Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:16:23.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peasant Emancipation and Russian Social Thought: The Case of Boris N. Chicherin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Gary M. Hamburg
Gary M. Hamburg*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of abolishing serfdom preoccupied Russian social thinkers long before the Emancipation in 1861. In spite of more than a century of scholarship devoted to analyzing the peasant question, however, historians have reached no consensus on such fundamental issues as the origins and political implications of abolitionist thought. Did advocacy of peasant emancipation by members of the landed nobility spring from liberal altruism or from a selfish desire to defend seigneurial interests against revolutionary peasants and the peasants’ spokesmen, the so-called “revolutionary democrats”? Can Slavophilism and westernism be classified simply as varieties of liberalism, which, whatever their minor differences, agreed on the necessity of avoiding peasant revolution and regarded Russian radicals as pernicious enemies? Before emancipation were Russian liberals sharply differentiated ideologically from more radical intellectuals, such as Aleksandr I. Herzen and Nikolai G. Chernyshevskii—a differentiation traceable to attitudes toward the peasant emancipation? Or did the definitive split between liberalism and radicalism come after the Emancipation? Scholars bring to these questions such disparate conceptions of Russian politics and of the nature of historical proof that achieving consensus may be impossible. Nevertheless, the Soviet historian Vera F. Zakharina has argued convincingly that certain facets of the larger questions can be illuminated by investigating the ideological assumptions in the letters and programmatic works of major social thinkers and especially by observing how these assumptions changed over time.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , Winter 1991 , pp. 890 - 904
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies, Inc. 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

An extended version of this essay was read at a conference on the great reforms in Russian history, convened at Pennsylvania University in May 1989. Daniel Field, Terence Emmons, Abbott Gleason, and Sidney Monas made useful comments which contributed to the present version of the essay. The author also wishes to acknowledge assistance from the archivists at the Central State Archive of the October Revolution [TsGAOR], the Manuscript Division of the Lenin Library [ROBL] in Moscow, and at the Central State Historical Archives [TsGIA] in Leningrad. The International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) and the United States Department of Education financed a 1986 research leave during which material for this essay was gathered.

1. Nechkina, M. V. provided the basic Soviet model for understanding the Emancipation in her essay, “Reforma 1861 goda kak pobochnyi produkt revoliutsionnoi bor’by: (K. metodologii izucheniia reformy),” in Revoliutsionnaia situatsiia v Rossii v 1859-1861 gg., tom 2 (Moscow: Nauka, 1962), 7–17 Google Scholar. In her assessment the 1861 reform was a “government retreat before the impact of the peasant movement and the revolutionary struggle which reflected the demands of that movement.” Revolutionary pressure drove the government and the entire ruling class into a “crisis,” from which the elite could extricate itself only by promulgating the reform—that is, by granting concessions that would relieve revolutionary pressure. Nechkina and her followers have been attentive to every indication of liberal concern over the prospect of peasant revolution. Recent Soviet works on liberalism, most of which depend on the Nechkina model, include V. N. Rozental’, “Pervoe otkrytoe vystuplenie russkikh liberálov v 1855-1856 gg.,” Istorila SSSR, 1958, no. 2; idem., “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia programma russkogo liberalizma v seredine 50-kh godov XIX v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski 70:197-222; idem., “Narastanie ‘krizisa verkhov’ v seredine 50-kh godov XIX veka,” Revoliutsionnaia situatsiia, torn 2, 40-63; idem., “Ideinye tsentry liberaľnogo dvizheniia v Rossii nakanune revoliutsionnoi situatsii,” in Revoliutsionnaia situatsiia v Rossii v 1859-1861 gg., tom 3 (Moscow: Nauka, 1963), 372-398; idem., “Russkii liberal 50-kh godov XIX veka,” in Revoliutsionnaia situatsiia v Rossii v 1859-1861 gg., tom 6 (Moscow: Nauka, 1974), 224-256; Sladkevich, N. G., Ocherki istorii obshchestvennoi mysli v Rossii v kontse 50-kh —nachale 60-kh godov XIX v. (Leningrad: Leningradskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1962)Google Scholar; Kitaev, V. A., Ot frondy k ohranitel’ stvu: Iz istorii russkoi liberal’noi mysli 50-60-kh godov XIX v. (Moscow: Mysl’, 1972)Google Scholar; idem., “Slavianofily i zapadniki na rubezhe 1850- 1860-kh godov (K kharakteristike liberalizma epokhi pervoi revoliutsionnoi situatsii v Rossii) (Ph.D. diss., Gor’kii, 1980); Sh. Levin, M., Ocherkipo istorii russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli: Vtoraia polovina XlX-nachalo XX v. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1974)Google Scholar.

