Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:32:11.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Russian Political Masonry and the February Revolution of 1917

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Barbara T. Norton
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Few problems in modern Russian history are more complex or more bewildering than that of political Masonry (politicheskoe masonstvo) and its contribution to early-twentieth-century oppositional politics. A decade and a half ago Nathan Smith observed that “Available firsthand evidence about the [political Masonic] movement […] is incredibly limited and raises as many questions as it answers.” That observation is still valid as the origins, structure, composition and activities of the conspiratorial political Masonic organization remain among the best-kept secrets of Russia's past. Indeed, political Masonry was first mentioned in the historiography on the February Revolution only in the early 1930's. Then, for nearly three decades, scholars simply ignored the problem altogether. This was partially due to a paucity of sources; but equally important was the fact that the subject conjured up images of that pernicious Jewish-Masonicconspiracy theory so popular among right-wing émigré circles. During the 1960's historians once again turned their attention to political Masonry, although infrequently and usually only in passing. Since that time a number of treatments have appeared, yet none takes account of all the available evidence. Moreover, many historians continue to reject out of hand all efforts to deal with political Masonry, dismissing them as attempts to perpetuate the Jewish-Masonic-conspiracy myth, while other scholars reject the suggestion that the political Masonic organization played a crucial role in the overthrow of the Russian Monarchy and the establishment of the Provisional Government in 1917.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , August 1983 , pp. 240 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1983

References

1 On the distinction between political Masonry and Freemasonry see below, pp. 245f.

2 Smith, N., “The Role of Russian Freemasonry in the February Revolution: Another Scrap of Evidence”, in: Slavic Review, XXVII (1968), p. 604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 The émigré socialist historian S. P. Mel'gunov was the first to raise the issue in a series of articles in the newspaper Za Svobodu (New York), in 1930. These articles subsequently appeared in book form as Na putiakh k dvortsovomu perevorotu (Paris, 1931), see especially pp. 9, 180–98.

4 On the origin of the Jewish-Masonic-conspiracy theory see Katz, J., Jews, and Freemasons, in Europe, 1723–1939 (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), pp. 148–49, 152, 164, 170.Google Scholar

5 The resurgence of scholarly interest in the subject was spurred largely by the appearance in 1959, in Novoe Russkoe Slovo (New York), of several articles by the émigré Menshevik G. Ia. Aronson. These articles were subsequently published, with supplements, in his Rossiia nakanune revoliutsii: Istoricheskie etiudy (New York, 1962), pp. 109–143.Google Scholar The historiography on political Masonry from the 1960's includes Utechin, S. V., Russian Political Thought: A Concise History (London, 1964), pp. 110–11, 195, 207;Google Scholar Haimson, L., “The Problem of Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905–1917”, in: Slavic Review, XXIV (1965), pp. 13–17;Google Scholar Katkov, G., Russia, 1917: The February Revolution (New York, 1967), pp. 163–73, 378–79, 380. 382, 383;Google Scholar Laqueur, W., The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History (New York, 1967), pp. 39–40;Google Scholar Ferro, M., La Rèvolution de 1917: La chute du tsarisme et les origines dčOctobre (2 vols; Paris, 1967), I, p. 236:Google Scholar Schapiro, L., “The Political Thought of the First Provisional Government”, in: Revolutionary Russian, ed. by Pipes, R. (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), p. 100; Smith, “The Role of Russian Freemasonry”, loc. cit.Google Scholar

