[ pavel pestel: portrait of a revolutionary leader ]€¦ · web view2015. 5. 28. · the...

[ Pavel Pestel: Portrait of a Revolutionary Leader ][HIS 537 Research Paper – Prof. Dr. Dan Rowland]

[Final Draft][University of Kentucky]Jason Howard

[ Pavel Pestel: Portrait of a Revolutionary Leader ] [Final Draft]

Pavel Pestel

Introduction

[Jason Howard]


“I became a republican to the core of my being and could see no greater well-being or higher blessing for Russia than a republican system of government. When I discussed this matter with those who shared my way of thinking we started to picture the happiness, as we understood it,

that Russia would then enjoy. As we did so, I must admit that we became so delighted and excited that we were all prepared not only to accept but to actively propose everything needed to achieve

the full realization, complete reinforcement and implementation of this order of things.”

- Pavel Pestel’s statement to the Investigating Committee into the Decembrist affair on January 12, 1826.

November 27, 1825 was the day marked by a group of revolutionary Russians for years.

It was not marked for the date’s significance, but because what happened that day; it was the day

when Alexander I drew his final breath. For years the revolutionaries had dreamed of this. Many

meetings and secret gatherings occurred where this group of revolutionaries shared ideas and

proposals to end serfdom, correct the ills that crippled Russia – the end game, a Russian

Republic. The sign to act was agreed upon: When Tsar Alexander I was dead, spring into action.

This group will be forever known as the Decembrists.

In retrospect, many of the things that would have seemed to work in the Decembrists’

favor actually did not. The confusion Alexander’s death brought about would have been the

perfect opportunity to strike, but as fate would have it, the movement was far too compromised

and ill-prepared to act. On December 14, 1825 Nicholas I was set to assume the throne just a few

days after Constantine, Viceroy of Poland, had sworn his oath. Constantine had declared an act

of renunciation in 1819 and thusly refused the crown. Mass confusion ensued coupled with

unrest as Russia had been without a leader for 17 days. Still worse yet, the first selection had

declined the highest honor in all the land.

Most importantly, the Russian troops were bewildered by this rapid change in power and

many voiced their concerns. It was on this mood that the Decembrists hoped to capitalize. The

[Jason Howard]


Decembrist movement was a largely militaristic one from the very beginning. Sensing that the

military was on their side, the leaders of the Decembrist movement decided now was the time to

act; they ultimately would fail but would inspire all of the revolutionary acts that would follow

them.

This one event shook Russia to its core and many great historians feel that it was the

single greatest event in Russian history, which ushered in all of the progress made during the 19th

and 20th centuries in Russia. Even Decembrist contemporaries, such as Alexander Herzen, saw

the Decembrists as sort of an answer to the “New World’s” Founding Fathers. America had

Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin and Russia had Muraviev, Trubetskoy, and Pestel. That point can

be argued as history tends to judge people in terms of success and failure, which does not bode

well for Pestel and company. For the purposes and scope of this paper, all that matters is an

agreement that the Decembrists were important historical Russian figures that sparked an entire

nation to question the status quo in 19th century Russia. It was a sentiment that would carry

through into early 20th century Russia.

As with all things in history, the Decembrist Revolt was a co-mingling of separate

random – in the case of the Decembrists, some planned – events that all led up to one moment in

time. As you peel back the layers you find where the ripples originated, almost as if you see the

first pebble dropping into the lake, before they grew into a groundswell of revolt. Seldom do

events happen without some form of precursors and the Decembrist Revolt is no different.

I opened this paper with a quote from Pestel during his trial held in 1826. It is one brief

insight into his mind and the way he thought. The question I hope to answer is what led to the

culmination of years of planning, secrecy, and unrest that resulted in revolt in St. Petersburg

Square? Actually, it was more than that as it was a repudiation of the serf system and the status

[Jason Howard]


quo in Russia.

Many have viewed Pestel as the lynchpin that set the entire revolt into motion. It is no

longer debated that he put together the most comprehensive constitution for a post-revolution

Russia, titled Russkaya Pravda.1 Some historians, like Pat O’Meara, have called Pestel the first

Russian Republican.2 So, to understand how the Decembrists and the revolt came to be we really

need to get to know the architect of it all; the man; the myth; the Decembrist, Colonel Pavel

Ivanovich Pestel.

Childhood and Upbringing

How we were raised and who raised us are often viewed as formative elements in our

characters. In fact, John Locke argued that education and upbringing makes the man in his essay

titled “Some Thoughts Concerning Education.” (Locke 1-10) The way in which Pestel was raised

coupled with his early influences and role models could be seen as central narratives for this

paper. If the objective is to know not only who Pestel was but to also know where his ideas came

from, then there is no better starting point than where the man himself began. So, let us travel

back to Moscow circa June 1793.

Pavel Pestel was one of over twenty descendants of immigrant German families,

including Andrei Rozen, Ivan and Mikhail Fonvizin, Aleksandr fon-der Brigen, Ivan Focht,

Vasili Tizengauzen and Ferdinand Volf, to become involved in the Decembrist movement.

(O'Meara 9) The Pestel family came to Russia during the reign of Peter The Great and Pavel’s

grandfather, Boris Vladimirovich, served under Empress Elizabeth in 1751. Pavel’s grandfather

1 This was the constitution for the Southern Society branch of the Decembrists. It will be dissected later on but it was heavily influenced by the French Revolution. The main inspirations from the French Revolution were the policies of the Jacobins in France and the land reforms proposed by Abbe Antoine de Cournand.2 This was the title of Pat O’Meara’s book on Pavel Pestel.

[Jason Howard]


was a distinguished man who was St. Petersburg’s Pocht-Direktor 3 and paved the way for future

Pestels to perform service for the court.

Pavel’s father was Ivan Borisovich who was born in Moscow in 1765. He, like Pavel’s

grandfather, also served the court as he was part of Catherine the Great’s government starting in

1782. Following in the footsteps of his father – Pavel’s grandfather Boris – Ivan quickly rose to

the same rank his father had achieved. Only, Ivan was made Pocht-Direktor of Moscow at the

tender age of 24. (O'Meara 11) Ivan would go on to hold many other offices, including advising

roles similar to those seen in the executive branch in America. 4 Ivan Pestel’s good standing as

Governor general of Siberia caused much resentment and jealousy throughout the Russian

government. His downfall all began in April of 1817 when he nearly lost his post to General

Glazenap due to accusations that Ivan Pestel had accepted bribes. After an official investigation,

Pestel was cleared of all charges but this would not be the end of his troubles. In 1819, following

Glazenap’s death, Pestel was officially removed from his post, demoted, and replaced by M.M.

Speranskii who promptly filed charges of negligence against Pestel. The charges ranged from

giving too much power to local governments, taking bribes, and that he had been governing

Siberia from his home in St. Petersburg. To add even further insult to injury, Speranskii wrote

that Ivan Pestel had ‘one of the emptiest heads I have ever known.’ (O'Meara 12) This ended the

court life that Ivan Pestel had enjoyed but his career would continue for three more years until

his forced retirement in 1822.

