A history of Russia

Soloviev and his followers. Soloviev, a son of the historian Serge Soloviev, lived from 1853 until 1900 and wrote on a variety of difficult philosophical and theological subjects. A study in ethics, A Justification of the Good, is generally considered his masterpiece. A trenchant critic of the radical creed of the age, as well as of chauvinism and reaction, Soloviev remained a rather isolated individual during his lifetime, but came to exercise a profound influence on the intellectual elite of the 'silver age.' In effect almost everything he had stood for, from imaginative and daring theology to a sweeping critique of the radical intelligentsia, suddenly came into prominence in the early twentieth century.

The new critique of the intelligentsia found its most striking expression in a slim volume entitled Signposts - Vekhi - which appeared in 1909. Signposts contained essays by seven authors, including such prominent converts from Marxism as Peter Struve, Nicholas Berdiaev, and Serge Bulgakov, and constituted an all-out attack on the radical intelligentsia: Russian radicals were accused of an utter disregard for objective truth, religion, and law, and of an extreme application of the maxim that the end justifies the means, with destruction as their only effective passion. Although Signposts represented a minority of Russian intellectuals and attracted strong rebuttals, a new cleavage among educated Russians became apparent - a cleavage all the more revealing because the critics of the intelligentsia could by no means be equated with the Right. Eventually Struve, 1870-1944, became a leading thinker and political figure of the moderate conservatives; Berdiaev, 1874-1948, acquired world fame as a personalist philosopher and champion of 'creative freedom'; and Bulgakov, 1871-1944, entered the priesthood and developed into the most controversial Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century. Other prominent intellectuals of the 'silver age' included the 'biological mystic' Basil Rozanov, who was especially concerned with the problem of sex, the brilliant anti-rationalist Leo Shestov - a pseudonym of Leo Schwartzmann - and the metaphysicians Semen Frank - another contributor to Signposts - and Nicholas Lossky. By comparison with the 1860's or even the 1890's, the Russian intellectual scene had indeed changed on the eve of the First World War.

Concluding Remarks

The development of Russian culture in the years preceding 1917 suggests certain significant parallels to the political, economic, and social condition of the country. Most striking was the disparity between the few and the many. In the early twentieth century, Russia possessed a rich variety of poetic schools and the best ballet in the world, but the majority of the people remained illiterate. It was even difficult to communicate across the chasm. One is reminded of Chekhov's story. 'The Malefactor,' where a

peasant brought to court for stealing a bolt from the railroad tracks to weight his fishing tackle fails to see his guilt, explains that enough bolts are left for the train, and in describing his activities constantly refers to 'we,' meaning the peasants of his village, the people. Again, it can be argued that on the eve of the revolutions Russia exhibited progress and vigorous activity in intellectual as well as in other matters, straining against the confines of the established order. But, contrary to the Soviet view, this intellectual development did not lead ineluctably to Bolshevism. More than that, the cultural climate of the 'silver age' indicated that the Russian educated public was finally moving away from the simple materialistic, utilitarian, and activist beliefs professed by Lenin and his devoted followers. It would appear that the Bolsheviks had to succeed soon or not at all. How they did succeed will be told in the next chapter.

XXXIV

THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1917

The collapse of the Romanov autocracy in March 1917 was one of the most leaderless, spontaneous, anonymous revolutions of all time. While almost every thoughtful observer in Russia in the winter of 1916-17 foresaw the likelihood of the crash of the existing regime no one, even among the revolutionary leaders, realized that the strikes and bread riots which broke out in Petrograd on March 8 would culminate in the mutiny of the garrison and the overthrow of the government four days later.

CHAMBERLIN

The enemies of Bolshevism were numerous, but they were also weak, poorly organized, divided, and apathetic. The strategy of Lenin was calculated to emphasize their divisions, neutralize their opposition, and capitalize on their apathy. In 1902 in What Is To Be Done? Lenin had written, 'Give us an organization of revolutionaries, and we shall overturn the whole of Russia!' On November 7, 1917, the wish was fulfilled and the deed accomplished.

FAINSOD

As has been indicated in preceding chapters, the constitutional period of Russian imperial history has continued to evoke much controversy, to cite only the contributions by Haimson and other American scholars. Optimistic students of the development of Russia from the Revolution of 1905 to the First World War and the revolutions of 1917 have emphasized that Russia had finally left autocracy behind and was evolving toward liberalism and political freedom. The change in 1907 in the electoral law indicated that the Duma could no longer be abolished. Moreover, the reformed Russian legislature proceeded to play an important part in the affairs of the country and to gain ever-increasing prestige and acceptance at home, among both government officials and the people, as well as abroad. As an Englishman observed, 'the atmosphere and instincts of parliamentary life' grew in the empire of the Romanovs. Besides, continue the optimists, Russian society at the time was much more progressive and democratic than the constitutional framework alone would indicate, and was becoming increasingly so every year. Modern education spread rapidly at different levels and was remarkably humanitarian and liberal - as were Russian teachers as a group - not at all likely to serve as a buttress for antiquated ideas or obsolete institutions. Russian universities enjoyed virtually full freedom and a rich creative life. Elsewhere, too, an energetic discussion went on. Even the periodical press, in spite of various restrictions, gave some representa-

tion to every point of view, including the Bolshevik. Government prohibitions and penalties could frequently be neutralized by such simple means as a change in the name of a publication or, if necessary, by sending the nominal editor to jail, while important political writers continued their work. To be sure, grave problems remained, in particular, economic backwardness and the poverty of the masses. But, through industrialization on the one hand and Stolypin's land reform on the other, they were on the way to being solved. Above all, Russia needed time and peace.

Pessimistic critics have drawn a different picture of the period. Many of them refused even to call it 'constitutional,' preferring such terms as Scheinkonstitutionalismus - that is, sham constitutionalism - because, both according to the Fundamental Laws and in fact, the executive branch of the government and the ministers in particular were not responsible to the Duma. In any case, the critics asserted, whatever the precise character of the original arrangements, they were destroyed by the arbitrary electoral change of 1907, and by Nicholas II's entire authoritarian and reactionary policy. On the whole, the government refused to honor even its own niggardly concessions to the public. Nonentities, like Goremykin and Sukhomlinov, and the fantastic Rasputin himself, were logical end products of the bankruptcy of the regime. Other aspects of the life of the country, ranging from political terrorism, both of the Left and of the Right, to Russification and interminable 'special regulations' to safeguard order, emphasized further the distance that Russia had to travel before it could be considered progressive, liberal, and law-abiding. Social and economic problems were still more threatening, according to the pessimists. Fundamental inequality and widespread destitution could not be remedied by a few large-scale 'hothouse' industries and by a redivision of the peasants' inadequate land. Workers in particular, including those concentrated in St. Petersburg and in Moscow, were becoming more radical and apparently more