The Vision Thing

Most historians agree that the first quarter of the 18th century, the reign of Peter I (born 1672, co-tsar with half-brother Ivan V from 1682, de facto sole ruler in 1696, proclaimed emperor in 1721, died 1725), was the seminal period for “modern” Russian history. If there are any arguments about the reign of Peter the Great, they hinge on whether the period was truly revolutionary or merely reformist, and on the nature of modernity in Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries. Peter’s reformist tendency has been emphasized by historians who argue that his policies had their roots and period of gestation in the 17th century. The tsar’s “modernity” can be asserted with equal confidence if we look at his efforts to bring Russia into harmony with Western Europe (militarily, diplomatically, institutionally, economically and culturally) and to consolidate its imperial character.

Regardless of interpretation, the transformations initiated in the reign of Peter I indelibly stamped the subsequent development of the Russian Empire. Its characteristics resulted from the first emperor’s ruthless drive and hastiness in imposing new administrative, economic, social and cultural forms. This affected most of the country’s elites who were forced into adopting a European style, culture and comportment that differed greatly from the fierce and clannish sensibility that previously ruled the land.

In “Russia in the Age of Peter the Great,” Lindsey Hughes, professor of Russian history at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies of the University of London, has given us a clear and comprehensive description of the activities of Peter I that aimed at transforming “traditional Muscovy” into the “empire of St. Petersburg.” Mindful of the fact that “innovation is selective tradition,” she also gives a full account of those measures and events in the 17th century that paved the way for Peter’s innovative policies. She effectively puts to rest some hoary myths, cliches and anecdotes that cannot be reliably documented. It is one of the book’s strengths (especially in the footnotes) that she is extremely careful to subject the evidence to critical examination. On the other hand, while attentive to the historical background, Hughes eschews serious consideration of the long-range impact of what has been called the Petrine “revolution.” She keeps her focus steadily on the reign, rarely venturing beyond the emperor’s death in 1725.

Hughes’ picture of Peter’s reign is comprehensive and readable. Peter’s own role is well-defined, and his initiative and ruthless energy are shown to have been the mainspring and driving force. The author makes frequent and skillful use of Peter’s own voluminous “Letters and Papers” (notes, drafts, orders, personal messages to family and staff), which afford graphic glimpses into the daily activities and ways of an unusual personality and ruler. We are in the presence of a complex individual blending cruelty and kind solicitude, totally dedicated to the self-defined task of transforming the country, but whose impatience and haste all too often made for waste of people and resources while yielding meager and temporary results. Thus, the building of the new capital, St. Petersburg, barely first completed in wood, is estimated to have cost about 30,000 peasant lives from disease and undue hardships. Along the way we glance at the members of the emperor’s family, his collaborators and a few of his opponents. The common people, as is usually the case, “remain silent.” The author, we should stress, presents both positive and negative traits so that we have balanced as well as full portraits. Nor is the contemporary curiosity for the most intimate domains ignored, though crude sexual practices and cruel behavior are described with laudable restraint.

Hughes possesses the enviable ability to present a vast and varied array of facts in clear and readable fashion, which yields a vivid, yet carefully balanced and documented picture of events and personalities. Hers is a comprehensive and fast-moving chronicle of Peter’s military campaigns that occupied practically all the years of his reign: against the Ottoman Turks at Azov (twice, in 1695 and 1696) and on the Pruth River (1711-12, a defeat); against Sweden, the main enemy (1700-21), which resulted in Russia’s acquiring mastery of the Baltic Sea and the incorporation of the Baltic provinces (Ingria, Karelia, Livonia, Estonia) into the empire; and in 1722-23 against Persia (leading to expansion along the southwestern shore of the Caspian Sea). One may, however, regret the niggardly attention she gives to the wider diplomatic context of the wars. In her opinion, and in this she follows in the lead of such prominent predecessors as V.O. Kliuchevski and P.N. Miliukov, military needs were the prime stimuli to Peter’s reorganization of the governmental apparatus whose formal workings are well-described and their foreign models identified. (Peter kept a close tab on things, even while away. In 1711, on the eve of departing for the Pruth campaign, he appointed a senate of nine people to act in his stead but reserved all vital decisions until he returned or sent instructions from campaign headquarters.)

The reorganized and much expanded army, navy (a personal innovation of Peter’s) and administration were very costly; new fiscal and economic policies had to be devised to raise the money for them. Changing the tax basis (from household to individual male peasant) and multiplying indirect taxes put a heavy burden on the population, especially the peasantry, whose bondage was intensified, and it made for lopsided and stifled economic growth. In a parallel development, the state’s needs for manpower grew exponentially (big armies and heavy losses, large increase of administrative personnel). It was met by recruiting for lifelong service ever greater numbers of peasants into the army and navy and forcibly impressing many more for large-scale building projects (canals, harbors, fortifications and, most dramatically, St. Petersburg) during which thousands upon thousands died from disease and inadequate housing and nourishment.