6 See Kobylin, V.. Imperator Nikolai II i General-adiutant M. V. Alekseev (New York, 1970), pp. 248–51;Google Scholar Hosking, G. B., The Russian Constitutional Experiment: Government and Duma. 1907–914M (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 196–97:Google Scholar Iakovlev, N. N., I avgusta 1914 (Moscow, 1974), pp.4–18. 154–85 passim, 218–22, 226, 229–35;Google Scholar Rosenberg, W. G., Liberals in the Russian Revolution: The Constitutional Democratic Party, 1917–1921 (Princeton, 1974). pp. 33,Google Scholar note, 58, 78: Chermenskii, E. D., IV Gosudarstvennaia duma i sverzhenie tsarizma v Rossii (Moscow, 1976). pp. 8–9;Google Scholar Pearson, R., The Russian Moderates and the Crisis of Tsarism, 1914–1917 (New York, 1977), pp. 128–29, 172;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Livchak, B. F., “O politicheskoi roli masonov vo vtoroi russkoi revoliutsii”, in: Mezhvuzovskii Sbornik Nauchnykh Trudov (Sverdlovsk), LVI (1977), pp. 135–41;Google Scholar Kasvinov, M. K., Dvadtsat' tri stupeni vniz (Moscow, 1978), pp. 303–05:Google Scholar Startsev, V. I., Revoliutsiia i vlast': Petrogradskii sovet i vremennoe pravitel'stvo v marte-aprele 1917 g. (Moscow, 1978), pp. 205–07:Google Scholar Katkov, G., Russia 1917: The Kornilov Affair: Kerensky and the Break-up of the Russian Army (London, 1980), pp. 57–59;Google Scholar Mints, I. I., “Metamorfozy masonskoi legendy”, in: Istoriia SSSR, 1980, No 4, pp. 107–22;Google Scholar Hasegawa, T., The February Revolution: Petrograd, 1917 (Seattle, 1981), pp. 137, 192–97, 508, 527–29, 547, 556–57;Google Scholar Smith, N., “Masonic Movement in Russia after 1905”, in: The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, XXI (1981), pp. 128–33;Google Scholar Startsev, V. I., Krakh kerenshchiny (Leningrad, 1982), pp. 35, 53, 55–56.Google Scholar

7 For example, see Orlovsky's, D. T. review of Startsev, Revoliutsiia i vlast', op. cit., in Kritika, XVI (1980), pp. 124–25.Google Scholar

8 This is as true of Western as of Soviet historians. See, for example, Hasegawa, , The February Revolution, op. cit., pp. 193–96;Google Scholar Mints, , “Metamorfozy masonskoi legendy”, bc. cit., p. 121.Google Scholar

9 Upon entering the organization, members were sworn to secrecy; and, according to one prominent Mason, “it was forbidden by the statutes to write down anything, to have documents”. Kuskova, E. D. to Dan, L. O., 11 14, 1958, Dan Archive XVI/14, lnternationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis.Google Scholar

10 See Kerensky, A., Russia and History's Turning Point (New York, 1965). p. 89.Google Scholar That the organization remained undetected was no mean feat, for the police made numerous efforts in the years before 1917 to uncover any kind of Masonic connections among Russia's oppositional groups. On these efforts see Padenie tsarskogo rezhima (7 vols; Moscow, Leningrad, 1924–1927), III. pp. 332–34: Mel'gunov, S. P., Vospominaniia i dnevniki (2 vols; Paris, 1964), I, pp. 144–45;Google Scholar id., Na putiakh k dvortsovomu perevorotu, op. cit., 182; Istochnikovedenie istorii SSSR XIX — nachala XX v., ed. by Fedosov, I. A. et al. (Moscow, 1970), pp. 226–27.Google Scholar

11 On several occasions Kuskova reiterated that the main reason for the Masons' continued silence was the desire to protect former colleagues still in the Soviet Union. Kuskova to N. V. Vol'skii, November 10, 1955, Volsky Collection 5, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; id. to Dan, February 6 and 14, 1956, Dan Archive XV/12.

12 These materials, part of the Nicolaevsky Collection, Hoover Institution, are not generally accessible to scholars. However, a summary of some of the evidence in them is provided in Haimson, , “The Problem of Social Stability”, loc. cit.. pp. 13–14. References to the interviews are also found in Nikolaevskii's letters to Vol'skii from the 1960's in the Volsky Collection 6.Google Scholar

13 Kuskova's letters to L. O. Dan, widow of the Menshevik leader F. I. Dan, are preserved in the Dan Archive XII-XVII; those to VoI'skii and R. A. Abramovich are in the Volsky Collection 5 and in the Nicolaevsky Collection, respectively. A letter to Mel'gunov is reproduced in id., Na putiakh k dvortsovomu perevorotu. pp. 171–72. Two Kuskova's letters to Dan (from Janurary 20 and February 12, 1957) and one to Vol'skii (from November 10), 1955 are published in Aronson, , Rossiia nakanune revoliutsii, op. cit., pp. 138–40. However, since the texts of the three letters have been altered slightly (and the letter to Vol'skii is erroneously dated November 15), all references to Kuskova's letters to Dan and Vol'skii are to the originals.Google Scholar

