K.F. Ryleev: A Political Biography of the Decembrist Poet [Course Book ed.] 9781400856329

Citation preview

Κ. F. RYLEEV A Political Biography of the Decembrist Poet

K.F. RYLEEV

A Political Biography of the Decembrist Poet by PATRICK O'MEARA

P R I N C E T O N UNIVERSITY PRESS

Copyright © 1984 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, Guildford, Surrey All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data will be found on the last printed page of this book ISBN 0-691-06602-7 This book has been composed in Linotron Sabon Clothbound editions of Princeton University Press books are printed on acid-free paper, and binding materials are chosen for strength and durability. Paperbacks, although satisfactory for personal collections, are not usually suitable for library rebinding Printed in the United States of America by Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey

To my Mother and Father

Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS NOTE ON TRANSLATION AND TRANSLITERATION LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS INTRODUCTION

IX XI xtii 3

1

The Decembrist Challenge

11

2 3

Ryleev: The Formative Years Political Perspectives of the Decembrist

25 75

4

In the Northern Society

117

5

Poet of the Decembrists' Cause

155

6 7

Propagandist of the Northern Society The Uprising of 14 December 1825

200 223

8

Before the Investigating Commission

244

Verdict and Sentence The Political and Literary Legacy

289 312

BIBLIOGRAPHY

333

9 10

INDEX

357

Acknowledgments This book has grown out of a doctoral thesis submitted to the University of Oxford in 1978. The debts accumulated during the course of its realization are inevitably numerous and so it is a pleasure to have an opportunity of acknowl­ edging here the most outstanding of them. My greatest debt is owed to my erstwhile supervisor, Mr. Η. T. Willetts of St. Antony's College, Oxford, for his sympathetic guidance and unfailing help sustained over a number of years. I am partic­ ularly grateful also to Professor Dimitri Obolensky and Mr. Constantine Brancovan for their numerous stimulating criti­ cisms and constructive suggestions concerning the original dissertation; and to Professor Robert L. Jackson of Yale for helping to obtain for that dissertation in its present form a wider readership than I had ever anticipated for it. More generally, I am indebted to Professor E. Lampert, whose stim­ ulating lectures at Keele University first aroused my interest in Russian history, and to his late wife, Katya, for introducing me to the Russian language; to the late Dr. Barry Hollingsworth for his generous advice and encouragement; to the Brit­ ish Council for a studentship at Moscow State University in 1972-1973 and for a further study trip in 1976, and to Trinity College, Dublin, for travel grants in 1975 and 1979. In the USSR, a debt of gratitude is owed to Professors I. A. Fedosov and V. A. Fedorov of Moscow University, and to Professor V. V. Pugachev of Saratov University. Also greatly appreciated was the kindly interest shown by the late Academician M. P. Alekseev and Academician M. V. Nechkina. The help received from libraries and archives in Oxford, Moscow, London, Leningrad, and Cambridge has been immense. I wish to thank in particular the staff of the Russian Centre Library in St. Antony's College, of the Slavonic reading room of the Bod-

χ I Acknowledgments leian Library, of the Slavonic annex of the Taylorian Institute in Oxford, the sotrudniki of the Lenin Library, and the Central State Archive of the October Revolution in Moscow. I further wish to thank respectively the editors of Irish Slavonic Studies, the Study Group on Eighteenth-Century Russia Newsletter, the Exeter Tapes, the Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, and the Festschrift for Eugene Lampert for allowing me to make use of material contained in articles of mine: such usage is fully acknowledged in the notes, and the articles concerned are cited in the bibliography. My warm appreciation is extended to Miss Frances Gwynn and Miss Miriam Wilson for the skill and efficiency they ap­ plied to producing the typescript. Finally, I should like to acknowledge with affection the support and encouragement of my wife, Helen. In spite of this lengthy though by no means exhaustive list of acknowledgments, I need hardly stress that the responsi­ bility for what follows is mine alone. Trinity College, Dublin 3 June 1983

P. J. O'MEARA

Note on Translation and Transliteration The reader's attention is drawn at the outset to the following points regarding conventions adopted in this book. For the purposes of the troublesome business of transliteration, a modified version of the system used in the Oxford Slavonic Papers has been followed. One important and idiosyncratic modification is that in the text transliteration of names has been anglicized; thus, for example, Pestel' becomes Pestel, Murav'ev—Muraviev, and Obolenskii—Obolensky. In the notes, however, the "Russian" transliteration has been retained. In deference to normal English usage, I have preferred Natalia to Nataliya in referring to Ryleev's wife, Alexander and Nicholas to Aleksandr and Nikolai when referring to the emperors. Since the overwhelming majority of sources used and consulted is in Russian, citations from them have had to be translated. With one or two indicated exceptions, the responsibility for such translations rests with the author. The original Russian has been retained only in citations from verse which are accompanied by an English prose translation. Unless otherwise stated, all dates are given Old Style, which in nineteenthcentury Russia lagged behind the West (New Style) by twelve days. Thus, for example, the Decembrist uprising took place according to the Russian (Julian) calendar on 14 December 1825; when reckoned by the Gregorian calendar in use in Western Europe, it occurred on 26 December 1825.

List of Abbreviations ed.khr. f. Frizman Kropotov 1. LN lix. ob. op. RA RS RV SEER Sirotinin pss pss (ed. Balitskii) Pol.sob.stikh. TsGAOR Vd Vop.ist.

edinitsa khraneniya item number. fond archive or series number. K. F. Ryleev. Dumy. L. G. Frizman, ed., Mos­ cow, 1975. D. Kropotov, "NeskoPko svedenii ο Ryleeve. Po povodu zapisok Grecha," Russkii vestnik, lxxx (1869), 229-45. list folio. "Dekabristy-literatory," Literaturnoe nasledstvo, Vol. lix, Part i, A. M. Egolin et al., eds., Moscow, 1954. obratnaya storona obverse. opts' catalogue. Russkii arkhiv Russkaya starina Russkii vestnik Slavonic and Eastern European Review A. N. Sirotinin, "K. F. Ryleev: biograficheskii ocherk," Russkii arkhiv, vi(1890), 113-208. K. F. Ryleev. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, A. G. Tseitlin, ed., Moscow-Leningrad, 1934. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii K. F. Ryleeva. 2 vols., G. Balitskii, ed., Moscow, 1906, 1907. K. Ryleev. Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii, Yu. G. Oksman, ed., Leningrad, 1934. Tsentral'nyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Oktyabr'skoi Revolyutsii (Moscow). Vosstanie dekabristov. Materialy, MoscowLeningrad, 1925-1980, 17 vols. See bibliog­ raphy for full details. Voprosy istorii

Κ. F. RYLEEV A Political Biography of the Decembrist Poet

Introduction Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev was an outstanding figure both in the Decembrist movement from 1823 and in the uprising in Petersburg of 1825; he was also a poet with no small claim to originality, who was generally active in Petersburg's literary circles from 1821 to 1825. Hitherto, these two major sides to Ryleev's life have most typically been studied in isolation from each other. Generally, such monographic approaches have more or less exclusively concerned themselves with aspects of Ryleev's literary activity and, certainly, there is much to be said for an approach to his life and work which treats of only one aspect of the whole. The present study, however, has been undertaken in the belief that, in order to bring into sharper focus Ryleev's development as a poet and his significance as a leading Decembrist, these two sides of Ryleev should be considered in conjunction with one another and within the compass of a single study. Clearly, exigencies of scope and limitations of space impose considerable selectivity and so, by and large, Ryleev's poetry—and his cultural activities generally—are discussed here only insofar as they are related to his political attitudes and aspirations. Even so, the strict application of this criterion to an analysis of Ryleev's literary output can only add to our understanding of his political outlook and hence enable us to arrive at a fuller picture of Ryleev both as a poet and as a political activist. The Decembrist movement as a whole has been the object of extensive study and research in Soviet historiography, and it has accordingly given rise to a formidable literature. This is attested to by the fact that a new bibliography records some four thousand items published between 1960 and 1976

4 I Introduction alone. 1 By way of contrast, the attention paid by Western scholars to the Decembrists has been relatively scant. 2 That the Decembrist movement has excited such a large literature in the Soviet Union is in part a result, quite apart from the obvious historical considerations, of Lenin's characterization of the Decembrists as "aristocrat-revolutionaries" (dvoryanerevolyutsionery), the "most outstanding activists" of the "aris­ tocratic" stage of the revolutionary movement, who provided it with its initial impetus by "awakening" Herzen. 3 Lenin's several pronouncements in this vein on the Decembrist move­ ment have provided Soviet historiography with the task of demonstrating that it represented the point of departure of the revolutionary movement as a whole. Accordingly, the rev­ olutionary character of the Decembrist movement and upris­ ing, its aims, methods, and tactics, as well as its organic links with the subsequent history of the revolutionary movement in Russia, have been stressed with particular insistence. One negative though clearly inevitable result of the domi­ nation of the historiography of the Decembrist movement by Soviet specialists is that the historical record has sometimes been obscured by the ideological polemic waged over ques­ tions of its correct interpretation. A prime example of this was the debunking of the movement's highly perceptive his­ torian, Μ. N. Pokrovsky, and of his so-called "school" in the 1 Short titles are used throughout the notes and references. Full biblio­ graphic data are given in the bibliography. See, e.g., Chentsov, Vosstanie dekabristov: Bibliografiya; Eimontova, Dvtzhenie dekabristov: ukazatel' literatury 1928-1959; and, most recently, Eimontova, ed., Dvtzhenie deka­ bristov: ukazatel' literatury 1960-1976. 2 The only general history of the movement in English is Mazour, The First Russian Revolution 1825: The Decembrist Movement. Marc Raeff has edited a volume of documents, The Decembrist Movement, which contains an ex­ cellent introductory chapter. In addition, mention should be made of the outstanding dissertation, unfortunately never published, by Barry Hollingsworth, Nicholas Turgenev. His Life and Works. A recent contribution to the literature is Barratt, The Rebel on the Bridge. A Life of Baron Andrey Rozen 1800-84. Two doctoral dissertations relating specifically to Ryleev are Rickwood, Themes and Style m the Poetry of Kondratiy Ryleyev, and O'Meara, K. F. Ryleev (1795-1826). A Political Biography. 3 Lenin, Sochineniya, xviii. 14-15, xx. 223-24.

Introduction

| 5

1930s. The attack on his "bourgeois historical conception" as allegedly applied to the Decembrist movement was led by his favorite pupil, M. V. Nechkina.4 She, in turn, proceeded to occupy the position of the most authoritative exegetist of the subject, and while her immense contribution to the study of the period cannot be denied, her interpretation of the rev­ olutionary nature of the Decembrist movement is clearly ex­ aggerated.5 The main weakness of her conception lies in its implicit assumption that beyond the ranks of the Decembrist secret societies there was no social, literary, or political activity of a progressive nature at all. The rationale underlying this assumption is presumably attributable to the overzealous ap­ plication to the study of the Decembrist movement of Lenin's celebrated dictum, referred to above, that its members were the most active representatives of their class. Nechkina has taken this proposition one step further and as a corollary of it apparently takes the view that, conversely, the most active members of the upper classes were by definition all Decem­ brists. This reductio ad absurdwn has been extended to un­ acceptable limits, in particular with the attempt to demon­ strate that Griboedov and even, possibly, Pushkin, were somehow members of the Decembrist secret societies.6 The danger inherent in such a position is that in its anxiety to demolish the Decembrist "legend" erected by "liberal-bour­ geois" historians, Soviet historiography runs the risk of cre­ ating its own. A second, less contentious reason for the considerable at­ tention accorded the Decembrist movement by Soviet histo­ rians is the superabundance of primary sources. The total 4

Nechkina, "Vosstanie dekabristov ν kontseptsii Pokrovskogo," Protiv istoricheskoi kontseptsii Μ. N. Pokrovskogo, pp. 303-37. Pokrovsky has been rehabilitated, although as one commentator has noted, "It is his reputation that is being salvaged rather than his ideas." (Keep, "The Rehabilitation of Μ. N. Pokrovskii," in Revolution and Politics in Russia, p. 305.) 5 The most important of her numerous works on the subject is Dvizhenie dekabristov. 6 See, e.g., Nechkina, A. S. Griboedov i dekabristy, and the same author's Pushkin i dekabristy. A more subtle treatment of this theme is Eidel'man, Pushkin i dekabristy.

6 I

Introduction

amount of archival material relating to the subject was recently estimated to be in the region of one and a half million folios, by any standards a staggeringfigure.7In this connection it should be stressed that an entirely positive aspect of the intense involvement of Soviet historiography in the Decembrist movement and, indeed, a tribute to it, is the large amount of archival material, memoir literature, and other primary sources which has been published since 1925, the centenary of the Decembrist uprising. Especially valuable to scholars is the archive of the Investigating Commission, of which to date approximately onethird has been published in seventeen volumes, and of which this study has made extensive use.8 Volume one, for example, includes the case-files (dela) of leading members of the Northern Society, among them Prince S. P. Trubetskoi, Prince E. P. Obolensky, A. A. Bestuzhev, and Ryleev himself. A most useful recent instalment of this continuing series, volume fourteen, published in 1976, contains the case-files of a number of important members of the Northern Society who had close associations with Ryleev, including G. S. Batenkov, V. I. Shteingel, K. P. Torson, and A. F. Briggen. Other major sources used in this study are those contained in volume fifty-nine {Dekabristy-literatory) of the series Literaturnoe nasledstvo which contains, among other important items, additional archival material relating specifically to the Investigating Commission's case against Ryleev.9 The overwhelming proportion of Ryleev's own works, including his poetry, essays, and correspondence, has been published in two separate though contemporaneous volumes under the judicious editorship of Yu. G. Oksman and A. G. Tseitlin respectively.10 Memoir literature represents an important source 7

See the invaluable three-volume guide to just one archive's holdings on the Decembrist movement, the result of remarkably painstaking labor, by L. P. Petrovsky (cf. Bibliography for details). 8 Vosstanie dekabristov. Matertaly. Hereafter referred to as Vd i-xvii. ' Snytko, "Ryleev na sledsrvii," Literatumoe nasledstvo, lix. Dekabristyliteratory, i. 169-326. This volume is hereafter referred to as LN hx. 10 K. Ryleev. Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii, Oksman, ed. Hereafter re-

Introduction

\ 7

in studying Ryleev, the reminiscences of E. P. Obolensky, V. I. Shteingel, A. E. Rozen, D. Kropotov, and N. A. Bestuzhev being the fullest.11 The latter, however, while being the most extensive and colorful contemporary account of Ryleev we have, must be treated with considerable circumspection since it presents a highly stylized idealization of its subject; as a result, Ryleev is frequently depicted as a hero straight from the pages of his own poems. To be sure, the parallels between Ryleev's quixotic heroism and the sentiments expressed, for example, in "Nalivaiko's Confession" are very close, but Bes­ tuzhev has frequently merged them. He must be credited with the role of one of the earliest architects of Ryleev's "legend." In spite of the huge quantity of primary and secondary literature published on the Decembrist movement, there is no satisfactory political biography of Ryleev or, for that matter, with only one or two distinguished exceptions, of any other Decembrist. 12 The earliest attempt at a biography of Ryleev was by A. N. Sirotinin. 13 While it contains judgments and insights which are still useful, the work suffers from two major ferred to as Pol. sob. stikh.; K. F. Ryleev, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, Tseitlin, ed. Hereafter referred to as pss. 11 Obolenskii, "Vospominaniya," Polnoe sobranie sochinenii K. F. Ryleeva, Balitskii, ed., li. 20-41. This edition is hereafter referred to as pss (ed. Balitskii); Shteingel', "Zapiski," Obshchestvennye dvizhemya ν Rossit ν pervuyu polovinu XIX veka, i. 325-474; Rozen, Zapiski dekabrista; Kropotov, "Neskol'ko svedenii ο Ryleeve. Po povodu zapisok Grecha," Russkii vestnik, lxxx (1869), 229-45. Hereafter referred to as Kropotov; Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," Vospominaniya Bestuzhevykh, pp. 7-40. Additional bio­ graphical information is also to be gleaned from "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve ego sosluzhivtsa po polku A. Kosovskogo (1814-1818)," LN lix. 237-50; "Rasskazy ο Ryleeve rassyl'nogo Polyarnoi zvezdy"; "Vospominaniya ο Ry­ leeve I. N. Loboiko," Dekabristy i ikh vremya (1951), pp. 23-26. Much of the above material has recently been brought together and published in an extremely useful anthology, Mashinskn, ed., Pisateli-dekabrtsty ν vospominaniyakh sovremennikov. See Vol. II, pp. 7-118. 12 The most outstanding of these is Druzhinin's masterly study Dekabrist Nikita Murav'ev. The Decembrist M. S. Lunin has also been well served by S. B. Okun' and, more recently, by N. Ya. Eidel'man. "Sirotinin, "K. F. Ryleev: biograficheskii ocherk," RA vi (1890), 113208. Hereafter referred to as Sirotinin.

8 I Introduction

disadvantages. First, it was written under the baleful gaze of the tsarist censor, whose inhibiting scrutiny, together with the inaccessibility of the requisite sources, precluded the possi­ bility of anything more than the most superficial account of Ryleev's political activity; second, although he was on the whole reasonably well disposed toward his subject, Sirotinin's own outlook apparently made it impossible for him to per­ ceive, much less take seriously, the political and social signif­ icance of Ryleev's literary activity as a member of the North­ ern Society; the "agitatory" songs in particular are dismissed with the utmost contempt. A number of editions of poems by Ryleev appeared in the final decade of the last century, the most notable being Μ. N. Mazaev's, but only after the 1905 revolution and the subse­ quent easing of the censorship was there any further attempt to shed additional light on Ryleev's life and work. In 1908 there appeared Nestor Kotlyarevsky's Ryleev, followed a few years later by V. I. Maslov's substantial study of Ryleev's literary activity. 14 While both have much to commend them still—Maslov's monograph, for example, contains the first attempt to assemble an exhaustive bibliography—these dated works typically obscure or, in Maslov's case, totally ignore, Ryleev's political significance. Kotlyarevsky's study gives no account of the formative influences on Ryleev's outlook either as a writer or as a political activist. Moreover, he did not accept the integral place of Ryleev and the Decembrists in the nineteenth-century revolutionary movement, arguing that they were essentially detached from Russian reality and thus had no effective, lasting contribution to make to the "liberation" movement as a whole. Consequently, Kotlyarevsky failed to discern the intimate links of such poems as the ode "To the Favorite" or " O n the Death of K. P. Chernov" with contem­ porary political currents to which, in our submission, they were essentially the poet's response. Maslov, like Kotlyarev­ sky, tended to discuss Ryleev's works, in particular the "Dumy" 14

Mazaev, Sochineniya K. F. Ryleeva; Kotlyarevskii, Ryleev; Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva.

Introduction

Ι 9

and "Nalivaiko" only as literary artefacts, taken in isolation from the context of the poet's social and political awareness which, it will be argued, actually generated the necessary po­ etic impulse for their composition. Since 1917 and as a result of the rapid growth of interest among Soviet historians in Russia's revolutionary antecedents, Ryleev has had a number of popular biographies devoted to him. l s Such works, however, are inevitably unsatisfactory to the specialist since they leave unanswered or, rather, unposed, so many fundamental questions. Pigarev's Zhizn' Ryleeva, for example, albeit not without merit, is deficient in a number of respects: there is no real account of the formative influences on Ryleev, little analysis of the motives behind his literary and political activities in the Northern Society, or assessment of their significance relative to the movement as a whole; nor is there sufficient exploration of the problem of Pestel and the Southern Society, or of the extent to which Ryleev actually shared their republican and regicidal intentions. The last work of any substance to have appeared on Ryleev is A. G. Tseitlin's Tvorchestvo Ryleeva. But this study, as its title suggests, con­ fines itself to a discussion of Ryleev's writing so that, although this actually is examined in the light of its author's political commitment, Ryleev's role in the Northern Society as such, and its interrelationship with his creativity as a poet, essen­ tially lies beyond the book's scope. Furthermore, in none of the studies referred to has adequate attention been directed to due analysis of Ryleev's six-month inquisition by the In­ vestigating Commission; nor has there been sufficient attempt to elucidate the circumstances leading to his complete capit­ ulation to his interrogators. Apart from that contained in Nechkina's authoritative work on the Decembrist movement, the only study of the Northern 16 Society is K. Aksenov's. However, while useful in certain respects, it contains numerous errors both of fact and inter15

E.g., Klevenskii, K. F. Ryleev; Neiman, K. F. Ryleev. Zhtzn' i tvorchestvo; Pigarev, Zhizn' Ryleeva. The latest publication in similar vein, in the series Zhtzn' zamechatel'nykh lyudei, is V. Afanas'ev, Ryleev. 16 Aksenov, Severnoe obshchestvo dekabristov.

10 I

Introduction

pretation. In particular it errs in its assessment of Ryleev's role in the Northern Society, the significance of which is persistently yet pointlessly overstated, especially in regard to the early years of his membership (1823-1824). Generally speaking, Ryleev has been best served by the respective editors of his complete collected poetry, Yu. G. Oksman, and of his complete collected works, A. Tseitlin.17 Their illuminating commentaries represent a valuable contribution to two works of fundamental importance which are indispensable to any student of Ryleev. The present writer's debt to both these scholars should not go unrecorded. Tribute, too, should be paid to the work of V. G. Bazanov, who, in a number of studies on literary aspects of the Decembrist movement and of the related period, has thrown additional light on Ryleev's literary activity.18 The one-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the Decembrist uprising in 1975 was marked by a spate of publications on the subject, a number of them relating directly or indirectly to Ryleev. The most important of these was a new edition of the poet's "Dumy." 19 The anniversary did not, however, bring forth any fresh or substantive study of Ryleev's political activities in the Decembrists' Northern Society. The present book is a modest attempt to meet this need. 17

Cf. note 10, above. Bazanov, Vol'noe obshchestvo lyubitelei rossttskoi slovesnosti; Poety dekabristy: Ryleev, Kyukhel'beker, Odoevsku; Ocberki dekabristskoi literatury: Poeziya; Uchenaya respublika. 19 Frizman, ed., K. F. Ryleev. Dumy. 18

The Decembrist Challenge

December the fourteenth, 1825, was the date set by the Russian government for the oath of allegiance to Tsar Nicholas I, to be sworn by the Senate and Guards regiments in Petersburg, thus ending over two weeks of uncertainty as to the identity of Alexander I's successor. In the event, it was a day marked also by violence and disorder on a scale Petersburg had never before witnessed. At first sight the armed uprising of several Guards regiments on Senate Square appeared to be a new variation on the eighteenth-century theme of palace coup d'etat, but as the six-month investigation which followed the insurrection's suppression was to show, it was an occurrence of far greater consequence and a symptom of a far deeper malaise. The attempt to refuse the oath of allegiance to Nicholas, and armed resistance to all efforts to persuade the three thousand recalcitrant troops to abandon their insubordinate protest, was masterminded by a small group of conspirators who were members of a secret organization based in Petersburg and known as the Northern Society. In the view of contemporary accounts and of the subsequent commission of inquiry, indeed on his own admission, the main instigator of this challenge to autocracy was the poet Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev. This armed uprising was planned to be the first link in a chain of events which was supposed to culminate in the overthrow of tsarism and the introduction of a constitutionally based liberal-democratic system of government. But the chain was

12 I The Decembrist Challenge smashed irrevocably long before such grandiose goals were attained. In spite of the betrayal of the Northern Society's conspiracy to the authorities on 12 December and the alarming lack of preparedness among its leaders and those regiments on whom they were relying, the Decembrists (as members of the con­ spiracy became known subsequently) were determined to go through with the uprising regardless of the consequences, in order, as Ryleev put it, " t o awaken Russia." 1 The burden of the conspirators' tactical line lay in persuading the troops who had been assembled to take the loyal oath to Nicholas that since they had already, on the news of Alexander's death, sworn such an oath to the Tsarevich Constantine—as indeed they had, on Nicholas' own orders—it would be "unconsti­ tutional" and even sacrilegious now to swear allegiance to some other individual. From the early hours of 14 December, however, the con­ spirators' hastily laid plans began to go wrong. Some charged with specific crucial tasks simply defected; the "dictator," Col. Prince S. P. Trubetskoi, who was to have taken command of the insurrection, lost his nerve and never took his place on Senate Square. In spite of these setbacks, some three thousand troops showed themselves ready to refuse the oath, to stand their ground, and to await the orders of their rebel officers. It was the absence of any such orders that ultimately was to jeopardize the success of this hopeless venture. Meanwhile, desperate efforts were made by Nicholas' retinue to persuade the recalcitrants that Tsarevich Constantine had, in fact, ab­ dicated his right to the throne in favor of his younger brother. One of the most persuasive of the tsar's spokesmen, the pop­ ular governor-general of Petersburg, Count M. A. Miloradovich, was fatally wounded by the Decembrist Kakhovsky for his pains. News of the insurrection swept through the city, and, as the day went on, thousands of people converged on Senate Square simply to watch or to shout their support for the insurgents, some even throwing stones and snowballs at 1

Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 32.

The Decembrist Challenge \ 13

the emperor's suite. The reluctant Nicholas was eventually persuaded by his generals to use cannon to break up the demonstration decisively before imminent darkness (sunset would have come as soon as 3 p.m.) could exacerbate the already extremely tense situation. It proved to be a brutally efficient final resort: two or three salvos were sufficient to disperse the rebels within minutes, and at such close range fatalities and casualties were inevitably high.2 The Decembrists' uprising was thus swiftly suppressed by force and by leadership far superior to anything the conspirators themselves deployed. In point of fact, the term "uprising" (vosstanie), by which it is generally known, is something of a misnomer in reference to the events of 14 December 1825, since it tends to convey an exaggerated notion of what was essentially no more than a mute and impotent demonstration, at least on the part of its organizers, against Nicholas' accession to an autocratic throne and a protest against the continued absence of a constitution. This is not, however, to belittle the bravery of those who participated in it or to diminish its historical significance: uprising or demonstration, it remains in the circumstances a remarkable fact that such a challenge to the inviolate autocratic order should have taken place at all. The Decembrists' other major secret organization, the Southern Society (which from the summer of 1825 incorporated the Society of United Slavs) was based in the Ukraine at Tulchin, where the headquarters of the Second Army were located. It took fully two weeks for news of the extraordinary events in Petersburg to reach the Southern Society; by this time, reports of its own revolutionary intentions had reached the authorities and, indeed, one of its leading figures, Col. Pavel Pestel, had been arrested on 12 December. The conspirators in the south were now confronted with a stark choice: either to submit and await certain arrest, or to continue the 2

An exhaustive account of these events is Nechkina, Den' 14 dekabrya 1825 goda. Much of the ground covered in this chapter is based on my contribution to Exeter Tapes, "The Decembrist Movement," University of Exeter, 1980.

14 I The Decembrist Challenge Northern Society's rebellion. The initiative was taken by members of the Society of United Slavs, four of whom defiantly freed from detention members of the Southern Society already arrested by the police. On 30 December, having assembled several companies of the Chernigovsky regiment, they marched on Vasilkov, a small provincial town in the vicinity of Kiev. By 31 December the insurgents numbered around one thousand men; but, in spite of initial confidence, their leaders proved to be uncertain of the course they should adopt. They were fearful above all of moving on Kiev itself. Gradually, hesitation and apprehension combined to undermine the men's morale, and on 3 January the rebels, in spite of courageous resistance, were easily overwhelmed by superior government forces. The ringleaders were rounded up and sent in chains to Petersburg to share the fate of their northern confederates. Those arrested, bewildered by the suddenness of the developments which had led to so drastic a change in their fortunes, disorientated by the grimness of their new surroundings in the Peter-Paul Fortress, intimidated by the personal interrogation of the tsar, and anguished by their separation from friends and family, with few exceptions readily cooperated with their inquisitors—in some instances to the extent of giving evidence against fellow conspirators. On 17 December, a specially constituted commission began the task of investigating the whole affair, its aims, its ramifications, and the degree of guilt of those directly involved or indirectly implicated in it. The chief concern of the Investigating Commission was to establish the precise intentions of the conspirators toward the tsar and the imperial family. Admissions made by some, including Ryleev and Pestel, that regicide had been envisaged were sufficient grounds for the death sentence to be invoked and for the whole conspiracy to be represented in the official press as nothing more or less than a shameful and squalid attempt to assassinate the tsar. The commission took six months to complete its work, in which Nicholas himself took an immense, if not obsessive, personal interest, and during this period it interrogated 579 men. Of these 289 were found to have been in some way involved in the conspiracy;

The Decembrist Challenge | 15

121 of them were referred to the Supreme Criminal Court, which imposed sentences ranging from forced labor and Siberian exile to death by hanging. The five Decembrists sentenced to death went to the gallows on 13 July 1826, while the remainder began their arduous journey to Siberia, to serve harsh sentences which many would not survive to complete. The immediate context in which this disturbing and ultimately tragic turn of events occurred was, as has already been inferred, an interregnum of some two weeks from the death of Alexander I to the accession of Nicholas. The transfer of power, at least before 1855, was invariably a critical event in Russian history since it tended to proceed somewhat haphazardly, largely according to autocratic will rather than by clearly established or consistently observed ordinance; it was in fact the accession of only the last three tsars (Alexander II, Alexander III, and Nicholas II) which saw power transfer smoothly from father to eldest son. The most critical and, as it proved, the most hazardous succession of all was that of Nicholas I. The interregnum was precipitated by the unexpected demise of his heirless eldest brother and by the secret renunciation of his right to the throne some three years earlier by the next in line, Constantine. Nicholas, who had never been informed of this and was therefore unaware that he was due to succeed to the throne, immediately gave orders for the oath of allegiance to be sworn to Constantine. Constantine, for his part, assuming Nicholas was conversant with the true state of affairs, swore the oath of allegiance to his younger brother. The situation was further complicated by the fact that Constantine resided in Warsaw, where he was governor-general. And so the Russian empire found itself, as the London Times dryly observed "in the strange predicament of having two self-denying Emperors, and no active ruler." 3 It was this "strange predicament" which was hastily exploited, as described above, by dissident elements in the social, and chiefly military, elite. The uprising instigated by the "aris3

The Times (London), 7 January 1826, p. 2, col. 3. Quoted in Mazour, The First Russian Revolution, 1825, p. 156.

16 I The Decembrist Challenge tocratic revolutionaries" (as they are known in Soviet historiography) marks the beginning of Russia's revolutionary movement and its long struggle to overcome the two major obstacles to social and political progress: autocracy and serfdom. There had, of course, been manifestations of opposition in Russia before December 1825. These had typically taken the form either of peasant revolt (Razin, Pugachev) or palace coup d'etat, of which there had been a remarkable succession in the previous century. There had additionally been the "repentant nobleman's" moral protest against serfdom, exemplified by such eighteenth-century writers and publicists as Alexander Radishchev and Nikolai Novikov. The originality of the Decembrists' challenge, however, lies in its combination of an ideologically based assault on political and social institutions (autocracy, serfdom) with the necessary will to carry through such an assault by organized armed force. The Decembrists' ideology was shaped by their broad experience of European social and political culture: by their reading of the philosophes of the French enlightenment and of English and German romanticism, and by the direct contact with France, Germany, and Poland afforded them as officers of the Russian army during the final struggle against Napoleon and the ensuing wars of liberation. It was tempered by the general air of disillusionment and despondency which settled on Russia following the anticlimax of 1812, resulting from the dawning realization that her political insitutions and social structures were not, after all, to be reformed in the wake of the Russian people's great victory over the hitherto invincible Napoleon. As Alexander Herzen subsequently remarked, the year 1812 altered irrevocably the political mood in Russia: "Something had changed, an idea spread, and whatever it touched was no longer the same as before." It was widely supposed that Alexander I intended to contribute to this "idea" by following up constitutions he had granted to Poland and Finland with similar reform at home. Liberal-minded Russians mistakenly believed that in pressing for social and political reform they were merely sharing the tsar's own aspirations. But this new and encouraging awakening of social concern

The Decembrist Challenge | 17

on the part of the "progressive" section of the nobility coincided with the onset of a policy of extreme reaction in Russia, culminating in the notorious "Arakcheevshchina," a derogatory term derived from the name of Alexander's hated favorite, Count A. A. Arakcheev. The tsar meanwhile became increasingly immersed in religious mysticism and obscurantism and in his own perception of himself as the messianic savior of Europe and architect of the Holy Alliance. The reactionary policy of the government manifested itself in numerous ways, leaving few aspects of Russian life untouched. The notorious military settlements were established, designed to ensure the serfs' complete regimentation and subordination, while Russia's educational system, to take just another example, suffered severe and lasting damage in the name of the Orthodox religion. Hence there took place at this time a gradual though unmistakable polarization in Russian intellectual and political life between progressive members of the nobility, most of whom were junior guards officers, and the protagonists of the existing order. It was a polarization which intensified throughout the latter part of Alexander's reign, and it finds its clearest evocation in the words of the Decembrist I. D. Yakushkin: In 1814 the youth of Petersburg led an intolerable existence. For two years great events had taken place before our eyes— events which determined nations' destinies, and to some extent we had participated in them. Now it was unbearable to contemplate the empty life of Petersburg and to hear the prattling of old men bragging about the good old days and censuring any progressive trend. We left them standing by a hundred years.4 Such was the social and political climate of Russian life in which the Decembrists' ideological outlook took root and to which the Decembrist movement emerged as a response. The Decembrists' secret societies developed from guards officers' dining clubs which had formed in 1815, initially pro4

Yakushkin, Zapiski, p. 9.

18 I The Decembrist Challenge viding a convenient forum for the discussion pf political and social problems and possible means of resolving them. To a certain extent this function was fulfilled also by the masonic lodges. In February 1816, members of two such clubs, nine of them former masons, formed the first Decembrist secret society, the Union of Salvation. Its aims were the introduction of a constitutional form of government and the abolition of serfdom. These ideas its members mooted in Petersburg's military and aristocratic circles, winning over some thirty members to the conspiracy's cause. Disagreements among the membership over the use of force and recourse to regicide in order to implement the Union's proposals led in 1818 to a review of its program. As a result a new organization was formed (the Union of Welfare) and a new, rather more moderate charter drafted. This was known as the Green Book and was in part inspired by the German Tugendbund (Union of Virtue). Like its German counterpart, it stressed above all the need for a new moral vitality in social affairs rather than for political reform as such. The Union of Welfare grew rapidly during 1819 and soon had around two hundred members, pledged to advance the cause of culture, social justice, and philanthropy in a society whose government seemed to place little or no value in such matters. It gradually became apparent, however, that disagreements on matters of policy and planning among its members imposed on the organization too severe a strain for it to enjoy a prolonged, stable existence. Matters came to a head at a decisive meeting held in Moscow in January 1821, at which the Union of Welfare was declared to be defunct. The more committed and active of its ex-members immediately set about creating a new, highly conspiratorial organization from which emerged the two groups which were to instigate the Decembrist uprising nearly four years later: these were the Northern and Southern societies. This important new development in the history of the Decembrist movement took place against the backdrop of various significant and symptomatic events in Russia and in Europe. News reached the Decembrists of revolts in Spain,

The Decembrist Challenge | 19 Portugal, and Naples, while at home there were outbreaks of peasant unrest, disturbances in the hated military settlements and, for that matter, in the army generally—the most notable of these being the mutiny of the tsar's beloved Semenovsky regiment in 1820. Moreover, in a climate of increasing repression, disillusionment with Tsar Alexander grew ever stronger; there was a general feeling that he had betrayed the confidence of his people and the glorious achievements of his army with his apparent and inexplicable reluctance to embark on a program of reform. All these circumstances led to a hardening of attitudes in the liberal camp and strengthened the Decembrists' conviction that they were indeed standing on the threshold of a revolutionary situation. The government was not unaware of the existence of discontent. It apparently knew, for example, of the Union of Welfare's Moscow congress. An expression of the government's unease was the decree of 1822, ostensibly aimed at masonic lodges which were suspected of providing cover for illicit political activities, ordering the immediate closure of all secret societies. In this hostile atmosphere the Decembrists, if they hoped to achieve anything, had to rely increasingly on organizational discipline and the strictest secrecy. The Decembrists' aspirations for Russia's future government and social order were articulated in two projects which in turn reflected the respective political orientations of the Northern and Southern societies. Pavel Pestel, a leading figure in the more radically inclined Southern Society, produced in 1823 his celebrated program, Russian Justice (Russkayapravda). Its two fundamental theses were the abolition of serfdom (and of all class-based privilege) and the establishment of a Russian republic. This was the first occasion in the history of the revolutionary movement that such a proposal had been advanced, a fact not overlooked by succeeding generations of revolutionaries, not least among them Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Pestel's program envisaged thoroughgoing and comprehensive reforms of the administration and structure of the Russian empire, transfer of landownership from the nobility to the state and to the newly emancipated peasantry, the ab-

20 J The Decembrist Challenge

olition of the military settlements, and a significant reduction in compulsory military service. Russia was even to have a new capital situated at Nizhny Novgorod. Although there is some doubt as to whether in fact Russian Justice was ever formally adopted by the Southern Society as its official manifesto, Soviet historians generally accept that it was. 5 In contrast to Russian Justice, the Northern Society's unofficial but best known program, the constitutional project of Nikita Muraviev, envisaged a limited monarchy with an emperor whose powers should be roughly equivalent to those of the president of the United States of America—that is, he should have full executive powers and be supreme commander of the armed forces. In general, Muraviev was greatly influenced by the constitutional and administrative model of the United States. Many Northerners had misgivings about Pestel's republican intentions and the ominous implications of them for the imperial family, and also disliked his plans for an aggressively centralized Russian state. A further major difference between the two schemes was Muraviev's projection of a federal system of some fourteen constituent member states. And while in Muraviev's Russia the serfs were to be emancipated, the nobility was nevertheless to be allowed to retain its landed estates.6 But Pestel had as many criticisms of Muraviev's plan as the Northern Society had of his Russian Justice. The Southern Society was not satisfied with the federal proposal, with the implicit prolongation of class divisions and the continued existence of a wealthy, privileged aristocracy. Nor could it accept the proposed property qualifications for the electoral franchise. Yet it was not the case that every member of the two societies gave unqualified support to their respective constitutional projects. There were members of the Northern Society, too, who objected to certain aspects of Muraviev's pro5

O'Meara, "Pavel Ivanovich Pestel," Modem Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, Vol. 27, pp. 220-24. See pp. 222-23. 6 For greater detail, see Semevskii, Politicheskie i obshchestvennye idei dekabristov; O'Meara, "Nikita Mikhailovich Murav'ev," Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, vol. 23, pp. 194-97. See p. 196.