All the while members of the elite (nobles, merchantry, children of the clergy) were subjected to compulsory lifelong service in military and civil institutions. They were moved about the empire at the pleasure of the government, obligated to settle and build residences in the new capital, as well as to obtain a “modern” (i.e. European-style) secular education. A table of ranks (promulgated in 1722 and in principle in force until the demise of the empire in 1917) regulated their pattern of service and promotion, and it provided some degree of social mobility by allowing access to noble status on the basis of a successful service career (in practice, of course, given the difficulty of adequate preparation for members of the lower classes, only few exceptional individuals benefited from it).

Not content, in Hughes’ words, “to exchange one form of slavery (submission to custom) for another (submission to the State),” Peter’s aim was to transform the very lifestyle and behavior of the elites (possibly as a first step toward reshaping the ways of the entire population). He imposed a European-style dress code, forced the men to shave their beards, required attendance of both men and women at public functions and entertainments and expected that the young generation acquire a secular, European education. In so doing he started a process that, within a couple of generations, led to the emergence of a cultural and intellectual elite that both created and “consumed” the literary, artistic and scientific works that today are integral parts of world culture (though the author does not explicitly draw this conclusion).

Hughes pays homage to current fads--such as semiotics and the symbolism of public displays and ceremonies, the condition and role of women--all of which are described in as much detail as the often fragmentary and uncertain evidence allows. The reader, however, is left in the dark as to the implications or far-reaching conclusions that may be drawn from such facts (which may be for the better since we tend to project our own perceptions and value judgments onto a very different cultural system). There are sections on the literary, artistic and scientific production of Peter’s time, although they often do not go beyond a rather dry listing of artists’ names and works.

The author valiantly tries to account for the period’s contradictory features: on one hand striving to imitate the “civilized” West, on the other indulging in such “traditional” pastimes as sacrilegious buffoonery, crude carnivalesque entertainments, delight in freaks and coarse scurrilous jokes and the spectacle of cruelly gruesome punishments. The books shows the unsettling and “transitional” character of the period when old values and traditions were collapsing, while new ones (in this case of West European origin) had not yet been fully internalized and firmly rooted.

An overly narrow concentration on Russia alone with less than adequate attention paid to the comparative dimension (not to speak of the non-Russian components of the empire) gives an unduly skewed impression of the uniqueness of Russia. Moreover the picture painted by Hughes is essentially a static one--a series of snapshots that do not convey the dynamic, fluctuating, ever-changing circumstances with which Peter and his collaborators, let alone the population at large, were trying to come to grips while laying the groundwork for a very different, new Russia.

Giambattista Vico wrote (and Benedetto Croce repeated it) that storia e cosa mentale--history is a matter of the intellect, meaning that the writing of history involves analysis and elucidating the factors (including individuals) that move events in time. It is not enough to establish the facts and accurately describe the events--although Hughes does this superbly in her book. I missed an analysis that would identify those dynamic factors that explain Peter’s reign and contributed to the transformations wrought in the empire’s destinies. For instance, she concludes her excellent description of the new administrative institutions put in place by Peter by asking: “Does this add up to the well-ordered ‘police state’ . . . in early modern Russia? Is Peter best regarded as a representative of early Enlightened Absolutism?”--yet she offers no suggestion for possible answers to these questions.

Hughes also gives less attention to negative reactions and opposition to Peter’s policies (though she does not ignore them altogether either). Nor does she discuss in any depth the meaning of the period for modern Russia’s self-image and sense of “identity,” although she briefly mentions that Peter’s policies have presented problems for both. Aside from a preposterous parallel between Peter and Gorbachev (Napoleon would have been a more convincing one), the book ends with the surprisingly strong, albeit brief, endorsement of condemnations of the reign for its high costs, material and human (something stressed also in 19th century historiography). This is true in many ways, yet it even more reflects the understandable reaction to the breakdown of a “revolutionary” regime that has inflicted so much suffering and evil and left the country in shambles and turmoil. However, one should remember that this reaction is itself but a manifestation of the same concerns and values that Peter I tried to introduce in his own time.

All the same, in “Russia in the Age of Peter the Great,” Hughes has given us the most reliable and readable store of information on a seminal period in the history of modern Russia. She has no competitor in English. We are much in her debt.