No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 January 2015
This essay explores the publication and reception of John Stuart Mill's Principles of Political Economy in late imperial Russia. First published during the era of the Great Reform, Mill's Principles was discussed within the context of the Russian debate on capitalism and land reform. It became popular not only among economists and university students but also the intelligentsia who dominated the debate on capitalism in Russia until the last decade of the century. In reading the Principles, they focused primarily on Mill's discussion of social questions and the ethics of capitalism rather than on the theoretical subjects of economics. In Russia, as in England, the reception of Mill's ideas was not uniform, reflecting the readers’ diverging political views and assumptions. In Russia, however, the tendency towards selective reading was more pronounced and the labels attached to Mill were more extreme.
1 On Russia's journalism see Belknap, Robert, “Survey of Russian Journals, 1840–80,” in Martinsen, Deborah A., ed., Literary Journals in Imperial Russia (Cambridge, 1997), 93 Google Scholar, 105; Shelgunov, N. V., Vospominaniia (Moscow, 1923), 93–4Google Scholar.
2 See Scanlan, James, “John Stuart Mill in Russia: A Bibliography,” The Mill's News Letter, 4/1 (1968), 2–11, at 2Google Scholar.
3 Shelgunov, Vospominaniia, 193.
4 Kovalevskii, Mikhail, Moia zhizn (Moscow, 2005), 72–3Google Scholar; Pyziur, Eugene, “Mikhail Katkov: Advocate of English Liberalism in Russia, 1856–63,” Slavonic and East European Review, 45/105 (1967), 439–56, at 441–6Google Scholar; Milyukov, Paul, “The Influence of English Political Thought in Russia,” Slavonic Review, 5/14 (1926), 258–70, at 265–8Google Scholar; Thurston, G. J., “Alexis De Tocqueville in Russia,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 37/2 (1976), 289–306, at 296CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 For instance, , N.T., “Robert Owen i ego popytki obshchestvennykh reform,” Sovremennik, 1 (1859), 230–74Google Scholar; Kolomzin, A., “Ob elementarnom obrazovanii v Anglii,” Russkoe Slovo, 2 (1860), 1–23 Google Scholar; Shelgunov, N., “Rabochie assotsiatsii,” Russkoe Slovo, 2 (1862), 1–30 Google Scholar.
6 See Zweynert, Joachim, “Between Reason and Historicity: Russian Academic Economics, 1800–1861,” in Barnett, V. and Zweynert, J., eds., Economics in Russia: Studies in Intellectual History (Aldershot, 2008), 57–74, at 64Google Scholar. The only textbook on political economy published under Nicholas I was Alexander Butovskii's 1847 work Sketch on National Wealth or on the Foundations of Political Economy, which dutifully argued the official view of serfdom. See ibid., 62.
7 On Mill's reputation in Britain see Nicholson, Peter, “The Reception and Early Reputation of Mill's Political Thought,” in Skorupski, John, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Mill (Cambridge, 1998), 464–96, at 466CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the popularity of political economy among the Russian public in the late 1850s see Kropotkin, Petr, Memoirs of a Revolutionary (Montreal, 1989), 91 Google Scholar. Forty years later, the economist Denisiuk noted that the general public's interest in political economy remained high. His textbook was intended for beginners and a nonspecialized audience. See Denisiuk, N., Nachala politicheskoi ekonomii (Moscow, 1900), 3 Google Scholar.
8 Mill’, Dzhon Stuart, Osnovaniia politicheskoi ekonomii, trans. Chernyshevkii, N. (St Petersburg, 1865)Google Scholar; 2nd edn 1874; 3rd edn 1909 (hereafter cited as OPE); Mill’, OPE, trans. A. Miklashevskii (Moscow, 1895); Mill’, OPE, trans. E. I. Ostrogradskaia (Kiev, 1896); 2nd edn 1897.