The Decembrist Challenge | 21 posals. Foremost among them, as we shall see, was Kondraty Ryleev. But, for all their imperfections and for all the disagreements they aroused, these two Decembrist plans for the reform of the Russian empire, its institutions, and its government, were for their day—particularly with regard to their common provision for the abolition of autocracy and serfdom—remarkably enlightened and challenging. Together they represent a most important landmark in the development of the political ideology oi the Russian revolutionary movement as a whole. 7 It was the common ground shared by the Northern and Southern societies which provided the incentive and potential to wage a united struggle. It was agreed, for example, that an armed military uprising would be the most expedient form of revolution, since this would avoid the direct participation of the masses and the unleashing of the infamous terror which had been so characteristic of the French revolution, an awesome historical precedent never far from the Decembrists' collective imagination. Against this, however, Pestel failed in his efforts to bring about closer organizational ties between the two societies, thanks mainly to the adamant opposition of Sergei Trubetskoi and Nikita Muraviev. In spite of the readiness of northerners such as Ryleev and Evgeny Obolensky to meet Pestel halfway on a number of fundamental questions, the latter was ultimately obliged to accept an interim arrangement whereby the two societies would continue to function independently, with the proviso that neither would initiate revolutionary activity without the agreement of the other. A date was set in 1826 for a reconsideration of the whole issue of the formation of a single secret society. As we know, this arrangement was preempted by the unexpected death of the tsar, the ensuing interregnum, and the events of 14 December 1825. In Petersburg, meanwhile, the Northern Society continued 7

Muraviev's and Pestel's projects are reproduced respectively in Shtraikh, ed., Izbrannye sotsial'no-politicheskie iflosofskteproizvedeniya dekabristov, i. 295-343; Vd vii. Translated excerpts from them both are located in Raeff, The Decembrist Movement, pp. 103-18, 124-56.

22 I The Decembrist Challenge its work of recruiting new members, not only from the guards regiments but also from the strategically important naval base of Kronstadt on the island fortress in the Gulf of Finland. From here Ryleev anticipated that the imperial family—if it survived the revolution—might be sent into exile by sea. Attempts were also made to recruit members from the commercial sphere, in particular from the prestigious RussianAmerican Company, whose distinguished patron, Admiral Mordvinov, was well known for his liberal outlook and who was regarded, along with the talented but by now undeservedly discredited Mikhail Speransky, as a future member of the post-revolutionary constituent assembly. The Northern Society also developed close links with the intellectual and literary world of Petersburg. Several of its members were themselves writers or poets: the most outstanding Decembrist writers, Ryleev and Alexander Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, combined their membership of the Northern Society with considerable literary endeavor, including the production of the highly successful journal the Polar Star, from 1823 until the time of their arrest in 1825. They in turn were among many Decembrist writers acquainted with Russia's most celebrated men of letters, including Alexander Pushkin and Alexander Griboedov. Indeed, the intimacy of Ryleev's and Bestuzhev's links with Pushkin and Griboedov has led some Soviet historians to speculate that they were both in some way "honorary" members of the Decembrist conspiracy. Evidence in support of such a view, however, remains elusive; it is more prudent to limit ourselves to accepting Pushkin's alleged remark to Nicholas I that if he had known of the Decembrist uprising in advance he would certainly have given it his active support. 8 The role played by Ryleev in the various aspects of the Northern Society's activity which are alluded to above, and the preparation of the uprising itself, was of major significance; a due appraisal of it is the main purpose of the present study. To subject Ryleev's intellectual formation, political development, and contribution to the Decembrist movement and Wolff, Pushkin on Literature, p. 179.

The Decembrist Challenge | 23 uprising to a rigorous analysis is to arrive at a clearer perception of the Decembrist challenge. For Ryleev embodies so much that was quintessential about the Decembrists: a privileged social background and an elite education leading paradoxically to a youthful rebellion which was inspired as much by the romantic protest of Byron, Schiller, and Goethe on behalf of the individual in a hostile society as by passionate political convictions and social concerns, a fatalistic insistence on the urgent need to make a stand in spite of certain failure and regardless of the terrible personal consequences. Such an analysis furthers our understanding of the problem of departure from traditional career patterns experienced by Ryleev and by many of his circle precisely because of their social and political outlook. It illuminates, too, the extraordinary legal process to which he and his confederates were subjected and, equally, the manner of their response to it; in many cases, including Ryleev's, this involved a dramatic reawakening of a profound religious faith, doubtless facilitating their submission to a fate ultimately perceived as the will of God rather than the whim of the tsar. Finally, the analysis highlights the fact that the Decembrists were the grand amateurs of the Russian revolutionary movement in that they lacked that sophisticated and slightly austere air of grim professionalism which was to characterize it later on in the century. There is indeed a sense in which the term "movement" (dvizhenie) is too formal a description to be applied to the Decembrists. In view of its variegated, heterogeneous, albeit exclusively upperclass character, it is perhaps more appropriate to speak of a phenomenon which caught up in its embrace many of the most progressive, talented, and imaginative individuals of the day. The brutal suppression of the Decembrist challenge, the arrest and investigation of the hundreds who were implicated in it, the severe sentences of penal servitude, and Siberian exile inflicted on some 120 of those convicted and the particularly gruesome deaths of the five who were executed—all combined to produce a profound shock to the fragile relationship between the tsar and the nobility, so carefully nurtured in im-

24 I The Decembrist Challenge perial ukases since 1762, from which it never fully recovered. No longer could the ruler count on the uncritical support of "his" noblemen; he had sent too many of their peers to Siberia or to the scaffold. Moreover, the absolute embargo imposed by Nicholas throughout his thirty-year reign on the merest mention of the men he sneeringly referred to as his "amis du quatorze," and his consistent refusal to accede to any request made on their behalf by the relatives they had left behind, no matter how pathetic the cause, served only to exacerbate this sense of resentment and alienation between the nobility and the autocrat. More specifically, the complete estrangement of those who had survived the terrible privations of the Nerchinsk mines to be amnestied in 1855 by Alexander II was apparent in their proud resolve to remain in Siberian exile, where they had established their own communities, complete with schools and hospitals. Ultimately, Nicholas' vindictiveness proved counter-productive since his insatiable quest for retribution ensured the Decembrists the lofty status of the fathers and first martyrs of the Russian revolution. This was recognized in the nineteenth century by Alexander Herzen, Nikolai Ogarev, and other active proponents of the Decembrist myth and legend, and affirmed subsequently in Lenin's analysis of the development of the revolutionary movement through three phases of which the "aristocratic," represented by the Decembrists and Herzen, he acknowledged to have constituted the fountainhead. For, in spite of what later revolutionaries were to perceive as the "class limitations" of the "aristocrat-revolutionaries," none sought to detract from the profound patriotism and extraordinary selflessness by which they were motivated: those very qualities which have ensured them to this day a special and honored place in the pantheon of Russia's revolutionary heroes.

2

Ryleev: The Formative Years

Childhood

and

Youth

The relative wealth of material covering Ryleev's last years of literary and political activity is countered by a lack of available and reliable sources relating to his early biography. Little is known with any certainty of his childhood and youth; even such fundamental dates as those of his birth and marriage were long subject to dispute and intelligent guesswork. He kept no diary that has come to light, but he has figured in several memoirs, as mentioned above. 1 In addition we are reliant on those of Ryleev's letters which have come down to us—and there are all too few of these. 2 On the basis of these memoirs, of Ryleev's letters, and of other items scattered throughout the historiography of the Decembrist movement, it is possible to compile a fairly detailed and accurate picture of the circumstances of Ryleev's upbringing, of their effect on 1

Cf. Introduction, note 11 above. The only known document in the nature of a diary is Ryleev's record of his brief stay in Paris in 1815, referred to in n. 57 below. One memorist, Dmitrii Kropotov, had been to the same school as Ryleev in Petersburg. N. I. Grech's slurs on the reputation of that institution provoked Kropotov's publication of an article refuting Grech's inaccuracies and distortions. It provides diverse, though not always accurate, information on Ryleev's biography. (Kropotov, "Neskol'ko svedenii ο Ryleeve.") 2 The bulk of these are published in pss, pp. 427-519. Cf. also, "Ryleev: iz neizdannoi perepiski," LN lix. 137-64.

26

I The Formative

Years

his intellectual development and on the formation of his po­ litical outlook. 1795 is now accepted as the year of birth of Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev, although various dates have been put for­ ward.3 Kropotov, for example, gave 1789—an auspicious enough year for the revolutionary in embryo, perhaps.4 The uncertainty is aggravated by Ryleev's own claim, in his dep­ osition to the Investigating Commission immediately after his arrest, that he was twenty-four years old.5 This plainly could not have been the case, since there is evidence that he entered the First Cadet Corps College in 1801.6 A succinct account of the argument over the year of his birth is given by V. E. Yakushkin, who is satisfied that 1795 is the correct date, not least because it is given by A. A. Bestuzhev, Ryleev's close friend and colleague, in the Polar Star, the journal they edited together from 1823-1825.7 A. N. Sirotinin, thefirstto attempt a full biography of Ryleev, also settles for 1795 on the basis of evidence adduced by Ryleev's parents to this effect.8 Fur­ ther, P. A. Efremov quotes from a letter of 30 April 1813 from Ryleev's father in which he refers to his son as being eighteen. All the indications are, then, that the date now ac­ cepted is the correct one. 3

Bol'shaya sovetskaya entsiklopedia, 2nd. edn., Moscow 1955. xxxvii. 519-20. 4 Kropotov, p. 230, and see his article, "K. F. Ryleev: zametka ο gode ego rozhdeniya." 5 Vd i. 150. This was not the only misinformation Ryleev provided the Investigating Commission: for example, he described himself in the same deposition as a bachelor, although at the time he was a devoted husband and father. 6 Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, p. 58. Maslov cites as his authority the archive of the First Cadet Corps. 7 Yakushkin, "Iz istorii literatury dvadtsarykh godov: novye materialy dlya biografii K. F. Ryleeva," pp. 196-99. A. A. Bestuzhev, "Vzglyad na staruyu ι novuyu slovesnost' ν Rossii," Polyarnaya zvezda, izdannaya A. Bestuzhevym i K. F. Ryleevym, p. 23. On Ryleev's role as editor of the Polar Star, see Chapter 6. 8 Sirotinin, p. 113. Sirotinin was doubtless referring to an article printed fifteen years earlier by P. A. Efremov, in which he cites a letter to Ryleev from his mother, dated 19 October 1817. In it she writes, "you are only twenty-two" {RS xiv [1875], 71).

The Formative Years I 27 He was born on 18 September—this, at least, has not been disputed—in the village of Batovo, where his parents had a modest estate, in the Sofiisky district of the province of St. Petersburg, about thirty kilometers from Petersburg itself.9 He was the scion of a rather impoverished branch of the local nobility. 10 As the Ryleevs' children had hitherto all died young, it was decided to christen the newborn boy according to an old Russian superstition: after the first person the infant en­ countered on his way to the church. In this case it was an old soldier called Kondraty. 1 1 His parents' superstition was re­ warded: the old soldier's namesake at least survived his child­ hood and youth. Ryleev's father, Fedor Andreevich, was estate manager to Princess V. V. Golitsyna, the widow of Prince S. F. Golitsyn. He was a cruel husband and a stern father, given to outbursts of rage which would apparently culminate in his locking his wife in a cellar. 12 Ryleev's gentle and solicitous mother, Anastasiya Matveevna (nee Essen), was anxious to remove her young son from this uncongenial atmosphere and decided to send him away to Petersburg to be educated. Accordingly, in January 1801, when he was only in his sixth year, he entered the First Cadet Corps College as a "volunteer" in the Junior Department. This was in fact an entirely natural and convenient solution to the problem of removing the young Ryleev from the pres­ ence of his cold and overbearing father. For, as Sirotinin has pointed out, in nobles' families at that time there was a deeprooted conviction that it was not really right to avoid state service and that sons should therefore be educated with state service in view. It undoubtedly guaranteed a young man some position in society and, apart from that, provided the needy with a measure of security. The diplomatic corps, the most sought-after branch of state service, was not open to everyone, 9

V. Nechaev, "Batovo, usad'ba Ryleeva," pp. 194-95. Vd i. ISO. 11 Sirotinin, p. 113; Kotlyarevskii, Ryleev, p. 47; Kropotov, "K. F. Ryleev; zametka ο gode ego rozhdeniya," p. 603. 12 Kotlyarevskii, Ryleev, p. 10. 10

28 I The Formative Years and for this reason the majority of the gentry served in the army.13 There has been some disagreement over the date of Ryleev's entry to the college. Sirotinin considered 1801 to be a mistaken reading of 1807 in the college records, but in so doing he overlooked the existence of a junior department (maloletnee otdelenie).14 The controversy was settled when Maslov came across the college records for 1802. There Ryleev is designated as a "volunteer" from 12 January 1801, and as a cadet of the Junior Department from 12 March the same year.15 Ryleev's entrance to the college, which had been founded in 1731 under Empress Anna,16 coincided with the start of a new period in its history: the appointment as its director of Major-General Friedrich Maximillian Klinger, a German poet who had been acquainted with Goethe in his Sturm und Drang days.17 He was a graduate of the University of Hesse and had entered Russian service in 1780. Director Klinger was negligent in his duties, devoting much of his time to his literary pursuits and to playing with his dogs, so that the college started a decline which continued throughout his twenty years' tenure of the post. On his retirement in 1820, its fortunes were at a very low ebb. However, it would not be fair to blame Klinger alone for this state of affairs. The responsibility rested with higher quarters. For during the reign of Paul, the college had been obliged to reflect his militarist and xenophobic outlook, and following the expulsion of foreign staff and the eradication of such "Westernizing" tendencies as modern language study, 13

Sirotinin, p. 115. Ibid. 15 Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, p. 58. 16 A short history of the college will be found in Stodvadtsatipyati-letnii yubilei Pervogo Kadetskogo Korpusa 1732-1857, Petersburg, 1857, pp. 115. 17 It was in fact Klinger's play, Sturm und Drang, which gave that literary movement (1774-1776) its name. It is not without irony, in view of Ryleev's future literary and political career, that Klinger's plays for their time were considered polittsch revolutions and that many of their heroes were true Freiheitshelden struggling against weak or despotic princes. (Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Leipzig, 1882, xvi. 190-92.) 14

The Formative Years | 29

education at the college took on a narrow, military-orientated character.18 The standing of the college was further affected by the founding in 1804 of the Petersburg Pedagogical Insti­ tute, which became Petersburg University in 1819. Hitherto, the college had been considered second only to Moscow Uni­ versity and had thus attracted a good staff.19 Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that Klinger's ap­ pointment as director was a very unfortunate one. His poetic impulses were matched by an apparently insatiable desire to inflict on his charges undeserved and merciless corporal pun­ ishment. He inspired profound fear in his pupils, who referred to him as the "polar bear." Klinger's directorship of the college "can without any exaggeration be called a reign of terror," wrote one contemporary.20 Among Klinger's victims was Ryleev. Grech records that Ryleev was often beaten but bore it manfully enough "without uttering the slightest complaint or moan." 21 In view oi Grech's comments on Ryleev subse­ quently, this is praise indeed. Similarly, according to Kropotov, "Constantly repeated punishment so hardened him to it—that he endured it with extraordinary coolness and stoicism"22—so much so, by all accounts, that he would take the place of those unable to face it. Apart from winning him many grateful friends, his schoolboy heroics seem to have satisfied some urge in him to distinguish himself as if in an­ ticipation of greater and more significant, though perhaps no less quixotic, acts of heroism in the service of his fellow men. It is worthy to note, as we shall have further occasion to see, that the concept of heroism (in theory and in practice) preoc­ cupied Ryleev from this early stage of his career. 18

Leskov, "Kadetskii monastyr'," p. 123. The narrator of "Kadetskn monastyr' " was Grigory Pokhitonov (1810-1882), whose stenographic memoirs Leskov reworked at their author's request. See Hugh McLean, Nikolai Le­ skov. The Man and his Art, Cambridge, Mass., 1977, p. 693. 19 Kropotov, p. 233. 20 Kropotov, p. 231. Faddei Bulgarin's memoirs provide similar testimony. See Vospominaniya Faddeya Bulgarina, i. 275-76. 21 Grech, Zapiskt ο moei zbizni, p. 442. 22 Kropotov, p. 232.

30 I The Formative Years

In his first years at college, Ryleev established a reputation for his enterprising practical jokes and his flair for composing epigrams about the staff. One such epigram brought him ironic reproof. He composed a poem about a popular college chef named Kulakov who had just died, but which contained a reference to another member of the staff, A. P. Bobrov, who was very much alive.23 In rebuking Ryleev, Bobrov told him that literature was a worthless thing whose pursuit could bring no happiness. 24 About three years before he left, Ryleev was threatened with expulsion on one of those occasions when he accepted culpability and punishment for an offense he had not committed. It was shown by grateful friends eager to help him that he had been innocent, and the threat was removed. After this episode, Ryleev was regarded in a more favorable light and persuaded to take his work more seriously in order to gain the academic qualifications necessary for him to become an artillery officer. The hitherto unruly pupil complied and, although not a strong mathematician, in due course received his commission. In his depositions to the Investigating Commission Ryleev wrote that his knowledge of science extended to gunnery, fortification, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and physics. Geography and history also figure in this list.25 His abiding interest in the latter is reflected in his subsequent poetic work, notably in the "Dumy." In literature he was always one of the top students. In spite of his inclinations, however, the curriculum was mainly of a military and technical character. He proved to be a generally successful, though not brilliant, pupil. Something of Ryleev's intellectual development while at school can be inferred from those few letters that he wrote home which have survived. The correspondence between father and son was erratic, not infrequently marked by silences of a year, often longer. Ryleev's letter of 7 December 1812 begins, 23

"Kulakiada," pss, pp. 319-24. Recorded in Leskov, "Kadetskii monastyr'," p. 157. 25 Vd i. 151. 24

The Formative

Years

| 31

typically enough: "Nearly three years have gone by with no news of you. I have written many letters, but have had not one reply."26 This letter contains a naive and effusive affir­ mation of his faith in the tsar, whom he "worships," and in the Orthodox Church, which he finds "indescribably pleas­ ant." To be sure, his faith in God and the tsar was soon to undergo a radical reappraisal. But this letter expresses a type of outlook to which he reverted rapidly after his arrest. A letter to his father dating from April 1810 shows that early on Ryleev developed a passion for books and reading. He told his father that he had spent all his money on books and asked for more in order to buy a mathematics textbook and a copy of a biography of Suvorov.27 Again, in 1811 Ryleev begged his father to send him money for books, of which he admitted to being "a very keen collector."28 He wrote in vain: the letter remained unanswered. Meanwhile, however, in spite of the lack of financial help or any other kind of interest from home, Ryleev indulged his appetite for books unabated. The college had a good library in which he acquainted himself with Western authors, among them Voltaire and Rousseau and the French encyclopedists, by whom he declared himself to be profoundly impressed.29 Grech was of the opinion that Ryleev acquired his liberal ideas through reading an anthology in this library called Sokrashchennaya biblioteka (abbreviated library), a digest of "var­ ious republican tales, descriptions, and speeches from journals of the time" put there for the cadets by the "gifted but drunken teacher" Zheleznikov.30 Commenting on this, Kotlyarevsky 26

pss, p. 428. LN hx. 137. The illustrious career of the eighteenth-century general, A. V. Suvorov (1730-1800), was the subject of numerous studies at this «me, both in Russia and in the West. The most recent Russian biography at the time Ryleev wrote this letter and possibly, therefore, the one to which he referred, was by Parpur, Zhizn't voennye deyaniya generalissimusa knyazya Italhskogo gr. A. V. Suvorova-Rymtnskogo, Moscow, 1801. 28 pss, p. 427. 29 Posse, Sochineniya K. F. Ryleeva ι A. I. Odoevskogo, p. 36; Neiman, K. F. Ryleev. Zhizn' ι tvorchestvo, p. 10. 30 Grech, Zaptski ο moei zhizni, p. 444. 27

32 I The Formative Years

wrote that regardless of whether Zheleznikov was a drunkard, the contents of his reader were "very sober," containing nothing of a "revolutionary or republican character." It contained a selection of readings on geography, history, philosophy, foreign literature, and so on. Cicero, Socrates, Caesar, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Sully, and Herder were among the authors represented in it.31 In view of some of the writers it comprised, it is difficult to see how the reader could have avoided containing material of a "revolutionary or republican character," at least in the context of an absolutist state. Kotlyarevsky in any case admitted that it was doubtless because its readers were obliged to use their brains {shevelit' mozgami) that the book was withdrawn from school libraries in 1834. 32 So that while it is an exaggeration to imply, as Grech does, that Zheleznikov's reader set Ryleev firmly on the path of liberalism and worse, it is disingenuous to assert, as Kotlyarevsky does, that it had no effect on him whatsoever. The young Ryleev was not only an intelligent and voracious reader, but he was also very impressionable. This is nowhere more apparent than in the influence over his epistolary style and content exercised by his reading of contemporary literature— of Zhukovsky and Karamzin, for example. Ryleev himself acknowledged this influence and apologetically wrote in a letter home of 7 December 1812 that he knew the world "only through books."33 In general, his letters of this period are written in a self-conscious, exclamatory, quasi-philosophical style, full of protestations of filial allegiance, patriotism, and faith, typically containing outbursts of Werther-like self-analysis couched in imitative, flowery rhetoric. They must have made difficult reading for their recipients. Typical of Ryleev's receptiveness to these influences and central to the theme of his intellectual development while at the Cadet Corps is his letter home of 7 December, referred to above. In it Ryleev writes about the conflict between his heart 11

Kotlyarevskii, Ryleev, pp. 15, 16. Ibid., p. 16; cf. Kropotov, p. 235. 33 pss, p. 428. Emphasis in the original. 32

The Formative Years | 33

and his head: the traditional malaise of the "Romantic." His head foresees and forecasts doom: Deluded young man! . . . You strive toward the world, but see! There destruction awaits you . . . your every minute will be poisoned by bitter fear. . . . That is what my head tells me, but my heart, always at odds with it, teaches me the opposite: Go forward bravely, despise all misfortunes . . . and if they befall you, bear them with true firmness and you will be a hero, you will receive a martyr's crown, and you will rise higher than other men. Hereupon I exclaim: " T o be a hero! To rise higher than other men! What sweet dreams! O, I shall obey my heart!" 3 4 Clearly, there is more to this revealing passage than a "bookish" imitation of the rhetoric of the Sentimental school. Here can be seen the emergence of a characteristic of Ryleev which was to be so dominant in the years to follow: a fatalistic and, as it happened, fatal pursuit of the heroic and heroism. The pursuit found reflection in his poetry—and above all in the "Dumy"—as well as in his life's exploits. The letter epit­ omizes the attempt to reconcile the conflict between the in­ tellect and the emotions, between the resigned fatalist and the Romantic hero, and illustrates the dichotomy of Ryleev's am­ bition: either to await passively the martyrdom decreed by fate (the frustrated intellectual suffocated by the banality of Alexander's regime) or to strive actively for the crown of heroism. Essentially, of course, they were means to the same end; fame and assurance of a place in history which A. I. Kosovsky says Ryleev spoke of. "In my opinion you are piti­ able and will die in obscurity while my name will occupy a few pages in history," Ryleev apparently prophesied to his brother officers.35 The letter also reveals Ryleev's inclination to obey his emotions rather than his intellect, a tendency which became increasingly marked as 14 December 1825 ap­ proached. 34 35

pss, p. 429. Kosovskii, "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 246.

34 I The Formative Years

With its faintly absurd apostrophe to poverty ("which my heart perceives . . . in terms of golden chains of freedom and friendship") the letter reflects a further abiding Ryleevan theme—money, or, to be more precise, the lack of it, which was to be a major preoccupation throughout his life. Nearly every letter to his parents contained a request for money. While his mother understood these requests, especially while he was still at school, they merely irritated his father. It must be admitted that he was not very adept at asking for it. As in his life, so in his letters, he would combine displays of lofty emotion and blunt pragmatism to curiously incongruous, sometimes ridiculous, effect. For example, in the letter dated 7 December 1812, he wrote of the imminent likelihood of his being called upon to serve his fatherland and tsar in the struggle against Napoleon: "For this reason, dear Father, 1 request your paternal blessing—and also the money needed for my uniform." 36 There followed a lengthy list of the kit he was obliged to buy and a special request for fifty roubles immediately to pay for fencing instruction. His father's reply of several months later and after Ryleev had written to him three times on the matter was characteristically unhelpful and unsympathetic. He accused his son of camouflaging his brazen and obsessive requests for money with talk of the "feelings of the heart" and other lofty emotions of doubtful sincerity. "A man makes himself detestable," he wrote to his son, "when he repeatedly talks of his heartfelt sentiments, while in fact his heart is concerned only with money." 37 There is no doubt that Fedor Andreevich considered his eighteen-year-old son a wastrel and a failure. This harsh yet not entirely unperceptive attitude provoked a sharp retort. Abandoning the cumbersome philosophical sentiment of his letter of 7 December 1812, Ryleev wrote in July or August 1813, complaining that his father had misunderstood him, and had not taken the trouble to consider and respond to his requests. 36 37

pss, p. 431. pss, pp. 18, 19.

The Formative Years | 35

However, as it turned out, Ryleev had anticipated his call to service by nearly a year. He had thought, writing in De­ cember 1812, that this would occur in May 1813. But it was not until February 1814 that Ryleev received his commission and at last left the First Cadet Corps College, which had been his home for thirteen years. Considering Klinger's "reign of terror," the merciless beatings, lack of interest or support from home, Ryleev appears to have emerged from the college a remarkably well-balanced young man, apparently unscathed. This may have been due to the fact that the cadets lived to­ gether as a family and drew from each other the kind of emotional sustenance that Ryleev thrived on. Grech wrote that the cadets' ties were stronger than was popularly believed at the time: It is said that most of the insurgents of 14 December were litseisty [ex-pupils of the Tsarskoe Selo Lycee]. This is not so. . . . Most of them were products of the First Cadet Corps—readers of Zheleznikov's library. Deceptive ideas of liberalism, freedom, equality, republican heroics, blinded the young under-educated men! 3 8 Grech was again exaggerating, but, still, some of Ryleev's classmates did become members of secret societies, among them Baron A. E. Rozen and A. M. Bulatov. The college was also attended by M. I. Pushchin, brother of Ivan Ivanovich, the man who was later to recruit Ryleev to the Decembrists' Northern Society. Grech was not alone in ascribing to the college this pre­ paratory role in the Decembrist uprising. Leskov's transcrip­ tion of a contemporary's memoirs, referred to above, recounts an unexpected visit by Tsar Nicholas to the Cadet Corps on 15 December 1825: He was very angry. . . . He listened to Director Persky's customary report . . . in a bleak silence. . . . "Ryleev and Bestuzhev are past pupils," the Emperor said with displeas­ ure. "As are Rumantsiev, Prozorovsky, Kamensky, KulGrech, Zapiski ο moei zbizni, p. 444.

36 I The Formative Years

nev—all officers of the High Command—and Toll [General Adjutant]," Persky replied. "They gave food to the rebels (oni buntovshchikov kormili)" said the Tsar pointing to us. "They are brought up, Your Majesty, to fight the enemy, but after victory to care for the wounded." 39 Ryleev was not quickly forgotten at the college. Later, when his literary reputation had become firmly established, many cadets became interested in his poetry and many learned it by heart. In this connection, Leskov further recorded: The cadets loved forbidden verses and in spite of severe penalties possessed a large quantity of them. . . . In particular, we valued the poems of our school fellow K. F. Ryleev. . . . We copied out all Ryleev's poems and hoarded them like treasure. . . . It was rare for a cadet of our time not to know by heart almost all of Ryleev's "Dumy," which were highly disapproved of, especially for young people.40 But this was later. In February 1814, Ryleev left the college full of vague dreams about life and with no concrete ideas of its reality. M. I. Pushchin later remembered his leave-taking: "He stood on a step so that he could see and be seen by everyone and made an impassioned speech which aroused our military fervor even more." 41 Although intellectually a rather muddled eighteen-year-old with as yet no definite political outlook beyond a fervent patriotism, Ryleev had developed an alert capacity to feel, to think—even to suffer. He had read as widely as circumstances permitted and was already embarked on an unremitting process of self-education. In his own words, his leaving the college was a "step out into a world agitated by passions [perekhod 39

Leskov, "Kadetskii monastyr','' pp. 130-31. Quoted in Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost K. F. Ryleeva, p. 64. 41 Pushchin, "Zapiski M. I. Pushchina," p. 412. Pushchin describes Ryleev as one of a number of not fully trained cadets to have been passed out of the college prematurely in order to meet the threat of Napoleon's Grande Armee. But, as noted here, Ryleev did not in fact pass out until 1814, as a fully trained eighteen-year-old. 40

The Formative Years | 37 42

ν volnuemyi strastyami mir)." The same month, Ryleev joined the First Cavalry Company of the First Reserve Artillery Bri­ gade with the rank of ensign. Almost immediately the Re­ servists found themselves called to active service and Ryleev, hitherto confined to Petersburg and its province in general and to the college in particular, now left Russia and entered the very different and exciting world of Western Europe.

Military

Service

The Investigating Commission, whose primary interest lay in ascertaining the designs of the insurgents against the tsar and his family, was also concerned to discover where the inimical ideas of these "state-criminals" had their origin. The Com­ mission suspected, and with good reason, that Western Eu­ ropean influences on these young officers and gentlemen had been particularly strong. For this reason, one of the questions included in the record of service (formulyarnyi spisok) which all those interrogated were required to complete, asked: "Dur­ ing your service in the campaigns against the enemy, where and when did you serve?" From his answer to this, we learn that from 4 March 1814 Ryleev visited with his brigade Switz­ erland, France, Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Saxony, Prussia, and the Duchy of Warsaw, returning to Russia on 3 December. Similarly, in 1815 he travelled through Poland, Prussia, Sax­ ony, Bavaria, and France; once more, he was abroad for most of the year, from 12 April to 4 December. 43 During most of these exciting months we catch only oc­ casional glimpses of Ryleev and have barely enough material to provide an adequate reconstruction of his movements through Europe and the impressions he formed there. One of his bri­ gade's postings in 1814 was to Dresden. This for Ryleev was a happy coincidence since his uncle, Lt.-Gen. Mikhail Niko« pss, p. 428. « Vd i. 151.

38 I The Formative Years laevich Ryleev, a hero of 1812, was commanding officer there. 44 He and his wife, Maria Ivanovna, undertook to do whatever they could to make their relative's stay in Dresden a congenial one. Ryleev clearly took to them both. He wrote to his mother: " I shall not find another uncle like him! Pleasant, helpful when he can b e . . . . Well, in a word, he has replaced my late father!" 4S For his nineteenth birthday three days earlier, his uncle had given him some good cloth for a uniform. 46 However, Ryleev's stay in Dresden, in spite of its pleasant prospects and his enjoyment of it as far as it went, did not have long to run. Hardly a month had passed before the young officer had established his notoriety throughout the town. He could not resist exercising his biting wit in the composition of mocking epigrams. 47 He taunted his victims to such an extent that very soon all the Russian residents requested Prince Repin, Dresden's military governor, to expel the irritating ensign. Accordingly an order to this effect was passed on to Mikhail Nikolaevich. There followed a painful interview in which Ryleev is said to have presaged his fate. According to Maria Ivanovna, wrote her son-in-law A. I. Felkner subse­ quently, Mikhail Nikolaevich returned home and reproached Ryleev for his unbecoming conduct. He dismissed him from his post and gave him twenty-four hours to leave Dresden, warning that if he dared to disobey he would have him courtmartialled and shot. Whereupon Ryleev is said to have re­ torted: "They do not shoot people who are to be hanged!" 4 8 This kind of story is almost certainly apocryphal, but it is by no means unique. For example, V. Savitskaya in an article entitled "Mme. Ryleeva's Dream" (Son Ryleevoi) maintained that Ryleev's mother, on an occasion when her infant son had 44 Although Ryleev referred to him as "uncle," he must have meant this in rather a loose sense, since Ryleev's father's patronymic was Andreevich. It is more likely that Μ. N. was an older cousin. 45 pss, p. 434. Ryleev's father had died earlier in the year. 46 Ibid., Letter of 21 Sept. 47 Sirotinin, p. 125. Sirotinin suggests rather darkly that this was a symptom of a deeper unrest. 48 Fel'kner, "Predchustvie Ryleeva ο svoei sud'be," p. 441.

The Formative Years | 39 fallen critically ill, dreamt that she saw him meeting his death on the executioner's block. 49 However fanciful such stories may be, it is nevertheless interesting that the fateful conse­ quences of Ryleev's peculiar personality subsequently gave rise to them. This theme of fatalism, of awareness of the dire consequences of his future activity, is frequently attributed to him, either directly or indirectly, by his contemporaries. Even his biographer Kotlyarevsky could not resist its charm. He has suggested, for instance, that fate had somehow earmarked the infant Ryleev for his post at the Petersburg criminal court (discussed below) by means of the "democratic" circum­ stances of his baptism and the early contact with the common people these had afforded him. 5 0 In any case, Ryleev did not on this occasion presume to tempt fate; he hurriedly left Dres­ den, saying good-bye to no one. 5 1 For the winter furlough he returned with his brigade to the province of Minsk. Here problems of a different nature awaited him. While Ryleev had been abroad, his father had died and the nineteen-year-old heir found himself beset with inherited financial problems. His father's employers, the Golitsyn fam­ ily, claimed debts against him of eighty thousand roubles; to offset this, much of Fedor Andreevich's property was seques­ tered. But this was only the beginning. The business dragged on for twenty-four years, until in 1838 the case was settled in favor of Fedor Andreevich's heirs, too late for Ryleev to benefit.52 Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the affair affected Ryleev's view of life and embittered him against the well-to-do nobility. No longer, as two years ago, did he dream of "poverty (embellished) with golden chains of freedom and 49

See M. Mazaev, "Po povodu 'sna Ryleevoi': zametki i popravki," Istoricheskii vestnik ii (1894), p. 588. 50 Kotlyarevskii, Ryleev, p. 47, and see above, n. 11. 51 Nine routine reports from Ryleev to his uncle as "Officer Commanding 3rd District" are deposited in Arkhiv vnesbnei politiki Rossii. (See "Iz neizdannogo naslediya K. F. Ryleeva: bumagi ι dokumenty," LN hx. 166.) The contents of these reports are fairly standard: Ryleev describes his trips to various towns in Saxony, the condition of the roads, complains about the lack of respect shown him by the local authorities, and so on. 52 Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, p. 58.

40 I The Formative Years

friendship." He now started to complain about the "inhu­ manity of the rich" and even about the "insensitivity of the whole of mankind."53 Ryleev was indeed a creature of his environment. Probably to his relief, his financial preoccupations were interrupted by Napoleon's return from exile, as a result of which he found himself despatched with his brigade to France. During the march to Paris, Ryleev was appointed quarter­ master and, according to one of his brother officers, did the job well: "From the time of his appointment Ryleev took a more active and, for him, really helpful attitude to his service. He went attentively about equipping all the places the battery passed through with the necessary services."54 Ryleev, too, seemed satisfied with the execution of his new responsibilities. "Since the Polish border I have been quartermaster," he wrote to his mother in 1815. "It is quite hectic .. . (but) pleasant. My commanding officer, Col. Sukhozanet, is very pleased with me." 55 But Ryleev's disaffection with military service was only temporarily checked; during the ensuing months it was to increase rapidly. Ryleev's stay in Paris, which he reached in September and where he spent about a week, provided him, according to some sources, with another opportunity to confront his fate. He is said to have visited a famous palmist together with three or four of his comrades. On looking at his palm the seer turned pale and told him that he would not die a natural death. However, apart from saying that he would not die in battle or in a duel, but in circumstances "bien pire que cela," she 56 refused to elaborate on this cryptic warning. Ryleev makes "pss, p. 435. 54 Kosovskii, "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 241. 55 pss, p. 437. 56 The incident is recounted by F. Timiryazev, "Stramtsy proshlogo," RA (1884), pp. 155-80, see p. 172, and retold by Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, p. 65. Curiously enough, the Decembrist M. S. Lunin is said to have visited the same palmist and to have received the same warning. Apparently his characteristically sardonic retort was "we must ensure that the prediction is fulfilled." See EidePman, Lunin, p. 40.

The Formative Years \ 41

no mention of the event in the log he kept while in Paris, which otherwise shows how excited he was with the city and how eager a tourist he was, and which he wrote in conven­ tional epistolary form amounting to eight letters. 57 Nor does it give, unfortunately, any clear picture of the extent to which he investigated the city's intellectual life. To be sure, he had little enough time to do this. But the city, where memories of the revolution were still vivid, could not help but stimulate Ryleev and set him thinking. "The thought took root in him," Kosovsky later recalled, "that everything in Russia was bad and that all the laws therefore had to be changed and a 'con­ stitution' introduced." 5 8 As was the case with so many of his contemporaries, young educated men serving as officers in the Russian army, these first exhilarating contacts with Western Europe made a pro­ found impression on Ryleev. In his log he commented: "The events of our time are more surprising and more improbable than anything that has taken place hitherto.. . . I do not know how our successors will be able to believe what has occurred before our very eyes." He reflected on the extraordinary po­ tential of the individual to determine the course of history: " H o w does one believe that one worthless mortal was the cause of so many terrible political upheavals?" 5 9 In the log we read of Ryleev's annoyance at the way Russia's allies— especially the Prussians—treated the defeated French. A pa­ triot himself, he respected the national pride of the humiliated French and yearned for a secure peace. 60 He noted with ap­ proval that Paris was "rich in charitable institutions where the poor can live and which the sick can use free of charge," and he even had a good word for the Paris police. 61 His observation of social and political life in Europe was the most significant aspect of Ryleev's excursions abroad, and in this regard he was above all indebted to his stay in Paris. 57 58 59 60 61

pss, pp. 372-85. Kosovskii, "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 242. pss, p. 374. Ibid., pp. 377, 379. Ibid., pp. 383-84.

