Practices of Censorship of Statistical Works in Pre-reform Russia (late XVIII – first half of XIX centuries)

Skrydlov Andrei PhD in History Senior Scientific Associate, Saint Petersburg branch of the Institute of History of Natural Science and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences 199034, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, nab. Universitetskaya, 5 askrydlov@gmail.com Other publications by this author

The problem of the formation and activity of censorship bodies in the Russian Empire is covered in great detail in historiography ^[1,2]. However, most often the focus of researchers' attention was on the influence of censorship on the development of Russian literature or journalism, while the role of such restrictions in the formation of various branches of science rarely became the subject of independent research. Meanwhile, the state-established rules of supervision in the field of printing had a significant impact on the intensity of the development of a number of scientific areas. Along with other social sciences, government studies, an early branch of statistical science that originated in Germany in the XVII century, received close attention from censorship authorities. State historians were engaged in the study and systematization of "state attractions" - facts characterizing the state of the state. These included the state structure, the composition of the population, the state of the armed forces, finance, economy, etc.  According to the plan of the founders of state studies G. Konring and G. Achenval, the new discipline was to satisfy the need of the ruling elite for the knowledge necessary for effective government ^{[3, pp. 41-89]}.

A student of Achenval A.L. Schletzer from 1761 to 1767 conducted scientific work in St. Petersburg, was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences and contributed to the spread of German statecraft in Russia. Russian Russian scholar Shletzer left interesting evidence in his memoirs that in Russia at that time such studies were perceived as an attempt on state secrets: "A few years before me, an English traveler came into the Russian academic bookstore (at that time the only one in the whole state) and asked for Russian books about Russian justice, finance and trade. "Lord have mercy! Who will print such things?" the factor answered him and crossed himself. Back in the summer of 1763, I asked a merchant society why much less hemp was unloaded this spring than before, and pointed out the difference in numbers. A broker took me aside and warned me against such testimony; I could have been denounced, he says, and then I would have been forced to name the person from whom I received this information, and that, as a result, could have become unhappy. Even the very information about the import and export of goods was considered a state secret." Schletzer also mentions Miller's advice "not to delve into state secrets" and tells how at first "I was scared by his hints" ^{[4, p. 104]}. Nevertheless, Schletzer managed to convince the adviser of the Academic Office of I.I. Taubert of the importance of statistical research, who, using his connections in the colleges, began to supply the scientist with materials for the preparation of the "fatherland studies" course at the K.G. Razumovsky boarding school. According to Schletzer, the work with the materials took place in an environment of "fear of publicity and mystery." He managed to get acquainted with "hundreds of written articles", from which he made extracts, and then "made small books in pocket format" for his students in various sections of state studies. At the same time, "there was no question of printing [these materials] yet." Schletzer associates the beginning of the active publication of statistical works in Russia with the liberal beginnings of Catherine II, during whose reign there appeared "a huge number of large and small works dealing with various subjects of statistics <...> Before it was impossible to think about it, because statistics and despotism are incompatible" ^{[4, pp. 120-221]}. Schletzer's evidence of a significant increase in the number of statistical works in 1770-1790 is confirmed by facts. So, in 1775, the first textbook in Russia on statistics-state studies authored by I.G. Reichel was published in the printing house of Moscow University ^[5]. Previously unknown statistical facts about Russia and European countries were published in the works of H.A. Chebotarev, I.V. Herman, and the proceedings of the Free Economic Society. In 1787, the book by S.I. Pleshcheyev "The Review of the Russian Empire in its current newly arranged state" was published, printed in one of the first "free printing houses" by I.K. Schnor ^[6].