Soviet literature also generally treats liberalism as a broad construct encompassing both Slavophilism and moderate westernism. In this conceptualization, the Slavophiles represented the right wing and the westernizers the left wing of the liberal camp. This view is espoused by Sladkevich and Kitaev and also by certain students of Slavophilism, such as Tsimbaev, N. I., Slavianofil’stvo: Iz istorii russkoi obshchestvenno-politicheskoi mysli XIX veka (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo moskovskogo universita, 1986)Google Scholar. Dudzinskaia, E. A., however, has protested that Slavophilism, while a variety of liberalism, was in many respects just as progressive as westernism during the struggle over the Emancipation, Slavianofily v obshchestvennoi bor’by (Moscow: Mysl’, 1983)Google Scholar; idem., “Obshchestvennaia i khoziaistvennaia deiatel’nosť slavianofila lu. F. Samarina v 50-60-kh godakh XIX v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski 110 (1984): 312–333.Google Scholar Western literature on the Emancipation has tended to criticize the Nechkina model for underestimating the role of liberal ideas in shaping the pre-1861 climate of opinion. Emmons, Terence, for example, has rejected the view that gentry liberalism was primarily a defense of nobility interests; instead, he wrote, liberalism among the provincial nobility reflected less self-interest than “a whole climate of opinion, deeply influenced by liberal European thought, which was publicized and debated in educated society,” The Russian Landed Gentry and the Peasant Emancipation of 1861 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 204 Google Scholar. Daniel Field has also argued that western ideas played a crucial role in the Emancipation by helping undermine the ideological justifications for serfdom. See Field, , The End of Serfdom: Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855-1861 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976)Google Scholar. Field, however, is wary of using the term liberalism because, in light of the confusing and inconsistent contemporary uses of the term, he finds it impossible to construct an ideal definition of liberalism applicable to Russia. See idem., “Kavelin and Russian Liberalism,” Slavic Review 32:1 (March 1973): 59-78. For an attempt to identify those values that early Russian liberals held in common see Offord, Derek, Portraits of Early Russian Liberals: A Study of the Thought of T. N. Granovsky, V. P. Botkin, P. V. Annenkov, A. V. Druzhinin andK. D. Kavelin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Western scholarship on Slavophilism, following the work of Walicki, Andrzej’s The Slavophile Controversy: History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth-Century Russian Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975)Google Scholar, has tended to distinguish sharply between Slavophilism and westernism. For Walicki Slavophilism was a form of retrospective utopianism, a conservative reaction to the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. As such it had virtually nothing in common with liberalism. An exception to this tendency is Wortman, Richard, who has classified certain Slavophile thinkers as moderate liberals and progressives. See his “Koshelev, Samarin and Cherkassky and the Fate of Liberal Slavophilism,” Slavic Review (June 1962): 261–279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. See Zakharina, V. F., “Iz istorii obshchestvennoi bor’by v period padeniia krepostnogo prava (Kavelin, K. D. i revoliutsionnye demokraty),” Istoricheskie zapiski 109 (1983): 129–176 Google Scholar. Zakharina’s technique involves close reading of Ravelin’s 1855 memorandum on the problem of serfdom, careful study of Ravelin’s unpublished correspondence on this question, and reconstruction of his intellectual ties with Aleksandr Herzen and Nikolai Chernyshevskii. Zakharina insists that the views of Russian liberals cannot be understood in isolation from those of the revolutionary democrats. She adds that both liberalism and radicalism changed over time, so that the historian must pay attention to the dynamic process of ideological differentiation. To think of liberalism and radicalism as static ideal types is a grave error.

