pioneer soft her us 000165 mbp

8/13/2019 Pioneer Soft Her Us 000165 Mbp

1/347


2/347

R22BappoporfcPioneers of the RussianRevolution

Kansas city public librarykansas city, missouri

Books will be issued onlyon presentation of library card.Please report lost cards and

change of residence promptly.Card holders are responsible for

all books, records, films, picturesor other library materials

checked out on their cards.


3/347

KANSAS CITY, MO PUBLIC LIBRARY

a oooi Qsmaai 7MAI 051989


4/347


5/347


6/347

EXXLBS.


7/347

PIONEERS OF THERUSSIAN REVOLUTION

BYDR. ANGELO S. RAPPOPORT

NEW YORKBRENTANO S1919


8/347

PJUOTED IN GRBAT BJUTAIN


9/347

PREFACEPAH C:L:STIN DKMBL.ON,

DSputS de Li&ge, Professetw aux University deSruxelles et JtennesIt is the hour for souls ELIZABETH BBOWHiisra (" Aurora Leigh")-

QUANB mon ami le Dr. Angelo S. Rappoportvoulait bien me demander xine preface pour ThePioneers of the Russian Revolution, j en .fus nonmoins surpris qu heureux. Surpris de devoirapporter de Fcau d. la riviere : qu ajouterait maprose 4 la nouvelle oeuvre et & la renomm^e dVn6crivain depuis longtemps d6j& COB.BU par deslivres nombre ucx:,MaiS je fus heureux, en lisant son manuserlt^ depouvoir conamunier une fols de plus dans ee mondeenehant6 de 1 histoirc socialistc qui fut ? avcc leslettres et los arts, le ravi&sement de m,a vie. Toutexna jeunesse et ses ardentes illusions sent revenuesra*envelopper ? plus d^lieieuses que jamaiSj, commeun transport magique Comment remercier leDr* Angelo S, Happoport de na^avoir 4 ce pointrendu ee que Baudelaire appelle * 6 les heures devisitation " ? Mais si son livre m a replong6 dansune fontaine de Jouvenee, ce n est pas un L^th6qui me laisse que la m6moire du plaisir : serait-


10/347

vi PREFACEil juste et souhaitable cPailleurs qu on oubliat^d indicibles souffrances pour n en garder que lefruit ? La foi de toute ma vie m est r^apparue,ravivee & travers la double vision horrible desmaux qu a soufferts la grande Russie de NicolasTourgeniev, de Dostoievski, d Alexandre Herzen,de Lavrov, de Michel Bakounine, de Tscherny-shevski, de Mikhailov, de Tolstoi et de taut d autres

et & travers la d6sesp6rante trag^die que le mondetraverse & cette heure,D6sesp6rant si Ton ne voyait qu elle, Lespreuves subies par les r^volutionnaires russes ont

parfois t6 horribles, je r^p^te le mot ; mais ellesn incitaient pas au d^couragement loin de 14 1Un penseur a dit que Phistoire interdit de d&se-sp6rer ; et ce fut toujours le sentiment de Fatiteurde ces lignes* Qu on lui permette de rappelerqu iLn a p^s reculd non plus devant la persecution :proscrit de longues ann6es dans sa propre patrie,pour le crime de Favoir r^v^e plus heureuse et plusbelle, et mieux ch6rie dans le mirage de FuniverseUesolidarit6 ? il fut en outre peu aim6 de ce chefmme par maints tard venus d, fausses convictionsravageant sans vergogne la moisson qui avait sidurement Mt lever pour tous I II n en purleraitm&me pas? &*il ne s agissait que de lui, Gioire itcertaines dupes I . , , L apostolat et la philosophicv&itables requir^rent d?imperturbables indulgencesFon. sait dans quels cas le silence est grand,puisque chacun agit en somme par de loiatainesprocurations, . , , Sans doute^ si nous avions ass65&de grandeur d &me, perspicacit6? d 6nergie et ded61icatesse, nous devrions encore demander pardondes nxaux que Fon nous fait; mais ceux-m^mesqui doivent se r^jouir avec m^lancolie de Icur


11/347

PREFACE viidestin6e at qu une amertume trop 6goiste n a jamaistroub 6, dbordent aujourd hui d amertumes parcequ il ne s agit plus d eux exclusivement. A quila respecte, il est meme interdit dc rappeler &d autres que Tunion sacrê " n a rien de comnrnnavec la trahison sournoise et de bon rapport. . . .Interdit avant la fin des hostilit^s 1En Fattendant, quelle apre consolation de revivreune fois de plus le r&ve de sa jeunesse Le livredu Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport m a caus6 une doublejoie m61ancolique. J5ai revu les images aimêsde ma vie d intimit6s et de luttes au vieux pays deLi6ge Wallonie, dans la Belgique enti&re ; j airevu dans leur prestige habituel les chores ombresde Morelly, de Mably, de Rousseaux, de Babeuf^de St. Simon^ d Owen, de Fourier, de Cabet, deProudhon, de Bakounine et de Lassalle, de BenoitMalon et de maints autres ; et, j ai souffert ^soitdit sans nulle intention de reproche de n y avoirpu voir se lever aussi, dans leurs-aureoles famili^reset cjans un monde de souvenirs? les ombres deFadmirable et cher C^sar De Pape, dont le filsviet de toiiaber sur le sol beige qu il n avait pasfui quoi qu ? il ne ffit pas mandataire public, deC6sar De Pape? le p^re illustre du socialisme beigeet Fun des p&res de la premiere Internationale, deC6sar De Pape, 4 qui Malon lui-m&me d6di6 entermes si flatteusement signiftcatifs SOB. SocialismIntigral; d Edmond Von Beveren, Faimant apdtrede Gand, crâteur avec Anseele et les autres d0Fincomparable Co-operative Le Vooruvt, de Fatbl&tebruxellois Jean Voider s, d Oscar Bec^: et de JosephDemoulin, ces dignes figures li%oises dont jâi6crit la vie, du noble et savant Hector Denis, quijeta sur le Parlement beige un $clat sublime de


12/347

viii PREFACE1894 a 1913, de Jaurs et d Edouard Vaillant. . . .B autres encore tMais puisque f^voque surtout ici les puresm^moires r6centes de notre infortun6e et glorieuseBelgique, si 6trangement m6connue encore, bienque rhorrible invasion Fait surprise en plein &ged or litt^raire, je dois saluer aussi une figure g^ante,d une originalit^ profonde, ne tenant que parcertains c6ts aux id6es des precedents, bienqu il ait dit que "la soci6t6 moderne porte lesocialisme dans ses flancs et que de gr< ou deforce il faudra qu elle accouche," mais le premierorateur qu avec Alphonse de Lamartiae ait eul*Europe au dix-neuvi^cne si^cle tout eritier, et,faut-il le dire ? le seul grand paxmi tant deremarquables qu ait janxais eu la Belgique : PaulJanson, le colosse pat;h6tique et foudroyant auxinimitables accents qu il fai^t mettre & c6t6 deBossuet et de Mirabeau, de m&me que Rubens ^cdt6 de Michel-Ange et de Titien, . . ,Comme celui d Auguste, notre &ge d or poss&deun Cic6ron I

Telle est dans le donaaine social, F&mouvanteEgn6equ indirectemmt ou directement me rappelleJe Ime luseoEsckacieux peut4tre dies poport*s book. What a procession of suffering What abnegation 1 What tenacity And by contrast, what cowardly and criminal indifference the so-called civilised nations showed suchmartyrs 1 Often I was compelled to stop reading, nothaving the power to continue My only consolationwas that, at least, I have never by my silence been aparty to these horrors, but have many, manytimes spoken against them at meetings of protest,organised for this sole purpose, at the now old Populaireof Li&gfe which, with the aid of thirty Mends, I foundedin 1887, or at Venders, Hainaut, Brussels and elsewhere. The conscience is everything What wouldlife become without it ? Even if one must stand prae*tically alone, as too often happens in these infamousdays, one must not fear to suffer more and more, provided always that one has not the shame of unworthyprudence and weakness : no struggle for the ideaj islost for the future The more noble souls suffer to-day,inore free are their sufferings from the remorse


23/347

TRANSLATION OF PREFACE xixof having been in any way responsible for the terriblecataclysm or of having, even indirectly, thrust thepoor lads, hardly out of their adolescence, into thefields of carnage 1 . . Ah, at this hour, when all nobleand sincere souls suffer more deeply than ever theanguish of the tragic storm, it may be permitted onewho has always loved England passionately, one whofor twenty-four years represented in the BelgianParliament the martyr-city of Lidge, which he also didhis best to sustain and enhearten during the awfuldays of the siege, to bear witness before the Englishpublic to the high ideal of the Russian conscience.For thirty years he has seen numerous and successivecolonies of Slav students at the University of Li6geardently take part in our meetings on solidarity, asalso in our immense manifestations in the old city ofCharlemagne, Henri dc Dinant, R6gnier, Bassenge,Lombard, Gerard dc Lairesse, Carlier, Grctry andof Cesar Frank : and each year he came across manyothers at the New University of Brussels, several ofwhom now hold high positions in the ranks of therevolutionaries in their country : the many memoriesof these boy and girl students in the Walloon capital(it is also the industrial capital of Belgium), which theWriter of these lines cannot to-day recall withoutemotion, ure like so many apparitions of compassionand consolation. No one has greater faith in Russiathan he It may be permitted in this connection,to recall the veritable orgy of enthusiasm for theRussian composers that swept Lidgc, essentially amusical city, in 1886 ; the numerous concerts organised and the wonderful playing in the festival hall ofthe Emulation, in the presence of its composer, ofthe symphony In the Steppes* by Alexander Borofinewho died, as is well known v in this city* Delightfuland poignant memories that come back to me, mingledwith what an English poet calls the fatal charm of

past I H$I&SI I must restrain myself audt though


24/347

TRANSLATION OF PREFACEfor a different cause, say with Hamlet : " But break,my heart ; for I must hold my tongue/*

