The debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky in early Soviet Russia

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note w ill indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UM I directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE DEBATE OVER BAKUNIN AND DOSTOEVSKY IN EARLY SOVIET RUSSIA Copyright 2001 by James Goodwin A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (SLAVIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES) August 2001 James Goodwin Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U M I Number: 3054738 Copyright 2001 by Goodwin, James All rights reserved. _ ___ __( g ) UMI UMI Microform 3054738 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THB GRADUATE SCHOOL UNI VHSITY PAMC LOS ANOBL8S, CALIFORNIA M O O T This dissertation, written by t; Ja Ct t poduj / *? ...................... under the direction of f c. 1 . . ?. — Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members* has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re quirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dam of G ndm tt Studies D a te Augus £ _ 7 _ _ 2 O 0 1 _ ......... DISSERTATION COMMITTEE CfalFJPfflDll Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. James Goodwin Dr. Alexander Zholkovsky ABSTRACT THE DEBATE OVER BAKUNIN AND DOSTOEVSKY IN EARLY SOVIET RUSSIA This dissertation examines a scholarly debate which developed in Soviet Russia over a thesis presented by the literary specialist Leonid Grossman in 1923. In a close study of Fedor Dostoevsky’s political novel Besy, Grossman proposed that the famous Russian anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin, served as the historical prototype for the character Nikolai Stavrogin and therefore occupied an important place in Dostoevsky’s “pamphlet” against revolution in Russia. For the next five years, in public lectures and in leading organs of the Soviet press, Grossman defended his thesis against vehement opposition by a number of other specialists in the fields of Russian literature and history, partisan and non-partisan alike. Evidence suggests that by 1926, the “debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky,” as it came to be known, had developed into one of the most important and widely publicized discussions of Besy in the Soviet period. While brief allusions to Grossman’s thesis may be found in scholarship of the past seventy years, to my knowledge no study has attempted to explain why Grossman’s “historical-literary investigation” proved to be so controversial in early Soviet Russia. Having considered the details of Grossman’s many claims, his evidence, and the counter-arguments of his opponents, the dissertation seeks to demonstrate that attitudes toward Grossman’s thesis were determined to a large extent by the recent experiences of the October revolution and civil war, in which the intellectual legacies of both Bakunin and Dostoevsky played a large role. Through an analysis of other relevant polemics that unfolded simultaneously with the “debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky,” the dissertation attempts to reconstruct the political context of Grossman’s thesis in order to enhance the reader’s understanding of its reception. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ii Acknowledgments This dissertation owes its completion to the efforts and assistance of many individuals. I extend my gratitude, firstly, to my advisory committee, Professors Alexander Zholkovsky, Marcus Levitt, Thomas Seifrid and Steven Lamy of the University of Southern California, for their generous help, thoughtful comments and useful suggestions. Special thanks also to Fred Choate of the University of California at Davis, who offered valuable feedback and great inspiration throughout the entire project. I thank the American Council of Teachers of Russian, the Marta Feuchtwanger Foundation at U.S.C., and the Russian State Humanities University in Moscow for facilitating and supporting an extended trip to Russia, where I conducted much of the research for this work. I would also like to thank the librarians at the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art, the Russian Center for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Contemporary History, and the Russian State Library in Moscow, as well as the State Public Library, the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) and the Department of Book Archives of the Pushkin Museum in St. Petersburg, for their assistance in locating and obtaining important source material. Aleksei Shchedrovitsky spent many hours helping me to decipher and translate a number of Russian texts which I needed for this study. My deepest gratitude, finally, to my wife Irina for nearly four years of constant assistance with virtually every aspect of the project. Along with my father, mother and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sister, she provided unfailing encouragement, understanding, patience and support from beginning to end. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii Notes to the Reader vii INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter 1 PRELIMINARY ISSUES IN THE DEBATE 21 1.1 Stavrogin as a “portrait” of Bakunin 22 1.2 The issue of Stavrogin’s genesis 31 1.3 The problem of multiple prototypes 47 1.4 Conclusion 63 Chapter 2 THE PROBLEM OF DOSTOEVSKY’S SOURCES 66 2.1 Dostoevsky’s possible meetings with Bakunin 68 2.2 Discussions with Bakunin’s associates 82 2.3 Writings by and about Bakunin 98 2.4 Conclusion 123 Chapter 3 GROSSMAN’S “COINCIDENCES” AND THE PROBLEM OF STAVROGIN’S ROLE IN BESY 125 3.1 Grossman’s “less essential” evidence and the issue of “fortuitous coincidences” 126 3.2 Stavrogin and the political conspiracy in Besy 138 3.3 Similarities between Stavrogin’s and Bakunin’s revolutionary activity 163 3.4 Conclusion 184 Chapter 4 THE PROBLEM OF BAKUNIN’S “FALL” 186 4.1 Grossman’s critique of Bakunin’s character in light of the “Confession” 187 4.2 First responses to the “Confession” 211 4.3 Counter-responses to the “Confession” 236 4.4 Conclusion 259 Chapter 5 THE PROBLEM OF “BAKUNINISM” 262 5.1 Grossman’s critique of Bakuninism and its sources in the Marxist tradition 263 5.2 The responses of Borovoi and Otverzhennyi in light of the anarchist tradition 278 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V 5.3 Polonsky’s reply to Grossman and the Bolshevik attitude toward anarchism 299 5.4 Conclusion 335 CONCLUSION 340 WORKS CITED 363 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Notes to the Reader Translation Except for those instances that are indicated with a footnote, all translations are my own. Although nearly all Russian source material is cited in English translation, however, in many cases I have included in square brackets the original Russian in cyrillic for clarification. When spelled out explicitly within the text, titles of publications and their sources (journals, collections, etc.) generally appear in English translation, followed by the original cyrillic in square brackets. Exceptions include certain standardized transliterated titles, like the Russian newspaper Pravda; titles that represent obvious cognates, like the novel Idiot', and titles that appear directly in a footnote. Square brackets are also used to substitute words in a quote where necessary, for example “[Dostoevsky]” in place of “he.” Transliteration Certain Russian words (names, for the most part) are transliterated into English according to the Library of Congress system of transliteration. Exceptions are endings in “-skii,” which are transliterated as “-sky.” Soft and hard signs are rendered with an apostrophe [*]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii Dates All dates are given in the style which was current for that date. Thus a date of January 1 ,18S0 represents the “old style” Russian calendar, which lasted until January 1918, while a date of January 1,1919 represents the “new style,” which took effect in 1918. Unless otherwise noted, numbers within round parentheses refer to pagination in the collection The Debate Over Bakunin and Dostoevsky, by far the most frequently cited primary source in the dissertation. Round parentheses are also used on occasion for alternate surnames, for example “Ivanova (Khmyrova).” In accordance with a Russian convention, on their first occurrence Russian names are indicated by the initials of the individual's first and middle (patronymic) names and their full surnames (for example, “A.I. Herzen”). Names of fictional characters, however, are given in full. Sources “Works Cited” at the end of the dissertation are divided into non-Russian sources, listed first, and Russian sources, listed second. Both non-Russian and Russian sources are listed alphabetically. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I Introduction The novel Besy and the “Debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky” Weil over a century after its completion in 1873, Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky’s Besy, or D e m o n scontinues to enjoy the reputation of one of “the greatest of all political novels,” as a Western scholar once described it.2 With its many allusions to real individuals and events of the time, principally the so-called '‘ Nechaev affair” of 1869, the narrator’s “chronicle” of social destruction in Besy has led generations of readers to study it not only as a work of fiction, but also as a tendentious “pamphlet” against the theory and practice of revolution in Russia. Because of its unsympathetic attitude toward the ideas and principles Dostoevsky associated with revolution, moreover, Besy has always provoked extreme responses throughout its one hundred and thirty year history in Russia, from undisguised hostility to reverential praise. One well-known consequence was an effective ban on Besy throughout the Stalin period, when the fate and status of most literary works, especially those of Dostoevsky, depended to a large extent on the political orientation of their author. Another, less familiar consequence was a sharp rise of interest in Dostoevsky’s “pamphlet” during the early Soviet period, when a combination of different circumstances allowed for a closer study of Besy. In spite of its subsequent 1. Dostoevsky’s novel Besy has been translated into English as Demons, as Devils and as The Possessed. This dissertation will refer to the novel simply as Besy. 2. Irving Howe, Politics and the Novel, 2nd ed. (New York: Meridian, 1987) 22. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 fate in the Soviet Union, for nearly a decade after the October revolution of 1917 Besy encouraged discussions on the most important historical, political and literary issues of the day. One public debate of direct relevance to Besy during the early Soviet period forms the subject of the following study. Allusions to Besy in the Soviet press began to increase soon after the civil war in Russia, when a relaxation of censorship and a gradual improvement in material conditions provided for a revival of intellectual life. During the many public readings and discussions that accompanied the Dostoevsky jubilee celebrations of 1921,3 scholars of many different fields, partisan and non-partisan alike, began to confront the question of Dostoevsky’s attitude toward revolution, a question which inevitably compelled even his active defenders to acknowledge his attacks on the revolutionaries in Besy. In its report on the “dozens of lectures” that greeted the fortieth anniversary of Dostoevsky’s death in February 1921, for example, the newsletter Literary Herald [BecTHHK jnrrepaTypu] featured a response by its editor, A.E. Kauftnann, to the letter of one “perplexed reader” who failed to see why the post-revolutionary epoch should study such an “enthusiastic champion of the autocracy” like Dostoevsky. While ultimately defending Dostoevsky as a complex, humane and much-loved writer whose works should not be judged solely on the basis of his “tsarism,” Kauftnann confessed 3. Lists of the many publications, public readings and other events associated with “Dostoevsky Days” of November 1921 are included in: BerpHHCK Hfi, H. [Heumxmi, B.E.], £ hh ^ocroeBcicoro // Becnnnc jnrrepaTypu. 1921. Ne 12 (36). C. 9; (06iuieft AocroeBcxoro // rienaTb h peBOjnoumi. 1921. Kh. 3. C. 299-300. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 frankly that Dostoevsky “was no sharp leader and politician,” and admitted that in Besy Dostoevsky “slandered all revolutionaries.”4 Several months later, when the centennial celebration of Dostoevsky’s birth took place, the scholar Iu.I. Aikhenval'd declared that Besy “has now become a reality” which demonstrates, he wrote, that “Dostoevsky opened his eyes painfully wide to the fatal incompleteness, inner seditiousness and anxiety of the rebelling spirit.” For that reason, he added, ’ ‘ the creator of Besy remains a living epigraph to today’s bloody chronicle.”5 During the same month, another work on the theme of “Dostoevsky and Revolution” appeared as the leading editorial in the prominent thick journal, Press and Revolution (Tle'iaTb h peBOjnomm]. In that article the scholar V.F. Pereverzev claimed that “Dostoevsky depicts the psychology of revolution most frilly” in Besy, which he considered of “the greatest interest for a study of Dostoevsky’s attitude toward revolutionary Russia.” Pereverzev also insisted that Dostoevsky’s attitude proved “extremely complex,” that he was “neither a reactionary nor a revolutionary,” but rather both at the same time. Although he “painted the revolutionary underground in Besy with hysterical malice,” Pereverzev insisted, Dostoevsky “is still a contemporary writer,” and thus “to speak of Dostoevsky for us means to speak of the most painful and serious questions of our present life.”6 4. Kay<tiMaH, A.E. A no<t»eo3 A o c ro e B c ic o ro : ( O t b c t “ H eaoyM eB aioiaeM y H H TaTtm o”) // Becnnnc jn r r e p a iy p b i. 1921. Nf l 3 (27). C. 3. 5. AftxeHBajiba, KXH. Oco6oe M Hemie: K lOO-Jienoo poxaem u AocroeBCKoro // B c c th h k J T H reparypbi. 1921. Na 10 (34). C. 1-2. 6. nepeBepxB, B.Q. Ao c to cbckhH h peBomoiuui // rieqarb h peBOJuomu. 1921. Kh. 3. C. 3-6. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 The Dostoevsky jubilee also inspired the publication of new materials for the study of Besy. The most significant discoveries came from the archive of the novelist’s late widow, Anna Grigor’evna Dostoevskaia (Snitkina), which representatives of the State’s Central Archive in Moscow opened ceremonially in November of 1921. Together with another part of the family holdings that became available in the Historical Museum of Moscow at roughly the same time, Anna Grigor’evna’s archive provided scholars with Dostoevsky’s unpublished drafts and notebooks, his correspondence with her and others, and also Anna Grigor’evna’s own personal diary from the years 1867-68.7 Of particular relevance to Besy were a large number of pages from the drafts of the unfinished epic work, Life o f a Great Sinner [)K h3H I> Bejraicoro rpeinHHKa], a project which eventually merged in some respects with Besy * along with the proofs for the famous “missing” chapter of Besy, “At Tikhon’s,” or “Stavrogin’s Confession” [HcnoBe;u> CTaBponma], an episode which included an unknown page in the biography of Stavrogin in the novel.9 Upon their publication in 7. An announcement of the celebrated opening of the sealed box containing the notebooks appeared in: PyKOimcH AocroeBCKoro // neqarb h peBojnoiuu. 