“Advisor Literature” and Russian Political Thought in the Enlightenment: The Anti-Machiavellian Influence

Abstract

This article studies the role of the anti-Machiavellian vision of politics in the development of political thought in westernising eighteenth-century Russia. The author disputes S. Whittaker’s idea that the images of good and bad monarchs in eighteenth-century Russian “advisor literature” (rooted in the tradition of “princely mirrors”) served as a kind of political programme which the ruler was to follow (i. e. imitate good models and avoid bad ones). In “advisor literature”, one can distinguish a descriptive component, which, using the image of ideal monarchs, consolidated the status quo in the minds of subjects, and “advice” proper, suggesting a situation with several competing solutions. This type of advice was available in various spheres of state administration, including the political life of the court itself. Tracing the transformation of the genre of “princely mirrors” in Europe makes it possible to identify and understand the political implications in its Russian counterpart. Being challenged by Machiavelli, who replaced Christian ethics in politics with an immoral “state interest”, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century European intellectuals produced a set of anti-Machiavellian ideas to incorporate the Machiavellian idea of political efficiency into Christian morality, prove that the most effective system of behaviour was following the ethical norms of Christianity, and develop some practical guidelines for success at court. In the eighteenth century, a number of anti-Machiavellian writings from previous centuries were translated into Russian (circulated as manuscripts and published works) and were in demand among the intellectual elite. Therefore, researchers have to consider the anti-Machiavellian influence on Russian political culture in the Enlightenment, particularly in the development of ideas about the relationship between politics and morality and the status of politicians.