The accusations against Ivan Pestel are all hard to definitively refute, except one. Pat

O’Meara argues that due to the fact that Ivan Pestel retired in great debt when other Russian

officials during this time had piles of money and land from bribes they had received, that it

3 Postal Director. One of the major responsibilities of the postal director was to open private correspondence.4 Ivan Pestel served as Postal Director of St. Petersburg and Moscow and Governor General of Siberia.

[Jason Howard]


seems unlikely that Ivan Pestel had been accepting bribes during his career. (O'Meara 11)

Outside of his wife’s land and serf holdings, Ivan Pestel had almost no worldly possessions at the

time of his retirement. What goes even further to prove the closeness that Ivan and his son Pavel

shared is that Pavel Pestel was the only child that cared about his father’s debts. In a letter dated

March 13, 1822, Pavel Pestel offered to pay off his father’s debts and made good on the offer

when he sent him a whole years salary of 2,000 roubles in August, 1822. (O'Meara 13)

Perhaps what is most important about Pavel’s father is how much he enjoyed helping

people. He wrote to his young son, Pavel, about his altruistic views: “Son, high office brings just

one great joy: the possibility of making more and more people happy.” (O'Meara 9) He also

impressed upon Pavel, while he was studying at the Corps of Pages 5 that the role of his son’s

education was to help those less fortunate than him. This is something that stuck with Pavel as it

was brought up several more times, several years later in correspondence between the younger

and elder Pestel.

Following Ivan’s ousting from public office in 1822 he moved back home and devoted all

of his energy to the education and development of his son’s career. Ivan made it clear to all of his

sons, especially Pavel, that their role in life was to make things better for their countrymen.

It is probably safe to say that his father’s public disgrace left a lasting effect on Pavel. He

saw his father as someone who was highly regarded for nearly four decades just swept under the

rug as old news. This single event probably did more to embolden Pavel’s distrust in the current

government than anything else. It also led to his idea that one must work outside the current law

to achieve great things for the people of Russia.

Pavel’s early education was mostly provided by his mother, Elizaveta Ivanova, the

5 The Corps of Pages was a privileged military establishment in St. Petersburg which prepared children of aristocrats for military service.

[Jason Howard]


daughter of a German writer. Much of what is written about her seems to agree that she was

highly intelligent. She was also very proud of her favorite son, Pavel. In fact, Nikolai Grech, a

journalist of the time wrote, “Elizaveta Ivanova was intelligent but not only educated but erudite.

She nevertheless instilled in her children, especially Pavel, both arrogance and inordinate

ambition combined with cunning, secretiveness and paranoia.” (O'Meara 11) This is something

that will come into play later as Pavel’s paranoia can be seen clearly in his advocacy of what

some might call a “police state.”

While at the Corps of Pages, a secondary educational institution in St. Petersburg, Pavel

read works from John Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham and

Thomas Jefferson. On top of that he read voraciously at a very young age. His parents kept a

library in the house which was comprised of books by many of the same authors with some key

additions by Voltaire, Marmontel, Thomas Paine, Saint-Simon and Isaac Newton. So, from a

very early age, Pestel was learning from the pen strokes of a collection of men who played

important roles in the Enlightenment, French Revolution and American Revolution. This too

will come into play later. Pestel was an ardent fan of revolutions and was keenly aware of several

that took place during his era.

It is not known to what extent Pavel Pestel practiced religion throughout his life but it is

obvious it was a part of his life growing up and he struggled with his faith in his adult life. He

was raised a Lutheran as his mother was extremely devout. (O'Meara 13) During later

correspondence between Pavel and his mother, Pavel’s views on religion become clearer. He

seemed unable to link the world he saw (unjust, cruel, and exploitative) with something God, if

he existed, would allow. This was a common mindset amongst the Enlightenment thinkers Pestel

had been reading extensively at this time.

[Jason Howard]


It was at the Corps of Pages when Pestel became very skeptical about Lutheranism and

argued the points with his parents in a series of letters. His parents would respond with bible

quotations and wisdom to try and ease his concerns. During this exchange, Pavel and his father

discussed many religious matters. They talked about the existence of God and belief versus non-

belief. Pavel’s father, in the final letter, warned his son of ‘the perils that atheism brings.’

(O'Meara 40) 6

Throughout all of this, Pavel’s education continued and he began to stand out amongst

his peers. Pavel graduated at the top of his class and he took a career path that would forever

change his life. He was following in his father’s and grandfather’s footsteps, but the journey

would coincide with major conflicts still ongoing in Western Europe. Pavel Pestel joined the

Russian army during the height of the Napoleonic wars. His childhood and upbringing would

carry him on to the military where he would form even more concrete beliefs about politics and

country.

Military Influences & Political Beginnings

As noted earlier, the Decembrist movement was by and large a military movement from

the very beginning. There were only a handful of individuals involved in the conspiracy and

uprisings in St. Petersburg and Vasilkov who were not either serving or former officers. After

their arrest, the first forms and written statements the prisoners were required to complete were

the formularnyi spisok or “declaration of service record.” (O'Meara 17)

It is safe to say that at first, the military were pleased by Tsar Alexander’s rather liberal

reformation of Russian society. In 1818, the Tsar ordered a constitution be drawn up to reform

6 These letters were summarized by Pat O’Meara in his book so direct quotes were not possible. The source is in Russian and impossible to find.

[Jason Howard]


Russia. However, internal unrest, which Alexander felt stemmed from political liberalism, led to

a long series of repressions instead. This only served to further the unrest and help fuel what

would later become the Decembrist revolt. Following this repression, the Decembrist movement

grew and its followers and sympathizers displayed their contempt for the Tsar’s regime by

rejecting court lifestyle and wearing their cavalry swords to dances – a sign of their

unwillingness to dance. Instead, they committed themselves to enlightenment thought, which

helped them fit in with the Romanticism of the times. In fact, some leading historians have

claimed that the Decembrists like Pavel Pestel gave birth to the Intelligentsia in Russia.

(Steinberg) 7

Pavel Pestel became a poster child of sorts for the movement early own, having been

quoted as saying, “The desirability of granting freedom to the serfs was considered from the very

beginning; for that purpose a majority of the nobility was to be invited in order to petition the

Emperor about it. This was later thought of on many occasions, but we soon came to realize that

the nobility could not be persuaded. And as time went on we became even more convinced,

when the Ukrainian nobility absolutely rejected a similar project of their military governor.”

(Mazour 8)

One thing that must be noted is the influence that Western Europe had on Pestel and on

many of the Decembrists. Many of the Decembrist officers noted that after seeing and

experiencing the lifestyle many in Western Europe enjoyed, they felt it was their duty to enact

political and social change in Russia. Pavel Pestel wrote in a letter to his parents that his time in

Western Europe was a defining moment and had made a deep impression on him. (O'Meara 19)

Pestel’s time in the Russian Military, especially that served in 1811-1813 in Western Europe, 7 This is an audio source from The Teaching Company. There is an entire lecture on Pavel Pestel and the Decembrist movement. Dr. Steinberg is a professor at the University of Illinois.