42 I The Formative Years Here, among a people "used to independence," his experience of the Parisians' social condition strengthened within him so­ cial ideas and ideals of his own. 6 2 On returning home he, like hundreds of others, could not fail to compare what he had seen in Western Europe with what confronted him in his own country. The biographer of a younger contemporary of Ryleev, A. I. Koshelev, expressed the mood succinctly when he wrote of the intellectual climate in Russia at this time: "It was impossible for a thinking individual, after he had visited Eu­ rope, to disregard science and civilisation, and it was impos­ sible for him to reconcile himself with coarseness, ignorance, arbitrary rule, and oppression." 6 3 In the case of Ryleev, the effect of this experience on him is in no doubt. The Investi­ gating Commission asked him where he had obtained his lib­ eral ideas. Ryleev answered: " I was first infected by freethinking during the campaigns in France in 1814 and 1815." 6 4 On his return to Russia, early in December 1815, Ryleev was stationed with the 11th (later 12th) Horse Artillery Com­ pany, first in the Vilensk province in Lithuania and from the spring of 1817 in the Ostrogozhsk district of the province of Voronezh. 65 Although geographically far removed from the centers of enlightenment either abroad (Paris) or at home (Petersburg) of which Ryleev had had some experience, Os­ trogozhsk nevertheless boasted among its population a num­ ber of educated and intelligent people. One contemporary, a native of the town, in whose fate Ryleev subsequently played a decisive part, referred to his fellow-inhabitants as the "Athe­ nians of Voronezh." He recorded that many merchants and members of the lower middle classes (meshchanstvo) pos­ sessed such books as de Lolme's Constitution of England, Montesquieu's Lettres Persanes and De I'Esprit des Lois in Yazykov's translation, Beccaria's On Crime and Punishment, works by Voltaire in Russian, and so on. 6 6 Indeed, the at« Ibid., p. 377. 63 Kolyupanov, Btografiya A. I. Kosbeleva, i. 380. " Vd ι. 156. 65 Udodov, K. F. Ryleev ν Voronezhskom krae, p. 10. 66 Nikitenko, Moya povest' ο satnom sebe, ι. 67. Jean Louis de Lolme,

The Formative Years I 43 mosphere must have been conducive to Ryleev's continuing political and intellectual development, for "literary, political and social questions were discussed. They did not just wrangle over their personal interests, but also argued over principles. There was a perceptible striving for freedom and a conscious protest against the oppression of the then all-powerful bu­ reaucracy." 6 7 In general, then, Ostrogozhsk's intellectual level was "im­ measurably higher" than that of many other provincial towns. 68 The following description from Nikitenko's memoirs of his first encounter with Ryleev throws interesting light on the latter's interests at the time: In Ostrogozhsk there was an annual fair to which, along with other goods, books were brought from Voronezh. . . . At the book stall . . . there stood a young officer who had got there before us. I glanced at him and was struck by the tranquil gleam of his dark and, at the same time, bright eyes, and by the gentle, dreamy expression of his face gen­ erally. He asked for Montesquieu's De I'Esprit des Lois, paid and asked for the books to be sent to him. "I am not billetted in the town," he told the assistant, "but a fair distance away. . . . Your messenger should ask for Lieuten­ 69 ant Ryleev." Constitution de I'Angleterre, ou Etat du gouvernement anglais compare avec la forme republicaine et avec les autres monarchies de I'Europe, was first published in 1771, translated into English in 1807, and went through many editions up to 1853. It is almost certain that Ryleev, too, acquired his knowl­ edge of the English constitutional system from this source. 67 Nikitenko, Moya povest' ο samom sebe, i. 67. The "Ostrogozhsk" period of Ryleev's biography is the main theme of Udodov, K. F. Ryleev υ Voronezbskom krae. 68 Ibid., p. 66. 69 Ibid., p. 86. Nikitenko (1804-1877), who was born a serf but went on to enjoy a remarkable career as professor of Russian literature, liberal censor, and celebrated diarist, subsequently benefited from his acquaintanceship with Ryleev. As described so graphically in his memoirs, the poet was at the center of a successful campaign to secure this talented young man's freedom from his owner, Count D. N. Sheremetev. (Ibid., pp. 125-26.)

44 I The Formative Years Meanwhile, Ryleev was becoming increasingly disaffected with his life in the army, as Kosovsky's memoirs suggest. These memoirs were written at the end of the 1840s and although they contain exaggerations, distortions, and gaps of memory, they nevertheless provide a unique record of Ryleev as a serv­ ing officer. They are indicative also of his negative attitude to the way of life of the officer corps in the provinces between 1814 and 1818. Kosovsky recalled that: Ryleev did not like the service—hated it even and sometimes only obeyed his superiors because he absolutely had to. He came to horse artillery instruction only rarely and to his great disgust, and never came to parade. The remainder of his entire service he spent as if he were in retirement, avoid­ ing his duties under various pretexts. 7 0 According to Kosovsky, Ryleev often rounded on his fellows for their acquiescent cooperation with their superiors and told them that this was "degrading" and that they were "making puppets" of themselves. In Kosovsky's view, Ryleev's indif­ ference to his duties was equalled only by his complete and uncompromising belief in the validity of his own convictions. Ryleev's salvation from the tedium of military service was occasioned by two circumstances. The first was his continued pursuit of intellectual activity, reading, and writing. The sec­ ond, while less cerebral, was of equal if not more immediate significance: his acquaintance with Natalia Mikhailovna Tevyasheva. This itself had two important consequences: his marriage and his resignation from the army. While his com­ pany was quartered at the village of Podgornoe, some fifty miles southeast of Ostrogozhsk, Ryleev became acquainted with the family of a local landowner, M. A. Tevyashev. His letters to his mother testify to his growing attachment to the family and especially to the younger daughter of the house, Natalia. In one such letter we read: " N o t being a novelist, I 70 Kosovskii, "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 240. However, as we noted earlier, Kosovsky does concede that Ryleev was a conscientious quartermas­ ter. On Kosovsky and other fellow-officers of Ryleev in the "Ostrogozhsk" period see Udodov, K. F. Ryleev ν Voronezhskom krae, pp. 16-20.

The Formative Years | 45

shall not attempt to describe her sweet appearance, and I consider myself quite incapable of telling you about her spir­ itual qualities." 7 1 In contrast to Ryleev's rapture are the less euphoric recollections of Kosovsky. According to these, at the time the company went to Ostrogozhsk Tevyashev's daughters were eleven and twleve years old and quite uneducated—they could not even read or write. The reason for Ryleev's "fairly frequent" visits to the Tevyashev home was that he undertook to educate the girls. Kosovsky considered it "extraordinary and regretful" that a Russian nobleman of good family and estate like Tevyashev, with twenty years' military service to his credit, could have remained so far removed from contem­ porary life as to neglect the education of his daughters. As a further example of provincial backwardness, Kosovsky notes that the newspaper Moskovskie vedomosti was subscribed to by only a few of the local landowning gentry and in any case was generally two to three weeks old by the time it was read. Tevyashev and his neighbors were obviously not among Vo­ ronezh's "Athenians." Ryleev worked hard to remedy the girls' ignorance, with the result that at the end of two years' intensive study both of them "showed great progress in reading, writing, arith­ metic, and even scripture and could boast of the level of their education compared with that of many girls in the neigh­ 72 borhood." And one of them, Natasha, had won Ryleev's heart: "Her innocence, goodness of heart, captivating shyness, and intelligence—the product of her nature and the reading of several selected books—are capable of arousing the hap­ piness of all those in whom there remains the merest spark 73 of virtue." What Kosovsky bluntly describes as illiteracy, Ryleev merely delicately alludes to, giving only the slightest hint that he has had anything to do with her education and finding only one flaw to mar this picture of perfection: "I shall only say that dear Natasha, educated in her parents' house, 71

pss, p. 441. Letter dated 17 Sept. 1817. Kosovskii, "Vospommaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 243. 73 pss, p. 441. The "selected books" were doubtless prescribed by Ryleev himself. 72

46

I The Formative

Years

under their own supervision and having had no contact with society, has just one defect in that she does not speak French." 74 In spite of the burden of his teaching and active service, Ryleev did not neglect his own work. He had read and written con­ stantly. From his depositions to the Investigating Commission we learn that while serving abroad he had read books by Louis Bignon, Benjamin Constant, and others. 7 5 During 1817 and 1818 he wrote "whole mountains of paper; some of his work was passed around, but that which he referred to as 'business' (delovye) he never showed anyone." 7 6 He was very careful with his time and did not spend much of it in the company of his fellow officers. However, when he did speak to them "about matters concerning Russia's future happiness," "he spoke attractively and even passionately. . . . His speech flowed smoothly, he seemed filled with noble feeling and the firmness of his stated convictions. He mercilessly attacked our legal procedure, condemned extortion and showed how much evil there was in the administration." 7 7 Kosovsky says Ryleev used to complain that he knew not one language well enough to speak or write, but that he had no time to teach himself as he was constantly occupied with what he always called "more important things." In fact there 78 is clear evidence that he knew French, Polish, and German. This evidence of Ryleev's activity at the time gives the lie to the generally held view that the Ostrogozhsk period was an inactive and indolent one. Happy it may well have been, for here he fell in love, but it was clearly a time of hard work and thought. His mother's reply to his declaration of love for Natasha 74

Ibid. Vd ι. 156. Ryleev's experience of European writers is considered in Chapter 3. 76 Kosovskii, "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 244. 77 Ibid., p. 248. 78 Kropotov, p. 235. See also "Rasskazy ο Ryleeve rassyl'nogo 'Polyarnoi zvezdy,' " p. 50, where the impressionable old servant claimed that his mas­ ter's linguistic prowess extended to French, German, all Asiatic languages, and American! 75

The Formative Years | 47

was cautious and admonitory, born of her own bitter expe­ rience, but she did not oppose their intended marriage. Having at last got her consent, after he had warned her "frankly" that her refusal would kill him, he proceeded to press his suit. 79 His proposal was met, however, with muted enthusiasm by Mikhail Andreevich. Apparently rising to the occasion in a characteristically impetuous and romantic way, Ryleev pulled out a pistol and held it to his head, threatening to shoot unless Mikhail Andreevich gave his consent on the spot. Additional drama was provided at this critical juncture by Natasha's declaration that she would proceed forthwith to a nunnery if she could not marry Kondraty Fedorovich. 80 In the face of such a united demonstration of affection, Tevyashev relented. The only condition for the hand of his daughter demanded by him was that Ryleev should resign from the army. 81 This brings us to another disputed date in Ryleev's biog­ raphy: that of his marriage. A number of his early biographers (Mazaev, Sirotinin, Kotlyarevsky) give 22 January 1820. Yet they offer no explanation for the delay. After all, Tevyashev had given his permission in May or June 1818. Certainly, Ryleev's parlous financial situation may have accounted for the wedding's postponement. More recent commentators, however (Pigarev, Vorobeva, Bazanov, and Arkhipova), either cite spring or, more specifically, January 1819 as the date of their wedding. January 1819 is for a number of reasons the more likely of the two suggestions. In the first place, it is more consistent with events. Ryleev was discharged from the army in December 1818 and, having thereby fulfilled his prospective father-in-law's one stipulation, was free to marry. It is most unlikely that Ryleev would have resigned himself to a year's wait after such forceful pleading for Natasha's hand. Sec­ ondly, in June 1819 he wrote to his mother telling her that they were both coming to Batovo in September. Again, it is 79

pss, p. 445. Letter of 7 April 1818. Kropotov, p. 240. Chulkov, Myatezhniki 1825 goda, p. 52. Kropotov's version of events is, reasonably enough, found by Udodov to be too fanciful. See K. F. Ryleev ν Voronezhskom krae, pp. 26, 75. 81 pss, p. 446. Letter to his mother of 18 June 1818. 80

48 I The Formative Years

unlikely that Natasha's parents would have consented to her leaving Podgornoe on the long journey northward prior to her marriage. Finally, in a letter dated 14 January 1819, one of Ryleev's brother officers, F. R. Ungern-Sternberg, wrote: " I wish you a happy New Year: this one, I know, will be a happy one in every respect. I imagine that by the time you receive these lines you will not only be a happy lover but also a very happy husband." 8 2 Be this as it may, apart from his marriage, the most pressing concern for Ryleev was the question of his future career. In September 1817 he wrote to his mother requesting her bless­ ing on his decision to resign his commission. 83 Anastasiya Matveevna's reply, filled as it was with maternal concern, ex­ pressed her "astonishment" at her son's intention to leave the army, given that he was "so young and had served so little." 8 4 It was still widely felt that a gentleman should initially, at least, make his career one of service to the tsar; to contemplate leaving that service so young and with such doubtful prospects was considered unusual. But by April 1818 Ryleev was ex­ pressing his disenchantment in blunter terms: I have already spent a long time in the service without it bringing me any advantage, and I cannot see it bringing me any in the future. Besides, my character is quite unsuited to it. Scoundrels are needed in the service today, and as I fortunately cannot be one I therefore have nothing to lose. 85 The extent to which Ryleev was temperamentally unsuited to life in the army may be judged from Kosovsky's account of his farewell to his brother officers: He left us with his main idea: not to subordinate oneself to anyone, to strive for equality in general, and to tread the path of common sense; in his opinion, herein lay everyone's happiness. 86 82

83 84

85 86

"Iz neizdannoi perepiski Ryleeva," LN lix. 158-59. pss, p. 442. pss (ed. Balitskii), li. 110-11. Letter of 19 Oct. 1817. pss, p. 446. Letter to his mother of 7 April 1818. Kosovskii, "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 248.

The Formative Years | 49

In spite of his mother's anxiety, then, it is clear that Tevyashev's requirement was consistent with Ryleev's own inclinations. When he first broached the subject of resignation in September 1817, he wrote: I know that it is unbecoming for such a young man to leave the service and that four years' anxiety is an insufficient sacrifice on my part to the fatherland and the tsar for those favors which they have showered upon me. . . . But surely I can make up out of military service what I did not repay them in it.S7 Typically, his mother, although a sympathetic and wellintentioned woman, simply could not see any alternative to a military career and pointed out that he could continue to serve as a married man.88 But she underestimated her son's desire to resign and understood nothing of the reasons for that. As his attitude hardened he became increasingly impatient to do so. By January 1818 he stopped paying lip service to the idea of repaying the tsar for the "favors showered" upon him. He told his mother: "Five years are enough for the tsar: it is time I started thinking about myself!"89 However, Ryleev seems to have had no definite idea of what he should do on quitting the army. A solution eventually presented itself, but this was not until January 1821. Meanwhile he talked of devoting himself to looking after Natasha and his mother—and the dwindling Ryleev estates. The care of these seemed to him to provide the "most rational excuse" for his resignation.90 He developed this argument to show his mother that her "own peace of mind" in fact depended on it.91 She herself had fostered this idea in him when she wrote describing the wretched condition of the Batovo estate, which had had to be mortgaged. There were apparently only seventeen serfs of the forty-two souls supported by the estate who were capable of working the relatively poor soil which 87

pss, p. 442. Emphasis Ryleev's. *epss (ed. Balitskii), ii. 110. 8 » pss, p. 444. 90 Ibid., p. 442. 91 Ibid., pp. 445-46.

50 I The Formative Years

produced only the smallest surplus.92 Ryleev himself was well acquainted with the kind of hardship his mother complained of. During 1818 he was experiencing it particularly keenly and, heavily in debt, was compelled to write to her about his "shameful shortage" of clothing, much of which was no longer fit to be worn. 93 Ryleev's impatience to leave the army did not have much longer to run. When he at last received word of his discharge, he excitedly sent word from Voronezh to his bride-to-be: In No. 306 of the Invalid I see that "by an order of the Tsar given on 26 December (1818) in St. Petersburg, Ensign Ryleev of the 12th Company of the Horse Artillery is, for family reasons, discharged from the service with the rank of Second Lieutenant." And so now I am free—or at least will be very shortly.94 The question was, free to do what? He did not immediately travel north to Batovo to sort out the estate, nor did he have a job to go to. In June 1819 he wrote to his mother that he hoped he and Natasha would be at Batovo by September after a five-week journey.95 However, the end of August found them still in Voronezh; they now hoped to be at Batovo around 20 September. On this basis the couple must have reached Batovo in the autumn of 1819. Here at last Ryleev presumably got down to the task of re-ordering the estate, but we hear nothing of him until the following year, when he had started to become active in Petersburg literary circles. It is interesting to note that Ryleev's decision to resign his commission reflected a fairly widespread trend. After the Napoleonic campaigns it was no longer possible for educated young people of a progressive outlook to think in terms of pursuing a career solely for self-advancement. They resigned from the army because it offered them no way of coming to ,2

pss (ed. Balitskii), ii. 110. A detailed description of the estate and its condition is to be found in Nechaev, "Batovo, usad'ba Ryleeva." 93 pss, p. 447. 94 Ibid., p. 452. 95 Ibid., p. 454.

The Formative Years | 51 grips with Russia's problems and because, as M. MuravievApostol, M. A. Fonvizin, and others expressed it, it provided no substitute for their recent stimulating experience of West­ ern Europe. Their reaction against military service also man­ ifested itself intellectually in various ways: "It led some to embrace mystical ideas, and others to the political sciences." 96 This shared experience and a common sense of futility gave rise among the liberal-minded to a new, negative attitude to­ ward military service. But the extent of this trend should not be overstated; the army, after all, did not suffer any shortage of officers. In an article attributed to Ryleev, devoted to the mutiny of the Semenovsky regiment of 1820, the author sought to explain how, in such grim circumstances, young men con­ tinued to present themselves for commissions in the army at all. Without hesitation but with undisguised regret, he as­ cribed it to a general lack of education, to the youthfulness of those entering the service, to the widespread contempt among the officer corps for the lower classes, to the undoubted in­ ducements offered those who got on well, and, finally, to "the advantage of being the lord of all below and the slave of all above." 9 7 The sacrifice made by such Decembrists as Ryleev, Vladimir Raevsky, and Ivan Pushchin in abandoning potentially suc­ cessful military careers was, as they saw it, an essential con­ tribution to the advancement of their political and social as­ 98 pirations. In the words of one Decembrist, written many years after 1825: 96

Quoted in Nechkina, Grtboedov ι dekabristy, pp. 262-63. "Vozmushchenie starogo leib-gvardii Semenovskogo polka 1820 g," pss (ed. Balitskii), ii. 42-59. See p. 59. 98 A remarkable figure and in his own unassuming way one of the greatest unsung heroes of the entire Russian revolutionary movement, V. F. Raevsky (1795-1872) was arrested on spurious grounds for sedition and propaganda among the troops in February 1822, nearly four years before the Decembrist uprising. He stoically endured incarceration and interrogation, resolutely refusing to reveal anything concerning the secret societies with which he had been associated. He conducted himself with similar fortitude before the In­ vestigating Commission in 1826. For want of evidence he was convicted of no specific crime, but nevertheless spent a total of fifty years in prisons and 97

52 I The Formative Years

It is well known that several members of the Society sacrificed personal interests and the satisfaction of life in the capital, sacrificed brilliant careers in the Guards or in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs . . . to take up careers . . . which were of small repute at that time: took them up precisely in order to ennoble them . . . with their personal merits and actions."

Assessor at the Criminal Court in St.

Petersburg

The impression has been created by Ryleev's contemporaries and endorsed uncritically by subsequent commentators that Ryleev resigned his commission expressly to work in the courts in St. Petersburg. We have seen that this is not the case. He received his discharge from the army in December 1818, having no clear idea of how he would earn his living, and was not elected to his post at the criminal court until 24 January 1821. The Decembrist, Prince E. P. Obolensky, for example, wrote: "From a desire to help unfortunate people in their legal proceedings, Ryleev changed his military career for a legal one in the Petersburg criminal court." 100 While the general mood of the statement may be true, strictly speaking there is nothing to substantiate the idea that Ryleev's transfer to the courts from the army was either as direct or as straightforward as Obolensky, among others, has suggested. A similar point of view is expressed by the Decembrist N. A. Bestuzhev in his reminiscences of Ryleev. He claims to have been present when Ryleev was saying good-by to his in Siberian exile, proudly eschewing amnesty. For these reasons, he is commonly referred to as the "First Decembrist." It was I. I. Pushchin who recruited Ryleev to the Decembrists' Northern Society while they were colleagues in the Petersburg law courts. See Chapter 3. " Zavalishin, Zapiski dekabrista, p. 162. 100 Obolenskii, "Vospominaniya," p. 22. ShteingeP expresses a similar view: see his "Zapiski," p. 411.

The Formative Years | 53

mother, who was returning to Batovo. According to Bestuzhev, Ryleev explained to his mother the reason for his leaving the army in the following terms: I served the Fatherland while it needed its citizens to serve in the army. But I had no wish to continue in the army when I saw that I should merely be serving the whims of an autocratic despot. I wanted to serve my fellow-men bet­ ter, chose the legal profession, and you gave me your bless­ ing. What awaited me in military service? Military glory perhaps, or ignominious death. But in our time, people are tired of military achievements and heroes' laurels, obtained not for the noble cause of suffering humanity, but for its oppression. . . . 1 0 1 Again, while this is perhaps a fair representation of Ryleev's mood, if not the mood of the times, it overlooks the motives for the change in his career, which had more to do with pragmatism than with worthy idealism. In the first place, Ry­ leev did not "choose" the legal profession. He was elected to the post of assessor at the Petersburg criminal court by his neighbors, the landed gentry of the Sofiisky district of the province. Moreover, his acceptance of the post was initially reluctant. On being nominated to it, he wrote to his wife that he had actually refused what he called "this base duty." 1 0 2 Yet Bestuzhev's account of Ryleev's apologia to his mother conveys quite a different impression: Should I have remained in military service? No, Mother, now that the age of civic courage (vek grazhdanskogo muzhestva) is upon us, I feel that my vocation is a higher one. I will shed my blood, but I will shed it for the freedom of the Fatherland, for the happiness of my compatriots; to seize the iron scepter from the hand of autocracy, to obtain 103 legal rights for oppressed mankind: these shall be my aims. 101 102 103

Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 10. pss, p. 456. Letter of 2 Dec. 1820. Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 10.

54 I The Formative Years

It is an attractive, highly colored picture of the impassioned poet speaking from his heart. "Never had I seen Ryleev so eloquent: his eyes gleamed, his face was suffused with an extraordinary and uncharacteristic glow," Bestuzhev re­ called.104 The memoirist had forgotten, or perhaps never knew, the reasons Ryleev himself wrote of at the time: his father-inlaw's stipulation, his feeling that he had served the tsar long enough and that in any case he was temperamentally and intellectually unsuited to the military life, and, of course, his financial preoccupations. Bestuzhev retrospectively ascribes to Ryleev a political position which at the time of his resignation was only in the process of evolving and which did not mature until some years later. His use of the term "civic courage" is a vivid illustration of this tendency: "Civic Courage" is the title of a poem written by Ryleev not until 1823. By this time he was indeed thinking in the terms Bestuzhev so graphically describes here; but this was some four years after his resig­ nation. Bestuzhev's recollections of Ryleev are a most important item in the extant biographical literature on Ryleev but need to be evaluated with care, precisely because of the author's tendency to idealize his subject. For this reason the assertion of Μ. K. Azadovsky, editor of the most recent edition of the Bestuzhevs' memoirs, that the work contains "no invented facts, no facts which did not in reality exist," appears to us to be too categorical. 105 Ryleev's election by the landed gentry of the Sofiisky district to be their representative in the post of assessor at the criminal court in Petersburg did, however, offer him an opportunity, denied him in his military service, to play a positive role in contemporary society. Here he would show, as A. Bestuzhev expressed it to the Investigating Commission, "that people can ennoble such positions" and would "provide an example of selflessness."106 1M

Ibid. Azadovskii, "Memuary Bestuzhevykh kak istoricheskii ι literaturnyi pamyatnik," p. 628. Azadovsky's emphasis. 10f Vd i. 444. 105

The Formative Years | 55

The criminal court (ugolovnaya palata) to which Ryleev was elected to serve was a criminal tribunal of the second instance. In this appellate instance the president and two of the assessors were elected by the nobility, while two further assessors were elected by the merchants. 1 0 7 It is not clear why Ryleev was nominated for the post or to what extent he so­ licited the nomination. His letter to his wife of December 1820, to which we have already referred, suggests that he was not enthusiastic about it. It may have been a case of buckpassing by Ryleev's neighbors, or it may have been, as Nikolai Bestuzhev assures us, that "his qualities compelled his neigh­ bors to elect him their representative in the criminal court of the Petersburg province." 1 0 8 Bestuzhev gave a similar testi­ monial to the Investigating Commission: "In spite of his low rank, Mr. Ryleev earned himself by dint of his dedication to his work at the criminal court an inalienable name for honesty and fairness." 1 0 9 At all events, Ryleev clearly discharged his responsibilities there most conscientiously. During his three years in the post, his sense of justice and lack of venality distinguished him in a field where such qualities were the exception rather than the rule. To be sure, the legal system at this time was in a state of considerable chaos. Not only was it pervaded by brib­ ery, but it was also hopelessly inefficient; it has been estimated that by 1825 there were around two million cases awaiting decision. 110 It is worth remarking that although at the time of his elec­ tion to the post he was not a member of the Decembrists' Union of Welfare, Ryleev was in effect putting into practice what the organization preached: the necessity of finding some positive way of serving society. And he was among the first so to implement the secret society's proposals. Indeed, mal­ administration in the courts was one of the areas specifically designated for urgent action in the directive contained in the 107

See Kucherov, Courts, Lawyers and Trials, p. 1. Bestuzhev "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 13. 10 » Vd ii. 67. 110 See Kucherov, Courts, Lawyers, and Trials, p. 3. 108

56 I The Formative Years Union of Welfare's program, the "Green Book." Particular emphasis was laid on this area of activity (pravosudie), which involved campaigning for justice, exposing abuse, and ac­ cepting legal appointments in order to do so. Those members of the society who actively participated in this way were called "monitors of justice provided by the Union" (ot Soyuza postavlennye blyustiteli spravedlivosti).nx With his election to the Petersburg criminal court, Ryleev, albeit unknowingly, had joined their ranks. Nikolai Bestuzhev provides a vivid illustration of the rep­ utation for fairness Ryleev enjoyed among local people: His compassion for mankind, his impartiality, his ardent sense of justice, his indefatigable defense of truth made him well known in the capital. Among simple folk his name and honesty became proverbial. On one occasion an artisan was arrested . . . and brought before Miloradovich, the military governor at that time. . . . The man was innocent and had no wish to take responsibility for a crime he had not com­ mitted. Eventually, tiring of his denials, Miloradovich de­ clared that he intended to hand him over to the criminal court, knowing how reluctantly simple Russian people en­ trust themselves to the courts. He thought that from fear of the court the man would tell him the truth, but instead of that he fell at his feet in tears and thanked him for his mercy. "What mercy have I shown you?" the governor asked. "You have handed me over to the court," the artisan replied, "and now I know I shall be rid of all my torment and chains. I know I shall be vindicated. Ryleev is there, and he does not let innocent men perish!" "This episode," Bestuzhev reasonably concludes, "gives us a better understanding of this man's actions than any eu­ 112 logy." While there is no evidence to corroborate the details of this incident, it fairly represents Ryleev's unusual reputa111

Nechkina, Dvizhenie dekabristov, i. 200. A. Bestuzhev told the Inves­ tigating Commission that Ryleev had been thefirstto raise the idea of serving in the courts. (Vd i. 444.) 112 Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 13.

The Formative Years | 57 tion. Even N. I. Grech, who, as we have already indicated, sought in his memoirs to denigrate the Decembrists and re­ served particularly acidulous comments for Ryleev, felt con­ strained to admit that in the courts he "served zealously and honestly, trying in every way to alleviate the fate of those in the dock, especially of simple, defenseless people." 1 1 3 The case of Count Razumovsky's serfs, which came before the Petersburg criminal court in November 1821, is an illu­ minating example of Ryleev's tenacity and the unshakeable certainty with which he adhered to his convictions—a char­ acteristic noted by A. I. Kosovsky in his recollections of him. It also provides a clear indication of Ryleev's attitude to the defenseless and indefensible position which was the lot of the serfs. Nikolai Bestuzhev thought the case too well known to go into in detail: I shall say nothing about the celebrated affair of Count Razumovsky and his serfs. . . . The Emperor, grandees, the authorities, the courts . . . all were against (them). Ryleev alone took the side of the oppressed, and his stand will serve as an eternal memorial to truth and as testimony to the courage with which Ryleev spoke the truth. 1 1 4 Precisely what it was that Ryleev did to earn such an ovation from Bestuzhev long remained unclear, in spite of the latter's feeling that it was a cause celebre. However, work done by I. I. Ignatovich in the 1950s on the peasant movement has provided us with a fuller picture of Ryleev's role in what took 115 place. Ignatovich draws from a manuscript in IRLI {Pushkinskii Dom) entitled "An Account of the Affair of Count Razu­ movsky's Peasants and the View of K. F. Ryleev," with com­ ments by P. A. Efremov, editor of the first legal edition of Ryleev to be published in Russia (1872). The author of the 113

Grech, Zapiski ο moei zhtzni, p. 442. Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," pp. 13-14. 115 Ignatovich, "Ryleev ν 'dele' ο volnenii krepostnykh krest'yan Grafa Razumovskogo," LN lix. 289-99. 114

58 I The Formative Years article is not known. 1 1 6 Briefly, the facts of the "affair" are these: In the summer of 1821, on the estate of K. G. Razumovsky in the Oranienbaum district, the peasants rose against their prolonged and intolerable ill-treatment. Razumovsky's bailiff ordered those involved to be flogged. Their pleas to the count were ignored, so they retaliated by working as little as possible and by holding unlawful assemblies. The count called in troops, and arrests were made. But the unrest had spread to neighboring estates; there was a call to go to the tsar with their grievances, and an attempt was made by two hundred peasants to release the arrested. The Petersburg criminal court first heard the case on 16 and 17 November 1821. The case dragged on into the New Year, when five peasants were sen­ tenced to the knout and terms of forced labor. Similar pun­ ishments were meted out to the others. As an assessor of the court, Ryleev had to endorse the sentence with his signature, but in doing so he pointed out in a memorandum of March 1822, which was published in the Zhurnal Komiteta Ministrov of 11 April 1822, that: As the case against the defendants is based solely on the testimony of Count Razumovsky's bailiff and on the sup­ positions of the chief-of-police, and as neither cause for the rebellion . . . nor proof of the culprits nor of their ringlead­ ers clearly emerge from the testimony of the accused, Court Assessor Ryleev finds he cannot proceed to an indictment 17 of any one of the accused.^ In effect, Ryleev here dissociated himself in clear terms from what Ignatovich has aptly characterized "a crude reprisal against the peasants, executed without due observance even of the existing laws." 116 Ibid., p. 299, "Izlozhenie dela ο krest'yanakh Gr. Razumovskogo ι mnenie K. F. Ryleeva." Further information is contained in S. Seredonin, Istoricheskii obzor deyatel'nosti komiteta ministrov, St. Petersburg, 1902, i. 343-47. On Efremov, see Chapter 10. 117 Ignatovich, "Ryleev ν 'dele' ο volnenii krepostnykh krest'yan Grafa Razumovskogo," p. 297. Editor's italics.

The Formative Years | 59

Nor was this the only occasion on which Ryleev adhered to his principles. A similar memorandum relating to the same case of peasant rebellion was published in the Zhurnal Komiteta Ministrov of 22 April 1822. In it Ryleev recommended that a government official should be sent to the Razumovsky estate to investigate the state of affairs there. He suggested that the peasants had been victims not merely of the bailiff but rather of the established regulations and with a sure sense of irony demanded that the official should therefore find out whether there was anything "burdensome in these regulations, which have long been in force in the management of es­ tates." 1 1 8 This was, for the time, a bold step. Ryleev, in his capacity as assessor, presumed to question what, since the shelved reform projects of Speransky and Novosiltsev, had remained by and large unquestioned and unquestionable: the position of the serf vis-a-vis his owner. Ryleev's memoranda were voted out of court and the sen­ tences executed. 1 1 9 Thus, when M. V. Nechkina blandly states that "Ryleev won the case of Razumovsky's peasants against the landlord," she is indulging in wishful thinking at the ex­ pense of existing evidence to the contrary. 1 2 0 Ryleev could hardly have expected that his opinions, however equitable, would win the day. In view of this, to admit his lack of effective success in this case is not to detract from the courage of his stand nor from his acute sense of justice. This was a highly developed characteristic. Later, in a letter to Alexander Push­ kin, Ryleev wrote: "Justice should be the basis of our actions 121 and of our very desires." In spite of Ryleev's hard work in the courts and his out­ standing reputation, he had no illusions about the consequent effectiveness of his efforts. In a poem addressed to A. A. Bestuzhev in 1821, he referred to himself, a poet, sitting like a "toiler" (truzhenik) at court: 118 119 120

121

Ibid., p. 298. Tseitlin, Tvorcbestvo Ryleeva, p. 289, n. 53. Nechkina, Griboedov ι dekabristy, p. 272. pss, p. 497. Letter of Nov. 1825.

60 I The Formative Years ΗΤ06 CBOH HCnOJIHHTh ΛΟΠΓ CBHTOH, 3a6bm Η Hery, Η ΠΟΚΟΗ . . . Ho TmeTHM Bee ero nopbiBw: yKopeHHBuieeca 3Jio Ceoe npe3peHHoe nejio npeBtiuie npaeflbi B03Hecjio.122 In fulfillment of his sacred duty,/He foreswore all comfort and repose. . . . /But all his efforts are in vain:/Deep-rooted Evil/Has raised his accursed brow/Higher t h a n T r u t h . Indeed, t o maintain a standard of honesty amid such allpervasive bribery a n d corruption was n o easy task, and from the south, where he was spending his first spell of leave from the post, Ryleev w r o t e t o Faddei Bulgarin: " I t makes me shud­ der t o think that, a p a r t from a host of various worries, there awaits me in the capital the t o r t u o u s chicanery of t h a t inde­ fatigable a n d insatiable breed of clerks (rod prikaznykh)."123 H e consoled himself with the t h o u g h t t h a t if officials were bad in Petersburg, they were even worse in the provinces. The letter continues: You have experienced their unscrupulous greed in Peters­ burg, b u t in the capitals officials are in some ways still b e a r a b l e . . . . If you could see them in the Russian provinces! These are the real bloodsuckers, and I am sure t h a t neither the rapacious T a t a r hordes at the time of their invasions, n o r your long-enlightened compatriots during the fearful interregnum, b r o u g h t as much evil to Russia as these rabid monsters.124 This sense of frustration in his w o r k was n o d o u b t one of the factors behind his resignation in spring 1824 and his entry 122

Ibid., p. 117. "A. A. Bestuzhevu." Ibid., p. 458. Letter of 8 Aug. 1821 from Podgornoe, the home of his wife's family. 124 Ibid., p. 459. Ryleev's correspondent, Faddei Bulgarin, was a Pole by descent. Ryleev was referring to the Polish occupation of Moscow during the Time of Troubles early in the seventeenth century. 123

The Formative Years | 61 into the world of commerce. In a letter of 15 March to Κ. K. Rodofinikin, a member of the electoral committee, Ryleev indicated his unwillingness to stand for reelection to a second three-year term of office and accordingly requested that his name be removed from the list of nominees. 125 In spite of his evident disenchantment with the functioning of the criminal court, his experience oi government administration and his reactions to it evidently played a vital role in the development and definition of his political point of view.

Manager

of the Russian-American

Company

The grounds that Ryleev gave Rodofinikin for relinquishing his post at the Petersburg criminal court were illness and im­ pending absence from the capital for an indefinite period "for family reasons." 1 2 6 However, the real reason is more likely to have been his feeling that he could no longer assist the tsarist administration in the dispensation of its justice, particularly as he was at this time playing a very active role in the Northern Society, with which he had by now been associated for about a year. One can appreciate that the duality of his situation must have been a considerable strain for him—not least in view of his increasingly important literary preoccupations and his responsibilities from 1823 onward as coeditor of the Polar Star. Besides, the prospect of a lucrative and responsible job as office manager {pravitel' kantselyarii) at the headquarters of the prestigious Russian-American Company, offered to him moreover by one of the most popular liberal figures of the day and the official patron of the company, Admiral N. S. Mordvinov, was clearly not one to be refused. The tactical advantages of acquaintance with such a figure in government circles were potentially enormous, as Ryleev clearly realized. In a deposition to the Investigating Commission he wrote: 125 126

Mordovchenko, "Pis'ma K. F. Ryleeva," p. 5. Ibid.

62 I The Formative Years I became acquainted with Mordvinov at his own request and went to see him with F. N. Glinka. The reason for the visit was an ode I had written in which I mentioned him. Some time afterward he offered me a place with the Amer­ ican Company as Manager, which I received at the begin­ ning of last year. 1 2 7 Financially, the appointment stood him in good stead. He became a shareholder, receiving from the company ten shares each, with a nominal value of 500 roubles in banknotes. 1 2 8 By this time he had two children to support, and when his mother died in June 1824 the increased salary which he had been earning since earlier that year helped him to take on the additional burden of her debts. Ryleev's work here differed considerably from his last job at the criminal court. Whereas in the latter Ryleev had found some outlet for his social idealism, the very nature of the company's work would seem to have deprived him of similar satisfaction. But he applied himself to his new post with the strength of purpose which had characterized his three years' work at the courts, in spite of the fact that much of his energy was now directed toward the running and organization of the Northern Society. In any case, his philanthropic activities did not cease with his resignation from the courts. In his memoirs, A. E. Rozen recalled how Ryleev would go to the local gov­ ernment offices whenever he could find free time from his duties at the Russian-American headquarters, and thus be­ came generally well known for "the assistance he gave those who were "illiterate, impoverished, and down-trodden" in their dealings with officialdom.129 A passage from the memoirs of another Decembrist, D. I. Zavalishin, who also worked with the company, provides a clue to Ryleev's apparently enthusiastic involvement in its affairs. Zavalishin explained 127

Vd ι. 155. The ode in question was Civic Courage, discussed in Chapter 5 below. Its publication was suppressed by the Petersburg Censorship Com­ mittee and was first published in Herzen's Polar Star li (1856), 27-29. 128 Okun', Rossitsko-amerikanskaya kompaniya, p. 103. 129 Rozen, Zaptskt dekabrista, p. 131.

The Formative Years | 63 that it was the only commercial enterprise which introduced into its meetings some measure of "freedom and equality." The freedom took the form of wide-ranging and frequently political discussion in which all were at liberty to participate, while equality made itself felt in the fact that it was not rank or social status which gave one the right to vote, but the number of shares held, so that the "merchant was on the same footing as the important courtier or the celebrated gran­ dee." 1 3 0 The democratic character of this atmosphere and the opportunities it provided for informal and lively discussion certainly would have constituted an irresistible appeal for Ry­ leev. The activity of the company consisted in the direction, on behalf of the government, of Russian settlements and trading interests in North America, which had been established during Catherine's reign. One of these settlements, Fort Ross, was due to be ceded to North America. It was in California, in an area rich with gold deposits and, as E. P. Obolensky recalled, Ryleev was not happy at the prospect of Russia's losing what "might have become a strong base from which we would have been able to participate in the rich gold discoveries which were subsequently to become so famous." 1 3 1 Commenting on this, Professor Okun has remarked that while Ryleev was indeed very disturbed by this prospect, what he actually feared more was that the ratification of the convention with North America would deal a heavy blow to the operations of the company as a whole. 1 3 2 It is precisely this jealous concern for the company's standing which finds further reflection in Ryleev's memorandum: "On Prohibiting Foreign Merchants from Engaging in Trade in Territory Controlled by the RussianAmerican Company." 1 3 3 In this caveat, addressed in all prob130

Zavalishin, Zapiski dekabrista, p. 89. Obolenskn, "Vospominaniya," p. 23. 132 Okun', Rosstisko-amerikanskaya kompantya, p. 85. Fort Ross in fact remained a Russian possession until 1841, after which it was sold to an American trading company. 133 "Zapiska ο nedopushchenii inostrannykh kuptsov k zanyatiyu promyslami na territom, upravlyavsheisya rossiisko-amerikanskoi kompaniei," 131

64

I The Formative

Years

ability to Count E. F. Kankrin, Minister of Finance, Ryleev made an urgent appeal for steps to be taken to preempt the likely effects on the company of failure to safeguard its in­ terests: "The Directors have the honor to inform Your Ex­ cellency that the concession to any foreign nation of the right to fish in the waters off the coasts of our colonies, even if only for a limited period . . . would shake the Company to its very foundations." Clearly a zealous supporter of the company's activities, Ry­ leev was not satisfied that the government shared his enthu­ siasm actively enough. Thus when V. M. Golovnin, the cel­ ebrated navigator, was appointed to the board of the company, Ryleev wrote to Baron Shteingel expressing his pleasure: " I am very glad that he has been appointed. I know he is stubborn and that he likes to show how smart he is, but then he is firm in his attitude toward the government, and in the situation which the Company finds itself today, that is a necessary asset." 1 3 4 Evidence of Ryleev's standing in the company is provided by Orest Somov, a man of letters and a company colleague of Ryleev's, who wrote to him in Ostrogozhsk: "Both our directors . . . are constantly asking about you and are looking forward to your return." 1 3 5 Against this, Grech records that I. V. Prokofiev, one of the two directors referred to by Somov, said of Ryleev: " H e worked zealously and to great effect at first, but then, befuddled by liberal dreams, lost interest in his work and became apathetic toward his duties." 1 3 6 Even supLN lix. 166-68. Cf. "KhronikaPnye zametki," Vop.tst., iv (1972), 175-76, which reports the recent discovery of this, or similar, petition signed by Ryleev. 134 pss, p. 491. 135 pss (ed. Balitskii), ii. 172. Letter of 25 Nov. 1824. 136 Grech, Zapiski ο moei zhizni, p. 442. D. I. Zavahshin echoed Grech's comments, adding that in spite of the directors' "frequent complaints about Ryleev, nothing could be done to replace him since he enjoyed the patronage of Mordvinov." Like Grech, Zavahshin lost few opportunities to denigrate Ryleev after December 1825. See D. I. Zavahshin, "Vospominaniya ο Gnboedova," A. S. Griboedov, ego zhizn' igibel' ν memuarakh sovremennikov, ed. Davydov, p. 79.

