CODIFYING RUSSIAN LAWThe picture we have given of the codification work of Speransky has
perhaps not been a very favorable one. Early 20th century scholarship
has put an end to the uncritical praise showered on his accomplish-
ments during the 19th century. Much of what seemed at first so im-
pressive turned out to have feet of clay. But this is not to deny the great
historical role played by the codification. It marked a period in Russian
administration and jurisprudence. The existence of a Collection of
Laws and more particularly the existence of a Digest (however inad-
equate from a technical point of view) did provide the government
and the courts with a rigid and stable framework on which to base
their actions and decisions. For better or for worse, it proved usefuland solid enough to survive to the very end of the Empire. It could be
changed and improved upon, no doubt. But by making laws accessible
and stable it had given that basis of legality and permanence of legal
relationships which Russia had sadly lacked until then. The great role
played by the jury-courts and by the legal profession in the defense
and development of the rule of law in Russia after 1864 would not
have been possible without this first foundation. From 1835 on, there
is more of an esprit de suite in Russian legal life; civil and political
relationships were based firmly on known rules and stable procedures.
Viewed in retrospect, it was much .for 1830, though quite inadequate
for the situation as it developed after 1861. As so many things done in
the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I by narrowly bureaucratic
and despotic methods, the codification could not cope with the problems
created by the reforms of Alexander II.
On the debit side, the inadequacies of the Digest we have mentioned
saddled Russian jurisprudence with mllny problems which might have
been avoided. They perpetuated the difficulties arising out of the
discrepancy between traditional Russian norms (and their institutional
manifestations) and the dogmatic innovations introduced by Speransky.
At times, the Digest acted like a dead weight which prevented an easy
adaptation to newly arising circumstances. The worst feature of all, due
less to the Digest itself perhaps than to the rigid attitude of the govern-
ment, was that it precluded the elaboration of court-made law, whichis such an important element in a living body o.f law. 1 It was an
especially serious shortcoming in a country that was undergoing rapid
and far reaching social and economic changes.
Several features of the codification throw interesting light on Spe-
ransky's political attitude. We note first his blend of a historical and1 Although it is only fair to note that the decisions and "clarifications" of the
Senate played the role of "court-made" law.