9 On academic economics in Russia see Podkidchenko, M. G., ed., Istoriki ekonomicheskoi mysli Rossii (Moscow, 2003), 7 Google Scholar; Mill's popularity in academic circles was also noted by Mikhail Kovalevskii, professor of law in Moscow University, who read Mill as a student. See Kovalevskii, Moia zhizn’, 7, 109, 347.
10 Based on the catalogue of the Russian National Library, there were three Russian editions of Ricardo's Political Economy and two editions of Malthus's Law of Population.
11 On the controversy over capitalism see Dowler, Wayne, “The Intelligentsia and Capitalism,” in Leatherbarrow, William and Offord, Derek, eds., A History of Russian Thought (Cambridge, 2010), 263–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 This did not apply to academic textbooks, which did include Mill's theoretical economics. However, those textbooks provided an overview rather than an analysis of the Principles. See Chuprov, A., Politicheskaia ekonomiia (Moscow, 1892)Google Scholar; Isaev, A., Nachala politicheskoi ekonomii (Saint Petersburg, 1898)Google Scholar; Ivaniukov, I., Politicheskaia ekonomiia (Saint Petersburg, 1885)Google Scholar.
13 Mill’, OPE, trans. Miklashevskii, ii.
14 On the practical orientation of Russian economic thought see Sheptun, Alla, “The German Historical School and Russian Economic Thought,” Journal of Economic Studies, 32/4 (2005), 349–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 350, 355, 361; Makasheva, Natalia, “Searching for an Ethical Basis of Political Economy: Bulgakov and Tugan-Baranovskii,” in Barnett, and Zweynert, , Economics in Russia, 75–90, at 79Google Scholar. As late as 1904, Nikolai Bulgakov, a well-known economist and philosopher, argued that economic thinking in Russia was part of “Russian social thinking in general,” which “apprehend[ed] all theoretical teachings mainly from a practical perspective and in connection with applied ethics and social programs.” Quoted in ibid., at 79.
15 Riley, Jonathan, “Mill's Political Economy: Ricardian Science and Liberal Utilitarian Art,” in Skorupski, John, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Mill (Cambridge, 1998), 293–337, at 293–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Marchi, N. B., “The Success of Mill's Principles ,” History of Political Economy, 6/2 (1974), 119–57, at 121–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Stafford, William, John Stuart Mill (New York, 1998), 122 Google Scholar; Riley, Jonathan, “Introduction,” in Mill, John Stuart, Principles of Political Economy (Oxford, 1994), vii–xlvii, at xviGoogle Scholar.
17 Ten, C. L., “Democracy, Socialism and Working Classes,” in Skorupski, , The Cambridge Companion, 372–95, at 388Google Scholar; Stafford, John Stuart Mill, 126–7.
18 See Stafford, John Stuart Mill, 74, 126.
19 Quoted in Riley, “Introduction,” xxxiv.
20 Stafford, John Stuart Mill, 122.
21 De Marchi, “The Success of Mill's Principles,” 139–97; Riley, “Mill's Political Economy,” 293–337; Riley, “Introduction,” xxxii–xxxiii.
22 On the reception of Mill's Principles in England see de Marchi, “The Success of Mill's Principles,” 119–57.
23 Ibid., 153.
24 Winch, Donald, Wealth and Life: Essays on the Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1848–1914 (Cambridge, 2009), 75 Google Scholar.
25 Ibid., 8, 81. See also Skorupski, John, “Introduction: The Fortunes of Liberal Naturalism,” in Skorupski, , The Cambridge Companion, 1–34, at 1Google Scholar; Nicholson, “The reception,” 466. In a symbolic gesture, Mill was excluded in 1873 from the committee of the liberal Cobden Club for his involvement with the Land Tenure Reform Association. See Collini, Stefan, Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain 1850–1930 (Oxford, 1991), 323 Google Scholar.
26 See Dowler, “The Intelligentsia and Capitalism,” 264–5; Walicki, Andrzej, A History of Russian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Marxism (Stanford, 1979), 163 Google Scholar.