The distribution of the first statistical works in Russia chronologically coincided with the first steps of the government to organize supervision in the field of printing. According to researchers' calculations, by 1775 at least 16 printing houses were functioning in Russia, most of which were created by the state for the needs of various government departments ^{[7, p. 127]}. The printing houses of the Academy of Sciences, Moscow University and the Naval Gentry Corps carried an important educational function. With the development of private initiative in book publishing and the emergence of "free printing houses", the need for censorship control was felt by the supreme power more and more. Initially, the solution was found in the creation of a censorship mechanism at the level of institutions where printing houses existed. One of the first examples of the transfer of censorship functions to places was recorded in the regulations of the Academy of Sciences of 1847: "No book can be given to print until the entire book is read on sheets in the Assembly in front of all academicians or from those to whom this will be entrusted by the president. And in order to always print an approbation signed by the president and countersigned by the conference secretary at the beginning of the book" ^{[8, p. 97]}. Thus, the supervision of the publishing products of the Academy was entrusted to the Conference and the President. After the creation of new printing houses at Moscow University and the Land Gentry Corps, censorship supervision over them was entrusted directly to the "directors" of these institutions ^{[7, pp. 138-139]}. The editions of the first "free printing houses" were initially submitted for consideration to the Academy of Sciences, but since the late 1770s there has been a tendency towards centralization and professionalization of censorship ^{[9, p. 93]}. In 1783, the responsibilities for the admission of manuscripts to publication were assigned to the local deanery councils, and since 1796 – to the censorship committees.

The strengthening of state control in the field of printing coincided with the publication of the work "The latest narrative Land Description of all four parts of the world ...", the history of the prohibition of which demonstrates the well-known fact of censorship of statistical works in Russia ^[10]. Among the likely authors of this work, researchers name N.D. Zhulkovsky and M.I. Antonovsky. A broad interpretation of the subject of "land description" made it possible to include a variety of geographical, historical, ethnographic and statistical information in the work. In separate chapters, the characteristics of the number and social composition of the population are given, information on the structure and size of the Russian army and navy is provided, information on state revenues and expenditures, the monetary system, the state of agriculture and industry is presented. The authors did not limit themselves to describing Russia, there is information about European countries, Asia, Africa and America. Much attention is paid to the description of the geography, the state of the economy and the state structure of France. At the same time, the authors sympathetically outlined the events and main ideas of the French Revolution. These passages became the main reason for banning the book ^{[11, pp. 79-92]}.

The manuscript, according to the current rules, was checked and was allowed to be printed by the St. Petersburg Deanery Board. The work was censored by the permission to publish was issued by the censor, Major-General P.D. Knyazev, and the publisher was I. Glazunov. The book was published at the beginning in early 1796. For several months it was freely distributed through bookstores, but in April it attracted the attention of Catherine II. On April 7, 1796, Prosecutor General A.I. Samoilov, in a letter addressed to Moscow mayor M.M. Izmailov, reported that "rumors reached Her Imperial Majesty that the above-named book contains free thoughts and contains impermissibly bold expressions; therefore, the Empress deigned to order the sale of this book to be banned, and the book itself to be taken away from booksellers and store all detained materials in the Moscow deanery board" ^{[12, p. 252]}. The order was accompanied by extracts of "free thoughts" on very sensitive topics about the history of the Romanov succession and the events of the French Revolution.  Having received a letter from the chief prosecutor, on April 13, 1796, Izmailov ordered the Moscow chief of police to confiscate the circulation of the book from all Moscow booksellers. According to the police report, there were a total of 395 copies of the book in Moscow, of which 359 were seized. The confiscated books were deposited with the Deanery Board and receipts were taken from Moscow booksellers with an obligation not to sell the banned book anymore under threat of the strictest penalties. Then the Moscow mayor received an order to find and interrogate Major General P.D. Knyazev. He was summoned to Moscow to testify and presented a note with very lengthy explanations, in which he referred partly to the willfulness of the authors, partly to his own oversight. Knyazev managed to escape punishment, and soon he was released back to his estate ^{[12, pp. 253-255]}.

