The famous Bolshevik slogan “Peace, Land, and Bread” has little historical connection to “A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.” The two come from different periods, and in the slogan, peace was representative of soldiers, land of peasants, and bread of the workers. These connections are contrasted as Radishchev’s piece focuses specifically on the plights of serfs working to show the cruelty of serfdom. However, I found distinct connections between these two, which I believe shows the pre-existing historical basis of the populist appeals that were prevalent in Lenin’s pushes in 1917. The want for more equality in hunger, military service period, and the land is something produced from Russia’s fascinating geographic nature, the constant state of civil and external wars due to a weak government, and nobles’ dominance in Russian history. I saw connections to these issues with respect to the serfs in “A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” primarily in the provinces of Lyubani and Torzhok and the story of Vyshny Volochok. In the example of Torzhok, we can see the outrageous demands of military service that tears families apart, specifically in the case of the mother, son, and girlfriend. This demonstration of the cruelty of forced military services applies to the desire for peace. In the story of Vyshny Volochok, the frustration over food is expressed in the irony that the peasants fill granaries, but lack any food in their stomachs. The hunger of peasants in this story appeals to the desire for bread. In the town of Lyubani, a religious serf is seen tending to his own land on a Sunday because that is the only time he has available to tend to his own land because of the cruel and lasting demands of his master. This section is mostly a commentary on the cruelty of owners, but the parasitic nature in which the master depends on his serfs affects the productivity of serfs on their own land. This, combined with the mention of manorial villages in the text, show the desire for land. Overall, the story, through the particular lens of the cruelty of serfdom, reveals several prevailing issues with Russian society. These issues were the unequal distribution of land, the constant waring state, and hunger. These common issues would continue in Russian culture and would be the central problems that were addressed by Lennin in 1917.

A striking element in A Journey To From St. Petersburg to Moscowand its prologue is liberality from those who have benefitted from the system they now criticize. Though he benefitted from his predecessors’ use of serfs, he disagreed with the practice. I believe that made his adherence to his principles even more persuasive, as he believed about his cause so much, sacrificed his possible wealth for the cause.

While Radishchev was harsh towards the idea of censorship and drafting, some of his harshest criticisms of the Russian lifestyle and economy were against the practice of serfdom. On several occasions throughout the text, Radishchev lambasts masters for both their cruel treatment of their serfs and peasants, but also the economic advantages those masters collect from them. In one example on page 268, Radishchev says it’s unfair how a man can force hundreds, possibly even a thousand workers to break their backs working in his field, only for the master to be praised as an expert in agriculture. Though he grew up with peasants, Radishchev said that those who benefit so much from the work of others didn’t deserve the right to be citizens, and claimed that they were criminals, and should be stigmatized as thieves for their collection of the fruits of others’ labor. Though some may believe that his upbringing undercuts his point, I contend the opposite; that his arguments against serfdom and subjugation were actually given more credence because of his upbringing. This means that his convictions were so strong he turned his back on the tradition on which his rank and power were based. I’d be interested to hear about other perspectives on this, and whether it seems hypocritical to criticize a system upon which his rank was built.

Another reason I believe Radishchev’s devotion to his principles are true is because we see an example of someone in his position that could have opposed serfdom but defaulted to the traditional custom. From the story of the man on page 275, we saw a master who benefitted from serfdom and failed to completely abandon and condemn the practice, with his wife ensuring he treated his serfs like other gentry did. While Radishchev could have fallen in line with that man, he didn’t, and still renounced serfdom, which to me showed great backbone against an institution that could have turned him into the monster he castigated.

Radishchev’s A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow employs many rhetorical techniques in order to convince his audience that serfs did not deserve to be under the degree of bondage that they suffered at that time. I am not informed as to the literacy rates in 18th century Russia, but I would assume that most of Radishchev’s readers were educated members of the bureaucracy in some form.

