initial effort to educate urban workers and evangelize them with the new belief in the inevitability of progress involved many of the Russian radicals who were to become well known in the West through prolific later writings in exile: Peter Kropotkin and Serge Kravchinsky (Stepniak). Disillusioned with the lack of response to their teachings among the working class, the Chaikovtsy concluded that they must go instead to the peasantry, which still dominated the thinking of the Russian masses. Accordingly, they suddenly found thei»sdy?^cjughtjupin the 'mad summer' of JJ amp;7A.. one of the most ^ fan^stic..^ad^unprecedented~lociiT~ movements of the entire nineteenth
century.*~ ' ~~--.-- -¦-
,~ Suddenly, without any central leadership or direction, more than two
thou^aj3dj^e^2nd_a_number oFolderj5eople and aristocrats were swept' awaybyas?irit_of self-renunciation. In almost every province of European Russia, young intellectuals dressed_asj›easants and set out from the cities
to live among them, join in their daily life, and bring to them the good news'''' that a new age was dawning. Rich landowners_gaye_ away their possessions or agreeTTto jet .students use their estates for social propaganda and experi-ment; agnostic Jews had themsejyes~b~aptised~asOrthgdox in order to be moje at one with the peasantry; women joined in the exodus in order to.
*haH12g|''jjyJn ^' hopFf! ???| suffering 43
The rpg'Tr^JS13fi-.pf*rplffY'*4_and terrified by this 'movement to the – people,'' arresting 770andmolesting many more in its effortjo crushjE?'' ~', ?????????? haijhypressjnn o'F~a non-yjplent movement only pushed
populism into more violent and extreme_j›aths. Mikhailovsky, the leading ‹- popularizer' of evolutionary populism in the seventies, always described populism as a middle way for Russia between the Scylla of reaction and the Charybdis of revolution. It was the fate of_populism in the late seventies to be first dashed against the rock to the right andjhen sucked into the whirlpool to thejeft T'oTmHirstand thlT|ate of pj›rajlisjn_MdJhe^ljrnacti? events of thej,aj?jjeyenties and e^rly^ejght^,j3M^
nature of the reactionary and revolutionary traditions Itot^MJiOilfiMrgBtly-develo_p?dinRussia.
The Scylla of reaction was expressed not so much in the ruthless arrests of late 1874 as in the subsequent war with Turkey. This war wasj;he_direct_ result of the new imperialistic doctrine of messianic Pan-Slavism. It was a large'-'Sc'aTFdeE6erate war of aggrandizement, brutally foughtagainstabratal foe by a citizen's army that Russialiadjtssembled throu^fl^ritroHiigtioiur of a more^stemalic and muver?aTconscription in 1874. Thiswar_gase_~~
for violence and
ideals of ???1?_????§? extraordinarily difficult.
Reactionary Pan-Slavism began in the second half of Alexander's reign to replace in many minds official nationality as the ideology of tsarist Russia. Faced with a many-sided ideological assault in the course of the sixties, the~tsarist regime had luTneaTrorn fts initial policy of prag--^ rhatic liber^rcrage'ssiorrs to a new Thiliiant nationalism. Great Russian chauvinism first proved its worth as an antidote to revolutionary enthusiasm
during the Polish uprising of 1863. The sejm^oJScJaLiellow press skillfully sou^httodiscredit the revolutionaries as traitors because of their sympathy with the Poles and to glorify iTseneToTT^ulisiari military leaders as popular folK'Eeroes. A former radical, Michael Katkov, championed this approach in his new newspaper, Moscow News, which he proudly designated 'the organ of a party which may be called Russian, ultra-Russian, exclusively Russian.'44
To compete in the idealistic atmosphere of the sixties, however, a
*-»1? iu rsiiw ??????
J /1? ? ? II IKJ Jl/LlWl X ftlVWg
played on classic Russian prejudices by denoundngnotonly_Jbe_Tj^ Gerrri3ns~but also tne Poles as Western trahoj^_jndMjh?_Jitmgaiiaiis_as^ 'AsJ^rrmtertSpeTg'
.tera'E5fc
party bidding for public favor had to offer some noble, altruistic goal to the
public. Thus, the 'exclusively Russian party' of Katkov resurrected the old
rornMticJd?alof_Slay^^it to theJRiissjan pjihljc^asji^
kind of latter-day crusade against both the 'Romano-rieriT›an'-Mfest 4,pd _ the heathen Turks.
The center ofthis new reactionary PaJi-Slavisrn__was Moscow, in_ which__tEe^acobin externiits~6L^Z^ft were concurrently gathering strength in th^Jatesixties. The decisive event in the emergence of reactionary Pan- Slavism was the Moscow Slavic Congress of 1867, which was largely supported by the city of Moscow and loudly hailed by Aksakov's journal Moscow as well as Katkov's Moscow News. The only previous congress of Slavs had takenplacein Praguein 18^8_, with ????^?^^?' representatives being two outcasts: the revolutionary Bakunin and_an01d BelSve^ishop^^BuL the_new congress wasZgjyen lamb support aj_djs|›on-sorship by official Russia. Itbgcajne, in effejrt_Jbe first of those now-fanuliar ^cuTturaF festivals whose m^gJfSc(:ical re^Ttlt^isto^ad^ng^ RusjknpoMcaT^g^ves.^he writing that most perfectly expressed the views of reactionary Pan-Slavs in Russia was a hitherto unpublished treatise by an obscure Slovakian called Slavdom and the World of the Future, which was suddenly vaulted to prominence in the closing days of the congress. It
?
called for the.jmjficajtifin of the Slavs under Russian leadership, with
Moscow tobejthj^capjtaljjRu^to J›e
(he' religion.45 The idea__of_^yjoJeiU^jrjrcc^ncjkble conflict between the Slavic 'and the 'Romano-German worlds was given a__^mJ^jSvrafe-scientffic formulation by a biologist and former Petrashevets, Nicholas Da^ilevsky7inHhTs'T7SS«a and Europe, published serially in 1868, and as a book in 1871.
Pan-Slavism became ????_?^?? amp;???1 tdeolggyjhrough sughworks as the sho?ter^nd_jnofe_ blunLJuempxandum^jjf General Rostislav Fadeev, Opinion on the Eastern QuestiQUk. which was also published serially in thelate sixtiesanjiJu^_as_aJ3aatin -187.0. During the Russb-Turkish War of 1877-8, this frankl^xpansionistideoJbgyOTo^d^tq^ngly effective in rallying mass support for a successful war effort. This
