PIDLOSOPHICAL VIEWS AND POLmCAL THEORY 225inadequate, 2. that there is no custom or that it is perverted, 3. that
foreign laws cannot be applied." 1 How such an approach could lead
to conservatism has been seen in Speransky's treatment of serfdom.^2
And even in the case of necessary innovation, law should not bemerely the artificial creation ex nihilo of human reason alone. It should
rather be the expression of the higher norm inherent in the moral and
religious character of sovereign power. "Sovereign right is distinguished
from civil rights in that 1. its goal is not in itself but outside itself;
it is the power established for the defense of another power [i.e., the
divine], 2. that it disposes of moral forces which are not inherent in
it but are given to it ... " 3 For this reason too, Speransky, like Burke,
wanted very much to preserve the concept of unlimited sovereignty.
wherever it might be vested, sovereign right in a nation is the only
acceptable source of new legislation if there be any need for it, because
sovereign power acts in accordance with the moral foundations and
spiritual aims of the; people. This, a combination of group interests is
incapable of doing. For Russia it means that the Tsar must be the
source of all legislation. But to be effective, legislation cannot be backed
by ,naked force alone; it must be backed by moral strength as well.
Speransky was quite aware that fear is only a temporary force with
which to back government measures. 4 Social life has very narrow
temporal and spatial limits. It can only be a stage in preparation of a
higher goal which is indicated by .religion, in the same sense as man's
moral life is but a "gateway" to God. For this reason, political life and
governmental action should be based on the clear moral tenets of
Christianity. Ultimately, then. the power of the rulers rests on the
proper performance of this last mentioned moral function. We recog-
nize again the theme of Speransky's first sermon of 1791.
We should not be surprised to find that the Holy Alliance of European
sovereigns. concluded after the defeat of Napoleon, appeared to Spe-
ransky as the practical realization of his conception of the spiritual
function of kingship.^6 From Velikopol'e he wrote to his friends in
praise of the alliance and hailed it as the fulfillment of a long cherished
1 Speranskii, "Kogda nadlezhit pristupat' k vydumkam v zakonakh," Pamiati, p. 805.
2 For a later view on serfdom, d. Speranskii, "Istoricheskoe obozrenie izmenenii
v prave pozemel'noi sobstvennosti i v sostoianii krest'ian," Sbornik IRIO, 'XXX, (1881),
pp. 450-460.
3 "Pravo gosudarstvennoe," Pamiati, p. 855.
4 See letter of Speransky to Count Kochubei, 20 May 1820, Pamiati, p. !llll and
letter to A. Stolypin, 4 Dec. 1817, Russkii Ark.hiv, (1870). pp. 1147-1148.
6 As Meinecke has shown. a similar feeling, though for different reasons, was
shared by the important political thinkers and leaders in Germany, as, for example,
Stein, W. von Humboldt, Fichte. Weltb,urgertum und Nationalstaat, pp. 164-205
passim.