Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:49:48.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-Censorship and the Russian Intelligentsia, 1905-1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Aileen Kelly
Aileen Kelly*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How long ago was it that, terrified from childhood, we ceased to kill in ourselves the most innocent desires? How long ago did we cease to shudder when finding in our souls passionate impulses unrecorded in the tariff of romanticism?

Aleksandr Herzen, From The Other Shore

In a letter to his friends in Russia in 1850, Aleksandr Herzen complained of the “democratic orthodoxy” that was forming among the exiled revolutionaries of 1848:

They have established their own radical inquisition, their poll tax on ideas: ideas and thoughts which satisfy their demands have the rights of citizenship … the others are … the proletariat of the moral world: they have to be silent or win their place by a head-on attack. Against rebellious ideas there has appeared a democratic censorship, incomparably more dangerous than any other, because it has neither police, nor packed juries … nor prisons, nor fines. When the reactionary censorship takes a book from your hands, the book receives universal respect: they persecute the author, close a printing house, smash the machinery, and the persecuted word acquires the status of a belief. Democratic censorship achieves the moral destruction of its object: its accusations are promulgated not … from a procurator's mouth, but from the distance of exile, the darkness of prisons. A verdict written by a hand which bears the marks of chains leaves a deep impression on the heart, which does not prevent it from being unjust.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , Summer 1987 , pp. 193 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Herzen, Aleksandr I., Pis'ma iz Frantsii i Italii 13, Sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh (Moscow, 1954–1965) 5: 202 Google Scholar.

2. Quoted in Kline, G. L., “Darwinism and the Russian Orthodox Church,” in Continuity and Change in Russian and Soviet Thought, ed. Simmons, E. J. (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), p. 308 Google Scholar.

3. Moser, C. A., Antinihilism in the Russian Novel of the 1860s (London/The Hague, 1964), p. 185 Google Scholar.

4. The term intelligentsia will be used in this article to denote the radical and revolutionarysection of what Martin Malia has called the “classical” intelligentsia, characterized by a belief in “theprimacy of principles … over the intractability of everyday life.” Malia, Martin, “What is the Intelligentsia?” in The Russian Intelligentsia, ed. Pipes, Richard (New York, 1961), pp. 1–18 Google Scholar.

5. Lavrov, P. L., Istoricheskie pis'ma (St. Petersburg, 1906), p. 358 Google Scholar.

6. Quoted in Venturi, Franco, Roots of Revolution. A History of the Populist and Socialist Movements in Nineteenth-Century Russia, trans. Haskell, F. (London, 1960), p. 365 Google Scholar.

7. See Valentinov, N., “Chernyshevskii i Lenin”, Novyi zhurnal 27 (1951): 193—194.Google Scholar

8. Chernyshevskii, N. G. letter to Nekrasov of 5 November 1856, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Moscow, 1949), 14: 320.Google Scholar

9. N. G. Chernyshevskii, PSS 5: 166.

10. Mathewson, R. W. Jr., The Positive Hero in Russian Literature, 2nd. ed. (Stanford, Calif., 1975), p. 80 Google Scholar.

11. Ibid., p. 49.

12. Kravchinskii, S. [Stepniak, S.], Andrei Kozhukhov (Geneva, 1898)Google Scholar.

13. Struve, P. B., Kriticheskie zametki k voprosu ob ekonomicheskom razvitti Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1894), p. 30 Google Scholar.

14. For an analysis of both movements, see my “Attitudes to the Individual in Russian Thoughtand Literature, with Special Reference to the Vekhi Controversy” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford, 1970), chap.3, and my article, “Empiriocriticism: A Bolshevik Philosophy?” Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 22 (janv-mars 1981): 89–118.

15. See P. B. Struve's preface to Berdiaev, Nikolai, Sub “ektivizm i individual: zm v obshchestvennoi filosofii. Kriticheskii etiud o N.K. Mikhailovskom. S predisloviem P.B. Struve (St. Petersburg, 1901), pp. lxiff.Google Scholar

16. Berdiaev, N., “Eticheskaia problema v svete filosofskogo idealizma” in Problemy idealizma. Sbornik statei, ed. Novgorodtsev, P. I. (Moscow, 1903), pp. 130–131 Google Scholar. Lunacharskii, A., Religiia i sotsializm (St. Petersburg, 908), p. 291 Google Scholar.

17. Gershenzon, M. O., “Tvorcheskoe samosoznanie,” Vekhi. Sbornik statei o russkoi intelligentsia N.A. Berdiaeva, S.N. Bulgakova, M.O. Gershenzona, A.S. Izgoeva, B.A. Kistiakovskogo, P.B. Struve, S.L. Franka, 5th ed. (Moscow, 1910), p. 71 Google Scholar.

