Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:00:39.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Ruler Legend”: Tsar Nicholas I and the Route of the St. Petersburg-Moscow Railway, 1842-1843

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Richard Mowbray Haywood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Perhaps the most famous anecdote of the many connected with the reign of Tsar Nicholas I concerns the way in which he supposedly determined the route of the St. Petersburg-Moscow Railway. When asked by his officials the route along which it should be built, the tsar, on the spur of the moment, it is claimed, took a ruler, laid it on a map, and arbitrarily and hastily drew an absolutely straight line between the two capitals. The all-powerful despot had spoken, and his decision was carried out by his servile courtiers, regardless of consequences.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , December 1978 , pp. 640 - 650
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For brief remarks on the subject, see Pintner, Walter M., Russian Economic Policy under Nicholas I (Ithaca, 1967), p. 150, n. 58Google Scholar; Blackwell, William L., The Beginnings of Russian Industrialisation, 1800-1860 (Princeton, 1968), pp. 285 and 318Google Scholar; and Westwood, J. N., A History of Russian Railzvays (London, 1964), p. 29–30.Google Scholar

2. An article in The Engineer stated: “Railway enterprise in Russia, in fact, may be said to have begun with Alexander II. His predecessor, it is true, started iron roads; but he did it more after the fashion of an ignorant soldier than as an enlightened disciple of George Stephenson. When Chevalier von Gerstner, the first promoter of railways in Russia, laid the plan of the line from St. Petersburg to Moscow before the Emperor Nicholas, his Majesty … only vouchsafed a passing glance at the elaborate maps and designs which were outspread on the table before him. ‘Is this the nearest road to Moscow?’ he inquired; 'the quickest for transporting troops ?’ ‘It is not, ’ replied the chevalier, ‘the nearest road; but it is believed to be the best, as it connects all the great towns between the two capitals, and would, therefore, be of the utmost service in fostering trade and commerce.’ ‘But I want the shortest road, ’ interrupted Nicholas, ‘so as to be able to go in a day from St. Petersburg to Moscow. Give me the map.’ Which saying, the Emperor took up a roller [sic]—according to some accounts, the sword at his side—and with a pencil drew a straight line from St. Petersburg to Moscow. ‘Here is my plan of the railway, ’ his Majesty exclaimed; ‘let it be constructed accordingly.’ And constructed it was after this very simple design, —of course, under extraordinary difficulties, and at a most enormous expense” ﹛The Engineer [London], September 23, 1864, p. 193). This account was copied almost verbatim by a contemporary German journal (Zeitung des Vereins deutscher Eisenbahn-Verwaltungen, January 14, 1865, p. 20). It was passed on in this way to later historians of early Russian railways in that country (see Oskar, Matthesius, “Russische Eisenbahnpolitik im neunzehnten Jahrhundert von 1836 bis 1881,” Archiv fur Eisenbahnwesen, 26 [1903]: 972, n. 1).Google Scholar

3. Great Britain, Public Record Office, Foreign Office Papers, Record Group 65, Diplomatic and consular reports from Russia to England, vol. 322, Andrew Buchanan to Viscount Palmerston, no. 45, September 26, 1846 (N.S.).

4. Molva, August 17, 1857, p. 218; D. I., Romanov, “Obshchaia set’ russkikh zheleznykh dorog i vodianykh soobshchenii,” Sovremennik, n.s., 113 (1866), sec. 1, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar

5. See, for example, Robert, Harrison, Notes of a Nine Years’ Residence in Russia, from 1844 to 1853 (London, 1855), p. 48 Google Scholar; Pearson, Charles H., Russia, by a Recent Traveller (London, 1859), p. 16 Google Scholar; cf. American Railroad Journal, November 6, 1858, p. 707.