The Formative Years I 65

posing that Grech reported Prokofiev's words accurately, his representation of them is still lent no support by the existing evidence. For example, as late as February 1825, Ryleev wrote to his wife that he was "terribly busy with the affairs of the company." 137 Ryleev's friendship with the director Prokofiev, the interest shown in him by the company's patron, Mordvinov, its concern for his family after his arrest—all this suggests that Ryleev was in good standing with the company. Nearly a year after his appointment and at the height of his involvement with the Northern Society, he was still taking an interest in the fortunes of the company, displaying few signs of that "apathy toward his duties" which Grech speaks of. On 14 February 1825 Ryleev presented a petition to the Petersburg censorship committee, requesting a ban of the publication of any information about the Russian settlements in America without the prior permission of the Company. The formal excuse for this request was the publication in The Northern Bee of a rather innocuous and brief description of Novoarkhangelsk, a Russian settlement in Alaska which had been established in 1804. Ryleev explained in his memorandum to the censorship committee that unauthorized and inaccurate reporting of company affairs would be prejudicial to its operations in North America and might lead to the "secrets of the Company being revealed."138 It seems ironic indeed that he should have had recourse to an institution which he would gladly have seen abolished and which on several occasions had suppressed his own work. But Ryleev made the request on the company's behalf because it was anxious to avoid the publication of any harmful rumors at a time when it was trying to keep from its shareholders the fact that its fortunes were at a low ebb. Their suspicions in any case must have been running high since they had not received any dividend since 1821. Not surprisingly perhaps, the shareholders' general meeting of 18 March 1825 was, in the words of Ryleev, who took the minutes, "very rowdy and unreasonable 137 138

pss, p. 484. Letter of 20 Feb. 1825. Okun', Rossiisko-amerikanskaya kompaniya, pp. 67-68.

66 I The Formative Years as usual." The problem was, as he explained in a letter to Baron Shteingel, that the company accounts were still unsigned due to the reluctance of the American member of the board of directors, Benedict Cramer, to appear at the meeting to discuss them. In the event, Cramer obligingly resigned; an investigation commission headed by V. M. Golovnin cleared most of the management of alleged incompetence, while the sought-for censors' embargo helped prevent a scandal breaking, with the result that the prestige of the company remained more or less intact. 139 It had good reason to be grateful to Ryleev and, as E. P. Obolensky recalled in his memoirs, a way was found of showing it: "A year after his appointment the management expessed its gratitude to him by presenting him with an expensive raccoon-skin coat, valued at that time at seven hundred roubles." 140 Another Decembrist, Vladimir Romanov, who worked with the company for three years, also bears witness in his depositions to the Investigating Commission to Ryleev's energetic activity as manager. Romanov had drawn up a project for exploring the northwest of Alaska, which Ryleev was enthusiastic about: He saw in its fulfillment not only prestige for Russia in being the first to explore that region, for no European had hitherto set foot there, but also the value which would come from contact with the Hudson Bay Company, resulting perhaps in the opening of a new branch of commerce. Ryleev offered to try to secure the Directors' agreement to send me there. 141 These indications of Ryleev's involvement and interest in the Russian-American Company lend no support to N. Kotlyarevsky's suggestion that Ryleev was responsible for the '"tedious secretarial part of the company's work." 142 139 pss, pp. 490-91. Cf. H. Chevigny, The Russian-American Company, pp. 186-187. 140 Obolenskii, "Vospominaniya," p. 23. 141 Snytko, "Ryleev na sledstvii," LN lix. 230. Testimony of V. P. Romanov. 142 Kotlyarevskii, Ryleev, p. 49.

The Formative

Years

| 67

As we have indicated, the company did not desert or disown its manager after his arrest. Following Prokofiev's advice, Ryleev's wife returned to the company the beaver collar from the fur coat and the shares she had in her possession. The company paid debts on his behalf amounting to 3,500 roubles and cancelled its former employee's personal debt of some 3,000 roubles. "I am greatly obliged to them," Ryleev's wife wrote to him nearly five months after his arrest and imprisonment. "They have not bothered me all this time about the apartment; I am still living in it, just as when you were here with me, my dear." 143 As we have seen, Ryleev was not the only Decembrist to have close connections with the Russian-American Company and through it with government circles. More will be said in a later chapter about the connections between the company and the Northern Society.

Ryleev and Freemasonry Ryleev's education did not cease on leaving the First Cadet Corps in 1814. He continued in the army on his own initiative to study and read widely. His contact with stimulating and educated people during his work in the courts and residence in Petersburg made him all the more determined to compensate for the gaps in his education. Among his acquaintances were the eminent historiographer, P. M. Stroev, who supplied Ryleev with historical notes for his "Dumy," and the distinguished Petersburg University professor, M. G. Plisov, who frequently called on Ryleev and led a small informal group in discussions on political economy.144 Ryleev referred to his 143 pss (ed. Bahtskn), u. 136. Letter of 8 May 1826. Prior to his arrest, Ryleev had been living in the company's house. 144 Kropotov, p. 237. P. M. Stroev (1796-1876) pioneered the systematic collecting and classifying of ancient and medieval documents which, scattered throughout Russian museums and libraries, might otherwise well have been lost to succeeding generations of historians. He had nothing in common with Ryleev politically. (V. Stroev, Russkii biograficheskii slovar', St. Petersburg, 1909, xix. 532-36.)

68 I The Formative Years

acquaintance with academic circles in a letter to his wife. Suggesting that his brother-in-law should complete his edu­ cation in Petersburg, Ryleev wrote: "He can study even better here in Petersburg, under my supervision and through my acquaintanceship with the best professors."145 A continual process of self-education, compensating for the narrowness of official education and stimulated by the wider horizons of Western political and intellectual experience, the organization of unofficial study groups, a serious attitude to committed intellectual enquiry—these were trends characteristic of the time. And they were peculiar to Ryleev and to those of his generation who shared a similar curiosity and whose collective imagination was fired by their common experience. The lamentable state of education at this time cannot be unconnected with the increase in popularity of freemasonry— particularly in Petersburg. Ryleev himself became a member of a masonic lodge, for, as Sirotinin has observed, "the op­ portunity for study combined with such enlightened ideas as the propagation of moral understanding among the people could not have failed to attract him." 1 4 6 One of Ryleev's early actions on coming to live in Petersburg was to join a masonic lodge. Officer of the Guard Ryleev appears on the list of membership of lodge No. 9 of the Union of Astrei, "The Flaming Star" (Zum flammenden Stern) from 1820-1821, among the brothers of the First Degree (brat'ya pervoi stepeni). The master of the lodge was Baron Andrei M. G. Plisov (1783-1853) received his education at Petersburg Pedagogical Institute and at the Universities of Gottingen and Heidelberg, where he spe­ cialized in political and legal sciences. In 1820 he became professor of political economy in Petersburg University and was set for a brilliant academic career. But it was abruptly cut short when, in 1821, he refused to associate himself with the purge of the university's professorate, as had been required of him. From 1822 he occupied various government posts in the area of finance and law. (I. Davydovich, Russkii biograficheskii slovar', St. Petersburg, 1905, pp. 122-24.) 145 pss, p. 482. Letter of 10 Feb. 1825. Nikitenko also records Ryleev's reference to his acquaintances in the "academic world" (Nikitenko, Moya povest' ο samom sebe, ι. 126). 146 Sirotinin, p. 136.

The Formative

Years

I 69

147

Korf. Kropotov records that all its fifty-two members were of German descent, with just three exceptions, including Ryleev himself. The lodge's records show that its meetings were held in German (arbeitet in Deutscher Sprache).14* This latter fact substantiates Ryleev's claim, disputed by the indefatigable Grech, that he could speak German.149 It is not clear who invited Ryleev to join the lodge or why he elected to join a "German" one. Having visited France and been excited by it, and being a man who set some store in an ability to speak French,150 he would have opted, one would suppose, for a French-speaking lodge, of which there were a number in Petersburg. One simple explanation for Ryleev's choice is that German-speaking lodges in Petersburg were in preponderance. Thus, of the twenty-five lodges of the Union of Astrei (twenty of which were in Petersburg), eight used German; five, Russian; four, French; and one, Polish. The remainder used combinations of two or more of these languages.151 Unfortunately, Kropotov offers no indication of the nature of Ryleev's masonic activity, although his reference to Ryleev's membership contains the emphatic assertion that he played an active role in the affairs of the lodge, "affairs which might have compromised many in the eyes of the government."152 This claim Kropotov bases on the fact that at the time of his arrest Ryleev asked his wife to destroy the masonic papers lying in his study. On this basis, too, another commentator has taken the view that Ryleev must have maintained links with the lodge up until his arrest.153 This supposition takes 147 Pypin, Obshchestvennoe dvizhenie pri Aleksandre I, p. 337; Semevskii, "Dekabristy-masony," Minuvshie gody, ui. 145. 148 Kropotov, p. 236. 149 Vd i. 151. It is conceivable that Ryleev had acquired some German from his mother, who, to judge by her maiden name (Essen), was of German descent. 150 As evidenced, for example, in his comment on Natalia Tevyasheva's "defect"; noted earlier in this chapter (cf. n. 74). 151 Semevskii, "Dekabristy-masony," Minuvshie gody, in. 128. 152 Kropotov, p. 236. 153 Chulkov, Myatezhniki 1825 goda, p. 61.

70 I The Formative Years

no account of the closing of the masonic lodges and the banning of all such secret societies by Alexander in August 1822: there is no evidence to suggest that the lodge continued to exist illegally after this date. It is further maintained that Ryleev, in a natural and uninterrupted transition, left the "theoretical training-ground" of the masonic lodge to put what he had acquired there into "living practical application" as a member of the Northern Society.154 In fact, Ryleev did not become a member until 1823. The question arises as to why Ryleev, as so many of his generation, became a member of a masonic lodge. Ryleev was, after all, only one of over 1,300 members of the twenty lodges of the Astrei Union in 1820. 155 The answer must take some account of the development of freemasonry in Russia at the time.156 Many officers returning from Western Europe after the Napoleonic Wars saw in the secrecy of freemasonry a refuge from the banality of life in their home country. Some hoped to take advantage of the secrecy to express ideas to like-minded members which could not be voiced with impunity outside the confines of the masonic lodges. One contemporary wrote in his memoirs that "in the stifling atmosphere of the Arakcheev era . . . the lodges were, so to speak, neutral territory, oases amidst the general official stagnation. In them everyone could be himself, could breathe and express himself freely. . . ." 157 Many educated people, as exemplified by Tolstoy's Pierre Bezukhov, were also attracted by the mysticism of freemasonry. In reality, however, the majority of these lodges were considerably more conservative than had been anticipated, and many who had cherished illusions such as those 154

Ibid., p. 62. Semevskii, "Dekabristy-masony," Minuvshie gody, lii. 127. The figures for St. Petersburg at this time were 755 masons in 8 lodges. 156 While this subject has not been fully researched, the most complete survey is provided by V. I. Semevsky in a series of articles devoted to the Decembrists' masonic links, entitled "Dekabristy-masony" (cf. bibliography for location). Chs. vii-xiii of this study are included in Ch. 3 of his Pohticheskie i obshchestvennye idei dekabristov. See also Pypin's valuable study, Russkoe masonstvo; XVIII i pervaya chetverf XIX veka. 137 Przhetslavskii, "Zapiski," p. 466. 155

The Formative Years | 71

outlined above were quickly disappointed and resigned their membership. Ryleev himself was a member for only one year. One reason for the misplaced hopes in Russian freemasonry was that many Russians, including future Decembrists, had become masons while abroad and had hence assumed that Russian lodges would share the liberal tendencies of many of those in Europe. This discrepancy was also noticed in conservative quarters, where there was concern to see that the political differential was maintained. Thus, in a report dated February 1816 to Field Marshal Barclay de Tolly, General Dibich expressed his misgivings at Alexander's apparent "tolerance and patronage" of secret societies, and warned that a "very significant number of Russian officers and officials" were assimilating dangerously liberal ideas from contact with European lodges, such as one he had heard expressed by a certain staff officer to the effect that "emperors, kings and princes were no longer necessary."158 However, in Russia itself at this time the situation was very different. To judge from the basic code of the Union of Astrei, established in 1815, the political orthodoxy of the lodges could hardly be doubted: A mason should be a humble and loyal subject of his Emperor and Fatherland. He should obey the civil laws and fulfill them implicitly. He should take no part in any secret enterprise which might be harmful to the Fatherland or the Emperor. . . . Every mason is obliged, should the existence of any such enterprise come to his notice, to inform the government immediately, as the laws require.159 Moreover, the Russian lodges worked in close cooperation with the government. Lodges were established with its full knowledge, effectively with its permission. Thus the grand master of the Union of Astrei, Count Musin-Pushkin requested S. K. Vyazmitinov, the chief of the Petersburg police, 158

Semevskii, "Dekabristy-masony," Mmuvshie gody, li. 23-24. From Zakony velikoi lozhi "Astrei," St. Petersburg, 1815, quoted in Bazanov, Vol'noe obshchestvo lyubitelet rosstiskoi slovesnosh, p. 86. 159

72 I The Formative Years not to allow lodges to exist outside his own masonic organ­ ization. 1 6 0 For all its ostensible loyalty, freemasonry was viewed by the government rather less than positively. It is clear from a letter of January 1819 from Musin-Pushkin to Vyazmitinov that the apparent cessation of government approval had caused large numbers of perturbed "loyalists" to leave the lodges: "Many of the best members are leaving the lodges because they feel that freemasonry is suspected and scorned by the government." He assured his correspondent that "freema­ sonry makes people most loyal citizens." 1 6 1 The grand master was probably somewhat taken back to learn, in a revealing reply, that the police considered the lodges to be "more like clubs than any kind of moral gatherings." 1 6 2 This view con­ tained perhaps more than a grain of truth. To join a masonic lodge was undoubtedly a fashionable thing to do, as Prince Trubetskoi remarked to the Investigating Commission. 163 Like many other future Decembrists, Ryleev was deceived. Like Ryleev, many were members for only a short time— Pestel's five-year membership (1812-1817) was exceptional. The hopeful progressives' rush to join the lodges brought about some unlikely acquaintanceships. Thus P. I. Pestel, A. S. Griboedov, P. Ya. Chaadaev, and A. Kh. Benckendorff were all members of the same lodge, "United Friends." Indeed, the membership of the lodges was very mixed, as A. N. Pypin has noted: In the lodges, people of most diverse character came to­ gether: proponents of biblical mysticism, gloomy obscu­ rantists from the ranks of old masons and their pupils, inoffensive philanthropists, representatives of liberalism, and people oi the most dubious professions: actual or wouldbe agents and spies. 164 160

Mel'gunov, Dela i lyudi aleksandrovskogo vremeni, p. 257. Semevskii, "Dekabristy-masony," Minuvshte gody, ii. 28-29. 162 Ibid., p. 31. 163 Vd ι. 23. Trubetskoi himself rejected A. Muraviev's suggestion that he should join a masonic lodge. 164 Pypin, Obshcbestvennoe dvizbenie ν Rossii prt Aleksandre I, p. 339. 161

The Formative

Years

| 73

The social complexion of the lodges was fairly broadly based. One contemporary observer, the historian Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky, wrote that after 1815, "celebrated members of high society (znatnye lyudi) rarely became masons. The lodges were usually full of middle-class people, officers, officials, very occasionally merchants, but most of all literary figures."165 It is most probably in this literary connection that Ryleev found himself a member of a masonic lodge. Ryleev's masonic period coincided with his early days in Petersburg and with his first efforts to become established in literary circles. Among literary figures who were masons and friends of Ryleev were Kyukhelbeker and Glinka. It is well known that many future Decembrists were at some time masons. Semevsky has estimated that of those brought to trial in connection with the Decembrist uprising, fifty-one .had been members of lodges, while as many as one in five of those actually convicted were former masons. Ten members of the lodge "The Three Virtues" (Tri dobrodeteli) became members of the first secret society (the Union of Salvation) between 1816 and 1817. 166 A number of Decembrists admitted to the Investigating Commission that they hoped to use the lodges as a cover for their own activities. And it is clear that there was a certain amount they could learn—as one commentator put it, "many of the future Decembrists went through masonic school (proshli masonskuyu shkolu)."167 So, for example, masons were exhorted to maintain absolute, conspiratorial secrecy: "Brothers should be cautious in their conversations and actions, so that not even the most observant outsider should discover what he should not." 168 In addition, the Decembrists made use of such masonic attributes as oathtaking and initiation rites in their own secret societies. It has 165

Quoted in Mel'gunov, Dela i lyudi aleksandrovskogo vremeni, p. 263, my emphasis. 166 Semevskii, Polittcheskie i obshchestvennye idei dekabrtstov, pp. 28990. The connections of the lodge "Izbrannyi Mikhail" with the Union of Welfare are considered in Bazanov, Vol'noe obshchestvo lyubitelei rossiiskot slovesnostt, pp. 77-100. 167 Mel'gunov, Dela i lyudi aleksandrovskogo vremeni, p. 264. 168 Quoted in Tseitlin, Tvorchestvo Ryleeva, p. 53.

74 I The Formative Years

been suggested that Ryleev's membership in a masonic lodge may have contributed to the development of his social aware­ ness and political consciousness. 169 But there were certain as­ pects of masonry, such as its essential conservatism, its ritual and the taking oi vows, with which Ryleev was out of sym­ pathy. Certainly, by the beginning of 1821 he had tired of this "game for grown-up children" (igra bol'shikh detei).170 For by this time, as we have seen, he was concerned with matters much nearer reality in his post of court assessor. Ryleev's brief membership of a masonic lodge appears to have made no great impression on him, apart from giving him a foretaste of the conspiratorial life that lay ahead. He joined for a variety of reasons: partly because it was unquestionably the fashionable thing to do, partly in the mistaken belief that within the walls of the lodge he might be able to give shape to his progressive outlook in discussions with people who shared it, and partly because it undoubtedly provided him with an opportunity to become acquainted with members of Petersburg's literary circles. Nikita Muraviev's biographer, commenting on the role of freemasonry in the Decembrists' political development, has written: The political ideas of the time did not find direct expression in the activity of the masonic organizations, but partici­ pation in the various lodges of the Union of Astrei served as a preparatory school for the future activists of the po­ 171 litical movement. It is precisely in these terms that Ryleev's masonic experience may best be understood. Such, then, was the state of Ryleev's political and social experience on the eve of his membership in the Decembrist secret society in Petersburg. 169 Pigarev, Zhizn' Ryleeva, p. 50. 170 Mel'gunov, Dela ι lyudi aleksandrovskogo vremem, p. 259. The phrase is Melgunov's, not Ryleev's. 171 Druzhinin, Dekabrist Nikita Murav'ev, p. 57.

3

Political Perspectives of the Decembrist

Recruitment Ryleev was recruited to the Decembrists' Northern Society by 1.1. Pushchin, as both men testified in their depositions to the Investigating Commission. 1 Like Ryleev, Pushchin resigned his commission (in January 1823) and at first worked alongside him in the Petersburg courts, having "exchanged the uniform of the Horse Artillery for modest civil service." Obolensky recalled that Pushchin, again like Ryleev, hoped to be of gen­ uine usefulness in his new career and to encourage other mem­ bers of the nobility to discard their "illustrious epaulettes" in favor of a lower status but real responsibility. Ryleev and Pushchin became close friends, and it was while they were colleagues that the former was recruited to the Decembrist secret society by the latter. 2 So much is certain. However, the precise dating of Ryleev's initial membership is a question 1

Vd i. 153 (Ryleev); Vd ii. 210 (Pushchin). The editor of Pushchin's Zapiski, S. Ya. Shtraikh, considers it more likely that as Pushchin was already a member, he would have heard about Ryleev when the latter first made an impact on Petersburg society with the publication in 1820 of his celebrated satirical ode "To the Favorite" implicitly attacking Arakcheev, and would therefore have been acquainted with him long before 1823. If this were so, Shtraikh concludes, then Pushchin may well have followed a legal career at Ryleev's suggestion. This certainly was the un­ equivocal view of Alexander Bestuzhev. See Shtraikh, "Predislovie," Zapiski ο Pushkine, Pts'ma, pp. 16-17; Vd i. 444; Obolenskii, "Vospominaniya," p. 22. 2

76 I Political Perspectives

which has not been satisfactorily resolved in the historiography of the Decembrist movement. The author of the confusion is Ryleev himself. It is important to establish the date as precisely as possible, not only for the historical record, but also because it is clearly an event of signal importance both in Ryleev's own career and in the fortunes of the Northern Society. In a letter to the new emperor, Nicholas I, written two days after his arrest, Ryleev wrote: "I joined the society about two years ago through Ivan Ivanovich Pushchin, who at that time served with me in the St. Petersburg criminal courts." 3 This would suggest that he became a member in the winter of 1823. However, later in his depositions, in April 1826, Ryleev stated— this time in response to the specific question: "When precisely did you become a member of the secret society?"—that he had joined "at the beginning of 1823." 4 The important distinction between these conflicting statements is that on 16 December 1825, Ryleev, still shaken by his arrest and the failure of the uprising, was volunteering information, whereas in April 1826 he was giving precise answers to specific questions. At any rate, more credence was given to Ryleev's second statement by the Investigating Commission itself. Borovkov, in his written summing up of the case against Ryleev on behalf of the Commission, stated that Ryleev "was accepted to the society at the beginning of 1823 by Collegiate Assessor Pushchin." 5 It must be said that this view has not always been shared by subsequent commentators. A. G. Tseitlin, for example, expressed the opinion that Ryleev was recruited by Pushchin in October 1823. The same date is given in the chapter on Ryleev in the Academy of Sciences' History of Russian Literature.6 K. Pigarev noncommittally opted for "late autumn 3

Vd i. 153. My emphasis. Ibid., pp. 174, 210; Vd li. 210. 5 Vd i. 210. Kollezhskit assessor was a position on the eighth grade in the civil service, equivalent to the rank of captain (major) in the army. 6 Tseitlin, Tvorchestvo Ryleeva, p. 62; Mordovchenko, "Ryleev," Istoriya russkoi literatury, vi. 78. 4

Political Perspectives | 77

1823" and was subsequently censured for doing so by K. Aksenov, who supports—for his own reasons—Borovkov's conclusion. The manner of the polemic on this question in fairly recent literature throws an interesting sidelight on the temper of Soviet historiography, which sometimes applies unexpected virulence to the establishment of what appear to be straightforward matters of fact. "Pigarev," Aksenov declares roundly, "has no right on the basis of Ryleev's testimony to suggest that he joined the society in 'late autumn 1823.' " 7 Nevertheless, regardless of how brusquely he expresses it, Aksenov's view is essentially correct. There are indeed some errors in Pigarev's argument. He states that Ryleev must have joined late in 1823 because he could not have gotten to know Pushchin until after 5 June—the date the latter formally took up his post at the criminal courts. 8 However, Pushchin had left the army on 26 January and testified that until 5 June he was on leave.9 But during these intervening months he was not idle: he was at the courts "learning the ropes" until his appointment took effect.10 Moreover, it was in the courts in Moscow, not in Petersburg, that Pushchin served. It is therefore clear that Pushchin did indeed get to know Ryleev early in 1823—if not, as the testimony of Alexander Bestuzhev suggests, at some earlier date11—and that a short time afterward he recruited him to the Northern Society. It also seems more than likely that it was Ryleev who acquainted Pushchin with the workings of the courts until the latter's departure for Moscow. In any case, to suggest that Ryleev joined late in 1823 contradicts the sense of E. Obolensky's testimony that in 1822 and 1823 he (Obolensky) was a very inactive member of the secret society but that "during this time" Ryleev joined and generated activity in the society by, for example, recruiting the Bestuzhev brothers; at this point, Obolensky's testimony 7

Aksenov, Severnoe obshchestvo dekabristov, p. 142. See Pigarev, Zhizn' Ryleeva, pp. I l l , 247, n. 113. 8 Pigarev, Zhizn' Ryleeva, p. 247; Vd ii. 204. » Vd ii. 205. 10 Vd ii. 210. 11 Cf. note 2, above.

78 I Political Perspectives

continues, Ryleev's "initial efforts" ceased, because it was decided to suspend any further recruitment until the end of 1823. 1 2 If Ryleev was a member only from the end of 1823, he would hardly have had time to undertake and complete the "initial efforts" as described by Obolensky. Ryleev's revised submission is also given support by the Decembrist I. D. Yakushkin, who wrote: "In 1823, on the return of the guards to Petersburg, Pushchin recruited Ry­ leev." 13 It is known that the guards returned in January, which is when Pushchin was able to leave military service. Additional light is thrown on the matter by Pushchin in his explanation for recruiting Ryleev. He had wanted to tell his close friend, A. S. Pushkin, about the existence of the secret society, but had decided against it because of the need for secrecy; this same need explained the ostensible closure of the secret society in 1821, "in order to alienate members who should never have been recruited. On this basis," Pushchin continues, "Ry­ leev was the only person I recruited to the union, even though I was always surrounded by many people who shared my way of thinking." 1 4 Clearly, Pushchin considered Ryleev to be re­ liable, a quality which he felt Pushkin lacked. "The liveliness of his passionate nature and his intimacy with unreliable peo­ ple alarmed me," he wrote of the poet whom he had known since their school days together. For Pushchin to form such a positive opinion about Ryleev's reliability indicates a fair degree of intimacy between the two men and suggests that they were acquainted before 1823. It is perhaps worth noting that they had both been officers in the Horse Artillery. At all events, they got on well from the start. Later, in a letter to Shteingel, Ryleev wrote: "Thank you for getting to like Pu­ shchin; it brings me even closer to you. Anyone who is fond of Pushchin must himself be someone special." 15 In view of these considerations, there is little evidence to support the idea that Ryleev became a member of the Northern Society late in 12

Vd i. 230. Yakushkin, Zapiski, stat'i, pis'ma dekabrista, p. 52. 14 Pushchin, Zapiski ο Pushkine, p. 69. 15 pss, p. 491. Letter of March 1825. 13

Political Perspectives | 79

1823, as some commentators have supposed, and no reason to dispute Ryleev's own claim, endorsed by the Investigating Commission, that Pushchin recruited him early in 1823 (in February or March). This view finds support in Nechkina's study of the Decembrist movement, where it is stated that Ryleev evidently became a member of the Northern Society no earlier than February and no later than June of 1823. 16 What is at first sight puzzling, perhaps, is that Ryleev had not become a member before this date. For, when he joined, Pushchin, clearly recognizing the strength of the poet's convictions and potential usefulness to the society, admitted him straight to the rank of a senior, "convinced" {ubezhdennyi) member rather than to the normal initial stage of "assenting" (soglasnyi). The rank conferred on Ryleev gave him, inter alia, the right to recruit additional members. In view of his obvious readiness to become an active member of the secret society, it is interesting that he did not join, or was not recruited, before February or March 1823. Many others, after all, on relinquishing their membership in the masonic lodge—as Ryleev had done in 1821—were attracted to one of the early secret societies. It is true that from December 1821 he became an active member of a "fringe" organization, the "Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature" (Vol'noe obshchestvo lyubitelei rossiiskoi slovesnosti) and it was his activity here, together with his work at court, which satisfied his creative talents and fostered further development of his radical political and social outlook. In any case, there was generally very little activity in the Decembrists' Northern Society in 1821 and 1822. Hence, the fact that Ryleev did not become, on leaving the masonic brotherhood, a de jure member of the Decembrists' secret society, is essentially unremarkable. For the time being, at any rate, his membership in the literary Free Society evidently fulfilled his intellectual and emotional needs, and Ryleev's significant role in it during this time will be considered in a later chapter. 17 16 17

Nechkina, Dvizhenie dekabristov, ii. 7. See Chapter 5.

80 I Political Perspectives

Ryleev's

Personality

Some impression of Ryleev's personality will have emerged in the preceding pages. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate at this stage of our study, before proceeding to an examination of Ryleev's role in the Decembrist movement, to enlarge on the picture of his personality in the light of contemporary esti­ mates, and to identify those qualities which distinguished him as a leader of the Northern Society. The best description we have of Ryleev's physical appear­ ance is that given by his close friend and confederate, Prince Obolensky: " H e was of average height. The features of his face formed a fairly regular oval, with no one sharply distin­ guishing feature. His hair was black and slightly wavy; his eyes were dark with a thoughtful look and often gleamed during lively conversation." 1 8 Certain aspects of his character help to explain his rapid emergence as a leader of the Northern Society. There are, for example, many testimonies concerning Ryleev's friendly and easy-going nature, such as those of Nikitenko and N. Bestuzhev. Nikitenko wrote: I do not know anyone who had such an attractive person­ ality as Ryleev. Of medium build and fine physique, with an intelligent and serious face, he instilled in you, from the first glance, a premonition of that charm to which you would invariably succumb on closer acquaintance. A smile had only to light up his face and one had only to look deeper into his remarkable eyes in order to surrender oneself wholeheartedly and irrevocably to him. In moments of great agitation or poetic inspiration his eyes burned and actually appeared to spark. It was uncanny: such was the strength 19 and fire in them. It is clear that Ryleev's own conduct toward his friends inspired in them trust and confidence. For Ryleev, as N. Be­ stuzhev recollected, friendship, "in which he was extraordi18 19

Obolenskii, "Vospominaniya," p. 21. Nikitenko, Moya povest' ο samom sebe, ι. 126.

Political Perspectives | 81

narily passionate," was a moral concept of a very high order: "Sacrifice, even self-sacrifice for friendship's sake was nothing to him." 2 0 While of obvious worth to one for whom the exercise of political influence was of prime importance, his ready ability to make friends was a characteristic not always desirable in the leader of a secret political society: One drawback was that his heart was too open, too trusting. He saw good intent in every one, did not suspect deception and once deceived did not cease to believe. Experience did nothing for him. He saw everything through the rose-tinted windows of his own wonderful soul. Modesty and reserve alone saved him. 2 1 Ryleev's irrepressible enthusiasm was a tendency which sometimes affected his political judgment: "If a man was not satisfied with the government or spoke out against the au­ thorities, Ryleev assumed he must be a liberal who cared for the welfare of the Fatherland. This was the cause of many of his mistakes in the political arena." 2 2 Bestuzhev doubtless had in mind Ryleev's association with Yakubovich and Kakhovsky, two individuals who proved to be a source of great em­ barrassment to him, and whose recruitment he was subse­ quently to regret bitterly. In his reminiscences of Ryleev, Fedor Glinka attempted to set this characteristic in the general con­ text of his times: He was a man with a heart, but something of a hothead. But then you have to know what it was like in those days. . . . Petersburg was stifling for those who not long since had left behind them their battlefields, their victories, their tro­ phies—and Paris. 23 Another positive quality recalled by Nikolai Bestuzhev was Ryleev's unerring feel for the truth: "Every injustice, lie and, 20 21 22 23

Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," pp. 21-22. Ibid., p. 22. Ibid. Glinka, "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 245.

82

I Political Perspectives

above all, slander, found in him a relentless opponent. . . . I used to call him a martyr for truth." 2 4 Clearly, an important qualification for one aspiring to unite and lead a politically motivated group is an ability to speak. By all accounts, Ryleev's manner of speaking was very compelling, although, as Bestuzhev recalled, perhaps not in the normal way: Ryleev was not eloquent, and he held others not by subtle rhetoric or by the force of his reasoning, but by the passion of his simple and sometimes diffuse conversation, which with its abrupt expressions depicted the whole strength of his thought—always wonderful, always truthful, always at­ tractive. The most eloquent thing about him was his face, on which there appeared, before the words themselves, everything he wanted to express. 25 The Decembrists Baron Rozen and N. V. Basargin, also recalled the strong impression made on them by Ryleev's at­ tractive and engaging powers of conversation, "which be­ trayed his lively readiness for great deeds." 2 6 Years after the events of 1825 and 1826, the secretary of the Investigating Commission, A. D. Borovkov, gave an in­ teresting and, perhaps, surprisingly sympathetic character sketch of Ryleev, which echoes the more contemporary assessments cited above: Ryleev was at heart a revolutionary, a strong character of unselfish ambition, skillful, fervent, and sharp in word and letter, as his works show. He strove toward his chosen goals with great enthusiasm; he recruited many members, aroused them to action, wrote outrageous songs and free-thinking poems, and undertook to compose the "Catechism of a Free Man." . . . Ryleev was the leader of the insurrection; he in­ flamed everyone with his imagination. . . . He acted not for personal motives, but from his inner conviction of the good he expected for the fatherland, for he supposed that with 24 25 26

Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 22. Ibid., pp. 23-24. Dovnar-Zapol'skii, Tamoe obshchestvo dekabristov, p. 257.

Political Perspectives | 83 a changed form of government, the disorder and abuse which so agitated him would cease.27 In the light of these testimonies about Ryleev's personal qualities as a leader, we can endorse the assessment of M. V. Dovnar-Zapolsky: "From his charming appearance to his lofty spiritual qualities, he possessed to a high degree all the necessary means to attract the trust and love of those around him." 28

Ryleev and European

Political

Literature

The question of the influence of Western European writers on Ryleev and, for that matter, on the Decembrists as a whole, is a complex one. While it is clear that he and his confederates were familiar with the leading Western authors—they were, after all, a part of their intellectual heritage—it would nevertheless be a mistake to overstate their influence. In his answer to the Investigating Commission on the question of the origin of his free-thinking ideas, Baron Shteingel gave a good idea of the complexity of the matter when he wrote that "in order to answer this question in a completely satisfactory manner, it would be necessary to write an entire dissertation" about the influences acting on contemporary political thought in Russia during the thirty-year period from the death of Catherine to the death of Alexander. In his own case, he confessed it was "very difficult" for him to define exactly when and where he had acquired his "free way of thinking." 29 Some reference has been made to the range of Ryleev's reading and of his appetite for it, even from his early years. Many Decembrists, Ryleev included, cited the powerfully seductive influence on them of the political and moral novelty of Western literature. Shteingel, for example, referred to Voltaire, Rousseau, and Helvetius. A. Muraviev in his deposition 27 28 29

Borovkov, "Avtobiograficheskie zapiski," pp. 337-38. Dovnar-Zapol'skii, Tainoe obshchestvo dekabrtstov, p. 256. Vd xiv. 176.

84 I Political Perspectives

mentioned Montesquieu and Rousseau's Contrat Social, while Pestel cited the French ideologue philosopher Destutt de Tracy. 30 The Decembrists felt that without undertaking a systematic study of the works of such social and political thinkers as these, "it would be impossible to be of use either to oneself, to society or to the Fatherland." 3 1 It is not possible to draw up a complete list of Ryleev's library as, for example, Druzhinin was able to do in the case of Nikita Muraviev, 32 since on his death part was sold and the rest dispersed among various relatives and other individ­ uals. Nevertheless, something of the scope of Ryleev's reading, of both Russian and Western authors, can be inferred from his autobiographical poem "The Wilderness," written in 1821, in which he described his daily routine in Ostrogozhsk. Here Ryleev presented a list of authors he read there; it included Pushkin, Batyushkov, Baratynsky, Lomonosov, Ozerov, Knyazhnin, Karamzin, Krylov, Gnedich, Kostrov, Homer, Rousseau, and Voltaire. 33 Kosovsky's memoirs confirm the impression of breadth of reading given by Ryleev in his poem. He wrote that Ryleev's study in Ostrogozhsk contained a table "laden with various books; there were books even on the benches of the room he occupied." 3 4 Ryleev was anxious to keep up to date with his reading: " H e tried to acquire all the best works of Russian authors; often he obtained them through his uncle and his mother in Petersburg." 3 5 Furthermore, in an attempt to reconstruct the contents of Ryleev's library, Tseitlin has confirmed that it contained works 30

Vd xiv. 176 (ShteingeP); Vd iii. 8 (Murav'ev); Vd iv. 89-92. (Pestel'). Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836) was the chief exponent of the views of the Ideologues, a group of thinkers including Condorcet, whose doctrine gave rise to the notion that civil liberty and individual happiness must be founded pre-eminently on political liberty. For a recent study of his influence on the Decembrists, see Franco Venturi, "Destutt de Tracy and the liberal revolu­ tions," in Studies in Free Russia, tr. F. S. Walsby and M. O'Dell, Chicago, 1982, pp. 59-93. See pp. 76ff. 31 Quoted in Nechkina, Dvizbente dekabrtstov, i. 115. 32 Druzhinin, Dekabrist Ntkita Murav'ev, pp. 78-79. 33 "Pustynya," pss, pp. 104-105. 34 Kosovskii, "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 242. 35 Ibid.