27 Quoted in Kingston-Mann, Esther, In Search of the True West: Culture, Economics, and Problems of Russian Development (Princeton, 1999), 79 Google Scholar. See also Dowler, “The Intelligentsia and Capitalism,” 263–4.
28 On Russian Populists and Marxists see Walicki, A History of Russian Thought, 222–67, 406–48; Walicki, Andrzej, The Controversy over Capitalism: Studies in the Social Philosophy of the Russian Populists (Oxford, 1969), 29–131 Google Scholar.
29 Owen, Thomas, The Dilemmas of Russian Capitalism: Fedor Chizov and Corporate Enterprise in the Railroad Age (Cambridge, 2005), 80–82 Google Scholar.
30 See Kingston-Mann, In Search of the True West, 83. She prefers the term “westernizers” to “liberals.”
31 For example, Grag Blagosvetlov, the translator of Mill's Subjection of Women, received education as a jurist but after a two-year stay in England he went into journalism, becoming the editor of the liberal journal Russkoe Slovo (Russian Word). On Blagosvetlov see Varustin, L. E., Zhurnal “Russkoe Slovo” 1859–1866 (Leningrad, 1966), 42–50 Google Scholar. Intellectuals from noble backgrounds usually learned English from their English-speaking nannies and tutors. See, for instance, Smith, G. S., D. S. Mirsky: A Russian–English Life, 1890–1939 (Oxford, 2000), 34–5Google Scholar.
32 For Russian and European debate on literary versus interpretative translation see Friedberg, Maurice, Literary Translation in Russia: A Cultural History (University Park, PA, 1997), 43–67 Google Scholar.
33 Reiff, Ch., English Dictionary with the Explanation of the English Words in Russian, French and German by Ch. Reiff (St Petersburg and Carlsruhe, 1850), 106 Google Scholar, 360. It listed the words “compete” (translated as “contest”), “competent” (“suitable,” “sufficient”) and “competition” (“contest”) but not “competitive.” In 1879, the Ministry of Education sponsored a new dictionary for use in public gymnasia. The translator, A. Alexandrov, wrote in the preface that the new dictionary was intended to supplant Reiff's edition, which “does not meet the criteria of a good dictionary” See Aleksandrov, A., ed., Anglo-Russkii slovar’ (St Petersburg, 1878), 1 Google Scholar. Nevertheless, Reiff's dictionary was reissued over dozen times until the end of the century.
34 For instance, Mikhel'son, A. D., Ob’yasnenie 30000 tysiach inostrannykh slov voshedshikh v upotreblenie v Russkii iazyk (Moscow, 1865)Google Scholar. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the dictionaries of neologisms followed one after another. However, as one linguist complained, “today no dictionary is able to catch up with all [our] ardent word-makers who borrow from all Western languages”. Quoted in Sorokin, Iu. S., Razvitie slovarnogo sostava russkogo literaturnogo yazika, 30–90e godi XIX veka (Moscow, 1965), 49 Google Scholar n. 10. See also ibid., 51.
35 For instance, in the 1865 edition of Mill's Principles, the term “skilled labor” was translated into Russian as masterovye (“craftsmen”), which has a narrower connotation than the original word. By the end of the century, the semantic range of the word masterovye had expanded. According to the glossary of Vladimir Dal’, it was also used in the sense of “workers in general or factory workers.” See Dal’, Vladimir, Tolkovyi slovar zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka, 3rd edn (St Petersburg, 1905), 791 Google Scholar. In the 1896 edition of Mill's Principles, “skilled labor” was translated as iskussnye rabochie (literally “skillful workers”), which was a better equivalent but still an imperfect one. See Mill’, OPE, trans. Ostrogradskaia, 829.
36 On translatability between European languages and the way it affected the transmission of ideas see the inspiring works by Oz-Salzberger, Fania, Translating the Enlightenment: Scottish Civic Discourse in Eighteenth-Century Germany (Oxford, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kontler, Lazslo, Translations, Histories, Enlightenments: William Robertson in Germany, 1760–1795 (New York, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 N.I., “Vozrazheniia na eonomicheskoe uchenie Dzhona Stuarta Millia,” Slovo, 8 (1879), 75–120, at 118.