1922. K h. 1. C. 332. A list o f the materials contained in the box donated by Anna Grigor’evna was included in: HoBue 3ariHCHue TerpaoH < D .M . A o c ro e B C K o ro // ^oxyMetrm no HcropHH jnrrepaTypbi h odmecTBetmocTH. Bun. 1 : ^ o c ro e B c u ffi. M., 1922. C. III-VIII. A rev iew of th e m a te ria ls w a s p u b lish ed in: neM an> h peBOJUOiuu. 1922. K h . 2. C. 345-346. 8. A large number of selections from the drafts for Life o f a Great Sinner appeared in: AotcyMeirru no HcropHH jnrreparypu k ofimecrBemiocTH. Bun. 1: AocroeacKHfi. M.: Lletrrp. apxHB PODCP, 1922. C. 63-77. The chapter “Stavrogin’s Confession” was first published in the collection: AoxyMefrru no hcto ph h jnrreparypu h o6mecTBeHHocrH. Bun. 1: d>.M. AocroeBcnifi. M.: Uetrrp. apxHB PCdCP, 1922. 9. The chapter describing “Stavrogin"s Confession” emerged in two different versions. The “Moscow” version, held in the Central Archive, consisted o f the first set of typewritten proofs for the chapter which Dostoevsky had edited further by hand. The “Petersburg” version consisted o f Anna Grigor’evna’s own handwritten transcriptions of a manuscript which no longer existed. The “Moscow” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1922, the two manuscripts led to new studies of the character Stavrogin and encouraged a closer examination of the plans from which Besy finally emerged. As N.K. Piksanov declared in a review, the discoveries made it obvious “that all we used to know about Dostoevsky [...] has receded into the past, and that now we should build a new understanding of the great writer9 ' on the basis of the new documents.1 0 Among new ideas about Dostoevsky in general, and Besy in particular, by far the most provocative and controversial of the early Soviet period belonged to Leonid Petrovich Grossman, an active scholar1 1 and leading authority on Dostoevsky, and among the first specialists to study the unpublished manuscripts from Dostoevsky's archive.1 2 On February 25, 1923, in a lecture before the Society for the Appreciation of Russian Letters [06mecTBO JIio6HTejieft PoccnflcKoft CjioBecHocm] at the Russian Historical Museum in Moscow, Grossman announced that Dostoevsky's Besy, the version first appeared in the collection: AoicyMeHTu no h c to p h h jitrrepaTypbi h odmecrBeHHocTH. Bun. 1 :4>.M. AocroeBCKHfi. M.: Lfeirrp. apxHB PCOCP, 1922. A detailed description and comparison of the two versions may be found in: A o jih h h h , A.C. Hcnoaeas CraBponma: (B c b m h c KOMmnHiuieft “EecoB”) // JlHTepatypHU m u c u s : AnbMaHax. Bun. 1/2. ITr.: M u c jis , 1922. C. 139-162. For additional commentary see: JJocToeBCKHft, < t> .M . IlojiHoe coGpaime coH H H eH H fi: B 30 t . T. 12: Becu. PyKonHCHue penaxuHH. Ha6pocKH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 197S. C. 237-246. 10. riiwcaHOB, H.K. Pea. Ha kh.: A oK yM etrru n o hcto ph h jn r re p a ry p u h o6mecrBeHHOCTH. Bsm. l-tt: < t> .M . flocroeBCKHft. M.: LfeH rp. apxHB PC<hCP, 1922 // n e n a r s h pcbojiiouhji. 1922. Kh. 2. C. 345. 11. In 1923 Grossman lectured at the Briusov Higher Institute of Literature and Art [BJDCH inteim BpiocoBa], for example, and chaired the Dostoevsky Commission at the Academy o f Artistic Sciences from May 1922 until 1924 (see: I~ocyaapcrBeHHa* AxaaeMiu XyaoxecTBeHHUx Hayx. Orner, 1921- 1925. M.: TAXH, 1926. C. 23-24). He was also compiling a catalog o f Dostoevsky’s library, a Dostoevsky dictionary, and a bibliography of Dostoevsky’s letters (see: riepeBep3eB, B.Q. Pea. H a kh.: T poccMaH, J1J1. CeM HH apH ft no JIocroeBCK O M y // nenars h p e B o rD O U H X . 1923. Kh. 3. C. 247). 12. TpoccMaH, JT.n. ITyrs JIocroeBCKoro. JI.: Epoicray3-3<^poH, 1924. C. 7-8. Grossman indicates here that he received the rights to use the manuscripts from Anna Grigor’evna, with whom he was in close contact during the years 1916-1917. Grossman prepared and edited the first publication of selected pages from Life o f a Great Sinner in 1921. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 work which “lives an underground existence in our literature,” presented not only “a depiction of ‘Nechaevshchina,’” as traditionally perceived, but also the “first monograph” on “the honored warrior of international revolution,” Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin. In the character Nikolai Stavrogin, Grossman argued, Dostoevsky managed to “lift the mask from the face of Bakunin,” to reveal Bakunin’s true “spiritual nature,” and to resolve the “great mystery” of Bakunin’s “striking personality.” Through both a detailed comparison of Stavrogin and Bakunin, as well as a demonstration of Dostoevsky’s personal “study” of Bakunin, Grossman attempted to prove that Besy offered “one of the most outstanding interpretations” of Bakunin in world literature.1 3 At first Grossman won a certain amount of support for his thesis. Two professors of literature on hand for Grossman’s lecture at the Society, P.N. Sakulin, the author of a study on Russian literature and socialism in the nineteenth century,1 4 and V.S. Spiridonov, a specialist on Dostoevsky’s contemporaries, A.A. Grigor’ev and V.G. Belinsky,1 5 both reportedly found Grossman’s study convincing. Grossman also claimed to have received backing from historians B.I. Gorev (Gol’dman) and Iu.M. 13. TpoccMaH, Jl.n. SaxyH H H h AocToeBCiotft // r poccMan, JI.n., riojioHCKHli, B JI. Cnop o B aK y H H H e h JIoctocbckom. JI., 1926. C. 7-8, 10-11. The date of the lecture is also indicated in: TpoccMaH, JI.n. E axyH H H h JJoctocbckhA: (TTpeflHcn.] // TpoccMaH, JI.I1. Co6paaHe cohhhchhA: B S t . T. 2. Bun. 2: AocroeBCKHfi. ITyrb, noannca, TBopqecrso. M.: CoBpeMeHHue npo&ieMu, 1928. C. 214. 14. C aicyjT H H , n.H. tycoon mrreparypa h cotutajnoM. 4. I: Pamnril pyccmtft couHajtiOM. M.: Toe. H 3A -B O , 1922. 15. IlHcaTejiH JleHHHipaoa: 5H O -6H 6jraorp. cnpaBomiHK, 1934-1981 / A b t.-coct. B.C. Baxrint h A.H. Jlypbe. JI.: Jlem aaar, 1982. C. 291-292. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 Steklov (Nakhamsis), both of whom had recently published monographs on Bakunin.1 6 When he presented his findings again at the Moscow Press House [ZJom nenaTH] roughly two months later, however, Grossman’s theses apparently generated “much less enthusiasm,” and at least three discussants, the literary critic and biographer of Bakunin, V.P. Polonsky, the anarchist writer and lecturer A.A. Borovoi, and the literary scholar A.G. Tseitlin all raised “sharp and categorical objections” to his argument.1 7 Within days after the second reading, the discussion reached the press through a short review of Grossman’s lecture in the cultural news m a g a z i n e Echo [3xo].ls The next month saw the publication of Grossman’s lecture in Press and Revolution, whose editorial board, led by Polonsky, promised to devote a future issue to “a critical analysis of Grossman’s interesting work.”1 9 Polonsky first presented his reply to “Bakunin and Dostoevsky” at the Society for the Appreciation of Russian Letters on February 10,1924. He then read it again at the Communist Academy, and a third time, on March 20,1924, at the Academy of Artistic Sciences, where a formal Dostoevsky Commission existed within the Academy’s literary section.2 0 Polonsky delivered another lecture to the Society in early 1924 on the “History of Nikolai Stavrogin,” possibly in response to a lecture by Grossman on “Stavrogin’s 16. r poccMaH, JI.n., nonoHCKHii, B il. Cnop o EaKymme h ZIoctocbckom. JI.: Toe. H 3H -bo, 1926. C. 42. 17. EopoBOft, A.A. B ax y H H H b “Eecax” // SopoBoft, A.A., OTBepxeHHuft, HX. Mh$ o B axyH H H e. M., 1925. C. 71. 18. CodoneB, IO.B. Cjiymax... // 3xo. 1923. NQ 11 (1 m u ). C. 15. 19. rpoccMaH, JI.n. B a J c y H H H h JJocroeBCKHft // ncnaTb h peBamomu, 1923. K m . 4. C. 112. 20. rocyaapCTBeHHaa A xadeM H X Xyao*ecTBeHHhix Hayx. O n er, 1921*1925. M.: TAXH, 1926. C. 23*24. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 Prototype.”2 1 Polonsky then combined and published the two lectures together under one title, “Bakunin and Dostoevsky,” in the second issue of Press and Revolution of 1924.2 2 Polonsky’s response offered several concessions to Grossman's •‘ talented” argument. He accepted Grossman’s assertion that a “heavy and impenetrable veil” still concealed the real Bakunin. He also agreed with Grossman that artists, not scholars, often provide the “decisive formula” for understanding complex historical figures. If Bakunin did, in fact, serve as the prototype of Stavrogin in Besy, Polonsky wrote, then Grossman’s discovery undoubtedly does “throw new light on the mysteries of Bakunin’s soul” and may contribute to a better understanding of Dostoevsky’s creative methods. Having considered Grossman’s claims and all of his evidence together as a whole, however, Polonsky rejected Grossman’s conclusions about the Stavrogin- Bakunin analogy and even doubted the idea of a link at all. Surrendering uncritically to his “intuition,” Polonsky observed, Grossman had “invented” evidence when necessary, ignored evidence which contradicted his conclusions, and accepted as fact several claims that “still required proof.” Regardless of its merits, in Polonsky’s view Grossman’s thesis amounted to little more than a mere “mosaic of conjectures” which threatened to “muddle a correct understanding of Bakunin without helping to explain the complex image of Stavrogin.” Based on his own analysis of the facts and materials 21. CajcyjiHH, n.H. O6mecrao .no6HTeneft poccidicKoA c j i o k c h o c th // IlenaTfc h peBomoiuui. 1927. K h . 7. C. 303. 22. IIojiOHcicHfl, B.fl. BaxyHHH h ^ octocbckhH // ( l e n a r a h p e B a m o iu u i. 1924. Kh . 2. C. 24-50. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 available at the time, Polonsky argued that Stavrogin remained “completely independent” of the historical Bakunin.2 3 Instead of closing the issue, Polonsky’s reply inspired further investigation and discussion of the theory proposed by Grossman, whose certainty of a link between Stavrogin and Bakunin, as it turned out, remained as firm as Polonsky’s denial. Over the next two years Grossman defended and elaborated his argument in at least four more publications: “Bakunin in Besy: A Reply to V.P. Polonsky,”2 4 which also appeared in Press and Revolution', a short article with “New Information about Dostoevsky”2 3 in the biweekly news magazine, Red Field [KpacHaa mua]; the articles “Speshnev and Stavrogin”2 6 and “Dostoevsky at Work on Bakunin,” both in the journal Penal Servitude and Exile [Karopra h ccujnca].2 7 Polonsky, in turn, answered Grossman with two more articles in Press and Revolution, “Bakunin and Dostoevsky: Regarding Grossman’s ‘Reply,’”2 8 and “Nikolai Stavrogin and the Novel Besy.”2 9 In addition to Polonsky, three other observers of the debate also published responses to Grossman. The historical journal Our Past [Eunoe] included a contribution to the 23. riojioHCKHfi, B.n. B axyH H H tt AocroeBCKHft // TpoccMaH, JI.n., nom oHCKH ii, B.n. Cnop o BaxyH H H e h AocroeBcxoM. JI., 1926. C. 41-43,62-63. 24. TpoccMaH, JI.n. B axyH H H b “Eecax”: (Onier B n . nojiO H C K O M y) // n e ia n h peBomoiuu. 1924. K h . 4. C. 56-77; K h. 5. C. 39-65. 25. TpoccMaH, JI.n. HoBoe o A o c to c b c k o m // KpacHaa h h b s . 1925. N a 9 (1 Mapra). C. 209-210. 26. TpoccMaH, JI.n. CnemneB h CraBponfH // Karopra h ccumca. 1924. K h. 4(11). C. 130-136. 27. rpoccMaH, JI.n. AocrocBCKHft b pa6oTe Han BaxyioiHUM // Karopra h ccwnca. 1925. K h. 3. C. 74-91. 28. rioJioHCKHft, B.n. B axyH H H h JIo cto cb ck h A : no noBoay “orBcra” JI.n. TpoccMaua // ne<tan> h peBOJHOinu. 1924. Kh. 5 (ceHT.-oxT.). C. 66-100. 29. nojioHCKHfi, B J I. Hmcojiafl CTaBponot h poM aH “Eecu” // nenan, h peaojHoiiHa. 1925. Kh. 2 (Mapr-anp.). C. 79-104. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 debate by V.L. Komarovich, a scholar who had already published several articles pertaining to Dostoevsky and Besy.3 0 Later the same year, the leading anarchist publishing house in Russia after the revolution issued two more replies to Grossman, the first by Borovoi,3 1 and the second by another anarchist scholar, N.G. Otverzhennyi (Bulychev).3 2 By 1925 the discussion over Grossman’s thesis had prompted at least ten articles in the leading organs of the Soviet press as well as public discussions in at least four different institutions in Moscow. According to the recollections of Sakulin, who chaired the same Society where Grossman and Polonsky read their lectures, the polemic surrounding Grossman’s thesis “captured the interest of the entire Moscow literary and scholarly community.”3 3 The discussions over Stavrogin and Bakunin culminated in a separate publication of Grossman’s and Polonsky’s articles by the Leningrad Branch of the State Publishing House [JleHnu] in 1926.3 4 Entitled The Debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky [Cnop o BaxyHHHe h X Ioctocbckom], the collection accompanied several other publications about Bakunin and Dostoevsky that year, including a large number 30. KoMapoBira, B JI. “Becu” JlocToeBcxoro h B axyH H H // Eunoe. 1924. N£ 27/28. C. 28*49. A review of Komarovich’s career appears in: EoraaHOBa, O. Bacttnxfl JleoHaaoBHH KoMapoBm // Bonpocu jnrrepaTypu. 1988. Na 9. C. 130-151. 31. SopoBoft, A .A. B axyH H H b “Becax” // BopoBoft, A.A., OTBepxemtuft, HX. Mh< J > o B axyH H H e. M., 1925. C. 71-148. 32. OTBepaceHHuft, HX. BaxyHHH h C raB porH H // EopoBoR , A.A., O rB epxeH H U fi, HX. M h < |> o BaxyHHHe. M., 1925. C. 149-186. 33. CaxynHH, n.H. 06mecTBO .uo6H Tenefl poccHflcxoft cnoBecHocni // neiarb h peBonioiuui. 1927. Kh. 7. C. 303. 34. TpoccMaH, JI.n., IlojioHCKHfi, B.n. Cnop o BaxyHHHe h /(ocToeBcxoM. JI.: Toe. kia-bo, 1926. This collection excluded only one of Grossman’s contributions to the debate, the short article '‘New Information about Dostoevsky,” which he incorporated into his longer article “Dostoevsky at Work on Bakunin.