The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Oxford History of Modern Europe)

1389 Pages·1988·7.97 MB·English

by  Hugh Seton-Watson

THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE 1801-1917
BY HUGH SETON-WATSON
OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
-iii-
Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape
Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris São
Paolo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in
Berlin Ibadan
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the
United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Oxford University
Press 1967
First issued as paperback 1988
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior
permission in writing of Oxford University Press. Within the UK, exceptions are
allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private
study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance
with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency.
Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms and in other countries
should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address
above This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade
or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the
publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in
which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition
being imposed on the subsequent purchaser
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data applied for ISBN 0-
19-822103-7 ISBN 0-19-822152-5 (Pbk)
7 9 10 8 6
Printed in Malta by Interprint Ltd.
-iv-
IN MEMORY OF MY PARENTS ROBERT WILLIAM SETON-WATSON (
1879-1951) AND MARION ESTHER SETON-WATSON ( 1883-1963)
-v-
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-vi-
PREFACE
IT is difficult to write the history of another country. The foreigner has not
grown up in its physical and mental climate, and he cannot understand them, still
less feel them, in the same way as its own people do. He can spend long periods
in a foreign land, learn its language, work and live among its citizens, to some
extent think as they do, and be accepted as a friend. This is not the same thing as
being one of the people of the country, but still it is something. This I have done
in several countries, but Russia is not one of them. I have visited Russia briefly, I
have known its language for many years, and I have had pleasant contacts with
individual Soviet citizens. I might perhaps, if I had been more persevering, have
spent much longer periods in this way. However, the most that I could have
achieved, and which some persons known to me have indeed achieved, is still far
less than what above I have called living among a foreign nation and being
accepted as a friend. It has not in fact been possible for many years for a
foreigner to live like this in Russia unless he has been willing to turn his back on
his own country. There are signs that it may become possible some years hence,
that my children's generation may be able to live among Russians as my father's
generation were able.
The foreigner is of course writing for his own people, or for peoples whose
language is the same as his own. He has to stress at some length points which to
a Russian are so obvious that they do not even deserve a mention. He has to put
together, and try to make a coherent picture of, many details which are found
scattered in many sources; to do this is indeed as important a duty, towards his
audience, as that search for new facts in documents which has become the
exclusive preoccupation of so many professional historians. British historians
have already made substantial contributions to the historical literature on Russia.
Besides Sumner and Pares are many lesser names. In recent decades American
contributions have been still more impressive--both monographs and general
surveys. Nevertheless, there is still room for works in English on nineteenth-
century
-vii-
Russia. It is to the English-speaking public--and not to the expert on specific
sectors of Russian history, not even to the specialist in Russian history, so much
as to the reader interested in general history--that this work is offered, after much
toil and with little satisfaction.
I do not expect that my work will in any way enlighten Russians. Certainly it
will teach them no facts. It is just conceivable that the great distance from which
I approach the subject may lend some detachment, or that some comparisons that
I have made with other lands or periods may have some small marginal value. To
any Russian who may read it, I can sincerely say that if I lack the warm feeling
that comes from long experience and human contact, at least I do not lack
respect for his great nation, or love for his splendid language, or gratitude for the
joy which its literature, above all the great Pushkin, has given me.
The period covered begins with the accession of Alexander I and ends with the
abdication of Nicolas II. The Revolution and all that followed will, it is hoped,
form the subject for another volume in this series by another author. The centre
of attention in this book may be described as political and social history--the
history of institutions, classes, political movements and individuals. Other
aspects are treated marginally.
Systematic description and analysis of foreign policy is the subject of separate
volumes in this series. But I have not been able simply to leave out the foreign
relations of the Russian Empire, least of all in the age of Alexander I and
Napoleon, when internal and foreign policy, war and peace were inextricably
