Michael Speransky. Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772–1839 - Marc Raeff

122 PLANS OF REFORM

in Russia, except beggars and philosophers... And that all the

forces of the nation are deadened completely by the relations which

bind these two types of slaves to each other: the interest of the

nobility is to keep the peasants under their unlimited authority,

whereas the interest of the peasants lies in the nobility being

subjected in similar fashion to the Crown." 1

Under these circumstances, some devices can bring no solution. For
instance, nothing is gained by giving an education to slaves, for it
would only make them more fully aware of their degradation and of
the difference between their spiritual and intellectual development and
their legal and social status. Education must follow the social and
political liberation of the nation, not precede it. This sentiment, which
to a modern liberal may seem paradoxical and perhaps even
"reactionary," was shared by all enlightened Russians of Speransky's
time, for they had all too frequently the opportunity of observing the
horrible situation of a serf with good education or special skill
relegated to the rank of a common "slave". 2
The task, therefore, was not to educate serfs, but to form a class
whose members would be personally free, and still part and parcel
of the people. The function of such a class would be to "mediate"
between the common people and the sovereign power. Such mediators
were necessary, as sovereign power could not be exercised by many,
Speransky held, and had to rest in the hands of a single person,

obviously the· autocratic Tsar. 3 To make sure that the Tsar is well

aware of the nation's needs, to help him to remain in close touch with

his people, there ought to be a class of intermediaries, "mediators,"

whose very existence will prevent the degeneration of political sov-

ereignty into despotism and arbitrariness. As Speransky put it: "It is

not to be imagined that the entire people can occupy itself with

safeguarding the boundaries [of power] between the government and

itself. It is therefore necessary that there be a special class that will

stand between the throne and the people; a class of men sufficiently

enlightened to know exactly the limits of power, sufficiently independ-

ent not to fear the sovereign power, and through its own interests tied

to the interests of the people in such a way that it will never be to

its advantage to betray them. It will be a living guard which the people

1 ibid., pp. 74-75. This is strongly reminiscent of 18th century complaints, in

particular those of Radishchev.

2 Cf. Istoriia Moskvy, vol. III (Moscow 1954), pp. 71-74 and the notes to the

interesting memoirs of S. P. Zhikharev, Zapiski sovremennika, 2 vols. (Moscow-

Leningrad 1934).

3 "Pervyi politicheskii lraktat", 'pp. 62, 70-71.