18. Ibid., pp. 80, 70.

19. Ibid., p. ii.

20. Pipes, Richard, Struve. Liberal on the Right, 1905–1944 (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), p. 114 Google Scholar.

21. On Azef's career, see Nikolaievsky, Borìs, Aseff, the Russian Judas, trans. Reavey, G. (London, 1934)Google Scholar.

22. V. Rozanov, “Mezhdu Azefom i‘Vekhami, '” Novoe vremia, 20 August 1909. See also thearticle by Belyi, Andrei, “Pravda o russkoi intelligentsii. Po povodu sbornika‘Vekhi, '” Vesy 5 (1909): 68.Google Scholar

23. Chernov, V., Pered buret. Vospominaniia (New York, 1953), p. 285 Google Scholar.

24. “Etika i politika. Ocherki,” Zavety, no. 2, part 2 (May 1912): 56–86; no. 3, part 2 (June 1912): 90–120; no. 7, part 2 (October 1912): 77–97. The quotations are from part 1, p. 74; part 3, pp. 92, 96.

25. For a detailed study of Savinkov's novels and the discussion on ethics in the Socialist Revolutionaryparty, see Kelly, “Attitudes to the Individual,” chap. 8.

26. See N. Ropshin [B. Savinkov], “Kon’ blednyi,” Russkaia mysl\no. 1, part 1 (1909)1–77. “To, chego ne bylo (Tri brata),” Zavety (1912): l: 64–82; 2: 33–55; 3: 31–46; 4: 5–43; 5: 5–20; 6: 5–41; 7: 5–47;8: 5–40; (1913) 1: 83–112; 2: 12–33; 4: 11–48.

27. ‘To, chego ne bylo’ (1912) 1: 78; 7: 18.

28. See M. Gor'kii, letters to M. Kotsiubins'kyi of 23 May 1912 and V. Miroliubov of 26 May 1912 in Sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh (Moscow, 1949–1956) 29: 240, 241; and speech of 1934, 27: 313.

29. F. Volkhovskii et al., “V redaktsiiu‘Zavetov, *” Zavety 8, part 2 (1912): 144.

30. Redaktsiia, in ibid., 144–145; V.I. Lenin, letter to Gor'kii of 22 or 23 December 1912, Sochineniia, 4th ed. (Moscow, 1941–1967), p. 41. See also Lenin's letter to Gor'kii of 1 August 1912, in which he claims that Savinkov's works indicate the Socialist Revolutionaries’ “sympathy” with thethought of the Kadets and Signposts, Sochineniia, p. 25.

31. See the portraits of Ivan Kaliaev and Mar'ia Benevskaia in V. V. Zenzinov, Perezhitoe (NewYork, 1953); of Kaliaev, Benevskaia, Sazonov, Dora Brill'iant, and Rashel’ Lur'ie in B. Savinkov, Vospominaniia terrorista (Khar'kov, 1926). See also Chernov's assertion (Pered burei, p. 294) that thedialogues oiKori blednyi reflected, “although in a weak and confused way,” some of the most profoundexperiences of Kaliaev, Sazonov, and other terrorists. Compare this with Savinkov's public assertion, in a response to one of the Signposts authors, that the characters of The Pale Horse were entirelyimaginary, and that the Socialist Revolutionary leadership could not be said to bear any responsibilityfor the events depicted there. V. Ropshin, “Pis'mo v redaktsiiu,” Zavety 1, part 2 (1912): 222.

32. Zenzinov, Perezhitoe, pp. 107–108.

33. This incident is quoted in Chernov, Pered burei, p. 294.

34. Plekhanov, G. B., “O torn, chto est’ v romane‘To, chego ne by loc” Sovremennyi mir 2 (1913)2: 91.Google Scholar

35. See ibid., and the articles by Kranikhfel'd, V., “Stavka na sil'nykh,” “Literaturnye otkliki” and “Otvet G.V. Plekhanovu,” Sovremennyi mir (1909) 5: 78–84; (1912) 10: 323–325; (1913) 2: 99–104.Google Scholar

36. See for example, S. Adrianov, “Kriticheskie nabroski,” Vestnik Evropy, March 1909, pp.343–354; E. Koltonovskaia, “Samotsennost’ zhizni (evoliutsiia v intelligentskoi psikhologii)” Obrazovanie (May 1909) 2: 91; and “Byt’ ili ne byt'? O romane Ropshina‘To, chego ne bylo',” Russkaia mysl’ 6, part 2 (1913): 29–40.