connected. Within the general framework of foreign relations, I have perhaps
given relatively more attention than is usual to Russian policy in Asia, including
the conquest and consolidation of what may be called the colonial empire. Much
less space has been given to foreign policy in the last decades, which is generally
well known and has in any case been covered by the first volume published in
this series. 1 Military events are too lightly dealt with, but I have at least tried to
give the reader the basic facts--where the campaigns were fought and with what
result--which are so often omitted in modern general historical surveys.
____________________
1 A. J. P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848-1918.
-viii-
The technical aspects of economic history are absent, but there is a very broad
overlapping zone between the political, social and economic, which concerns the
development of agriculture and industry and the changing pattern of social
classes. An economic historian would treat these subjects differently, but I do not
think that I have ignored them.
History of literature is another distinct field. But in nineteenth-century Russia
literature was so closely connected with political and social history that it often
has to be mentioned. There are thus references to the works and lives not only of
the most politically minded but also of the greatest creative writers. Arts and
sciences are only mentioned in a few bare statements, designed to remind
readers that at such and such a time Lobachevsky was developing his
mathematics, Chaikovsky composing his symphonies, or Chagall learning to
paint.
One aspect which is commonly underrated is the imperial. Russia was a multi-
national empire, more than half of whose subjects were not Russians. Clearly a
single volume cannot examine in any depth the history of all the non-Russian
peoples. But I have devoted a good deal of space to the relations of these peoples
with the Russians, and to the development of political movements among them,
together with some sketchy references to their social structures and economic
development.
By far the most important was the Polish people. It is hoped that a separate
volume on Poland will appear in this series, which will do justice to the
abundant Polish sources. My own brief sections on Poland are based on very
limited study. For the first half of the period I am largely though not exclusively
indebted to the two recent books by R. F. Leslie, while for the second half I have
used a wider range of less satisfactory works. For the other non-Russian peoples
a mixture of a few primary and secondary sources, mostly in Russian but some
also in German and Ukrainian, has had to suffice. Any British scholars willing to
devote themselves to systematic study of the history of the main non-Russian
peoples of the Empire in this period will find a most rewarding use for their
talents.
My aim has been to see the period as it was, rather than in terms of what
happened after it; to consider policies and personalities in terms of what was
possible in their time, rather than to impose on them the standards which are
accepted in our own.
-ix-
It has seemed to me desirable to refrain from giving good and bad marks to the
personages of the drama, to dub them 'progressive' or 'reactionary'. Nevertheless,
my own preferences may from time to time stand out. I am not ashamed of
having preferences, but I have tried not to force them on my readers, and where I
have failed I ask their indulgence.
This is not of course the approach of Soviet historical literature. It is based on
the 'periodization' of human history, on the development of human society
through the slave-owning, feudal and capitalist phases to its culmination in
socialism. According to this school of thought, the Great October Socialist
Revolution of 1917 is the greatest event in history, dividing it more basically in
two than the birth of Christ. For the Russian people is claimed the honour of
having made the first successful socialist revolution in history. All Russian
history was a preparation for this great event, everything in the past which points
towards it should be stressed and everything which led in a different direction
should be discounted. Variations on this theme can be found in a good deal of
recent Western historical literature on Russia which, starting from a point of
view hostile to the Bolshevik Revolution, nevertheless regards it as the
overwhelmingly important event, and examines earlier events mainly in order to
find explanations of its origin.
I should like to express my respect for much of the work which has been done
from these points of view, but I do not share this apocalyptic outlook, in either its
hagiographical or demonological version. The Bolshevik Revolution was
unquestionably one of the greatest events in all human history. But my narrative
stops before it took place, and I have not felt that the purpose of my book should
be to explain it. I have tried to give most space, at each stage of my story, to the
problems which were at that stage the most important. For this reason I have not
given much space to the divisions within the social democratic movement. To
explain the actions, theories, and personalities of the many factions involved
would require a book in itself; there are many such books already; and whatever
their effects after 1917, these factions did not play a very important part in
Russian political life before the Revolution. I hope that the author who writes the
second volume on Russia in this series will feel free to go back over the period
of my volume, in
-x-