3. The best previous scholarship on Chicherin has treated him either as a historian or as a philosopher of law. For analyses of Chicherin as historian see Miliukov, P. N., “Iuridicheskaia shkola v russkoi istoriografii (Solov’ev, Kavelin, Chicherin, Sergeevich),” Russkaia mysl’, 1886, no. 6:80–92 Google Scholar; Syromiatnikov, B. I., “Kliuchevskii, V. O. i Chicherin, B. N.,” in V. O. Kliuchevskii, Kharateristiki i vospominaniia (Moscow: Nauchnoe slovo, 1912), 59–93 Google Scholar; Pokrovskii, M. N., “Bor’ba klassov i russkaia istoricheskaia teoriia razvitiia russkogo samoderzhaviia,” in Istoricheskaia nauka i bor’ba klassov (Moscow-Leningrad: Gos. sotsial’no-ekon. izd-vo, 1933), 31–38 Google Scholar; 45, 173, 179; Rubinshtein, N. L., “Gosudarstvennaia shkola. Kavelin. Chicherin,” Russkaia istoriografiia (Moscow, 1941), 298–311 Google Scholar; Illeritskii, V. E., “O gosudarstvennoi shkole v russkoi istoriografii,” Voprosy istorii 1959, no. 5:141–159 Google Scholar; Tsamutali, A.N., “B. N. Chicherin i okonchatel’noe oformlenie kontseptsii gosudarstvennoi shkoly,” Bor’ba techenii v russkoi istoriografii vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka (Leningrad: Nauka, 1977), 137–161 Google Scholar. For Chicherin as philosopher of law see the remarks by Leonard, Schapiro, Rationalism and Nationalism in Russian Nineteenth-Century Politicai Thought (New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1967)Google Scholar, passim, and two monographic studies on Chicherin’s thought at the end of the century: Zor’kin, V. D., ¡z istorii burzhuazno-liberal’noi politicheskoi mysli Rossii vtoroi poloviny XlX-nachala XX v. (Chicherin, B. N) (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo moskovskogo universiteta, 1975)Google Scholar, and Walicki, Andrzej, “Boris Chicherin: The ‘Old Liberal’ Philosophy of Law,” Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) 105–164.Google Scholar For Chicherin’s politics during the Emancipation period scattered remarks appear in the literature on liberalism cited above and in only a handful of useful monographic treatments. In Russian the only extended commentary on Chicherin is Kizel’shtein, G. B., “Politicheskie vzgliady B. N. Chicherina v 1848-1867 godakh,” (Moscow University, 1966)Google Scholar, a dissertation marred by errors and the author’s lack of sympathy for his subject. In English see Hammer, Darrell P., “Two Russian Liberals. The Political Thought of B. N. Chicherin and K. D. Kavelin,” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1962)Google Scholar; Sumner, Benson, “The Conservative Liberalism of Boris Chicherin,” Forschungen zur Osteuropäischen Geschichte 21 (1975): 17–113 Google Scholar, and the polemic by Kelly, Aileen, “ ‘What Is Real Is Rational’: The Political Philosophy of B. N. Chicherin,” Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique> 28 (3) (1977): 195–222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. None of this literature analyzes Chicherin’s view of the peasant emancipation against the background of other abolitionist sentiments.