Political Perspectives | 85 by Russian historians, notably Karamzin, and Russian writers such as Batyushkov, Bogdanovich, and Kostrov. 36 Among the European writers represented were Voltaire (the tragedies Merope and Tankred, the latter in N. I. Gnedich's translation) and Racine (Andromaque). Tseitlin's list is based on those few books which have survived, preserved in libraries. From con­ temporary evidence, however, it is possible to compile a more complete list. It is, for example, clear from Nikitenko's mem­ oirs that Ryleev read Montesquieu. 3 7 We know that Ryleev was in the habit of copying out extracts from books which particularly struck him. These include passages from Mon­ tesquieu. 38 Ryleev also read Bentham; Kropotov wrote that he had in his possession a copy of the works of Jeremy Ben­ tham which had belonged to him and which contained many notes in the poet's handwriting. 39 Ryleev would clearly have had a special interest in Bentham's writings on juridical ques­ tions. Bentham in any case had a great following in Russia at the time, and not only among Decembrist circles; extracts from his works were published in the St. Petersburg Journal and, according to Speransky, were very warmly received.40 Voltaire's anticlerical views, intellectual honesty, and pithy political statements (Ryleev's epithet "mischievous" is a very apt description of the Old Man of Ferney) excited the attention of many Decembrists. Ryleev particularly admired Voltaire's ability to make a pertinent moral comment by means of a historical illustration—a method much beloved by Ryleev and which he used to considerable effect in his "Dumy." In a rare mention by name of a Western author, Ryleev referred to this aspect of Voltaire's writing in his article "Some thoughts on poetry." 4 1 We have seen that Ryleev read widely both among Russian 36

Tseitlin, " O biblioteke Ryleeva," LN lix. 315-22. See Chapter 2, n. 69. 38 See Ryazantsev "Vypiski Ryleeva iz knig antichnykh i zapadnoevropeiskikh pisatelei," LN lix. 323-26. 39 Kropotov, p. 235. 40 Predtechenskii, Ocherkt obshcbestvenno-pohticheskoi istorti Rossii ν pervoi chetverti XIX veka, p. 187. 41 pss, pp. 308-13; cf. p. 309. 37

86 I Political Perspectives

and European writers. Yet it is significant that in his depositions to the Investigating Commission on the question of subversive influences, he made no mention of any Russian author. He might, for example, as Shteingel did, have mentioned Radishchev's Journey. There is no doubt that the writers who made the greatest political impression on Ryleev, particularly from an ethical point of view, were the two he singled out for mention in his answers to the Investigating Commission: the celebrated French publicists Bignon and Constant. Prince Obolensky also testified to the powerful influence these two had had on him.42 Ryleev's mention of them demands a closer examination of their ideological orientation. Baron Louis-Pierre-Edouard Bignon (1771-1841) was a patriot, a brilliant diplomatist under Talleyrand and Napoleon, publicist, and historian. His most significant work was his treatise Sur les Proscriptions (1819), a courageous and outspoken attack on despotism, which he saw "busy forging the chains" of people all over Europe. In an article entitled Des Cabinets et des Peuples (1822) he attacked the Holy Alliance, which he regarded as a continental triumvirate directed against individual political and civil liberty. His career as a historian started in 1829. 43 Ryleev most likely read Sur les Proscriptions when he went to Petersburg in 1820. Abroad, he may well have read Bignon's Expose comparatifde I'etat financier, militaire, politique et moral de la France et des principales puissances de I'Europe, published in Paris in 1814, and his Precis de la situation politique de la France, depuis le mois de mars 1814 jusqu'au mois de juin 1815, published in Paris the following year, during Ryleev's second tour of duty in Europe. Benjamin Constant's following in Russia, as in France, was much larger than that of Bignon. The French ambassador to Petersburg, de la Ferronays, noted in 1820: "All young people (mainly army officers) have been fed on and filled with liberal doctrines. . . . In the Guards there was not one officer who 42

Vd i. 226. Biographie Universelle (Michaud) Ancienne et Moderne, Pans, 1854, iv. 303-10. 43

Political Perspectives | 87

had not read and reread the works of Benjamin Constant and who did not believe that he had understood them." 44 Ryleev was apparently no exception. A brief consideration of Constant's career and work will show mutual points of ideological contact between him and Ryleev. Curiously, it will also show a certain temperamental similarity between the two men. Constant (1767-1830) is described by an early biographer thus: "Republicain avec ses amis Louvet et Chenier, il fut presqu'a l'instant meme aristocrate avec les directeurs." 45 This ambivalent position was typical of many of the Decembrists themselves. Constant was essentially a gentle man, susceptible to influence. The ladies of the salons were, as his biographer wryly and perhaps rather uncharitably put it, "ses premiers makres," and it was they who decided, Madame de Stael above all, "le matin de ses opinions du soir." Yet Constant had a vision of justified violence, which he formulated in the following paradox: "Les revolutions sont des moments d'orage ou l'homme peut devenir criminel par les motifs les plus purs." 46 The purity of the end justifying the extreme nature of the means was an idea which Ryleev, like many Decembrists, struggled to articulate, but from which he and they finally shrank, fearing the "horrors of the French Revolution," and, with the possible exceptions of Pestel and Lunin, at bottom temperamentally incapable of visualizing Russia without some form of limited constitutional monarchy. Constant found the contemporary Code Civil "non seulement dangereux mais contraire aux moeurs," which is precisely how Ryleev was to describe parts of Nikita Muraviev's constitution. 47 Constant's opposition to the Directoire compelled him to leave France in 1801 for Germany, where he wrote his most successful work, De I'Esprit de conquete et de I'Usurpation dans leurs rapports avec la Civilisation Europeenne (1814). In the same year he enunciated his famous 44

Bashilov, Masotty i zagovor dekabrtstov, p. 15. Biographie Universelle (Michaud) Ancienne et Moderne, Paris, 1854, ix. 76-84. See p. 77. 46 From the preface to De la Religion (1823). Ibid., pp. 77, 82. 47 Ibid., p. 77. See n. 81, below. 45

88 I Political Perspectives

formula on the "neutralite du pouvoir royal"—a concept which would have aroused Ryleev's sympathy and which may well have come to his notice while he was serving in Europe. Napoleon's Hundred Days saw Ryleev along with his regiment recalled to active service in Western Europe; the same period saw Constant recalled by Napoleon to government service as a counsellor of state, with responsibility for drawing up a new constitution. It is an interesting comment on the liberal, or rather lax, state of censorship in Russia at the time that a detailed resume of the outcome of this work was published in Dukh zhurnalov in 1815. 48 Only a few years later this would have been impossible. Between 1814 and 1820, Constant wrote numerous pamphlets concerning constitutional reform and elections, and championing the freedom of the press and of the individual. Although Constant is now best remembered for his autobiographical novel Adolphe (1816), it is not difficult to imagine the excitement with which Ryleev and others like him read literature discussing such "progressive" topics about which there was little or no public debate in Russia. If Ryleev read Adolphe, he must have been attracted by the work's introspection and theme of fatalism—itself clearly a result of Goethe's influence—which were features of Ryleev's own work, of the "Dumy" in particular and, indeed, of his character. Constant, like Ryleev, was a man of letters as well as of politics; he had a varied and not entirely even political career, dogged by misfortune. At his funeral, Lafayette said of him: "He saw the first rays of the sun of liberty, which, appearing on the old tricolored dome of our town-hall, spread over the plains of Belgium, over the mountains of Switzerland to the banks of the Vistula." 49 For the time being, in spite of the efforts of those he inspired beyond its eastern banks, they were destined to penetrate no further. In reviewing Ryleev's experience of Western European writers, one is led to the inescapable conclusion that he was above 48

Dukh zhurnalov iii (1815), 1063-71. See Semevskii, Politicheskie i obshchestvennye idei dekabristov, pp. 236-37. 49 Btographie Vniverselle (Michaud), ix. 80.

Political Perspectives | 89 all indebted to the elements of humanism which he read and perceived in their writing for the development and enrichment of his own profoundly moral consciousness.

Ryleev's

Political

Outlook

Ryleev cannot in any formal sense be described as a political theorist. He formulated no systematic program for revolt or for subsequent reforms. Yet he was not short of ideas and opinions. He was primarily an enthusiast, a man of action yearning to act. One commentator has aptly suggested that if the Southern Society's theorist was Pavel Pestel, then its enthusiasts were Sergei Muraviev-Apostol and M. BestuzhevRyumin. 50 Similarly, in the case of the Northern Society, if its main ideologue was Nikita Muraviev, Ryleev was unquestionably its outstanding enthusiast. Nevertheless, even if Ryleev failed to formulate his thoughts and views in a program equivalent to Pestel's Russian Justice or to Nikita Muraviev's constitution, a reasonably clear picture of what these were emerges from an examination of two important sources: his conversations with fellow Decembrists as recorded by them, both in their written depositions to the Investigating Commission and in memoir literature, and his own writings, especially his articles and plans for essays. His work bears witness to—indeed, it articulates—his political aspirations and those of many of his generation, and is consequently of considerable importance to the historian. It is clear that Ryleev gave voice to his ideas as much through the spoken as the written word. With the nervous intensity and sincere conviction of an evangelist witnessing to his faith, Ryleev used to talk at length and in detail to a wide circle of people about his latest political, social, and literary attitudes. In his customary style, Nikolai Grech relates a caustic tale to illustrate this aspect of Ryleev's nature: 50

Murav'ev, "Ideya vremennogo pravitel'stva u dekabristov i ikh kandidaty," p. 68.

90 I Political Perspectives

Ryleev was neither ill-intentioned nor, in the formal sense, a revolutionary, but a fanatic, a weak-minded man obsessed by the idea of a constitution. Once he was sitting in my study and picked up the Hamburger Zeitung. He read, un­ derstanding nothing, line after line, until he came to the word "constitution." Hereupon he leaped to his feet and said to me: " D o me a favor, Nikolai Ivanovich. Translate what is here for me. It must be very good." 5 1 The veracity of this anecdote is marred by the unlikelihood that Ryleev would require anyone to translate for him from a language with which he was quite familiar. All the same, it fairly reflects Ryleev's impetuous and single-minded enthusi­ asm for his cherished constitutional ideals. And it was in such an atmosphere of animated discussion that his own ideas were strengthened and developed; this is strikingly apparent from the depositions of the Decembrists. In his own case (delo) Ryleev cited "three years of almost daily conversations with people of similar views from the day I became a member of the Society" as central to the development of his political viewpoint and to his acquisition of "freethinking ideas." 5 2 To discover Ryleev's political attitudes we shall turn first of all to a series of sketches and essays in which the author traces man's cultural and political development in relation to historical forces. They show how responsive Ryleev was to the idea of a Zeitgeist and how acutely conscious he was of the French political and cultural experience, in particular, of the Enlightenment, the Revolution, and the Napoleonic pe­ riod, and its lessons for Russia. Typical of them is his plan for a grandiosely entitled essay, "The spirit of the age or the fate of the human race," which was to chart mankind's po­ litical, moral, and social development from earliest civiliza­ tion, through Greece and Rome, the advent of Christ, the Reformation, the Enlightenment up to and including the Napoleonic era and its legacy.53 At each of the indicated stages 51

52 53

Grech, Zapiski ο moet zhtzm, p. 446. Vd i. 156. "Dukh vremem ili sud'ba roda chelovecheskogo," pss, p. 412.

Political Perspectives | 91

of man's history, Ryleev proposed to characterize the "spirit of the age." This plan shows that for Ryleev politics becomes divorced from and devoid of morality and religion as despotism asserts itself, but is then reconciled with the decline of the latter. Ryleev saw an important interrelationship between society's cultural level and the state of its political health. Ignorance he viewed as a prerequisite of despotism, while the spread of education paved the surest way to political and social emancipation. The connection between religious and political enlightenment, between Reformation and Revolution, which Ryleev makes here, is also typical. In his article, "On the Middle Ages," written in 1815 while he was passing through the Riesengebirge, Ryleev had extolled Luther's resolution in his struggle with the established church and applauded the achievements of the Reformation.54 This itself is a view consistent with that expressed in an article on "The reason for the fall of the power of the popes," in which he charged the popes and the Inquisition with "leading people into a state of profound superstition, irrationality, and incorrigible prejudice instead of enlightening them, creating thereby a firm bulwark against freedom and rationality, knowing that their power was based on this alone." But in Luther's Germany, Ryleev continues, the people were delivered from the power of the popes by the former's rational rejection of the sale of papal indulgences.55 In these terms, Ryleev rejected despotism, both spiritual and temporal, which, by means of the ignorance it relied on for its support, suppressed the cultural enlightenment of people and hence their political freedom. Ryleev's insistence on the overwhelming necessity of enlightenment in the nation's moral and political life finds further reflection in an uncompleted article which bears strong witness to the influence of Rousseau: Formerly, morality was the buttress of freedom; now it is enlightenment which must lead the human race back to 54 55

pss (ed. Balitskii), li. 70. "Prichina padeniya vlasti pap," pss, pp. 368-70.

92 I Political Perspectives

morality. Before it was instilled in him, man was good by nature; with enlightenment he will be good and virtuous through the knowledge and the certainty that to be so is essential to his own well-being.56 It is interesting that in the plan for his essay on the fate of the human race, Ryleev's view of history reveals a universal concern with the unfolding fate of humanity and an acute preoccupation with the moral progress of mankind. It is unfortunate that he never completed this essay, not only for the sake of a fuller record of his political and social outlook but also for the history of social thought in Russia at this time. The idea of Zeitgeist is often repeated in the above-quoted plan and in a short essay called "On the spirit of the age," he attempted to define what he meant by it and to establish its relation with "Providence." 57 The central idea of his account is contained in the following extract: Accepting as true the fact that while men as individuals are free, mankind is not, we can and should be able to supply a moral law for our actions: i.e., to act in such a way as to avoid contradicting the will of Providence. But how can you tell what this will is? The will of Providence expresses itself in the spirit of the age. The article is written in a spirit of, if not religious, then clearly theistic fatalism. The irresistible power of some superior force is acknowledged as controller of mankind's destiny, as the revealing formulation in the last sentence shows. Ryleev further suggested that the spirit of the age is a force for good rather than evil and no doubt had the example of Napoleon in mind as he wrote this: Napoleon's grandiose schemes and campaigns ultimately proved futile, in Ryleev's view, precisely because they did not accord with the spirit of the age and were therefore at variance with the will of Providence. Ryleev's association of the idea of Zeitgeist with cultural and political 56

"Prezhde nravstvennost'," pss, pp. 416-17. "O dukhe vremeni," pss (ed. Balitskii), ii. 88. In pss (1934) this article is entitled " O promysle" ("On Providence"). See pp. 417-18. 57

Political Perspectives | 93 progress is seen in his request, after arrest, that the "young people who had been attracted to the secret society should be spared, for such is the force of the spirit of the age that they were quite unable to resist it." 5 8 Ryleev made it clear, im­ plicitly if not explicitly, to his interrogators that in his view the Decembrists were moving in accord with the "spirit of the age" and therefore in the right direction. Against the background of the fate of mankind as a whole, Ryleev considered more specifically the unfolding drama of his own country's history in the plan of an essay entitled "The fate of Russia." 5 9 There were to have been six chapters tracing the Russian people's passage from a primitive state to des­ potism and, in accordance with Ryleev's equation, projecting their continued progress from despotism to freedom. Starting with Novgorod and the Ryurikids, Ryleev intended to write on Vladimir and the conversion of Russia, the coming of the Mongols, the unification of Russia under Ivan III, the reign of Peter the Great, and, finally, the contemporary age of Alex­ ander. The fact that the "spirit of the age," in Ryleev's view a positive agency of change, nowhere finds a place in this scheme perhaps suggests an underlying strain of pessimism in his outlook. Two further important components of Ryleev's political viewpoint must be mentioned here: his intense patriotism and his loathing of despotism, reflected above all in his attitude to Napoleon. An unashamed and profound patriotism, char­ acteristic of the Decembrist movement as a whole, meant for Ryleev that the inhumanity and arrogance of autocracy was primarily an affront to the country he loved so dearly. As well as being the most important leitmotiv of his poetry, patriotism was the lodestar of his very existence. Nikolai Bestuzhev recalled: Everything Ryleev did in his life bore the stamp of his love for his fatherland. This manifested itself in various ways: first in his filial allegiance to the land of his birth, then in 58 59

Vd ι. 152. "Sud'ba Rossii," pss, p. 414.

94

I Political Perspectives

his dissatisfaction with abuses in it, and, finally, it developed completely in his desire for its freedom. 60 The greatest obstacle to this desired freedom was the des­ potism which Ryleev early recognized in Napoleon—and, sub­ sequently, in Alexander himself. In a poem written when he was eighteen, Ryleev referred to Napoleon as a "cruel tiger drinking the innocent blood of Russians," " a haughty and insolent foe." 6 1 On seeing Paris three years later he modified his attitude somewhat; his "Letters from Paris" show that he was impressed with Napoleon's patronage of the arts: I can say positively, that not one of the Bourbon kings ever did as much to make Paris beautiful as Napoleon has. Under him, in spite of the ceaseless wars, many beautiful buildings have been constructed and splendid monuments and great obelisks erected, which are sure to give succeeding gener­ ations a positive impression of Napoleon's twenty-year rule. 62 However, Ryleev's aesthetic appreciation of Napoleon's leg­ acy did not alter his fundamental view of him as a political evil. In a short article on him, Ryleev accurately outlined quite another aspect of the Napoleonic aftermath: the onset of re­ action throughout Europe as consolidated in the Holy Alli­ ance, the consequences of which he prophesied darkly in a menacing hint: You have fallen, but despotism has not fallen with you. It has become even more severe, because it has become the lot of so many. The people have perceived this, and already Western and Southern Europe have tried to throw off the yoke of despotism. The monarchs have united in an attempt to stifle by force their strivings toward freedom. They are triumphant and now there is a deathly silence in Europe— but it is the same silence as there is on Vesuvius.63 60

Bestuzhev, "Vospominame ο Ryleeve," p. 11. pss, p. 326. "Geroev teni nizletite!" «Ibid., p. 381. Letter No. 7. 63 " O Napoleone" ("On Napoleon"), pss, p. 417. 61

Political Perspectives | 95 Additionally, there are several instances of Ryleev's antipathy for Napoleon in his depositions to the Investigating Commission.64 Ryleev's view of the time in which he lived, outlined above, his feeling for and response to the spirit of the age, his intense and eloquent patriotism, and his utter rejection of despotism are the factors which shaped his ideas for Russia's future. The question arises: with what did Ryleev aim to replace the existing order in Russia, and by what means did he hope to achieve it? To seek an answer we turn to the written testimonies of Ryleev and his fellow Decembrists given during their six-month interrogation.

The New

Constitution

The two most comprehensive political programs to emerge from Decembrist circles were Nikita Muraviev's constitution in the north and Pavel Pestel's Russianjustice (Russkayapravda) in the south. They shared common objectives, such as the overthrow of autocracy and the liquidation of serfdom by means of a military uprising, without the active participation of the masses. They were each, broadly speaking, representative of the political complexion of their respective societies, the constitution seeking moderate reform in terms of a constitutional monarchy and a qualified enfranchisement, while Russian Justice stood for a republican system with a centralized government. But between these two positions there were considerable divergences and shades of opinion. Any consideration of Ryleev's position on the question of constitutional reform and of his attitude to the respective proposals of Muraviev and Pestel must above all take account of the answers he gave to the Investigating Commission. But it should be borne in mind that Ryleev was at pains to minimize the radicalism of his views and intentions, in order to make the conspiracy appear as innocuous as possible. The first indication of Ryleev's position is contained in a report made on "E.g., Vdi. 178, 183.

96 I Political Perspectives

him immediately after his arrest on 14 December by Baron Toll. In it Toll related how Ryleev had told him "very coldly" that in spite of the day's events, he was still firmly of the opinion that a constitutional government would be to Russia's greatest advantage. 65 In a letter addressed to the tsar two days after this first report, Ryleev outlined in more detail the constitutional system he envisaged: a grand council (Velikii Sobor) was to be convened, composed of elected representatives from every province, two from each estate (soslovie). Given its acceptance of the need to introduce a representative form of government, freedom of the press, open legal proceedings, and individual civil rights, the council was to decide, according to the best democratic traditions, "who should rule and on what basis," and its decision was to be final.66 Although the convocation of such a grand council was to be proposed, in the first place, to the tsar or tsarevich by way of the Senate, Ryleev made no further reference to the monarchy in his account. Nor was there any specific mention here of the liquidation of serfdom. It is clear from Ryleev's many statements on the matter and from those of other Decembrists, that the idea of a republic had great attractions for him: In my conversations . . . I always held the opinion that Russia was not yet ripe for a republican government, and therefore at that time always defended a limited monarchy, although at heart I really preferred to this the kind of government which prevailed in the North American United States, because I felt that this type of republic would be the best kind for Russia, in view of its size and the variety of its peoples.67 Evidently Ryleev had in mind a federal system characteristic of the United States republic. Yet his statement contains certain ambiguities. The qualifying phrase "at that time" was 65

Vd i. 153. «Ibid., p. 154. 67 Ibid., p. 175. My emphasis.

Political Perspectives | 97

written in above a crossing out—obviously a carefully considered afterthought. It had the effect of making it unclear what his actual view was subsequently, but at the same time suggested a shift in position away from the concept of a limited monarchy. He also attempted, inevitably somewhat clumsily, to reconcile his declared preference for a republic along American lines with the more immediate tactical expedience of finding a place in the new order for the tsar. Thus he claimed in his depositions to the Investigating Commission that, while encouraging Nikita Muraviev to amend his planned constitution in accordance with the United States model, he had advised him to retain the monarchy. 68 Similarly, he had told Pestel that he thought Russia should adopt a North American style constitution, "with an emperor whose powers should not greatly exceed those of a president of the United States." 69 A little later in his testimony, Ryleev again insisted: "I never tried to persuade anyone that the States constitution should be adopted without any changes. I always said that Russia needed an emperor rather than a president." 70 His protestations of allegiance to the notion of monarchy found a significant measure of support in the testimony of Nikolai Bestuzhev, which contains important evidence concerning Ryleev's plans and gives the impression that he did not discount the possibility of the tsar's playing a role in the new regime. Ryleev had concluded, according to Bestuzhev, that in view of the size of the Russian state and its multinational character, the best form of government would be a monarchy, limited by the legislative powers of the senate and a house of representatives.71 Bestuzhev's account contains a coy reference to the abolition of serfdom: ". . . circumstances would show . . . the extent to which the granting of rights to each estate might be afforded," and two further remarks very characteristic of Ryleev. First, the precise nature of the tsar's role in any new administration is not defined, beyond the 68

Ibid. Ibid., p. 178. 70 Ibid., p. 183. 71 Vd ii. 72-73. 69

98

I Political Perspectives

curtailment of autocratic capriciousness ("a monarchy which should not change . . . things once accepted by it") and, sec­ ond, the notion that "circumstances would show" the nec­ essary course to follow. This last phrase, or variations of it, occurs throughout the testimony of the Decembrists in ref­ erence to Ryleev's plans. How much this was due to Ryleev's own reticence, his reluctance to project his own views as a definite program (something Pestel did without compunction), his naturally "democratic" cast of mind, or a general lack of confidence and decisiveness, is a matter for conjecture. It is more likely that it was a result of a mixture of all these con­ ditions. Ryleev himself explained this attitude in the following way: In general, in discussions about reforming the system in Russia, both at meetings and with individual members, I always maintained, right from first becoming a member up until 14 December, that no society had the right to introduce by force a new system of government to the fatherland, however excellent it might seem; it should be presented by representatives elected by the people, and it was to be the duty of all to abide by their decisions implicitly.. . . I always let myself be guided by this rule. 72 In his study of the Decembrists' Northern Society, K. Aksenov has tried to show without any qualification that Ryleev was unreservedly and wholeheartedly a republican, apparently as a means of exaggerating Ryleev's radicalism as "leader" of the Northern Society. In order to do this, Aksenov has oc­ casionally taken liberties with the sources. In this connection, for example, citing N. Bestuzhev's testimony, he writes: "At their next meeting Ryleev 'declared a republican form of gov­ 73 ernment in Russia.' " But the issue is not that simple. What Bestuzhev actually stated was: "Ryleev declared that several members of the council had suggested the introduction of a republican form of government in Russia, but that this was 72 73

Vd ι. 175-76. Aksenov, Severnoe obshchestvo dekabristov, p. 243.

Political Perspectives | 99 just a suggestion and it was not known whether or not it would be accepted."7* Aksenov has omitted the italicized words, conveying thereby quite another impression. Bestuzhev's original statement is much more consistent with the rather tentative nature of Ryleev's pronouncements on such matters. Nevertheless, the evidence does suggest that, on balance, Ryleev's was a "republican" rather than a "monarchist" frame of mind. Trubetskoi declared flatly: "I saw that Turgenev and Ryleev had ideas of introducing a republic." 75 Ryleev's close friend A. Bestuzhev told the Investigating Commission about him: "Toward the end of 1824 I saw in him a change toward republicanism. . . . Up till then we had dreamed about a (limited) monarchy; from his words about Pestel's stay here I concluded that the former was a Southern view." Bestuzhev's conclusion was not far wide of the mark, as his continued testimony shows: "Imperceptibly, opinion after opinion, we too came to think in terms of a republic, and as it would be difficult to set one up under an imperial family (sic!) Ryleev told me the Southern Society's view: that it should be liquidated." 76 This evidence, from Ryleev's intimate friend and his co-editor on the Polar Star, apparently bears witness both to Ryleev's republican convictions and to Pestel's influence on him. It is clear that in this respect Ryleev's own position was nearer to Pestel's Russian Justice than Muraviev's constitution, about which Ryleev and many other Decembrists, both in the north and in the south, had certain reservations. From N. Bestuzhev's testimony it is apparent that it was constantly being revised and improved on by the Northern Society's directorate: "I knew from what Ryleev said that changes were being made but what they were, I did not know." 77 In his own testimony, Ryleev showed that the constitution had not been accepted by the Northern Society as their program, but 74

Vd ii. 80. Vd i. 89. 76 Ibid., p. 457. 77 Vd ii. 80. 75

100 I Political Perspectives 78

"was to be presented to the Grand Council as a project." Bestuzhev recalled the main features of the early draft of the constitution which Ryleev showed him: The person of the emperor is acknowledged to be sacred and inviolable. The state is divided into regions for elections of representative officials. The situation concerning the elec­ tion of representatives was defined. The establishment of a legislative assembly or council of representative officials was proposed. The regulation and the relationship of the ex­ ecutive and legislative powers were defined, as were the rights of every class and person. All executive power to be entrusted to the emperor and his ministers, within and out­ side the state. 7 9 Ryleev was quite familiar with the contents of Muraviev's constitution since he made a copy of it himself, adding his own comments in the margins, which was subsequently dis­ covered among the papers of I. I. Pushchin. 80 When Ryleev became a member of the Northern Society early in 1823 he was a supporter of the idea of a limited monarchy, but as he moved toward a republican viewpoint which A. Bestuzhev said he reached some eighteen months later, Muraviev's es­ sentially "royalist" constitution became less and less accept­ able to him. Another fundamental objection made by Ryleev to Mura­ viev's project was the provision it made for enfranchisement based on qualifications of wealth and property. In his mem­ oirs, E. I. Yakushkin has recorded Ryleev's reaction to this aspect of the constitution: "Muraviev's view was absolutely opposed by Ryleev's democratic convictions. He objected to it vigorously and summed it up with the words: 'This is not in accord with the laws of morality.' " 8 1 Ryleev wanted uni­ versal male suffrage without any of the proposals of the type suggested by Muraviev which were designed to limit suffrage 78 79 80

81

Vd i. 155. Vd h. 79-80. Druzhinin, Dekabrist Niktta Murav'ev, pp. 153, 168. E. I. Yakushkin, "Po povodu vospominanii ο Κ. F. Ryleeve," p. 361.

Political Perspectives | 101

to those with adequate wealth and rank. Nor was Ryleev satisfied with the constitution's position on serfdom. The agrarian question occupied a central place in the Decembrists' thinking and planning. The emancipation of the serfs was a common objective, yet there were differences of opinion as to how this was to be achieved, and how much land—if any— should be allotted to the peasant, and so on. As it stood, Muraviev's constitution favored the interests of the landowners rather than those of the peasants it sought to emancipate: "Serfdom and slavery are abolished, but the landowners' land remains the landowners'." 82 Thus the serf was to be freed— but with no means of support. This condition was unacceptable to Ryleev. In the comments made in the margin of the constitution in Ryleev's hand we read: "Land on which economic (ekonomicheskie), appanage (udel'nye) and state (gosudarstvennye) peasants dwell is to remain public {biens nationaux) . . . except for their houses, kitchen-gardens, cattle and agricultural implements, which are to be their acknowledged property." 83 This arrangement was akin to Pestel's idea of dividing the land into two parts: one part to be common land, the other part to be for individual cultivation. It is clear that Ryleev and Pestel were, broadly speaking, in agreement about the division of the land. Pestel testified that in his conversation with Ryleev the problem of land allocation was the only topic they discussed, but he did not indicate Ryleev's reception of his proposals. But in his account of his meeting with Trubetskoi at which the same theme was discussed, Pestel described Trubetskoi's reaction as one of profound disagreement.84 It may, therefore, be reasonably inferred that if Ryleev had not shared his views, Pestel would have bracketed him together with Trubetskoi as antagonistic. Nor does Ryleev in his detailed descriptions of their exchanges mention any disagreement with Pestel on this particular question. In view of these 82 83 84

"Zemli pomeshchikov ostayutsya za nimi." Druzhinin, Dekabrist Nikita Murav'ev, p. 323. Vd iv. 162.

102 I Political Perspectives considerations, K. Pigarev's assertion that "what Ryleev heard (from Pestel) was so new to him that he could not quite fully grasp it" and that "in trying to remember and record it (for the Investigating Commission) he mixed a lot of it up," itself seems somewhat misconstrued. 85 Ryleev did not think that the land provisions proposed by Muraviev's constitution went far enough. On the basis of reports from contemporaries well acquainted with Ryleev's views on this subject, Yakushkin wrote that Ryleev wanted the peasants to receive private prop­ erty in the form of fields (polevaya zetnlya) as well as kitchen gardens. 86 Ryleev's interest in the problem of the division of land between owner and serf is further reflected in his inten­ tion to write a "Catechism of a Free M a n " which was to be distributed among the people. Its purpose, as Obolensky testified, "was to educate the simple class of people about their obligations regarding the land on which they were settled and the people who lived in it, by questions and answers phrased in the simplest way possible." But, as Obolensky continues, the plan to write this was left unfulfilled.87 Apart from Ryleev's differences of opinion with Muraviev's constitution on property qualifications for electoral enfran­ chisement and on the agrarian question, the third fundamental divergence of view concerned the framework of the consti­ tution itself. Although it incorporated ideas from the United States constitution, Muraviev also drew from the English model—a system which Ryleev regarded as "obsolete and full 88 of defects." Even the Brazilian constitution had more appeal for him than did the English, the Decembrist Romanov re­ 89 called. Ryleev demanded the democratization of the state structure on the pattern of the U.S.A. and its constitution. G. S. Batenkov told the Investigating Commission how Ryleev argued his case: "In a monarchy there can be no great char85

Pigarev, Zhizn' Ryleeva, p. 115. E. I. Yakushkin, "Po povodu vospominanii ο Κ. F. Ryleeve," p. 361. 87 Vd i. 267. 88 Ibid., p. 183. 89 Maslov, Ltteraturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, pp. 99-100; Semevskii, Politicheskie i obshchestvennye tdei dekabristov, p. 250. 86

Political Perspectives | 103 acters nor any real virtue. The Americans (Ryleev said) were the only people to grasp the full significance of this truth." 9 0 Contrasting the American situation with the English, Ryleev maintained that "hard slavery" prevailed in Europe and "even in England" because of the aristocracy. It is worth noting that it was because they considered Muraviev's constitution "le­ galized aristocracy" that Pestel and the Southern Society re­ jected it. 9 1 England, Ryleev claimed, would be the last country to win its freedom; the other countries would have to await everything from Russia, where the experience of 1812 showed clearly that revolution, unlike in Naples, Piedmont, and even Spain, would not be stopped by foreign intervention. 92 Part of the reason for Ryleev's antipathy toward the English constitutional system was clearly his dislike of the "lords," the aristocracy, whom he considered it favored. This dislike in turn stemmed partly, no doubt, from his consciousness of his family's lowly position in the local squirearchy and his resentment at the treatment accorded his parents by his fa­ ther's employers, members of the rich and powerful Golitsyn family, which had provoked his outburst against the "heartless grandees" years before, and partly from his own highly de­ veloped sense of social justice. 93 His antipathy toward the aristocracy is reflected in his proposal that half the landown­ ers' land should be confiscated and distributed among the peasants. It also finds expression in a rebuke addressed to his friend Pushkin, who, as is well known, was proud of his ancient lineage. Ryleev charged him with skillfully justifying his arrogance by reference to his six-hundred-year-old pedi­ gree: "Such social advantages should not exist," Ryleev con­ tended. "Aristocratic arrogance is unpardonable—especially in you." 9 4 It came out, too, in reference to a man whom he actually held in very high esteem—Admiral N. S. Mordvinov. The Decembrist Kakhovsky, speaking of Mordvinov's can90 91 92 93 94

Vd xiv. 98. Vd ι. 302. Vd xiv. 98. Cf. Chapter 2, n. 53. pss, p. 497. Letter of Nov. 1825.

104 I Political Perspectives

didacy for membership of the provisional government, prompted Ryleev's comment: "What do you expect from an aristocrat like Mordvinov?" 95 The American constitution, on the other hand, was not disposed to favor the aristocracy since, in the European sense, there was no aristocracy; it was this lack of class bias which constituted one of its main attractions for Ryleev. Ryleev's enthusiasm for it, however, was not shared by all members of the Northern Society. Pestel's Russian Justice too, caused a division of opinion between the "constitutional-monarchists" and the "republicans," between groups in the Northern and Southern societies, and hence frustrated the full collaboration of them both. Ryleev himself did not accept Russian Justice entirely without reservation. For example, he did not share its proposals concerning the Polish question. On nationality in general, his attitude coincided with that of Nikita Muraviev, who sought the reorganization of Russian territory on a federal basis after the U.S. model. This was a view sharply at odds with Pestel's intention to create a strictly centralized Russia; he considered that a federal system would undermine the structure of the state by opening it to attacks from national minorities seeking secession. Ryleev objected vigorously and on characteristic grounds to the Southern Society's intention to give Poland qualified independence and to restore to her the territories of Lithuania, Podolia, and Volhynia, maintaining that "no society had the right to make such conditions but that such matters should be decided by the Grand Council." According to Ryleev's definition, the Polish borders "really begin where the Little-Russian (Ukrainian) or Russian speech ends. . . . Where the majority of people speak these languages and confess the Greco-Russian or Uniate faith, there is Rus, our ancient heritage." 96 Nevertheless, Ryleev was anxious to build on the considerable common ground between the two camps by drawing 95

Vd i. 190. Ryleev, for his part, denied ever having said anything against Mordvinov. (Vd i. 191.) 96 Ibid., p. 180.

Political Perspectives | 105 up a third constitution, or, as he put it in his conversation with Pestel, "state charter" {gosudarstvennyi ustav) which would be "approved by the majority of the members of both societies, and submitted for the examination of the Grand Council as a project." 9 7 The intention of the secret organization, Odoevsky affirmed, was to give the state a constitution written by Ryleev and Obolensky. 98 The aim was, according to the latter, "to draw up something general, selecting from Russian Justice all the good and useful points, likewise from Muraviev's pro­ posed constitution, together with our own observations; to ratify this new plan and propose it to the Southern Society." 99 But nothing came of it until the eve of the uprising, when Ryleev and Trubetskoi drew up a document to be the mani­ festo for the morrow. It called for the "annihilation of the previous government" and of the rights of property. It de­ manded the equality of all classes before the law but said nothing about the abolishment of serfdom.100 Ryleev was clearly not entirely happy about it and, with time by now very much against him, tried with Shteingel to work out a new variant. 1 0 1 The picture that emerges from the evidence adduced is that Ryleev joined the Northern Society as a supporter of the mod­ erate tendency consistently prevalent within it. "Talking about Russia's future government, all agreed that a constitutional monarchy would be the best and the most acceptable," he wrote. 1 0 2 As time passed, however, Muraviev's constitution became increasingly unacceptable to him, as did proposals from other more moderate quarters. "I wanted to awake in Ryleev," wrote Shteingel, "and through him in the others, my ideas [for a constitutional monarchy], but I did not suc­ ceed." 1 0 3 Ryleev rejected Shteingel's proposals concerning the role of the monarchy in the new constitution on the grounds 97

Ibid., p. 178. Vd ii. 244. 99 Vd i. 265. 100 Vd ι. 107-108. 101 Druzhinin, "Programma severnykh dekabristov," pp. 44-45. 102 Vd xiv. 66. 103 Ibid., p. 168. 98

106 I Political Perspectives

that "they would give rise to factions with different aims which would make it impossible to achieve anything." 104 Batenkov recalled that in the summer of 1825 Ryleev had told him that Russia, "bearing in mind her history and in view of her present state of enlightenment," was ready for what he called a "free system of government." 105 Batenkov explained more fully what Ryleev had in mind later in the same statement: he recalled how on one occasion, Ryleev initiated a discussion about state reform by stressing the "great advantages" enjoyed by republics, and tried to convince his listeners that it was a republican system of government which Russia herself needed.106 To many Decembrists, Ryleev's radical position was clear and unambiguous. Rostovtsev testified that "Ryleev always favored a government of the people (narodnoe pravlenie), whereas Obolensky variously supported republican and constitutional (monarchist) systems." 107 Similarly, members of the Southern Society such as Poggio, M. Muraviev-Apostol, and Volkonsky looked on Ryleev as a republican of a "fully revolutionary disposition," ready to unite the societies on the basis of republican demands and "resolutely revolutionary activity."108 This view is supported by Ryleev's rejection of Batenkov's reservations about the propriety of a bloody coup d'etat to achieve their aims, for the simple reason that the "making of a revolution was the life ambition of several members of the Society."109 On Ryleev's own admission there was "only one thing" about which he disagreed with the Southern Society republican M. Muraviev-Apostol. The latter had put it to him that they should aim for the immediate establishment of a republican government. Ryleev's qualification of this view was characteristic: "But I said that Russia was not ready for it and that I would only agree to a republic when its charter 104

Ibid., p. 180. Ibid., pp. 81-82. 106 Ibid., p. 82. 107 Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, p. 100. 108 Vd IX. 255. 10 > Vd xiv. 98. 105

Political Perspectives | 107 had been accepted by the majority of the representatives of the people." 1 1 0 Even so, the monarchy does not figure in Ryleev's description, related by Bulatov, of what he hoped to see happen: in the event of a successful outcome, Prince Trubetskoi was to be appointed "dictator" for a certain time; a provisional government would be established, and meanwhile six deputies from each province would be summoned, two from the gentry, two representatives of the merchants, and two from the lower classes (meshchanstvo), to form a popular government (narodnoe pravlenie).ul For his part, Batenkov frequently argued that the need for social reform was incom­ parably more pressing than political changes and pointed to the deficiencies in Russian legal procedure and the lack of local courts. But Ryleev and Trubetskoi usually objected that social reform in the current political framework would take too long to achieve and that "the shortest path possible had to be found." 1 1 2 There was indeed a degree of urgency in Ryleev's thinking and planning. When Batenkov reproached him for "pointlessly irritating the government," Ryleev replied that it was necessary to do this, since "if we continue to sleep we shall never be free." 1 1 3 In the light of the evidence adduced in the foregoing dis­ cussion, it is clearly not possible to arrive at a precise definition of Ryleev's final position on the question of the new consti­ tution beyond stating that, if anything, he is more readily to be identified with republican elements and tendencies within the Decembrist movement than with the constitutional-mon­ archists. Actually, the most certain aspect of his views was his firm conviction that this question, as all others, was to be resolved by a broadly representative grand council. For this reason, it is hard to accept the categorical yet unsubstantiated view of at least one Soviet historian, that "Griboedov's words about Ryleev . . . written to Bestuzhev, 'embrace Ryleev sin110

Vd ι. 177-78. Snytko, "Ryleev na sledstvn," p. 214. Letter of A. M. Bulatov to Nich­ olas I. 112 Vdxiv. 83. 113 Ibid., p. 96. 111

108 I Political Perspectives

cerely for me, as one republican to another (po-respublikanski)' say more about Ryleev, are more convincing, than all the evidence of the investigation." 114 For this view represents an over-simplification which, precisely in the light of all the evidence of the Investigating Commission, becomes difficult to sustain without considerable qualifications and reservations. In concluding our examination of Ryleev's views on the question of a new constitution, we can agree with the verdict of his earliest biographer, who quite rightly stressed above all their democratic nature. Like other members of the secret society, Sirotinin wrote: Ryleev too, wanted the establishment of a permanent government with members elected by the people, equality of military service among all classes, local government, open courts, the introduction of juries, freedom of the press, the liquidation of monopolies, the abolition of serfdom, freedom in the choice of occupation, the equality of all citizens before the law; but he approached these questions from his own democratic viewpoint, and this democratic nature of his convictions stood out sharper and clearer in comparison with the views of his fellow members. 115

The Future of the Imperial

Family

Ryleev envisaged introducing a constitution to Russia by convoking a grand council through the good offices of the Senate. ii4 Nechkina, Dvizhenie dekabristov, n. 95. It is this dictum of Griboedov's which in another of Nechkina's works, A. S. Griboedov i dekabristy, is adduced repeatedly to demonstrate Griboedov's supposedly republican sentiments and hence his identification with, if not membership in, the Decembrist movement. Apparently operating on the assumption that the strength of an argument bears a direct relationship to its repetition, the author relentlessly reiterates this single item of "evidence" throughout the book's 550 pages. Far from strengthening her case, however, her efforts become merely irritating and, in the end, unconvincing. 115 Sirotinin, p. 165.