[Jason Howard]


helped mold the future Decembrist. Not only did Pestel’s regiment participate in the Battle of

Leipzig (1813), but Pestel was wounded during the conflict. He didn’t let that deter him from the

objective, though, and a wounded Pestel marched on as the Russians played a large part in

driving Napoleon back into France. At this point, Pestel had achieved somewhat of a ‘legendary

status’ amongst Russian soldiers and had won the admiration of the Russian army. After the

battle, Pestel was awarded the highest honor a Russian military man could hope for – much like

the Purple Heart in American culture – Pestel was granted the Golden Sword bearing the

inscription ‘For Valour’. Better still, it was awarded to him by the Commander In-Chief

Fieldmarshal Kutuzov himself. (O'Meara 18)

After the Napoleonic wars ended men like Pestel came home as great heroes and were

rewarded with cushy posts. Pavel Pestel was granted the title of Colonel of the Second Army in

Tulchin. The title gave Pestel plenty of free time to read and write and, most importantly, to

socialize. It was at this point he began seeking out like-minded individuals and eventually joined

the Union of Welfare, the Tulchin branch of the secret Decembrist society. It was also around

this time that Pestel began working on the masterpiece of his life, Russkaya Pravda. It is hard to

know exactly when he started working on it, but there are records that he had a workable copy as

early as 1821 because he had read extracts from the document to his close friend, General P.D.

Kiselev by this time. (O'Meara 28)

To further bolster his popularity with the Russian soldiers, Pestel published papers like

‘Memorandum on State Governance’ and ‘Memorandum on the Organization of the Armed

Forces’ in which he lobbied for several improvements for soldiers. Included in the proposals was

a reduction in the standing army and a reserve army, which would allow soldiers to go home

during times of peace. He also campaigned for pay increases for officers and improved care and

[Jason Howard]


support for veterans and their families. As a result, by 1822, it was reported that the Second

army’s condition had improved rapidly under Pestel’s command. (O'Meara 31) This made him

all the more appealing to his troops. Pestel seemed to have an uncanny ability to connect with the

soldiers of his nation. Even after Pestel incriminated every member of the Southern Society 8

following his arrest, they remained loyal to him years after his death.

Karl Fedorovich German & Outside World Influences

Going back to Pestel’s time at the Corps of Pages, perhaps the biggest influence on Pestel

during his formative years was the bond he established with one of his professors, Karl

Fedorovich German. It was in his class that Pestel learned in great detail about the Enlightenment

and, most importantly, the French Revolution. At this time, the French Revolution was only 20

years old but German saw, even then, the importance of the events. It was under German’s

tutelage that Pestel began to read the works of John Locke and Montesquieu and develop many

of his views that would later spill out onto the pages of Russkaya Pravda. During his interviews

with investigators later in life, after his arrest, Pestel stated that he was profoundly affected, for

the better, by the political science courses he took with Professor German at the Corps of Pages.

(O'Meara 74) The courses opened up Pestel’s eyes to the world beyond Russia, and the French

Revolution is the best example of a monarchy besieged by its populace.

When asked about the origins of his revolutionary ideas, Pestel cited Professor German

and his studies of the French Revolution. In his own words: “It is a very difficult question to

answer because it goes beyond the bounds of discussing the secret society.” He then went on to

8 The Southern Society was a branch of the original Decembrist group based in St. Petersburg. The membership of the Southern society was comprised mostly of former Semenoviskii Guard members who joined after the Semenoviskii mutiny in 1820. The Southern Society was the creation of Pestel. He organized it, wrote the constitution and recruited all of the vital members.

[Jason Howard]


talk about overthrown monarchs, numerous coup d’états, and exiled rulers. He continued with:

“Moreover, every age has its distinctive features. Ours is remarkable for its revolutionary ideas.

From one end to the other, one in the same thing is apparent, from Portugal to Russia, not

excluding a single country, even those two extremes, England and Turkey. The whole of

America presents the same spectacle. This spirit of transformation everywhere induces, so to

speak, an intellectual ferment.” (O'Meara 44)

This goes to show that Pestel didn’t think his revolution was special or that the

Decembrists were trailblazers in the field of revolution and overthrowing a monarchy. Instead,

he seemed to feel that it was a common goal all of humanity was embracing in his age. This

quotation also tells us that Pestel was influenced by outside events and revolutions.

The Portuguese Revolution of 1820 was one of the influences directly implicated by

Pestel as playing a part in his revolutionary attitude. The Portuguese revolution was a mainly

political revolution that erupted in 1820 and lasted until 1826. Much like the Decembrist

movement, it was a military coup that started with secret societies in the city of Porto and

quickly spread through the entire Northern part of Portugal. The Portuguese revolution resulted

in three things. First, Portugal drafted a constitution which resembled the 1812 Spanish

Constitution. Secondly, it gave power to the people of Portugal after setting up a constitutional

monarchy where the people had the right to vote for elected officials. Thirdly, it re-established

exclusive trade between Portugal and Brazil. (Birmingham 109-142) 9

A concurrent revolution to the Portuguese revolution was the Spanish Revolution of

1820, sometimes referred to as the Trieno Liberal. Much like the revolution in Portugal and the

Decembrist revolution, it was fought in the aftermath of the Napoleonic War. The revolution was

9 This was not a direct quote but rather a synopsis of what I read in Birmingham’s book.

[Jason Howard]


fought between the Royalists (or nobility) and the Liberals (or people), and despite French

intervention on the side of the Royalists, the Liberals won out. The people forced the monarchy

of Spain to issue a liberal constitution against its will. (Carr 207-251) 10

There were other revolutions around this time as well such as Robert Emmet’s rebellion

against English Rule in Ireland. Also during this time there was the Peninsula War between

France and Spain, the Mexican War for Independence, the Serbian revolution against the

Ottoman Empire, the Peru revolution, the Greek War of Independence and the Scottish

Insurrection. All of these took place between the years 1803-1820 and Pestel was at the very

least aware of the revolutions in Spain, Portugal, and Greece, and most likely aware of the others

as well. (O'Meara 44-46) 11

Oddly enough, the United States proved to be the ne plus ultra of Pestel’s admiration.

Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine’s writings combined with the overwhelming success of the

United States made a powerful impression on Pestel. He remarked to the Investigating

committee, “All the newspapers and political essays so strongly commend the growth of welfare

in the United States, ascribing this to state structure, that it seemed to me clear evidence of the

Republican system.” (O'Meara 45)

It is obvious from the climate and Pestel’s testimony that he felt there was some Pan-

European urge for change. When added with his upbringing and his father’s directive to make

the lives of his countrymen better, it’s likely that Pestel felt the course of action he had chosen

was his chief purpose in life. Given the world around him and the influences in his life, Pestel

most likely felt a sense of duty which drove his desires for revolution in Russia.

10 This was not a direct quote but rather a synopsis of what I read in Carr’s book.11 We know from testimony by Pestel during his time at the Peter Paul fortress that he directly talked about the Spanish, Portuguese, American, French and Greek revolutions. He was also very well read and seemed to really keep his finger on the pulse of revolutions throughout the world.