14 An extract from Obolenskii's unpublished memoirs, “Moia zhizn' i moi sovremenniki”, is quoted in Smith, , “The Role of Russian Freemasonry”, pp. 606–08.Google Scholar Nekrasov's unpublished recollections are quoted in Iakovlev, I avgusta 1914, op. cit., pp. 230–32, and a brief statement by Velikhov (could it be Velikhov, P. A.) is quoted on p. 234. While Iakovlev does not identify the specific sources utilized, there seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the testimony quoted.Google Scholar

15 Kerensky, , Russia, op. cit., pp. 87–90, 151. The details of Kerenskii's oral recollections were repeated to me by Utechin, Professor of History at the Pennsylvania State University, during numerous conversations between 1970 and 1982.Google Scholar

16 Nabokov, V. D., “Vremennoe pravitel'stvo”, in: Arkhiv Russkoi Revoliutsii,I (1921), p. 15 (written in 1918);Google Scholar Mel'gunov, , Vospominaniia i dnevniki, op. cit., I, pp. 142–46 (written in 1920);Google Scholar Bonch-Bruevich, V. D., “Moi vospominaniia o P. A. Kropotkine”, in: Zvezda, 1930. No 4. pp. 182–83;Google Scholar Gessen, I. V., “V dvukh vekakh: Zhiznennyi otchet”, in:Arkhiv Russkoi Revoliutsii, XXII (1937), pp.216–18,366;Google Scholar Miliukov, P. N., Vospominaniia (1859–1917) (2 vols; New York, 1955), II, pp. 311–12, 332–33 (written during 1940–1943).Google Scholar It should be noted that the references to political Masonry in Berberova's, Nina The Italics Are Mine (New York, 1969), pp. 31115, are based on second-hand information and either inaccurrate or irrelevant.Google Scholar

17 Utechin is alone in suggesting that a political Masonic organization had existed earlier, Russian Political Thought, op. cit., p. 110.

18 Kuskova, to Dan, 1114, 1958.Google Scholar

19 Personal communication to the author from Utechin, who reports that in 1958 Kuskova wrote to Kerenskii that if he wished to know the names of the founders of the political Masonic organization he should consult the list of founders of the Union of Liberation in Fischer's, G. Russian Liberalism: From Gentry to Intelligentsia (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), pp. 140–41. In her letter, which Utechin read, Kuskova asserted that she had given Fischer the list without telling him that the Liberationists were also political Masons. However, Fischer states that his list came from I. I. Petrunkevich's memoirs. I have not been able to clarify this matter.Google Scholar

20 Obolenskii. quoted loc. cit., p. 606; Kerensky, , Russia, pp. 87–88. Since Kerenskii joined the organization only in 1912, what he knew of its origins he learned from Kuskova. Personal communication from Utechin to the author.Google Scholar

21 Kuskova, to Vol'skii, 11 10, 1955;Google Scholar id. to Abramovich, 12 2, 1952. Nicolaevsky Collection, uncatalogued.Google Scholar

22 Personal communication from Utechin.

23 Kuskova, to Vol'skii, 11 10, 1955; personal communication to the author from Utechin recalling Kerenskii's observations about the organization's aims.Google Scholar

24 Kuskova, to Dan, 02 5, 1957, Dan Archive XVI/ 13. The term “society” was used at the time to distinguish the educated, cultured element of the populace from the masses, “the people” (narod).Google Scholar

25 Kerensky, , Russia, p. 89.Google Scholar

26 ibid., p. 88. And in one of her letters, Kuskova expresses her regret that it had been necessary to lead a “double existence”, but insists that “anything else was impossible”. To Dan, , 02 5. 1957.Google Scholar

27 See Elkin, B., “Attempts to Revive Freemasonry in Russia”, in: Slavonic and East European Review, XLIV (1966), pp.454–72.Google Scholar

28 Vol'skii, N. V. to Nikolaevskii, B. I., 03 8, 1960,Google Scholar Nicolaevsky Collection, uncatalogued; Nikolaevskii, to Vol'skii, 03 4 and 04 3, 1960.Google Scholar