Political Perspectives | 109 If necessary, the Senate was to be compelled to do so by force. He expressed remarkable confidence in the wide popular respect commanded by the Senate, suspecting that one decree from its august assembly would be sufficient to convoke the council without demur.116 However, Ryleev was cautious about how the force he mentioned should be applied. He told Zavalishin that if a revolt were made by armed force, then power would remain in its hands and that would be most unsafe: a counterrevolution would immediately ensue. He argued that while it was essential to have the backing of the military, to ensure stability the coup itself should be carried out "under civilian circumstances" (po grazhdanskim sostoyaniyam). When Zavalishin objected that this would inevitably mean a long wait, Ryleev replied that stability was more important than speed since "in the life of a nation ten years is but a moment"; moreover, he stressed the danger represented by "power in the hands of the military combined with force." 117 Ryleev wanted the grand council to be able to debate the proposed state charter, since he considered that to introduce it by force would be a "violation of the people's rights." This caution, typical of hie general democratic temperament and prompted by his dislike and distrust of violence, placed him in a dilemma. His inclination toward the introduction of a republican system of government confronted him with the consequent problem of the imperial family's position, which, if at all possible, he wanted to see resolved without violence. Ryleev was, after all, no terrorist. For example, when Yakubovich suggested breaking up a tavern as an act of provocation, Ryleev objected that they "should not resort to base means in pursuit of noble ends." 118 The conservative Decembrist Shteingel considered Kakhovsky and, surprisingly perhaps, A. Bestuzhev, to be "ardent terrorists," but did not place Ryleev in this category.119 116

Vd i. 158. Vd iii. 371. This view is m marked contrast to the urgency expressed by Ryleev to Batenkov (cf. n. 112, above). 118 Vd i. 270. 119 Snytko, "Ryleev na sledstvii," p. 235. 117

110 I Political Perspectives

It was obvious to Ryleev that the introduction of a republican system was incompatible with the continued existence of the monarchy, but he feared his own realization of the logical resolution of this incompatibility: the elimination, in one way or another, of the imperial family. According to the testimony of some Decembrists and indeed, on his own admission, he tried to obviate the issue by use of a familiar tactic: the matter should be left to the grand council to decide.120 An even vaguer approach was recalled by Shteingel: "I remember Ryleev saying, in settling arguments about the imperial family, that circumstances would show what ought to be done." 121 However familiar this view may be as a tactic designed to keep the whole truth from the Investigating Commission, the fact is that it is hard to reconcile with his assertion, as recorded by A. M. Bulatov, that "the main aim was to overthrow the monarchy and the tyrannical power, as Ryleev put it, which the tsars have imposed on people who are their equals." 122 Broadly speaking, three possibilities confronted Ryleev and, indeed, the rest of those who took any part in policy making, on the question of the imperial family. The first, as noted above, was to leave the issue for the grand council to resolve; the second was to send it into exile abroad; and the third and most drastic was to liquidate it, or at least its head, the tsar. While there is some evidence to suggest that Ryleev had in mind the second course, the weight of evidence showing that he favored the final solution is overwhelming. N. Bestuzhev's testimony on this point suggests that Ryleev's intention was not to liquidate the imperial family, albeit only for considerations of policy rather than on grounds of moral scruple. Thus, in connection with the avowed intent of Yakubovich and Kakhovsky to assassinate the tsar, Ryleev told Bestuzhev that they had been persuaded to desist only because to do so would have been "against the policy and intentions of the 120

Cf., for example, Vd i. 464 and the testimony of N. Bestuzhev, Vd ii.

85. 121 122

Vd xiv. 160. Snytko, "Ryleev na sledstvu," p. 214.

Political Perspectives | 111 123

organization." Certainly, Ryleev's own testimony shows that he dissuaded Yakubovich from assassinating the tsar not because he was against the idea in principle—as N. Muraviev was—but because he considered the move premature: "I con­ vinced him that the Society had decided to resort to regicide, but that it was not yet ready to do so." 1 2 4 When asked by the Investigating Commission about various plans to assassinate Alexander from 1817 onward, and in particular about Yakubovich's intentions, Ryleev at first answered vaguely. But his account of his acquaintanceship with Yakubovich became more specific and extensive as he warmed to his theme. Yak­ ubovich had apparently remained unimpressed by Ryleev's revelations of the existence of a secret society, asserting that "one man of resolve is of more use than all your Carbonari and Freemasons." 1 2 5 With considerable difficulty Ryleev fi­ nally persuaded Yakubovich to postpone indefinitely his plan to kill Alexander. Ironically, it was from Yakubovich that Ryleev first heard news of the tsar's death. In a state of con­ siderable agitation Yakubovich rushed to Ryleev, accusing him of having forever deprived him of the opportunity of assassinating Alexander. 126 With regard to the second possi­ bility, Ryleev clearly attempted to mobilize support from sym­ pathetic naval personnel at Kronstadt with a view to facili­ tating the swift removal from the scene of the imperial family in the event of a successful coup and the tsar's refusal to accept the constitution adopted by the grand council. 1 2 7 Although the details had not been worked out, it was intended with the army's help to detain the imperial family, possibly at Schlusselberg, until the national representatives had been con­ vened. 1 2 8 Torson was opposed to banishing the imperial family and instead suggested choosing an emperor who would accept the adoption of the proposed constitution; but he found Ry123

124

Vd 11. 81.

Vi xcaxmeT.47 There is no place in my mind for love./Alas! My country is suffering;/My soul, agitated by grave thoughts/Now thirsts only for freedom. 45

See, e.g., his letter to Delvig of 5 October 1825 (pss, p. 496) and the dedicatory lines to A. Bestuzhev of his poem, "Voinarovskii" which serve as this chapter's epigraph. In a letter to Pushkin of November 1825, he wrote: "Bud' poet i grazhdanin" ("Be a poet and a citizen"), pss, p. 497. 46 Quoted in Tseitlin, Tvorcbestvo Ryleeva, p. 262. 47 "Ty posetit', moi drug, zhelala," pss, 239.

170 I The Decembrists' Cause

A further illustration of Ryleev's mettle was his indignant rejection of a suggestion made by his friend A. I. Kosovsky that he should settle permanently in the Ukraine, where he was spending the summer of 1821, rather than return to the humdrum routine of the northern capital: HTO6 a MJianbie ΓΟΠΜ

JleHHBMM CHOM yOHJi! Ητο6 Η He nocneuiHJi ΠΟΗ 3HaMeHa CBO6OHI>I! Ηετ, Ηβτ! TOMy BOBCK

CO MHOK) He CJiyHHTbCH.48 That I should kill my young years in idle sleep !/That I should fail to hasten to the banners of freedom!/No, N o ! I should never let that happen to me. The poetry which Ryleev subsequently wrote "under the ban­ ners of freedom" became an established part of the cultural legacy of liberal Russia. One contemporary recalled: From 1820 onward, liberalism became a feature of educated Russians. This is reflected in Griboedov's Woe from Wit, which appeared at this time. The Polar Star, Ryleev's poems "Voinarovskii" and "Nalivaiko," and Pushkin's "Ode to Freedom" were familiar to everyone; they were passed on 49 and repeated among circles (kruzhki) of like-minded friends. The characteristic subject of Ryleev's poetry was the "civic" hero, set in a romantically evoked, often mythical past, an implacable enemy of tyranny, misunderstood and doomed in his present circumstances, whose lonely sacrifice would be acknowledged subsequently by future generations—in a way which, by a curious paradox, epitomized the Decembrists' own fate. His disillusioned hero is typical enough of the ro­ manticism of the 1820s. But his significance lies in the fact that his anguish is caused not by love or "spleen" but by his 48

"K K-mu, ν otvet na stikhi, ν kotorykh on sovetoval mne navsegda ostat'sya na Ukraine," Pol.sob.sttkh., p. 282. 49 Belyaev, Vospominantya dekabrista, p. 155.

The Decembrists' Cause | 171 predicament as a member of the society he inhabits. He is profoundly and unremittingly tragic and is seized of the ter­ rifying conviction that the great task he is about to undertake, whatever that may be, will change the course of history. 50 The yearning for liberty pervades all Ryleev's poems, whether or not overtly political, for, in the words of N. Bestuzhev, "his only thought, his constant idea was to awaken within his compatriots feelings of love for their country and to kindle the desire for freedom." 5 1 This "constant idea" found its clear­ est and most consistent expression in the celebrated cycle of "Dumy." They were published between 1821 and 1823 in a number of journals, including Ryleev's and Bestuzhev's Polar Star. In all, the cycle consisted of twenty-five completed and seven uncompleted dumy, of which twenty-four were pub­ lished in a separate edition in 1825. This sold out almost immediately, and within five years it had become a biblio­ graphical rarity for which collectors paid up to one hundred roubles. 52 By way of defining the origin of the genre, Ryleev explained in his foreword to this edition that the duma was "an old legacy of our southern brothers (i.e., Ukrainians), our native Russian invention. It was later borrowed from us by the Poles. Even today the Ukrainians sing dumy about their heroes." Their origin he traced to an early sixteenth-century Polish source which refers specifically to elegies sung in Russia {na Rust) to commemorate two valiant brothers named Strusov killed fighting the Wallachians in 1506. "These elegies," Ry­ leev's source continues, "the Russians call 'dumy.' Matching their doleful voices with the words and swaying their bodies to them, Russian folk sometimes accompany the singing with the mournful strains of a reed-pipe." 53 Ryleev explained his 50

See Kurilov ed., Istoriya romanttzma ν russkoi literature, i. 290. Yusurov, Russkii romantizm nachala XIX veka i natstonal'nye kul'tury, p. 230. 51 Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 25. 52 Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, p. 245. The "Dumy" also appeared in Grech's Syn otechestva, Voeikov's literary supplement to Russkii invalid, Novostt literatury, and the Sorevnovatel' prosveshcheniya. 53 Frizman, K. F. Ryleev. Dumy, pp. 7-8. Hereafter referred to as Frizman.

172 I The Decembrists' Cause object in writing and publishing the "Dumy" in the opening lines of his published introduction to them. He quotes from the poet Niemcewicz, the contemporary Polish author of the historical ballad {Spiewy historyczne): To remind young people about their forebears' heroic deeds, to acquaint them with the most illustrious epochs of their nation's history, to instill in them a love for their country. . . . —this is a sure way of inducing people to form a strong attachment to their native land. Ryleev then comments: "This is precisely the aim I have in composing my 'Dumy.' " 5 4 In his original, unpublished intro­ duction to the separate edition Ryleev added: " I shall consider myself fortunate if I succeed in my enterprise even to a small extent, and even more fortunate if well-thinking people ap­ prove of my intention to shed a little light among our people." His desire to do this was, he wrote, prompted by his awareness that "only despotism fears enlightenment because despotism knows that its best prop is ignorance." 5 5 The thesis underlying the "Dumy," for all the anguish and indignation of their doomed heroes, was fundamentally an optimistic one: the Russian peo­ ple are temperamentally freedom-loving and endowed with heroic qualities; from earliest recorded history they have shown themselves to be essentially progressive; since the Russian peo­ ple are qualitatively the same today as they ever were, they should be, indeed are, capable of producing their contem­ porary heroes to serve the cause of freedom and to inspire in their fellow Russians an ardent love for their country. In order to realize this potential, the thesis continues, the task of the writer must be to select from the heroic annals of Russia's history suitable examples for his contemporaries to contem­ plate and, finally, to emulate. 54

Frizman, p. 7. There is a substantial literature on Ryleev and J. U. Niemcewicz (1757-1841), notably Ε. M. Dvoichenko-Markovaya's study of the question in Pol'sko-russkie literaturnye svyazi, Moscow, 1970, pp. 12955. 55 "Novye teksty: pervaya redaktsiya predisloviya k 'dumam,' " LN lix. 15-16.

The Decembrists' Cause | 173 In putting his thesis to the test, Ryleev's intention was not simply to turn the narrative of Russian history into poetry, nor to relate the development of the Russian people at par­ ticular stages of their history. What he was concerned to show was the timeless national and spiritual integrity of the char­ acter of the Russian people, extrapolating from the past their potential for the future. 56 Certainly, this appeal to Russia's past was in no small measure animated by the upsurge in patriotism and the enhanced awareness of Russia's national consciousness which were such vital byproducts of Russia's involvement with and defeat of Napoleon. S 7 An authority on the Decembrists' perception of history, S. S. Volk, has com­ mented that "inspired by lofty civic sentiments," the revolu­ tionary youth of the 1820s "sought in the past lessons for the present, models for the coming reconstruction of Russia." This, Volk rightly concludes, was "a very characteristic feature of the ideology of the revolutionaries of the 1820s." 5 8 It is very indicative that at least one Decembrist, N. Bestuzhev, saw in the "Dumy," and elsewhere in Ryleev's poetry, above all the voice of the poet expressing the Russian people's hith­ erto unarticulated, yet nevertheless profound, desire for lib­ erty, itself the truest and most perfect expression of patriot­ ism.59 For it shows that this tendency was what the Decembrists themselves particularly valued about Ryleev's poetry; they saw in it a direct application of one of the articles of the Union of Welfare's charter referred to above. It was evidently on this basis that A. Bestuzhev wrote of the "Dumy" in the Polar Star of 1823 that their main usefulness lay in their striving "to stimulate the valor of our citizens through reference to the heroic feats of their ancestors." 6 0 In his efforts to accomplish this, Ryleev encountered one obvious area of difficulty: the problem of the deliberate dis56

Ryleev's motives for writing the "Dumy" are interestingly discussed in Gukovskii, Pushkin i russkte romanhki, pp. 306-307. 57 See, e.g., Tseitlin, Tvorchestvo Ryleeva, p. 72. 58 Volk, Istoricheskie vzglyady dekabristov, p. 40. 59 See Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 25. 60 Azadovskii, "Primechaniya," Vospominaniya Bestuzhevykh, p. 683.

174

I The Decembrists'

Cause

tortion of historical events to make them serve as an illustra­ tion of a specific thesis. Ryleev's somewhat cavalier treatment of the historical record not unnaturally provoked diverse re­ actions. His earliest biographer, Sirotinin, for example, took the view that it was only the poet's steadily maturing technique which redeemed the dreadful monotony of his "civic-patriot" type and concluded, not without justification, that he was "evidently an extremely tendentious poet." 6 1 On the other hand, the most recent student of the "Dumy" argues that Ryleev's contemporaries (with the sole and signal exception of Pushkin) were prepared to forgive him any banalities, anachronisms, or other evidence of poor workmanship, as well as the obvious liberties he took with historical sources, because these faults were irrelevant to their wholehearted ac­ ceptance of Ryleev's basic aim in writing them. 62 Nikolai Ogarev aptly summed up Ryleev's dilemma in his introduction to the "Dumy," published in Herzen's Polar Star of 1860: "In the 'Dumy,' Ryleev set himself the impossible task of combining historical patriotism with the civic sentiments of his own day. This led to a false portrayal of Russian historical figures for the sake of illustrating the poet's 'civic' thesis." 6 3 Ryleev's main historical source was, in fact, Ν. M. Karamzin's History of the Russian State. He referred, for ex­ ample, to his dutna "Kurbskii" as the "fruits of my reading 64 of volume nine." Indeed, his indebtedness to Karamzin led Dostoevsky to remark that he was "merely Karamzin in verse— 65 nothing more." But in spite of his reference to such sources, the heroes of Ryleev's "Dumy" often had little enough in common with their historical prototypes. One instance of this is the case of Boris Godunov. In the eponymous dutna Ryleev 61

Sirotinin, pp. 201, 203. " 'Dumy' Ryleeva," Frizman, p. 199. 63 Reproduced ibid., " N . P. Ogarev, 'Predislovie,' " pp. 126-31. See p. 129. 64 pss, p. 458. Letter to Faddei Bulgarin of 20 June 1821. Karamzin's Istoriya gosudarstva rossiiskogo was published in 12 volumes, 11 of which appeared between 1816 and 1826, the year of Karamzin's death. 65 Quoted in Arkhipova, "Dvoryanskaya revolyutsionnost' ν vospriyatii F. M. Dostoevskogo," p. 245. 62

The Decembrists' Cause | 175

presented him in a thoroughly positive light. Rather than ad­ hering to Karamzin's view of him as a regicide and usurper, he portrays him as the people's tsar (elected, after all, by the zemskii sobor), an enlightened reformer who served his coun­ try well but who tragically fell victim to circumstances beyond his control. A further example is his treatment of the eight­ eenth-century cabinet minister, A. P. Volynsky, who was ex­ ecuted in 1740. He was, in fact, by and large a victim of his own political intriguing against Biron and Ostermann at the court of Empress Anna, but Ryleev depicts him as a noble and disinterested martyr who, by his readiness to sacrifice his life on the altar of patriotism, embodied all the civic virtues which the poet's readers might do well to emulate: JIio6oBbK) κ poHHHe flbiuia, fla Bee njifl Heft OH nepeHOCHT ITycTb 6yneT lecra o6pa3UOM, 3a crpaamymnx—xcejie3HOH rpynbio, Η BeHHO 3aKJi»TbiM BparoM IIocTbmHOMy HenpaBocynbio.66 Alive with love for his country,/He endures everything for it/. . . . May he be a model of honor,/An iron breastplate for the suffering/And forever the sworn enemy/Of shameful injustice. Here Ryleev's interpretation was at variance with the infor­ mation contained in the explanatory note written by the em­ inent historiographer P. M. Stroev, who, at the poet's request, furnished each of the dutny published in the 1825 edition with a brief description of the historical context to assist the reader. 67 It is worthy of note and illustrative of the nature of the prob­ lem under discussion that recent Soviet historiography accepts Karamzin's view of Kurbsky's flight in 1564 to Ivan IV's en­ emy, Lithuania, as an act of treason. Ryleev's portrayal of this event in "Kurbskii" as the desperate action of a hapless "Volynskii," Frizman, p. 87. See Chapter 2, n. 144 on Stroev.

176 I The Decembrists' Cause victim of tyranny is accordingly dismissed as an unacceptably 68 distorted interpretation. These indications of Ryleev's representation of past events are sufficient to show that the claim made for the "Dumy" by one commentator that they "could well be made a textbook so that children might learn Russian history from them" is very wide of the mark and, indeed, a recipe for pedagogical disaster. 69 In any case, it was never Ryleev's intention that they should serve this purpose. His conscious distortion of historical episodes particularly irritated Pushkin, whose atti­ tude toward the "Dumy" was, to say the least of it, decidedly mixed. "Ryleev's 'Dumy,' " he commented tartly, "may well have an aim, but they all miss the mark." 7 0 But Pushkin, guided by aesthetic rather than social or political considera­ tions, himself missed the point, so ably expressed by a later reader: Ryleev sought in history . . . people who expressed genu­ inely national and civic sentiments, but in doing so extended at will the true nature of the historical hero. This he did in order to find access to the emotions of the whole nation and to convey the ideals for which the Decembrists were fighting, the ideals which were the nation's ancestral leg­ acy. 71 Some additional examples will serve to show how Ryleev used heroic figures from Russia's past in order to further the cause he so passionately embraced. The poet's confidence in the inspirational powers of the legendary warrior fallen in the cause of liberty finds eloquent reflection in "Volynskii": H XOTB naneT—HO 6yjieT XCHB Β cepjmax Η ΙΗΜΑΤΗ HaponHoft

68

See, e.g., Tseitlin, Tvorchestoo Ryleeva, pp. 76-77. Aikhenval'd, Siluety russkikb pisatelei, p. 20. 70 " 'Dumy' Ryleeva i tselyat, a vse nevpopad," Pushkin, Polnoe sobrame sochinenii, x. 141. Letter to V. A. Zhukovsky, 20. iv. 1825. 71 Bazanov, Poety-dekabristy, p. 54. 69

The Decembrists'

Cause

| 177

CjiaBHa KOHHHHa 3a Hapoa! IleBqbi, repoio B BO3lasiHbe, H3 BeKa B BeK, H3 poaa B pon FlepenajiyT ero neHHbe.72

Though he falls yet shall he live/In the heart and memory of the nation./How glorious it is to die for the people .'/Poets, in retribution of the hero,/From age to age, from generation to generation/Will pass on his deed. "Volynskii" in fact makes even more poignant reading than its author had reason to hope, since it contains some remarkably prescient lines on what, in the event, was to be Ryleev's own fate—lines which express the poet's attitude toward the patriot's need to pay the ultimate price: IIpOTHB THpaHOB JIIOTblX T B e p n ,

OH SyneT H B uenax CBo6oneH,

B nac Ka3HH npaBOTOK) ropn

H BEHHO B MYBCTBAX S j i a r o p o n e H . 7 3

Against tyrants' cruel dungeons/He will be free even in chains/ And at the hour of his death proud of his Tightness/And ever noble in his feelings. The unfinished duma "Vadim" features a hero from medieval history whose qualities Ryleev particularly admired: the patriot who by his self-sacrifice sought to defend the ordinary people of the Novgorod city-state against the arbitrary rule of the prince. Ryleev consciously chose Novgorod for its obvious connotations in his readers' minds with an ancient Russian republican tradition finally obliterated as a result of its subjugation by Ivan III of Moscow in 1480. By way of further contrast to the Novgorod of medieval times was its contemporary role as location of the showpiece of the highly unpopular system of military settlements. In an obviously allegorical reference, Ryleev wrote of the imminent collision between the 72 73

Frizman, p. 85. Ibid.

178 | The Decembrists'

Cause

despotic prince and the citizenry of Novgorod at a "decisive, fateful hour": Tp03eH KHH3b CaMOBJiaCTHTejIBHblft!

Ho HacrynHT MpaK HOHHOH, H HacTaHeT Mac peiuHTejibHwit, Hacfljiarpa>KflaH poKOBOH.74

Terrible is the despotic prince !/But night's darkness will fall/ And the decisive hour will come/A fateful hour for the citizenry. The motif of the "rokovoi chas" is a particularly prophetic one. There are numerous references throughout the Decembrists' testimony and subsequent memoirs to their own "fateful hour" on Senate Square. The final fragment of this work has Vadim expressing the poet's own yearning to make his personal and vital contribution to the cause of the restoration of his fellow countrymen's long-eroded liberties: A x ! e c j i H 6 B03BparaTb a M o r

Ilopa6omeHHOMy Hapony

EjiaxeHCTBa oSmero 3ajior, Ewjiyio npaoineB cBo6ony. 7 5

Oh! If I could restore/To the enslaved people/The pledge of general bliss/The former freedom of our ancestors. Maslov has rightly observed that "Vadim was for Ryleev the bearer of republican ideas."76 The sixteenth-century adventurer Ermak, the so-called conqueror of Siberia, is the "national hero" featured in the first duma Ryleev read publicly, "The Death of Ermak." 77 His death in 1585 at the hands of native Siberian tribesmen, whom he was in the process of colonizing, is portrayed by Ryleev as Frizman, p. 113, Fragment in. Ibid., Fragment iv. 76 Maslov, Literatumaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, p. 201. 77 "Smert' Ermaka" was read at a meeting of the Free Society on 28 Nov. 1821. 74 75

The Decembrists'

Cause

| 179

a heroic sacrifice for Russia by one of her most ardent patriots. Here again, Ryleev emphasizes the equanimity with which his hero accepts his own death for the good of the cause: H 3a no6ejn»i 3acjiy>KHB

EnarOCJIOBeHHH

OTHH3HbI,—

HaM CMepTb HE MOJKCT SbiTb CTpauiHa.78

But having earned for our victory/The blessing of our native land,/Death can hold no fear for us. Ryleev's romantic nationalist sympathies were not exclusively confined to the Russian context: his duma "Bogdan Khmel'nitskii" as well as his longer poems "Voinarovskii" and "Nalivaiko" reflected his understanding of the "noble impulses" underlying Ukrainian nationalism. Ryleev here catalogues the aspirations of the avenging "civic" hero, allegorically attributing them to Khmelnitsky: OTMCTHT xojionHoe npe3peHbe K CBHiqeHHeHiiiHM npaBaM jnoneft;

BHOBb

BOHBOPHT B

ponHbie CTenH MHp.79

C CBHTOH CBOGOflOH THXHH

He will avenge the cold scorn/For the most sacred rights of the people,/He will again introduce to his native steppes/ Blessed freedom and tranquil peace. Even in "Rogneda," a duma based on what was essentially the domestic tragedy of a tenth-century princely house, Ryleev succeeds in introducing his "civic" or nationalistic orientation. Rogneda sees in Vladimir a tyrant "injurious to the motherland" rather than the man who has cruelly abused her. It is for political rather than personal reasons, then, that she exhorts her son, Izyaslav, the offspring of her enforced union with Vladimir, to show Frizman, p. 59. » Ibid., p. 74.

78 7

180 | The Decembrists' .

Cause

. . K nejiaM BejiHKHM pBeHbe,

JIio6oBb K crpaHe TBoeft pojjHOH

HK

NPHTECHHTEJIAM

npe3peHbe. . . .80

Zeal for mighty deeds,/Love for your native country/And scorn for the oppressors. The vehemence of her concluding monologue, a call for the death of Vladimir and an end to the tyranny he represents, must have seemed, when published in 1825 and read by disaffected young aristocrats, almost like a political proclamation: C KaicoH 6 xcanHocTHK) a Ha 6pbi3JKymyio KpoBb rjianejia, C KaKHM BocroproM 6bi Te6a, TnpaH, yracuiero y3pena! . . .81 With what eagerness I would look at the spurting blood,/ With what delight I would look, tyrant, on your corpse! The theme of violent retribution recurs in "Dimitrii Samozvanets," where, in a remarkably bold statement, Ryleev writes: JJjia THpaHa HeT cnaceHba: flpyr eMy—OHHH KHHXAJI!82

There is no salvation for the tyrant:/His only friend is the dagger! Ryleev hints in "Ivan Susanin," however, at the possibility of a form of kingship which was more acceptable to the people than the Ryurikids' tyranny. Here the threat to the first Romanov tsar actually evinces an act of supreme heroism from a simple Russian peasant, Susanin, who sacrifices his own life for the tsar when he deliberately misdirects a posse of Poles 80 Ibid., p. 25. In his introduction to the "Dumy," Ryleev describes "Rogneda" as "more a fable (povest') than a duma." Ibid., p. 8. 81 Ibid., p. 31; Pol.sob.stikh., pp. 413-14. 82 Frizman, p. 66.

The Decembrists' Cause | 181 who had come for the young Mikhail Fedorovich. Susanin, now the Poles' prisoner, tells his son: CxaacH, HTO CycamiH cnacaeT uapa, JIio6oBbio κ οτΗΗ3Ηβ Η Bepe ropa. Η ΠΟΜΗΗ: Λ ra6Hy 3a pyccKoe ruieM»!83 Say that Susanin is saving the tsar,/Burning with love for his country and faith/ . . . /And remember:/I am dying for my Russian kin! Somewhat unexpectedly, Ryleev's object lesson in patriot­ ism is here linked directly with the notion of a tsar and with the defense of his person. In "Ivan Susanin," Ryleev upholds the principle of the election of a national leader by the will of the people—in this case, as expressed by a specially con­ vened zemskii sobor in order to rid early-seventeenth-century Russia of her Polish and Swedish occupiers. More recent his­ tory had seen a parallel with Alexander I's inspirational lead­ ership of his gravely imperilled country against Napoleon in what was, perhaps, the only moment of his reign when he had the undivided support of all Russian people. Ryleev's use of history, in this instance particularly, is oddly akin to Stalin's evocation of the memory of such glorious Russian patriots as Alexander Nevsky, Dimitry Donskoi, Minin, and Pozharsky, 84 Generals Suvorov and Kutuzov, during the dark days of 1941. Susanin meets his death at the hands of the duped and enraged Poles, scornfully crying: IlpenaTejifl, MHHJIH, BO MHe BM Hauum: Hx HeT Η He 6yneT Ha PyccKoft 3eMjiH!8S 83

Ibid., p. 71. Suvorov, Pozharsky and Minin were, in fact, among the subjects for a second series of dumy which Ryleev planned to write. See Oksman, K. F. Ryleev. Stikhotvoreniya, stat'i, ocherkt, dokladnye zapiski, pis'ma, p. 365. 85 Frizman, p. 72. 84

182 | The Decembrists'

Cause

You supposed you had found a traitor in me:/There are none and never shall be any on Russian soil! His final words echo those of Volynsky, of Ermak, and of many other Ryleevan heroes, as he meets his death unflinchingly, confident that his supreme sacrifice is not in vain: pyccKHH no cepjmy, TOT 6onpo, H CMCJIO, M paflOCTHO rw6HeT 3a npaBoe flejio! KTO

He who is at heart a Russian dies cheerfully and bravely/ And gladly for a just cause! Not all of Ryleev's "civic heroes" were taken from so remote a past. There were more contemporary instances; indeed, the whole cycle of dumy, as well as the ode "Civic Courage," were dedicated to Admiral N. S. Mordvinov. One of Ryleev's most modern subjects was the poet Derzhavin, who had died in 1816, some six years before the duma he inspired was written. Ryleev estimated Derzhavin highly as a poet with a civic conscience who placed the "common good" above all else and fully lived up to what Ryleev deemed the high calling of the poet—to be of use to his country: OH

Btinie Bcex Ha CBeTe

6jiar

OSmecTBeHHoe Qjiaro CT3BHJI H B orHeHHbix CBOHX CTHxax CBaTyK) noSpofleTenb cjiaBwi. 86

He placed higher than all blessings/The common good/And in his fiery verses/Praised sacred virtue. The considerable interest which the "Dumy" excited was due to the originality of their form and conception, the intrinsic interest of their narrative and thematic development, and the spirit of patriotism which ran through them. One contemporary critic, for example, wrote to Ryleev and Bestuzhev (as joint editors of the Polar Star) of the pleasure he derived from the "Dumy" "which constantly excite my interest" with their 86 Ibid., p. 92. Ryleev goes on to quote directly from Derzhavin's poem, "Vlastitelyam I sudyam," itself an adaptation of Psalm 82.

The Decembrists'

Cause

I 183

87

"unusual stamp of distinction." Similar enthusiasm was ex­ pressed by Alexander Voeikov in his editorial commentary to "The Death of Ermak" published in January 1822. 8 8 Faddei Bulgarin's adulatory reviews of the "Dumy" in the Northern Bee, and his description of them as " a valuable gift to Russian patriots," healed his eighteen-month breach with Ryleev.89 Fedor Glinka recalled how the "Dumy" "made a brilliant appearance" and "created quite a stir," 9 0 while A. I. Koshelev described in his memoirs the powerful impression made by Ryleev when he read them at Μ. M. Naryshkin's house in Moscow: as a result, together with the young Moscow phi­ losophers Kireevsky, Venevitinov, and Rozhalin, he started to become interested in contemporary political matters which hitherto had been a source of indifference to him and his friends.91 To be sure, not all the literary community of Petersburg in Ryleev's day necessarily sympathized either with his aims or, more particularly, with his use of literature to propagate them. Chief among those who challenged the concept of the "Dumy" and the way in which they were executed, was A. S. Pushkin. A cordial though candid correspondence passed between the two men, each of whom had very different ideas about the role of literature and of the artist in contemporary Russian society. Pushkin made his feelings on this subject clear in a letter to Zhukovsky in which he criticized Ryleev's idea, as­ 92 serting that "the aim of poetry is poetry." P. A. Vyazemsky recorded how Pushkin had laughed at Ryleev's proud boast: "I am not a poet but a citizen." "In spite of his liberalism," Vyazemsky wrote to A. I. Turgenev, "he said that if one writes 87 Ostaf'evskii arkhiv . . . , ii. 544. Letter of 23 Jan. 1823. In the previous year, Vyazemsky had commented in a letter to Turgenev: "This Ryleev has blood in his veins and I do like his dumy" (ibid., ii. 270. Letter of July 1822). 88 See above, n. 20. 89 pss, p. 767. Severnaya pchela, xxxvii (1825). 90 Glinka, "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 246. 91 Koshelev, Zaptski, p. 13; Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, p. 239. 92 Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinemi, x. 141.

184 I The Decembrists' Cause

poetry then one should above all be a poet; but if one simply wants to play the citizen (grazhdanstvovat') then one should stick to prose." 9 3 Pushkin's attitude to the "Dumy" is typically expressed in a remarkably frank letter written to their author from Mikhailovskoe toward the end of May, 1825: What shall I say about your "Dumy"? They all contain moments of poetry: the closing lines of "Peter in Ostrogozhsk" are extraordinarily original. But in general they are weak both in invention and form. They are all in the same style. The description of the place of action, the hero's mon­ ologue, and the didactic element are points common to them all (loci topici). There is nothing national or Russian about them, apart from the names—except for "Ivan Susanin," the first duma in which I begin to have an inkling of the real talent you possess. 94 Nor did Pushkin forgive Ryleev his anachronisms. He was particularly irritated by his reference in "Olga at Igor's Grave" to the Byzantine double-headed eagle which "we adopted at the time of Ivan III—not before." 9 5 These criticisms were se­ vere indeed, but in a letter to Vyazemsky, Pushkin was even more dismissive: "The 'Dumy' are rubbish (dryan') and their title comes from the German word dumm and not, as it may 96 seem at first sight, from the Polish." Because of the two men's sharply divergent outlooks, Ryleev and Pushkin were bound to find themselves in disagreement. Clearly, some of Pushkin's criticisms were justified: there was inevitably a certain uniformity about the "Dumy" because of the nature of Ryleev's vision and intention. But Pushkin's reservations about their lack of "Russianness" indicate that his understanding of the term "national" was essentially an aesthetic one, while Ryleev's was evidently more political and historical. In any case, to a certain extent, Ryleev himself 93 94

95 96

Vyazemskie, Ostaf'evsktt arkhiv, ι. 511. Pushkin, Polnoe sobrame sochinenii, x. 143. Ibid., p. 144. Ibid., p. 149. Letter of 25 May 1825.

The Decembrists' Cause | 185 shared Pushkin's misgivings. " I know that you do not rate my 'Dumy' highly," he wrote. "I myself feel that some of them are so weak that they should not be printed in the separate edition. But I am also absolutely convinced that Ermak, Matveev, Godunov, and others like them are good and may prove useful—not only to children." 9 7 Pushkin's last word to Ryleev on the subject came weeks before the fateful uprising, with the following pithy judgment: "With all due respect to Ryleev . . . I must say that I much prefer a poem without a plan to a plan without a poem." 9 8 Ryleev was right, however, not to worry unduly about upsetting Pushkin's aesthetic sensibilities since, as Nikolai Ogarev commented in his introduction to them of 1860: "The influence of the 'Dumy' on his contem­ poraries was exactly what Ryleev wanted—purely civic {chisto grazhdanskoe)."99 Their relative merits and demerits apart, it is incontestably the case that the "Dumy" represented a form of poetry pre­ viously unknown in Russian literature. In the words of one literary historian: "Ryleev was the first to introduce work of this type, and in this respect he will always occupy a special place in the history of Russian literature." 1 0 0 The "Dumy" have a further claim to originality, albeit not of a literary nature. Fedor Glinka recalled that hitherto poetry had not been considered a saleable commodity: writers were accus­ tomed to receiving nothing for their published work. But Ry­ leev was the first to be paid; his "Dumy" brought him 100 roubles from Alexander Voeikov. It was somehow fitting that their greatest detractor should have been the first to emulate this advantageous practice: "After this, Pushkin started to sell his poems pro rata—and that was the start of it (i poshli) ! " 1 0 1 97

pss, p. 489. Letter of 10 March 1825. For "Artemon Matveev" see Frizman, pp. 78-80. 98 Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, x. 192. Letter to A. A. Bestuzhev, dated 30. xi. 1825. 99 N. P. Ogarev, "Predislovie," Frizman, p. 129. 100 Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, p. 250. A. Bestuzhev, too, stressed the originality of the "Dumy" in his "Vzglyad na staruyu i novuyu slovesnost' ν Rossii," Polyarnaya zvezda, ed. V. A. Arkhipov, p. 23. 101 Glinka, "Vospominaniya ο Ryleeve," p. 246.

186 I The Decembrists' Cause For later generations of Russian radicals and revolution­ aries, Ryleev's "Dumy" contained a message which endured. Herzen, for example, thought of them when introducing Radishchev's Journey from Moscow to St. Petersburg to the readers of his Polar Star: "Radishchev's ideas are our dreams, the dreams of the Decembrists . . . in whatever he wrote, we hear the same familiar note which we are used to hearing in Push­ kin's first poems and in Ryleev's 'Dumy' and in our hearts." 1 0 2 And in the opening lines of his introduction to the "Dumy" in the Polar Star, Herzen's co-editor, Ogarev, stated: "We are publishing Ryleev's 'Dumy' as an historical record which must not disappear, the record of an heroic episode in Russian life." 1 0 3 Similarly, the civic theme which permeated Ryleev's work was to be taken up later in the century by other poets and by Nekrasov in particular. In one of his poems we find this echo of Ryleev: ΠΟΘΤΟΜ Moxceuib ΤΗ He 6biTb, Ho rpaxaaHHHOM 6MTL· ofisraaH.104 You do not have to be a poet,/But you are bound to be a citizen.

