evitable transformation of society by pledging themselves to the service of humanity and a socialism that was 'practical' and 'positive' rather than 'metaphysical' and revolutionary.
Newly infused with historical optimism, the intelligentsia required a further sense of identity through its ??? ^?^?^?~?^1 amp;???/^ policies that predormnated_in^the late yeare_ci^lexajader^J[eigii. They felt obliged to carry on the tradition of uncompromising; protest and strivinpjlor''' sotianjgJie^mentJhaUia^^
skyjjo carry on the critical traditions of the dead Dobroliubov and Pisarev
and the journalistic traditions of the newly abolished Sovremennik. Ironically
enough, the introjhictionoJUrj amp;Tbj!jujyin4?_wjrypatified the intelligentsia's
thir^lo1ju^tic?:_Ori_Jie_contrary, it hplrj^jJgrjJfyZftgir ‹pt1sfi .gtjlllill^'''
martyrdomJ3y_j^vMing^for solf-dofense
through impassioned oration.
~ThTrs7]inj5e~^^ radicals had cony^rtedtheiryouthful {attachm.eni.tO} scifiaceinto an optimistic
Chernyjh?y_skjj^ohad suffered fo?jbejr_beliefs. They viewed themselves as a dedicated elite of intelligentnye, kul'turnye, tsivilizovannye, though they were not necessarily 'intelligent,' 'cultured,' or even 'civilized' in the usual Western sense of these terms. They thought of themselves as practical rather than 'superfluous' people: students ~bTl;cieme,jm.d__servants of history. However much they debated over what the scientific 'formula for pro^ess'^mght_be and what the coming 'ftfiird age' of humanity might bring, they all viewed themselves as members of a common group which Pisarev and Shelgunov called the 'thinkingprolefanat,' Lavrov 'critically thinking personalities','' and ethers- '-'cultural pioneers?''
In the summer of 1868, the group can be_ amp;aid to have been formally aptm^h^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^01 attbat^Inte^KfiKhailovsky entitled his critical column for the new 'thick journal,' The Contemporary Review, 'Letters on the Russian Intelligentsia.' This column was tihecentral one in a journal designed to_rjergetuate the traditions of Chernyshevsky and Dobroliubov (its title being deliberately chosen forTts'resemblaflce-tB-ftat of their Contemporary). Although this journal did not last long, Mikhailov-sky soon joined' the r^we amp;7btmxls~vf-the Fatherland, the old journal of Maikov and Belinsky in the forties, which now became the medium for propagating the.belief that Russian social thought was providing a new elite*' who were theelect of history ?????????1?^
1870, the Annals increased its circulation from 2,000 to 8,000-the largest monffly^frculatioffattained up to that time by any radicaljcuKar.''Miffiai=~'*-lovsky, aschlefcfitteTof the ]??????????? bSToFBHmsky over his writing
desk. Other critics on it were Eliseev, a former associate of Chernyshevsky, and Skabichevsky, a former leader of the Sunday-school movement; and the belles-lettres department was dominated by the great satirist and former Petrashevets, Saltykov, and the 'civic poet' and former editor of The Contemporary, Nekrasov. The Annals became 'the bible of the Russian in-te?^ent,sjaJl?^U?lxJ2gca'?se of its self-conscious pose as heir to the radical traditions of Russian social thought, but alsoberau^e^f^jffijpagatiojLoJ, the nelFoffimistic theory of history. Another former associate_ofjCherny-shevsky_j›ojnted independently in the^ sujmmer-of-x86 amp;Jo.the jirnpOTtanceof the optimistic historical faith for the nascent intelligentsia:
the union of the heights and depths, of intelligentsia with the people is not an empty dream. This union is an inevitable historical law. It is the path of our progress. . . ,88
Intelligence mustjkjw into_p?Q_ple, just as the intelligentsia must j›o_out amongjhe people. This was the imperative that Herzen had first presented the young generation_on the pages of the Bell late i' ?^??, gt»g_tbe. University of St. Petersburg was closed because of student riots:
Whither should you go, youth from whom science has been taken away? . . . Listen-from all corners of the vast fatherland: from the Don and Urals, from the Volga and Dnieper the groans are increasing, the murmur is rising-It 'sJ'2?Jgitbi.liS amp;Jf'ar of an nrfii? WflVP • • • Into the people, to the people (v narod! ? narodu)-there is your destination, banished men of science. . . .39
Herzen's plea had already been answered to a considerable extent by the extraoniinary^^nchiy-school movement which flourished in Russia bgtgeen 1859-62 and may_?roperT3rbedesc7Ibed as the_first_of the large- scale penitential' effortsof the urbluTintelleHuluTto take the fruits of learnmgto the ordinary people? P. Pavlov, the proiessoTof Russian history at Kiev, was the 'pioneer of this movemlmT't5''providTTree p^irT3imejns4niction for the , indigent.40 He was but 6ne~of~artarge~number of provincial InstonarirTo build an aura of heroic dignity about Russian popular institutions and stimulate the desire of urban intellectuals to rediscover the richness and spontaneity of rural Russia. A. Shchapov and G. Eliseev, two of the most influential populist journalists of the seventies, both began their careers as students of the raskol at the Kazan theological seminary. Kostomarov, a veteran of Ukrainian radical activities and professor of Russian history at St. Petersburg, lent a new glamor to the tradition of peasant revolution and was perhaps the most popular of all lecturers among the radical new men of the sixties. Ivan Prvzhov wrote a History of Taverns, contending that the true commuriaTfeelings and revolutionary spirit of the simple people can
only be appreciated in their taverns. Herzen paid great attention to the Old Believers and printed up a special supplement for them. Even the rationalistic and utilitarian-minded Chernyshevsky began his journalistic career with an article in praise of the 'fools for Christ's sake' and ended it with a defense of the Old Believers. This extraordinary interest in thepecuriarities . of Russian rural life-and particularly in the unique traditions of popular religious dissent-helped convince the urban intdle?tua]5_^iat=Russia hacTa' special destiny to fulfill and untapppd^popular_resources for^realizing^it.
_~'- ii in i *-'
developing in Russia since the 1840's, the populists believed that a special
path for Russian social development lay'~Tn' ext^ndin^ the, principles of
profit sharjng_and cormroinabendeavor still preyjulnigjn_the peasant com
mune. This peaceful transformation of society could be accomplished only
by dedicated servants of humanity who had no desire to. aggrandize_w_ealth in
the English manner or power in the German fashion. They saw little hope in
working through political media for reform, since European politics was
