Speaking in Moscow in front of the leaders of the nobility shortly after the conclusion of the Peace of Paris in 1856, the tsar said: 'There are rumours that I want to announce the emancipation of the peasants. I will not say to you that I am completely against this. We live in such an age that this has to happen in time. I think that you agree with me. Therefore, it is much better that this business be carried out from above, rather than from below.'[3]This short speech tells us much that is important in the history of the 1861 reforms: about the fact that the initiative came from Alexander II himself; that he imposed his will on the nobility; that he recognised the necessity to forestall the initiative of the peasantry, and that he took into account the overall trends of the century. Subsequent events show that Alexander II did not step back from this first declaration about the abolition of serfdom. Some years later in a rather didactic tone he wrote to Napoleon III: 'the true condition of peace in the world lies not in inactivity, which is impossible, and not in dubious political manoeuvrings . . . , but in practical wisdom, which is necessary in order to reconcile history, this unshakeable behest of the past, with progress - the law of the present and the future.[4] These words affirm Alexander II's confidence in the correctness of the course undertaken by him to transform Russia, as do many of his handwritten letters to his brother, the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, and to his viceroy in the Caucasus and friend Prince A. I. Bariatinskii.[5] In general the role of Alexander II in the Great Reforms has not been sufficiently explored in the literature.
What were the preconditions of the reform? There is no single opinion on the objective socioeconomic preconditions for the emancipation of the serfs. Soviet historians wrote about the crisis of the feudal-serf system. The majority ofWestern historians (following P. Struve and A. Gershchenkron) have come to the conclusion that serfdom as an economic system was still fully viable on the eve of the 1861 reforms.[6] This problem clearly needs further research bringing to bear data on macro- and micro-socioeconomic development during the pre-reform decades. The effects of the banking crisis at the end of the 1850s on the preparation of the reforms has been convincingly and comprehensively studied in the works of Steven Hoch.[7]
The question of the economic goals and perceptions of the reformers themselves has been illuminated well in the work of Olga Crisp, A. Skerpan and Bruce Lincoln. Economic liberalism and the recognition of the role of private initiative in the development of the economy formed the core of their views. In this light the assertion that the liberal bureaucracy was not aware of the realities of the Russian situation and was only copying the experience of the West looks highly dubious. Rather it can be said that the key reformers took into account the experience of Europe but acted in the awareness of Russian realities and traditions, with which they were very well acquainted. Above all this concerns the Statutes of 19 February. For example, already at the beginning of the 1840s Nikolai Miliutin and A. P. Zablotskii-Desiatovskii carried out detailed on-the-spot studies of serf estates. With this same aim in mind, in the summer of i860 A.V Golovnin was sent with Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich to the central provinces. Before he wrote his 1855 memorandum on the emancipation of the peasants, K. D. Kavelin had direct experience with serf-based agriculture.
On the whole, thanks primarily to the work of Bruce Lincoln, it is now clear that a key precondition of the Great Reforms was the existence of cadres, people who were prepared to take upon themselves the massive work of the transformation of Russia, a project which their predecessors in the first half of the nineteenth century had tried to embark on but had not managed. This stratum of progressive, educated people, united in their common views about the forthcoming transformations and the methods for carrying them out, began to take shape in the heart ofthe bureaucratic apparatus during the reign of Nicholas I in the 1830s and especially in the 1840s. It was characterised by the practically identical conceptions of the 'liberal' or 'enlightened' bureaucracy.[8]Certain ministries (state domains, internal affairs, justice and navy) and the State Chancellery formed its core. The liberal bureaucracy was not shut off from society: it co-operated closely with liberal public figures, academics and writers. These links were maintained through personal contacts, interactions in groups and in fashionable salons (especially the salon of Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna). Iu. F. Samarin, K. D. Kavelin, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, P. N. Mel'nikov (Pecherskii), V I. Dal' and others were members of the bureaucracy at different times. This collaboration of civil servants (among whom Dmitrii and Nikolai Miliutin stood out particularly) and social and academic figures found an outlet in the Russian Geographical Society which was set up in 1845 under the chairmanship of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich. Terence Emmons, a leading expert on the 1861 peasant reform, is convinced that the 'bureaucratic "third element"', which had formed during Nicholas's reign 'can undoubtedly be considered one of the preconditions of the i860 reforms'.[9]Although the study of the enlightened bureaucracy in Russian historiography has far from been exhausted, there is no doubt about the pivotal role it played in the transformations.
Another such precondition was the institutional reforms which were carried out in the reign of Alexander I, including the creation of ministries in which the cadres of the future reformers were trained. It is also important to note the significance ofthe legacy of M. M. Speranskii. He put large-scale reforms of the state system on the agenda during the reign of Alexander I and during the subsequent reign ordered and codified legislation by producing the Complete Collection of Laws (Pol'noe sobranie zakonov) and the Code of Laws of
the Russian Empire (Svod zakonov). He also did his bit in the education of
the future Tsar-liberator (for a year and half Speranskii gave the heir to the throne lectures on law). In addition, the educational reforms in the first half ofthe nineteenth century created the institutions (universities, School of Law, Tsarskoe Selo Lycee) from which many of the key reformers graduated.[10]
Among the preconditions for the abolition of serfdom, the accumulated experience of discussion and decision-making regarding the peasant problem in the first half ofthe nineteenth century also played a significant role. The Decree of 1803 on 'Free Agriculturalists' and of 1842 on 'Obligated Peasants', which were not binding on landowners and as a result had little effect, nevertheless meant that ideas about emancipation linked to land-redemption and about the unbreakable link of the peasant with the land had been affirmed in legislation. Local reforms also created models: the abolition of serfdom in the Baltic provinces (Livonia, Kurland and Estonia) in 1816-19 and the introduction of inventories in the south-west of the country (in Kiev, Podolia and Volhynia) in 1847-8 were obligatory for landowners and provided two models for the solution of the peasant problem which would be taken into account at the time of the preparation of the abolition of serfdom. The reform of the state peasantry, carried out by P. D. Kiselev in 1837 created the model of peasant self-government. The materials from the Secret Committees (particularly of 1835 and 1839), which in 1856 were transferred from the II Department of the Emperor's Personal Chancellery to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where the preparation of the emancipation of the serfs was started, also received some attention.[11]
How does the legislation of 1861 relate to the preconditions of the reform that were taking shape in the middle of the century? This is the main question of the next section of my work.
3
5
6
For sources on the historiography of the question, see P. Gatrell, 'Znachenie velikikh reform vekonomicheskoiistoriiRossii',inZakharova, EklofandBushnell,
7
S. Hoch, 'Bankovskii krizis, krest'ianskaia reforma i vykupnaia operatsiia v Rossii, 18571861', in Zakharova, Eklof and Bushnell,
8
The term 'enlightened bureaucracy' has been accepted in the Western literature, 'liberal bureaucracy' in the Russian literature. See W. B. Lincoln,
10
See F. A. Petrov,
11
N. M. Druzhinin,