A month later, Prosecutor General Samoilov, in a letter to the director of the Academy of Sciences Bakunin, announced the Highest will to "send the book <...> to the Academy of Sciences so that it, having taken out the article about France from it completely, would revise the rest in the most precise way and leave nothing that is contrary to legitimate and autocratic rule and decency itself, and then, having printed it, it was released for public sale." Bakunin entrusted the correction of the manuscript to Academician S.Ya. Rumovsky, however, he stated that he was "unable to correct the book." The academician pointed out a number of significant factual inaccuracies in the description of the borders of European countries, wrote about the lack of reliable sources to verify information about Russia ^{[13, p. 15-16]}. Then academician I.I. Lepekhin was involved in the consideration of the manuscript, who prepared a detailed analysis of the shortcomings of the "Land Description" ^{[14, pp. 234-243]}. The Academy of Sciences found itself in a difficult situation, because the execution of the imperial commission required a major revision of the book. It follows from the minutes of the General Meeting of the Academy that the academicians have begun work on correcting the essay. However, soon Director Bakunin relieved academics of this task, referring to the reform of censorship bodies ^{[13, p. 17]}. The history of the publication and prohibition of "Narrative Land Description" is very indicative of the attitude of the state authorities to the emerging statistics-statecraft at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. A broad interpretation of the subject of a new scientific discipline already in this period served as fertile ground for the liberties of authors and sharp political statements. In the future, with the development of censorship institutions in Russia, this control became more and more vigilant ^[15].

The establishment of the first statistical research centers in the Academy of Sciences and higher educational institutions helped streamline the procedure for admission of statistical works to publication. According to the regulations of the Academy of Sciences in 1803, the Department of Political Economy and Statistics was established as part of the main scientific institution of the country. The same document established the procedure for the publication of scientific papers of academicians, which had to be approved by the General Meeting. § 114 of the regulations provided for the election of a censor from among academicians, whose duties included reviewing essays that were submitted to the Board Committee for printing in the academic printing house ^{[16, 138]}. Thus, the censorship autonomy of the Academy in relation to the works published by it was confirmed.

Higher educational institutions took an important place in the development of statistical science at the beginning of the XIX century. The University charters of 1804 provided for the creation of departments on world history, statistics and geography, as well as history, statistics and geography of the Russian state in the structure of Moscow, Kazan and Kharkov universities. Since 1816, an independent Department of statistics appeared in the Main Pedagogical Institute, which was later transformed into St. Petersburg University.

In accordance with the censorship statute of 1804, universities were entrusted with the functions of reviewing publications that were published in the relevant educational districts. In the capital's educational district, in the absence of a university, the St. Petersburg Censorship Committee was formed. Initially, the number of censors on the ground did not exceed three people. The general supervision of censorship was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Main Board of Schools ^{[17, pp. 207-208]}.

The liberalization of public life in the early years of Alexander's reign stimulated interest in statistical research. The sources for them were the materials of the ministerial reports, which became public since 1802. According to academician K.F. Herman, "from 1802 to 1807 <...> Russian statistics had more success than in all previous centuries" ^{[18, p. 74]}. During these years, Herman himself organized the publication of a Statistical Journal at the Academy of Sciences, the first periodical on statistics and political economy in Russia. In 1808-1809, his textbooks on the theory of statistics were published "for use in schools of the Russian Empire", both under the heading "From the Main Board of Schools" ^{[19, 20]}. In the same years, classical works on state studies by E.F. Zyablovsky, I.A. Geim and other scientists were published. It is noteworthy that it was statisticians who were often involved in performing censorship duties at universities. In different years, V.Ya. Bulygin and P.A. Tseplin, who taught statistical courses at Kazan University, professors of Moscow University I.A. Geim, M.T. Kachenovsky and N.F. Cherepanov served as censors. A.A. Degurov had experience as a censor during his work at the Department of History, Geography and Statistics at Kharkiv University ^{[21, 22]}. Statistical essays successfully passed censorship at the level of the Academy of Sciences and Universities and did not meet obstacles from the Main Board of Schools.