"Voinarovskii"

and

"Nalivaiko"

Apart from the "Dumy" Ryleev's most substantial works were "Voinarovskii," published in part in the Polar Star of 1824, and "Nalivaiko," extracts of which appeared in the 1825 edition of the same journal. There are in addition a number of lesser poems which, for thematic considerations, demand our attention. The main theme of "Voinarovskii" is the revolt of the Ukrainian hetman Mazepa against Peter the Great and the 102

Herzen, Sobranie sochinenii, xiii. 273. N. P. Ogarev, "Predislovie," Frizman, p. 126. 104 N. A. Nekrasov, "Poet i grazhdanin," Izbrannye proizvedentya ν dvukh tomakh, Moscow, 1966, i. 158. 103

|

The Decembrists'Cause

187

105

account of it given by Mazepa's nephew, Voinarovsky. Gen­ erally considered to have been an act of treachery perpetrated, according to official historiography, by an opportunist and a villain, the episode was given by Ryleev a novel, not to say controversial, interpretation designed to serve his own "civic" purposes. In the poem, Mazepa is portrayed as an ardent Ukrainian patriot whose skillful but unscrupulous playing off of Peter and Charles XII of Sweden against one another, in order to safeguard the fragile autonomy of his own country, was seen to stem from essentially legitimate and honorable motives. Ryleev's Voinarovsky is a young man of noble char­ acter who knows nothing of Mazepa's treachery and implicitly believes in his integrity. Here, as in his "Dumy," Ryleev has taken numerous liberties with the sources, thereby confirming that his interest in the past was directly proportional to the extent of its adjudged usefulness to the advancement of the Decembrists' cause. In a manner strongly reminiscent of the "Dumy," the themes of patriotism and romantic nationalism are restated, together with the identical aspiration of the hero to restore to his un­ fortunate countrymen their ancient liberty: Mae Hano XCHTI>; eme BO MHe

ΓορκτrnoOOBbκ ροβΗοή crpaHe, Eme, 6biTb MoaceT, npyr Hapona CnaceT HecMacTHbix 3CMJIHKOB, H, nOCTOHHHe OTUOB, 106 BocKpecHeT npexmra CBo6ona! 105 The Mazepa theme also attracted Pushkin and Byron. For a discussion of the former's treatment of it, see Pauls, "Two treatments of Mazeppa: Ryleev's and Pushkin's." In addition, Ryleev planned a tragedy "Mazepa" (K. F. Ryleev. Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii, ed. A. V. Arkhipova, pp. 32425), while "Gaidamak" is supposed by some commentators to be "a young Mazepa" (ibid., p. 441) and "Palei" part of a poem Ryleev intended to write on Mazepa (ibid., p. 422). Hetman Mazepa made his first appearance in Ryleev's work in the duma "Petr velikn ν Ostrogozhske," where the poet treats him with some circumspection. 106 Pol.sob.stikh., p. 234. Some commentators have argued that Ryleev in fact implicitly condemns Mazepa in the poem (e.g., Neiman, K. F. Ryleev,

188 I The Decembrists' Cause I must live; within me yet/Burns love for my native country./ Still yet, perhaps, the people's friend/Will save his wretched compatriots,/And former freedom, the property/Of our fa­ thers, will be resurrected! In referring to the "people's friend" Ryleev had in mind not so much the eighteenth-century Ukrainian hero, as those of his nineteenth-century Russian contemporaries who he knew were contemplating the release, if necessary by revolutionary means, of their own "wretched compatriots" from the op­ pressive yoke of serfdom. Like the Decembrists after him, Mazepa was uncertain of success, but he was convinced that the time was ripe for the inevitable confrontation, regardless of the personal cost. Nikolai Bestuzhev, in fact, records Ryleev as giving voice to precisely these sentiments on the eve of the uprising. Here, however, Ryleev lets Mazepa express them in his poem: Ycnex He BepeH,—Η MCHH Hub cjiaea χηετ, HJib noHomeHbe! Ho Λ peuiHJicfl: nycTL cynb6a Γρο3ΗΤ crpaHe poflHon 3JioCHacTbeM; y * 6JIH30K nac, 6jiH3Ka 6opb6a, Bopb6a cBo6ojibi c caMOBJiacTbeM!107 Success is not certain—and for me/There lies ahead either glory or dishonor!/But I am resolved: though fate/May threaten my native country with misfortune;/Near is the p. 61; A. M. Gurevich, "Obraz Mazepy ν 'Voinarovskom' Ryleeva," Vchenye zapiski Moskovskogo oblastnogo pedagogicheskogo instituta, 1960, vol. 85, Trudy kafedry russkoi literatury, No. 6, pp. 3-11). This view is refuted in Khodorov, "Ukrainskie syuzhety poezii K. F. Ryleeva." Khodorov also rejects the diametrically opposed but equally simplistic view of Ryleev's contem­ porary Pavel Katenin, that the poet had transformed "the rogue and scoundrel Mazepa into some kind of Cato" (ibid., p. 214). Katenin's objection finds support in Pushkin's "Poltava" (1829), where Ryleev's positive view of Ma­ zepa is "corrected." Instead, Khodorov argues that Ryleev here develops the notion (central to romanticism) of the complexity of human nature, partic­ ularly as discernible in the ambivalent personalities of so many historical figures. Ibid., ρ 131. 107 Pol.sob.stikh., p. 221.

The Decembrists' Cause | 189 hour, near is the struggle,/The struggle between liberty and despotism! There could have been no doubt in the reader's mind what Ryleev intended in these lines. The poet himself made it clear in his poem of dedication to A. Bestuzhev that "Voinarovskii" was to be seen not as a repository of the kind of art which might be expressed by a conventional poet, but as a vehicle for those feelings which might be expressed above all by a "citizen": Ttl He VBHflHUJL· Β HHX HCKyCCTBa: 3a το Haftneuib xcHBbie nyecTBa, Η He Πθ3τ, a rpaamamiH.108 You will not see in it any art/But you will find living feel­ ings;/! am not a poet, but a citizen. A. G. Tseitlin has commented that "Voinarovskii" "was the only Russian romantic poem which legally propagandized the Decembrists' ideals." 1 0 9 In the light of the foregoing analysis, there can be little doubt that Ryleev designed "Voinarovskii" precisely with the furtherance of the Decembrists' ideals in view. The poem was well received by Ryleev's public. One en­ thusiastic reviewer, who on the strength of extracts from the poem was moved to prophesy a great literary future for Ry­ 110 leev, has been quoted above. The formerly estranged Bulgarin was unstinting in his praise of "Voinarovskii" and wrote of it in the Northern Bee: "Here is a truly national poem!. . . The work merits our praise, the poet—our respect and grat­ 111 itude." Even Pushkin reacted enthusiastically to "Voina­ rovskii" and wrote to its author in January 1825: " I am await­ ing the Polar Star impatiently, and do you know why? For 112 'Voinarovskii.' Our literature was in need of this poem." 108 109 110 111 112

"A. A. Bestuzhevu," ibid., p. 200. Tseitlin, Tvorchestvo Ryleeva, p. 131. See above, n. 28. Severnaya pcbela, xxxii (1825). See pss, p. 767. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie socbinenii, x. 118. Letter of 25 Jan.

190

J The Decembrists'

Cause

And, having received it, Pushkin wrote again several months later: "I think you have already had my comments on 'Voinarovskii.' I should just add that where I have written none you should read praise, exclamation marks, 'splendid' etc." 1 1 3 To his brother, Pushkin wrote: "I am reconciled with Ryleev: his 'Voinarovskii' is full of life."114 He found the poem "in­ comparably better than the 'Dumy.' " 1 1 5 Nikolai Bestuzhev went so far as to claim that it was a more important poem than any of Pushkin's.116 Although today this seems an as­ sessment of dubious validity, it is nevertheless the case that many Decembrists were critical of some of Pushkin's work— of the lack of commitment, for example, in the first chapters of Evgenii Onegin. A further indication of the impact made by the poem is the fact that the members of the secret society in Moscow held a special meeting to discuss the poem, ac­ cording to the testimony of the Decembrist I. N. Gorstkin.117 The theme of Ryleev's other major work was, character­ istically, the heroism of the Ukrainian national movement, this time in the sixteenth century, as exemplified by one of its most outstanding leaders, Nalivaiko.118 At the same time it provides further insight into Ryleev's own political mood practically on the eve of the December uprising. In the words of one student of the Decembrists' romantic-national outlook, the Ukraine represented for Ryleev "only the idealized and, so to speak, abstract theater {Schauplatz) of bygone civic and national freedom."119 This assertion is demonstrably more plausible than the view of the Polish philologist Alexander Brueckner, who remarked that Ryleev used Ukrainian themes because he could find in Russian history no struggles for free­ dom. 120 The poet's uncompromising call to direct action is contained in an early draft of the poem: 113

Ibid., p.143. Letter dates from second half of May 1825. Ibid., p. 81. Written between 12 Jan. and beginning of Feb. 1824. 115 Ibid., p. 78. Letter to A. A. Bestuzhev of 12.i.l824. 116 Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 25. 117 Tseitlin, Tvorchestvo Ryleeva, p. 132. 118 "Nalivaiko," Pol.sob.stikh., pp. 242-54. 119 Lemberg, Die Nattonale Gedankenwelt der Dekabristen, p. 146. 120 A. Brueckner, A Literary History of Russia (London, 1908), p. 157, quoted in Pauls, "Ryleyev and the Ukraine," see p. 40. 114

The Decembrists'

Cause

| 191

HeT npHMHpeHbH, HeT ycjioBHH Me»my nipaHOM H pa6oM; Tyr Hajio He nepHHJi, a KpoBH, H a M HOJIJKHO NEFTCTBOBATB M e n e M . 1 2 1

There is no reconciliation, there are no conditions/Between the tyrant and the slave;/It is not ink which is needed, but blood,/We must act with the sword. In remarkably strident and forthright terms Ryleev argues, through Nalivaiko, that the enormity of the insult to the entire nation which naked tyranny necessarily represents, transcends the possibility of forgiveness and can only be avenged: Ho BeKOBbie oocopfijieHba TnpaHaM ponHHbi npomaTb H CTbffl 06HflbI OCTaBJIHTb

Ee3 cnpaBenJiHBoro OTMmeHbH— H e B CHJiax a: OHHH Jiirnib pa6

Tax

MO>KET

6biTb H nonji

H

cjia6.122

To forgive the tyrants of my motherland/Their centuries of insult/Or to leave unavenged/The shameful injury—/That I have not the power to do:/Only a slave could be so base and feeble. Perhaps the most celebrated passage of the poem is Nalivaiko's confession ("Ispoved' Nalivaiki") in which "that ardent soul, Ryleev, foretold his fate and that of his noble friends."123 Just as in "Voinarovskii" Mazepa expressed his irrevocable commitment to a highly uncertain venture, so in "Nalivaiko" Ryleev's own firm resolve in the face of his own grave doubts finds its reflection. Asked about the possibility of a bloody defeat, Nalivaiko replies, with typical romantic fatalism: 121 Pol.sob.stikh., p. 474. This sentiment bears a striking similarity to the Decembrist Alexander Poggio's jibe at Nikita Muraviev: "Muraviev seeks interpreters of Bentham, but it is not pens we should be acting with." (See Dovnar-Zapol'skii, Memuary dekabrtstov, p. 201.) 122 Pol.sob.stikh., p. 244. 123 A. M. Murav'ev, Zapiski, p. 15.

192 | The Decembrists'

Cause

nora6ejib xcneT nepBbm BoccraeT Ha yTecHHTejieii Hapona— Cynb6a MeHa ysn o6peiuia. H3BecTH0 MHe:

Toro, KTO

H o rae, CKaxH, Korna 6biJia

Be3 xepTB HcxynjieHa CBoSona? nornSHy a 3a Kpaft ponHoft,— % 3TO HyBCTByK), H 3HaiO . . . H paflOCTHO, OTEU CBHTOH,

CBOH XCPESHH a 6jiaroanoBji5no! 124

I am well aware that ruin awaits/Him who rises first/Against the people's oppressors—/Fate has already condemned me./ But where, tell me, and when/Was freedom ever bought without victims ?/I shall perish for my native land,—/I feel this, I know it. . . . /Yet gladly, holy father,/I bless my fate. "These words," Herzen concluded, "contain the quintessential Ryleev," while Ogarev observed, "the public understood that this was, in fact, not only Ryleev's personal confession but the confession of every man at that time who had a sense of commitment." 125 Nikolai, Bestuzhev recalled that at the time Ryleev was writing "Nalivaiko's Confession" his brother, Mikhail Bestuzhev, was staying with the poet; his alarm at its implied and ominous forebodings prompted this Nalivaiko-like response from Ryleev: "But do you really suppose that I doubt for one minute what my fate is? Believe me, with each passing day 1 become more convinced of the inevitability of my course of action and of my impending ruin which is the price of our first blow for Russia's freedom." 126 Curiously, if the censor, A. S. Birukov, saw in "Nalivaiko" 's sixteenth-century Ukrainian setting any inferences to be drawn for contemporary Russia, he chose on this occasion to close his eyes to them. During the Decembrists' investigation and in connection with the case against Ryleev, the MinPoLsob.stikh., pp. 250-51. Herzen, "Russkii zagovor 1825 goda," Sobranie sochinenii, xiii. 138; Pereselenkov, "N. P. Ogarev i dekabristy," p. 291. 126 Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie o Ryleeve," p. 7. 124

125

The Decembrists' Cause | 193

ister of Public Education, A. S. Shishkov, demanded of Birukov an explanation as to why he had passed for publication a poem containing "inappropriate expressions concerning crimes and freedom." While Birukov conceded that "some of the hero's sentiments are exaggerated here," he maintained that this was "usually the case in historical, romantic poems," concluding blandly that "their expression does not seem to me incompatible with the hero's situation." 127 Birukov's justification of his action resulted in the unusual and piquant spectacle of the tsar's censor denying in "Nalivaiko" what was obvious to everyone else and, by implication, refusing to attribute to its author those radical political intentions for which he was soon to hang. Indeed, Nalivaiko appeared to Birukov to embody quite different qualities, as with unconscious irony he explained: "Nalivaiko is not portrayed as an agitator of the people against legitimate authority, but as a defender of that authority's rights. . . ." 128 The Decembrists themselves were not so deceived. Their astonishment at "Nalivaiko" 's publication and resounding success is evident from Zavalishin's admission to the Investigating Commission of his surprise at the length of time Ryleev had escaped arrest: His works, and "Nalivaiko's Confession" in particular . . . left no doubt as to his thoughts and frame of mind. I could not understand how its publication was permitted, and eagerly attributed this fact to the society's strength, the extent of its network, and the participation in it of some important individuals.129 In a similar admission, written in a letter to Nicholas I, G. S. Batenkov frankly stated that republican currents underlying the uprising of 14 December had found expression in such of Ryleev's works as "Nalivaiko" and "Volynskii." 130 Approbation came also from that quarter directly portrayed in the 127

Oksman, "Primechaniya," Pol.sob.stikh., p. 468. Ibid. 129 Vd in. 246. 130 Quoted in Aksenov, Severnoe obshchestvo dekabristov, p. 201. 128

194 | The Decembrists' Cause

two poems—the Ukraine and Ukrainian nationalists, who obviously felt no need to look for broader interpretations of the poems' purpose. Ryleev received a letter from N. A. Markevich in which he said: "How can I read 'Voinarovskii' and 'Nalivaiko' without emotion? Accept my gratitude and that of all my compatriots.. . . You have raised up a whole people. . . . 'Nalivaiko's Confession' is engraved upon our hearts." 131 Of the other poems in which Ryleev made more or less overt political statements and inferences, the most outstanding was "The Citizen." 132 In its twenty lines Ryleev presented his political and civic credo: fl Jib 6yny B p0K0B0e BpeMa Ilo3opHTb FPA^maHHHa caH, H nonpaxaTb Te6e, H3He»ceHHoe mieMS IlepeponHBiiiHxcs CnaBaH? HeT, Hecnoco6eH a B O6I>HTI>HX cjianocrpacTba, B nOCTblflHOH npa3HHOCTH BJiaHHTb CBOH BeK MJiaflOH, H H3HbiBaTb KHnHmew nymoii lion T5DKKHM HTOM CaMOBJiaCTbH. Shall I at the fateful hour/Bring shame upon the citizen's dignity,/And emulate you, effete tribe/Of degenerate Slavs?/ No, I am not capable in the embraces of voluptuousness/ Of dragging out my young years in shameful idleness,/Or of languishing with turbulent soul/Beneath despotism's heavy yoke. The last four lines of the poem reflect the poet's confident belief in the revolutionary future of the Russian people, but it is a confidence combined with a dire warning to those Russians who might, in the event of a decisive moment in their country's history, shrink from active participation: OHH pacKaioTca, Korna Hapon, BOccraB, 3acTaHeT HX B o6"baTbax npa3HHOH Hera

H B SypHOM MaTexe Hina cBo6onHbix npaB, B HHX He HAHFLET HH B p y r a , HH PHera. 131 132

V. E. Yakushkin, "K literaturnoi i obshchestvennoi istorii," RS xii, 599. "Grazhdanin," Pol.sob.stikh., p. 110.

The Decembrists' Cause | 195 They will repent when the people, having arisen,/Finds them in idle languor's embrace,/And, seeking liberty's rights in the stormy revolt,/Finds among them neither a Brutus nor a Riego. Discussing the manner of Ryleev's address, a recent student of the poem has observed that "the most natural form for Ryleev's agitatory political poetry was the passionate lyrical monologue, using the syntax and intonation of an oratorical type so characteristic of the ode. This is how 'The Citizen' is written." 1 3 3 This assessment echoes Bazanov's comment that "Ryleev's poetry is of extraordinary oratorical pathos and courageous eloquence. The peak of Decembrist poetic oratory was reached in Ryleev's ode, 'The Citizen.' " 1 3 4 For his part, Nikolai Bestuzhev compared the poem, interestingly enough, with the "best Irish ballads of Moore." 1 3 5 There are sufficient references in the literature of the Decembrist movement to show that it was well known to many of its participants. 1 3 6 Indicative of the tsarist establishment's sensitivity to the poem's political suggestiveness is the fact that it was not published in Russia in full until 1893. 1 3 7 But it was not only on the eve of the Decembrist uprising that the political mood of the day found reflection in Ryleev's poetry. A poem written in 1821 and addressed to the com­ mander in the Caucasus, Gen. A. P. Ermolov, who enjoyed considerable popularity in liberal circles, was a response to rumors current at the time that he was to lead a Russian army in support of the Greeks' struggle for independence: EPMOJIOB! nocneuiH cnacaTb CMHOB 3juiam>i,

y « e Β OTenecTBe ΠΟΤΟΜΚΟΒ ΦβΜΗΟτοιυιβ 138 IloBciojjy nomwTbi CBO6OHI>I 3HaMeHa. 133 134 135 136 137 138

Zhuravleva, "Stikhotvoreniya K. F. Ryleeva 'Grazhdamn,' " p. 83. Bazanov, Vol'noe obshchestvo, p. 320. Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 29. See, e.g., Tseithn, Tvorchestvo Ryleeva, pp. 227-28. Ibid., p. 228. "A. P. Ermolovu," Pol.sob.stikh., p. 87.

196 I The Decembrists' Cause Ermolov! Make haste to save the sons of Hellas./ . . . Al­ ready in the land of Themistocles' descendants/Freedom's banners are raised everywhere. In the event, no army was sent, but the poem reflects Russian liberals' sympathy with the Greek cause. This theme was re­ newed with the death of Byron in 1824. In Russia, as else­ where, his name had become indissolubly linked with the Greeks' struggle, and news of his death came as a grievous blow to those for whom he had become a symbol of the heroic fight against the forces of oppression. This general sense of loss was best articulated by Ryleev, perhaps the first man in Russia to be fully in sympathy with the political strain in Byron's poetry, in his celebrated poem " O n the Death of Byron." 1 3 9 In it, Ryleev mourned his death "in the sacred struggle for the Greeks' liberty" and lauded his exemplary heroism: flpy3bH CBO6OHM Η 3jiJiajibi Be3fle Β cne3ax Β νκορ cynb6bi, OHHH TupaHbi Η pa6w Ero BHe3anHon cMepTH panbi. Friends of freedom and of Hellas/Everywhere in tears re­ proach fate;/Only tyrants and slaves/Rejoice at his sudden death. Living individuals, too, whose lives Ryleev felt were in some way distinguished by their nobility of character, became im­ mortalized in his poetry. An early example of this was his salute to the poet and translator Nikolai Gnedich. 1 4 0 Similarly, the "civic virtues" of N. S. Mordvinov were celebrated in "Civic Courage." Asked about this poem by his interrogators, 139

"Na smert' Beirona," Pol.sob.stikh., pp. 98-100. For Decembrist atti­ tudes to the Greek uprising, see Orlik, Dekabristy i evropeiskoe osvoboditel'noe dvizhenie, pp. 102ff. 140 "Poslanie k N. I. Gnedichu" was written in 1821. See Pol.sob.stikh., pp. 88-90. It was to Gnedich that Ryleev dedicated his duma "Derzhavin," the last lines of which provide the key to the political purpose of the entire cycle.

The Decembrists' Cause | 197

Ryleev replied characteristically that in it he had aimed to demonstrate the superiority of "civic" courage over military valor.141 In the conclusion of this discussion of political commitment in Ryleev's poetry, it seems appropriate to identify the influ­ ences to which the impressionable young poet was particularly susceptible. Some account of Western enlightenment influ­ ences on the formation of Ryleev's political outlook has been given in an earlier chapter.142 In addition Ryleev was sensitive to native Russian literary currents: commentators have re­ marked in particular on the influence of such diverse writers as Radishchev, Derzhavin, Gnedich, and Pushkin. Ryleev's use of literature to champion the oppressed is very reminiscent of the first "repentant nobleman," with whose biography and works Ryleev was undoubtedly acquainted. Common to both writers was the theme of patriotism—in, for example, Radishchev's "A discussion of what constitutes a son of the fatherland" [Beseda ο torn, chto est' syn otechestva) and Ryleev's "Volynskii"—and the notion of the cit­ izen-poet's call for recourse to direct action in pursuit of social and political goals. There are clear thematic similarities be­ tween Radishchev's ode "Liberty" and Ryleev's ode "To the Favorite," while their portrayals of Ermak in "A Shortened Account of the Acquiring of Siberia" (Sokrashcbennoe povestvovanie ο priobretenii Sibiri) and "The Death of Ermak," respectively, are almost identical.143 Ryleev echoed Radi­ shchev, too, when in a speech delivered to the Free Society early in 1823 he equated the notion of the "enemy of enlight­ enment" with the "friend of tyrants" and the "defender of despotism."144 141 "Grazhdanskoe muzhestvo" (1823), Pol.sob.stikh., pp. 94-97 and see Oksman's commentary, p. 388. 142 See above, Chapter 3. 143 Zakrutin, "Radishchev i Ryleev," pp. 10, 12. 144 Kochetova, "Oratorskaya proza dekabristov i traditsii russkoi literatury XVIII veka (A. N. Radishchev)," p. 114; see also Bazanov, Uchenaya respublika, pp. 284-88.

198 I The Decembrists' Cause

He has, in fact, been described perhaps somewhat fulsomely as "Radishchev's successor, whose political and literary causes he continued." 145 Ryleev's admiration for and gratitude to Derzhavin for his worthy fulfillment of the poet's social duty has been referred to above. 146 Both in his "Epistle to N. I. Gnedich" and in his dedication to him of the dutna "Derzhavin," Ryleev acknowledged a similar debt to Gnedich for having aroused in him early in his poetical career an interest in "civic" themes. It was for Ryleev a happy circumstance that he was able to develop under the direct influence of Pushkin's poetry. Certainly, the two men had different opinions as to their role as poets, and not infrequently disagreed on the relative merits of certain works and particular literary figures. But in a generous tribute to Pushkin, Ryleev wrote to him: "You will always remain my teacher in matters of poetic expression." 147 Of non-Russian poets, it is clear that the most profound influence on Ryleev, as on others of his contemporaries, was that exerted by Byron. He was the favorite poet of the younger generation in Alexander I's day, and his influence on Russian literature in the 1820s was enormous. The intensely romantic image of the young aristocratic poet participating in the heroic struggle against tyranny in the world's oldest democracy, and in its cause perishing on some distant shore, proved irresistible to educated young Russians, who were quick to rally to his name as a symbol of all that they so fervently admired. Ryleev's own response to this captivating image, "On the Death of Byron," was one of several poems in Russia to render the English poet tribute. The Bestuzhev brothers, who had some knowledge of English, assisted Ryleev in his understanding of Byron. He was, therefore, not obliged to resort to the insipid French prose through which the majority of Byron's Russian readers acquired an incomplete idea of the original English.148 145

Orlov, Radishchev i russkaya literatura, p. 151. See n. 86, above. 147 pss, p. 490. Letter of 10 March 1825. 148 Pigarev, Zhizn' Ryleeva, p. 92. Zhukovsky had, of course, translated 146

The Decembrists' Cause | 199 Byron's influence is particularly apparent in the dumy "Kurbskii" and "Bogdan Khmel'nitskii," in the romantic poems "Voinarovskii" and "Nalivaiko," and in a lyrical poem, "Stansy." One contemporary critic, Ν. N. Raevsky, was ac­ tually of the opinion that Ryleev had allowed Byron's influence to leave too obvious a mark on "Voinarovskii." He confided to Pushkin: " 'Voinarovskii' est un ouvrage en mosai'que com­ pose de fragments de Byron et de Poushkine, rapportes en­ semble sans beaucoup de reflexion." 149 But, meanwhile, Ry­ leev was himself warning Pushkin against the seductiveness of Byron's influence. " H o w magnificent Byron is in . . . Don Juanl So many striking ideas, such feeling, such colors. Push­ kin . . . you can be our Byron, but for God's sake . . . do not imitate him." 1 5 0 Yet, however consciously Ryleev sought to avoid such in­ fluences himself, in order to find his own original path, there can be little doubt that he owed varying debts of gratitude to the poets mentioned here for the development of his main idea: the use of poetry as a means of expressing and spreading those ideas of liberty "with which he electrified his readers and his confederates in the political conspiracy." 1 5 1 some of Byron's poetry—notably The Prisoner of Chillon into Russian, but ultimately (as he told Goethe) he considered Byron's revolt childish and futile. 149 Raevskii, Arkhiv Raevskikh, i. 256. 150 pss, p. 495. Letter of 12 May 1825. 151 Glinskii, Bor'ba za konstitutsiyu, 1612-1861, p. 240.

6

Propagandist of the Northern Society Literary propaganda was waged very actively. Its soul was the remarkable Ryleev. —A. I. Herzen1

In addition to the political inferences underlying a considerable portion of Ryleev's work, more overt commitment is evidenced by a number of highly illicit poems, loosely based on contemporary songs and designed to fit their tunes, written by Ryleev and Alexander Bestuzhev. The extent to which the Decembrists actually planned to conduct mass propaganda is one of the thorniest questions in the historiography of the Decembrist movement. Predictably, conservative pre-Revolutionary historians tended to minimize it. The normally benign Sirotinin, for instance, dismissed Ryleev's "agitatory" verse in the most mordant terms: "Today it is comic yet sad to read these songs which contain no trace of the genuine talent so evident in other works by Ryleev. The poet, so to speak, debased himself in these poems." 2 Equally predictably, Soviet historians have tended to stress the vitality of this aspect of the Decembrists' activity while obliged to bear constantly in mind Lenin's celebrated and well-founded reservation that the Decembrists were "terribly distant from the people" (strashno daleki ot naroda)? Recourse to the sources themselves, in particular to the 1

Herzen, "O razvitii revolyutsionnykh idei," Sobranie sochinenii, vii. 198. Sirotinin, p. 167. 3 V. I. Lenin, "Pamyati Gertsena," Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (4th edn.), xi. 14-15. 2

Propagandist

| 201

Decembrists' depositions, does not invariably provide the hopedfor elucidation. A. Poggio, for example, describes a meeting held at Mitkov's house in December 1823 where Ryleev spoke of his intention to compose a "Catechism of a Free Man," whose contents were to be "very criminal"; and further pro­ posed "means of influencing public opinion (um naroda), such as writing parodies of existing songs, like the anthem 'God save the Tsar' and the popular romance 'Oh, I find it tedi­ ous.' " 4 But Ryleev's own submissions about the songs are really very meager. In the course of his main interrogation (24 April 1826), he admitted to having mooted the idea of "parodies and songs" and mentioned by name "of those com­ posed by me" only " O h , it sickens me" (Akh, toshno mne), a parody of the romance referred to by Poggio. Two other songs named by the Investigating Commission Ryleev claimed he had never heard of. But, still, there is clear evidence that he did entertain definite notions about waging propaganda: while he denied having written a "Catechism of a Free M a n " he recalled "once reading . . . the beginning of a similar work by Nikita Muraviev . . . and saying, 'But you really should finish this. This is the best kind of material with which to influence the minds of/ordinary people.' " 5 Nevertheless, hesitation and uncertainty as to propaganda policy clearly affected even the most radically inclined of the Northern Society's membership. For, while admitting that he had decided to publish his ode "Civic Courage" and volun­ teering his approval of Muraviev's unfinished catechism, Ry­ leev claimed that he had feared the consequences of their distribution and so had decided against it. Alexander Bestuzhev made a strikingly similar disclaimer about the songs in his depositions: "At first it was our intention to spread them among the people, but later we changed our minds. We feared a popular revolution above all, because it was bound to be long and bloody and such songs could only bring it 4 Vd xi. 74. "Akh, skuchno mne ν chuzhoi storone." Ryleev's parody of this song is discussed later in this chapter. s Vd i. 176.

202 I Propagandist

nearer. And so we just sang them among ourselves for our own amusement." 6 E. P. Obolensky similarly agreed that "parodies of Russian folksongs were actually suggested as a means of arousing the consciousness of the ordinary people." But his testimony, too, suggests that the songs were written for the membership's own entertainment rather than as part of any concerted plan of action. 7 On the basis of evidence of this kind, V. A. Gofman, the author of an introductory article to the 1934 edition of Ryleev's complete poems, has fairly concluded that "it is doubtful that this aspect [i.e., propaganda activity—P. O'M.] was developed in broad or planned terms. The Decembrists barely engaged in propaganda work among the masses." 8 It is no great surprise to find that subsequent commentators have disputed this view and have sought to demonstrate the overall effectiveness of Ryleev's attempts at subversion and agitation, especially among the soldiers and sailors based in Petersburg and Kronstadt. 9 They cite, inter alia, the evidence of N. Bestuzhev's reminiscences of Ryleev, in which the not entirely dispassionate memoirist wrote: The intention behind the songs and the influence they ex­ erted in so short a time are too significant for them to be lightly discounted. Even though the government took every step to suppress these songs wherever they were found, they proved to reflect the people's situation too exactly for them to be erased from the memories of ordinary folk, who saw in them a true representation of their actual position, and 10 the possibility of improvement in the future. An examination of the texts of the songs themselves will show that there is much in what Bestuzhev recalled; however, his claim for the wide extent of their influence must be set against his well-known proneness to exaggerate. The testi6

Ibid., pp. 457-58. Ibid., p. 267. 8 Pol.sob.stikh., p. 62. 9 See, e.g., Tseitlin, Tvorchestvo Ryleeva, p. 175. 10 Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 27. 7

Propagandist | 203

mony of A. V. Poggio, cited above, is also adduced in support of the view that Ryleev was an active exponent of the art of political propaganda. But it does not necessarily follow from the fact that parodies were composed that the rest of Poggio's testimony, concerning the influencing of public opinion, ac­ curately reflects the true state of affairs. Finally, Gofman's detractors have been constrained to quote in support of their view the findings of the Supreme Criminal Court where, among the accusations against Ryleev, is the allegation that "he him­ self composed and disseminated subversive songs and poems." 11 Actually, this was among the weakest of the charges he faced, since the court had so little firm evidence on which to base it. Moreover, its members probably never even read these songs for themselves since, several days before it first con­ vened, Nicholas I had ordered (29 May) "all subversive poems to be expunged from the records and burned." 1 2 For reasons of his own the tsar chose to believe that the Decembrists had in fact waged an effective propaganda campaign: indeed, he could not afford to take the risk of supposing that they had not. For very different reasons, too, historians such as M. V. Nechkina have preferred to attach more credence to N. Bestuzhev's claim that Ryleev's songs were widely spread than to the claims of Ryleev and A. Bestuzhev that they were not. 1 3 The paucity of evidence in support of these beliefs, however, makes it impossible to arrive at such categorical conclusions. The songs date from the winter of 1823-1824 and were first published by Herzen and Ogarev in the Polar Star in 1855. Doubts about the authorship of one of them, "Along the Fontanka river," have been resolved with the convincing attribution of it to Ryleev's co-author, A. Bestuzhev.14 Prince Obolensky, it should be noted, was under the impression that the songs were composed by various hands and not by any one particular individual. 15 Textual knowledge of the songs 11 12 13

14 15

Vtixvn. 111. A. A. Pokrovskii, "Predislovie," Vd i. XVIII. Nechkina, Dvizhenie dekabristov, ii. 101. Briksman, "Agitatsionnye pesni dekabristov," p. 19. Vd ι. 267.

204 I Propagandist was greatly extended when, in 1950, new copies of them were discovered among the papers of P. A. Vyazemsky in the Ostafevsky archive. Thus, in addition to the five already known verses of the song "Our Tsar is a Russian German" (Tsar' nash—nemets russkii), it proved possible to publish a further seven.16 Although the order of the songs' composition eludes precise definition, it seems clear from textual analysis that this was Ryleev's first political song and was most probably written in November or December 1823. 17 It was constructed like a soldier's marching song and its contents add weight to the supposition that it was intended for dissemination among the officers and men of the Guards. In the course of its twelve verses, which are punctuated with a rhythmic and sarcastic refrain {At da tsar', at da tsar'/Pravoslavnyigosudar'), the song attacks the German influence at court and in military circles and mocks Russian society, where the only "enlightenment" provided is in the form of military exercises, where UIKOJIM Bee Ka3apMbi,

CynhH Bee xaHjiapMbi. All the schools are barracks,/All the judges are policemen. where shagistika and sycophancy are rated among its highest virtues: TOJILKO 3a napanbi

Pa3naeT Harpam>i. A 3a KOMIUIHMeHTbl TojiySbie JieHTbi.

Only for parades/He hands out rewards/And for flattery/ Light blue ribbons. 16

Briksman, "Agitatsionnye pesni dekabristov," pp. 12-13. Oksman, "Agitatsionnaya pesnya 'Tsar' nash—nemets russkii,' " LNhx. 74. Oksman argues convincingly that the first two lines were most probably not, as Herzen and Ogarev had it, "Our tsar is a Prussian German and wears a tight uniform" {Tsar' nash—nemets prussktilnostt mundir uzkti) but "Our tsar is a Russian German and wears a Prussian uniform" {Tsar' nash—nemets russkiilNosit mundir prusskti)—an epigram with considerably more bite to it. See pp. 74-76. 17

Propagandist | 205 and in which the worst kind of individual dominates: A rpac}) ApaKHeee 3jionen H3 3JioneeB! But Count Arakcheev/Is the scoundrel of all scoundrels. There are direct and indirect references to other members of the high command which would have been readily appreciated by a contemporary military audience. The second song, "Oh, where are those islands," 18 seems to have been destined for a very different milieu. Its abundant literary and historical references suggest that it was aimed at a fairly well-educated audience. Moreover, the inclusion of several humorous references to various Petersburg literary figures, comprising a series of "in" jokes, lends substance to the claims of A. Bestuzhev and E. Obolensky that the song was written primarily for the writers' own amusement. Even so, the song was so biting in its criticisms that it could not be printed in full until as late as 1906. 19 The song speaks of an imaginary land where constraints on intellectual life are absent and religious bigotry nonexistent, where an easygoing atmosphere prevails ("gde rastet tryn-trava"), where the voices of reaction are stilled, while enlightened figures are free to speak out: Fae MarHHqKHH MOJIHHT, A MopHBHHOB KpHHHT BojIhHO.

Where Magnitsky keeps quiet/While Mordvinov speaks up/ Freely. This song, however, lacks the hard-hitting earnestness of some of the others, as evidenced by the inclusion of several lighthearted gibes against friends and acquaintances: 18 19

"Akh, gde te ostrova," Pol.sob.stikh., pp. 309-10. Koztnin, Pis'ma G. S. Baten'kova, I. I. Pushchma, E. G. Tolya, p. 196.

206 I Propagandist Γπε HeflyMaeTTpen, HTO ero 6ynyT ce% EojIbHO. Tne H3ManjiOB-HynaK XOJIHT Β Kaxcnbift Ka6aK flapoM.20

Where Grech does not believe/That he will be whipped Painfully./Where crazy Izmailov/Can enter every tavern/For free. The third song, "Say, tell me," 2 1 however, to judge by its readily understood thematic and lexical content, must have been intended for a much wider circulation. It refers to the palace coups of 1762 and 1801, to the overthrow respectively of Peter III and Paul I. The purpose of such reference to these moments in Russian history was presumably twofold: first, to stress the fundamentally lawless and arbitrary transmission of power from one crowned head to the next, and, second, to suggest that violence itself provided and may still provide the key to the achievement of a desired goal. Ryleev was not the only Decembrist to have reflected on the possible impli­ cations for Russian history of these events. For example, M. A. Fonvizin recalled: In Petersburg and Tulchin, . . . members of the Union (of Welfare) used to meet for friendly discussions about politics. . . . Instances in Russia's history were recalled when, on more than one occasion, tsars had died a violent death (Peter III and Paul I). These episodes were seen as examples of radical means whereby the transformation of Russia might have been effected, if only they had been properly ex­ ploited. 22 20

The reference to Grech alludes to the fact that at the time of the Semenovsky mutiny (1820) he was implicated in the distribution of subversive leaflets and interrogated; the second reference quoted here is to the editor of the journal Blagonamerennyi, A. E. Izmailov, who was well known for his hard drinking. 21 "Ty skazhi, govon," Pol.sob.stikh., p. 310. 22 Fonvizin, "Obozrenie," p. 190.

Propagandist | 207 Of all the songs in this group, the most striking and the most wide-ranging in its condemnation of Russian reality in all its aspects is "Oh, it sickens me to be even in my native coun­ try." 2 3 It raised in a remarkably pungent fashion the most salient social problems of the day. It is characterized by a total absence of didacticism since, most unusually, the song is nar­ rated from the viewpoint of a victim of the social problems it catalogues. Quite certainly, whatever the authors' declared or undeclared intentions, it was in this song that Ryleev and Bestuzhev came closest to bridging that gap between the De­ cembrists and the people at large which was ultimately to prove fatal to the Decembrist movement as a whole. 2 4 It was one of the songs which Matvei Muraviev confessed he had received from Ryleev25 and was among those transmitted south by S. G. Volkonsky to the second army. 2 6 It was written to the tune of a romance by Yu. A. Nedalinsky-Meletsky which was popular at the time, entitled " O h , I find it tedious to be in a foreign land." 2 7 The parody was explicitly directed against the harsh conditions endured by the enserfed peasant and by the arbitrary conduct of landlords. More specifically the song asked: Hojiro JIB PyccKHn Hapon ByaeT pyxjiam>io rocnon, H JIIOHHMH, KaK CKOTaMH, flojiro Jib 6ynyT ToproBaTb? Will the Russian people/Be their masters' trash for long/ And will people be traded/Like cattle/For long? It complained of juridical inequity and pervasive corruption: 23

"Akh, toshno mne i ν rodnoi storone," Pol.sob.stikb., pp. 311-12; LN lix. 90-93, 97-99. 24 This view is developed by Bazanov, Ocherki dekabristskoi literatury, p. 190. 25 Vd i. 210. 26 Meilakh, Pushkin i ego epokha, p. 336. 27 "Akh, skuchno mne ν chuzhoi storone."

