|
Prince Mikhail Mikhailovich Shcherbatov,
On the Corruption of Morals in Russia
About the Document
Russia was in many ways a closed society, shut off from Europe by
geography, culture, and religion. While some Russians welcomed the
Westernization begun by Peter the Great, others saw the influx of Western
ideas as dangerous to Russian culture. The Russian Orthodox Church was
concerned about the introduction of "false" religious thought.
Prince Shcherbatov admired Peter, but was
concerned by Peter's reforms and by the result of this contact with the
West. The old aristocracy felt that their place in Russian society was
being undermined. The introduction of Western ideas seemed to be changing
the very nature of Russian culture and undermining Russian moral values.
Shcherbatov, a scholar and historian, was given
the task of editing Peter's private and public papers. This gave him direct
access to Peter's "thoughts," and thus great insight into Peter
himself. Shcherbatov wrote this essay late in
life, and can give us a view as to the long-term effects of Peter's
reforms.
The Document
Peter the Great, in imitating
foreign nations, not only strove to introduce to his realm a knowledge of
sciences, arts and crafts, a proper military system, trade, and the most
suitable forms of legislation; he also tried to introduce the kind of
sociability, social intercourse and magnificence, which he first learnt
from Lefort, and which he later saw for himself.
Amid essential legislative measures, the organization of troops and
artillery, he paid no less attention to modifying the old customs which
seemed crude to him. He ordered beards to be shaved off, he abolished the
old Russian garments, and instead of long robes he compelled the men to
wear German coats, and the women, instead of the "telogreya" to wear
bodices, skirts, gowns and "samaras," and instead of skull-caps,
to adorn their heads with fontanges
and cornettes.
He established various assemblies where the women, hitherto segregated from
the company of men, were present with them at entertainments. . . .
The monarch himself kept to the old simplicity of morals in his dress, so
that apart from plain coats and uniforms, he never wore anything costly;
and it was only for the coronation of the Empress Catherine Alexeevna, his wife, that he had made a coat of blue gros-de-tours with silver-braid; they say he also had
another coat, grey with gold braid, but I do not know for what great
occasion this was made.
The rest was all so plain that even the poorest person would not wear it
today, as can be seen from such of his clothes as have remained, and are
kept in the Kunst-Kamera at the Imperial Academy
of Sciences.
He disliked cuffs and did not wear them, as his portraits attest. He had no
costly carriages, but usually travelled in a gig in towns, and in a chaise
on a long journey.
He did not have a large number of retainers and attendants, but had
orderlies, and did not even have a bodyguard, apart from a Colonel of the
Guard.
However, for all his personal simplicity, he wanted his subjects to have a certain magnificence. I think that this great monarch,
who did nothing without farsightedness, had it as his object to stimulate
trade, industries and crafts through the magnificence and luxury of his
subjects, being certain that in his lifetime excessive magnificence and
voluptuousness would not enthrone themselves at the royal court….
As far as his domestic life was concerned, although the monarch himself was
content with the plainest food, he now introduced drinks previously unknown
in Russia, which he drank in preference to other drinks; namely, instead of
domestic brandy, brewed from ordinary wine -- Dutch aniseed brandy which
was called "state" brandy, and Hermitage and Hungarian wine,
previously unknown in Russia.
His example was followed by the grandees and those who were close to the
court; and indeed it was proper for them to provide these wines; for the
monarch was fond of visiting his subjects, and what should a subject not do
for the monarch? ….
Closely copying him, as they were bound to do by their very rank, other
leading officials of the Empire also kept open table, such as
Admiral-of-the-Fleet, Count Fyodor Matveevich Apraxin, Field-Marshal-in-Chief, Count Boris Petrovich Sheremetev, the Chancellor, Count Gavrilo
Ivanovich Golovkin, and the boyar, Tikhon Nikitich Streshnev, who as first ruler of the Empire during
Peter the Great's absence abroad, was given estates in order to provide for
such meals.
As these eminent men were copied by their inferiors, so the custom of
keeping an open table was now introduced in many homes. The meals were not
of the traditional kind, that is, when only household products were used;
now they tried to improve the flavor of the meat and fish with foreign
seasonings. And of course, in a nation in which hospitality has always been
a characteristic virtue, it was not hard for the custom of these open
tables to become a habit; uniting as it did the special pleasure of society
and the improved flavour of the food as compared
with the traditional kind, it established itself as a pleasure in its own
right….
With this change in the way of life, first of the leading officials of
state, and then, by imitation, of the other nobles, and as expenditure
reached such a point that it began to exceed income, people began to attach
themselves more and more to the monarch and to the grandees, as sources of
riches and rewards.
I fear someone may say that this, at any rate, was a good thing, that
people began to attach themselves more and more to the monarch. No, this
attachment was no blessing, for it was not so much directed to the person
of the monarch as to personal ends; this attachment became not the
attachment of true subjects who love their sovereign and his honour and consider everything from the point of view
of the national interest, but the attachment of slaves and hirelings, who
sacrifice everything for their own profit and deceive their sovereign with
obsequious zeal.