4. Chicherin, B. N., “Sovremennye zadachi russkoi zhizni,” Golosa iz Rossii, knizhka 4 (London: Trübner and Co., 1857), 112–127.Google Scholar

5. TsGAORf. 1154 [Chicherin], op. l.ed.khr. 18,1. 45. Unfortunately, the historical literature about the family’s economic position is careless. The introduction to the published volumes of Chicherin’s memoirs reported the family as owning 1,300 desiatins of land, a crude error in transcription. See Bakhrushin, S.’s introductory remarks to Vospominaniia Borisa Nikolaevicha Chicherina, Moskva sorokovykh godov (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo M.i S. Sabashnikovykh, 1929), xvii Google Scholar. The error has been repeated by others, including Benson, “Conservative Liberalism,” 28-29.

6. On Pavlov see Vil’chinskii, V. P., Nikolai Filippovich Pavlov. Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo (Leningrad: Nauka, 1970)Google Scholar. In 1831, the year before he traveled to Umet, Pavlov was fired from his post in the First Department of the Moscow Palace of Justice for conducting an aggressive investigation of a case of financial misconduct. He was offered a large bribe to drop the investigation, a bribe he refused, thereby precipitating his dismissal (ibid., 17). No doubt, his hostility to serfdom was part of a more general disapprobation of Russian social mores.

7. On Krivtsov and his Decembrist brother Sergei see Gershenzon, M. O., Dekabrist Krivtsov (Moscow-Berlin: Gelikon, 1923)Google Scholar. For additional information on the family see Shilov, K. V., “Otgoloski dekabrizma v zhizni usadebnogo dvorianstva (K portretu Sergeia Krivtsova),” in Saratovskii gos. universitet, Osvoboditel’noe dvizhenie v Rossii, Vypusk 6 (Saratov: Izdatel’stvo saratovskogo universiteta, 1977), 15–31.Google Scholar On the abolitionist project of N. I. Krivtsov, see the remarks of Kizel’shtein, , “Politicheskie vzgliady B. N. Chicherina,” 94–98, and Semevskii, V. I., Kresťianskii vopros v Rossii v XVIII i pervoi polovine XIX stoleliia. Tom 2 (St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia pol’za, 1888), 450–451 Google Scholar.

8. For an introduction to the vast literature on Granovskii as historian, see Roosevelt, Priscilla Reynolds, “Granovskii at the Lectern: A Conservative Liberal’s Vision of History,” Forschungen zur Osteuropäischen Geschichte 29 (1981): 61–192 Google Scholar; idem., Apostle of Russian Liberalism: Timofei Granovsky (New-tonville, Mass.: Oriental Research Partners, 1986) passim.

9. T. N., Lektsii Granovskogo po istorii srednevekov’ia (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1961), 163–164 Google Scholar, 168 (quotation).

10. Chicherin, B. N., Oblastnye uchrezhdeniia Rossii v XVII-m veke (Moscow: Tip. A. Semena, 1856), 1 Google Scholar.

11. ROBL, f. 334 [Chicherin], k. 17, ed. khr. 5, 1. 4—4 verso, “Dnevnik 1851.” Entry of 1 May 1851.

12. Chicherin, B. N., appendix to Opyty po istorii russkogo prava (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo K. Soldatenkova. N. Shchenkina, 1858), 380–381 Google Scholar.

13. See, for example, Chicherin’s citation of a lengthy peasant complaint against the official Miakinin: Oblastnye uchrezhdeniia Rossii v XVII-m veke, 313-314. We know from Chicherin’s memoirs that his thesis advisor Sergei Ornatskii, and the dean of the Moscow University law faculty, S.I. Barshev, both refused to approve the dissertation in any form. See Vospominaniia Borisa Nikolaevicha Chicherina. Moskva soro-kovykh godov, 121-123, 147-148. For Ornatskii’s hostile evaluation of the work, see TsGIA, f. 733 [Departament narodnogo prosveshcheniia], op. 37, ed. khr. 153, 1. 17. “Razbor knigi: Oblastnye uchrezhdeniia Rossii v XVII-m veka. Soch. B. Chicherina ordinarnym professorom Sergeem Ornatskim.”