[Jason Howard]


Russian Justice & Pestel’s Vision for Russia

So far, we have examined the influences that guided Pestel along his path from a child in

Moscow to the revolutionary he would soon become. Now the examination in this paper shifts to

Pestel’s ideas and vision for Russia. First, let us take a look at what he disliked about the Russia

he saw before him between the years 1818-1824. In common with many Decembrists, he placed

great importance the emancipation of serfs and he was repulsed by the horrible conditions in

which peasants lived. Pavel believed so strongly in serf emancipation that he sought to free his

own serfs. However, he met considerable opposition from his mother who was the legal owner of

all of the serfs on the Pestel estates. He was ultimately unable to distance himself from serfdom.

(O'Meara 47)

Pestel was also dissatisfied with several other social issues unrelated to serfdom. He

disliked the privileges Alexander I granted to certain annexed regions of Russia – namely,

Finland and Poland – and he lamented the decline in Russian trade and national wealth.

Pestel’s issues with the liberal constitutions granted to Finland and Poland really fall into

two categories. His first issue was ideological. He was deeply opposed to federalism and felt that

there needed to be a strong Russian state of which all areas of the country belonged, thus

granting the same rights to everyone. His second issue seemed to be jealousy. Many of the

Decembrists had an issue with Alexander promising liberal reforms to Russia and then only

giving them out to the newest acquired territories while the rest of Russia still had to deal with

the feudal system.

Pestel also saw massive corruption in the Russian political system and, as already

discussed earlier in this paper, he saw many needs for reform in the Russian military. Perhaps the

biggest belief that he gained from his reading of John Locke and Locke-inspired Thomas

[Jason Howard]


Jefferson was the belief that all men had the right to property. Pestel looked around Russia and

saw a country where the elite few had everything and the vast majority had nothing. This seems

to fit the Pestel narrative of a country in absolute despondency and a country in desperate need of

a metamorphosis for the sake of all Russians.

Pestel had met Nikita Muraviev, Sergei Trubetskoi, Fedor Glinka, Pavel Lopukhin,

Alexander Muraviev, Sergei and Matvei Muraviev-Apostol, Ilya Dolgorukov and several other

Decembrists in 1816 when he joined the Union of Salvation. It was here that the seeds of distrust

grew between Muraviev and Pestel that would later serve as the splintering of the movement

between the Northern and Southern societies. Muraviev felt that Pestel was too radical and

wanted to become a dictator while Pestel felt that Muraviev was not radical enough.

The biggest change to come from these early meetings was due in large part to Mikhail

Novikov. Prior to meeting him, Pestel favored a system which kept the monarchy but did away

with serfdom. Pestel admitted to the Investigating Committee that Novikov wrote the first

constitution for a new Russia which pre-dated Russian Justice and that it resembled the

American constitution. Pestel further went on to say that after meeting Novikov and reading his

work that he later began to agree with his advocacy of the Republican system. (O'Meara 52)

So, around February, 1817 Pestel began work on a constitution of his own. This

document was named Russkaya Pravda (Russian Justice). While there were several pieces to the

document, the two main planks seem to be the extirpation of the Russian absolutist-monarchy and

its replacement with a constitutional-monarchy coupled with the total abolition of serfdom by

petitioning the nobility. Once it became clear that this approach would fail the Decembrists

began to plan a coup d’état. As noted at the start of this paper, the Union of Salvation agreed at

this point that the death of Alexander I would be the signal for action.

[Jason Howard]


Pestel’s new constitution was more radical and called for a complete overthrow of the

Russian monarchy and his creation of a republic in its place. This splintered the Decembrists as

several members, such as Trubetskoi and Muraviev, preferred a more peaceful approach. They

wanted to slowly change the hearts and minds of Russians and force a peaceful change rather

than an outright coup. In January of 1820, Pestel traveled to St. Petersburg to meet with the

Union of Welfare leaders. Pestel had grown impatient with the Northern society and met with 14

members. (O'Meara 61) Pestel left the meeting having changed no minds as most of the Union of

Welfare felt that his ideas were far too radical.

Pestel worked on several different versions of Russian Justice between the years 1817-

1825. By 1822-1823, the version of Russian Justice for which he is best known was in controlled

circulation to a few Decembrist loyalists he trusted. This was the version which advocated the

full overthrow of the Russian monarchy and the establishment of a republic. It also called for

land redistribution with half going to the state and the other half being divided up amongst the

Russian peasants. Only the first five chapters of Russian Justice exist in their full form. The last

five chapters were either never completed or lost. There is some speculation that after Pestel’s

arrest, loyal members destroyed copies of Russkaya Pravda, which might have implicated them

in the plot against the Tsar. With no way of knowing the true fate of the last five chapters, the

best anyone can do is offer up a guess as to their whereabouts. The first five chapters do exist

and were titled “On Territorial Extent of the State”; “On the Peoples Inhabiting Russia”; “On the

Estates Which are Found in Russia”; “On the People in the Political Sense”; On the People in the

Civil Sense”. The last five chapters dealt with state governance and some historians, like Pat

O’Meara and Marc Raeff, have pieced together a good portrait of Pestel in those regards using

some of his essays. Pestel also wrote his social-political treatise during this time frame as well as

[Jason Howard]


his essays “A Note on State Government” and “The State Department of Justice”. Among those

three documents he outlined his views on the form of the civil and criminal court system as well

as a class structure that was fair to all.

Chapter one of Russian Justice mainly set out to establish laws and boundaries for

Russia. It also established a capital city for Russia. Oddly enough, the capital for this new Russia

would be much like the American capital. “The area in which the capital sits must not be part of

any region, because the Supreme Administration with all the principal government authorities

resides in the capital; and the union of the capital with any one of the regions will give the latter

too much importance. This is why the capital must be a separate area unto itself under the name

of “Capital District.” (Raeff 138-39) The spot chosen by Pestel for the Capital District was

Nizhnii Novgorod – to be renamed Vladimir in honor of the man who brought Christianity to

Russia –because it was situated at the center of Russia and it was best suited for domestic trade

because it was well connected with both Asia and Western Europe. The first chapter is wrapped

up with the establishment of ten states or provinces. The arrangement was similar to the state

system that is used in the United States. Each region had its own government, but was itself

governed by the Supreme Administration.

Chapter Two established laws and uniformity. “The laws must be the same throughout

the entire territory of every state to promote unity…” and the chapter goes on to touch on

religious law as well. “Religious laws may be divided into Christian law and others. The acts of

all non-Christian faiths which are contrary to the spirit of the Christian law must be prohibited,

but everything that is not contrary to its spirit, even though different from it, may be permitted.”

(Raeff 139-41) Oddly enough, Pestel, whose religious beliefs were ambiguous, went on for a

little over a page about religious laws and the need for Russians to obey the first two

[Jason Howard]


commandments; “Thou shall love thy God” and “Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself” in

framing the laws in which he felt were important to Russia.