38 Mill, John Stuart, Autobiography (London, 1963), 196 Google Scholar.
39 Mill’, D. S., Avtobiografiia (Saint Petersburg, 1874), 206 Google Scholar.
40 Ibid., 222. Cf. Mill, Autobiography, 210.
41 Mill’, Avtobiografiia, 209. Cf. Mill, Autobiography, 198.
42 Mill', Avtobiografiia, 209.
43 Rossel’, Iu., “Dzhon Stuart Mill’ i ego shkola: Stat'ia deviataia, politicheskaia ekonomiia,” Vestnik Evropy, 6 (Dec. 1874), 672–719, at 675 Google Scholar.
44 Book One was also published in 1860 as a book. Mill’, Dzhon Stuart, Osnovaniia politicheskoi ekonomii, trans. Chernyshevkii, N., vol. 1 (St Petersburg, 1860)Google Scholar. On Sovremennik see Alekseev, B. A., Istoria Russkoi zhurnalistiki (1860–1880 gody) (Leningrad, 1963), 27–8Google Scholar; Esin, B. I., Istoriia russkoi zhurnalistiki (Moscow, 2003), 90–98 Google Scholar.
45 Friedberg mentions that in the late nineteenth century, some radical writers used translation to relate their own revolutionary ideas. See Friedberg, Literary Translation in Russia, 60. Apparently this practice began much earlier.
46 Among the omitted parts was the chapter “Of Property,” which contained Mill's discussion of socialist and communist theories. Judging from Chernyshevskii's Aesopian comments in the preface, the reasons for its omission likely had more to do with censorship than with his own priorities. The (abridged) version of Chernyshevskii's translation was reprinted in Chernyshevskii, Nikolai, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 7 (St Petersburg, 1905)Google Scholar.
47 The 1865 edition (and its 1874 reprint) included the chapter “Of Property,” but Chernyshevskii's name was omitted from the title page. See Chernyshevskii, N. G., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, ed. Udal’tsov, I. D., vol. 9 (Moscow, 1949), 906 Google Scholar n. 4. In the book edition, Chernyshevskii made only minor cuts to the text, mostly to those parts where Mill's argument gets repetitive. For instance, Book Two, chap. II, §1 (“Of the same subject continued”). Unabridged translation was reprinted in the 1949 edition of Chernyshevskii's collection of works (vol. 9). All subsequent references will be to this edition (hereafter PSS).
48 On the role of the “thick journals” in Russia see Fedyashin, Anton, Liberals under Autocracy, Modernization, and Civil Society in Russia (Madison, WI, 2012), 5 Google Scholar; Belknap, “Survey of Russian Journals,” 93.
49 Shelgunov, Vospominaniia, 198, 191.
50 Chernyshevskii, PSS, 7.
51 For the genesis of Chernyshevskii's socialist views see Malia, Martin and Karpovich, Michael, “N. G. Chernyshevskii between Socialism and Liberalism,” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique, 1/4 (1960), 569–83Google Scholar. On Chernyshevskii and Mill see Turin, S. P., “Nicholas Chernyshevskii and John Stuart Mill,” Slavonic and East European Review, 9/25 (1930), 29–33 Google Scholar.
52 Chernyshevskii, PSS, 30.
53 Ibid., 458–9, 416–23, 465–8, 458–9, 603–7.
54 Ibid., 459–67, 481, 485–6, 642, 665, 670, 710.
55 Ibid., 660, 710–11.
56 Ibid., 643.
57 Ibid., 603.
58 Ibid., 433.
59 On Populists’ “economic romanticism” see Walicki, The Controversy, 107–28.
60 Chernyshevskii, PSS, 191.
61 Ibid., 187.
62 Ibid., 35.
63 Ibid., 172–3.
64 Zamiatnin, B., “N. G. Chernyshevskii,” in Chernyshevskii, Nikolai, Izbrannye ekonomicheskie proizvedeniia (Moscow, 1948), 3–25, at 21Google Scholar.