6. Loubat, J. F., Narrative of the Mission to Russia in 1866 of the Hon. Gustavus Vasa Fox, Assistant-Secretary of the Navy (New York, 1873), p. 1873 Google Scholar; and Wallace, Sir Donald Mackenzie, Russia, rev. ed. (New York, 1905), p. 2–3.Google Scholar

7. A. A., Golovachev, “Zheleznye dorogi v Rossii,” Sbornik gosudarstvennykh znanii, 4 (1877): 232–33Google Scholar; P. E., Gronskii, “Ocherk vozniknoveniia i razvitiia zheleznykh dorog v Rossii,” Zapiski moskovskogo otdeleniia Imperatorskogo russkogo tekhnicheskogo obshchestva, no. 4 (1886), p. 16.Google Scholar

8. John, Geddie, The Russian Empire (London, 1882), p. 28 Google Scholar; and Page, John L. W., In Russia Without Russian (Plymouth, 1898), p. 81.Google Scholar

9. See, for example, Paul, Dukes, A History of Russia (New York, 1974), p. 139.Google Scholar

10. For example, Ellis, C. Hamilton, The Lore of the Train (New York, 1971), p. 1971 Google Scholar; cf. Albert, Parry, Whistler's Father (Indianapolis, 1939), p. 75.Google Scholar

11. Severnaia pchela, April 27, 1839, p. 365; Voshchinin, V. G., Svedeniia o rossiiskikh zhelesnykh dorogakh (St. Petersburg, 1862), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

12. Tver’ had a population of 17, 000; St. Petersburg had 470, 202 and Moscow 349, 068 inhabitants (Zhurnal Ministerstva vnutrennikh del, 1 [1843]: 295).

13. Severnaia pchela, August 10, 1846, p. 710; Times (London), March 29, 1853, p. 6.

14. Severnaia pchela, August 19, 1847, p. 744, note*; P. Kriukov, Ocherk manufaktumopromyshlennykh sil evropeiskoi Rossii, vol. 2 (St. Petersburg, 1853), p. 135.

15. “Sovremennoe polozhenie sel'skogo khoziaistva v Rossii,” Sanktpeterburgskie vedomosti, July 11, 1847, p. 702; Kupriianov, I, “Mestnye ocherki Novgoroda,” Moskvitianin, vol. 1, book 2 (January 1852), sec. 7, p. 57.Google Scholar

16. Severnaia pchela, August 19, 1847, p. 744; Kommerchcskaia gaseta, October 10, 1833, p. 478.

17. Severnaia pchela, October 9, 1842, p. 903; Vestnik promyshlennosti, 1858, no. 3, sec. 3, p. 98.

18. In the years 1837-39, proposals for a railway between the capitals had been submitted to the government in which there was at least brief discussion of its route. But the issue had never been decided, since the government rejected these proposals (see Haywood, Richard Mowbray, The Beginnings of Railway Development in Russia in the Reign of Nicholas 1, 1835-1842 [Durham, N.C., 1969], pp. 159–92).Google Scholar

19. For the full text of the Commission's report, see “Donesenie Nikolaiu I komissii po ustroistvu zheleznoi dorogi mezhdu Peterburgom i Moskvoi, 15 sentiabria 1841 g.,” Krasnyi arkhiv, 76 (1936): 127-44.

20. Ibid., pp. 111-12.

21. For a list of the membership of the Construction Committee and the Construction Commission, see Haywood, The Beginnings of Railway Development, pp. 227-28.

22. Kislinskii, N. A., Nasha sheleznodoroshnaia politika po dokumentam arkhiva Komiteta ministrov, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1902), pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

23. Voronin, M. I., “K istorii izyskanii i proektirovaniia Peterburgo-Moskovskoi zheleznoi dorogi,” in Sbornik Leningradskogo Ordena Lenina Instituta inzhenerov shelesnodorozhnogo transporta, no. 143 (Moscow, 1952), p. 38.Google Scholar

24. See A. I., Shtukenberg, “Iz istorii zheleznodorozhnogo dela v Rossii,” Russkaia starina, 48 (1885): 312–19.Google Scholar

25. New York Public Library, Manuscript Division, Patten Collection, Major George Washington Whistler to General Joseph G. Swift (St. Petersburg, January 18, 1847 [N.S.]).

26. S., N., “Materialy k istorii ustroistva S. Peterburgo-Moskovskoi (Nikolaevskoi) zheleznoi dorogi,” Zhurnal Ministerstva putei soobshcheniia, 1, no. 1 (1886): 296–98.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., p. 299; Voronin, “K istorii izyskanii i proektirovaniia,” pp. 44-45.

28. N. S., “Materialy,” p. 297.

29. “Zapiski senatora K. I. Fishera,” Istoricheskii vestnik, 112 (1908): 453.