14. Vospominaniia Borisa Nikolaevicha Chicherina. Moskva sorokovykh godov, 153.

15. The probable conduit between the Ravelin group and Herzen was N. A. Mel’gunov. On Mel’gunov see Zakharin, N. N., “Pis’ma N. A. Mel’gunova-Gertsenu,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 62 (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1955): 308–322.Google Scholar

16. Chicherin, ’s contributions are “Sviashchennyi soiuz,” Istoricheskii sbornik vol’noi russkoi tipografii v Londone (London: Trübner and Co., 1859), Kniga 1, 145–164 Google Scholar; “O krepostnom sostoianii,” Golosa ii Rossii, knìzhka 2 (London: Trübner and Co., 1856), 127-229; “Ob aristokratu, v osobennosti russkoi,” Golosa iz Rossii, knizhka 3 (London: Trübner and Co., 1857), 1–113 Google Scholar; “Sovremennye zadachi russkoi zhizni, “Golosa iz Rossii, knizhka 4, 51–129 Google Scholar. The open letter to Herzen was written by Chicherin, and Ravelin, and published over the signature, “Russkii liberal,” as “Pis’mo k. izdateliu v vide predisloviia,” Golosa iz Rossii, knizhka 1 (London: Trübner and Co., 1856), 9–36 Google Scholar.

17. “O krepostnom sostoianii,” 135, 136-137.

18. Ibid., 152-154.

19. Ibid., 159-160.

20. Ibid., 156, 169-171. Compare Herzen’s comments in Byloe i dumy: “In the old days,” Herzen wrote, “there used to be a patriarchal dynastic affection between landowners and their houseservants, such as exists today in Turkey. Today there are in Russia no more of these devoted servants, attached to the line and the family of their masters. And that is easy to understand. The landowner no longer believes in his power, he does not believe that he will have to answer for his serfs at the terrible Day of Judgment but simply makes use of his power for his own advantage. The servant does not believe in his subjection and endures violence not as a chastisement and trial from God, but simply because he is defenseless; the big fish swallows the little ones.” See MacDonald, Dwight, ed., My Past and Thoughts. The Memoirs of Alexander Herzen (New York: Vintage, 1947), 26–27 Google Scholar.

21. “O krepostnom sostoianii,” 175-225.

22. Ibid., 200.

23. Ibid., 212-213.

24. “Zapiska ob osvobozhdenii kresťian v Rossii,” Sochineniia K. D. Kavelina 4 vols. (St. Petersburg: Tip. M. M. Stasiulevicha, 1898) 2:5–88 Google Scholar, quote cited from 29.

25. For Samarin, ’s memorandum see “O krepostnom sostoianii i o perekhode iz nego k. grazhdanskoi svobode,” Sochineniia lu. F. Somarina. Tom vtoroi. Kresťianskoe delo do Vysochaishago reskripta 20 noiabria 1857 goda, 12 vols. (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo D. Samarina. 1878), 17–136 Google Scholar; for Koshelev, ’s views see “Ob neobkhodimosti unichtozheniia krepostnogo sostoianii v Rossii,” appendix to Zapiski Aleksandra Ivanovicha Kosheleva (1812-1883 gody) (Berlin: B. Behr, 1884), 57–128 Google Scholar.

26. Kavelin, “Zapiska ob osvobozhdenii kresťian v Rossii,” 25, 27-29; Samarin, “О krepostnom sostoianii i o perekhode,” 37-38, 42-46; Koshelev, “O neobkhodimosti unichtozheniia,” 70-74.

27. See, for example, Samarin’s comments in “O krepostnom sostoianii i o perekhode,” 36; and Koshelev’s remarks in “O neobkhodimosti unichtozheniia,” 78.

28. For Belinskii’s repudiation of Hegel see Walicki, Andrzej, A History of Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to Marxism (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1979), 123–124 Google Scholar.