29 Gessen, , “V dvukh vekakh”, loc. cit., pp. 216–17;Google Scholar Elkin, , “Attempts”, loc. cit., p.467.Google Scholar It may be noted also that at least some people at the time thought that Struve, too, had Freemasonic connections. Bonch-Bruevich, , “Moi vospominaniia”, loc. cit., p. 183.Google Scholar

30 Kuskova, to Vol'skii, 11 10, 1955.Google Scholar

31 Smith, , “The Role of Russian Freemasonry”, p. 605;Google Scholar Kerensky, , Russia, pp. 87–88.Google Scholar

32 Nekrasov, , quoted in Iakovlev, l avgusta 1914, p. 230.Google Scholar

33 Membership lists are provided in Elkin, , “Attempts”, p. 468.Google Scholar

34 Such seems to be Elkin's conclusion, but he provides no evidence to support his contention that in 1906–08 “There were […] secret political associations which called themselves masonic but apart from an oath had nothing in common with [Free]masonry.” ibid., p. 472.

35 Quoted loc. cit. Chkheidze and Gal'pern. or perhaps Nikolaevskii, referred to the new organization as the Supreme Council of the Peoples of Russia (Velikii sovet narodov Rossii), Haimson, , “The Problem of Social Stability”, p. 14. However, this is most likely a conflation of the names of the organization and its executive organ, see below.Google Scholar

36 Nekrasov, , quoted bc. cit.; Kuskova to Vol'skii, 11 10, 1955. Mel'gunov, Na putiakh k dvortsovomy perevorotu. pp. 182–83, thinks that Bebutov's exposure as a police informer was probably responsible for the decision to dissolve the old organization. He erroneously refers to Polar Star as Northern Star (Severnaia zvezda).Google Scholar

37 Kerensky, , Russia, p. 88. A very similar description of the organization is provided in Kuskova to Vol'skii, November 10, 1955.Google Scholar

38 Nekrasov, quoted loc. cit.. states that the statutes were published “in cypher (zashifrovan)” in a work entitled ltal'ianskie ugol'shchiki 18 stoletiia, published by the St Petersburg firm of Semenov. In fact, the work is E. Sidorenko's Ital'ianskie ugol'shchiki nachala XIX veka (St Petersburg, 1913), which contains selections from the statutes of the Grand Orient de France.

39 Kuskova to Vol'skii, November 10, 1955: Nekrasov, quoted bc. cit. Paragraph 12 of the statutes of the Grand Orient specifies a lodge membership of seven to fourteen, Sidorenko, ltal'ianskie ugol'shchiki, op. cit.. p. 131. Regarding the nature of the lodges, see also Kerensky, , Russia, p. 89.Google Scholar

40 Kerensky, loc. cit. Also see Obolenskii's testimony, quoted loc. cit. Haimson's information that only three conventions were held before the 1917 revolutions – in 1912, 1914 and 1916–is puzzling. “The Problem of Social Stability”, p. 14.

41 Nekrasov, quoted loc. cit.; Obolenskii, quoted loc. cit.

42 Such, at least, is the procedure specified in Paragraphs 28–30 of the statutes of the Grand Orient de France, Sidorenko, ltal'ianskie ugol'shchiki, pp. 136–37.

43 Kerensky, loc. cit.

44 Kuskova to Vob'skii, November 10. 1955; Kerensky, loc. cit.

45 Nekrasov, quoted loc. cit.

46 Obolenskii. quoted bc. cit., p. 607: Kuskova to Vol'skii, November 10, 1955.

47 From the testimony of Chkheidze and Gal'pern in Haimson. “The Problem of Social Stability”, p. 14. See also Kuskova to Dan. February 5, 1957.

48 Kuskova to Vol'skii, November 10. 1955. See also id. to Dan, March 29, 1954. Dan Archive XIV/ 10.

49 Quoted loc. cit.. pp. 230–3 l.

50 The following list is compiled from the testimony in Haimson, , “The Problem of Social Stability”, p. 14:Google Scholar lakovlev, I avgusta 1914, pp. 231, 234; Obolenskii, , quoted bc. cit., p. 606: Kuskova to Dan, February 12 and June 6, 1957, Dan Archive XVI/13, November 14, 1958; id. to Vob'skii. November 10, 1955, February 26, 1956: Nikolaevskii to Vol'skii, April 3, 1960. In addition the names of V. Ia. Bogucharskii, L. M. Bramson. S. A. Kotliarevskii, P. 1. Pal'chinskii and I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov were supplied by Utechin from his conversations with Kerenskii. Personal communication to the author.Google Scholar

51 There appear to have been only a few Bolsheviks associated with political Masonry. Obolenskii, quoted loc. cit.. p. 607, says that he knew of only one minor party figure who belonged to the Masonic organization. Kuskova says there were two or three, to Vol'skii, November 10, 1955; to Dan, March 29, 1954.