I want to focus on the Gorodnya section of this piece; here, Radishchev works to portray a particular serf as a true man in order to make his treatment, especially at the hand of a woman, seem unjust. This particular serf was brought up and educated alongside his master’s son, so that “there was hardly any difference between us, except that the cloth of his coat was perhaps better” (274). His master even so far as admits to him, “You have more of an inclination for learning and morality than my son” (274). However, when his old master dies, the serf is subjected to the oppressive rule of his new master’s wife, who just so happens to have “a very ugly soul and a hard and cruel heart,” although he was essentially brought up in the same manner as this woman’s husband (275). Radishchev makes sure to emphasize the “humiliation” the serf feels at her hand; the serf calls her to her face “inhuman woman” and states at the beginning of the story that his fate depended on the “arbitrary whims of a woman” (275). By using this framing of gender, Radishchev seems to argue that serfdom, at least as portrayed here, is an inversion of the natural order. He knows his audience can agree that it is not right or just for a woman to have the power to subject a man to her will. By skillfully convincing readers that serfs are in fact men, Radishchev proves serfdom to be an emasculating, and therefore unjust, state of being.

“You are a slave within the borders of this country but beyond them you are free.” (274)

Radishchev’s Journey is a haunting but important reminder to the harsh realities of Russian life to those who were enslaved and less fortunate. Much of our class we have been studying and focusing on the life of the aristocrats of Russian society—which is very rich in its artistic output and cultural significance. However, the lives of these important few are far from representing the majority of the population. Radishchev’s Journey is not only a product of the growing political resentment found in some of the stories we have read and the films we have watched, but it also realizes and historicizes the stories and mistreatment of the peasants.

In perhaps one of the most intense sections of our reading, Radishchev graphically critiques Russian society for its hypocritical practices against the Christian faith, specifically describing a sale of serfs. On life of a serf Radishchev writes, “Hunger, cold, heat, punishment, everything will be against you. Noble thoughts are foreign to you. You do not know how to die. You will bow down and be a slave in spirit as in estate.” (273) Importantly, Radishchev describes the torturous life of the serf more than just that of physical turmoil—of sweat and blood—but also depicts a spiritual and emotional damage. Quite plainly what Radishchev describes is torture beyond that of the flesh.

Radishchev does just that which he describes. On speaking of injustice, Radishchev writes, “then even a thought shakes its (the government’s) foundations; a word of truth will destroy it; a manly act will scatter it to winds” (270). By writing and then publishing the truth Radishchev makes sure that the mistreatment of the serfs—and not just the physical turmoil—does not go forgotten. Instead, Radishchev reveals the emotional and spiritual consequences of the mistreatment of the peasants.

A Journey From St. Petersburg to Moscow is a scathing critique of the institution of serfdom as well as the social hierarchy and oppression present throughout Russia.  Alexander Radishchev’s compelling narrative and focus on the serfs’ humanity results in a text that pushes Russia to address the injustice of serfdom head on–which why Catherine the Great had such a strong, negative reaction to the book and banned it. 

While reading this, I was first struck by the fact that this is the first critique/account of an historical event that was written during the time it took place.  Unlike watching Soviet-era depictions of Ivan or reading literature written centuries after the period in which they cover, A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow is a real-time account of Russian culture–but perhaps more importantly, it is a real-time reckoning about the injustices present throughout Russia.  In particular, when Radishchev describes his first interaction with the peasant, he remarks, “The words of this peasant awakened in me a multitude of thoughts.  I thought especially of the inequality of treatment within the peasant class…This thought made my blood boil” (267). In this instant, the author has been “awakened” to the cruelty of serfdom–and this awakening is mirrored in the way the the text is written.  Radishchev intimately describes a series of encounters with peasants and serfs in an attempt to reveal their stories–to demonstrates that blanket terms such as “peasants” and “serfs” are dehumanizing. And although the work was banned, it is evident that Radishchev is attempting to provoke the same type of awakening he had in his readers.  The text takes the reader on a “journey” (as the title suggests), a journey that exposes the shortcomings and injustices of Russian society.  

In addition, I found the following remark by Catherine interesting: “[Radishchev] is trying in every possible way to break down respect for authority… to stir up the people…against their superiors and against the government” (278).  To me, this shows how serfdom as an institution was so intertwined with the aristocracy of Russia, and that an attack on serfdom was an attack on the government itself.