65 See Chebotarev, N. I., “Vospominaniia ob Aleksandre Il’iche Ul’ianove v Peterburgskom studenchestve 1883–1887gg,” in Mavrodin, V. V., ed., Leningradskii universitet v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, vol. 1 (Leningrad, 1963), 221–4, at 222Google Scholar.
66 P. N. Lepeshinskii, “Na povorote,” in Mavrodin, Leningradskii universitet, 230–34, at 232.
67 Skabichevskii, A. M., Literaturnye vospominaniia (Moscow, 2001), 198 Google Scholar. On the popularity of Chernyshevskii's edition among radical youth see the memoirs of L. Panteleev, a member of the “Land and Freedom” revolutionary organization. Panteleev, L. F., Vospominaniia (Moscow, 1958), 525 Google Scholar, 530.
68 Zasulich, Vera, Vospominaniia (Moscow, 1931), 58–9Google Scholar.
69 See Kingston-Mann, In Search of the True West, 135.
70 See Balassa, Bela, “Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 83 (1959), 147–55, at 147Google Scholar.
71 Sokolov, N., “Mill’ Osnovaniia politicheskoi ekonomii,” Russkoe Slovo, 1 (1865), 37–55, at 40Google Scholar, 41.
72 Ibid., 40, 42.
73 Sokolov, N., “Ekonomicheskie illiuzii,” Russkoe Slovo, 5 (1865), 192–208 Google Scholar; Sokolov, “O kapitale (po povodu Millia),” Russkoe Slovo, 8 (1865), 1–28 Google Scholar. In 1867 Sokolov was sentenced to sixteen months on charges of undermining the legitimacy of private property and inciting against the monarchy. See Ruud, Charles, Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804–1906 (Toronto, 1982), 171–2Google Scholar.
74 Herzen, A., My Past and Thoughts: The Memoirs of Alexander Herzen, trans. Garnett, C., vol. 3 (New York, 1968), 1350 Google Scholar.
75 [Zhukovskii, Iu.], “Mill’ perevrannyi ‘Russkim Slovom’,” Sovremennik, 8 (1865), 219–47Google Scholar. Zhukovskii's authorship of this article was established by Bograd, V., Zhurnal Sovremennik 1847–66: Ukazatel’ soderzhaniia (Leningrad, 1959), 460 Google Scholar.
76 [Zhukovskii], “Mill' perevrannyi,” 219, 239.
77 Ibid., 223, 225, 227.
78 Ibid., 241.
79 N.I., , “Vozrazheniia na ekonomicheskie vozzreniia Millia,” Slovo, 7 (1879), 139–78, atGoogle Scholar 154; Slovo, 8 (1879), 75–120, at 85.
80 Walicki, The Controversy, 169.
81 Tugan-Baranovskii, Mikhail, “Dvizhenie v pol’zu natsionalizatsii zemli,” in Tugan-Baranovskii, Ekonomicheskie ocherki (Moscow, 1998), 195–206, at 196–7Google Scholar; Tugan-Baranovskii also wrote a monographic work on Mill entitled John Stuart Mill: His Life and Scholarship. Despite the title, the book contains very little on Mill's ideas, focusing mostly on Mill's biography. See Tugan-Baranovskii, , Dzhon Stuart Mill’: Ego zhizn’ i ucheno-literaturnaia deiatel’nost’ (St Petersburg, 1892)Google Scholar.
82 Chuprov, A. I., Istoriia politicheskoi ekonomii, 9th edn (Riga, 1924), 11 Google Scholar; Isaev, A., Nachala politicheskoi ekonomii (Saint Petersburg, 1898), 693 Google Scholar; Denisiuk, Nachala politicheskoi ekonomii, 311.