One of the key topics throughout this paper has been Pestel’s wavering religious beliefs

and the first two chapters of Russian Justice seem to indicate that religion was always important

to Pestel no matter the level of his belief. As Pat O’Meara describes, by Easter of 1825 there

appeared to be a genuine reawakening of Pestel’s religious faith. (O'Meara 40) The copy of

Russian Justice which has survived dates to around 1824-5 as it was one of Pestel’s final copies.

It is unclear if religion always played such a central role in Pestel’s vision or if it were added in

after his reawakening. Pestel told the Investigating Committee that in 1825 he attended

communion for the first time since 1820 and while at the Peter-Paul Fortress, Pestel demanded to

receive communion on Easter 1826. There will be more on Pestel’s religious practices while at

the Peter-Paul fortress later in this paper.

Perhaps coinciding with Pestel’s renewed faith he wrote a long memorandum titled ‘On

the Upbringing of Soldiers’, which dealt with the religious education of children.12 The view he

touted was very much in line with his view on laws in Chapter Two of his Constitution. He wrote

that ‘God’s law should be the guide of every schoolchild’s action’ and that ‘regular bible reading

was the surest way of inculcating in right-minded youngsters love and respect for Christian

teachings.’ (O'Meara 40) He ended his memorandum with the affirmation that Christian values

were vital for a functioning society. This leaves us to wonder about Pestel’s religiosity and we

are unable to make any bold claims that he was or was not driven by his religious convictions. If

anything it points to a man who was conflicted over his faith and tortured by an internal struggle

between faith and worldly logic and reason.

In Chapter three of Russian Justice, Pestel lays out the roles of each class of citizen

12 ‘On the Upbringing of Soldiers’ was undated so it’s only speculation that it was written after his renewed faith.

[Jason Howard]


within the government and says it is vital for them all to be equal in the eyes of the law. The

twelve divided classes include the clergy; nobility; merchants; townspeople; peasants; free

agriculturists; military colonists; soldier’s children; peasants of noblemen; household serfs;

factory peasants; monastery peasants. Pestel advocated abolishing all of the serf roles and wrote

a rather scathing indictment of the nobility and the limitation of its rights under his government.

“At present the nobility is an estate separated from the mass of the nation by virtue of

special privileges. To own other men in property, to sell, pawn, give away, inherit men

like other things, to use them according to one’s own caprice without their prior consent

and exclusively for one’s own profit, advantage, and at times whim, is shameful, contrary

to humanity, contrary to the laws of nature, contrary to the Holy Christian faith, contrary,

at last, to the will of the Almighty who has declared in the scriptures that all men are

equal in his eyes and that only their deeds and virtues make difference in them. For this

reason there can no longer be in Russia the right for one man to possess another and

slavery, in all forms, must be definitively abolished. Destruction of slavery and serfdom

is enjoined to the Supreme Administration as its most sacred and unfailing duty.” (Raeff

150-51)

The chapter goes on to strip the nobility of their special rights and hold them to the same

laws and standards as all other members of Russian society. The goal in chapter three was to

abolish all class distinctions and to create just one “civil estate” of which everyone would be

included with no exceptions. Further, all males would be enfranchised by the age of 20 with no

property or educational requirements. Also granted to all members of the civil estate were the

freedom of speech, worship and occupation. The parallels from Chapter three of Russian Justice

to the Bill of Rights in America are too numerous to ignore. Equality in the eyes of the law

[Jason Howard]


coupled with freedom of speech and worship read much like the First Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

To further enable the serf and peasant classes, Pestel demanded three things for them.

First, serfdom must be abolished immediately and without exception. Second, all serfs must be

granted 10.9 hectacres of land by their owner. This effectively would strip serf owners – mostly

nobility – of their land holdings after the state took their half. In fact, the land laws laid out by

Pestel were quite complex. Half of all land would be confiscated by the state and would be used

for production purposes to benefit all of society. This land could not be sold or mortgaged. From

this land, over a 15 year period, each family of five would be granted a plot they could farm for a

year before returning it to the commune with the option to keep it for further use, if needed. The

largest landowners in Russia were the biggest losers in Pestel’s system. Landowners with more

than 10,000 hectacres were not compensated for the loss of their land. Those that had land

holdings less than this number were at least compensated with cash payments or less desirable

land holdings in other areas. As far as privately held land, it was expected to produce an over

abundance of goods which could be bought, sold and shared freely amongst all Russians. Pestel

envisioned a Russia full of landowners in which “there will not be one Russian who is not a land

owner and poverty will be eliminated altogether.” (O'Meara 80) Pestel in chapter four gave every

Russian the right to a basic living. In Chapter 4, right number twelve he gives all Russians “The

right to minimum livelihood not out of charity but as a basic human right.” (Raeff 154)

Pestel defended his land-law ideas represented in chapter four by affirming the existence

of two basic truths regarding land. First, he claimed that land was a gift from God and nature and

should be governed under communal laws. Secondly, he asserted that land should belong to

whoever cultivates it. Pestel’s goal seemed to be assuring every Russian had the right to a basic

[Jason Howard]


living. This was termed the “Agrarian problem” by Anatole Mazour who summarized Pestel’s

stance as ‘all men are created equal, therefore all land must be held as common property among

them.’ (Mazour 105) In fact, Pestel wrote his own defense of his land reform proposal as appears

in Russian Justice. “The land is common property of the human race and not of private persons,

and therefore cannot be divided among a few men. As soon as there exists even a single person

who does not possess any land, the will of God and laws of nature are totally violated and the

natural rights eliminated by force and tyrannical government.” (Raeff 153-54)

Pestel’s land reforms seem to be inspired by Antoine de Cournand’s 1791 pamphlet titled

‘Of Prosperity, or, The Cause of the Poor Pleaded Before the Tribunal of Reason, Justice and

Truth.’ (Mazour 106) In his pamphlet, Cournand suggested that the French government

confiscate a third of all arable land in France. From this pool of land, each male citizen at birth

was to be given enough land to sustain himself and his family once he became of age to use it.

Upon the death of that citizen, his land would be returned to the pool and reallocated to a new

citizen. The remaining two-thirds of the land would be granted to those who worked the land on

contracts so they could produce wealth for the nation. (Aulard 229-231) Pestel was well read

when it came to Revolutionary France and that combined with the similarity of the two systems

points to the fact that he was most likely familiar with Cournand’s writings.

Finally, Pestel envisioned a Russia where the banking system would catch up to what was

present in England and America. In Chapter five he made a promise that all townships would

create banks with the sole purpose of increasing trade and commerce in Russia. It appears that

Pestel’s ideas for Russian commerce were very akin to Adam Smith’s ideologies. More

specifically, Pestel was really interested in laissez-faire economics. He believed that you gave

every man a basic living and from there men would decide their total worth by how hard they

[Jason Howard]


worked.

Pestel seemed to be a staunch advocate of the republic and state centralization that was

present in the United States. He envisioned a one-chamber People's Veche 13 that was to be

Russia's legislative body. The Supreme Administration was going to be the executive branch and

the Supreme Sobor was going to be the judicial system.