208 I Propagandist A yac npaBflbi Hume, He Hum MyxcHK Β cyne, Be3 CHHIOXH, CyjibH rciyxH, Ββ3 BHHbl TbI BHHOBaT.

There's no justice to be had anywhere/A peasant won't find it in court-/Without a blue banknote/The judges are deaf,/ Guiltless, you're guilty. This lamentable state of affairs was commented on by many of the Decembrists in their submissions to the Investigating Commission. Kyukhelbeker, for example, wrote of "official abuse . . . mostly in government departments and particularly in the lawcourts, where extortion and peculation were prac­ ticed shamelessly and brazenly."28 Ryleev himself had, of course, witnessed this at firsthand in his capacity as assessor at the Petersburg criminal court, and had complained about just this kind of malpractice in a letter to Bulgarin.29 A copy of this song found among the Vyazemsky papers contained a verse protesting against the military colonies and rapacious recruit­ ing methods. It concluded with a dire warning that the free­ dom which the people had been denied forcibly would be regained by force. In view of the unalleviated grimness of the song, and its outspoken and uncompromising earnestness of tone, it is perhaps not surprising to learn that A. I. Turgenev's 30 diary records a Petersburg police ban on the singing of it. The fact that the police felt compelled to ban it does lend some support to N. Bestuzhev's claim that these songs were widely known. In any case, one would not wish to dispute his judgment that in these songs "the enslavement of the peo­ ple, the burden of their oppression, and the miserable lot of the soldier were portrayed . . . in simple words and in their 31 true colors." The last of thesefive"agitatory" songs, "When 28 29 30 31

Vd ii. 166. See above, Chapter 2, n. 123. Meilakh, Pushkin i ego epokha, p. 336. Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 27.

Propagandist | 209 32

the smith came out," as well as being the shortest, is also the most extreme in the sentiments it voices. It would have been readily assimilated by its putative audience, since it plainly derives from the folk song: HfleT KV3Heu H3 KV3HHi;bi, cnaBa! HeceT Ky3Heu τρκ MOJioTa. CjiaBa! The smith comes out of the smithy, hurrah !/The smith car­ ries three hammers, hurrah! which is concerned, of course, not with any political theme, but with a young maiden's bethrothal.33 Ryleev's smith, how­ ever, carries from his smithy not hammers but three knives newly forged for three specific targets: the nobility, the clergy, and, horribile dictu, the tsar. The surprisingly brutal directness of the call to regicide in the song's final line, together with its anti-clerical stance and expressed hatred of the nobility, makes it a vivid reflection of Ryleev's political attitudes; it is small wonder that he and A. Bestuzhev claimed to have changed their minds about distributing such inflammatory material. In spite of this claim, however, it is worth noting that V. A. Divov's testimony suggests that Ryleev's "agitatory" verse was known at least to a fairly wide circle of army and naval officers. In a question it put to A. P. Belyaev, the Investigating Commission quoted from Divov's deposition: "Soon after the Emperor's death, Lt. Akulov came up to Divov and . . . said 'Your freedom-writing poets maintain, "Shall I at the fateful hour bring shame upon the citizen's dignity?" But now that 34 the "fateful hour" has come, they are keeping quiet.' " It is true that Akulov apparently cited not one of the songs under discussion, but the first line of "The Citizen." Never­ theless, the point is that Akulov's awareness of what the De­ cembrists' "freedom-writing" poets were saying might well have been based also on his knowledge of these songs. Divov himself attributed his acquisition of a "free way of thinking" 32 33 34

"Uzh kak shel kuznets," Pol.sob.stikh, p. 313. See Tseitlin, Tvorcbestvo Ryleeva, p. 188. Vd xiv. 250, 300.

210 I Propagandist

to the "freedom" poetry {"svobodnye stikhotvoreniya") of Pushkin and Ryleev.35 N. Bestuzhev's memoirs would also seem to testify to the currency of these songs among the lower ranks of the naval service: On the very day our sentences were to be carried out . . , a non-commissioned officer of the naval artillery recited to us by heart all the forbidden poems and songs of Ryleev, adding that there was not a single literate gunner who did not have his own copies of this type of composition and of Ryleev's songs in particular. 36 Due allowance must be made for Bestuzhev's overstatement in this assertion, which otherwise may be regarded as an in­ dication that the songs did get disseminated somehow, at least among some of the Petersburg military personnel—a sugges­ tion which Divov's testimony appears to corroborate. The description given by Grech of a typical situation in which Ryleev's songs could be heard much more accords with A. Bestuzhev's claim that they were intended primarily for friends' amusement. The scene in the following extract from his memoirs is a dinner at Bulgarin's attended by some fifteen guests: " N o t all of them were liberals, but everyone listened with pleasure and laughed really heartily. I can remember the anti-liberal V. N. Berkh choking with laughter." In any case, Grech comments, "These free conversations with singing, not of revolutionary, but of satirical songs was a very common thing to which nobody paid any particular attention." 3 7 This view of the songs has been accepted by one recent Western student of Ryleev who has written: "Agitatory" is an erroneous and misleading generalization (for these songs). It assumes that the songs were propagandistic in content and that they enjoyed widespread circu­ lation. . . . Though often radical in sentiment, they lack the 35 36 37

Ibid., p. 307. Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 28. Grech, Zapiski, p. 517.

Propagandist | 211 thematic unity . . . of truly revolutionary literature. The songs were never known to the masses. 38 But while it seems reasonable to credit the claim of Ryleev and Bestuzhev that the songs were never known to the masses, the evidence adduced above on the whole suggests that some of them became more widely known than their authors were prepared to admit; moreover, it is certainly the case that they became part of the literary heritage of the nineteenth-century revolutionary movement in general. In the words of Alexander Herzen written in 1853: "Ryleev and his friends gave Russian literature an energy and an inspiration which it had never known previously and which it has not had since." 3 9 Although Sirotinin, as we have seen, was perhaps unnec­ essarily dismissive in his assessment of the songs, his general conclusions as to their relative significance, in the light of the evidence available then and now, must still be considered valid today: "While the songs made no great impact on the masses, they undoubtedly had an effect on literate people. But Ryleev's personal example, his direct activity in recruiting new mem­ bers and spreading his ideas, was of immeasurably greater significance."40

The "Polar

Star"

Not surprisingly, none of the "agitatory" poems were pub­ lished in the literary annual, Polar Star, of which Ryleev and A. Bestuzhev were the editors. In fact, a remarkably modest amount of Ryleev's work was placed in it. The first issue of the "pocket book for lovers (lyubitel'nits i lyubitelei) of Rus38

Rickwood, Themes and style in the poetry ofKondratyi Ryleyev, p. 261. S. S. Landa has more recently expressed much the same view quite as cate­ gorically: "There is not one adducible fact concerning the distribution of this type of work by members of the Northern or Southern societies among the soldiers or the peasantry" (Dukh revolyutsionnykk preobrazovanii, p. 181). 39 Herzen, " O razvitii revolyutsionnykh idei ν Rossii," Sobranie sochinenii, vii. 198. 40 Sirotinin, p. 168.

212 I Propagandist sian literature" printed by Grech in 1823, 4 1 contained four of his dumy ("Boris Godunov," "Ivan Susanin," "Rogneda," and "Mstislav Udalyi"); the second number (1824) 4 2 pub­ lished two extracts from "Voinarovskii"; the third and final edition (1825) 4 3 contained three extracts from "Nalivaiko" and a poem dedicated to A. Bestuzhev, "Stansy." The pro­ jected fourth number, to be entitled The Little Star44 but which was not published as planned in consequence of intervening events, was to have carried no contribution from Ryleev at all. In all, then, the Polar Star published ten contributions by Ryleev, of a total of approximately 280 items. Clearly, Ryleev's main contribution to the journal lay not in weight of his own published work, but in his initial con­ ception and establishment of it and in his role as co-editor. There had been earlier examples of literary reviews and jour­ nals in Russia, but the Polar Star represented the first attempt to create a special publication in which all the more progres­ sive trends in Russian literature might come together. Its links both from an ideological and organizational standpoint with the Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature are obvious; not only were its editors members of the Society, but so were virtually all the contributors to the first number, apart from Pushkin. 45 The great success which the Polar Star enjoyed was assured by the contributions to it from the best writers of the day: Pushkin, Zhukovsky, Krylov, Gnedich, Vyazemsky, Bulgarin, Delvig, Izmailov, Kyukhelbeker, Baratynsky, Griboedov, Yazykov, and others. There seems no doubt, then, that "in this little book was concentrated all the best that contem­ porary Russian literature had to offer." 46 41

"Polyarnaya zvezda" izdannaya A. Bestuzhevym ι Κ. Ryleevym, Arkhipov et al., eds., pp. 11-234. 42 Ibid., pp. 241-476. 43 Ibid., pp. 485-718. 44 "Zvezdochka," ibid., pp. 721-800. 45 "Literaturno-esteticheskie pozitsii 'Polyarnoi zvezdy,' " ibid., pp. 80344. See pp. 816-17. 46 Mazaev, "K. F. Ryleev: biograficheskii ocherk," Sochineniya K. F. Ryleeva, p. xii.

Propagandist \ 213 There was another important aspect behind the genesis of the Polar Star which is recorded by Obolensky: In the second half of 1822, Ryleev conceived the notion of publishing a journal aimed at putting literature on a com­ mercial footing. Ryleev's goal was to reward the writer for his work in a more tangible way than had hitherto been the rule. . . . Up to now, his only reward had been the satisfaction of seeing his name in print. . . . The enterprise succeeded. Every writer who had his work published in the journal received remuneration, among them A. S. Pushkin. 47 The importance of this innovation was that writers, freed potentially at any rate from the restrictions of patronage, had the opportunity of exercising their art in a greater atmosphere of independence. This obviously had potent implications in the political and ideological sphere. The idea excited consid­ erable interest in literary circles and found the approval, among others, of Pushkin, who wrote to A. Bestuzhev, calling him "the arbiter of taste, the loyal sentinel and patron of our literature." 4 8 Indeed, the poet's enthusiasm for the Polar Star prompted him to send a copy of the second (1824) edition to Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna. She apparently found it to be "worthy of the greatest attention," and in token of her esteem presented Ryleev with two diamond signet rings and Bestu­ zhev with a gilded tobacco-drum and a signet ring. 49 General A. P. Ermolov similarly became the recipient of a compli­ mentary copy when Ryleev and Bestuzhev sent him the Polar Star for 1823. In his reply from Tiflis, Ermolov thanked Be­ stuzhev and his "worthy collaborator, Mr. Ryleev." 50 Al­ though at ten roubles a copy the journal was relatively ex­ pensive, it established so great a reputation on the basis of its first issue that the second issue of 15,000 copies sold out 47

Obolenskii, "Vospominaniya," pp. 28-29. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, x. 36. Letter of 21 June 1822. 49 "Perepiska knyazya P. A. Vyazemskogo s A. I. Turgenevym," Ostaf' evskii arkhiv knyazei Vyazemsktkh (1899), iii. 403. 50 V. E. Yakushkin, "K literaturnoi ι obshchestvennoi istorii," RS, xii. 593. Letter of 7 June 1825. 48

214

I

Propagandist

within three weeks. No other Russian publication, with the sole exception of Karamzin's History of the Russian State, had enjoyed such a huge success. Obolensky recalled that Ryleev and Bestuzhev not only recouped their initial outlay but made a profit of around 2,000 roubles. 51 Soviet commentators have generally stressed the committed political role of the journal; Meilakh's view that "strictly speaking the Polar Star . . . can be considered the only organ to have reflected the literary politics of the Decembrists," is a fairly representative one. 5 2 Of central importance to this viewpoint is A. Bestuzhev's article, "A Review of Old and New Literature in Russia," a public statement of the literary views of the most progressive group of contemporary writers, which appeared in the first issue.53 Moreover, it has been pointed out that the third number (1825) contained a "min­ imal amount of politically neutral works" and that Decembrist writers and poets were "exceptionally broadly represented." 54 But, in fact, of slightly more than thirty contributors to the 1825 edition, there were only four Decembrists: the two ed­ itors, Ryleev and A. Bestuzhev, and two others, N. Bestuzhev and A. O. Kornilovich. Viewed in this light, claims for "ex­ ceptionally broad Decembrist representation" seem somewhat insubstantial. It is true that among "Decembrist" works pub­ lished in the 1825 issue were extracts from "Nalivaiko," in­ cluding the politically highly charged "Confession" of Nali­ 55 vaiko, discussed above. There is no doubt that Ryleev's and Bestuzhev's full-time involvement with the journal enabled 51 Vyazemskie, Ostafevskii arkhiv, iii. 403; Obolensky, "Vospominaniya," pp. 28-29. 52 Meilakh, Pushkin i ego epokha, p. 293. The fullest statement of this point of view is to be found in the chapter on the Polar Star by N. L. Stepanov in Ocherki po istorii russkoi zhurnalistiki i kritikt, Leningrad, 1950, vol. 1. Also relevant is Ν. N. Balandina, Polyarnaya Zvezda—al'manakh dekabrtstov (Moscow Univ. dissertation, 1954). 53 "Vzglyad na staruyu i novuyu slovesnost' ν Rossii," Polyarnaya zvezda, pp. 11-29. See, e.g., Azadovskii, Vospominaniya Bestuzhevykh, pp. 751-52. 54 "Literaturno-esteticheskie pozitsii 'Polyarnoi zvezdy,' " Polyarnaya zvezda, Arkhipov, ed., p. 854. 55 See Chapter 5, n. 125.

Propagandist \ 215 them to place their own characteristically progressive stamp on the enterprise, so that the journal as a whole became num­ bered—by at least one Decembrist memoirist—alongside Ryleev's poems "Voinarovskii" and "Nalivaiko," and Pushkin's "Ode to Freedom" in the arsenal of liberal literature. 56 Even so, it is difficult to understand, much less to accept, the view of the admirable M. V. Nechkina that "the struggle with serfdom and autocracy" was the journal's "ideology," or to share her "surprise" at the extent of the journal's effectiveness in waging "revolutionary propaganda," given the constraints imposed by tsarist censorship. 57 Two contemporaries, at least, saw the Polar Star and its editors in quite a different light. One of them, V. N. Grigoriev, was a contributor to the journal who, like Ryleev, tended to use historical analogies to illustrate civic themes. He used to visit Ryleev for literary discussions and evidently saw reflected in the Polar Star exclusively literary activity: "It never oc­ curred to me then, from my youth and lack of experience as a poet, that I was dealing with a man who was planning to bring about a coup d'etat in Russia. I saw in him only a writer." 5 8 A similar sense of astonishment is to be found in the memoirs of F. I. Buslaev: "At that time it occurred to no one to connect the criminal deeds of the Decembrists with their harmless literary activity, and even less so with such of 59 their publications as the Polar Star." The real significance of the journal in political terms in fact lies somewhere between the studied air of innocence underlying Buslaev's disavowal and the obvious exaggeration of Nechkina's assessment, and has best been expressed by V. I. Maslov: The Polar Star was not exclusively a vehicle for liberal ideas, but on the strength of the tragic fate of its editors, the name of this journal became associated in the minds of liberal 56 57 58 59

Belyaev, Vospominaniya dekabrista, p. 155. Nechkina, Dvizhenie dekabristov, ii. 91. Grigor'ev, "Russkie pisateli ν neizdannykh vospominaniyakh," p. 130. Buslaev, Mot vospominaniya, p. 78.

216 I Propagandist

members of Russian society with those who had taken part in the civic struggle against the existing state structure.60 It was precisely this sense of association, rather than any specific contents of the journal as such, which gave rise to the high esteem in which the Polar Star was held by future radicals and liberals. As is well known, Herzen and Ogarev were the first to resurrect the journal, in name if not in substance, with the publication in 1855 of their own Polar Star. In his preface to the first number, the cover of which was adorned, as were all subsequent issues, with the portraits of the five executed Decembrists, Herzen wrote in a typically metaphorical turn of phrase: "The Polar Star has been obscured behind the clouds of Nicholas' reign. Nicholas has passed on and the Polar Star appears once again."61 Later still, the Polar Star, with its now compounded asso­ ciations, received a second reincarnation when fourteen issues of a journal bearing the same name were published between December 1905 and March 1906, under the editorship of Peter Struve. The extent to which a powerful sense of political association and ideological identification distorted—in fact, rendered irrelevant—the true nature of Ryleev's and Bestuzhev's essentially literary prototype, may be judged from Struve's dedicatory preface to the first issue: Its title is taken from Ryleev and Herzen. This symbolizes our desire to stand beneath the banner of those great rev­ olutionary and cultural traditions with which these illus­ trious names are connected. The traditions of Ryleev and Herzen are for us not simply historical recollections, but a living truth which we seek . . . to instill in mind and to embody in deed.62 This view accurately reflects Struve's sense of his political and ideological descent from Ryleev, but it has little to do with the Decembrists' Polar Star. An examination of the contents 60

Maslov, Literaturnaya deyatel'nost' K. F. Ryleeva, p. 370. BpeMemnHKaM, IJapeft TpenemyuiHM pa6aM, THpaHaM, Hac yraecTb ΓΟΤΟΒΜΜ. Let us swear by our honor and by Chernov/To upbraid and to show our hostility for the favorites,/For the tsars' trem­ bling slaves,/For the tyrants, ready to oppress us. 79

Polyarnaya zvezda, ed. Nechkina, ν (1859), p. 13. Efremov, ed., Sochinentya i perepiska K. F. Ryleeva, p. 315. 81 E.g., Meilakh, Poeztya dekabristov, pp. 812-13; Mordovchenko, K. F. Ryleev. Stikhotvoreniya, pp. 279-80; Orlov, Dekabristy. Poeztya, dramaturgiya, proza, publitsistika, literatumaya kritika, p. 622. 82 Tseitlin, "Ob avtore stikhotvoreniya "Na smert' K. P. Chernova." The question has also been discussed by Lotman, "Kto byl avtorom stikhotvo­ reniya "Na smert' Chernova?' " 83 Orlov, Dekabristy. Antologiya ν dvukh totnakh. i. Poeztya, p. 165. 84 Nechkina, Dvizhenie dekabristov, li. 106. 80

222 I Propagandist For Ryleev, the Chernov affair transcended the narrow con­ fines of a domestic tragedy and acquired the significance of a much broader political and social issue. Chernov was not simply a brother avenging his wronged sister; for honorable men he was the embodiment of exceptional moral integrity, a man who did not shrink from gallantly sacrificing himself for the sake of the honor of his country as a whole: JIHKVH, TM H36paH PVCCKHM 6ΟΓΟΜ

HaM BceM Β CBHtueHHbiH o6pa3eii, Te6e ΛβΗ npaeenHbift BeHeii, Tbi necTH 6yneiub HaM 3anoroM. Rejoice! You have been chosen by the Russian God/As a sacred example to us all,/You have been given a righteous crown,/You will be for us a pledge of honor. The powerful emotions which run through " O n the Death of K. P. Chernov" and the sharpness of its tone give the poem all the attributes of a political proclamation heralding the impending December uprising. Claims made for Ryleev as propagandist of the Decembrists' cause, typified by the quotation from Herzen at the beginning of this chapter, find only qualified support from the foregoing review. For while there is no doubt that Ryleev and members of his circle were conscious of the potentially vital role of propaganda activity, as evidenced by the composition of the "agitatory" songs, the actual attempts they made to engage in it were tentative, haphazard, and, above all, profoundly lacking in confidence. Moreover, the specific claims concern­ ing the role of the Polar Star in such propaganda activity serve primarily as an illustration of the wishful thinking indulged in by those who advance them, even though, as we have seen, they are demonstrably at variance with the facts. What re­ mains undisputed and, indeed, indisputable, is Ryleev's un­ equivocal commitment as a poet to the Decembrists' vision of a democratic future for the people of Russia.

7

The Uprising of 14 December 1825

In March 1824 it had been agreed that the union of the Northern and Southern societies would be postponed for two years and that thereafter the death of the tsar would be the signal for action. The possibility of Alexander I's upsetting these plans by a premature demise seems to have occurred to no one. Alexander was an apparently healthy 47-year-old at the time these plans were made and there was no reason to suppose that he would die before the conspirators had had time to organize themselves. However, on 27 November 1825, St. Petersburg heard the news that the tsar had died in Taganrog. N. Bestuzhev went immediately to see Ryleev, and was perturbed to find that he knew nothing about these sudden and dramatic developments, particularly since he had repeatedly said that the tsar's death would be the signal for the uprising. Bestuzhev recalled asking him: "Why did the Society, if it is so strong, not know about Alexander's illness, when the Palace has been receiving bulletins about his dangerous condition for more than a week? . . ." After a long silence Ryleev replied: "These circumstances give us a clear understanding of our weakness. I have deceived myself and we have no fixed plan; no meas-

224 I 14 December i8z$ ures have been taken, the number of members actually pres­ ent in Petersburg is small. . . .' M Odoevsky, too, later referred to Ryleev's self-deception, re­ marking that whereas in December Ryleev spoke of only thirty members in Petersburg, in October he had talked of twice that number. 2 Furthermore, N. Bestuzhev had found Ryleev eva­ sive about naming the members he claimed for the Society and would only say that its numbers were increasing cease­ lessly, and that the Second Army was showing signs of dis­ content which the Society might be able to exploit. 3 This last reference is corroborated by the testimony of Odoevsky, who had heard from Ryleev and Obolensky that there was in fact another secret organization in the Second Army which made the Northern Society look like a "joke" (shalost').4 Odoevsky himself, however, took the existence of this secret society to be "a figment of Ryleev's feverish imagination." 5 Chastened by the Northern Society's obvious lack of read­ iness to act in such a critical situation, Ryleev from this point set about preparing for a confrontation with Alexander's suc­ cessor and the Senate by taking advantage of the confusion wrought by the crisis of succession. On the same day (27 November) he sent Shteingel a note asking him to come and discuss the implications of the tsar's death. Shteingel recalled Ryleev's midnight visit to him: "He told me in detail what had happened in the Council and at the Palace and concluded: 'We cannot do anything now; the troops are for the tsarevich 6 (Konstantin Pavlovich). We will have to wait and see. . . .' " The question of who should succeed—the reluctant Constantine, the eldest surviving brother and therefore next in line, who was in Warsaw and apparently not inclined to return to Petersburg, or Nicholas, who was on hand in the capital— 1

2 3 4 5 6

Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," pp. 29-30. Vd ii. 259. Ibid., p. 81. Ibid., p. 256. Ibid., p. 252. Vd xiv. 159.

14 December i8z$

| 225

now became the subject of excited rumor and speculation in Petersburg. Ryleev was convinced that "something important" would emerge from the rumors and argued that the uncertain situation presented an undoubtedly unique possibility for the establishment of a constitution. 7 Alexander's death had presented the conspirators with "a suitable chance to fulfill our intentions." 8 It was a view which over the next few days became generally shared. Ryleev, Trubetskoi, and Obolensky were all agreed that were Constantine to refuse the throne, then every means should be used to achieve the Society's aims; the rest of the membership, according to Obolensky, knew of this intention and were preparing to execute the Society's plans. 9 The importance of Constantine's subsequent refusal of the throne, once the loyal oath had been taken by the troops in Petersburg, lay in its potential for tactical exploitation—as Ryleev and others were quick to see. Throughout the eighteenth century the army, and in particular the Guards regiments, had played a more or less crucial role at times of succession. Alexander had himself succeeded to the throne after his father, Paul, had been killed in a palace coup led by a group of Guards officers in March 1801. This lesson of history was not lost on Ryleev and the Decembrists' leaders. Stressing the need to take advantage of the present circumstances, Ryleev commented to Batenkov that a similar opportunity, the mutiny of the Semenovsky regiment in 1820, had been missed and that this had been an error they should not repeat. 10 A. P. Arbuzov recalled that it was Ryleev's plan to exploit the gullibility of the common soldier by putting it about that having already taken the oath to Constantine, it would actually be a sin to swear a second loyal oath to another individual.11 Consistent with this is Obolensky's recollection of a meeting at Ryleev's on 9 December, at which "nothing 7

Vd i. 18. Testimony of Trubetskoi. Ibid., p. 10. »Ibid., p. 246. 10 Vd xiv. 104. 11 Vd li. 33. 8

226

I 14 December

1825

was decided except to agitate among the troops against a new oath." 12 The conspiracy, then, hinged on the validity of the oath to Constantine and on the troops' refusal to swear to Nicholas.13 Shteingel suggested a variation of this tactic which might be used to foment disaffection among the troops. Its appeal to the national pride of the men attracted Ryleev: they were to be told that Alexander had abdicated in favor of Constantine but that he had rejected the throne and ignored the oath of the Russian people.14 Ryleev and Obolensky gave Trubetskoi to understand that six regiments would refuse to submit to the oath and that this force was thought to be sufficient.15 Arbuzov reported having heard the same from Ryleev, who told the Investigating Commission that they had relied in particular on the Grenadier and Moscow regiments and the marine corps {morskoi ekipazh), containing such res­ olute members of the conspiracy as Arbuzov, Shchepin-Rostovsky, M. Bestuzhev, and Sutgov.16

Trubetskoi as "Dictator" Having decided in the last days of November that the time for action would be at the taking of the new oath to Nicholas (and, at this stage, the date had not been fixed), the leadership of the Northern Society feverishly set about organizing a col­ lection of idealists, who had hitherto confined their activities to talking and writing, into something resembling a fighting force with a proper chain of command and plan of action. Ryleev concentrated his attention on the young officer corps of the Guards regiments and the marine corps at Kronstadt. 12

Ibid., p. 130. See testimony of A. O. Kornilovich, Vd xu. 326; Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 33. 14 Vdxiv. 163. 15 Vd i. 36. They were the Izmailov, Finland, Egersky (Jager), Life-Gren­ adier and Moscow regiments, and the marine corps. 16 Vd ii. 34; Vd i. 185. 13

14 December 182$ | 227 He was sufficiently realistic to foresee that as a civilian it would be difficult for him to assume command of an enterprise that was essentially military in character and composition. It was necessary to have as commander an officer of some seniority and standing, even if only as a figurehead. The obvious choice was Colonel Prince Trubetskoi, and, accordingly, a few days before 14 December, he was elected "dictator," with Bulatov and Yakubovich as second in command. 17 The choice of Trubetskoi was Ryleev's, and the general agreement with which his proposal was met marked the beginning of "purposeful daily meetings." 18 A. Bestuzhev was not enthusiastic about the choice and described Trubetskoi's appointment as a farce {kukol'naya komediya).19 In the event, of course, his view was vindicated. Nor was Trubetskoi himself happy with the dubious honor thrust upon him. "I left Ryleev's in despair," he wrote later. "I saw clearly that I had assumed the appearance of leader, while Ryleev did all the organizing in my name." 20 And this is clearly what happened. As Herzen put it, "Although Trubetskoi was elected dictator, the real leader of the Society at the end of 1825 was Ryleev."21 Ryleev did not even try to hide from Trubetskoi that he was being used, and told him that there were a number of Guards officers whom Trubetskoi did not know and who were not even members of the Society, who would be ready to act under Trubetskoi's ostensible command. 22 All the same, Ryleev later insisted to the Investigating Commission that Trubetskoi had been "dictator" not merely in name: Trubetskoi may say that. . . the preparations and directions for the uprising were made only in his name but were ac17

Vd ii. 298. Vd 1. 184. » Ibid., p. 443. 20 Ibid., p. 38. 21 Herzen, "Russkii zagovor 1825 g.," Sobranie sochinenii xiii, 138. 22 Vd 1. 18-19, 58. 18

228 I 14 December i8z$ tually mine. But that is not so.. . . The meetings themselves were always arranged by him and did not take place without him. He came to see me two or three times every day with various news or advice. . . . In a word his readiness for the revolt was no less than my own. 23 But Ryleev overestimated Trubetskoi's readiness. The dictator, since his appointment, had been experiencing an agonizing conflict of loyalties. Having for so long been actively associated with the secret society he could hardly refuse the trust placed in him, and yet his heart was not really in it. He reacted nervously to reports of revolutionary zeal and complained to Ryleev about the "rebellious attitude" of some of the conspirators. 24 Eventually Ryleev became irritated by his trepidation. M. Bestuzhev told the Investigating Commission that on the eve of the uprising Ryleev rounded on Trubetskoi with the rebuke: "You, Prince, keep taking moderate action when we should be acting decisively."25 Moreover, it is clear that by this time Ryleev had begun to entertain serious doubts about Trubetskoi's commitment to the cause. It was this, no doubt, that prompted his visit to him, accompanied by Pushchin, on the morning of 14 December, to remind him that they were counting on him to join them when the troops came out to take the oath. 26 In spite of Ryleev's claim that Trubetskoi's "readiness for revolt" was no less than his own, the dictator had quite clearly lost his nerve on the eve of the uprising: "My tormented soul gave me no sleep," he later confessed to the Investigating Commission. As is well known, although he was to have taken command on Senate Square, Trubetskoi did not appear, thereby contributing to the certain failure of the rising and arousing the bitter hostility of his confederates, Ryleev among them. 27 23 24 25 26 27

Ibid., pp. 184-85. Ibid., p. 37. Ibid., p. 488. Ibid., p. 6. See Chapter 8, n. 9, below.

14 December i8z; Ryleev as Organizer

of the

| 229

Uprising

In alleging Trubetskoi's highly developed state of prepared­ ness, Ryleev did not seek to minimize his own responsibility for what took place: on the contrary, he freely admitted that he considered himself to be the main culprit and claimed that although he could have prevented the rising from taking place he did not think of doing so: " O n the contrary, I allowed my criminal enthusiasm to serve as a fatal example to others." 2 8 Ryleev's claim was no foolhardy boast but was independently corroborated by many contemporary accounts. N. Bestuzhev declared him to be the "mainspring of the enterprise," main­ taining that during the interregnum he "did not cease to be the mainstay and source of all the society's activities"; fur­ thermore, Ryleev's house became "the venue for all our meet­ ings," of which he was the "leading spirit." 2 9 Similarly, A. Bestuzhev described Ryleev as the "soul" and "mainspring" of the secret society and of the uprising. 30 The Decembrist V. Romanov testified that he heard about the uprising while in Kharkov and that Ryleev had been "the main protagonist of the revolution." 31 Borovkov, in summing up the case against Ryleev for the Investigating Commission, found him "the main culprit," "the mainspring of the rebellion" who had exerted a powerful influence on the soldiers, inciting them not to submit to the oath. 3 2 Alexander Herzen considered Ryleev to be "perhaps the most remarkable member of the Northern Society, the Schiller of the conspiracy, an inspired, youthful, poetic element, a Girondist element in the best meaning of the word." 3 3 Ryleev's efforts to increase the membership of the secret society in readiness for decisive action intensified during the " Vd i. 185. 29 Vd ii. 66; Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 31. 30 Vd i. 444. 31 TsGAOR f. 48, d. 78,1. 17ob. 32 Vd i. 218. See also the corroborative assessments of Rozen, Zapiski dekabrista, p. 46; and Grech, Zapiski ο moei zhizni, p. 447. 33 Herzen, "Russkii zagovor 1825g," Sobranie socbinenii, xiii, 137-38.

230 I 14 December 1825 uncertain days of the interregnum. A. N. Sutgov was persuaded by Ryleev to stand by the oath sworn to Constantine; 34 Kyukhelbeker wrote that Ryleev had told him about the secret society a few days after the news of Tsar Alexander's death and that he agreed to join it at Ryleev's suggestion;35 N. P. Repin claimed that he was enlisted by Ryleev on 11 December.36 The Alfavit names at least eight Decembrists drawn into the secret society by Ryleev at this time. 37 N. P. Kozhevnikov, for example, was persuaded by Ryleev on 10 December to oppose the oath to Nicholas and accepted directions from him to gather the troops under his command on Senate Square the day the oath was to be administered.38 Lt. Romanov had heard of the Society's existence from Ryleev in June 1825 while they were on their way to dine at Bulgarin's: "With all his eloquence he demonstrated the advantages of introducing to Russia a constitution similar to those in other monarchical governments." 39 Ryleev's group was also joined at this time by Arbuzov, Panov, and the Belyaev brothers. For the most part those recruited by Ryleev during the interregnum were officers of the Moscow and Grenadier regiments and the marine corps.40

On the Eve As the dynastic crisis continued from one confused day to the next, with its feverish exchange of messengers between Pe34

Vd ii. 122. Ibid., p. 151. 36 Ibid., p. 363. 37 Vd viii. 94-95, 102, 122, 127-28, 144, 165-66, 180-81. They were N. P. Kozhevnikov, S. G. Krasnokutsky, Ryleev's nephew M. P. Malyutin, F. B. and A. I. Morenshild, S. M. Pahtsyn, A. E. Rozen, V. P. Romanov, A. N. Sutgov, and others. 38 TsGAOR f. 48, d. 383, 1. 4. In addition, A. N. Andreev, a 21-year-old officer in the Izmailov regiment, was persuaded by Ryleev to join the secret society a week before the uprising. What had particularly impressed him was Ryleev's claim that their plans had the approval of Mordvinov, Speransky, and Count Vorontsov (Vd xv. 230-31, 232). 39 Ibid., d. 78, 11. 11, 17. 40 Aksenov, Severnoe obshchestvo dekabristov, p. 209. 35

i4 December 1825 | 231

tersburg and Warsaw, so the conspiracy gathered momentum. Ryleev's effectiveness in it was for a day or two seriously threatened by a severe attack of laryngitis. Though uncomfortable and inconvenient for him, it did provide the conspirators with a ready pretext, in case the authorities demanded an explanation for their movements, for regular meetings at the poet's house. Ryleev later made just this admission in his depositions. 41 Trubetskoi, for example, visited Ryleev two or three times nearly every day during the poet's illness. Elsewhere, however, Ryleev claimed that had it not been for his illness, he would not have permitted these decisive meetings to take place in his quarters "out of fear for personal safety and that of the Society."42 Ryleev's disclaimer was evidently a sop for the Investigating Commission—his behavior on 14 December and subsequently on the scaffold does not suggest that he was afflicted by any fear of personal danger. As Trubetskoi and others testified, it was to Ryleev that the conspirators now turned with up-to-date information and at Ryleev's lodgings that the conspiracy was hatched. 43 In point of fact, however, the regularity of the conspirators' visits to Ryleev's house during the first fortnight of December did not go unnoticed by the authorities. I. D. Yakushkin recalled that Governor-General Miloradovich disregarded police surveillance reports on the Russian-American Company's house since he knew that Ryleev was co-editor of the Polar Star and therefore assumed that these were literary meetings.44 According to the "dictator," Ryleev was ill for more than a week and got better on 11 December.45 A. E. Rozen refers to his visit to Ryleev on 10 December, when he found him "with a large woolen scarf wrapped round his neck because of his infected throat." 46 It seems that Ryleev's condition was the result of his involvement in quixotic attempts at propaganda. On at least two of these early December evenings, in a belated 41

Vd xiv. 55. Vd i. 184. 43 Ibid., pp. 65, 66; Vd u. 123. Testimony of Sutgov. 44 1. D. Yakushkin, "14 dekabrya," p. 168. 45 Vd i. 98. 46 Rozen, Zapiski dekabrista, p. 62. 42

232 I 14 December

i$z$

attempt to involve the lower ranks in their plans, Ryleev and A. and N. Bestuzhev roamed around the streets of the capital, stopping any soldier they encountered. Subsequently, the lat­ ter recalled, Ryleev's throat became inflamed, and he took to his bed. 4 7 Nevertheless, Bestuzhev claimed appreciable success for their efforts: "It is impossible to describe the eagerness with which the soldiers listened to us, or the speed with which our words spread among the troops." 4 8 This may have been so, but as a propaganda exercise it was on too small a scale and came too late to have any real effect. Ryleev had proposed, at one of the meetings where means of inciting the troops were discussed, that they should spread rumors to the effect that the Senate had suppressed the late tsar's will since it provided for a ten-year reduction in service for the lower ranks. The proposal was accepted "unanimously." 4 9 To be fair, Ryleev had few illusions about the success of this venture but nevertheless felt it essential to act and so " t o awaken Russia." Ryleev, according to Bestuzhev, on more than one occasion summed up the situation typically: " I fore­ see that we will not succeed, and yet a crisis is inevitable. The tactic of revolutions is contained in one word: 'dare!' And if it ends badly for us, others will learn from our failure." 5 0 These proselyting expeditions were symptomatic of the frus­ tration felt by Ryleev and his confederates. At the meetings they could only talk, plan, speculate, and argue—and such activity obviously had its limitations. At a meeting on 11 December, Ryleev, "wanting to curtail the conversation which was becoming tedious, firmly told those present that what they had in fact met for was to promise each other to be on the square on the day of the oath with as many troops as they could muster." 5 1 Cause for a deeper frustration was the fact 47

Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 31. Ibid. " ' W i . 185. 50 Bestuzhev, "Vospominanie ο Ryleeve," p. 32. 51 Vd i. 247. Testimony of Obolensky. Those present were Sutgov, Kozhevnikov, Shchepin-Rostovsky, Rozen, Bogdanov, Odoevsky, Arbuzov, Annenkov, and Artsybashev. The meetings were usually attended by Trubetskoi, 48

14 December τ8ζ$ | 233 that they had no way of knowing when the eagerly awaited day of the oath would be. Kakhovsky, for example, argued that they should act independently of this factor and carry out the coup quietly by night—a daytime demonstration on Senate Square he viewed as an invitation for immediate arrest. But Ryleev insisted that the soldiers would not leave their barracks until the oath was announced and that they simply had no option but to wait for it. 5 2 On 12 December, Ryleev learned that one of their associ­ ates, Ya. A. Rostovtsev, had been to Tsarevich Nicholas and had told him of the plan for an uprising without, however, mentioning the existence of a secret society or naming any of its members. According to Shteingel, Ryleev's first reaction was that Rostovtsev should be executed as a spy, but he was dissuaded from this extreme view. 53 Ryleev had told Zavalishin that he was sure the secret society could withstand be­ trayal (it had already done so on at least three occasions): " I might perish, or one group might, but this would not overall be an important loss for the secret society." 54 He now asked Bestuzhev how they should act in the light of this betrayal. According to the latter the following conversation ensued: ". . . We should act. It is better to be taken on the square than dragged from our beds. It is better that people should know where we have disappeared rather than be left won­ dering why we have quietly vanished." Ryleev embraced me. " I was sure . . . that this would be your view. . . . Our fate is sealed! . . . We shall begin. I am certain that we shall perish, but the example will remain. Let us sacrifice ourselves for the future freedom of our coun­ 55 try!" Ryleev, Obolensky, the Bestuzhevs, Odoevsky, Kakhovsky, Arbuzov, and Sutgov(V