83 See Dowler, “The Intelligentsia and Capitalism,” 281; Walicki, A History of Russian Thought, 439.
84 See Sorvina, G. N., Mikhail Ivanovitch Tugan-Baranovskii, pervyi russkii economist s mirovym imenem (Moscow, 2005), 43 Google Scholar. On the evolution of Tugan-Baranovskii's economic thought see ibid., 28–35.
85 See Dowler, “The Intelligentsia and Capitalism,” 267.
86 Rozhdestvenskii, N. N., O znachenii Dzhona Stuarta Millia v riadu sovremennykh ekonomistov (St Petersburg, 1867), 10 Google Scholar.
87 Ibid., 4.
88 Ibid., 81.
89 Ibid., 80, 82.
91 Ibid., 97.
92 Ibid., 95–7.
93 Bunge, N. Kh., Ocherki politico-economicheskoi literatury (St Petersburg, 1895), 340–50Google Scholar. As a minister of finance, Bunge implemented the first factory legislation in Russia regulating child labor and introducing factory inspections. Barnett characterized his economic policies as “conditional interventionism.” See Barnett, Vincent, A History of Russian Economic Thought (New York, 2005), 43–5Google Scholar.
94 Bunge, Ocherki, 449.
95 E.V., “Zhizn' Dzhona Stuarta Millia,” Severnyi Vestnik, 4 (1889), 129–48, at 140Google Scholar.
96 Ibid., 140, 147.
97 On The Herald see Fedyashin, Liberals under Autocracy, 4, 12.
98 For his biography see P. Kalinnikov, ed., “Rossel’ Iurii Andreevitch,” Russkii Biograficheskii Slovar’, at http://rulex.ru/rpg/persons/188/188009.htm, accessed 20 Nov. 2013.
99 Rossel’, Iu., “Dzhon Sturt Mill’ i ego shkola: Stat’ia pervaia,” Vestnik Evropy, 3 (May 1874), 5–33, at 12Google Scholar.
100 Ibid., 7.
101 Rossel’, “Dzhon Stuart Mill i ego shkola: Stat’ia deviataia,” 678.
102 Ibid., 675.
103 Chicherin, B. N., Sobstvennost’ i gosudarstvo (St Petersburg, 2005), 383 Google Scholar.
104 Quoted in Morson, Gary, “Foreword: Why Read Chicherin?”, in Chicherin, B. N., Liberty, Equality, and the Market, ed. and trans. Hamburg, G. M. (New Haven, 1998), ix–xxix, at xxixGoogle Scholar; see also G. M. Hamburg, “Introduction: An Eccentric Vision: The Political Philosophy of B. N. Chicherin,” in ibid., 1–65, at 33–54.
105 See Sedlacek, Tomas, Economics of Good and Evil: The Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street (Oxford, 2011), 256 Google Scholar.
106 See “Miklashevskii Aleksander Nikolaevitch,” in Kallinikov, ed., Russkii Biograficheskii Slovar’, at http://rulex.ru/01130472.htm, accessed Nov. 2013.
107 A. Miklashevskii, “Dzhon Stuart Mill', biograficheskii ocherk,” in Mill’, OPE, trans. Miklashevskii, vii–lvii, at xliii.
108 Ibid., xii, xli.
109 Ibid., xliii, xlvii.
110 Ibid., 294.
111 Ibid., 318.
112 Ibid., 311.
113 Ibid., 285.
114 See Shelgunova, L. P., Iz dalekogo proshlogo (St Petersburg, 1901), 146 Google Scholar. The political atmosphere in Kiev was also less oppressive than in Moscow and St Petersburg. Students who were expelled from St Petersburg for political activity and banned from ever entering any university in St Petersburg were nevertheless allowed to enroll in Kiev University. See Lepeshinskii, “Na povorote,” 233. On censorship see Ruud, Fighting Words, 197–206.
115 O. I. Ostrogradskii, “Predislovie,” in Dzhon Stuart Mill’, OPE, trans. Ostrogradskaia, 1–2, at 2.
116 On the Russian debate regarding theory and practice in political science see Makasheva, “Ethical Basis,” 78–9. See also Zhukovskii, “ Dzhon Stuart Mill’,” in Mill’, OPE, trans. Chernyshevkii, 2nd edn, 1–2.
