 216 n. 21, 219 n. 90 McClelland, James, 226, 228 Northern Messenger, 66 McConnel, Allen, 217 Northern Society, 96, 98, 187, 223 n. 66 McGrew, Roderick, 204 Novosil’tsev, Nikolai, 19, 22, 174 Medushevskii, A. N., 201 Meilakh, B., 208, 209, 210, 212, 239 Offord, Derek, 8, 199–201 Mellman, Ludwig, 114 Oizerman, T. I., 233 Index 263

Oksman, Iu, G., 222 Runich, Dmitrii, 3, 170, 171–3, 175, 177, 179, Orlov, Mikhail, 87–8 185, 186, 190, 238, 239 n. 21, 240, 242 Osherovich, B. S., 234 n. 1, 245; see also Kunitsyn, and Runich Osipov, I. D., 201 Russian Messenger, 66 Ovchinnikova, E. A., 232 Ruud, Charles, 217, 238 Ryleev, Kondratii, 183 Pal’min, Mikhail, 177 Pekarskii, P., 202, 205, 227 Salons, in Russia, 59–61 Peter the Great, 47, 62, 89, 189, 191, Sandler, Stephanie, 103, 214 n. 114, n. 219 n. 90; and courses in natural law, 116, 224 1, 2, 105, 110 Sartorius, Georg, 26–8 Petrov, F. A., 225, 231, 240, 241 Saunders, David, 216 Piermont de, Strube, 110 Savigny, Friedrich, 190 Polezhaev, A. I., 183, 242 n. 108 Scattola, Merio, 227 Polish Constitution of 1818, 57, 68–9, 71, Schad, J., 138–9, 175 78, 101, 153, 213 n. 92 Schaden, J., 113 Ponomareva, Sofia, 61 Schapiro, Leonard, 199, 214, 223, 224, 234 Popugaev, Vasilii, 65–6 Schelling, Friedrich, 171, 181, 190 Pravdin (pseudonym), 73–5, 218–19 Schlafly, Daniel, 210 Predtechenskii, A. V., 223 Schlözer, August, 19, 29, 207 n. 91 Pufendorf, Samuel, 110, 111, 113, 125, Schmalz, T., 48–9, 121, 127, 128, 135–7, 134, 153, 154, 155, 226 140, 213 n. 88, 233; see also Kunitsyn, Pushchin, Ivan, 33, 34, 39, 40, 44, 45, 92, and Schmalz 209, 210 n. 30, n. 32, 211 n. 51, n. 53, Schneewind, J. B., 226, 235 212, 221 Seleznev, I., 209, 210 Pushkin, Alexander, 33, 40–1, 44, 55–7, Semevskii, V., 96, 220, 221, 231 60–1, 64, 92, 102–3, 113, 170, 183, Seneca, 112 209, 210 n. 30, 211 n. 60, 214, 215 n. Sergeev, Petr, 135 123, 223 n. 74 Shabaeva, M. F., 203, 205 Pustarnakov, V. F., 201, 212, 219, 227, Shakhovskoi, Alexander, 92 228, 229, 231, 240, 241 Shaw, Thomas, 214, 216, 224 Pütter, J. S., 113 Shchipanov, I. Ia., 200, 210, 212, 228, 234 Pypin, A. N., 222, 238 Shebunin, A. N., 206, 221 Shelokhaev, V., 201 Raeff, Marc, 7, 199, 201, 204, 209, 218, Shevyrev, S., 227 n. 25, 228 224, 226, 234, 235, 243, 244 Shishkov, Alexander, 66, 161, 176, 183 Ramer, Samuel, 217 Shishkov, V., 183 Raupach, Professor, 172 Shneider, Konstantin, 200 Razumovskii, Aleksei, 32, 34 Sigmund, Paul, 226 Reill, Peter, 207 Silverman, Paul, 205, 232 Reinhard, Christian, 115–17 Sinel, A., 209, 210, 215 n. 4 Roach, E. E., 209 Skiadan, Mikhail, 113 Roman law, in Russia, 22, 106, 113, 178, Slavophiles, 3–4, 9, 199, 200 n. 13 190, 231 n. 106, 241 n. 83 Smirnov, F., 5, 144, 200, 234, 235 Roosevelt, Priscilla, 199 Smith, Adam, 109, 204 n. 37; in Russia, Rosenkampf, Baron, 188–9, 243 19–20, 26, 46–7, 74, 80–1, 88, 112, 113, Rostopchin, Fedor, 38 204 n. 34, n. 35; see also Kunitsyn, and Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 116, 167; see also Smith Kunitsyn, and Rousseau Smith-Peter, Susan, 204 Rozhdestvenskii, S. V., 238, 239, Snell, F., 124–6, 140, 171 240 Solodkin, I. I., 200 Rudenskaia, M., 209, 210, 211 Sologub, V. A., 60, 215 Rudnitskaia, E. L., 201, 222 Solov’ev, I. M., 232 264 Index