There were downsides for Pestel’s proposal, which bring us back to his childhood. His

mother instilled in him many traits and paranoia was one of them. Pestel’s constitution created a

Jacobin style police force numbering 113,000 men. To put this in perspective, Nicholas I, the

Tsar Pestel wished to replace only had 4,000 men in his secret police, the Third Department.

(O'Meara 82) It also strikes me as ironic that in the stated objectives of this police force, one of

their main goals was to shut down and suppress all secret societies. Considering Pestel had

belonged to countless secret societies and started several in Tulchin and other places where none

existed, it smacks as a bit ironic that he wanted to squash the very thing that would make his

dream possible. In fact, many of Pestel’s closest friends felt that Pestel’s ultimate goal was to

become a dictator. Mikhail Bakunin wrote “Pavel Pestel is a man inextricably linked to his age

and class who, in seeking to replace autocracy with a republican dictatorship, saw himself as its

dictator.” (O'Meara 87) Even one of Pestel’s greatest admirers, Alexander Herzen, believed that

Pestel’s goal was to become the dictator of Russia.

Pestel consistently defended himself against such remarks and opinions of his ambitions.

He wrote a letter to members of the Southern Society in which he stated that “when the Russian

people, having accepted Russian Justice, are happy then I will retire to a monastery in Kiev and

live out my remaining time as a monk.” (O'Meara 187) It is hard to take Pestel at his word due to

13 The people’s veche was a popular assembly in Slavic countries during this time. It is similar to the ecclesia of classical Athens.

[Jason Howard]


the fact that the ‘cohort perdue’ was proposed by Pestel in 1824 followed by the plan for a ten-

year provisional government that Pestel would control. (O'Meara 144) The ‘cohort perdue’ was a

terrorist style strike at the Imperial family in which shortly before the planned coup, a

detachment of assassins would kill the entire royal family – women and children included.

During the hearings at the Peter-Paul fortress, it was proposed by several Decembrists that this

commando-style form of regicide was the brainchild of Pestel himself. Pestel denied the claims

and asserted that the idea was Mikhail Lunin’s but admitted that the idea had been discussed.

The most damning of evidence against Pestel was the testimony of Nikita Muraviev who recalled

a discussion at an 1824 meeting of the Decembrist society. When Pestel brought up the idea of

the ‘cohort perdue’ – a 12 man assassination crew to take out the Imperial family – Muraviev

raised an issue. He recounted in his testimony that he said ‘regicide will undermine all we have

worked for as those with blood on their hands would be disgraced in the public forum and unable

to wield the power they have taken by force.’ (O'Meara 146) Muraviev said Pestel calmly replied

that the men chosen for this task would be disaffected youth that were not tied to the

Decembrists. Pestel said that after these men had done their job they would be sacrificed in a

public forum shortly after the takeover, thus the Imperial family would be avenged and the right

to rule would not be disputed. (O'Meara 146) This illustrates a very power hungry and almost

maniacal side to Pestel. It is one thing to wish to liberate your country and overthrow the

monarchy. It is an entirely different thing when you wish to commit pre-meditated murder of an

entire bloodline so you can ascend to power. On a side note, approximately 100 years after the

discussion of this ‘cohort perdue’ it would come up again and successfully be waged during the

1917 revolution. The extermination of the bloodline of Alexander I would ultimately be carried

out by the Bolsheviks in July, 1918.

[Jason Howard]


Let us make no mistake about it, Pestel ultimately wanted the destruction of the royal

family and with it, the power of the Tsar as illustrated by this excerpt from the memoirs of A.D.

Borovkov.

‘Let’s count them on our fingers. I’ll organize twelve assassins. Baryatinskii has already

recruited some.’ When he got to the female members of the Imperial Family Pestel

paused and said: ‘You know, Poggio, this is terrible!’ but nevertheless concluded his

frightful calculation at 13, adding: ‘If you kill the other ranks too, there’ll be no end to it.

All the Grand Duchesses have children. It will be enough to deprive them of the right to

reign, and anyway who would want a throne so covered in blood?’ But Pestel himself, as

his confederate-accuser testifies, wanted for himself the tsar’s power. ‘Who’, he asked

Poggio, ‘will head the Provisional government?’

‘Who other than he who initiated and undoubtedly will complete the great cause of the

revolution? Who apart from you?’

‘It will be difficult for me, having a non-Russian name.’ 14 (O'Meara 143)

This left little doubt in the Investigating Committee’s mind that Pestel’s bloodthirsty

attitude was a product of his desire to establish himself as a new dictator. This was compounded

by several other things. The sworn testimony of several Decembrists – I.V. Poggio, Aleksei

Yushnevskii, Vasilli Davydov, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Sergei Volkonskii and others – cohobated

this story of Pestel’s desire for regicide and establishing himself as a dictator. Perhaps the most

damning piece of evidence against Pestel was the sworn testimony of his former friend, now

turncoat, Maiboroda who claimed that Pestel had ‘declared the annihilation of the entire imperial

14 This was a discussion at a January 1824 meeting as recounted by I.V. Poggio. Several other Decembrists verified this conversation during their testimony and claimed that from this meeting on, Pestel was happy, content and felt that he was tabbed as the leader of the post-Revolution Russia.

[Jason Howard]


family to be the sine qua non of the coup’s successes. (O'Meara 144)

While it is easy to get on board with Pestel’s views and visions for Russia, it must be

noted that there were serious flaws within both his character and ideas. His bloodlust in regards

to the Royal family was rightfully seen as barbaric by the Investigating Committee. It can also be

reasonably argued that Pestel would have been another Napoleon Bonaparte had the revolution

actually succeeded. 15 As is often the case with a review of history there are usually no moral

victors.

Time at Peter Paul Fortress and Death

After over a decade of planning, the Decembrist efforts to stage a coup went out with a

whimper. The reasons for this seem to be tri-fold. First, the carefully thought out plans of the

Decembrists were hinging on a rather weak sign for revolt. By making their signal for action the

death of Alexander I, they were caught off guard when he suddenly died at the age of 47. When

they had made this the signal in 1818, Alexander was a robust and healthy 40 years old. The plan

was to make this a tentative plan and once everything was hashed out, decide on something more

concrete. With Alexander I’s untimely death, the Decembrists were, for lack of a better phrase,

caught with their pants down. Secondly, the succession crisis that ensued after the Tsar’s death

left many Decembrists unsure of how to act. The revolt in St. Petersburg was easily dispersed

with gunfire and gave the Russian monarchy all the intel it needed to link the Decembrist

movement to the leaders. Thirdly, Nicholas I acted fast after the St. Petersburg revolt flopped and

quickly arrested most of the leaders of the Northern and Southern societies. Nicholas I conducted

many of the preliminary interrogations himself at the Winter Palace. (O'Meara 161) His swift

15 Oddly enough, Pestel was a big fan of Napoleon while studying at the Corps of Pages. The parallels between the men are numerous. Both rising from the military ranks, they wanted to rule their nation. While they brought with them several reforms that benefit the common man they essentially wish to establish a dictatorial government.

[Jason Howard]


and resolute actions coupled with the carefully laid plans of the Decembrists falling through,

stopped the movement in its tracks.