52 See Obolenskii's discussion of the matter, loc. cit.

53 Kuskova to Vol'skii, November 10, 1955.

54 Nekrasov, quoted loc. cit.

55 Kuskova to Dan, February 12, 1957.

56 Police agent's report of February 1, 1914, cited in Chermenskii, IV Gosudarstvennaia duma, op. cit., pp. 54–55: circular from the Director of the Department of Police, May 13, 1914, reproduced in Menitskii, I. A., Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie voennykh godov, 1914–1917 (2 vols; Moscow, 1924–1925), I, pp. 408–09.Google Scholar See also Haimson, , “The Problem of Social Stability”, pp. 4–8, 14. The fact that the Progressist P. P. Riabushinskii and the Menshevik A. M. Nikitin were also members of the Committee would suggest that they, too, were Masons. See Chermenskii, loc. cit., where it is also stated that the Progressist N. Morozov was a member of the Committee (although it may be Savva Morozov who is meant). The police, it should be pointed out, had no suspicions that the Committee had any links with political Masonry.Google Scholar

57 See Sverchkov, D. F., Kerenskii, 2nd ed. (Leningrad, 1927), p. 10; Kuskova to Dan, March 29, 1954.Google Scholar

58 Kerensky, , Russia, p. 90.Google Scholar

59 Quoted loc. cit.

60 On the efforts of Kerenskii and others in Moscow, see report of the Moscow Okhrana Chief, May 16, 1915, reproduced in Menitskii, Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie, op. cit., I, p. 415; Sverchkov, , Kerenskii, , op. cit., p. 10. Among those joining Kerenskii in the Moscow effort was Prince Shakhovskoi, one of those named by Kuskova as a founder of political Masonry. This and other indirect evidence (see below) leaves little doubt that Shakhovskoi was an active member of Masonry of the Peoples of Russia.Google Scholar

61 Kerenskii told Utechin that political Masonry had provided the inspiration for the creation of the Progressive Bloc. Personal communication to the author from Utechin.

62 Report of the Moscow Okhrana Chief, August 24, 1915, reproduced in Menitskii, Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie, I, p. 427. It should be noted that in reporting on the activities of Kuskova, Prokopovich and others in Moscow the police remained unaware of the critical Masonic connection.

63 Quoted in Iakovlev, 1 avgusta 1914, p. 234. My emphasis.

64M “Disposition No 1”, in: Arkhiv, Krasnyi, XXVI (1928), pp. 212–13.Google Scholar Regarding the provenance of this document, see Katkov, , Russia 1917: The February Revolution, op. cit., pp. 165–66. While it is likely that L'vov, too, was a Mason, there is no direct evidence this in the available sources.Google Scholar

65 One variant of Kuskova's list is found in her letter to Mel'gunov, cf. note 13. The other in Miliukov, Vospominaniia, op. cit., II, pp. 273–74, and is apparently also taken from a letter. That this meeting, called by Prince Shakhovskoi, was Masonic-inspired is clear from Kuskova to Dan, February 21, 1956, Dan Archive XV/12.

66 Kuskova, E. D., “Vnutrennii krizis”, in: Novoe Russkoe Slovo, 11, 4, 1953. The lists compiled by other groups and the final composition of the Provisional Government can be found in Hasegawa, The February Revolution, p. 23.Google Scholar

67 Miliukov, , Vospominaniia, II, pp. 311–12.Google Scholar A subsequent passage leaves no doubt that Miliukov was referring to a Masonic list, ibid., p. 333. Miliukov maintains that he learned about the existence of the political Masonic organization, which he does not mention by name, only long after the events he is describing. However, Kuskova insists that because his political importance the Kadet leader was kept informed of the organization's major decisions and even occasionly availed himself of its services. To Vol'skii, November 10, 1955; to Dan, , 02 14, 1956. This is consistent with Obolenskii's claim, loc. cit., that Miliukov “not only did not participate in the Russian masonic movement but had a negative attitude toward it.” For Miliukov may have disapproved of political Masonry and still have utilized the organization when it was politically useful to do so.Google Scholar

68 See “lz vospominanii A. I. Guchkova”, in: Poslednie Novosti (Paris), August and September 1936. It should be noted that nowhere does Guchkov allude to the existence of political Masonic organization.