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 of articles devoted to Bakunin on the occasion of his one hundredth anniversary, along with a new scholarly edition of Besy itself.3 5 The collection seems to have been publicized widely, for it generated a number of reviews, both in Russia and abroad.3 6 The structure of the collection seemed to invite further contributions, as well. Despite the many thorough counter-arguments contained in Polonsky’s three responses, the "last word” in the polemic belonged essentially to Grossman, whose well-supported article on Dostoevsky’s sources of information about Bakunin concluded the book. Although both Grossman and Polonsky made additional contributions to their arguments over the next few years, however, the climate after 1927 quickly grew unfavorable for public debates about either Bakunin or Besy. By 1932, three years after the publication of Polonsky’s biographical sketch of Bakunin, his final contribution to the debate,3 7 Grossman’s main opponents either had died or had been forced into exile, and the controversy never again revived. In one of his final statements on the debate, Grossman published two striking remarks that raise a challenging question about the "debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky.” Reflecting on the debate in a preface to a third edition of his essays in 1928, Grossman confessed to his readers that after five years he found it "difficult to explain the unprecedented storm of objections provoked by [his] historical-literary 35. A o cT o eB C K H fi, 4>.M. rionHoe co6paHHe xyaoxecTBeHHUx npoioBeneHHft. [T. 1-13]. T. 7: Eecu / rioa pea. E. ToMameBcxoro h K. XanafSaeBa. M.; JI.: Toe. iaa-BO, 1927. 36. Remarks on the debate will be cited later in this study. 37. Ilo a o H C K H f t, B.n. M.A. Eaxytnm // n o n o H C K H f t, B.n. Jhrreparypa h o6mecTBo: C6. c t . M., 1929. C. 196-210. C. 196-210. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 experiment on the genesis of Dostoevsky’s hero.” The “issue of Dostoevsky and Bakunin,” he insisted, did “not in the least deserve the sharp and heated criticism which arose in response to [his] paper of 1923.”3 8 Thus after all the exchanges in the press and in public with his opponents, who included both literary scholars, historians, anarchists and communists, Grossman still refused to acknowledge the problematic nature of his approach to Stavrogin and Besy. Did Grossman’s thesis really not deserve the vehement opposition it met for three full years? Why, in fact, did Grossman’s thesis cause such a controversy? The reasons for the sharp reaction to Grossman’s theory remain just as problematic today as in 1928, when Grossman first expressed his dismay, for no thorough discussion of the “debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky” has ever appeared in scholarship of the last seven decades, and references to it within broader studies of Dostoevsky and his works are generally brief, at best. One otherwise thorough survey of Dostoevsky’s reception after 1917, for example, devotes no more than a single paragraph to the debate,3 9 while another includes an entire chapter on Grossman’s career without a single reference to the controversy over the Bakunin thesis.4 0 A number of works pertaining to Dostoevsky or Bakunin mention the debate in passing, 38. TpoccM aH , JI.n. B aicyH H H h AocroeBCKHft: [TIpeaHCJi.] // TpoccMaH, J1.I1 Co6pamie coHHHeHHft: B 5 t. T . 2. Bun. 2: AocroeBcutfi. riyn>, noarmca, T B o p secn io . M.: CoBpeMetntue npoGneMu, 1928. C. 214. 39. Temira Pachmuss, “Soviet Criticism of the Works o f Fedor Dostoevsky,” diss., U. Washington, 1959, 176-177. 40. Vladimir Seduro, Dostoevsky in Russian Literary Criticism, 1846-1956 (New York: Columbia UP, 1957) 183-189. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 but none venture to examine its many issues. Thus in his study of the notebooks for Besy, scholar Edward Wasiolek expressed his amazement “at the time and patience and space” which Grossman devoted to the problem, yet his commentary did not review Grossman’s claims in any detail.4 1 Professor Joseph Frank’s epic biography of Dostoevsky indicates that Grossman’s original hypothesis “has now been generally rejected,” but it offers no review of Grossman’s evidence.4 2 Similarly, a recent biographer of Bakunin notes that “it has been argued, unconvincingly, that Bakunin was the model for Stavrogin,” but merely refers the reader to the Grossman-Polonsky collection of 1926 without further information.4 3 With only one article since 1926 devoted specifically to the debate,4 4 to my knowledge, and with no complete review of the entire debate, its details and the different arguments of its participants, scholarship has neither sorted out the issues in the debate nor attempted to explain the causes for the controversy surrounding Grossman’s thesis. Despite countless footnotes referring to Grossman’s and Polonsky’s collection of 1926, the “debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky” remains for the most part an unknown episode in the history of early Soviet literature and culture. The following dissertation hopes to shed light on this history. 41. Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Notebooks fo r The Possessed, ed. Edward Wasiolek (Chicago: U Chicago P, 1968) 185. 42. Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865-1871 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1995) 465. 43. Aileen Kelly, Mikhail Bakunin: A Study in the Psychology and Politics o f Utopianism (New Haven: Yale UP, 1987) 313. 44. Jacques Catteau, “Bakounine et DostoTevski,” Bakounine: Combats et Debats (Paris: Institut d’etudes slaves, 1979) 97-105. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 The first essential task for any reader of the debate is simply to identify the opening issues in the debate and to determine their significance in light of the subsequent development of the debate as a whole. In making his case for a connection between the fictional Stavrogin and the historical Bakunin, Grossman initially set forth a number of provocative but ultimately dubious premises that threatened to undermine his entire theory. For lack of more evidence, as his critics successfully demonstrated, Grossman’s claims that Stavrogin is a '’portrait” of Bakunin, that Dostoevsky envisioned Stavrogin as a parody of Bakunin well before he began the drafts for Besy, and that Stavrogin was also created from other prototypes, all suggested to his main opponents that there were no grounds for the Stavrogin-Bakunin analogy at all. As the first chapter in this dissertation attempts to demonstrate, however, while his opponents, as well as many subsequent observers, dismissed his argument on the basis of his weakest claims, Grossman eventually withdrew them and settled on a position which proved to be consistent with some of his strongest evidence. A distinction between the least supportable claims of Grossman’s first article and his more conceivable ones allows a reader to ignore a number of predominantly “scholastic” elements in the debate, as one unsatisfied reviewer described them,4 5 and to concentrate instead on the more essential issues. 45. K-jib, A. Cnop JiKtepaTypHwx c t3 th c to b // KpacHaa raiera. Beqepmtii a bin. 1926. N B 21 (1025), 23 x h b . C. 5. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 As the title of the 1926 collection suggests, the debate arose over issues pertaining both to “Bakunin” and to “Dostoevsky.” The first of the two main “Dostoevsky” questions to be examined in the dissertation concerned Dostoevsky’s knowledge of Stavrogin’s prototype. Central to Grossman’s argument was his assumption that in his study of political events throughout the 1860s, and especially at the time of the “Nechaev affair,” Dostoevsky discovered and actively gathered information about Bakunin. Grossman’s evidence included examples of Dostoevsky’s personal contact with Bakunin, his familiarity with writings by Bakunin, and his knowledge of reports on Bakunin’s activity from the Russian press. As with Grossman’s initial claim that Stavrogin represents a “portrait” of Bakunin, his opponents managed to refute some of Grossman’s most speculative examples of Dostoevsky’s contact with Bakunin and to establish, therefore, the improbability of Dostoevsky’s “study” of Bakunin before the end of 1868, when the most radical phase of his activity began. All the same, Grossman provided enough convincing evidence of information about Bakunin in the Russian press between 1869 and 1871 to justify his belief that Dostoevsky almost certainly would have taken account of Bakunin’s role in the Nechaev affair before completing his work on the plot of Besy. In the end the resolution to the question of Dostoevsky’s knowledge about Bakunin, the subject of chapter two, to a large extent depended on the strength of Dostoevsky’s political acumen, of which Grossman and his opponent Polonsky developed two very different preconceptions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 In addition to speculation about authorial intention, Grossman’s certainty of a "primordial link” [HCKOHHaa cbjoi.]4 6 between Stavrogin and Bakunin naturally demanded verification with reference to the text of Besy itself. Through his examination of Stavrogin in the novel, Grossman discovered twenty different aspects of his character, career and world outlook that matched similar aspects in the biography of Bakunin. Once again, Grossman’s evidence both failed and succeeded. While suggestive at first glance, many of his biographical parallels proved to be rather ineffective as support for a convincing analogy between Stavrogin and Bakunin, as his opponents demonstrated, often because of the equally likely possibility of applying them to other possible prototypes. Yet Grossman also called attention to a striking similarity in the development of Stavrogin’s and Bakunin’s political views which far exceeded his other examples in its relevance to his conclusions about the two figures. As with the issue of Dostoevsky’s sources, a convincing demonstration of Stavrogin’s resemblance to Bakunin in the novel ultimately rested on a certain assumption, in this case, about Stavrogin’s relationship to the political conspiracy which unfolds in Besy. Upon reviewing eighteen of Grossman’s twenty examples of “Bakuninist” characteristics in Besy, chapter three attempts to identify one of the most problematic aspects of Besy as a political novel and to explain the principal reasons for the opposition to Grossman’s reading of Stavrogin. 46. TpoccMaH, Jl.n. EaicyHHH h AocroeBCKHft // TpoccMaH, JI.FI., riojioHCKHft, B.I1. Cnop o BaxyHHHe h Aoctocbckom. JI., 1926. C. 33. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 Grossman’s position on the issues reviewed in chapters two and three—the issue of Dostoevsky’s knowledge of Bakunin and the issue of Stavrogin’s role in the plot of Besy—represent two unquestionable sources of the resistance which Grossman encountered as he attempted to identify Stavrogin with Bakunin, and no analysis of the debate would be complete without a review of the “debate over Dostoevsky.” A principal aim of this dissertation, however, is to demonstrate that to a greater extent the debate over Grossman’s thesis was a “debate over Bakunin.” While Grossman himself somehow failed to appreciate the provocative character of his analogy between Stavrogin with Bakunin, as his remarks of 1928 suggest, three of his opponents entered the debate with the explicit intention of combating the “legend” or “myth” about Bakunin which Grossman’s thesis threatened to perpetuate. From the standpoint of Polonsky, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, Grossman’s misconceptions about Bakunin were of particular significance by virtue of their close resemblance to ideas that sparked two additional disputes of the same period. The first of the two controversies followed the discovery of a remarkable collection of Bakunin’s letters in the files of the old tsarist secret police. Chief among them was a lengthy appeal for mercy which Bakunin wrote to Tsar Nikolai I while incarcerated in Russia during the 1850s. Because of its tone of repentance, its expressions of admiration for the tsar, and its outspoken words of self-criticism, Bakunin’s “Confession,” as it became known upon publication in 1921, compelled many historians and revolutionaries to reconsider the traditional view of Bakunin as an implacable enemy of autocracy and defender of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 revolutionary cause in Russia. In the wake of a large series of articles that both attacked and defended Bakunin’s legacy as a revolutionary, the subject of chapter four of the dissertation, Grossman’s attempt to compare Stavrogin and Bakunin on the basis of their psychological and spiritual “contradictions” forged a direct link between the debate over Grossman’s thesis and the dispute over Bakunin’s “Confession.” The second and most important historical controversy affecting the reception of Grossman’s thesis erupted not over one specific publication or event, but rather from an entire series of developments in the course of the Russian revolutionary movement. Just as the debate over Stavrogin’s prototype in Besy derived part of its content from the debate over Bakunin’s “Confession,” so the debate over Bakunin’s “Confession” represented only one manifestation of a much broader polemic surrounding the issue of Bakunin’s ideology, or “Bakuninism,” for Soviet Russia. Beginning in the period between 1868 and 1873, which included his establishment of an anarchist tendency within the International Workingmen’s Association and his conflict with Karl Marx, and culminating in the birth of an anarchist movement in Russia, which played a conspicuous role in the 190S and 1917 revolutions, Bakunin’s career and legacy remained problematic subjects for the Russian Marxists after the consolidation of Soviet power. While one tradition within Russian Social Democracy traditionally regarded Bakuninism as an almost exclusively negative political phenomenon, one which absorbed and fostered extremist, retrograde tendencies like “Nechaevshchina” and “propaganda by the deed,” another tradition, to which many of Lenin’s supporters Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 belonged, perceived important positive aspects in Bakuninism. Already very mixed during the October revolution of 1917, when many opponents of the Bolsheviks accused them of riding to power on an anarchist program, Marxist attitudes toward Bakuninism were further complicated by the violent break between the Bolsheviks and anarchists during the civil war. By 1923, when Grossman proclaimed Dostoevsky’s pamphlet to be not only a depiction of Nechaevshchina, but also a book about Bakunin, he inevitably seized the attention of Marxist and anarchist readers for whom the definition of Bakuninism had become a political question of great importance. As the fifth and final chapter of this dissertation seeks to demonstrate, in his attempt to identify Bakunin’s ideology with the theory and practice of revolution as depicted in Besy, Grossman introduced into his "literary-historical investigation” the politically sensitive issue of the nature of Bakuninism and its role in the Russian revolution. Examined in the context of the important discussions surrounding Bakunin, the debate over the prototype for Stavrogin in Besy stands out as a scholarly episode of not only literary, but also historical and political dimensions. Its uniqueness in the history of Soviet Russia is especially apparent, moreover, in light of subsequent changes in the political context from which it originally emerged. For most of the Stalin period there appeared very little public discussion about Besy or Bakunin, and the official reputations of both figures remained very low. Whereas the 1920s saw a relatively large number of studies pertaining to Besy, the years between 1934 and 1956 saw only a few, and the one known attempt before the “perestroika” years of 1985-1991 to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 publish a separate edition of Besy proved unsuccessful. Even after Dostoevsky was finally rehabilitated and publications on Besy began to appear once again, conditions did not favor the revival of open polemics like the "debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky.” As the concluding pages of the dissertation explain, perhaps the most substantial obstacle hindering a close investigation of the polemic over Grossman’s thesis was the long-standing anathema against anarchism in the Russian revolution, which did not receive the attention it deserved until well into the 1990s. Today, nearly eight decades after Grossman first delivered his thesis, the history of literary criticism and scholarship during the early Soviet period in Russia still needs a thorough examination and consideration of the "debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky,” its scope, its participants, its fundamental issues and, most importantly, the political context which ultimately transformed it from an ostensibly academic dispute over Stavrogin’s prototype into a much broader discussion about the nature of the Russian revolution. The present study seeks to make a contribution to that goal. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 Chapter 1 Preliminary Issues in the Debate This study will first examine three conspicuous problems surrounding the original formulation of Grossman’s argument. For reasons that will be indicated in this chapter, the three problems, or preliminary issues, as they will be treated here, ultimately proved to be of only secondary significance in the debate; but because they occupied a substantial amount of space in the debate, because they raised relevant questions pertaining to the nature of literary prototypes and the genesis of literary characters, and also, finally, because they were largely responsible for the dismissal of Grossman’s thesis, all three problems deserve a brief review. As the following discussion will demonstrate, Grossman’s argument provoked opposition, firstly, to the logic by which he arrived at some of his initial conclusions. In an attempt to convey the full implications of his discovery, Grossman declared not only that Bakunin served as the prototype of Stavrogin, but also that Stavrogin should be considered a revealing “portrait” of Bakunin, a portrait, however, which allowed for significant differences between the artistic rendition and the prototype. A second source of opposition to Grossman was his highly unorthodox premise about the genesis of Stavrogin in the creative history of Besy, a premise which found little, if any, support in the documentary record of Dostoevsky’s work before the appearance of the novel. A third problem arose over Grossman’s own acknowledgment of other prototypes for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 Stavrogin in addition to Bakunin, to whom Grossman continued, nonetheless, to assign a central place. 1.1 Stavrogin as a “portrait” of Bakunin In his opening lecture on “Bakunin and Dostoevsky,” Grossman described Stavrogin as “an artistic portrait” of Bakunin, a definition which implied a very close, direct and conscious link between fictional character and historical prototype.1 At the same time, by means of several key qualifications, Grossman warned his readers not to expect the link to appear as obvious as his definition might suggest. As a mere “imaginary portrait” within a work of fiction, Grossman admitted, Stavrogin is neither an “exact copy,” nor a “photo,” nor even a “mirror” of the historical Bakunin. Readers cannot expect such an accurate depiction from artists in general, and especially not from Dostoevsky, he explained, whose “fantastic style” and “inclination toward hyperbole and extremes” unquestionably affected his creative methods in Besy: In his visual portrait Dostoevsky sought not to convey historical authenticity, but rather to realize his artistic-philosophical design, and therefore, according to the demands of this higher imperative, he combined, changed, strengthened and deeply transformed all the details of Bakunin’s biography and psychology. Much that did not correspond to the design of Besy was discarded, while much was strengthened, condensed, or extended to an extreme, nearly fantastic degree. Some allusions became sharp features, and some characteristic particularities of the original were dropped completely. To search the work for a precise reflection and full coincidence is, of course, unnecessary (10). 1. rpoccMaH, JIJI. B a ic y H H H h Aocroeaciarit // rpoccMan, JI.II., riojioH C K H ft, B.n. Cnop o E axyH H H e h A o c to c b c k o m . JI., 1926. C. 10. Henceforth all page numbers within round parentheses will refer to this unabridged collection o f Grossman’s and Polonsky’s essays. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 Allowing for substantial “transformations” of the prototype, Grossman still defended his conclusions firmly. Although Stavrogin offered a merely partial, artistic “interpretation” of Bakunin, Besy nevertheless represents the “first monograph” on the legendary anarchist; whereas Dostoevsky’s interpretation was highly stylized and did not correspond in every detail to the prototype’s “genuine face,” all the same Stavrogin remains “a most outstanding study” of Bakunin; while it is “impossible to study the historical Bakunin” through Stavrogin, Grossman insisted on a singular '‘fact”: when creating his Stavrogin, Dostoevsky “proceeded from the personality of Bakunin” (10). An important consideration for Grossman’s theory were undoubtedly the claims of Dostoevsky himself. In 1919, just a few years before Grossman read his thesis, a leading Russian historical journal published Dostoevsky’s now frequently quoted letter to M.N. Katkov, in which he identifies the Nechaev affair as one of the “most significant events” in the novel, but also insists that he did not intend to “copy” its participants. His character based on Nechaev, Petr Verkhovensky, “might not resemble Nechaev at all,” Dostoevsky explains, “but it seems to me that my excited imagination has created the person, the type which corresponds to that crime.” Dostoevsky describes the “main hero” of the novel, the future Nikolai Stavrogin, a character he had “long planned to portray,” as “a tragic figure” whom he had “taken from his heart.”2 Written in October of 1870, when the final drafts for Besy were 2. AocroeBCKHfi, < D .M . IlaiH oe co6pamie coHHHeHHft: B 30 t . T. 29. JI.: Hayxa, 1984. C. 142: (IlHCbMO O.M. AocToescKoro M.H. Kaincoay or 8 o k t . 1870). The first publication o f this letter appeared in: Eunoe. 1919. N a 14. C. 48-49. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 already in progress, Dostoevsky’s remarks confirmed what he later wrote about Besy in his Diary o f a Writer [Ahcbhhk nHcarejw], where he insisted that “the face of [his] Nechaev does not resemble that of the real Nechaev.”3 Grossman clearly had Dostoevsky’s remarks in mind when he formulated his position. As he repeatedly emphasized that the real Bakunin remains detectable behind the fictional Stavrogin, throughout his first article Grossman also suggested that the degree of ‘‘ transformation” of the historical Bakunin proved significant, since Dostoevsky “needed not a definite, concrete figure in all its peculiarities, but only its artistic typicality.” Applying to Bakunin Dostoevsky’s assertion from the Diary, Grossman conceded midway through the article that Dostoevsky “took Bakunin not as an historical figure, but as a novelistic type” (33). By the end of the article he even revised his original definition in certain respects. Following a lengthy comparison of Stavrogin and Bakunin, Grossman admitted that Stavrogin is “not so much a portrait as, more accurately, a mask” of Bakunin. “As the mold is taken from the dead face,” Grossman concluded, “it reproduces features with the utmost precision, but never conveys their living expression. The mask is always markedly similar [to the face], but fatally still” (39). The ambiguity in Grossman’s formulation became one of the first objects of Polonsky’s criticism. The idea that Besy represents the “first monograph on Bakunin” and “a remarkable interpretation of Bakunin’s personality,” Polonsky wrote, while 3. A ocroeB C K H ft, rio iiH o e c o6p a im e c o h h h c h h A : B 30 t . T. 21. JI.: Hayxa, 1980. C. 12S. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 hypothetically plausible, did not follow logically from the claim that the portrait is merely “imaginaryPolonsky found the contradiction obvious: if he is an “imaginary portrait” and a “novelistic type,” Stavrogin cannot “solve the complex psychological problem” of Bakunin’s personality, as Grossman contended. Conversely, if Besy is a “most outstanding study of Bakunin,” then readers must search for the “historical” rather than the “imaginary” Bakunin. As Grossman subsequently “mitigated, restricted and refuted his own initial assertions” about Bakunin and Stavrogin, Polonsky charged, he merely revealed his own uncertainty about their likeness (43-44). For Polonsky, a proper assessment of Stavrogin’s origins needed to account for Dostoevsky’s declaration that he had taken Stavrogin “from [his] heart.” As he would explain in detail later in the debate, Polonsky interpreted Dostoevsky’s remarks to mean that Stavrogin originated for the most part in Dostoevsky’s imagination, rather than from a specific historical figure. Polonsky’s objections only encouraged Grossman to elaborate the “theoretical foundation” of his argument in more detail. Turning to "the problem of the literary prototype,” in his second article Grossman listed several examples of literary characters who turned out to be “significantly different” than their prototypes. In accord with “some higher impulse,” Grossman explained, “the artist takes from his living model those features which the artistic conception requires” and “discards the rest” (90). Recalling the methods of the French novelist Balzac, Grossman noted how “the tireless portraitist of his contemporaries called upon the artist to draw the facts of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 reality selectively, to join them together in a complex way, shuffle them, then combine them anew.” Grossman quoted the French writer Andre Breton, who wrote that “the more one studies the sources and prototypes of [Balzac's] Human Comedy, and the more diligently one uncovers their realistic foundation, the stronger one feels the significance of the author’s idea” [BbmyM Ka]. The author “logically develops a given experience,” Breton explained, raises the “particular fact” to a “general truth” and thereby “creates laws.” “Observation penetrates the idea throughout,” Grossman quoted Breton, “and represents its highest form of expression.” All great masters of the novel worked according to Breton’s formula, Grossman insisted. The living individuals whom certain artists found striking invariably entered their respective novels after “the author’s fantasy” had already “reconstructed [their images] anew” (91). For a well-known and particularly apt example with which to compare Dostoevsky’s Stavrogin, Grossman offered the example of Turgenev’s Rudin. Both readers of Turgenev and biographers of Bakunin have long accepted that Bakunin served as Rudin’s prototype, Grossman explained, but while certain aspects of Rudin’s “spiritual nature” shared obvious similarities with those of Bakunin, Turgenev relied on Bakunin as a model for Rudin only to a certain point. Thus literary scholars like D.N. Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky, having acknowledged the similarity between the “mind” of Bakunin and Rudin, as well as their use of the “dialectic,” also noted that in most Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 other aspects the two share little or no similarity at all.4 One could easily deny the link between Bakunin and Rudin with countless pages of objections, Grossman argued, if one did not allow for the many differences, psychological, physical and other, that distinguish them from one another. No dispute arose over Turgenev’s use of Bakunin as a prototype, however, because Turgenev admitted the fact. Dostoevsky’s failure to make an open and categorical declaration about the prototype for Stavrogin, Grossman lamented, deprived scholars like himself of any such incontestable evidence for Dostovsky’s use of Bakunin (92-93). Grossman also attempted to clarify his position through a comparison with familiar “historical-literary material.” In Grossman’s words, a “prototype” is that “living individual” whom the artist ‘Transforms to create an artistic image.” Because he or she must be modified, transformed or “often even distorted” to a point of “hardly recognizable resemblance,” a prototype must be distinguished from an “artistic [no3THHecKas] painting of an historical figure,” in which the similarities between the image and the model are not so thoroughly effaced. Citing two fictional portraits of the nineteenth-century, Grossman pointed out that “one cannot call Pushkin’s Boris Godunov or A.K. Tolstoi’s Ivan IV ‘prototypes,’” for they are simply historical figures whose resemblance the artist has “preserved not photographically, but with a 4. Here Grossman cites Ovsianiko-Kuiikovsky ’ s work, “The History o f the Russian Intelligentsia” [HcTopm pyccKoft HHTennHremoiH], probably from 1907. For other editions, see bibliography in: 3uKOBa, T.B. O B C X H H K O -K y jiH K O B C K H fi, AmhtpkA H n K O Jia e B H M : [EHorp. cnpaBKa] // Pyccme nH caTCiiH , 1800-1917: Bitorp. cnoBapb. T. 4. M.: B P 3,1999. C. 380-381. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 necessarily large dose of genuine similarity.” The artist’s opportunities “to employ fantasy” or to modify fundamental characteristics are “strictly limited” when depicting historical figures as such. Thus whereas an artist “cannot portray Petr I as short,” Grossman explained, Dostoevsky could portray Karmazinov in Besy as a short man, even though his prototype, Turgenev, was in fact very tall. By contrast a mere prototype allows the artist more freedom to retain certain characteristics and discard others. Grossman argued that Dostoevsky subjected all his prototypes in Besy—Turgenev, Granovsky, Nechaev and also Bakunin—to “the very same law of transformation, dissection [paanoxcemie], and even distortion.” Therefore a lack of precise correspondence between some aspects of the image and its model, Grossman insisted, does not necessarily remove the possibility of a prototypical link (93). Grossman refused to concede he had modified or contradicted his initial formulations throughout his first article. In spite of Polonsky’s objections, Grossman admitted no discrepancy between his earlier claims that Dostoevsky “proceeded from Bakunin” and that Bakunin served as Stavrogin’s prototype. Grossman also corrected Polonsky’s interpretation of his words “study” [HccjieaoBaHHe] and “monograph” to characterize Besy. When describing Dostoevsky’s interpretation of Bakunin, Grossman claimed to mean “not a scholarly, but rather an artistic reworking of his image” [He HayHHaa, a xyaoHcecTBeHHaa cHcreMa pa3pa6oncH ero o6pa3a]: We are not trying to prove that Besy is a dissertation, academic treatise or scholarly work of research. We consider it an artistic-philosophical study of reality which combines cognition with creation, memory with imagination, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 experience with intuition. An artistic-philosophical study transforms a living, genuine historical figure into a prototype. In other words, it subjects a concrete individual to a complex process of crystallization and to a specific application of the fantasies, tendencies, ideas and tastes o f the artist. As a result of this process, the living individual is transformed, transfigured and given a new life. Thus Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin, the revolutionary, emigrant, conspirator, agitator and founder of anarchism turns into the mysterious Nikolai Stavrogin, “Prince Harry,” “wise serpent,” “Ivan the Pretender” (94- 95). Following the transformation, Grossman explained, the process of the image’s “crystallization” concludes. Having “played its role,” the prototype “leaves the stage,” and the new image remains to “live its own life” (95). In spite of his many examples and further explanations, however, Grossman did not convince his opponents that a literary character can provide a revealing “portrait” of an historical figure whose image has been significantly transformed by the author’s creative process. If, in order to satisfy Grossman’s conditions for a “prototype,” Polonsky responded, the artistic image to which the prototype gives birth must exhibit at least some distinctions from it, and may be so dissimilar as to be utterly unrecognizable, Polonsky reasoned, then Grossman should not need to search for similarities between the original prototype and the artistic product. Yet while it explained the lack of correspondence between certain characteristics of Stavrogin and Bakunin as the natural result of the prototype’s “reincarnations” [nepeBonjiomemui], Grossman’s hypothesis still rested on examples—to be reviewed later—in which certain aspects of Bakunin’s character remain prominent in the figure of Stavrogin. Polonsky accused Grossman of utilizing a “double-sided” [jtBoftHoft] approach to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 prove his argument. When Grossman needs to demonstrate the similarity between Stavrogin and Bakunin, Polonsky argued, “he searches thoroughly, invents and envisions...the most precise, intimate and portrait-like details”; but when he encounters examples of “complete dissimilarity,” Grossman “retorts that we should expect dissimilarities, for Stavrogin is only an artistic image.” Agreeing with Grossman that a lack of precise correspondence between image and model does not rule out the possibility of a definite prototype, Polonsky added that one cannot necessarily assume the presence of a definite prototype solely according to “a chance similarity between certain features.” Notwithstanding Grossman's defending arguments, Polonsky reiterated his earlier conclusion: if so many traces of the real Bakunin, like those any other prototype, have disappeared from the novel, as Grossman contended, then Besy cannot be considered a work which “lifts the mask from Bakunin” (136-138). Much like Polonsky, Grossman’s opponent A.A. Borovoi found only “extreme contradiction” between Grossman’s claim that Stavrogin “illuminates the mysterious personality of the great rebel,” for example, and his qualification that one “cannot study the real Bakunin through Stavrogin.” Borovoi acknowledged that “a prototype is deeply dissimilar to the novelistic image to which it gives birth,” and that the prototype functions merely “to give an initial impulse of fantasy to the artist” before the artist transforms the image in his own way; but if one allows for too much Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 dissimilarity between prototype and artistic image, Borovoi argued, then the question of verisimilitude becomes irrelevant.5 As Polonsky and Borovoi successfully argued, the simultaneous notions of a '‘monograph on Bakunin’' and a “portrait” in which Bakunin remains only partially visible reflected a definite weakness in Grossman’s theory. Had Grossman continued to defend the most sweeping conclusions of his opening article—that Besy represented a “most outstanding study of Bakunin” and should be considered “the first monograph on Bakunin”—then the debate may not have progressed beyond the issue of prototypes. At a certain point, however, the problem of “how the question is posed,” as Polonsky described it (42), became a secondary one. Apparently yielding to Polonsky and Borovoi, after his first article Grossman made no further references to Besy as a “study,” “book” or “monograph” on Bakunin; and although he apparently never acknowledged any inconsistencies in his position, Grossman devoted the greater part of his second, third and fourth articles to other claims, one of which followed from an equally problematic approach to the creative history of Dostoevsky’s novel. 1.2 The issue of Stavrogin’s genesis With an abundance of notebooks, drafts and other biographical materials at hand by 1923, Grossman naturally searched for evidence of Stavrogin’s prototype S. SopoBoft, A.A. E axyH H H b “Eecax” // EopoBoft, A.A., OrBepxeHHUft, H.I~. M h4 > o BaKVHHHe. M., 1925. C. 74-81. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 during the planning stages of the novel in order to present a specific scenario of how and when Dostoevsky conceived Stavrogin. Here Grossman apparently sought to provide the same kind of evidence which had recently confirmed the entrance of Nechaev into Dostoevsky’s creative plans: evidence of a noteworthy event—the announcement of Nechaev’s responsibility for the murder of Ivanov in the newspapers6 —which stirred Dostoevsky’s interest in Nechaev, followed by the appearance of the name of “Nechaev” in Dostoevsky’s notebooks for the novel.7 According to Grossman’s model, Bakunin’s entry into Dostoevsky’s plans followed a similar sequence: having seized Dostoevsky’s attention at a certain point before the latter began work on Besy, Bakunin then appeared in Dostoevsky’s notebooks as the final version of Besy began to take shape. In his first article Grossman declared that Dostoevsky’s first envisioned Stavrogin in 1867, three years before the first installments of Besy were published. While living in Geneva, Dostoevsky and his wife Anna Grigor’evna joined six thousand other individuals at the first Congress of the League of Peace and Freedom, a 6. See: /JocxoeBCKHfl, nam oe codpaHHe c o k h h c h hA : B 30 t. T. 12: Bee hi. PyK onH C H hie peaaioiHH. Ha6pocn(, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 199. The announcement appeared in the newspaper Moscow News [Mo c k o b c k h c BenoMocnt] on December 25,1869. 7. In one o f the first publications of Dostoevsky’s notebooks from the state archive in 1921, Grossman himself cited a fragment o f a rough draft in which Dostoevsky actually refers to the future Petr Verkhovensky as “Nechaev” (see: Tbop< wctbo AocroeBcicoro: C6. ct. m MaTepttanoB / non pen. Jl.n. r poccMana. Onecca: Bceyxp. roc. ma-BO, 1921. C. 13-20). Shortly thereafter, N.L. Brodsky published more pages from the notebooks, where he found “among the participants in the novel” several other names from the Russian revolutionary movement, including “Dobroliubov,” “Chemyshevsky,” “Karakozov” and “Zaitsev.” See: Eponcmift, H JI. TBopnecicaa HCTopiu pouana “Eecbi” // Cbhtok. Kh. 1. M.: HmarmHCKMe cy66anntKH, 1922. C. 86. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 well-publicized political event which brought pacifists of various tendencies to Geneva to protest the growing threat of a war between France and Prussia.8 Based on Anna Grigor’evna’s memoirs of the Congress, Grossman deduced that Dostoevsky witnessed not only the speeches of several European revolutionaries, including the League’s programmatic address by the famous Italian nationalist Giuseppe Garibaldi, but also the “striking theses” of Bakunin, who had begun to play a prominent role in the European socialist movement by that time. As letters to his Russian friends indicate, Grossman explained, Dostoevsky was “deeply moved” by Bakunin's “striking figure” as well as by his calls for the abolition of Christianity, the destruction of large states and the establishment of peace in Europe through violence.9 At a certain critical moment during Bakunin’s speech, Grossman speculated, a hitherto “dormant” idea must have suddenly awakened in the writer’s consciousness and stimulated the birth of a new fictional hero: [Dostoevsky] stared avidly [acaaHO BCM arpHBajicfl] at the powerful features of this giant, already long familiar to him through the stories of others, now right before his very eyes, from the heights of the tribunal, passing merciless judgment on all of contemporary civilization. The shocking speech of the famous emigrant, his aureole of rebellious heroism and prison martyrdom, along with the living legend of his feats and sufferings, could not fail to agitate [B 3B O JiH O B aT b] his colleague of the scaffold, prison and Siberia. While [Bakunin’s] steel words about the destruction of religion and patriotism resounded painfully in the heart of the writer, the personality of their orator 8. E.H. Carr, “The League o f Peace and Freedom: An Episode in the Quest for Collective Security,” International Affairs 14 (193S): 839. 9. Here Grossman quotes from Dostoevsky’s letter to S.A. Ivanova (Khmyrova) o f September 29, 1867. See: AocToeBCiatfi, < D .M . riaiHoe co6paHHe c o h h h c h h A: B 30 t. T. 28. H. 2. JI.: Hayxa, 1984. C. 272-275. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 began to emerge before him, revealing the complex secrets of his disturbed and ever insatiable spirit. Staring at the features of this figure, Dostoevsky felt a tremor of blissfully agonizing alarm [npHJiHB 6jiaxceHHO-TOM Hrejn>Hofi TpeBora] which heralded the birth of a new creation. The personality of Bakunin released a slumbering elemental force from some reserve of creative resources, and a new, still deeply mysterious, but unbearably disturbing image began to break through painfully into his consciousness. On that day Dostoevsky conceived [3aayMan] his Stavrogin (9). While the very fact of Dostoevsky’s attendance during Bakunin’s speech at the Peace Congress by itself became a subject of dispute, to be examined in chapter two, Grossman’s claim that Stavrogin appeared in the writer’s mind at this time created an obvious anachronism in the evolution of Besy. To place the birth of Stavrogin in September 1867 was to suggest that Dostoevsky formed a notion of his future character long before completing his first installments of the novel, and still months before he completed Idiot, the novel which occupied him for much of 1867 and 1868. According to Grossman’s model, Dostoevsky preserved a vision of Stavrogin for over two years before beginning his drafts for the novel. Grossman believed that two years was not an unusual length of time for Dostoevsky, however, who generally “worked out the images of his favorite heroes” over a long period. By the time Dostoevsky began drafting future scenes for Besy in early 1870, Grossman believed, the image of “Bakunin” began to occupy his mind. For “factual evidence” that the novelist “thought about Bakunin” at that time, Grossman referred to a sketch from one of the several notebooks published the year before his lecture. There he cited a line in which the character “Granovsky” (who would become the elder Verkhovensky) tells the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 “Student” (who would become first “Nechaev,” then eventually the younger Verkhovensky) that “Bakunin is an old, rotten bag of nonsense” [EaicyHH H —crapufi raHJioft MemoK openHett].1 0 In Grossman’s vision, the reference to Bakunin represented “highly significant” evidence that he, like Nechaev and many other historical figures, had entered the early sketches for Besy (32). Grossman’s reference to the notebooks and his dramatization of Stavrogin’s genesis at the Peace Congress prompted both Polonsky and another opponent, V.L. Komarovich, to look more closely at the evolution of Besy. Like Grossman, Polonsky and Komarovich searched for further evidence of Bakunin in the many new sources of information about Dostoevsky’s creative process that had just emerged from the archives. Along with Anna Grigor’evna’s memoirs and the writer’s notebooks for the novel,1 1 new documents included a number of letters from Dostoevsky to his publishers Katkov, N.N. Strakhov, and close confidants like A.N. Maikov, as well as his drafts for a related but unrealized work, Life o f a Great Sinner [^Ch3hb Bejimcoro rpemHinca].1 2 Neither Polonsky nor Komarovich found any evidence to complement 10. Here Grossman quoted only part of the line. According to the text of Grossman’s source, the full line reads: *T p<aH O B C K H fi>: E a ic y H H H —crapbifl Meuiox 6peaHeft, esty Jienco aereft xots a Hyaamx H ecT H .” See: EpoacxHfl, H JI. TBopqecxax Hcropm poMaita “Eecbi” // Cbhtok. K h. 1. M.: Hhkhthhckhc cy€6oTH H K H , 1922. C. 84-118. It may also be found in: AocroeBcxiifi, (P.M. rioimoe coOpaHHe coH H H eH H tt: B 30 t. T. 11: Eecbi. noaroTOBHTejtbHbie MarepHaau JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 116. 11. See: TBopnecrBO AocroeBCXoro: C6. cr. h MarepHanoB / floa pea. JUT. TpoccMaHa. Oaecca: Bceyxp. roc. H 3a-B O , 1921. C. 12-28. See also: EpoacxHft, H JI. TBopqecxaa Hcroptu poMaHa “Eecw” // Cbhtok. K h. 1. M.: HraorrHHCXHe cy66oTH H K H , 1922. C. 84-118. 12. Selections from the drafts for Life o f a Great Sinner appeared first in: AocroeBcxHii, Hetoaamibie pyxomtcH // TBopnecTBO ZfocToeacxoro: C6. ct. h MarepHanoB. Oaecca, 1921. C. 7-11. A more complete set o f drafts appeared in: AoxyMeHru no hctophh jmreparypu h o6mecTBeHHOcni. Bbin. 1: (P.M. iJocroeBCKHft. M.: Lfemp. apxHB PCOCP, 1922. C. 63-77. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 the two examples presented by Grossman. On the contrary, both saw in the genesis and development of the character Stavrogin convincing evidence that Bakunin never entered Dostoevsky’s plan at all. Upon examining Dostoevsky’s notebooks, Polonsky considered the reference to Bakunin “highly significant,” as Grossman described it, only insofar as it remained exceptional, “the sole example in the enormous literature left by Dostoevsky” in which “we meet the name of Bakunin” (48). In Polonsky’s view, if Dostoevsky “conceived” Stavrogin in such dramatic fashion during Bakunin’s speech in Geneva in 1867, then his place in Dostoevsky’s plans should be more evident. As Polonsky pointed out, Dostoevsky’s two well-known references to his creative plans during that period reveal nothing definite about his work on Besy. In his letter to Strakhov from Florence of December 11, 1868, for example, where he refers to specific plans for the future short novel Eternal Husband [BenHtifi M yac] and a novel Atheism, Dostoevsky mentions an indeterminate third “plan,” but he fails to offer any specific information which might connect it definitely to his future plans for Besy (63). Dostoevsky’s letter to Maikov of December 31, 1867 indicates that during that autumn, prior to beginning work on his next novel Idiot, Dostoevsky had worked on “one of his various ideas,” an idea which conceivably could have contained the embryo for Besy. Most likely, however, these and other sporadic plans from that period pertained to the “parable on atheism,” as the writer described it to his niece S.A. Ivanova (Khmyrova) in a letter of January 25, 1869. By February 1869, the future novel Life o f a Great Sinner apparently absorbed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 the earlier plan for Atheism (64-65). Both plans centered around the life of a character whom Dostoevsky “had wished to depict for three years,” as he confessed in a letter to Strakhov of April 6, 1870, or, in other words, since the period of the Peace Congress. Nikolai Stavrogin, the subsequent hero of Besy, shared certain features of the heroes of Atheism and Life o f a Great Sinner, Polonsky conceded, but according to the writer’s letter to Strakhov of October 9, 1870, the “real Stavrogin” appeared no earlier than the autumn of that year. Dostoevsky’s announcement to Strakhov that he had replaced the “old hero” with “a new hero” for the novel demonstrates convincingly, Polonsky insisted, that the final Stavrogin emerged only several months after the writer had already begun to work out his rough plan for Besy (66-67). If he accepted the organic link between Besy and the earlier plans for Atheism and Life o f a Great Sinner, Polonsky argued, then Grossman had to prove that those earlier plans are also linked to Bakunin (70-71). In Polonsky’s mind, however, Dostoevsky’s plans for the heroes of Atheism and Life o f a Great Sinner bore but “little resemblance” to Stavrogin’s ostensible prototype. Dostoevsky’s plans for the hero of Life o f a Great Sinner, a figure he referred to as “Prince” in his drafts of 1870, outline a character who “hates atheists,” “seeks the truth” and demonstrates “Christian humility and self-criticism” (67). Dostoevsky approaches his character from many angles, Polonsky suggested, “emphasizing [the Prince’s] psychological drama, his struggle, his inner tragic element and his doubts.” He describes his character’s “idea” as “genuine, active Russian orthodoxy,” which he struggles to embrace and accept in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 spite of his “stormy corporal instincts” and simultaneous “belief in the Anti-Christ” (68). Since Dostoevsky wished through Stavrogin to express his view of Russian Orthodoxy, Polonsky concluded, Bakunin would hardly have served his purpose (69). In his response to Polonsky, Grossman once again explained that Polonsky had misconstrued his position. With regard to the dramatic meeting between Dostoevsky and Bakunin at the Congress in 1867, Grossman insisted he had not wished to argue that Dostoevsky conceived the idea for Besy itself at the Congress of 1867, as Polonsky suggested, but merely that Bakunin sparked ‘the appearance of an artistic image, a romantic hero, a future artistic type” for Besy, a fact which found support, Grossman noted, in Dostoevsky’s statement to Katkov that he had “long wanted to depict” the character who became Stavrogin (1 IS). Grossman also rejected Polonsky’s reasoning that if Stavrogin ’‘reflects” the conceptions of Atheism and Life o f a Great Sinner, then it must be demonstrated that Bakunin appears as a prototype in those early plans, too. Here Grossman emphasized that a fictional character may exhibit not only the characteristics of his own prototype, but also those of his author’s earlier fictional characters. As an example, Grossman explained that along with his main forebear, the “Prince” of the notebooks, Stavrogin clearly manifests certain characteristics of the character Svidrigailov from Dostoevsky’s earlier novel, Crime and Punishment [ripecTyiuieHHe h Haiea3aHHe] (116). The appearance of characteristics drawn from Svidrigailov or from the “Prince” of the notebooks does not exclude the simultaneous appearance of characteristics from “his own individual prototype,” Bakunin (117). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 Grossman also criticized Polonsky for a simplistic identification between the “Prince” of the notebooks and Stavrogin. By failing to appreciate the “complex transformations” through which Stavrogin passed during the course of his development, Grossman insisted, Polonsky mistakenly reduced all the various “stages” of Stavrogin’s evolution in the notebooks to a single hero. Polonsky therefore claims without foundation that Dostoevsky wished through Stavrogin to express his opinion of Russian Orthodoxy, an intention which, in fact, was not realized in the novel at all (118). The “Prince” of the notebooks was a complex, “multi-sided” character, in Grossman’s view, whom the author’s imagination eventually “forged” into the “new hero” he described in his letter to Strakhov (119). Even if Dostoevsky’s hero “passed through different phases,” Grossman explained, “the prototype continued to play its role and influence the general line of the hero’s development” (120). Dostoevsky experiments with the material he takes from reality, Grossman concluded, ...constantly transforming it, introducing into it all possible conceptions, molding and forming it along all the rough lines of his grand design. But through all the variants and experiments, through the numerous sketches and drafts, through the most diverse phases of the image’s development, we invariably see the living foundation, the original human material, the personality of a living contemporary—the face of Bakunin (121). While Polonsky did not respond further to the issue of Stavrogin’s evolution, Komarovich supported most of Polonsky’s original objections in his own response to Grossman late in 1924, in which he argued that the genesis of Besy demonstrates the “complete groundlessness” of Grossman’s claim. Reviewing the evidence from Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 Grossman's first two articles, Komarovich found the evidence of Stavrogin's genesis at the Congress together with the notebook entry to be insufficient, even in light of similarities between Bakunin and the “Prince" of the notebooks. In order to demonstrate that Dostoevsky “proceeded from Bakunin,” as Grossman argued, or, in the words of Komarovich, that the image of Bakunin was “artistically apperceived” [xyaoxecTBeHHO annepuHriHpoBaH] as a prototype for Stavrogin, Komarovich demanded evidence of Bakunin throughout the entire evolution of Stavrogin as a character, in other words, throughout ‘the objective genesis of [Dostoevsky’s] artistic design,” a sphere which Grossman “hardly touched.” Reiterating the evidence presented by Polonsky, especially Dostoevsky’s letter to Maikov of December 31, 1867, Komarovich pointed out that by all accounts Dostoevsky worked on nothing of relevance to Bakunin during the 1867-68 period, but instead occupied himself with his novel Idiot. A year later, on December 11, 1868, Dostoevsky described three projects to Maikov, the third of which, since he did not name it, could have represented the “embryo” of Besy. Yet even if he already had it in mind, Komarovich emphasized, Dostoevsky was clearly “less interested” in the idea for Besy than in the first two. On August 14, 1869, Dostoevsky confessed to Maikov that he had written nothing for eight months, and from that time until December he worked on his short novel Eternal Husband [BeHHhift My*]. By January 1870, although Dostoevsky finally began working on sketches for Besy, Komarovich added, his plans for the novel remained “in the shadows” for another three months and “did not immediately arouse his interest.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 Thus for at least two years following the supposed genesis of Stavrogin, Komarovich explained, Dostoevsky left no evidence of any “creative shift of consciousness” like the one Grossman envisioned at the Congress. According to Komarovich’s theory of “artistic apperception” [xyiioxcecTBeHHaa annepuenmw], moreover, “the given set of impressions” must “fill the consciousness of the artist during the period which directly precedes the idea for a partial or whole artistic image”; but Dostoevsky’s first known sketches for Besy stood “too removed” from the events in Geneva of 1867, Komarovich argued, and therefore could not have played any kind of decisive role in the genesis of the novel. Agreeing with Polonsky, Komarovich also insisted that the first descriptions of the “Prince” in the early sketches bear little similarity to Bakunin. The absence of Bakunin’s name as a character is particularly striking, Komarovich added, in light of Dostoevsky’s tendency at this early stage to refer to several of Besy's future characters by the names of their prototypes. Thus while the early sketches “abound” with the names of “Granovsky” (old Verkhovensky), “Nechaev” (young Verkhovensky) and other historical figures, they include no references to a character named “Bakunin.” Komarovich connected the sole reference to Bakunin as an “old, rotten bag of nonsense” to the discussion between old Verkhovensky and son in the finished novel, where Verkhovensky claims that the new generation of revolutionaries (the “nihilists” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 of the sixties) has distorted the ideas of their forefathers (the idealists of the forties).1 3 Komarovich considered the projected dialog in the notebooks with the reference to Bakunin to be a possible variant of the aforementioned scene, in which Bakunin would have represented—in place of Chemyshevsky—a typical ideologue of nihilism and “extreme critic of family and family values.” If so, then it followed that at this stage Bakunin was still merely another historical figure, standing outside the novel, like Chemyshevsky, perhaps, but probably not a specific prototype for the “Prince,” the “first” direct predecessor of Stavrogin. Dostoevsky’s reference to Bakunin in the notebooks did not prove Grossman’s thesis at all, Komarovich explained, but merely indicated that Dostoevsky had “some information [cBeaemui] about Bakunin.” When “addressing the issue of a finished novel’s origins and genesis,” Komarovich concluded, the researcher not only can, but must move from the presumed prototype to the hero of the finished novel, to the “system” of their coincidences, through all the ‘‘numerous formations” of the artistic idea. [...] If the researcher notes the same, general signs of the “prototype” (the same raw creative material for the idea) in each successive formation of the idea, only then can one speak of what the artist “proceeded from” in his idea.1 4 Komarovich admitted the possibility that Bakunin could have entered Dostoevsky’s revised plans for the novel following the summer of 1870, after which Dostoevsky effectively abandoned his original plan to publish Besy and Life o f a Great 13. The discussion between Verkhovensky and son occurs in part two, chapter four o f the novel CQ ocroeB C K H fi, 4>.M. rioJiHoe co6paHHe c o H H H C H H fi: B 30 t . T. 10: Eecu. Jl.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 238). 14. KoMaposin, B JI. “Eecu” AocroeBcicoro h E a ic y H H H // Eunoe, 1924. Na 27/28. C. 33,36-41, 43,47-49. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 Sinner as separate works, and instead began to incorporate material from the latter into Besy. In support of the “decisive break” in Dostoevsky's plan Komarovich, like Polonsky, acknowledged Dostoevsky’s letter to Strakhov of October 9, 1870, in which the writer announced to his publisher that a “new hero”—the one he “had wished to depict for a long time”—emerged during the summer and replaced the old hero.ls Yet contrary to Grossman’s explanation, Komarovich refused to accept that the new hero might be the same which Dostoevsky had supposedly conceived at the Peace Congress in 1867, but insisted rather that the new hero represented a fusion of the “Prince” from the old plan for Besy with the main protagonist from the Great Sinner project. All the same, he offered to withhold final judgment on the origins of the new hero, the final model for Stavrogin, until the remainder of Dostoevsky’s still unpublished notebooks from the summer of 1870 finally appeared.1 6 Grossman never managed to produce any more concrete evidence—a statement by Dostoevsky himself, for example—for his claim that Dostoevsky “conceived” Stavrogin on the very day he witnessed Bakunin’s speech, more than two years before the Nechaev incident Realizing, perhaps, its indefensibility for lack of stronger evidence, like his provocative definition of Besy as a “monograph” on Bakunin, Grossman never repeated this particular assertion in his subsequent works on the subject. Although the one reference in the notebooks to Bakunin certainly 15. K oM apoBim, BJI. H eH aim caH H a* noaM a Aocroeacicoro // O.M. Ao c t o c b c k h A : Crami h MaTepHanu. 116., 1922. C. 203*205. 16. KoMapoam, BJI. “Eecu” Aocroeacicoro a E a ic y H H H // Bunoe, 1924. N a 27/28. C. 41-43. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. demonstrated, as Grossman stated, that Dostoevsky “thought about Bakunin,” or at the very least recalled him during his work on Besy, it offered no conclusive proof of a link between Bakunin and the character who eventually became Stavrogin. Unless he had already managed to examine them closely himself, Grossman may have anticipated more evidence of Bakunin in the remaining notebooks which Komarovich mentioned in his reply; but in spite of more references to historical figures in Besy, the first complete edition of all the notebooks for Besy in 193S contained no more references to Bakunin. Commenting on the one reference which Grossman had already discovered, the editor of the notebooks, E.N. Konshina, resolved that ‘the rough notes for Besy offer no material that would confirm [Grossman’s] thesis,” and concluded that the sole reference to Bakunin suggested no tie to ‘Prince’ Stavrogin.1 7 In the wake of the 1935 edition, other observers, too, have rejected Grossman’s original version of the genesis of Stavrogin. One study of Bakunin of 1957 noted that Bakunin is never explicitly named in Dostoevsky’s drafts and papers,1 * and another study of 1971 called attention to the same fact.1 9 The editor of the first English- language edition of the notebooks, Edward Wasiolek, also asserted that there is 17. AocToeBcmrii, < I> .M . 