The conservative turn of policy in the field of education, which emerged at the end of the 1810s, manifested itself, among other things, in closer control over statistical research by the government. An example of the tightening of censorship practices in relation to translated statistical works was the prohibition of the article "A look at the successes of agriculture and welfare in the Russian state", published in the April issue of the Historical and Statistical Journal for 1820 ^{[23, pp. 18-32]}. The publication was a translation of a text by an unknown author, previously published in a Hamburg magazine. Commenting on the economic state of Russia, the author named two main conditions for its further development – the spread of education and the liberation of peasants from serfdom. It is noted that during the reign of Alexander I, "five universities, fifty-eight gymnasiums and one hundred county schools were established, in addition to many public schools and other educational institutions. The main means to elevate the Russian state to the highest degree of enlightenment and well-being is to gradually and with prudence deliver greater freedom to the peasants and grant them the full rights that belong to them as human beings and reasonable beings" ^{[24, p. 435]}.

The dean of the Department of Verbal Sciences of Moscow University, N.E. Cherepanov, who censored the article, did not find anything reprehensible in the author's statements and allowed the article to be published. However, the professor did not take into account, shortly before, as a result of peasant unrest in the Poltava province, the trustees of educational districts were ordered not to miss "any essays concerning the political state of peasants in Russia" ^{[25, L. 1]}. The controversial publication became the subject of consideration by the Main Board of Schools, which demanded explanations from Cherepanov. In the minutes of the meeting of April 28, 1821, it was noted that "approval for the publication of such an article, which contains such indecent arguments about the motivating reasons and types of the government and the sovereign on a very important subject, is always an error on the part of the censor, even if he did it out of unintentional carelessness, imprudence, ignorance or thoughtlessness of the consequences" ^{[25, l. 5 vol.]}. According to the members of the Main Board of Schools, "a private person should not at all publish either his guesses in the state business, what it is, if the reasons and types of the highest authority for this are unknown to him, nor reveal those reasons and types if he knew about any participation, but the government did not give him permission to publish about this." At the board meeting, it was determined that "Cherepanov, despite all his explanations, <...> can no longer enjoy the confidence of his superiors as a censor of printed books. And as according to the university charter, the position of censors is connected together with the position of deans, then it is recognized necessary to prohibit the election of Professor Cherepanov to the deans from now on" ^{[25, L. 6]}.

 Russian state studies in the late 1810s developed in the political and economic direction, there was a transition from descriptive forms of presentation of statistical data to their analysis, study of cause-effect relationships and generalization. The largest scientists who worked in this vein were academician K.F. Herman and his student K.I. Arsenyev, they were the ones who faced the most stringent censorship restrictions. Arsenyev was the first to experience difficulties in passing censorship in 1818 when preparing for the publication of his essay "The Outline of the Statistics of the Russian State" ^[26]. In this work, summarizing the given factual material, the scientist made a number of careless conclusions. In particular, he pointed out the shortcomings of public administration in Russia, criticized the role of serfdom in the economic development of the country, called free farmers "the precursors of the future universal independence of the peasants." Apparently, in order to pass censorship, Arsenyev was forced to resort to the help of the trustee of the St. Petersburg School District, S.S. Uvarov. In the papers of the scientist, Uvarov's note to the censor I.O. Timkovsky was preserved as follows: "Associate Professor Arsenyev read me a passage from his statistics. I agree with your opinion in some terms. I asked him to soften them. However, his goal is prudent and noble. You will lend me by giving him an allowance" ^{[27, p. 23]}. With the support of Uvarov, Arsenyev's essay was published, but it met with a critical reaction in the public space. In 1818-1820, a series of reviews appeared on the pages of the publication "Spirit of Magazines", edited by one of the St. Petersburg censors G.M. Yatsenkov, in which Arsenyev's work was sharply criticized, and the author himself was accused of political unreliability.