29. ROBL, f. 327 [Cherkasskii], razdel 1, k. 15, ed. khr. 17, “O krepostnom sostoianii.”

30. Ibid., 11. 25 verso-26 verso, 1.29, and 1.37 verso.

31. Ibid., 1.37 verso.

32. The pretext for the subsequent debates was Chicherin’s published article, “Obzor istoricheskogo razvitiia sel’skoi obshchiny v Rossa,” Russkii vestnik, 1856, t. 1, kn. 3, 373-396; kn. 4, 579-602; reprinted in Opytypo istorii russkogoprava, 1 -58. For Slavophile responses to Chicherin’s views on the commune see Beliaev, I. D., “Obzor istoricheskogo razvitiia sel’skoi obshchiny v Rossii. Soch. В. Chicherina (Russkii Vestnik, kn. 3 i 4),” Russkaia beseda, 1856, t. 1, 101–146 Google Scholar; idem., “Eshche o sel’skoi obshchine (Na otvet g. Chicherina, pomeshch[ennyi] v Russkom Vestnike No. 12,” Russkaia beseda, 1856, t. 2, 114-141; Khomiakov, A. S., “Zamechaniia na staťiu g. Ivanisheva o drevnikh sel’skikh obshchinakh,” Polnoe sobrame sochinenii, 8 vols. (Moscow: Universitetskaia Tipografiia, 1900) 3:264–265 Google Scholar; N. I. Krylov, “Kriticheskie zamechaniia, vyzvannye professoroni Krylovym na publichnom dispute v Moskovskom universitete 21 dek. 1856 g., na sochinenie g. Chicherina: Oblastnye uchrezhdeniia Rossii v XVII-m veke,” Staťia pervaia. This last was printed as a separate pamphlet.

33. Chicherin’s account of the conversation is printed in Vospominaniia Borisa Nikolaevicha Chicherina. Puteshestvie za granitsu (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo M. i S. Sabashnikovykh, 1932), 50-52; for Herzen, ’s account see Byloe i dumy in Sobrame sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1954-1968), vol. 9:248–253 Google Scholar. A short description of the polemic between Herzen and Chicherin appears in la. El’sberg, E., Gertsen, Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo, izdanie 3-e (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1956), 443–444 Google Scholar. An excellent account of the polemic and its ramifications may be found in Porokh, I. V., “Polemika Gertsena s Chicherinym i otklik na nee ‘Sovremennika’,” in Saratovskii gos. universitet, Istoriograficheskii sbornik, no. 2 (Saratov: Izdatel’stvo saratovskogo universiteta, 1965)Google Scholar. For a more recent discussion, see Pirumova, N. M., Aleksandr Gertsen, Revoliutsioner, myslitel’, chelovek (Moscow: Mysl’, 1989), 111–112 Google Scholar.

34. Herzen, Aleksandr, Sobrante sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh, vol. 9:250–253.Google Scholar

35. “Obvinitel’nyi akt,” Kolokol, 1 December 1858, 236-239; a shortened version of the letter appears in Chichetm, B. N., Neskol’ko sovremennykh voprosov (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo K. Soldatenkova, 1862), 11–19.Google Scholar

36. Herzen, Aleksandr, “Pis’mo B. N. Chicherimi,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 61 (Moscow. Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1953), 250 Google Scholar. The letter, dated 15 November 1858, was sent after Herzen’s decision to publish “Obvinitel’nyi akt” in Kolokol.

37. “Otvetnoe pis’mo B. N. Chicherina A. I. Gertsenu ot 30 noiabria 1858 goda,” Vol’noe slovo 61 (22 May 1883), 6-7; cited in Herzen, , Sobrame sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh, vol. 26:439.Google Scholar

38. See Porokh, “Polemika Gertsena s Chicherinym,” 51; Platonova, M. G., “Nekotorye voprosy sotsiologii v trudakh B. N. Chicherina,” in Aktual’nye problemy istoni filosofii narodov SSSR, Vypusk 6 (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo moskovskogo universiteta, 1979), 35–48 Google Scholar, especially 42.

