The Russian Empire Hugh Seton Summary
Examining textbooks printed prior to 1991 helps to define the differences that arose in theories of the causes, process, and outcomes of the reforms. Hugh Seton-Watson’s textbook The Russian Empire 1801-1917 published in 1967 devotes a chapter to the topic of the reforms. He argues that one of the problems that determined the reforms’ outcome was Alexander II’s own conflicting philosophies and the contradictory liberal and conservative influences that surrounded him. Therefore the reforms did not go fare enough because of these conflicting influences on the state’s design of the reforms. He theorizes that this is why “the 1861 settlement was no solution to the peasant question: it created more problems than it solved, and difficulties piled
up in the following year.” We would be right to highlight the last phrase. Seton-Watson describes the reforms as the catalyst of the radicalization of the revolutionaries that would eventually eliminate the autocracy. He outlines the frustration that figures like Herzen and Chernyshevsky had with the timidness of the reforms and thus causing their move towards radically more violent and morally, altruistically centered revolutionary ideas. Michael Florinsky’s book Russia: A Short History, published in 1969 further illustrates this period of academia. The landowners and bureaucrats that surrounded and tsar all had subtle differences which caused the reforms to fail. He argues that they failed because they did not tear down enough of the prior system and this in turn caused the radicalization of some of the intelligentsia. Both of these works were printed during the 1960s and reflect the trend of studies trying to determine “what went wrong” in Russian history. They also are reflective of the wider theme that the reforms were Russia’s last attempt to stem the tide of revolution. Seton-Watson uses a chunk of his chapter on the Great Reforms to describe the radicalization of figures like Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, and Pisarev. He furthers this argument by pointing to the fact that after the emancipation, the Polish Rebellion and a shift in public and state sentiment caused Russia to reverse the development of liberalism and return to more conservative policies, which only confounded the issue that led to the reforms in the first place.
up in the following year.” We would be right to highlight the last phrase. Seton-Watson describes the reforms as the catalyst of the radicalization of the revolutionaries that would eventually eliminate the autocracy. He outlines the frustration that figures like Herzen and Chernyshevsky had with the timidness of the reforms and thus causing their move towards radically more violent and morally, altruistically centered revolutionary ideas. Michael Florinsky’s book Russia: A Short History, published in 1969 further illustrates this period of academia. The landowners and bureaucrats that surrounded and tsar all had subtle differences which caused the reforms to fail. He argues that they failed because they did not tear down enough of the prior system and this in turn caused the radicalization of some of the intelligentsia. Both of these works were printed during the 1960s and reflect the trend of studies trying to determine “what went wrong” in Russian history. They also are reflective of the wider theme that the reforms were Russia’s last attempt to stem the tide of revolution. Seton-Watson uses a chunk of his chapter on the Great Reforms to describe the radicalization of figures like Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, and Pisarev. He furthers this argument by pointing to the fact that after the emancipation, the Polish Rebellion and a shift in public and state sentiment caused Russia to reverse the development of liberalism and return to more conservative policies, which only confounded the issue that led to the reforms in the first place.