The discussion around Arsenyev's essay became the prologue to the "case of professors" of St. Petersburg University in 1821. The books of Herman and Arsenyev, previously printed with the permission of the Main Board of Schools, were re-examined.  A detailed review of Arsenyev's work was made by M.L. Magnitsky. The review contained 46 fragments of the book, accompanied by very harsh comments. In response to Arsenyev's arguments about the benefits of separation of powers, Magnitsky recalled that "the autocrat does not represent the society governed by him at all, but represents God governing him." In some of Arsenyev's theses, Magnitsky saw "insults and reproaches to the government", he considered the scientist's conclusions about the inefficiency of serf labor "an indirect blow to the current landlords" and "censure of the present government", which could arouse "popular murmur" ^{[27, pp. 69-78]}.

Herman's writings were assigned to be analyzed by a member of the Main Board of Schools, I.S. Laval. The note prepared by him "Observations sur trois ouvrages du professeur Hermann" has been preserved and published by Sukhomlinov. Laval pointed out that Herman's textbooks contributed to the spread of "dangerous ideas" in Russian society, criticized the author for an expansive understanding of the subject of statistical research. Laval had doubts about the methods of statistical data processing proposed by Herman: "In § 21, he (Herman – A.S.) rightly states that statistics should <...> be content with describing what is, without adding reflections on either the good or the bad; but a little further <...> says, <...> that the statistician is the herald of both good and bad, and the controller of the government. <...> Considering statistics as a means of judging rulers, I ask whether it is necessary to teach this science within the boundaries that German scientists tried to give it?" ^{[24, pp. 359-367]}.

As you know, following the results of the extraordinary meetings, both scientists were found guilty and dismissed from the university. Herman's books "A Brief Guide to General Statistics", "General Theory of Statistics" and "Historical Review of Statistics, especially of the Russian State", as well as Arsenyev's work "Outline of Statistics of the Russian State" were banned ^{[28, p. 162]}.

In the future, the Ministry of Education took certain measures to control the content of lecture courses at universities. On April 17, 1824, the trustees of the educational districts were instructed to ensure that "the professors of each university, after drawing up detailed summaries of the courses of the sciences they teach, submitted them, according to the established procedure, to the University Council, and the Council, after reviewing and approving and printing them on the account of the university's economic sums, submitted these summaries <...> to the Minister of Public Education in advance, so that upon receipt of these <...> by the Minister and upon approval by the Main Board of Schools, they could be returned to each university before the start of training courses." Professors were forbidden to give lectures "without such a preliminary synopsis." Initially, only 4 months were allotted for the entire procedure of drawing up and approving the notes, and the universities did not cope with the task. The Ministry had to soften the requirements and extend the deadlines. As a result, only some universities have fulfilled the requirement. Among the abstracts published by Moscow University, there are courses of lectures by teachers of statistics M.T. Kachanovsky and Yu. Ulrichs. Both professors presented rather a detailed curriculum, limiting themselves only to the general headings of sections and headings. Thus, it is impossible to judge the content of the lecture course from these texts ^{[29, p. 113]}.

The desire to solve the problem of "arbitrary teaching" pushed the government to give uniformity to the educational literature. On June 26, 1826, a Special committee was established to review textbooks, whose chairman was appointed academician in the class of political economy and statistics A.K. Storkh. The Committee worked until 1837, but a single textbook on statistics was not created during these years. For teaching statistical courses at universities after the ban of Herman and Arsenyev's manuals, the books of Geim and Zyablovsky were mainly used, which were supplemented with up-to-date information from the published statistical literature. At the same time, the share of the political and economic component in the university teaching of statistics was poorly controlled and largely depended on the views of one or another professor.