69 Kuskova to Vol'skii, November 10, 1955; Kerensky, , Russia, p. 151.Google Scholar

70 Kerensky, loc. cit.; id., La Révolution russe 1917 (Paris, 1928), p. 109.

71 Stankevich, V. B., Vospominaniia 1914–1919 g. (Berlin. 1920). P. 65. Cf. Obolenskii's statement, cited above, p. 251, about the majority of Masons being opposed to revolution during wartime.Google Scholar

72 Quoted loc. cit.

73 Kerensky, , Russia, p. 88.Google Scholar

74 Quoted loc. cit., p. 231.

75 Kuskova, to Dan, , 02 5, 1957.Google Scholar

76 Nekrasov, quoted loc. cit. It is interesting to note that in February 1917 it was Manikovskii whom Nekrasov put forward as the man best suited to head a military dictatorship in Russia. Minutes of the February 27 Duma meeting, reproduced in The Russian Provisional Government, 1917: Documents, ed. by Browder, R. P. and Kerensky, A. F. (3 vols; Stanford, 1961), I, p. 45.Google Scholar

77 On Alekseev's political connections with Konovalov and Guchkov, see the testimony journalist M. K. Lemke which is summarized in Katkov, Russia 1917: The February Revolution, p. 40. After the February Revolution General Alekseev became Supreme Commander of the Provisional Government's forces. Following Guchkov's resignation as Minister of War in May, the General suggested that either Kerenskii or Pal'chinskii, an engineer and like Kerenskii not a military man, should assume the vacated post. Kerensky, , Russia, p. 266, note. While there is no direct evidence, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Alekseev was probably a Mason.Google Scholar

78 In this connection it is not insignificant that Pal'chinskii, the Mason who served as secretary of the Military Commission formed on 02 27, was among those responsible for preventing the Tsar from returning to the capital and, hence, from obtaining assistance in his plight. For this information I am indebted to Hasegawa, who was able to examine Pal'chinskii's papers and the records of the Military Commission which are preserved in Soviet archives.Google Scholar

79 Quoted loc. cit., p. 232.

80 For Miliukov's testimony, written in the 1940's, see above, p. 253. Nabokov's allusion to the Masons was written in early 1918, cf. note 16.

81 Chkheidze was offered the post of Minister of Labor but turned it down, preferring to remain chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. Miliukov, P. N., Istoriia russkoi revoliutsii (3 vols; Sofia, 1921–1932), I, p. 45.Google Scholar

82 Kerensky, , Russia, p. 89. Kerenskii told Utechin that a good deal of the government's legislation had actually been worked out in advance by the Masons. Personal communication to the author from Utechin.Google Scholar

83 Quoted loc. cit.

84 Kerensky, , Russia, p. 90.Google Scholar

85 Kuskova, to Dan, , 02 12, 1957.Google Scholar

86 Quoted loc. cit., pp. 607–08.

87 Very few historians have even suggested that Masonic connections might have had some significance in the post-February period. See Haimson, , “The Problem of Social Stability”, p. 15;Google Scholar Startsev, Revoliutsiia i vlast', p. 207; Katkov, , Russia 1917:Google Scholar The Kornilov Affair, op. cit., pp. 57–59; Smith, , “Masonic Movement in Russia after 1905”, loc. cit., p. 132.Google Scholar

88 Kuskova, to Dan, , 02 21, 1956.Google Scholar

89 Kuskova, to Dan, , 02 6, 1956, 01 20, 1957, Dan Archive XVI/ 13. Kuskova's papers remain under embargo until 1988 in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Kerenskii's papers, in the Humanities Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin, are now available to scholars, but a preliminary inquiry reveals nothing corresponding to the statement promised by Kuskova.Google Scholar