LAST YEARS - CONCLUSION^361for finding a solution for it in institutional terms. The solution in turn,
broken down analytically, and presented logically by outlining the
procedure step by step, imposed itself with compelling force in its
proper administrative and bureaucratic framework. Like any good
administrator, Speransky knew that in a complex bureaucratic machine
a goal had to be approached gradually, step by step, through a succes-
sion of intermediate stages - but always keeping the final aim and
complete picture well in mind - so as to give every official a chance to
participate in it, thereby sharing both praise and blame for it. Spe-
ransky presented his analysis and proposed his solution of a problem
in terms the sovereign and his bureaucracy could understand, appreciate,
accept, and implement.
In order to do this kind of thing effectively, the bureaucratic machine
had to be well set up and operate smoothly. For this good organization
was essential. Each government office and institution had its specific
area of competence, its well defined duties, and its officials trained to
perform them. Hierarchical subordination assured discipline, esprit
de suite, and supervision of the component parts of the system. But
organization had to be given directives; these were to be embodied in
stable, clear, well known, and easily understood rules and laws. Only
on the basis of such rules would the machine of government operate
smoothly (it was very much the application of the 18th century idea of
the laws of nature, and hence came very close to the political ideal of
the enlightened despots). Therefore, Speransky's second important
contribution to Russian administration was its clear functional organ-
ization and the guidance of its actions by stable, clear, and uniform
rules and laws.
The imperial administration of Russia in the 19th century had many
defects; it sinned against many a thing that men of the time held dear
and important. But compared to the 18th century, it was a model of
organization and regularity of procedure and stability of goals. This
was to a large degree' the consequence of Speransky's work, supported
by Alexander and Nicholas. To this outlook and approach, the cod-
ification was the crowning stone. Speransky removed Russian bureau-
cratic administration from the domain of personal caprice and irregular
organization and, putting it on a par with the governments of con-
temporary monarchical Europe, based it solidly on functional principles
and stable rules. It remained - generally speaking - in that state to
the end of the Empire, except to the extent that it was perverted by
the personal policies of the autocratic Tsar.
Speransky's work had a double significance. As we have suggested, it