It is noteworthy that Zyablovsky's textbook on Russian statistics later also became the subject of close attention from the censorship authorities. Censor A.L. Krylov, who considered this work, sent a note to the St. Petersburg Censorship Committee in April 1832, in which he asked to clarify whether it was allowed in statistical works to "publish the author's private opinion" about subjects that "constitute a state secret". Krylov explained that Zyablovsky, "citing the indicated number of land and sea troops, as well as state revenues and debts, <...> does not confirm his opinion with any official information, his calculation is based on his own considerations, he himself warns the reader about it, repeating the idea that these items are not made public for general information". The censor "considered it necessary to ask the permission of the Committee whether it is possible to allow the publication of a calculation on these subjects based on the considerations and assumptions of the author himself." The Censorship Committee evaded a direct answer to the question posed by Krylov, but recognized "all the subjects set out in the censor's report as permissible" and allowed Zyablovsky's essay to be published, noting that most of the disputed information "has already been published in various government journals" ^{[30, l. 2-2 about]}.

The case of the professors was terminated in 1827 by order of Nicholas I, but the further development of the analytical direction of state studies in the new conditions proved extremely difficult. After his dismissal from the university, Herman retained his place in the Academy of Sciences. In the following years, he delved into the study of demographic and moral statistics, using data from police reports. On December 17, 1823, at the general meeting of the Academy of Sciences, he presented his memoir "Studies on the number of suicides and murders in Russia in 1819 and 1820" ^{[31, pp. 3-20]}. The scientist explained the choice of the object of study by the fact that these data characterized the "moral and political state of the people." As a result of a comparative study, the scientist concluded that most murders and suicides occurred in provinces where the serf population prevailed, and "these crimes are growing due to social isolation and poverty." In provinces where there was an increase in the industrial population, these indicators decreased. A.S. Shishkov, who took the post of Minister of Education in May 1824, sharply criticized Herman's work. In the archive of the Main Directorate of Censorship, his review was preserved, in which he called Herman's article "not only unnecessary, but also harmful." Shishkov was perplexed, "what can this notice serve for? Is it only that the hesitating criminal, seeing many predecessors before him, could draw approval from that, that he is not the first to start such a case." According to Shishkov, a statistical scientist should be "informed about good deeds, and such as murder and suicide should sink into eternal oblivion" ^{[32, p. 212]}.

Shishkov's indignation was in line with the new censorship statute adopted in 1826 and nicknamed "cast iron". The document, among other things, provided for the prohibition of statistical writings that "reveal an unfavorable disposition to monarchical rule" and "contain arbitrary reasoning that does not belong to the narrative" ^{[33, p. 172]}. Another important factor hindering the publication of statistical works was the spread of the practice of departmental censorship. It followed from section 141 of the censorship statute that "articles relating to public administration cannot be printed without the consent of the ministry whose subjects are discussed in them." Departmental statistical committees were organized under the central administration bodies. They had broad autonomy and the right to consider essays that affected the subjects of the relevant departments. By the middle of the XIX century. there were 22 special censors in the central government. Since statistical descriptions, as a rule, covered various branches of the economy, the passage of all stages of general and departmental censorship became an extremely lengthy and difficult procedure. Its success largely depended on the loyalty and perseverance of the author, as well as the presence of patrons from among the highest dignitaries.