Solov’ev, Vladimir, 182 206 n. 61, 207, 208 n. 94, n. 96, 212 Sonnenfels, Joseph, 20 n. 84, 215, 216 n. 11, n. 17, 217 n. 45, Speranskii, Michael, 6, 31–2, 46, 63, 68, 218 n. 61, 219 n. 76, 220–4; see also 71, 90, 129, 180, 188, 189–90, 191, 243 Kunitsyn, and Turgenev, N. n. 20, n. 22, 244 n. 28 Turgenev, Sergei, 81, 86, 92, 97, 170, Speranskii, V. N., 200 207 n. 75 Spirit of Journals (Dukh Zhurnalov), 73–5 St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute, Union of Welfare, 92, 95 17–20, 21, 31, 58, 71, 78, 117, 129, 132, Uvarov, Count, 71–2, 164, 170, 177, 179, 137, 202 n. 12, 210 n. 38 180, 182 St. Petersburg University, 22, 164, 170, 172, 175, 177, 182, 240 n. 77, 241 n. 89; Vasil’chikov, A. A., 225 see also Kunitsyn, and St. Petersburg Verner, Anrew, 216 University Vestnik Evropy (Messenger of Europe), State Council, 61, 62, 87, 99 65, 66; see also Journalism, in Stein, Friedrich von, 85, 86, 213 n. 88, Russia 220 n. 1 Viazemskii, Prince, 9, 60, 64, 67–8, 81–2, Stepanov, L. N., 211 84, 87, 91, 92, 101, 170, 196, 209, 212, Strakosch, Henry, 232 215, 216 n. 11, n. 17, n. 25, 217 n. 42, Strauss, Leo, 226 220 n. 113 Stroganov, Count, 182 Vigel’, F., 59, 60 Struve, Gleb, 223 Villers, Charles, 114 Sturdza, Alexander, 162–3, 167–8 Voronov, A., 240 Sukhomlinov, M. I., 203, 238, 239 Sullivan, Roger, 226 Walicki, Andrzej, 199, 201 n. 28 Syn Otechestva (Son of Fatherland), 37, 66–7 Walker, Franklin, 212, 228, 230 n. 79, Szamuely, T., 199 n. 87, 231, 233 Warhola, James, 255 Tarasov, E., 26, 27, 28, 206, 207 Westernizers, 3–4, 199, 202 n. 13 Tarle, Eugene, 211 Whittaker, Cynthia, 201, 214, 218, 224, Tartakovskii, A. G., 211 238, 239 Taylor, Norman, 205 Wieczynski, Joseph, 240 Teachers’ Gymnasium, 16 Williams, Howard, 237 Thackeray, Frank, 218 Wirtschafter, Elise, 200, 216, 219 Thomasius, Christian, 110 Wischnitzer, M., 26, 29, 207, 208 Thornhill, Chris, 225, 226, 242 Wolfe, Christopher, 226, 230 n. 79 Todd, William, 217, 243 Wolff, Christian, 107–8, 213 n. 90; in Tolmachev, Iakov, 177 Russia, 1, 2, 3, 15, 48, 105, 108, 110, Tomashevskii, B., 211, 214, 216 111–12, 115, 121, 122, 130, 133, 137, Tribe, Keith, 213, 226, 227, 235 176, 197 Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum, admission Wortman, Richard, 199, 216, 224, 227, requirements, 31–2; curriculum, 32; 234, 241 free thinking in, 40–2; pedagogical principles, 35–6, 209 n. 25, 210 n. 29; Yaney, Georg, 216 n. 18 see also Engel’gardt; Kunitsyn, and Lyceum; Malinovskii; Pushchin Zacek, Judith, 236, 238 Tsvetaev, Lev, 117, 126–8, 171, 178, 181, Zaitsev, A. F., 5, 200 231 n. 106 Zapadov, A. V., 217 Turgenev, Alexander, 25, 57, 60–1, 64, 81, Zeiller, Franz, 21, 128–30, 171 82, 86, 98, 99, 101–2, 169, 196, 208 n. Zenkovskii, V. V., 229 99, 215 n. 9 Zhitomirskaia, S., 96, 222, 248 Turgenev, Nicholas, 24, 57, 60–1, 80, 81, Zhukovskii, Vasilii, 92 82, 84–100, 185, 193, 196, 203 n. 33, Znamenskii, P. V., 202, 203