I do not wish to recapitulate here the picture ofevents with which Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport has dealt.No matter how short, it would be an excrescence thatwould weaken a book everyone will desire to read.But several points deserve to be noted. Firstly,apart from the many judicious reflections and tmlyhistorical judgments with which all readers will agree,for example on pages 5-8, 10 and 11, 17 and 18, in thefirst chapter alone I take upon myself to call specialattention to the exactitude with which Dr. Rappoportspeaks, on page 27, of the tenets of Internationalism :" I am neither a collectivist nor a socialist, even thoughI approve of many of the principles of the socialisticdoctrines/*Another point worthy of the reader s close attention,especially to-day when events are taking place inRussia that the occidental public will find the less easyto understand now that the existence of the censorshiphas tended to obscure them : after reading the conclusion of chapter II, from page 33, anyone will understand, with all desirable clearness, the profounddifference that exists between the Russian Revolutionof 1917 and the French Revolution of 1789.No one was better qualified to write this review thanDr* Angelo S. Rappoport, who knows both Franceand Russia so thoroughly. Again, is not this bookthe logical sfequel to, and the crown in aa eictendedform, of that excellent Short History ofRussia which hetave

us in 1907 ? The comparisons, or the parallelsla Plutarch, that one reads now and then in thepapers too often evoke nothing but a smile* Therelative failure of 1905 involved the Ml of Tsarism in1917, whatever were the momentary resulting extremes.I remember well what the illustrious and sincerelyregretted geographer Elisec Reclus quite calmly saidto me at the New University of Brussels in 1005 ;


25/347

TRANSLATION OF PREFACE xxi" This is the greatest revolution the world has everseen " " The most profound," I answered. " It isthe same thing as I see it," he replied. The book ofDr. Angelo S. Rappoport proves the truth of theseremarks.

I would also draw attention to the pages devotedto Lavrov and Bakounine, and at the same time expressmy hope that the author of The Pioneers ofthe RussianRevolution will enlarge the field of his operations, whichhe handles with such mastery and skill, and give usa complementary study of the social work of NicolasGogol, Tourguenev, Theodore Dostoievsky LeonTolstoi, Maxim Gorki, etc. I have always been, andshall be always, an uncompromising fanatic regarding^the doctrines of art, but since the great Russian novelistshave deliberately more or less intermingled the literarywith the social, naturally I like to see how they haveinfluenced the political evolution or at least how theyhave expressed it, for I agree with Gaethe that " Manbelieves he pushes, but is himself pushed/

Yes, I should like Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport to firmlytake possession, by right of conquest, of that entiredomaiia which he can explore better than anyone else,for one can well apply tp him the words my dearSavage Lander spoke of the great Geoffrey Chaucer :

" No man hath walk d along our roads with stepSo active, so inquiring eye, or tongueSo varied in discourse."No passage in Dr. Rappoport s book struck me more

forcibly than his final pages ; they seemed to me sooriginal, so remarkable. I appreciated them the moresince in a pamphlet published in 190S I expressedmy admiration of the famous little race that has givenus Baruch Spinom, the well-loved Jacques or JaeobRuysdael, Heinrich Heine, FeLbc Mendelssohn and somany others ; and at Li^ge one of its most generousrepresentatives, M. Montefiore-Levi, a man of


26/347

xxli TRANSLATION OF PREFACEsingleness of purpose, who until his comparativelyrecent death was one of the most popular and mostrespected of our senators ; who came to us fromEngland about 1880 and founded, among numerousother benevolent institutions spread throughout theentire region, his vast Electro-technical Institute asa second university which he offered to the State.England also has recorded many generous giftson the part of other members of the family of M.Montefiore-Levi, and in this book one can read of theproud attitude taken by a Rothschild towards TsarAlexander II on behalf of Alexander Herzen.The final pages, well thought out and deeply moving,crown worthily Dr. Aixgelo S. llappoport s fine book.I would dispute but one point if my space permits.Though the author of The Pioneers of the RussianReoohtMon proclaims with as much reason as sincerityhis respect for Shakespeare that is to say, in, theopinion of the writer of these lines, Lord Rutland-Shakespeare I believe that the immortal poet ofThe Merchant of Venice, who began that masterpiecefar from his own country, during his sojourn at theUniversity of Padua, was not in reality as severe asDr. Rappoport thinks, when you consider the epochin which it was written, on the terrible Shylock, who,doubtless, was modelled on the unfortunate K. Lopez,executed m London in 1594, mingled with memoriesof the Barabbas dmwtfc ia 1589 bjr Ckristopheir Mar-lowe in Ms Jew of Malta. Yes, when one thinks ofthat epoch and re-reads one of the marvels of Shakespeare- and one does not forget the charming figure ofJessica, Shylock s daughter one will realise more orkiss various attenuating circumstances.But I nlust close. An historical-literary discussionwould lead one too far and too wide of one s subject,In reality also, here it is but a detail* It would beabusing the patience of the reader to continue, toborrow an idea from Lewis Theobald, who, despite


27/347

TRANSLATION OF PREFACE xxiiithe violent attacks of Pope, was perhaps the mostconscientious of Shakespearian commentators, tocontinue along this narrow, obscure path that leads tothe luminous edifice, where everyone can easily andequally enter ; but the author of this book, to whom Iowe many thanks, desired in these days of tragic international communion that a Belgian should proclaim,poorly it may be, his ardent sympathy with the raceand country of birth of Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport.

DEMBLON.May 20, 1918,


28/347


29/347

CONTENTSCHAPTER I

FASBPARIS AND PETROGRAD * iCHAPTER II

PARIS AND PETROGRAD (continued) . . 14

CHAPTER IIITHE SPIRIT OF REVOLT .... 42CHAPTER IV

THE DECEMBRISTS ..... 62CHAPTER V

THE FOURTEENTH OF DECEMBER . . 86CHAPTER VI

THE TRIUMPH oi1 AUTOCRACY . . .1183DCV


30/347

xxvi CONTENTSCHAPTER VII

PAOBLITTERATEURS, PHILOSOPHERS, AND SOCIOLOGISTS ...... 135

CHAPTER VIIIPHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS (contintted) 152

CHAPTER IXPEACEFUL PROPAGANDA . . . .170

CHAPTER XREACTION AND TERRORISM . . . 208

CHAPTER XITHE JEWS AS PIONEERS OF THE RUSSIAN

REVOLUTION 228

CHAPTER XIIISRAEL S CRY FOR JUSTICE . . . 253

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . 277

279


31/347

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSSIBERIAN EXILES . . . . Frontispiece

FACING PAGEVASSILIY, PRINCE OF Moscow ... 16TSAR MICHAEL ROMANOV .... 82TSAR PETER THE GREAT .... 48TSAR PAUL I 64MICHAEL SKERANSKI ..... 64DEATH OF ALEXANDER I .... 80TSAR NICHOLAS I , . * , . 96VERA FIGNER ...... 96TSAR ALK^ANDER II MONUMENT (BY ANTO-

KOLSBTST) . . . * . * 128H. LOPATIN ....... 144MICHAEL BAKUNIN ..... 144SOCIAL DEMOCRATS IN THE FIRST DUMA . 144CATHERINE BERESHKOYSBTAYA.... 160PETER LAYROV .*...* 160MAXIME GORKY ...** 160apcvii


32/347

xxvii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSPAGE160

KARL MABX.......THE ARRIVAL OF POLITICAL PRISONERS (AFTER ADRAWING BY MADAME MANYA GOUREVITSH) 192THE FORTRESS OF SCHLXJESSELBURG (AFTER ADRAWING BY MADAME MANYA GOUREVTTSH) 208ScHIiUESSELBTJRG, THE CHURCH . . .224CATHERINE II AT THE TIME OF THE FRENCHREVOLUTION ...... 240MADAME WOLKENSTEIN , . . 256

GERSHOUNI . 256


33/347

PIONEERS OFTHE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONCHAPTER I

PARIS AND PETROGRADEVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION

NUMEBOUS comparisons and parallels have beendrawn between the French Revolutions of 1789and 1793 and the Russian upheaval not only of1917 but also of 1905. In my opinion, however, allthese parallels, at the best, are merely superficial.

.

tfr J-.Thififlfen PpxrnTnfrmnfi haw npTythiff- .....in flffTpnuKn that- tfo^y Hfnflfafl ,ftAnd this result they share with all other revolutions. But when oite considers the ideas strugglingin the background of these changes, the deepercauses underlying the upheavals, their psychologyand tendencies, one realises that the French Revolutions of 1789 and 1793 differ widely from theRussian of 1917, both in cause and effect. Ideliberately say 1917, for the movement of 1905 inRussia cannot scientifically be called a revolution.Of course there was an attempt to bring about one,but a mere attempt jbo bring about changes is not*JMvolution.


34/347

2 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONWhat is a Revolution, and what are the

manifestations natural, religious, political, social,literary, etc. to which the name of " revolution *may justly be applied? " Revolutions," writesa modern sociologist, "are changes, either at-tempted *QT realised by force, in the constitutionof societies." 1 This conception of the idea ofrevolution, opposed as it is to the definitions givenby more ancient economists and sociologists, suchas Proudhon, Chateaubriand, John Stuart Mill,Bluntschli, R6clus and others, seems to me to beerroneous . An attempt which has failed, which hasnot been realised, cannot be considered a positivequantity and is hardly to be compared with a transformation, or a change, which is a fait-accompli.Thus many attempts, accompanied by violence,many political troubles, which fail and effect nochange whatsoever, are mere insurrections, revolts,but not revolutions. In a word, a revolution is a" change, a radical transformation." Thus themovements of 1789 and 1917 were revolutions, butthose of June 1848 and March 1871 were not.

" A revolution is a change of governmentbrought about by force/ 1 wrote John Stuart Milin his letter of October 14th, 1872, addressed tothe t COinmittee of the ^atenlatiow&l , WorMugMen s Association." I, however, by revolution weunderstand an accomplished fact, a transformation, a radical change, such a change need notalways be accompanied by violence. Indeed, oneof the many erroneous ideas still prevalent, not onlyamong the masses, but also among economists andsociologists, is the belief that a revolution must

01 Bauer, Sssai aur U$ R&oolution, Paris, 1008, p. 11,a Se Block, Dietionnaire de PoUtique, a,v. B6volutioa*


35/347

PARIS AND PETROGRAD 8necessarily be accompanied by bombs, dynamite,bloodshed and violence of all sorts. Thus, JohnStuart Mill considered violence as a sine qua nonof revolution, and many modern authors do riotseem able to conceive a revolution, political orsocial, without violence and the employment ofarmed force. To this idea I cannot subscribe,for radical, far-reaching changes can be effectedwithout any form of violence.

Again, it is not usually the revolutionary who isanxious to use violence ; he is compelled to do soby the counter revolution, by the opposition ofthose who are adverse to any form of change, bythose who employ armed force to quell any attemptsat change. The violence accompanying revolutions is not usually the fault of the revolutionaries,of the liberals, men eager for innovation andamelioration, but of the opposing conservativeclasses who are anxious to hold the power theyhave usurped, and therefore call to their aidtraditionalism, conservatism, order and law. ( t Butthe world has witnessed many revolutions, manyradical changes which have been accomplished ina peaceful manner; long-existing ideas and conceptions have been uprooted, though they wereconsecrated by tradition and time, though men hadgrown accustomed to look upon them as impregnable, as the citadels of all human belief, as immutable institutions. For a day always comeswhen man laughs at the idols he has created^ hastaught himself to adore and to venerate, and thenthey crumble and fall to the earth.These are true revolutions, for they radicallychange human thought and convictions. Needthey necessarily be accompanied by violence ?


36/347

4 THE RUSSIAN EEVQOTTlONNeed Woodshed and bomb-throwing be theircorollaries ? Were not Archimedes and Newton,Galilei and Copernic, Darwin and Edison, Wattand Arkwright revolutionary in their teachingand inventions ? They revolutionised society andits conceptions. Christianity and Buddhism havewrought the greatest change in the domain ofthought and religious conceptions they haverevolutionised humanity, altering and shaping theconduct and aims of the greater portion of thehuman race. Yet neither the teachings of Christianity nor of Buddhism harbour any ideas ofviolence,

I admit that certain revolutions have meantviol^ce and bloodshed, and have led to muchuseless destruction* but that was not the faultof the teaching of the revolutionaries, but theresult of the stubbornness of the opponents of thenew doctrine, of their misoneism, self-interest andegoism. No ; political or social revolutions do notneed to be accompanied by violence and bloodshed. If those who have usurped the politicalpower would freely abandon it, if the privilegedclasses would recognise the justice of the claims ofthe poor and disinherited, there Krould be no needof violence to bring about political or social changes.But unfortunately the authorities in power, theprivileged classes who have usurped political or"economic supremacy, stand to lose by change ; itis to their interest to cling to the old institutions,to a state of things so advantageous to themselves,and therefore they so strenuously oppose all inno*vations and revolutions, with all the forces attheir command. The natural result is that theadherents of new ideas, of any radical change,


37/347

PARIS AND PETROGRAD 5jtfmch against their wiU5 are conipelled to use forcto break the stubborn resistance of the usurpers.This explains the frequent bloodshed and terrorismthat precede or accompany political and socialrevolutions. In this respect, of course, the FrenchRevolutions of 1789 and 1798 and the Russianupheaval of 1917 have something in common :there were, and are, many social groups and classeswho would lose by a transference of politicalpower, byt a social levelling, and are, therefore,bound to Coffer open or secret resistance.If the 1 Russian Revolution has so far beenaccompanied by less bloodshed than that of 1789,it is due to the fact that the revolutionaries inRussia were better organised than were theirprototypes of 1789, that they counted amongtheir ranks more social groups ready to make aclean sweep than was the case in France, ^adthat those who had the power in their hands inRussia judged it useless to offer resistance. Butthe Russian Revolution is still in a state of being,of becoming, and I am afraid that ,it will notbe carried to a successful issue without violence,bloodshed and terrorism. In fact, I see itcoming ; and if a period of terror follows in Russia,it will only be natural, however much to be deplored.

*?his brings me to another point which the Frenchand the Russian Revolutions share i% common :the fact that they both were the outcome of historical development and slow evolution. Hereagain I venture to* contradict the idea that arevolution, any revolution, political, social orotherwise, is a sudden upheaval, a saltus mortale tA catastrophe standing in direct opppsitioia toevolution, ft negation of the eternal laws of n&ture.


38/347

6 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONIn my opinion both the French Revolution of 1789and the Russian upheaval of 1917 are the culminating points of an historical evolution, the consummation of causes accumulated in the course ofcenturies, the visible manifestations of the spiritof revolt dormant in the nation. A revolution isnot opposed to an evolution, but is the effect ofthe latter. Modern geology has abandoned thecatastrophic idea and accepts the theory of evolution ; but, for all that, it does not deny the existenceof volcanic eruptions. Subterranean forces accumulate slowly, gradually, invisibly, but once theyhave reached a certain degree, they explode.^Take another instance among natural phenomena,the birth of the child* ft develops slowly, legally,but it comes into the world in a revolutionarymariner. 1 And what is true of nature is also true

of historical developments. Just as tempests andvolcanic eruptions do not exclude, but, on thecontrary, are the result of slow evolutions, sopolitical and social revolutions are the normalresult, the fatal, irresistible moments, in the longprocess of historical development ; they are acrisis and a goal of a social evolution,

Political and social revolutions do not come likethieves in the night, like something unexpected,They arenot the result of immediate, trivial, superficial events, but of far-reaching accumulatedcauses. They are the outcome of a state of things,full of contradictions and antagonisms, of a clashof interests. They are closely connected with theold order of things which the revolution destroys,For each historical period is the effect of a pre-cedmg epoch, just as it is the cause of future events,

1 Ct Katitsky, Die 8gdaU


39/347

PARIS AND PETROGRAD 7and to-day carries with it the germs of the morrow.Each generation is the father of the one succeedingit, and each historical period carries in it the seedsof a new one. Clear-sighted men have alwaysbeen able to see the signs of approaching revolutions ; to them they were never sudden andcatastrophic, but fatal and inevitable. Neithernature nor history know any miracles. For whatindeed is a miracle ? It is a fact or a manifestation the hidden causes of which escape the humaneye and understanding. A revolution te the visibleeffect of many causes accumulated, it is the crisiswhich has necessarily been preceded by a fermentation, visible or invisible.Now, political and social revolutions are theresult of accumulated ideas and sentiments ofdiscontent, of antagonism, contradiction and agrowing feeling of justice. In this latter respect,the feeling of justice, revolutions differ from insurrections and revolts which, in the majority ofcases, prove futile aixd effect no change whatever.The slave who is not animated by a sense ofjustice, but merely by a feeling of envy, is notthirstmg for liberty and equality; he merelywishes to become master and enslave, in his turn,his master of yesterday. His revolt is destructive,whilst a real revolution must carry in it constructive elements as well. The slave is not fightingfor liberty and justice per se, but for the powerwhich he is anxious to wrest from his master. Heis animated by a spirit of revenge, Real revolutionaries are not.

Quite different are the revolutions which are theresult of historical development and in which menare anxious to shake off the shackles of thraldom,


40/347

8 THE KUSSIAN REVOLUTIONnot in revenge, not with a view to enslave andtyrannise the powerful and mighty of yesterday,but in order to mate men equal: all men, themasters as well as the slaves. The revolt of theslaves, therefore, is only an artificial movement,whilst a great and lasting revolution is the resultof historical development and of evolution. Thus,both the French Revolution of 1789 and theRussian upheaval are evolutionary, historical acts,which were fated to come.

Elis6e RThe official reports naturally minimise the number of victims and pretend that only about seventy

or eighty people lost their lives in the IsaacSquare. This ridiculous statement is flatly deniedby several of the Decembrists, notably Bestyou-shev and Stengel, in their Memoirs.About a fortnight after these events the members of the Southern League made an attempt toorganise a revolution, but they were at once suppressed. Some of the leaders then committedsuicide, while others were arrested and sent to thecapital. Then the Tsar began the work of revenge. During the night of December 14th-I5th,Nicholas busied himself questioning the firstcaptive members of the Secret Society. He hadfirmly made up his mind to show no mercy to hispowerless foes. Prisoners were brought to himfrom all parts of the country, a new batch everyday; the Tsar seemed to derive great pleasurefrom superintending the whole procedure ; hewas at once public prosecutor, examining magistrate, judge and jury. He was quite in his element.Nicholas was a born detective and spy ; he wassuspicious by nature and always on the look outfor some criminal whom he could hand over to theauthorities or the police. These characteristicsmanifested themselves at their height, being given

* Schilder, I.Q.> p. 516. Note 328.


138/347

96 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONample opportunity and scope, during the ftrst fewmonths of his reign. In those days Russia hadno Tsar, no ruler. Her Tsar was not a ruler buta detective, an examining magistrate and a gaoler.He delighted in torturing the accused with hisquestions and making them confess to crimesthey had never committed and intentions theyhad never dreamed of. It may be said that inthis art of compelling the criminal to confess,this Imperial Grand Inquisitor surpassed all hissalaried officials, 1 Practically all the prisonerswere brought to the Imperial Palace, where theywere either questioned personally by the Tsar himself or, occasionally, by his adjutant, when theEmperor would remain in an adjoining room wherehe could hear every word spoken.

It must be admitted that Nicholas showed notonly energy and liking for this detective work,but also a considerable amount of psychologicalinsight. He endeavoured to form a clear ideaof the character, the personality and the weaknessof each prisoner, and then employed tactics tosuit them. Sometimes he posed as the benevolentruler anxious to know the requirements of theEmpire and ready to grant reforms ; sometimeshe made these dreamers believe that he was r amartyr and not to be envied. He often went so faras to kiss the accused and call them his friends,while he urged them to tell him everything, thewhole truth, and so help him to make Russia happy,He knew how to assume such an air of absolutesincerity that some of those unfortunate dreamersbelieved him. Knaves always find dreamers andenthusiasts easy prey, which explains why it is so

1 CL Pokrovaki, History of Russia, vol, i, p. 130.


139/347

II

OWo

02H


140/347


141/347

DECEMBER THE 14TH 97often the hypocrite who becomes the leader ofgreat idealistic movements, thus ruining them anddriving the honest people away. History givesus many examples of this.What the Tsar desired to know, of course, wasmerely the strength of the movement and itspossible danger to himself and his dynasty. Hedesired to come out victorious in this struggle ofautocracy with incipient revolution ; to crush itin the bud ; to tear it out root and branch fromRussian soil and the Russian souL Any meansthat would enable him to do this were agreeableto him. His Imperial dignity, which later heheld so proudly, did not for the moment deter himfrom stooping to the pettiest, most contemptible,and hypocritical methods to obtain what hewished. He cajoled, flattered, threatened, insulted, kissed, boxed the ears, whined and complained in turn according to the psychology ofthe prisoner he had before him. Many of theconspirators fell into the snare- Some hoped thata complete confession of their aims would convince the Tsar of the necessity for reforms, whilstothers trusted in his clemency ; others again werejust frightened. Ryleev, Kakhovski, Troubetskoy,Pastel and several others made a complete confession.Some of the conspirators had families dependentupon them, so Nicholas took charge of these atonce. Noblesse oblige Many of the revolutionariesactually believed that revenge had no place in thenoble Imperial heart of Nicholas Romanov, Heonly wished to know what Russia required, andtherefore, what better service could they rendertheir beloved country than to acquaint the man


142/347


143/347

DECEMBER THE 14TH 99but the most benevolent of monarchs and themost humane of men. They sang Ms praises intheir letters to their families.Of the two obstinate prisoners, Lunin andYakushkin, the latter s version of the investigation is exceedingly interesting* He was notarrested until January 10th. He had been expecting arrest, so was not surprised when thesuperintendent of police suddenly appeared andtook him to the Winter Palace. That first nighthe passed in a room on the ground floor of thePalace, with soldiers carrying drawn swords onguard at the door and window. Towards theevening of the next day he was taken to anotherdepartment and interviewed by General Levashev.The prisoner was invited to sit down, and askedwhether he belonged to the Secret Society, towhich Yakushkin answered in the affirmative." And what do you know of the activity of theSecret Society ? " queried Levashev.Yakushkin shrugged his shoulders. " I don tknow anything at all about the Secret Society/*was his curt reply.Levashev smiled ironically. " My dear sir," hesaid, " do you imagine we are so ignorant as allthat ? The events of December 14th were premature, no doubt, but in 1818 it had also been yourintention to organise a revolution against thelate Tsar. I can even give the details of that intended insurrection. Lots were drawn by allthose who were present at that secret gatheringto determine who should kill the Tsar and youdrew the winning piece/

" That is not quite correct, your Excellency,"replied Yakushkin ; " I offered myself voluntarily,


144/347

100 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONand categorically refused to allow any of mycompanions to participate in the honour."Levashev wrote down Yakushkin s confession." Will you now very kindly," he continued, " giveme the names of all the gentlemen who were present at that secret gathering ? "

"That is quite impossible, your Excellency,"replied the prisoner. " When I became a memberof the Secret Society I gave my word of honournever to betray my friends,"" Then we shall have to compel you to speak,"replied the General. " It is my painful duty, mydear sir, to remind you that torture is still in existence in Russia." l

" I am, of course, greatly obliged to you, Excellency, for the warning, but I confess that I nowfeel it more than ever my duty not to speak andbetray my friends."Levashev tried a different policy. " Look here,"he said, " I am not speaking to you as your judgebut as your equal, and I fail to understand yourloyalty to people who have not hesitated to betrayyou."

" I am not here to judge of the conduct of mycompanions," coolly replied Yakushkin. " I onlyknow that in spite of everything, it is my duty tokeep the promise I gave, even if others may haveforgotten it."

" But all your friends have admitted that theaim of the Secret Society was to establish a newgovernment in place of autocracy."

" That is quite possible," was the reply.Torture was abolished by Nicholas in 1827, but criminalswere nevertheless tortured in Moscow in 1834= and at Kostroma

in 1847.


145/347

DECEMBER THE 14TH 10144 Then what do you know about the constitution with which the country was to have been

endowed ? "44 1 know absolutely nothing about it."Yakushkin maintains in his Memoirs that hedid really know very little of the programme ofthe constitution elaborated by Nikita Mouraviev.44 Then wherein did your activity as a memberof the Secret Society lie ? "44 1 was endeavouring to find means and waysto abolish serfdom in Russia/ 5 was Yakushkin5 sreply. " That is a knot that the Government shouldeither disentangle or cut, and that very quickly,or the consequences will be disastrous/ 546 But what do you expect the Government todo ? " cried Levashev in surprise.44 The Government/ 5 replied the prisoner, " couldbuy the freedom of the serfs from the landownersand proprietors. 5544 But that is quite impossible," replied theGeneral. 44 You know perfectly well that theGovernment is short of money. 55Once more Levashev endeavoured to persuadethe prisoner to betray his fellow conspirators butYakushkin remained firm. He was then requestedto sign the sheet of paper upon which the generalhad written the confessions, admissions and remarks made by his victim. Yakushkin signedwithout reading it. He was then ordered to retireinto an adjoining room, and here the phantom ofwhat torture might mean came to him, *and hisheart fell, but, nevertheless, he decided to remainfirm and follow the path he considered honourdictated to him. Ten minutes passed; theri thedoor opened and he was called in once more. This


146/347

102 THE RUSSIAN RESOLUTIONtime Levashev was not alone ; the new Emperorstood by the writing table.

" You have broken your oath," thunderedNicholas*u I am guilty, your Imperial Highness "" What do you expect in the next world ?Have you thought of that ? Damnation You^may despise the opinion of your fellow men, but theidea of what is in store for you in the next world

should fill your heart with terror. However/3

continued the autocrat, ;c I shall not let you perishentirely ; I shall send a clergyman to you. Well,have you nothing to say ? "

" What is it that your Imperial Highness wishesme to say ? "" I think that I have spoken quite clearly and

distinctly. If you are anxious not to ruin yourfamily, if you do not wish to be treated like a pig,then I advise you to confess everything."44 I am sorry," was Yakushkin s firm reply, ct butI gave my word of honour not to betray any one.As for myself, I have told everything concerningmy work to his Excellency here,"

" Go to the devil with your abominable wordof honour and his Excellency," was Nicholas 5 svehement reply." I cannot betray my friends, your Imperial

Highness*"The new Tsar was furious. Pointing to theobstinate prisoner, he commanded : " Put himin chains, so that he will not be able to move."Yakushkin confesses that he at first had beena little afraid that the Tsar would adopt a differentcourse with him : would work upon his weaknessand his sentimental nature, would play the


147/347

DECEMBER THE 14TH 108generous and magnanimous ruler, and thus get thebetter of him. But Nicholas had decided to actotherwise, which seems to show that he was notthe fine psychologist and detective that he pridedhimself on being. His method failed in this case ;throughout the conversation the prisoner remainedcalm, for he felt himself the stronger of the two.Then Yakushkin was led away. Once more thefear of torture took hold of him ; he felt surethat by " chains " the Tsar had intimated someform of torture, only it was not decent for Majestyto soil its lips with such an ugly word.* The prisoner was put in chains and then inarchedto the Alexis Ravelin. Passing over the drawbridge he remembered Dante s lines : " Leaveevery hope behind you, all ye who enter here "He was placed in a tiny cell, but six feet long andfour wide* It was furnished with a bedstead,on which were an old mattress and a woollen bed-cloth such as are used in hospitals, two chairs,a nightlamp and a small table upon which stooda jug of water. " When the key was turned inthe door and I was left alone," writes Yakushkin,44 I was quite happy ; torture had passed me byand I had time to collect my thoughts again*"Another obstinate prisoner was Colonel Lunin,famed for his great intelligence and energy. Hewas accused of regicidal intentions, " Gentlemen/ 1he replied, * 4 our Secret Society never contemplated

regicide ; its aims and purpose were much nobler.Yet as you yourself know full well, the idea ofregicide is not new to Russia ; we have had quiterecent examples of this." Lunin was referring tothe assassination of Paul I. Since two membersof the court of inquiry before which Lunin had


148/347

104 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONbeen brought had been mixed up in that assassination, his reply greatly disconcerted his would-bejudges ; these two members were Tatitshev andKoutousov.Many attempts were made to force MkitaMouraviev to confess that the Secret Society hadaimed at founding a Republic in Russia. " Gentlemen/ replied Mouraviev at last, tired of theirinsistence, ct the plan for a constitution which Ielaborated, and which is now before you, ismonarchical ; but since my arrest I have had timeto think, therefore I now frankly declare to youthat I have become a convinced Republican/ 5 1After his own preliminary work, the Tsar handedthe matter over to a Commission. This consistedof the Minister of War, who was the President ;Grand Duke Michael, who was thus both judgeand prosecutor ; General Diebitsh, a Prussian who" like many other foreign adventurers enjoyedthe Imperial favour 3? ; a General Koutousov,the Governor-General of St. Petersburg ; PrinceGolitsyn ; the Generals Potapov, Levashev andTshernitshev. Colonel Adlerburg, aide-de-campto the Tsar, was also present to take notes whichwere passed on to his Imperial master. Thistribunal met at the house of the commandant ofthe fortress of the capital, and when orders weregiven to hasten the conclusion of the inquiry, thesittings were held during the night as well as theday. It was Nicholas s aim not only to judgeand punish a few criminals, but also " to penetrateinto the innermost recesses of the conspiracy, to

1 Of. Th. Schiemann, Die Ermordung Pauls, 1902t Berlin,p, 175.8 Mouraviav notes, Schiemartri, I.e., p. 173,


149/347

DECEMBER THE 14TH 105discover its origin, to follow it up in all its ramifications, ^ to gauge its progress and extent, and toestablish the results of the inquiry, not upon circumstantial evidence and probabilities, but uponcertain undeniable facts and irrefutable evidenceand proofs,"Such were the instructions given by the Tsar tothe Commission. The Commission finally finishedits work, and Nicholas was satisfied ; he had conquered a powerful enemy/ the more powerful thathe had worked in the heart of the Empire and notabroad.The manner in which the Tsar announced hisvictory to his beloved subjects is worthy of specialnotice. " When, thanks to the impenetrabledesigns of the Almighty, a conspiracy was revealedunto us in the first few days of our reign, a conspiracy that had already been in existence forover ten years and was working in the dark againstus, we at once recognised the manifestation of theDivine will invisibly pointing ou*t to us our dutyand our present conduct. We understood thesanctity of our obligations, especially in view ofthe fact that the conspiracy was not only a dangerto ourselves but to the whole of Russia. 3 * Thusthe Tsar was not punishing criminals, and it was,of course, out of the question for the autocratto seek revenge ; he was simply safeguardingRussia ; he was saving the revolutionaries fromthemselves by removing them from temptation.The devil is not the only one who can quoteScripture in his defence. History can give usmany instances of the most heinous crimes beingexplained by the most noble and unselfish ofmotives. Has there ever been a crime committed


150/347

106 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONby an individual, or by a collectivity in power,that was not labelled by that individual, or thatcollectivity 5 an act of justice or a deed of nobility ?Thus the Tsar surrounded his so-called trials witha halo of justice, although the Court received hisinstructions, in advance, how to treat each particular prisoner. Elizabeth Petrovna, the daughterof Peter the Great, had abolished capital punishment for ordinary criminals, but not for politicalprisoners. It would, however, be unwise toimagine that the Tsaritza, in abolishing capitalpunishment for assassins and brigands, had beenactuated by any feeling of pity or special clemencytowards her subjects.A close study of this history of the Romanovshas convinced us that Alexander II is the onlyRomanov who ever exhibited the slightest degreeof generosity towards his people. Nicholas I certainly never manifested any, and the measureabolishing the death penalty in the case of ordinarycriminals promulgated by Elizabeth Petrovna wasdictated by more selfish considerations than amere dislike to shedding human blood. Therewere mines that had to be worked and exploited,and for which voluntary labour was difficult toobtain ; therefore, forced labour had to be found,so the gallows and the ravens were deprived oftheir victims. There were also vast tracts of landwhich did not attract the colonist,and criminals wereexiled to those inhospitable regions. The mineswere Russia s dry guillotine; they had a doubleadvantage in the eyes of autocracy : they not onlyswallowed the Tsar s political enemies and renderedthem harmless, but they also yielded a handsomeprofit to the State,


151/347

DECEMBER THE 14TH 107Of course the judgments of the Court were

very severe on the Decembrists. The Tsar hadwished that the punishment should be severe, soas to give him an opportunity to exercise hisImperial clemency. He had two reasons for this ;he wished to impress the masses of his subjectswith the nobility of his sentiments on the onehand, and, on the other, he was fully aware thatthe eyes of Europe were upon him.Yet Nicholas was anxious not only to have hisrevenge, but also to impress upon all embryo revolutionaries the utter foolishness and futility ofmaking another effort. He decided to make anexample with a few of the leaders and to arrangethe rest into separate groups. Five were, therefore, placed so to speak hors concours ; they werecondemned to death that is, to be quartered.These five were Colonel Pestel, Sub-Colonel SergiusMouraviev-Apostol, and the three officers, PeterKakhovsky, Michael Bestyoushev-Ryoumin andKondraty Ryleev. Of the remaining 116, thirty-one were to be hanged, seventeen were condemnedto perpetual servitude in the mines, and the othereighty-five to various terms of penal servitudeand exile. The sentences were then graciouslycommuted by the sovereign. The thirty-onecondemned to be hanged had their sentence commuted into penal servitude, while the sentences ofthe remaining eighty-five were all reduced. Asregards the five placed hors concours, the Tsar permitted the death penalty, but informed the Courtthat he wished the men punished in such a wayas to avoid the " shedding of blood " The Courtliterally followed the gracious instructions of hisMajesty : the five were hanged The sentence


152/347

108 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONwas executed upon them on the night of July 12th13th.

ctNight is propitious for crime," writes Alexander Mouraviev, the brother of Nikita Mouraviev,

in a letter addressed to his wife. " We were ledoiit into an open space in front of the fortress andthere we saw the gallows. Those of us who werein uniform had it stripped off ; the uniformswere then thrown into the fire, our swords werebroken over our heads ; we were degraded, wewere outlaws to be shunned by man and cursed byGod. Whilst we were being led back to our cells,our five companions were being seized and led to thegallows. Two of our unfortunate and noble companions, Ryleev and Sergius^ Mouraviev-Apostol,were thrown down from the top of the gallows ;the fall broke their limbs ; they were then hanged,mutilated as they were."

l

But no blood had been shed, and the instructionsof the Tsar had been carried out to the letter.The victims paid the penalty for a crime whichhumanity at large, Governments in power but,above all, autocrats, can never pardon : thecrime of harbouring new and revolutionary ideas &subversive and progressive ideas that attack andcriticise the order of things as they are, ideas thatare the true birthright of man and that emanatefrom his innate craving for independence andfreedom. But, alas I to think differently fromthose in power, be it in the domain of religion,politics or sociology, does not suit those who haveusurped and cling to power. Criticism of authority, sincere thought on justice and injusticemay lead to action, may cause the masses to realise

1 Sohiemann, Z.c,, p. 177,


153/347

DECEMBER THE 14TH 109for whose benefit the authorities, in all ages andin all countries, think and labour. The massesmight even take it into their stupid heads toshake off the shackles of thraldom and hurl theusurpers of power and authority from theirpedestals. And therefore the pioneers of newideas have always been persecuted, exiled, imprisoned, thrown into lions dens, led to scaffoldsand crucified.Yet justice is always at hand, and historygenerally revenges itself. That which one generation condemns as blasphemous or hateful, the nextwill uphold and adore. To the memory of thosewhom one generation put to death, the next willerect statues and altars, and pious pilgrims will flockto their flower-strewn shrines. The despised andpersecuted revolutionaries of one age become theprophets of the next. What would Nicholas Ithink of the Russia of to-day ?The pioneers of Russian freedom were buriedsecretly on one of the islands of the Neva, and swiftmessengers were sent to Tsarkoe Selo to tell theTsar that, at last, he was revenged upon hisenemies and could sleep in peace.Whilst the judges and other servile servants ofautocracy were rewarded with titles and gifts fortheir obedience, there were some who swore revenge. One poor lieutenant, a soldier s son, wasordered to lead the five political criminals to thegallows, but he refused. " I have served withhonour/ 5 he replied, pointing to the cross of St.George pinned upon his breast, cc and now in myold age I refuse to become the hangman of fivemen whom I sincerely respect. 55 Again, ColonelZoubov of the Cavalier Guards bluntly refused to


154/347

110 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONlead his regiment to the scene of the execution." They are my comrades/ 3 he said, " and I shallnot go/ l Thus there were some who dared to bethemselves even at the moment when all trembledbefore the new ruler.The first batch of prisoners were sent to themines on July 18th ; they were put in chains andmarched off to their distant destination. Thoughthe Tsar was anxious to cut these individuals outof the communal life, to eradicate their verymemory, yet he did not succeed. Several of thewives of the condemned followed them into exile,and thus a link was forged between the sociallyand politically dead and Russian society. Someof the condemned had the terms of their servitudereduced several times whenever, indeed, the Tsarthought it necessary to show himself the benevolentruler. But even then they were relegated to themost distant corners of Siberia, and not permittedto communicate with each other.In 1856, Alexander II, when he ascended thethrone, permitted the few remaining Decembriststo return to civilisation and to live where theychose, except in either of the two capitals, Moscowor St. Petersburg. Twenty-nine availed themselves of his clemency ; the rest had either diedlong before or been allowed to leave Siberia.These twenty-nine were "reinstated in their socialpositions, but Alexander s generosity did not goso far as to return to them their property whichhis august father had confiscated*Before leaving the history of the Decembrists,the pioneers of the Russian Revolution and Russianstruggle for freedom, it may be as well to examine1 Schiemann, Z,e. ? p. 177.


155/347

DECEMBER THE 14TH 111their Ideas and aspirations. The Decembristswere revolutionary patriots. Their patriotism wasbased upon their love for Russia and an ardentdesire to see their country independent of othernations, externally and internally. Their love forRussia s past, for those moments in her historythat marked the self-assertion of the nationalcharacter, made them yearn for a revival of thepopular assemblies in Red Russia and for thepower and independence of old Novgorod. Thoughthe Decembrists aimed at introducing reforms andinstitutions similar to those then prevailing InWestern Europe, yet these were not to be mereslavish Imitations ; they were to be adapted tosuit Russian peculiarities.Unlike the Slavophiles, the Decembrists didnot believe in Russia s special mission, but theyhad great faith in the moral and physical qualitiesof the nation. STSbme of them were in favour of aconstitutional monarchy, whilst others were Republicans pure and simple. The majority wereopposed to socialism as it then existed ; in religionthey were convinced deists. They all recognisedthe necessity of a revolution, it being the onlymeans of introducing any new political or socialinstitutions into Russia. It must be borne inmind that this revolutionary group was not composed of proletarians and working men, but ofofficers belonging to the highest nobility, all ofthem very rich and the owners of vast tracts ofland and thousands of serfs. -*- -The majority of the Decembrists, therefore,thought of a political, not of a social and economicrevolution. It was but natural that ColonelPeste?s proposition to dispossess the seigneurs


156/347

112 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONand hand over the land to the peasants, found butlittle encouragement among this revolutionarygroup of aristocrats. But Pestel, inspired byBabeuf, St. Simon and Fourier, was neither adreamer nor a Utopian ; he was simply a socialistbefore socialism had been crystallised into a doctrine. He had grasped the true reality of thingsand was well acquainted with the spirit of theRussian nation. If the land were left in thehands of the nobles, he argued, there would bean oligarchy, and the peasants would scarcelyrealise, much less appreciate, their freedom, forfreedom without land would mean but little tothem. It was Pestel who first insisted upon dragging in the people, the masses, and making themparticipate in the revolution. Yet Pestel wasmistaken on both these points. It was not thenpossible for his friends, the landed aristocracy, towork for a social revolution, neither could thepeople make common cause with the nobles ; atthat time their interests were so vastly different.The revolution of the Decembrists has beenstyled a " bourgeois movement.55 If one takestc bourgeois " as being distinct from proletarian,this definition is correct ; with the exception ofPestel and a few others the Decembrists werebourgeois in their tendencies. Their constitutionalplans, always excepting Pestel, did not speak ofuniversal suffrage. Yet this bourgeois spirit wasnot the result only of group psychology, but alsoarose out of the prevailing view-point of Europewhich manifested itself clearly in the politicalliterature of that time. " The social questions, 39writes Herzen, " interested no one in Europe inthose days. Gracchus Babeuf, fi the madman


157/347

DECEMBER THE 14TH 113and savage/ was already forgotten. It is truethat St. Simon was writing his treatises, but no oneread them. Fourier was in the same predicament,whilst few were interested in Robert Owen s Essays.Even the most prominent liberals of that period,Benjamin Constant and P. L. Courrier, would haveindignantly repudiated PestePs propositions whichwere put before a society of very wealthy noblemen, not a club of proletarians." l The revolution of the Decembrists, or rather, the ideas of therevolutionaries were, to a certain extent, thosewhich brought about the French Revolution of1789, which was a bourgeois, censitaire regime. Itwas only on August 19th, 1792, that democracywas established by the introduction of universalsuffrage. 2We have defined the revolution of the Decembrists as a bourgeois movement, in contradistinction to proletarian, but this statement does notimply that it was made by the bourgeoisie. Itwas the revolt of a group of nobles, officers andsoldiers. The movement was wholly political ;these first Russian revolutionaries were anxious tomaintain in the social structure of the countryall that was possible of the old institutions ; theyonly sacrificed what they were absolutely obligedto sacrifice, and what would have been a directand flagrant contradiction of political freedom.Serfdom, of coxirse, would have to be abolished.Though not anxious, like Pestel, to gain thepeople and the peasants as adherents of their

1 Of, A. Herzen, Du dtveloppement des idees rvolutionnaire*en Russie, London, 1853, p. 67. Pokrovski, I.e., i, p. 102.2 Of. A. Aulard, Histoire politique de la Revolution Francaiee,

Paris, 1901, p. vL8


158/347

114 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONmovement, the majority of the Decembrists knewthat they would have to grant certain things tothem, otherwise Jacqueries, such as those led byPougatshev, would threaten society, and theyknew that no constitution could stand against thepeasant risings. Yet the basis of their revolutionary movement was practically the old socialstructure, artistocratic and bourgeois*Even the republican tendencies of the SouthernLeague in no way contradicted these ideas. Tothe majority -of the conspirators, republicanismmeant, not real democracy, but a limitation, orabolition, of monarchy. The opposition to autocracy of the Russian nobility as a group existedlong before 1825, and several attempts had alreadybeen made by that group to limit the autocraticand monarchic power. Thus, though republicans,the Decembrists were not democrats ; a true democrat must logically be also a republican, but arepublican need not be a democrat, Not all theDecembrists, as I have shown, were republicans,but all of them were " monarchomachs," or enemiesof absolute monarchy.The Decembrists also made the common mistakeof imagining that revolutions are made by individuals, strong men, heroes ; that the FrenchRevolution was the work of Danton, Mirabeau andRobespierre, for example. They did not realisethat the French Revolution, like all other revolutions, was the logical result of the discontent andferment of various groups, not of the multitude,but of organised groups, and that it was nationaland nameless. The individuals render invaluable service, of coiirse ; in each group there arealways one or two, sometimes more, individuals


159/347


160/347

116 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONmean a shifting of power from the hand of oneman to those of a clique ; this is the case in ourday in many of the great Hepublics and Constitutional Monarchies. Pestel also understoodthat a revolution must be based upon democracy.,and, in an agrarian country like Russia, land andfreedom were inseparable for the millions of peasants. " We may proclaim a republic/ 3 saidPestel, " but there will be chaos among us ; therewill be 110 general, popular rising until we abolishthe ownership of the nobles. The peasant requiresthe land." l " Pestel, 35 writes Herzen, " made amistake ; he miscalculated the time, but none theless he was a true prophet. 3 *Yet despite the mistakes of the Decembrists,despite their fate, their conspiracy exercised aprofound influence upon later generations, not somuch, perhaps, because of their propaganda andtheories as because of their example, their heroicattitude in the public square, during their trials,in prison, in the presence of their judges and ofthe Emperor himself, while in exile and at workin the mines. They broke the silence, they openeda window through which a fresh breath of freedomcould penetrate into the soul of the people andawaken from them their passivity. The Russiansdid not lack liberal or revolutionary ideas, or evenrealisation of their wrongs, but that audacity andinitiative that stimulate thought into action. 2It was this that the Decembrists provided.Other groups, seething with discontent, followedthe example of the nobles and officers. The

1 Of. Pokrovsky, I.e., p. 118; Herzen, La Oonspiration de1825.* Of. Herzen, Z.c., p, 68,


161/347


162/347

CHAPTER VITHE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY

FKOM THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I, 1825, UNTILTHE EMANCIPATION OF THE SERFS, 1861

NICHOLAS I looked upon liberalism as somethingplebeian and an insult to his Imperial dignity. Hedid his best, or his worst, to crush the spirit ofrevolt and became the Don Quixote of Absolutism,not only in Russia but in Europe, He believedwholly in militarism, and considered that obediencewas the first duty of a subject. The Tsar declared brutally and frankly his belief that autocracy was the only possible happy mode of lifefor humanity. Anything that even savoured ofdemocracy was a crime. It must be admittedthat the Tsar made one or two attempts to reformthe bureaucracy in Russia ; it was of this bandof thieves that he said : " I and my son are theonly men in Russia who do not steal." ButNicholas soon convinced himself that it was wastelabour. Tsardom relied upon bureaucracy, therefore it became the representative of autocracy, itsinstrument of oppression, and was consequentlydespised and hated by the nation.It seemed as if the Tsar had succeeded in crushing the spirit of revolt in Russia, The countrywas seamed with a net of spies; it was like a

118


163/347

THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 119spider s web in the midst of which sat Beelzebub,the head of the third section who was responsibleonly to the Tsar himself. In many ways Russiaresembled old Venice, for any Russian who evenin the innermost recesses of his soul dreamed offreedom carried his life in his hands, as in someunguarded moment his looks would mirror hismind. It was a bitter time for the spirit of revolt ; it met with practically no sympathy evenfrom the rest of Europe, for there the autocratwas hailed as the guardian of conservative interests.In order to live, the subjects of Tsar Nicholas hadto be hypocrites, for no one can expect an entirenation to become martyrs. Autocracy had triumphed, or so it seemed,But the Tsar was mistaken. Even during hisiron reign, despite the horror and the severity,the spirit of revolt still lived, still hoped, stillstruggled, still fought to make itself ready toemerge one day to full consciousness of its strength.After all, thought cannot be muzzled ; an electricfluid cannot be caught and imprisoned ; man sideas are his own and are impregnable. Russia,at this time, was like a living stream covered witha thick crust of ice. The ice-bound river hadstopped the spirit of revolt, but underneath thethick ice sheet the waters were still running, andone day they would break the ice and overflowthe banks. Every now and then an effort atrevolt was made even during the reign of Nicholas,thus showing the Tsar that Holy Russia was notso immaculate, so unpolluted by the sinful spiritof the age as he had imagined. Thus in 1848 thePetrashevski conspiracy was hatched and discovered.


164/347

120 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONEarly in March of the same year, and but afew days before the news of the Berlin Revolution

reached St. Petersburg, Count Perovski, Ministerof the Interior, was informed of the existence ofa complot, and that secret leaflets composed andprinted by Michael Petrashevski, an official at theMinistry, had been distributed. The news madea deep impression upon the Tsar, who thoughtthat he had entirely freed Russia from all revolutionary ideas.

Lipraiidi was entrusted with the inquiry, andthis clever spy soon discovered that Petrashevskihad been marked " suspect " by the Secret Policein 1845. He had compiled a dictionary of all theforeign expressions that had been given citizenrights in the Russian language, and he had included various " political allusions " It wasalso discovered that Petrashevski had been in thehabit of receiving parties of young men in hisrooms, and, instead of playing cards or drinkinglike respectable people, they spent their time discussing plans for new laws, etc. In short, he hadformed a literary club.

Liprandi made his report in 1849, a few weeksafter Austria had asked the Tsar to help her quellthe Hungarian Revolution. Petrashevski and hiscomrades, thirty-three in number, were arrestedand taken to the fortress of SS. Peter and PauLAmong the accused, were eight officials, twochamberlains, four officers of the guard, twoauthors, two students, one teacher of languagesand " one citizen." This proves that the spiritof revolt in Russia which had first manifested itselfamong the Cossacks and peasants, as shown bytheir Jacqueries and risings during the seventeenth


165/347


166/347


167/347

THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 123stronger and more vigorous while waiting for theopportunity to spfead its wings. Educated peopleread, thought and discussed in secret, whilst theignorant masses instinctively suffered and brooded,gradually forming opinions, hopes and aspirations. During the last few years of Nicholasreign a feeling that things could not go on as theyhad done, that there must soon be a change, wasabroad in the land.Though the number of secret malcontents and

r&ooltis greatly increased during the autocraticreign of Nicholas, yet because of the severity ofthe police and the network of spies, any organisedrevolutionary party or parties was impossibleafter the bloody days of 1826. There were onlythree distinct homesteads, as it were, for the spiritof revolt. These were, firstly, the members of theold boyarin families who had lost favour at Courtand been placed on the retired list. Among thesewere the inheritors of the liberal tendencies of1825 and the reign of Alexander I. The ideal ofthis fronde was a limitation of absolute monarchyby the aristocracy. Their discontent was stimulated by their hatred of the ever-increasing influence of the Court and military camarilla, whichwere mostly German, The universities madeanother homestead. Here a new and fresh lifewas developing despite the numerous governmentrestrictions that dealt with every detail, from thelectures to the life and dress of the students ; theyendeavoured to militarise the universities.Then suddenly there arose an opportunity whichautocracy had hoped to use for its own purposes,but which soon proved of great help to the growing ferment. This was the Crimean War. The


168/347

124 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONwars which Russian autocracy has waged since1812 have always been reflected in the internalpolicy of the country, and have had a deep andfar-reaching effect upon the development of thenational consciousness. Until 1812, the warswaged by autocracy had passed almost unnoticedby the masses of the nation. The specificallyRussian patriotism set burning by Rostoptshin storches, changed into a new flame,, the flame ofcosmopolitan ecstasy for freedom, freedom ofnations, which in the course of a century has notyet been extinguished. The events of 1825, thoughapparently a failure, had sown seeds in fertileground. A system was gradually being preparedwhich was diametrically opposed to that ofNicholas I. Nicholas had triumphed over Russia,triumphed over democracy in 1848, during theHungarian campaign, and the slaves aild flatterersof Tsardom were convinced that if the Tsar wished,he could triumph over Europe.Nicholas had failed. The bankruptcy of Russiawas proved ; the idol had feet of clay. Russia sthinking sons, children of revolt, were genuinelysorry and suffered deeply over the fall of Sebastopol,but, nevertheless, they were convinced that thetrue happiness and welfare of the nation, as distinguished from Tsardom, had nothing to fearfrom the Anglo-French victories at Inkermannand on the banks of the Tshernaya, and that thefall of Saragossa would render a greater serviceto Russia than those who had stormed MalakofL 1For a quarter of a century Nicholas will had beenlaw, not only for Russia but for Europe. Healone had been able to cry " stop " to the storm

1 CL 7* vorx Eckhardir, Russland vor und naefa dem Kriege, p. 327.


169/347

THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 125of revolution, to the demands of democracy,, tocrush every liberal thought and gesture of freedom. The Tsar, it was thought, must return ofcourse triumphant and victorious, and the Tsar svictories would be another of Tsardom s holdsupon the nation. But autocracy failed, for thearmies of the Tsar were beaten.In the midst of the war Nicholas died. Hismegalomania had received a check, his dreams ofomnipotence were shattered by stern reality, sohe died. His deathbed must have been a torture,like that of the Roman Emperor Tiberius. Whoknows but that Tsar Nicholas I, in a propheticvision, saw the forces of revolution gatheringstrength and finally triumphing over Tsardom,and his great-grandson, the second Nicholas, giving up the struggle, abdicating and being sent toSiberia in the midst of another war, with Russiathis time as an ally of the very powers he wasthen fighting ? Imperial and human tragi-comedy On the threshold of death this champion of autocracy, this enemy of liberalism may have had aglimpse into the future and heard the sighs andcurses of his numerous victims, all of whom hehad sacrificed to the Moloch of Tsardom. IfNicholas I had no prophetic vision, at least oneknows that he would die of shock could he butrise and see the Russia of to-day. If the deadare aware of the doings of the living and can turnin their graves, then, surely, the Tsar Nicholasmust be in a perpetual whirl The autocrat died. Official Russia mournedand lamented over his Imperial grave, but therevolutionary spirit, the spirit of revolt, uttereda sigh of relief in its prison house. France and


170/347

126 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONEngland paid a tribute de convenance, whilst Berlinand its Knutophiles deplored the disappearance ofthe autocrat. The revolutionaries of Russia drewnew breath when Alexander II ascended the throne-It seemed as if the dawn of liberty had risen onRussia s horizon and that, at last, the long-expected and hoped-for renaissance was at hand.The demand for freedom, for the abolition ofserfdom and the introduction of liberal, Westerninstitutions became louder. The aspirations ofRussian society and the Russian nation found itsexpression in Alexander Herzen, an exile livingin London who had founded The Bell, in whichhe published his political programmes. I shalldeal with Herzen s ideas in a subsequent chapter.Suffice it here to say that what Herzen practicallydemanded was the abolition of serfdom, the censorship and corporal punishment.Alexander II was one of the most liberal mindedmembers of the house of Romanov, but it shouldbe borne in mind that even in his case his liberalmeasures and reforms were not so much theresult of an impulsive movement as brought aboutby two external factors : public opinion andpopular discontent. Alexander stated his decisionto introduce reforms into Russia. The spirit ofrevolt was still too inexperienced to know that aRomanov could not grant a constitution, he musteither be an autocrat or ^abdicate. Thus every onebelieved that a new era had dawned on Russia,The Russian opposition, the heirs and successorsof the Decembrists, the men who had sighed andhoped or brooded and despaired during the reignof Nicholas I, never dreamed of replying : Tout ourien, as their successors of 1917, grown grey and


171/347


172/347

128 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONwere the conquerors ; that they as victors haddictated conditions to a conquered foe and usurper.No, it was an act of grace on the part of the autocrat, and the world applauded him for it. Neitherthe Russian revolutionaries nor the people hadany realisation of the deep humiliation of thatmethod of obtaining their freedom.

Alas, both the joy and the hope were of veryshort duration. It was but natural that thegoverning classes, all landed slaveowners, should,with a few exceptions, be disinclined to yield upsuch a lucrative source of income. The Russianlanded proprietor of those days led a life of happy,idle luxury, a perfect dolce far niente. Slavesworked for him ; his " souls " piled up money thathe might rush off to Paris now and then and spendit freely. The governing classes could not andwould not solve the question radically. Theslaves were liberated, men were set free, but theeconomic situation was far from having beenameliorated. The agrarian question had not beensolved as the liberals, revolutionaries and socialistshad trusted it would. The peasants did not receive the land they had been cultivating, for thegreatest part of the soil still remained in the possession of the proprietors. Moreover, the peasantsdid not receive what land was allotted to themfree of expense : they had to pay heavy rents andtaxes ; in many cases, indeed, the taxes came tomore than the peasant could earn by the cultivation of his land. Therefore, the liberated slaveswere economically much worse off than before.Hence the strange phenomenon of men and women,nominally free and their own masters, sighingmiserably for the happy, halcyon days of serfdom.