An illustrative example illustrating the procedure for publishing statistical works during the so-called "gloomy seven years" was the work of D.P. Zhuravsky "Statistical description of the Kiev province". The voluminous work consisted of three parts and included a socio-demographic characteristic of the population, a detailed overview of the state of communication routes, agriculture, industry and trade. Zhuravsky collected information on behalf of the Kiev governor I.I. Fundukley, who took on the costs of preparing and publishing the essay. The RGS Council highly appreciated the manuscript prepared by the scientist and offered to publish it on behalf of the society, but this meant passing a full cycle of general and departmental censorship. Zhuravsky and Fundukley considered it expedient to publish the work in the printing house of the Statistical Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and thus avoid some of the censorship formalities. From the correspondence between Fundukley and the manager of the Statistical Department Arsenyev, it is known that in November 1849 the minister's consent was obtained for the publication of the work. Arsenyev asked the chairman of the censorship committee to appoint the censor of the work of A.L. Krylov, a former professor of statistics at St. Petersburg University, who now served under him in the Statistical Department. Thus, Zhuravsky's work received the maximum possible patronage, nevertheless, its release was delayed for 5 years. Despite the loyalty of Krylov and Arsenyev, censorship restrictions were overcome with great difficulty. So, there were strict rules for the publication of detailed geographical maps, some of the information from which could represent a state secret. After a lengthy correspondence, Zhuravsky was allowed to print maps, but with significant restrictions. Some parts of the proofreading of the work were sent for review to the relevant departments, after receiving comments, it was necessary to re-type the corrected text. Thus, in a letter dated June 20, 1851, Krylov informed Arsenyev that "the article on communication routes <...> certainly requires preliminary consideration in the Main Directorate of Communication Routes and Public Buildings. On this subject, the censors are guided by the Highest Command, which has been repeatedly further confirmed. Many places also require discretion on the part of the post office" ^{[34, p. 72]}. It follows from the documents that the chief prosecutor of the Synod did not allow the publication of an article on the land holdings of the clergy of the Kiev province. Approvals from other censorship authorities were received by the autumn of 1852, and the book was printed in the printing house of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. However, "by some combination of unfavorable circumstances", the circulation was stopped, and "the completely finished edition lay in the storerooms for about four years" ^{[35, pp. 387-388]}. The book was published only in 1856, with the beginning of a new reign. She was awarded a lot of laudatory reviews by contemporaries and was awarded the Zhukovsky Prize of the Russian Geographical Society for 1856.

The Russian Geographical Society, which included the Department of Statistics, claimed to be the leading center of statistical research in Russia in the middle of the XIX century. With the support of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, it developed projects for the "cumulative publication of all generally available statistical materials" of the publication of a generalizing statistical essay. Many of the large-scale programs of generalizing statistical description of Russia remained unrealized, however, from 1851 to 1858 the society managed to publish three issues of the "Collection of Statistical Information about Russia" ^{[36, pp. 132-142]}. The materials preserved in the RGO archive allow us to judge the differences between the original program of the publication and its final version, which passed censorship. Thus, the first issue of the collection did not include the planned sections on statistics of land ownership and agriculture, prepared by P.I. Keppen, Veselovsky, Zablotsky-Desyatovsky. The publication of the second volume of the collection was delayed for six months due to the fact that the article by E.I. Lamansky "A historical sketch of monetary circulation in Russia from 1650 to 1817" was detained by the censor Yu.E. Shidlovsky. In response to the appeal of the RGO Council, the Censorship Committee explained that "the slowdown in the consideration of this article was due to the fact that in terms of the importance of its content, it required a lot of information, was transferred <...> to Prof. polit. Then it was submitted for discussion by another censor and returned to the author for correction according to the comments of the censorship, and that in general this article required great care on the part of the censor" ^{[37, l. 12]}. As a result, the article underwent a significant revision. The third issue of the collection has also undergone significant changes compared to the original program approved by the RGS Council. It did not include articles by P.A. Valuev on state–owned estates in the Baltic region, V.P. Bezobrazov – on orders of public charity, Samoilov - on factory industry in Russia, etc. Thus, after passing the censorship, the content of all three collections turned out to be focused mainly on the issues of statistics of Russia's foreign trade. Initially planned articles on topical issues of domestic policy were either not prepared at all, or were not allowed to be published.