37. Merezhkovskii, D. S., “Kon’ blednyi,” Boi'naia Rossiia. Sbornik statei (St. Petersburg, 1910), pp. 15–38.Google Scholar

38. See Kachorovskii, K., “Narodnichestvo kak sotsiologicheskoe napravlenie,” Zavety 3, part 2 (1913): 71–72 Google Scholar; 4, part 2: 72–89; 5, part 2: 1–44.

39. Adrianov, “Kriticheskie nabroski,” p. 354.

40. Maksim Gor'kii, letter to Andreev of 17 February through 1 March 1908, Gor'kii i Leonid Andreev. Neizdannaia perepiska. Literaturnoe nasledslvo (Moscow, 1965) 72: 305; L'vov-Rogachevskii, V., Leonid Andreev. Kriticheskii ocherk s prilozheniem khronologicheskoi kanvy i bibliograficheskogo ukazatelia (Moscow, 1923)Google Scholar; Ivanov-Razumnik, R., O smysle zhizni. F. Sologub, L. Andreev, L. Shestov, 2nd. ed. (Moscow, 1910), pp. 159–160.Google Scholar

41. See especially Rasskaz o semi poveshennykh, Iuda Iskariot, and T'ma.

42. Sashka Zhegulev, Literaturno-khudozhestvennye al'manakhi izdatel'stva‘Shipovnik', book 16 (St. Petersburg, 1911), pp. 11–201.

43. See L'vov-Rogachevskii's description of him as “a man deeply involved in the thought andmoods of his time, who recorded and diagnosed the successive stages of the progressive social movementwith a rare conscientiousness and objectivity.” L'vov-Rogachevskii, V., “V.V. Veresaev,” inRusskaia literatura dvadtsatogo veka 1890–1910, ed. Vengerov, S. A., (Moscow, 1914–1916) 1: 145–172 Google Scholar.See also Koltonovskaia, E., “V.V. Veresaev,” in Novyi entsiklopedicheskii slovar', ed. Brokgauz, F. and Efron, I., 29 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1911–1916) 10: 210 Google Scholar. See also the Marxist critic Kranikhfel'd's descriptionof his third novel K zhizni as “a true and thoughtful … chronicle of the moods of the intelligentsia of our day,” “Literaturnye otkliki. Stavka na sil'nykh,” Sovremennyi mir 5, part 2 (1909): 84.

44. See V. V. Veresaev [V. V. Smidovich], Bez dorogi (1895); Napovorote (1901); K zhizni (1908).

45. See Veresaev's personal vision expounded in his study of Dostoevskii and Tolstoi, Zhivaia zhizri, 1: O Dostoevskom i L've Tolstom (Moscow, 1911).

46. See for example the novels by R. Grigor'ev, Na ushcherbe (1913); A. Derental', V temnuiu noch’ in Russkoe bogatstvo (1907), nos. 9, 10, 11; O. Mirtov [O. Kotyleva], Mertvaia zyb’ in Russkaia m (1909), nos. 8–12; the short stories of N. F. Oliger (1882–1919); I. Sugurchev, Sosedka in Vestnik Evropy, January 1909; Artsybashev, Rabochii Shevyrev, Zemlia, Sbornik vtoroi (Moscow, 1909), pp. 249–360.

47. E. Koltonovskaia, “Pisatel'-intelligent (V. Veresaev, Sochineniia, tt. I-V),” Russkaia mysl’ 6, part2 (1910): 62.

48. “Zametki o meshchanstve,” Stat'i 1905–16, 2nd. ed. (St. Petersburg, 1918), p. 5. See also “Dve dushi” and “Izdaleka, '* pp. 98–149, 174–187.

49. “Izdaleka,” pp. 130, 114.

50. “O sovremennosti,” p. 93.

51. See especially the essays “O sovremennosti” and “O durakakh i prochem” pp. 76–97, 196–207.

52. “O sovremennosti,” p. 85.

53. “O durakakh i prochem,” p. 207.

54. Mathewson, The Positive Hero, p. 45.

55. “Izdaleka,” p. 137.

56. Ibid.

57. Iu. Martov, ‘Religiia i marksizm', Na rubezhe. (K kharakteristike sovremennykh iskanii). Kriticheskii sbornik (St. Petersburg, 1909), p. 35.

58. “Izdaleka,” p. 142.

59. “O karamazovshchine,” p. 152; “Izdaleka,” p. 132; “O tsinizme,” pp. 61–75; “Izdaleka,” p. 114; “Dve dushi,” p. 187.

60. “Izdaleka,” pp. 134, 113.