Coarseness of morals decreased, but the place left by it was filled by
flattery and selfishness. Hence came sycophancy,
contempt for truth, beguiling of the monarch, and the other evils which
reign at court to this day and which have ensconced themselves in the houses
of the grandees….
But despite [his] love of truth and his aversion to flattery, the monarch
could not eradicate this encroaching venom. Most of those around him did
not dare to contradict him in anything, but rather flattered him, praising
everything he did, and never resisting his whims, while some even indulged
his passions….
I said that it was voluptuousness and luxury that were able to produce such
an effect in men's hearts; but there were also other causes, stemming from
actual institutions, which eradicated resoluteness and good behaviour.
The abolition of rights of precedence (a custom admittedly harmful to the
service and the state), and the failure to replace it by any granting of
rights to the noble families, extinguished thoughts of noble pride in the
nobility. For it was no longer birth that was
respected, but ranks and promotions and length of service. And so everyone
started to strive after ranks; but since not everyone is able to perform
straightforward deeds of merit, so for lack of meritorious service men
began to try and worm their way up, by flattering and humouring
the monarch and the grandees in every way. Then there was the introduction
of regular military service under Peter the Great, whereby masters were
conscripted into the ranks on the same level as their serfs. The serfs,
being the first to reach officer's rank through deeds suited to men of
their kind, became commanders over their masters and used to beat them with
rods. The noble families were split up in the service, so that a man might
never see his own kinsman.
Could virtue, then, and resolution, remain in those who from their youth
had gone in fear and trembling of their commanders' rods, who could only
acquire respect by acts of servility, and being each without any support
from his kinsmen, remained alone, without unity or defence,
liable to be subjected to violent treatment?
It is admirable that Peter the Great wished to rid religion of
superstition, for indeed, superstition does not signify respect for God and
his Law, but rather an affront. For to ascribe to God acts unbecoming to
him is blasphemy.
In Russia, the beard was regarded as being in the image of God, and it was
considered a sin to shave it off, and through this, men fell into the
heresy of the Anthropomorphites (Those who ascribe human
qualities to God.). Miracles, needlessly performed, manifestations of ikons, rarely proven, were everywhere acclaimed,
attracted superstitious idolatry, and provided incomes for dissolute
priests.
Peter the Great strove to do away with all this. He issued decrees,
ordering beards to be shaved off, and by the Spiritual Regulation, he
placed a check on false miracles and manifestations and also on unseemly
gatherings at shrines set up at crossways. Knowing that God's Law exists
for the preservation of the human race, and not for its needless
destruction, with the blessing of the Synod and the Ecumenical patriarchs,
he made it permissible to eat meat on fast-days in cases of need, and
especially in the Navy where, by abstaining even from fish, the men were
somewhat prone to scurvy; ordering that those who voluntarily sacrificed
their lives by such abstinence, should, when they duly fell ill, be thrown
into the water. All this is very good, although the latter is somewhat
severe.
But when did he do this? At a time when the nation was still unenlightened,
and so, by taking superstition away from an unenlightened people, he
removed its very faith in God's Law. This action of Peter the Great may be
compared to that of an unskilled gardener who, from a weak tree, cuts off
the water-shoots which absorb its sap. If it had strong roots, then this
pruning would cause it to bring forth fine, fruitful branches; but since it
is weak and ailing, the cutting-off of these shoots (which, through the
leaves which received the external moisture, nourished the weak tree) means
that it fails to produce new fruitful branches; its wounds fail to heal
over with sap, and hollows are formed which threaten to destroy the tree.
Thus, the cutting-off of superstitions did harm to the most basic articles
of the faith; superstition decreased, but so did faith. The servile fear of
Hell disappeared, but so did love of God and his Holy Law; and morals,
which for lack of other enlightenment used to be improved by faith, having
lost this support began to fall into dissolution. . . .
And so, through the labours and solicitude of
this monarch, Russia acquired fame in Europe and influence in affairs. Her
troops were organized in a proper fashion, and her fleets covered the White
Sea and the Baltic; with these forces she overcame her old enemies and
former conquerors, the Poles and the Swedes, and acquired important
provinces and sea-ports. Sciences, arts and crafts began to flourish there,
trade began to enrich her, and the Russians were transformed -- from
bearded men to clean-shaven men, from long-robed men to short-coated men;
they became more sociable, and polite spectacles became known to them.
But at the same time, true attachment to the faith began to disappear,
sacraments began to fall into disrepute, resoluteness diminished, yielding
place to brazen, aspiring flattery; luxury and voluptuousness laid the
foundation of their power, and hence avarice was also aroused, and, to the
ruin of the laws and the detriment of the citizens, began to penetrate the
law-courts.
Such was the condition with regard to morals, in which Russia was left at
the death of this great monarch (despite all the barriers which Peter the
Great in his own person and by his example had laid down to discourage
vice).
Source: From Marc Raeff, Russian Intellectual
History: An Anthology, (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, www.prometheusbooks.com ), published 1999. Reprinted by permission of the
publisher.
|