30. B., Velikin, Peterburg-Moskva: Iz istorii Oktiabr'skoi zheleznoi dorogi (Leningrad, 1934), p. 53–54.Google Scholar Another, earlier supporter of the Novgorod route was N. N. Murav'ev, a landowner in the Novgorod area and former governor of that province, who, in January 1839, had submitted a memorandum to the government proposing that the railway be built via Novgorod, since the environs of that city supplied St. Petersburg with much of its requirements for hay, which could then be shipped cheaply by railway (Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv SSSR, fond 1263, delo 1250 [g. 1839], pp. 389-93).

31. In 1842 the merchants of the first two “guilds,” that is, the more substantial members of their class, in Novgorod numbered only 45, while in St. Petersburg there were 337 and in Moscow 1625 (Zhurnal Ministerstva vnutrennikh del, pp. 296-97).

32. Kislinskii, Nasha zhelesnodoroshnaia politika, p. 27.

33. For details, see Voronin, “K istorii izyskanii i proektirovaniia,” pp. 46-47.

34. N. S., “Materialy,” pp. 299-300.

35. Voronin, “K istorii izyskanii i proektirovaniia,” pp. 47, 54-55; Urodkov, S. A., Peterburgo-Moskovskaia sheleznaia doroga: Istoriia stroitel'stva (1842-1851 gg.) (Leningrad, 1951), pp. 70–71 Google Scholar; see also Sbornik svedenii o zheleznykh dorogakh v Rossii, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1867), pp. 66-67.

36. On August 11, 1842, Count P. A. Kleinmichel, who had been a member of both the Construction Committee and the Construction Commission, had become head of the Main Administration of Transport and Buildings, which was now to administer the construction of the railway through a newly created Department of Railways attached to it (Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskoi imperii, 2nd ser., 17, no. 15950 [August 11, 1842], p. 844 [hereafter cited as PSZ]).

37. Urodkov, Peterburgo-Moskovskaia zhelesnaia doroga, p. 71.

38. 38.”Zapiski senatora K. I. Fishera,” p. 453.

39. Salov, V. V., “Nachalo zheleznodorozhnogo dela v Rossii, 1836-1855,” Vestnik Evropy, 1899, no. 4, p. 592 Google Scholar; Kislinskii, Nasha zheleznodorozhnaia politika, p. 28.

40. Kislinskii, Nasha zheleznodorozhnaia politika, pp. 27-28; Urodkov, Peterburgo- Moskovskaia zheleznaia doroga, p. 71. Perovskii was concerned about the supervision and control of the large number of passengers expected to travel on the railway and felt that Novgorod would provide a good headquarters for his police (Virginskii, V. S., Vosniknovenie zheleznykh dorog v Rossii do nachala 40-kh godov XIX veka [Moscow, 1949], p. 231).Google Scholar

41. “Vospominaniia Valeriana Aleksandrovicha Panaeva,” Russkaia starina, 107 (1901): 36.

42. Kislinskii, Nasha zheleznodorozhnaia politika, p. 28.

43. The Benckendorff commission had estimated that most of the bulky, low-cost goods shipped by water would not be lost to the more expensive railway (Krasnyi arkhiv, 76 [1936]: 139).

44. Kislinskii, Nasha zheleznodorozhnaia politika, p. 29.

45. As had been predicted, the greatest amount of freight and passenger traffic did originate in the two capitals and went the entire length of the railway (Vestnik promyshlennosti, 1860, no. 5, sec. 3, pp. 170-75, and 1860, no. 6, sec. 3, pp. 191-92).

46. Whereas it would have taken over four weeks to transport a military unit by Chaussee between the capitals, by railroad the trip required only 48-62 hours (see Karaev, G. N., V ozniknovenie sluzhby voennykh soobshchenii na sheleznykh dorogakh Rossii, 1851- 1878 [Moscow, 1949], pp. 39–Google Scholar; PSZ, 27, no. 26758 [November 10, 1852], pp. 657-58).

47. Kommercheskaia gazeta, June 10, 1852, p. 265, and June 23, 1851, p. 289.

48. Verkhovskii, V. M., Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk nachala i rasprostraneniia zheleznykh dorog v Rossii po 1897 g. vkliuchitel'no (St. Petersburg, 1898), pp. 191–92.Google Scholar

49. B., P., “Graf P. A. Kleinmikhel',” Russkii arkhiv, 32, book 3 (1894): 590.Google Scholar

50. Lincoln, Cf. W. Bruce, “Reform and Reaction in Russia: A. V. Golovnin's Critique of the 1860's,” Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique, 16, no. 2 (April-June 1975): 174, n. 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar