Mikhail Shcherbatov
| Prince Mikhailo Mikhailovich Shcherbatov | |
|---|---|
Portrait by Dmitry Levitzky
|
|
| Born | July 22, 1733 |
| Died | December 12, 1790 (aged 57) |
| Occupation | Imperial Historian |
Prince Mikhailo Mikhailovich Shcherbatov (Russian: Михаи́л Миха́йлович Щерба́тов, July 22, 1733 – December 12, 1790) was a leading ideologue and exponent of the Russian Enlightenment, on the par with Mikhail Lomonosov and Nikolay Novikov. His view of human nature and social progress is kindred to Swift's pessimism. He was known as a statesman, historian, writer and philosopher, and was one of the most visible representatives of the nascent Russian conservatism during the second half of the 18th century.
M. M. Shcherbatov received a good-formal education. He studied history, philosophy, literature and medicine. Until the end of his life he had a vast collection of 40,000 volumes in his home library. Like all educated people of that time he knew French, and in addition to that, he was also competent in German, Italian and a few other western languages. From 1767 onwards, Shcherbatov was in the public service and held responsible posts. He represented the Yaroslavl nobility at the Nakaz commission (1767), was a member of a private commission of the middle-class people, a member of the Board of Trade (1770), a president of the Chamber Council and a Senator (1779).
In 1768 he received the position of historiographer and was appointed a Chief Herald of the Senate. In his view the political ideal was to follow the British example of a constitutional monarchy with separation of powers. He found a certain analogy to this ideal in Pre-Petrian Russia when, in his opinion, was confined to the use of such aristocratic organ as the Council Boyars. Mikhail’s personal view and attitude of Peter I of Russia or Peter the Great (who ruled Russia from 7 May 1682 until his death in 1725) in his writings was quite ambiguous. In one of his drafts "An examination of defects and autocracy of Peter the Great" (1782), he openly criticized Peter, arguing that what he did for the prosperity of Russia can be done by more humane means, resulting in smaller losses even though it might take a longer period of time. In Shcherbatov’s opinion, without foreign borrowing and the autocracy of Peter the Great, significantly much more time would have been needed for the Russian Enlightenment and foreign policy opponents meanwhile could have captured the country. Yet, Shcherbatov was aware that, apart from the personal weaknesses, the roughness and cruelty of the autocrat were caused by the viciousness of the time. Peter was forced by the time to be a despot.
...
Wikipedia