(^382) APPENDIX
of some (as had been true"bf the jurist Desnitskii), a trip abroad would
be sufficient to perfect their know"ledge. 24
As a logical corollary to his method, Speransky demanded that the work
of reform be carried out in secret. The public should be apprised of it
only when the general plan of reorganization was entirely completed. 25
Of course, here too Speransky found himself at the polar opposite of the
Senatorial party which wanted the future of Russia to be determined by
the direct and active participation of public opinion, i.e. of an elite.
Speransky, on the other hand, wanted that in the future the state, i.e.
the government, take the initiative and play he dominant role in
shaping Russian society and in developing its political, cultural, and
social life. The new bureaucracy was to be the active agent of this volun-
taristic policy. In truth, Speransky was following in the direction set by
Peter the Great and continuing the practices of the Russian autocracy
since Ivan the TerribJe. 26
One should, however, recognize that Speransky did not turn away
from the ideas and notions of the Senatorial party completely. In the
projects and reform plans he worked out subsequently we find, along-
side his prefence for the bureaucratic solution, elements of historicism,
of respect for tradition. These elements of traditionalism came to the
fore every time that he turned his attention to the problems presented
by the non-Russian areas of the Empire and by the reform of the peasan-
try and local administration. And when in the reign of Nicholas I
he returned to the difficult task of codification, Speransky rediscovered
the historicism and respect for the creative role of organic evolution
which had constituted the essence of the political thinking of his first
superiors and patrons.
24 In this connection we wish to acknowledge the correctness ot Professor P. Schei-
bert's critique of our biography of Speransky. Professor Scheibert is qu;te right in
stressing the fact that any reformer in Russia had necessarily to create first a regular
and efficient bureaucracy. Speransky understood this' necessity better than anyone
and directed his efforts at creating a better body of officials (d. the laws of 1809).
The weakness of his later reform plans consisted exactly in his failing to provide for
the creation of a new officialdom while at the same time not permitting a corporate
self-government to substitute for it. P. Scheibert, "Mar,ginalien zu einer neuen Spe-
ranskij-Biographie". Jahrbilcher filr Geschichte Osteuropas, Bd. VI, Heft 4, 1958, pp.
449-467.
25 "Otryvok 0 komissii ulozheniia", Proekt)' i zapiski p. 26 "Zapiska ob ustroistve
sudebnykh i pravitel'stvennykh uchrezhdenii v Rossii", Proekt)' i zapiski p. 135
26 For a stimulating and penetrating general discussion of the element of "rationa-
lism" in Russian poLtical thought see Leonard Schapiro, Rationalism and Nationalism
in Russian Nineteenth-Century Political Thought. Yale University 1967 (Yale Russian
and East European Studies, 4).
chris devlin
(Chris Devlin)
#1