173/347

TSA.lt At/EXANDEB II MONTJMENT.(By Antokolsky.)128]


174/347


175/347

THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 129After having celebrated the feast of freedom,the Russian peasant wept for the flesh pots of

slavery. The peasants themselves believed thatthe Tsar had decreed that they should receive theland, but that the landowners refused to give itup. The Moujiks clung to this belief for manyyears ; indeed, it has only quite recently, thanks tothe energetic propaganda organised by the revolutionaries, been eradicated. As for the intellectualsthey immediately understood that the Government did not really intend to break with the past,and that Alexander himself could not belie theautocratic tendencies of his father. 1In a word, the reforms of Alexander, especiallythe emancipation of serfdom, did not have theexpected results. The Tsar had made an initialmistake, a mistake that Tsars and autocrats arebound to make : he wished to appear liberal andyet remain an autocrat. The same mistake, inthe opposite sense, is often made by apostles ofliberty and democracy : they proclaim the principle of nationality in the same breath as universalpeace ; they attempt to be national patriots andinternational socialists at one and the same time,not seeming to realise that these are contradictoryideas.On the other hand, the emancipation of theserfs annoyed the aristocrats and landowners,idealistically inclined though these were. Theywere far from pleased with the reality, for itcaused them to lose their source of revenue, whilstthe moujiks, liberty-struck, asked for more. Thepeasants had heard of and hoped for " freedom,"but in the simplicity of their minds they had1 Of. Qolovatshev, p. 6.

9


176/347

180 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONimagined this freedom to be something quitedifierent from what it proved to be in reality. Theyhad fondly imagined that all the ground whichthey, as serfs, had cultivated for the seigneurs,would become their absolute property, free ofrates and taxes. The discontent of the massestherefore grew; they were in a constant state ofseething fermentation. The intellectuals, seeingthe discontent and excitement of the peasants,imagined that a peasant revolution was at handwhich would, like a human hurricane, sweep asideand destroy the old regime and pull down thebulwarks of autocracy,But the hopes of the revolutionaries werepremature. The peasants were angry, but theiranger was against the nobility and the seigneurs,not against the autocracy or Tsardom. However,the peasants, though dissatisfied, resigned themselves to the existing state of affairs. It was notyet possible for the intellectual revolutionaryelement to enlighten the peasants : firstly, becausethe peasants distrusted the intellectuals whomthey looked upon as mere seigneurs and also because their social and political consciousness wasbut slightly developed ; and secondly, the intellectuals had not learnt how to penetrate the massesand make them listen to them. The intellectualsthemselves were quite convinced that Russia couldexpect nothing from autocracy, and that herpeople would have to use force to secure theirliberty or any true reforms ; they could not hopeto receive them as gifts from the Tsar.The peasants, among them the Stenka Razinsand Pougatshevs had stirred revolt as long as theywere serfs, were not satisfied with the new order


177/347


178/347


179/347

THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 133and the Catholics forbidden to correspond withRome.The army also was a hotbed of revolt, It mustbe borne in mind that conscription, as it thenexisted in Russia, was not conscription of freecitizens gathered to defend their country againstan invader, but of the slaves of autocracy. Menwere ruthlessly torn from their homes and familiesand sent out to fight, not pro aris et focis, but inthe interests of Tsardom, of Imperialistic plansand tendencies. Such a state of affairs naturallyfostered the spirit of revolt in the hearts of theRussian soldiers, who, though clad in the militaryuniform, were yet Slavs. Many of the soldierswere former political offenders who had been in

corporated, by force, into the army. The naturalresult was that these cc criminals " did not let anyopportunity slip of preaching and fostering thespirit of revolt among their comrades. However,it was not only the soldiers, corporals, sergeantsand sub-officers who had grievances, for, since itwas the custom for all the higher army posts tobe given to the noble by birth, men of merit anddistinction were passed over. Ambitious soldierswho had distinguished themselves on the battlefield were excluded from the officer ranks ; thesewere filled by young nobles fresh from the militaryschool. These military malcontents furnished alarge contingent of the revolutionaries.Thus, discontent was increasing in variousgroups, social, national and religious. The spiritof revolt was again raising its wings. The forcesof revolution were gathering, the doom of Tsardomwas approaching, the invisible hand was alreadywriting its " Menef mene, tekel upharsin" upon


180/347

134 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONthe wall. But though the forces were accumulating in the various strata of Russian society, theywere scattered and lacked unity, organisation,cohesion. Discontent and revolt were spreadingslowly but surely, yet, since the interests of thevarious groups were so diverse, centralisation wasdifficult of attainment. There were wide gulfsbetween the groups, many of whom were jealousof the others ; it has taken decades to make theseunderstand and trust one another. When all thegroups realised that however different their interests might be, they had one object in commonthe abolition of Tsardom and autocracy theywere able to reach their full power. It becamethe work of the Russian intellectuals, philosophersand sociologists to teach this truth, to show thevarious groups that before a new Russian Statecould be built upon the ruins of Tsardom, thelatter would have to be torn down, and, to dothat, the revolutionary forces would have to concentrate ; all the blind forces would have to runthe one way and that the right way. Thus theseRussian philosophers and sociologists gave articulate voice to what the masses were only vaguelyand inarticulately feeling.


181/347

CHAPTER VIILITTERATEURS, PHILOSOPHERS ANDSOCIOLOGISTS

IT has sometimes been asserted that the Frenchphilosophers of the eighteenth century contributedbut little to the great French upheaval; thateven if Rousseau had never written, the doctrineof popular sovereignty would, in any case, haveasserted itself in France sooner or later. Thespirit of restlessness and discontent had long beenprevalent in France. When Lord Chesterfieldvisited the country in 1753, he said that the symptoms indicative of great changes in governmentwere then present. On this account it is arguedthat all that Voltaire, Rousseau, Condorcet, Mably,Morelli and others did was to give voice and expression to latent feelings. It would probably betruer to say that the French philosophers sowedthe seed of revolution by scattering new ideas onsoil prepared to receive them. The same servicehas been rendered Russia by her philosophers.Russia real Russia, not the Russia of theRomanovs has long been vaguely craving forreform; her philosophers have taught her howto give more or less definite shape to the vagueaspirations already in the hearts of the multitude.During the reign of Catherine II the political,

135


182/347

186 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONsocial, and philosophical ideas of the eighteenthcentury gained numerous adherents in Russia.Few, however, were the men capable of reallyassimilating the theories of Voltaire and theEncyclopaedists. The influence of Freemasonrywas more lasting. Basing itself upon Christianityinstead of breaking with it, Russian Freemasonryaimed not so much at political and social reformsas at the perfection of the individual. Yet,indirectly, it exercised a certain influence uponthe political and social ideals of the day. Fightingas it did against national and religious fanaticism,it necessarily had to point out existing abuses,and to condemn them. Its work was consequentlycritical, as well as constructive. While in Germany Freemasonry was of a mystical character, inRussia it became an ethical and organising movement ; it grouped together men of thought andindependent judgment and enabled them to exercise an influence upon the masses.One of the most prominent figures among themasonic societies in Russia under Catherine II wasNovikov. In his paper, the Utrenyi Sviet, he notonly advocated a high ethical ideal, but alsocarried on a vigorous polemic against Catherine sforeign policy, and the warfare it devolved. Hesaid that war, except for defence, should be altogether abhorred. For some time Catherine herself a disciple of Voltaire and a friend of Diderotallowed Novikov to continue his philanthropicand ethical Christian work, but the outbreak ofthe French Revolution altered her views. Shethen saw in every manifestation of independentsocial thought a political agitation. Consequently,the masonic lodges were closed and Novikov


183/347

LITTERATEURS AND PHILOSOPHERS 187himself, in spite of Ms advanced age, was throwninto the dungeons of Schlusselburg. His workmay be regarded as the first sprouting of independent thought in Russia, the first expression ofa craving for freedom. It was hazy, vague andmainly humanitarian and ethical, for the philosopher never dared to include in his programmethe reorganisation of society and of the State.Nevertheless it was a subversive movement, as ittended to create an independent public opinionin Russia, and thus to provide the first essentialrequisite for any social upheaval.Towards the end of Catherine s reign, timidvoices demanding social reforms began to beheard. Russian intellectuals who had come underthe influence of Rousseau s doctrine that all menare born equal, were not content with the spectacleof the few living in luxury whilst the many werestarving. One of the most noteworthy of the manyprecursors of revolutionary thought in Russia atthis period was Radishtshev, the author of AJourney from Moscow to St. Petersburg, an avowedand famous imitation of Sterne s SentimentalJourney. Radishtshev did not dare to demandpolitical changes, though he was definitely anopponent of absolutism. He specially urged theneed for agrarian reforms. He created no organisation and no party ; he only gave expression to theever-growing unrest of the Russian intellectualswho had absorbed the philosophical, political andsocial doctrines of Western Europe. He wasfinally arrested, tried and condemned to death ;but Catherine, cabotine that she was, showed herself magnanimous, and commuted his sentence tothat of exile to Siberia for ten years, Paul I re-


184/347

138 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONcalled the exile, as he did many ot

pioneer soft her us 000165 mbp

Documents