39. “G. Chicherin kak publitsist,” Polnoe sobranie sochinenii N. G. Chernyshevskogo, 10 vols. (St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo M. N. Chenyshevskogo, 1906) 4:464–486 Google Scholar; here 485-486. Panaev’s letter originally appeared in Kolokol 32-33 (1 January 1859), 260-264.

40. For the full text of Kavelin’s letter see Vospominaniia Borisa Nikolaevicha Chicherina. Puteshestvie za granitsu, 57-62.

41. Herzen was pleased to receive these letters of sympathy. See his remarks to A. A. Herzen on 24 February-8 March 1859 in Sobrame sochinemi v tridtsati tomakh, vol. 26:240.

42. On Kavelin’s break with Herzen, see Zakharina, “lz istorii obshchestvennoi bor’by,” 165-166. On Turgenev’s break with Herzen see Schapiro, Leonard, “Turgenev and Herzen: Two Modes of Russian Political Thought,” Russian Studies (New York: Viking, 1987), 321–337 Google Scholar.

43. When the Emancipation was promulgated, Chicherin was studying in Paris. His first reaction to the Emancipation is recorded in the pamphlet, “L’abolition du servage en Russie,” (Paris, 1861). This pamphlet is a bibliographical rarity. A copy may be found in ROBL, f. 334, k. 19, ed. khr. 3 v; here 1, 9, 20.

44. Ibid., 23.

45. For Chicherin’s bitter reaction to the dismissal of Miliutin, see Vospominaniia Borisa Nikolaevkha Chicherina. Moskva sorokovykh godov, 133. Daniel T. Orlovsky’s study of the Ministry of Internal Affairs suggests that after the Emancipation the ministry became a bastion of conservatism. See Orlovsky, , The Limits of Reform: The Ministry of Internal Affairs in Russia, 1802-1881 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Recent literature dealing with the imperial bureaucracy and its lack of political vision is reviewed by Suny, Ronald Grigor, “Rehabilitating Tsarism: The Imperial Russian State and Its Historians,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 31:3 (January 1989), 168–179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46. Chicherin repeatedly complained of the governmenťs clumsy attempts to compromise his “independence” as a writer. See Vospominaniia Borisa Nikolaevicha Chicherina. Moskovskii universitet (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo M. i S. Sabashnikovykh, 1929), 49–52 Google Scholar; see also his letter to Count Putiatin in ROBL, f. 334, k. 2, ed. khr. 34, “Pis’mo B. N. Chicherina k. gr. Evfimiiu Vasil’evichu Putiatinu,” [1861 g.], 11. 1-1 verso.

47. Chicherin, B. N., “Vstupitel’naia lektsiia po gosudarstvennomu pravu, chitannaia v Moskovskom universitete 28 oktiabria 1861 goda,” Neskol’ko sovremennykh voprosov, 23–24 Google Scholar.

48. “Mera i granitsy,” Neskol’ko sovremennykh voprosov, 77-84; here 77-78.

49. ROBL, f. 334, k. 3, ed. khr. 1, “Pis’mo B. N. Chicherina k. V. N. Chicherinu, 19 marta 1863,” U. 1-2, second numeration.

50. TsGAOR f. 1154, op. 1, ed. khr. 63, “Pis’mo B. N. Chicherina baronesse E. F. Raden, 17 aprelia 1867,” 11. 81-82 verso. Chicherin’s account of the Karakozov affair and the 1866 political reaction is in Vospominaniia Borisa Nikolaevicha Chicherina. Moskovskii universitet, 163-250.

51. Zakharina, “Iz istorii obshchestvennoi bor’by,” 171.

52. de Tocqueville, Alexis, Oeuvres complètes. Tome 2. L’ancien régime et la révolution, 18 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1952), 223 Google Scholar.