117 On the debate about resettlement and colonization see Fedyiashin, Liberals under Autocracy, 112–15.
118 Iu. Zhukovskii, G., Naselenie i zemlevladenie (St Petersburg, 1907), 188–9Google Scholar. On Mill's influence on Tugan-Baranovskii see Gorkina, L. P., “Klasychna ekonomichna teoriia v ii evolutsii u naukovomu dorobku M. Tugan-Baranovs’kogo,” in Shubin, O. O., ed., Mikhail Ivanovich Tugan-Baranovskii: osobystist, tvorcha spadshchina i suchasnist (Donetsk, 2007), 91–128, at 123Google Scholar.
119 Vasil’chikov, A., Zemlevladenie i zemledelie v Rossii i drugikh evropeiskih gosudarstvakh (St Petersburg, 1876), 150 Google Scholar.
120 Quoted in Rapoport, S., “Pis’ma Dzh. St. Millia,” Vestnik Evropy, 2 (1912), 219–20Google Scholar.
121 See a review of Manuilov's articles in Miklashevskii, A., Zemel’naia reforma i organizatsiia truda (Yur’ev, 1906), 86–8Google Scholar. Miklashevskii, who interpreted Mill as an advocate of private ownership, was outraged by Manuilov's misuse of Mill.
122 Ziber, N. I., Izbrannye ekonomicheskie proizvedeniia, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1959), 500 Google Scholar, 495; Denisiuk, N., Nachala politicheskoi ekonomii (Moscow, 1907), 8 Google Scholar.
123 Chuprov, Politicheskaia ekonomiia, 188, 280–81; Denisiuk, Nachala, 292. On the ecclectism of Russian economists see Kovalevskii, Moia zhizn’, 109, 347.
124 Citing the Soviet historian Korostelev, Daniel Todes incorrectly stated that the chapter on Malthus in Chernyshevskii's edition was suppressed by the censor. See Todes, Daniel, Darwin without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought (Oxford, 1989), 28 Google Scholar, 179 n. 35. The chapter was published in full both in Sovremennik and in subsequent book editions.
125 Chernyshevskii, PSS, 310.
126 Rossel’, “Dzhon Stuart Mill' i ego shkola: Stat’ia deviataia,” 688.
127 Bunge, Ocherki, 352, 365.
128 N. Sokolov, “Mill',” 52.
129 N.I., “Vozrazheniia,” 117.
130 Ivaniukov, I., “Sintez uchenii ob ekonomicheskoi nauke,” Russkaia Mysl’, 3 (1880), 1–44, at 22Google Scholar.
131 Zaitsev, V., “Retsenziia na Rassuzhdeniia i issledovaniia. Stat’i politicheskie i politiko-ekonomicheskie,” Russkoe Slovo, 1 (1865), 71–88, at 82Google Scholar.
132 N.I., “Vozrazheniia,” 101. If less extreme, similar suspicion of “class hypocrisy” was raised against Mill in Britain. For an interesting discussion of paternalistic elements in Mill's thought see Claeys, Gregory, Mill and Paternalism (Cambridge, 2013), 192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
133 N.I., “Vozrazheniia,” 104.
134 [N. K. Mikhailovskii], N.M., “Obzor Politicheskoi ekonomii i Avtobiografii Millia,” Otechestvennye Zapiski, 1 (1874), 167–84, at 167Google Scholar.
135 Mikhailovskii, N. K., Sochineniia, vol. 2 (Saint Petersburg, 1896), 561 Google Scholar.
136 See Miklashevskii, “Dzhon Stuart Mill,” xiv–xv; Vladislavlev, M., “Dzhon Stuart Mill,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnado Obrazovaniia, 175 (1874), 112–51, at 113–14Google Scholar; Tugan-Baranovskii, Dzhon Stuart Mill’, 13–16. It is interesting that in Britain Mill, as depicted in the Autobiography, elicited less sympathy. Many reviewers portrayed him as an “aloof, humorless, condescending figure given to the ‘supercilious condemnation of the bulk of human race’”; see Collini, Public Moralists, 322. Russian reviewers, by contrast, emphasized his vulnerability, emotional trauma in the hands of his disciplinarian father, and humility, as exemplified by his “excessive” praise of Harriet Taylor and other influences in his life.