61. “O karamazovshchine” [Letter to Russkoe slovo of 22 September 1913], pp. 150–154.

62. “Eshche o karamazovshchine,” pp. 155–159.

63. See Belorussov, “O formakh obshchestvennoi bor'by,” Russkie vedomosti, 19 November 1913.

64. M. Krinitskii, “Besy o‘Besakh, '” Utro Rossii, 10 November 1913.

65. See Belorussov, “O formakh “; A. Vitimskii, “Pokhod protiv M. Gor'kogo,” Za pravdu, 4 October 1913; L. P., “K pokhodu protiv Gor'kogo,” Za pravdu, 30 October 1913; and Za pravdu, 30October and 13 November 1913.

66. Russkie vedomosti, 3 November 1913. See also D. Tal'nikov's article in the Marxist Sovremennyi mir, no. 11 (1913): 202–214, expressing unqualified approval of Gor'kii's protest and the principleof social censorship.

67. I. Ignatov, “Besy i g. Gor'kii,” Russkie vedomosti, 27 September 1913.

68. Moskovskii khudozhestvennyi teatr, “Otkrytoe pis'mo M. Gor'komu,” Utro Rossii, 26September 1913; see also Chuzhoi, “Maksim Gor'kii i khudozhestvennyi teatr,” Rech', 27 September1913.

69. See the typical comments by A. Koiranskii, “Doloi Dostoevskogo,” Utro Rossii, 25 September 1913.

70. Belorussov, “O formakh. “

71. “Pis'mo v redaktsiiu,” Russkoe slovo, 29 September 1913.

72. “'O vypadke g. Gor'kogo protiv Dostoevskogo.’ Mneniia,” Birzhevye vedomosti, 8 October 1913; see also F. Sologub, in Den', 1 October 1913.

73. In a response to this criticism, Gor'kii denied that he wanted Dostoevskii's novels to besuppressed. A stage production, by acting on the “dark area of the emotions,” stunted the spectator's critical faculties; whereas the attentive reader “can correct the thoughts of [Dostoevskii's] heroes, whereby they gain significantly in beauty, depth and humanity.” “Eshche o karamazovshchine,” p. 158.See A. Aduev, “Gor'kii protiv Dostoevskogo,” Rul', 30 September 1913; A. Koiranskii, “DoloiDostoevskogo “; M. Artsybashev, I. Potapenko and F. Batiushkov in Birzhevye vedomosti, 8 Octoberand 25 September 1913; and D. Filosofov, Pis'mo.

74. See A. I. Kuprin, and I. I. Iasinskii in Birzhevye vedomosti, 8 October 1913; M. Artsybashev, Vechemie izvestiia, 24 and 25 September 1913.

75. A. Benua, “Dnevnik khudozhnika,” Rech', 30 September 1913.

76. A. Koiranskii, “Doloi “; see also A. G. Gornfel'd in Den', 1 October 1913, and F. Sologub inBirzhevye vedomosti, 8 October 1913.

77. “Leonid Andreev contra M. Gor'kogo,” Utro, 26 September 1913.

78. “Otkrytoe pis'mo. “

79. la. Abramovich and M. Krinitskii in Utro Rossii, 10 November 1913. The teachers’ debatewas reported by Sergei Glagol, “Disputy o‘Besakh, '” Stolichnaia molva, 11 November 1913

80. Artsybashev, Vechernie izvestiia, 25 September 1913. The Moscow Art Theater defendeditself in “Khudozhestvennyi teatr i Gor'kii,” Rul', 23 September 1913, and “Otkrytoe pis'mo. “

81. See Mathewson, The Positive Hero, p. 174.

82. See “L. Andreev contra Gor'kogo. “

83. Artsybashev, Vechernie izvestiia, 24 September 1913; Filosofov, “Pis'mo v redaktsiiu. “

84. Filosofov made this comparison, as did Artsybashev, Vechernie izvestiia, 24 and 25 September1913.

85. See Tal'nikov's, D. survey of the debate, “Estetika i obshchestvennost'. O sovremennoi literature,” Sovremennyi mir, no. 2 (1914): 112–138 Google Scholar. Admitting that “most of those who wrote about Gor'kiiand The Possessed were not on Gor'kii's side,” he is particularly disturbed by the opposition toGor'kii of such radical intellectuals as Ivanov-Razumnik and concludes that such responses showthat the intelligentsia “has not yet recovered from the period of reaction. “

86. A fact noted with satisfaction by Gor'kii's supporters. See ibid., p. 136: “in all public lecturesand debates the majority were for Gor'kii and against Dostoevskii. “