Similar difficulties arose during the preparation of the RGS journals, the regular issues of which had to be delayed and re-typeset due to censorship restrictions. A common practice has become a ban on publishing certain articles by order of relevant departments. The circumstances of one of these prohibitions are known from the materials preserved in the funds of the RGIA. In the November issue of the Bulletin of the Russian Geographical Society for 1853, it was planned to publish the manuscript of Professor S.I. Baranovsky of Helsingfor University "Statistics of crimes in Finland". The St. Petersburg Censorship Committee recognized that "this essay contains the author's arguments about the life of the people, about estates, about crimes, about prisons, investigates the cause of crimes and concerns the situation of the whole country" and on November 30, 1853 sent it for consideration to the Minister of State Secretary of the Grand Duchy of Finland A.G. Armfelt. After a lengthy review of the manuscript, a negative conclusion was received from the State Secretariat on January 14, 1854. Armfelt recognized it necessary "to reject the publication of this article, because in addition to the erroneous information found in it, the author's reasoning generally proves ignorance of the region, ignorance of the legislation thereof, and even extreme rashness in judgments, especially careless ones, because they are dominated by the tone of censure and baseless censure" ^{[38, l. 1, 6-7]}.

The degree of dissatisfaction of the members of the Society with censorship restrictions can be judged from the contents of the note, which on December 13, 1856, the Council of the Russian Geographical Society sent to its chairman, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich. The document was preserved in the archive of the Russian Geographical Society under the heading "On granting the Russian Geographical Society to print all publications without censorship" ^{[36, p. 137; 39, l. 1-45; 40, p. 54]}. The note stated that the society's works meet numerous difficulties, which "do not at all correspond to the correct concept of the scientific dignity of Society <...>. These restrictions mainly consist in censorship, in the spreading influence of which Society cannot but see some contradiction with the very purpose of its appointment." The note lists examples of incongruous remarks that the RGO received from various censorship authorities. It is noted that "every description of the monastery, remarkable for its antiquity, is sent to the spiritual censorship; every word about the gentiles – to the department of spiritual affairs; description of roads – to the main directorate of communications, etc. Especially statistical studies, with this multiplicity of communications necessary to allow them to be published, become completely impossible." The Council of the RGS asked the chairman to intercede for "the right to print all publications of the Society without communication with the censorship department" and to receive books from abroad without prior permission from the censorship. Konstantin Nikolaevich imposed the following resolution on this note: "I do not find any opportunity to apply for the two advantages outlined here, but I think it would be useful to inform the Minister of Education for information about the incongruous actions of the censors. Konstantin" ^{[40, p. 54]}. The further fate of the note is unknown. There were no significant changes in the procedure for publishing scientific works of the Russian Geographical Society until 1865, when the "Temporary Rules on Censorship and the Press" were approved. This document marked the transition to a new stage of censorship of scientific publications. "All publications of academies, universities and scientific societies and institutions" were exempted from preliminary consideration ^{[40, pp. 359-371]}.

A retrospective review of the practices of censorship of statistical research illustrates the long evolution of the relationship between government and statistical science in this area. The tacit ban on the publication of any statistical information, which existed in the middle of the XVIII century, was replaced by the liberalization of censorship legislation at the beginning of Alexander's reign. The publication of previously closed statistical data from ministerial reports, combined with the inclusion of statistics in the research programs of the Academy of Sciences and Universities, stimulated interest in government studies and a sharp increase in the number of publications. With the formation of statistics-state studies as a political science, the attention of the state to the content of such works became more and more intense. At the same time, the requirements imposed by the censorship authorities for statistical work were determined by the peculiarities of internal policy and regulated by the general censorship legislation. As conservative tendencies grew, the government increasingly suppressed free interpretations of statistical data. The formation of the institution of departmental censorship in the mid-1820s gave rise to the problem of the plurality of censorship authorities, which became a serious barrier to the development of state studies. A broad interpretation of the norms of censorship statutes made it possible for interested ministries to delay the publication of statistical works for a long time, or not to allow them to be printed at all under the pretext of inaccuracy or secrecy of the data provided by the author. The subsequent easing of censorship restrictions during the Great Reforms made it possible to realize the potential of statistical research at both departmental and zemstvo levels.