Even if events had not unfolded the way they did, Pestel’s fate was likely sealed. The

noose had been tightening around him for awhile. In the summer of 1825, Alexander I received

the Shevrud report which detailed a large military uprising in the South. (O'Meara 162) 16

Alexander I’s first reaction was disbelief, so he ordered a more detailed report be done. The Tsar

demanded irrefutable proof before he would act. Alexander I then offered I. V. Shevrud 1,000

rubles and a year of leave to go and find his proof. In September of 1825, Shevrud had infiltrated

the Southern Society and was posing as a Decembrist himself. (O'Meara 162) Alexander I was

finally convinced when a report from General I.O. Vitt uncovered documents and plans to

overthrow the monarchy. Furthermore, that report produced evidence that showed that Colonel

Pavel Pestel was the ringleader of the entire movement. (O'Meara 165)

As if that were not enough, less than two weeks after Alexander I’s death, one of Pestel’s

friends, A.I. Maiboroda, sent a letter to Taganrog which detailed Pestel’s involvement in the

Decembrist movement and supplemented the membership roster the Shevrud report had

compiled. From letters and writings by Pestel, it appears that the root of the betrayal was that

Pestel had found out that Maiboroda had been embezzling funds allocated to the army payroll.

This letter seemed to be Maiboroda’s way of getting back at Pestel. (O'Meara 163) The

Maiboroda letter not only listed 46 names of Decembrists, but painted Maiboroda himself as a

whistleblower. In his letter, he claimed that he had caught wind of the revolt when Pestel asked

him to ready the troops for a coup. Maiboroda went on to claim that he avoided Pestel after that

to the point Pestel made up charges of embezzlement against him so he could replace him. So,

16 The Shevrud report was conducted by I.V. Shevrud after Alexander I caught wind of possible mutiny within his military. He assigned I.V. Shevrud the task of investigating it and it was known as the ‘Shevrud report’.

[Jason Howard]


Maiboroda caught Pestel away on business during the night of November 24, 1825 and left camp

to dispatch his letter to save the nation.

In all three reports – Shevrud, Vitt, and Maiboroda – Pestel was named as the ring leader

of the staged revolt. So, even if Alexander I had lived and the revolts had remained in the

planning stages, it is unlikely Pestel would have eluded the confines of the Peter Paul Fortress.

He was officially arrested on December 13, 1825, just days before the revolution took place.

Pestel arrived at the Peter-Paul Fortress on January 3, 1826, and that is where he

remained for the rest of his life – which was not long. While there, he happily told investigators

about his plans and ideas for Russia. My best guess is that he knew there was no escaping his

fate at this point and just wanted to get everything he could on record. This is a bit ironic since

Pestel boasted to his friends about how he would never give anything away, no matter how

cruelly he was treated. (O'Meara 121) While Pestel did hold out at first when it seemed that it

was his word against Maiboroda’s, after other Decembrists such as Sergei Trubetskoi were

interrogated and confirmed Pestel’s leadership in the movement, Pestel seemed to give up the

fight and cooperated with the investigators. Pestel was not only the most frequently interviewed

prisoner but he was also asked the most written questions; Pestel answered 195 written questions

in all.17 (O'Meara 171)

The only thing Pestel refused to give up was the location of his constitution, Russian

Justice. For the most part this was because he did not know the location of the document as it

was hidden shortly after his arrest by other Decembrists. Nikolai F. Zaikan, one of the

Decembrists who knew the location of the document, was escorted to Tulchin from St.

Petersburg to show the Investigating committee where Russian Justice was buried. (Mazour 100)

17 Pestel was interrogated six times in January (7, 10, 13, 16, 17, 23), nine times in February (3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 20, 24), just once in March (24), eleven times in April (6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 21, 22, 23, 27) and a final time in May (8). During April 22 he was interrogated 11 times on the same day.

[Jason Howard]


Zaikan proved unable to find the document three times and investigators began to think he was

leading them astray on purpose. On the final attempt, his youngest brother Fedor Zaikan

accompanied them and he was able to find the document. 18 Fedor had been shown the location

by Nikolai Pushkin who feared he would not survive his impending arrest and detention. He

wanted someone unaffiliated with the movement to know where the documents were so they

could be recovered at a later date in the event all of the people who knew of their location were

executed. (O'Meara 174) The document had been buried in a village garden and once it was

recovered, it became the key piece of evidence which incriminated all of the Decembrists. After

the recovery of Russian Justice it was quickly sealed up and sent to the capital. The document

would remain hidden from public view for over 75 years.

At the Peter-Paul Fortress, Pestel met his end but also renewed his faith. In a letter dated

May 1, 1826, Pestel wrote to his parents of his renewed faith in Christ and said that it was all that

was sustaining him throughout his ordeal. (O'Meara 175) Pestel also requested to take

communion on Saturday during Easter weekend of 1826. This is when he met Pastor Reinbot

who would spend a lot of time with Pavel Pestel from April of 1826 to his death. During that

Easter weekend, Pastor Reinbot spent an hour and a half with Pestel. Afterward he relayed to

Pavel’s father, Ivan Borosovich Pestel, that ‘Pavel was completely reconciled with God and with

our savior.’ (O'Meara 175) Pavel Pestel also had a German and Russian translation of the bible in

his cell. Both were provided to him by Pastor Reinbot. Even if religion had taken a backseat for

Pavel from the years of 1820-1825, it appears that in the final two years of his life that his

convictions were strong. However, Pestel’s repentance and newfound faith did not lighten the

18 Zaikan was one of Pestel’s most ardent supporters and he felt extremely bad about the betrayal of Pestel. He led search parties on three wild goose chases before they ultimately found Pestel’s documents. In the memoirs of A.P. Belayaev he noted that Zaikan felt so bad after this betrayal that he tried to commit suicide by beating his head against the concrete wall of his cell. The fate of Zaikan was 20 years of exile; he never lived to taste freedom again as he died in 1833, seven years after being sentenced.

[Jason Howard]


sentence he was about to receive from the investigating committee.

In the final report, the investigating committee separated the conspirators into eleven

different categories. The categories were filled based primarily on the testimony of Pavel Pestel

himself with him being considered the worst offender of the group. The secretary of the

Investigating Committee, A.D. Borovkov, wrote in his memoirs “he has a rich mixture of

conflicting epithets such as intelligence, cunning, enlightenment, cruelty, persistence and

resourcefulness.” (O'Meara 186) The punishments handed down for the conspirators ranged from

time served, to exile, to political or real death. Those in the secondary category of conspirators

were sentenced to political death. In a public forum they would be forced to put their head on a

chopping block and the Tsar would spare them, only to exile them to labor camps where they

would spend the rest of their life. For those in the first category of conspirators, they were to be

beheaded. There was some degree of political calculation in this sentence, however. It was seen

as barbaric and because the Decembrists were popular in some circles, the committee suggested

this punishment so Nicholas could refuse it and offer a less barbaric death for the Decembrists.

This would allow him to be seen as merciful. Nicholas I issued a statement to the court which

read, “Enough blood has been shed. These men shall not be beheaded, shot or quartered. No

execution which entails the shedding of blood will be accepted.” (O'Meara 178) With clear

orders from the Tsar himself, the court ordered the men to be hanged.