137 Vladislavlev, “Dzhon Stuart Mill’,” 126–7.
138 N.M. “Obzor Politicheskoi ekonomii i Avtobiografii Millia,” 167, 179.
139 , E.V., “Zhizn’ Dzh. Stuarta Millia,” Severnyi Vestnik, 5 (1889), 73–101, at 79Google Scholar; Vladislavlev, “Dzhon Stuart Mill’,” 134–5.
140 E.V., “Zhizn’ Dzh. Stuarta Millia,” 75–8; See also Miklashevskii, “Dzhon Stuart Mill’,” xxix–xxxi.
141 Rossel’, “Dzh. Stuart Mill’: Stat'ia pervaia,” 27.
142 Miklashevskii, “Dzhon Stuart Mill’,” xxix.
143 Mikhailovskii, Sochineniia, 552. Similar assessment was made by Miklashevskii. He wrote that many of Mill's arguments are “very contentious, but they present wonderful material for discussion.” See Miklashevskii, “Dzhon Stuart Mill’,” xliv.
144 Bunge, Ocherki, 312–13. In 1906, Tugan-Baranovskii gave further testimony to the continued popularity of the Principles in Russia. Even today, he wrote, “The Principles of Political Economy remains classic, perhaps the most widely read manual on economics.” See Tugan-Baranovskii, “Dvizhenie,” 196.
145 See Walicki, A History of Russian Thought, 139; Eaton, Henry, “Marx and the Russians,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 41/1 (1980), 89–112, at 90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 111; Sheptun, “The German Historical School,” 361.
146 Quoted in Engel, Barbara Alpern, Mothers and Daughters: Women of the Intelligentsia in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge, 1983), 116 Google Scholar. Ironically, Marx's book passed censorship because the censor judged it purely “scientific, heavy and difficult to understand.” See Eaton, “Marx and the Russians,” 100.
147 Engel, Mothers and Daughters, 116. Vera Figner, another feminist and revolutionary (unrelated to the group), read Mill and Marx in the same order. In 1883, she wrote to her sister, who was also interested in political economy, that if she still found Mill too difficult, she might begin with Ivaniukov's textbook Obzor sovremennykh uchenii o politicheskoi ekonomii and then proceed to Mill and Marx. Interestingly, this letter was written from prison, but still allowed by prison censors. See Figner, Vera, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 6 (Moscow, 1932), 90 Google Scholar.
148 Rozhdestvenskii, O znachenii, 7, 9; Vladislavlev, “Dzhon Stuart Mill’,” 150; N.M., “Obzor,” 167; Rossel’, “Dzhon Stuart Mill’: Stat’ia pervaia,” 8–9; Miklashevskii, “Dzhon Stuart Mill’,” xi.
149 See Eaton, “Marx and the Russians,” 105, 108, 110.
150 In Russia the doctrine of laissez-faire was not perceived as a unified philosophy. Many liberal and Marxist economists supported free trade because in their view protectionism came at the expense of the peasantry, who were forced to pay higher taxes and buy domestic goods that cost more than the corresponding imported goods. However, the same economists favored government regulation to improve the conditions of the laboring classes. On liberal economists see Fedyashin, Liberals under Autocracy, 132–3, 168–170, 188–9; Owen, Thomas C., Capitalism and Politics in Russia: A Social History of the Moscow Merchants, 1855–1905 (Cambridge, 1981), 58–9Google Scholar. Chicherin was one of the few liberals who supported the free-market doctrine in its classical form. However, in his Property and State he made no mention of Mill's laissez-faire apparently because he viewed Mill as a socialist rather than classical economist.