The final report listed three types of crimes the Decembrists were guilty of. They

included regicide, revolt and military mutiny. 19 Perhaps a cruel twist of fate for the elder Ivan

Pestel, is that M.M. Speranskii was one the main voices in favor of executing the ringleaders of

19 This was listed in the text of the official Court Report printed in Marc Raeff’s book on page 172. It also appears in O’Meara (177) and Mazour (181). It should be noted that the count of regicide was seen as the main cause for the court wishing to have the men executed. It also was Nicholas I’s major concern.

[Jason Howard]


the Decembrists. 20 He cited Article 19 of the 1716 Military statute which listed death as a

suitable punishment for service men who commit treason. (O'Meara 177) This was in direct

contradiction of Catherine the Great’s Nakaz which abolished the death penalty in Russia. Only

one man cast a dissenting vote against execution, citing the Nakaz, and that was Senator N.S.

Mordinov. (O'Meara 181)

On July 13, 1826 the five men in the first category of conspirators were hanged. Ryleev,

Muraviev, Ryumin, Kakhovskii, and, last but not least, Pestel were all hanged. The men were

forced to sit and watch the construction of the scaffolding before they were hooded and placed in

their noose. The men were placed in their noose by the order in which they were sentenced.

Pavel Pestel was first, followed by Ryleev, Muraviev, Ryumin and Kakhovskii. (O'Meara 180)

The execution was botched and only Pestel and Ryumin died the first attempt. The ropes broke

on the other three and they had to be hung a second time. With the deaths of the men also came

the death of their movement in the flesh but not in the spirit

Conclusion

While Pavel Pestel’s ambitions were never achieved during his lifetime, his profound

effect on Russian culture is undeniable. It was not shortly after his death that Nicholas I passed

several liberal reforms to quell the unrest in his nation. While it is true that Russian absolutism

would continue for almost a century after Pestel’s death, the Decembrist movement did help

weaken the monarchy. In 1861, thirty-five years after Pestel’s death and two years before the

Emancipation Proclamation in America, Pestel’s dream came true with the abolition of serfdom

in Russia.

20 This is the same M.M. Speranskii who had Ivan Pestel fired from his Governor general post in 1819 and ultimately forced to retire in 1822. Four years later he was one of the chief men lobbying for the death of Ivan Pestel’s eldest son.

[Jason Howard]


There were other victories that Pestel and his movement can claim as well. Shortly after

his death in 1827, Nicholas tasked Speransky with codifying Russian law. It was an effort that

would continue throughout Nicholas’ reign. (Trigos 99-107)

The Decembrists would go on to inspire a generation of artists, writers and poets as well.

Alexander Herzen placed the profiles of the Decembrists on his Polar Star publication.

Alexander Pushkin and Nikolai Nekrasov would go on to write several poems about the

Decembrists. Leo Tolstoy started writing a novel on that liberal movement which would later

become War and Peace. (Trigos 103-132)

Alexander Herzen would write: “The cannons’ thunder, ringing out in Senate Square,

roused an entire nation.” While Nathan Eidelman wrote: “Without the Decembrists, there

wouldn’t have been a Pushkin.” (Trigos 80-89)

Pavel Pestel represents everything I love about history. He was both a hero and a villain;

an emancipator and a tyrant; altruistic and selfish. In the end he was all too human and can be

seen as a flawed hero by many and a madman by others. His contributions to Russian society

well outlasted his life and in the end, isn’t that what we are all after – some degree of immortality

and leaving the world better off than when we entered it? In fact, years after his death he has

remained a hero to many in Russia and to this day he has a spot in Russian history classes far and

wide. The site of his execution is still a tourist attraction and marked by a monument. In the end,

Pestel was the only man of the five executed who lost his life for his ideas rather than his actions.

The other four men who were hung were sentenced based on their actions during the revolts.

Pestel was hung based entirely on his proposals and ideas which to a person who has grown up

enjoying free speech in America his entire life, seems entirely unjust.

Generations that came after Pestel would pick up the torch which he carried until his

[Jason Howard]


death. The emancipation act of 1861 was largely inspired by Pestel’s ideas even if the Russian

government never gave him credit for it. The idea of Agrarian reform was central to the

Emancipation Act of 1861, for which Pestel was the chief architect in Russian culture. The true

origin of agrarian reform traces back to Antoine Cournand, a professor at the college of France,

but was a totally foreign concept to Russia before Pestel proposed it. His work and ideas made a

deep and lasting impact on Russian society, both good (emancipation, social reforms) and bad

(Bolshevik revolution and extermination of the royal bloodline).

While it can be argued that Pestel only wanted to dethrone the tsar so he could create a

dictatorship for himself, it is also fair to say that the revolt was the first breach between

government and the intelligentsia in Russia; it is a breach that would quickly widen as well with

serfdom quickly falling and the monarchy not lasting another 100 years.

This goes to show that maybe there is a case that Pestel succeeded to some degree, even

if it was a post-humous victory. Perhaps Pestel can sum up his life better than I ever could. So, I

will leave off with his own words recapping his life.

“My real story can be summed up in just a few words. I have passionately loved my country and

ardently desired the happiness of its people.”

- Dated May 1, 1826, this was Pavel Pestel’s final letter to his parents before his execution.

[Jason Howard]


Appendix A

Message to Siberia (1827)A.S. Pushkin

Deep in the Siberian mine,Keep your patience proud;

The bitter toil shall not be lost,The rebel thought unbowed.

The sister of misfortune, Hope,In the under-darkness dumb

Speaks joyfully courage to your heart:The day desired will come.

And love and friendship pour to youAcross the darkened doors,

Even as round your galley-bedsMy free music pours.

The heavy-clanging chains will fall,

[Jason Howard]


The walls will crumble as a word;And Freedom greet you in the light,

And brothers give you back the sword.

This was Alexander Pushkin’s poem written about the Decembrists. It celebrates their historical significance and pays homage to their lives and sacrifice. I thought it was fitting to include as I spent the last few pages of the paper talking about the social impact the Decembrist’s had on Russian society.

[Jason Howard]


BibliographyAulard, François-Alphonse. The French Revolution: The Revolution under the monarchy, 1789-1792. Nabu Press, 2009.

Birmingham, David. A Concise History of Portugal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Carr, Raymond. Spain 1808-1975. Oxford: Oxford Press, 1982.

Locke, John. Some thoughts concerning education. London: Black Swan, 1693.

Mazour, Anatole G. The First Russian Revolution, 1825. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1969.

O'Meara, Patrick. The Decembrist Pavel Pastel. Dublin: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Raeff, Mark. The Decembrist Movement. Chicago: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

Steinberg, Mark. "TTC - The History of Russia." TTC - The History of Russia. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company, 12 October 2009.

Trigos, Ludmilla A. The Decembrist Myth in Russian Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

[Jason Howard]

[ pavel pestel: portrait of a revolutionary leader ]€¦ · web view2015. 5. 28. · the...

Documents