3anHCHue T C T paoH / Floflror. k new ra E.H. KoHmiraofl; K o m m c h t. H.H. HniaTOBoft h E.H. K ohhihhoA . M.; JI.: Academia, 1935. C. 425. For additional commentary on the history o f the notebooks, see also: AocToeacicHfi, d>.M. nojmoe co6paHHe coqH H eH H fi: B 30 t. T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCHue peoaicuHH. Ha6pocKH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 326-330. 18. Evgenii Lampert, Studies in Rebellion (New York: Praeger, 1957) 275. 19. Ellis Sandoz, Political Apocalypse: A Study o f D ostoevsky’ s Grand Inquisitor (Baton Rouge: Louisiana S t UP, 1971) 19. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 nothing in them to support Grossman’s thesis.2 0 In their commentary on Grossman’s thesis from the 1975 scholarly edition of Besy, Russian scholars V.A. Tunimanov and N.L. Sukhachev agreed with the “convincing counter-arguments” of Polonsky and Komarovich and emphasized, notwithstanding some other evidence for the link between Bakunin and Stavrogin, that the materials from the notebooks “fail to confirm” Grossman’s main thesis.2 1 Although the absence of Bakunin as a nominal character in the notebooks destroyed some potentially strong evidence for Grossman’s argument and vindicated, the position of Polonsky, Komarovich and the other observers who have reached similar conclusions, in the end it did not completely undermine Grossman’s position. In the first place, as one scholar admitted, the absence of a prototype’s name from the notebooks provides only partial and ultimately inconclusive evidence against Grossman’s argument as a whole, for there appears to be at least one other prototype in Besy whose role in the novel is not confirmed in Dostoevsky’s notes. Thus the notebooks include scenes with the “Great Writer” (Karmazinov), but he is never explicitly linked to the name of Turgenev, the “only genuine caricature” in Besy, in Konshina’s view, even though the latter is universally regarded as one of his 20. Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Notebooks fo r The Possessed, ed. Edward Wasiolek (Chicago: U Chicago P, 1968) 153. 21. ^ocToeacKHft, O.M. FIoiiHoe co6paHHe conraemdi: B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHcme penaicuHH. Ha6pocKH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 200-201. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 prototypes." The same may be said of Dostoevsky’s former associate Speshnev, to be addressed in the following section, who is often offered as another possible prototype for Stavrogin despite his complete absence from the notebooks.3 3 Secondly, as suggested by Grossman’s fourth article, to be reviewed in chapter two, if Dostoevsky worked out many of the details of the relationship between Stavrogin and Verkhovensky only late in the planning stages of the novel, then it is not necessary to prove, as Komarovich demanded, that Bakunin’s role in the novel “must be discovered through an analysis of the first manuscript plans [KOHcneinu] for the novel.”3 4 Finally, and more importantly for a broader assessment of the debate, at a certain point over the next few decades, probably after the appearance of the more complete edition of the notebooks in 193S, Grossman revised his argument about Stavrogin’s “conception.” In his biography of the novelist in 1963, Grossman once again described Dostoevsky’s “alarm” during Bakunin’s speech of 1867, but he followed it with a much less definite claim about the moment of Stavrogin’s genesis. Whereas in 1923 he wrote, “On that day, Dostoevsky conceived his Stavrogin,” in 1962 Grossman declared: 22. In one of the first studies after the revolution devoted to prototypes in Besy, the scholar lu.A. Nikol’sky analyzed Dostoevsky’s caricature o f Turgenev and “Turgenevism” [TypreHeacrBo] in the novel (see: HmcoiwcKHfi, IO.A. TypreHeB h AocroeBcmfi: (Hcropiu ooHoti Bpaxau). Co^mx: Poc.- Bojir. kh. h 3 a* b o , 1921. C. 62). Nikol’sky’s study inspired further studies of the theme of Dostoevsky and Turgenev within the next few years (see, for example: Aojihhhh, A.C. TypreHeB b “Eecax” // Q.M. AocroeBCKHft: C ratur h MarepHaJibi. C 6.2. JI., 1924. C. 119-136) and probably served as a model for Grossman’s approach. 23. Thus it seems somewhat illogical for Tunimanov and Sukhachev to cite the notebooks as evidence against Grossman’s thesis while simultaneously asserting that “although Speshnev is not once mentioned directly in the notebooks that have reached us,” the Speshnev hypothesis “does not seem groundless.” See: AocroeBCHrii, 4>.M . nojmoe co6pamie co< tH H eH H ft: B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyKomfCHue peaaxuHH. Ha6pocxH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 197S. C. 221. 24. KoMaponm, B JI. “Eecu” AocroeBCicoro h BaxyH H H // Bunoe, 1924. Na 27/28. C. 38. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 On that day Dostoevsky resolved to depict Bakunin in a novel about the Russian revolution, a novel whose idea may have arisen before the 1860s. Two or three years later Dostoevsky would begin to create the image of Stavrogin.”2 5 While he continued to connect the origins of Besy itself with Dostoevsky’s impressions in 1867, Grossman clearly yielded to his opposition on the idea of Stavrogin’s genesis. Grossman’s revised position required no evidence of Stavrogin’s conception between 1867 and 1870; it merely assumed that Dostoevsky “resolved to depict Bakunin” on that day in Geneva, a problem to be examined in chapter two of this dissertation. 1.3 The problem of multiple prototypes T h e d isc o v e r y o f D o s to e v s k y ’s n o te b o o k s, w h ic h p r o v id e d e sse n tia l m aterial for sp e c u la tio n a b o u t th e crea tiv e p r o c e ss th ro u g h w h ic h Besy e v o lv e d , a lso co n trib u ted in la rg e part to the third p relim in a ry issu e su rrou n d in g G ro ssm a n ’s th esis: th e lik e lih o o d o f m u ltip le p rototyp es for th e characters in Besy. T h e n o teb o o k s for Besy lin k ed a n u m b er o f ch aracters in Besy to s p e c ific h isto rica l m o d e ls, and in so m e c a s e s stro n g ly su g g e ste d m ore th an o n e m o d e l for a sin g le ch aracter. T h e n o teb o o k fragm en t from th e 1 921 c o lle c tio n o f m a teria ls, w h ic h c o n ta in e d th e statem en t that “N e c h a e v is part P etra sh ev sk y ” [H enaeB — om acT H nerpam eB C K H ft...],26 for ex a m p le , 25. TpoccMaH, JI.I1. AocroeBcioifi. M.: Moaoaaa raapaiu, 1962. C. 412. 26. Taopw cno Aocroeacicoro: C6. cr. h MarepiiajioB / Floa pea. JIJI. TpoccMaaa. Oaecca: Bceyxp. roc. ro a -B O , 1921. C. 18. “Petrashevsky” refers to M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky (1821- 1866). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 obviously suggested that Dostoevsky had at least one other historical figure in mind as he developed the character of Petr Verkhovensky. By 1923, when Grossman presented his own theory about Stavrogin, the historian P.E. Shchegolev offered still another possibility when he wrote that Dostoevsky created Verkhovensky not so much according to his knowledge of Nechaev, but primarily on the basis of his “more personal, more intimate feeling [B qyB C TB O B aH H e] for Ishutin,” the leader of a circle to which Karakozov belonged when he attempted to assassinate Tsar Aleksandr II in 1866.2 7 Grossman’s research eventually prompted him, too, to consider the possibility of multiple prototypes. On May 25, 1923, within three months of delivering his Bakunin thesis, Grossman proposed to the same Society for the Appreciation of Russian Letters that Nikolai Aleksandrovich Speshnev, the former Petrashevist and leader of an underground conspiracy during the 1840s, served as an additional prototype for Stavrogin. Dostoevsky’s personal relationship with Speshnev during the 1840s made the latter a highly conceivable candidate for a model in Besy. Dostoevsky’s association with Speshnev through the underground circles of M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and S.F. Durov had long been accepted, primarily on the basis of information divulged by Dostoevsky’s biographer O.F. Miller in 1883.2 8 More information surfaced in 1885, 27. IlteroneB, IT.E. Kapaxo30B b A n eicce eB C K O M paBenmie // My3eft pcbojhouhh. C6.1, n r.: Myreft peBomouHH, 1923. C. 23. Shchegolev refers here to N.A. Ishutin (1840-1879), the associate (and cousin) of D.V. Karakozov (1840-1866). 28. See: Mwuiep, O.O. MarepHanu ana anaHeomicaiiHa O.M. Aocroeacicoro // Aocroeacioifi, O.M. riojiHoe co6pamie co*nmeHnfi. T. 1 . Cn6.: AX. Aocroeacicaa, 1883. C. 8S-9S. These pages, which describe the history o f the Petrashevsky circles, are included in: nerpam eauu b BocnoMHHamiax Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 when Dostoevsky’s personal doctor and friend from the 1840s, S.D. Ianovsky, described in his memoirs how Dostoevsky had complained to him of borrowing money from Speshnev, whom Dostoevsky consequently referred to as his “Mephistopheles.”2 9 The full extent of Dostoevsky’s involvement with Speshnev, however, in particular his participation in a secret revolutionary conspiracy led by Speshnev, had never been established convincingly before 1922, and some researchers even questioned the likelihood of Dostoevsky’s active participation in the conspiracy at all.3 0 The issue was resolved only a year before Grossman’s first lecture by researcher E.B. Pokrovskaia, who discovered in the archives a draft of a letter by Dostoevsky’s friend Maikov of 1885 in which he describes how Dostoevsky unsuccessfully attempted to draw him into Speshnev’s conspiracy in January 1849. Maikov’s comments offered concrete evidence that Dostoevsky not only belonged to the conspiratorial group, but that he intended to participate actively in the group’s plan to publish revolutionary propaganda from a secret printing press, a job for which he sought the help of Maikov.3 1 As Pokrovskaia wrote, Maikov’s letter “clarified [Dostoevsky’s] own confession that he coBpeMettHHKOB. C6. MarepnanoB / Coct. n.E. lU erones. M.; JI. Toe. k u i- b o , 1926. C. 10*20. 29. Ianovsky’s memoirs from 188S are reproduced in: neTpameBioi b BOcnoMHHatnux c o B p e M C H H H K O B : C6. MarepiianoB / Coct. IT.E. lUeroneB. M.; JI.: Foe. ma-Bo, 1926. C. 80. 30. I I o ic p o b c k u , E. AocToeBCKHfi h neTpameBWJ // A ocroeB C K H fi: C ra rb H h MarepHanu. ITr., 1922. C. 257,266. See also: JJocTOCBCicHfl, < D .M . nomioe co6paHHe c o h h h c h h A : B 30 t. T. 18. JI.: Hayica, 1978. C. 315. 31. noicpoBCKas, E. AocroeBcndi a nerpameBuu // 4>.M. AocroeBciaiA: C ram t h MarepHanu. nr., 1922. C. 268. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 was an 'old Nechaevist”’3 2 and demonstrated, moreover, that he himself had, in fact, taken “the first step along the Nechaevist road.”3 3 Maikov’s letter clearly served as an important source for Grossman. Citing Maikov’s testimony, Grossman emphasized that Dostoevsky “fell completely under Speshnev’s influence and definitely joined his ranks.”3 4 Their relationship, he argued, affected Dostoevsky for the rest of his life: The enthusiasm [Dostoevsky] felt for the powerful nature of one of the most outstanding revolutionaries of the 1840s could not have passed without leaving its mark. For the rest of his life Dostoevsky remembered his spiritual subordination to Speshnev and the invincibility [HeoaoJiHMOcn.] of the personality and teachings that had captivated him to such an exceptional extent. So when the task of depicting a leader of the Russian revolution arose before him, Dostoevsky recalled the enticing image of his Mephistopheles (166-167). Thus alongside Petr Verkhovensky, “the stormy organizer o f groups of five, conspiracies and murders,” Grossman perceived “at the center” o f Besy the “dominating organizer o f destructive philosophies [BcenoiptHHJnomHft co3.naT e.in> pa3pyinHTejibHbix < J)H jioco<|)H ft] that blow apart entire world-views and fatally poison the souls o f his spiritual flock” (167). 32. Dostoevsky described himself as an “old Nechaevist” in an essay o f 1873, “One o f Our Contemporaneous Falsehoods” [Oohh H3 H auiH X coBpeMemwx $ajibiuefi]. The essay is reproduced in: nerpameBObi 8 BocnoMHHatowx coBpeMemnucoB: C6. MaTepaanoB / Co ct. II.E. llferoneB. M.; JI.: Toe. ra a -B O , 1926. C. 6-10. 33. rioKpoBcicaa, E. JlocToeBCKHft h n e rp am eB O b i // <D .M . JIocroeB C K H fl: C r a r b H h M aT epuanbi. n r., 1922. C. 271-272. 34. Grossman quoted from Maikov’s letter to the literary historian PA. Viskovatov in 188S. See: riocbMO A.H. MaftxoBa k I I A . BocKOBaroBy o t 1885 r. // < D .M . JlocroeB C K H fl: CrarbH h Marepnanbi. n r., 1922. C. 266-277. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 Grossman also confirmed that Stavrogin and Speshnev exhibited a number of biographical similarities, many of which closely resembled similarities he had already described in his analysis of Stavrogin and Bakunin, to be considered in chapter three. Wealthy, handsome and well-educated, having spent several years in Paris and Switzerland, in Grossman’s view Speshnev represented “the ideal incarnation of the type of individual who struck Dostoevsky—an ‘ aristocrat-tumed-democrat’ [apHCTOKpaT, HitymHft b neMoicpaTHio]” (163). According to one of his fellow Petrashevists, whose memoirs Grossman quoted, Speshnev always presented “a cold, calm, undisturbed and never-changing appearance,” an emphatic trait of Stavrogin’s. Bakunin himself wrote in a letter to Herzen from Siberia how Speshnev “dressed himself in a mantle of thoughtful, calm impenetrability” and produced an enormous effect on women. Grossman found that one particular episode from Speshnev’s career, when a woman left her husband for Speshnev and bore him a child, only to go mad with jealousy and commit suicide, corresponded closely to the rumor in Besy that Stavrogin publicly insulted a woman from “good society” with whom he was having an affair (163-164).3 5 Aloof and mysterious, Grossman explained, Speshnev’s political activity included many of the details that involve Stavrogin in Besy: the organization of a secret conspiracy for a revolutionary uprising, the organization of a central committee within the group, the drafting of rules for membership which called for the 35. The narrator relates this incident in part one, chapter two o f the novel (SocToeBcnifi, 4>.M. riojiHoe co6paHHe amraeHHfl: B 30 t. T. 10: Eecu. JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 36). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 death of traitors (165). With a captivating personality which elicited respect from those around him, Grossman asserted, Speshnev was “made for leadership and power” (167). The introduction of Speshnev into the ranks of possible prototypes for Stavrogin posed an obvious threat to the Bakunin hypothesis, but Grossman did not consider the two possibilities exclusive of one another. Clearly recognizing the methodological problem created by two different prototypes, Grossman attempted to clarify their relationship to Stavrogin: Like Verkhovensky and Stavrogin in the novel, [Dostoevsky’s] contemporaries Nechaev and Bakunin appeared to Dostoevsky, just like...Petrashevsky and Speshnev emerged from the past. Thus unfolded the complex process through which separate images arose in Besy. [Dostoevsky] combined the current events of history, supported by books and newspapers, with recollections of his own participation in the revolutionary movement of the 1840s. The figures whom he seized from the very depths of the contemporary underground merged in their own way with the figures of rebels from the distant past. As a result, like Petr Verkhovensky or Shatov, Stavrogin is a complex figure created from different prototypes [npoo6pa3u]. An embodiment of Bakunin, his personality, his fate and ideology, Stavrogin simultaneously reflects Dostoevsky’s close acquaintance, the 1 mysterious and demonic Speshnev. Thus in the inmost recesses of the creative process, the features of various prototypes blend together synthetically, embodying in a living and finished image a single novelistic hero (167-168). In spite of his effort to allow for both prototypes, however, the appearance of Speshnev only encouraged greater opposition to the analogy between Stavrogin and Bakunin. At nearly the same time that Grossman’s article on Speshnev appeared, the historian of the Petrashevsky society, V.R. Leikina, apparently familiar with the contents of Grossman’s lecture on Speshnev in May 1923, devoted a paragraph to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 Grossman’s thesis in a separate article on Speshnev. In Leikina’s mind, Speshnev “unquestionably” served as Stavrogin’s prototype. Speshnev’s “lack of passion [6eccrpacTHe], coldness, dissatisfied skepticism, beauty and strength, charm and aura of mystery,” Leikina wrote, are all “realistic elements in the image of Stavrogin.” She found it “completely understandable that the image of Speshnev, whose influence Dostoevsky fell under during the 1840s, came alive in Dostoevsky’s memory, whereupon the writer reworked his image artistically.”3 6 Leikina’s work provided support to Polonsky in his polemic with Grossman. In his second response, which actually preceded the published version of Grossman’s article on “Speshnev and Stavrogin,” Polonsky outlined the same alternative proposal that Speshnev represented the real prototype of Stavrogin. Referring to the biographical sketch by Leikina, Polonsky agreed that the ‘ "physical appearance, personal peculiarities and biographical characteristics” of Speshnev correspond “as closely as possible” [icax HejiKM Soaee 6 jih3ko] to those of Stavrogin (132-134). In addition to many of the biographical similarities which Grossman went on to acknowledge in his article of 1924, Polonsky also called attention to an incident in which Speshnev offered to pose as a communist leader, very much like Stavrogin, in order to convince a fellow Petrashevist that a secret society existed in Russia (132). Polonsky expressed dismay that Grossman continued to support the “Bakunin” thesis, 36. JleflK M H a, B.P. nerpameBcu H.A. CnetmieB // Eunoe. 1924. N B 25. C. 24-25. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 particularly since Grossman himself, even prior to Leikina,3 7 had already proposed the more correct thesis, which “his listeners found very convincing” (134). Borovoi also endorsed the Speshnev thesis in a postscript to his article “Bakunin and Stavrogin.”3 8 Borovoi emphasized that Grossman’s article “represents a new and serious stage in the development of his views on the question of Stavrogin’s prototype” since Grossman acknowledged that Dostoevsky utilized not one, but several prototypes. Thanks to the convincing similarities between Speshnev and Stavrogin, Borovoi wrote, “the pale, insignificant coincidences between Bakunin and Stavrogin are conclusively removed.” Borovoi noted that the idea was not new and recalled that someone [Leikina, perhaps?] “spoke of Speshnev during the dispute in the Press House” back in April 1923, where at the time Grossman “for some reason did not wish to stop [to consider] this version,” but “later read a paper on it himself.” Borovoi also recalled that Polonsky had obligingly offered Grossman the same Speshnev as a prototype of Stavrogin.” Compared to Grossman’s “bright, distinct and definite formulation” that Speshnev and Petrashevsky stand “at the center” of the novel, Grossman’s revised thesis “resounds weakly and limply,” Borovoi declared, 37. In light of his statement that Grossman “seemed” to have proposed Speshnev as Stavrogin’s prototype before Leikina, it appears that Polonsky remained unaware of the details of Grossman’s article on “Speshnev and Stavrogin” at the time he, Polonsky, wrote his second response. This may also explain why Polonsky pointed out the many similarities between Speshnev and Stavrogin which Grossman had already described in his lecture. 38. Grossman’s article on “Speshnev and Stavrogin” appeared only after Borovoi had already composed the final draft of his article, but Borovoi managed to add his reaction to the end o f the article in time for its publication in the collection M yth about Bakunin [M h < |> o BaKymrae]. Grossman’s other principal opponents, Komarovich and N.G. Otverzhennyi, failed to comment on the Speshnev thesis, perhaps because it appeared after their own articles. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 “like an involuntary concession to the past.” Although Bakunin “still seems to occupy a central place,” Borovoi concluded, “one feels nonetheless that soon the ‘mysterious and demonic’ Speshnev will soon take his place.”3 9 Despite Borovoi’s prediction, Grossman continued to reserve a central place in Besy for Bakunin. After his article “Speshnev and Stavrogin,” the only other work in which he assigned to Speshnev and Bakunin a fairly equal role was his book Dostoevsky s Path [Ily r b A o cro eB cico ro ]. T h ere G ro ssm a n sta ted o n ly that S tavrogin emerged from prototypes of the 1860s whom Dostoevsky interpreted on the basis of prototypes from the Petrashevsky circle: Along with several Nechaevists [in Besy\ emerge political figures of the forties who participated in the Petrashevsky affair. Thus several Nechaev-like characteristics in the person of Petr Verkhovensky merge with the fairly close reflection of Petrashevsky’s personality, while the person of Stavrogin combines and reworks anew the images of Bakunin and the first Russian communist, Speshnev. Even when depicting the contemporary scene, Dostoevsky never ceases to turn to the experiences of his own revolutionary past.4 0 By contrast, in his fourth contribution to the debate in 1925, “Dostoevsky at Work on Bakunin,” which he devoted for the most part to Dostoevsky’s sources of information about Bakunin, Grossman once again advanced the notion that Bakunin served as Stavrogin’s main prototype. With no mention of Speshnev at all, Grossman concluded that “out of Dostoevsky’s plans grew a grandiose parody on the titanic 39. BopoBOft, A.A. EaxyHHH b “Becax” // EopoBofL, A.A., OTBCpaceHHbjft, HJ~. Mh$ o BaxyHHHe. M., 1925. C. 146-148. 40. f poccuaH, Jl.n. flyTb JIocTocBCKoro. JI.: Bpoicray>3$poH, 1924. C. 91. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 image of Bakunin, who was fated to see his great destruction in the tragic figure of Stavrogin” (215). Three years later, and two years following the publication of the collection The Debate Over Bakunin and Dostoevsky, Grossman again defended his argument in a brief introductory article to a collected edition of his works. Recalling how he continued to explore it in spite of the objections of Polonsky, Borovoi and Komarovich and others, Grossman declared that “every new scrutiny of [his] sources confirmed the correctness of [his] original hypothesis.”4 1 Disagreement with Grossman, however, proved to be just as persistent. In addition to Grossman’s principal opponents, several observers of the debate during the 1920s also awarded the first place among Stavrogin’s prototypes to Speshnev, and only a secondary place, if any, to Bakunin. In one of several reviews that followed the release of the 1926 collection of Grossman’s and Polonsky’s essays, N.L. Brodsky endorsed Grossman’s conclusion that Stavrogin represents “a complex figure created from different prototypes” which Dostoevsky “could have drawn from one or another historical figure.” The novel itself, he stated, “which is saturated with recollections of the 1840s...compels us to place it closer to Speshnev, who exerted such an active influence in the life of the young Dostoevsky.”4 2 In another review, scholar P.M. Bitsilli wrote that the otherwise productive debate between Grossman and Polonsky 41. TpoccMaH, Jl.n. E axyH H H h JlocroeBCKHft: [IIpeAHCJi.] // r poccMaa, JI.II. Co6paHHe commeiodt: B 5 x. T. 2. Bun. 2: JtocroeBCKHfl. nyrb, noaniKa, T B o p ie c n o . M.: ConpeMeHHue npo&ieMU, 1928. C. 215-216. 42. B poncK H ft, HJ1. Pen. H a ram y: C n o p o BaxyHHH e h J I o c to c b c k o m . C rann Jl.n. r p o c c u a i i a h B.n. riojioHCKoro (JI.: foe. k m - b o , 1926) // Karopra h ccbunca.1926. K h . 25. C. 262. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 demanded certain concessions, the most important of which Grossman eventually made in his ‘Valuable etude” on Speshnev. Bitsilli agreed with Polonsky that Grossman had erred in “placing Bakunin at the base of an entire theory on the genesis of Besy," when the “original prototype” for Stavrogin was most likely Dostoevsky’s former “demon” Speshnev.4 3 In a note on Speshnev from the first volume of Dostoevsky’s letters of 1928, part of a four volume set for which he provided extensive commentary, A.S. Dolinin wrote that “with his strong will, his mysterious romantic past, shaply observant, nearly always taciturn, charming and handsome, rightfully looking upon the majority of Petrashevists with a shade of condescension noted by everyone, Speshnev, almost without question, served as the prototype of Nikolai Stavrogin.”4 4 Similarly, in a note from the second volume of Dostoevsky’s letters, Dolinin expressed his agreement with Leikina,4 5 whose view, he wrote, “fully corresponds to Dostoevsky’s invariably serious and deeply respectful attitude toward Speshnev.” In the wake of Polonsky’s and Borovoi’s convincing criticism, Dolinin wrote, “one can speak merely of a certain unconscious contamination of several facts and details that rose by sinuous routes to the surface of [Dostoevsky’s] artistic 43. E h u h ju ih , n.M . Peu. Ha k h .: Cnop o EaicyHHHe h J Io c to c b c k o m . CraTMi Jl.n. P p o ccM aH a h B.n. n o jio H c ic o ro (JI.: Toe. roa-B O , 1926) // CoBpeMemiue aaim cicH . (TIapH*),1926. N ® 28. C. 488- 489. 44. J J o c to c b c k h A , O.M. rincbMa. T. 1 :1832-1867 / rioa pea. h c n p H M C H . A.C. JJariH H H H a. M.; JI.: Toe. H3a-B O , 1928. C. 506. 45. Contradicting an assertion by Polonsky in his second response to Grossman (134), Dolinin writes that Grossman advanced his Speshnev thesis “after” Leikina. If Dolinin is correct, then Leikina must have publicized her thesis somehow before the publication o f her article, cited earlier, which first appeared in 1924, that is, only after Grossman first delivered his lecture on “Speshnev and Stavrogin” in May o f 1923. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 memory, where thoughts of Bakunin most likely remained apart from his image, separated from his individuality.” Such facts and details “could have merged organically, without the contradictions, with the other, definitely central figure, Speshnev.”4 6 Shchegolev, meanwhile, not only favored Speshnev, but failed even to mention the possibility of Bakunin as a prototype of Stavrogin. Adding to his earlier comments on Verkhovensky and Stavrogin, Shchegolev wrote that he perceived “two layers of impressions in Stavrogin: the first from 1848, produced by Speshnev, and the second from 1866, produced by Karakozov.”4 7 The Bakunin specialist Iu.M. Steklov pronounced it “established” that Dostoevsky utilized and modified “certain facts from the biography of Bakunin,” but he also decided that Bakunin was simply one model “among others” and that Dostoevsky had in mind “not only Bakunin.”4 8 By 1932, the case for multiple prototypes had grown so solid that the scholar M.S. Al’tman argued convincingly that the character Tolkachenko in Besy was particularly “rare” insofar as he appears to be the only character whose “every single trait” may be traced to a single, exclusive prototype.4 9 Several scholars have continued to support the theory of multiple prototypes in subsequent years, as well, and many have expressed a preference for the Speshnev thesis. In a comment from a book which appeared roughly 46. Z to c T O C B C K H fl, 4>.M. IlHCuia. T. 2: 1867*1871 / rioa pea. h c n p H M C H . A.C. AaiHHHHa. M.; JI.: Toe. roa-BO , 1930. C. 486,391. 47. UJeraneB, FI.E. AnexceeBCKHfi p& bctchh: Kmira o naaemra h b c jih h h h qenoaeica. M.: Oeaepauiu, 1929. C. 67-68. 48. [Ct o c j i o b , IO.M.]. Pen. H a k h .: Cnop o EaKymme h AocroeacK O M // JleTonncH MapxcioMa. 1927. K h . 3. C. 147. This unsigned review in all probability belonged to Steklov. 49. A jis tm s h , M.C. IIpuxoB h flocroeaciaifi // Karopra h ccw na. 1931. K h . 8/9 (81/82). C. 58. Al’tman identified Nechaev’s associate I.G. Pryzhov as die prototype for Tolkachenko in Besy. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 at the same time as Grossman’s biography of Dostoevsky, A.G. Tseitlin, a veteran of the literary scene who had attended the first reading of Grossman’s thesis, wrote that while the debate produced many interesting details, it failed to resolve the question of Dostoevsky’s prototypes completely. While Bakunin, too, “could well have served” as Stavrogin’s prototype, Tseitlin wrote, “Bakunin was not the sole prototype of Stavrogin,” whose character reflected “a series of characteristics” from Speshnev and even Herzen.5 0 Citing Dolinin’s comments from 1928, Al’tman indicated in a survey of literary prototypes a few years later that both Bakunin and Speshnev served as models for Stavrogin, whom he described as an example of a “collective” [c6opiu>ift] image.5 1 Al’tman’s position in 1968 thus resembled the same position he had advanced in 1932, when he had stated that “Dostoevsky, when creating Stavrogin, started [orrajncHBajica ot] not only from Bakunin, but also from the Petrashevist Speshnev.”5 2 In their commentary on Besy of 1975, Tunimanov and Sukhachev also gave at least equal consideration to Speshnev: N o w it is o b v io u s th at there are n o real g ro u n d s for th e p ercep tion o f S ta v ro g in a s a literary portrait o f th e fa m o u s reb el a n d an arch ist [B ak u n in ]. S u ch a c o n c lu s io n , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t e x c lu d e in d iv id u a l p sy c h o lo g ic a l p o in ts o f c o n tig u ity [conpmcocHOBeHHe] b e tw e e n th em . A t th e sa m e tim e there is n o d o u b t th a t certa in ch a ra cteristics a n d se v e r a l facts fro m th e b iograp h y o f 50. U e& TjuiH , A T . Tpya n H c a r e n a : B o n p o c u n c H x a n o n m , T B o p q e c ro a , K y jw ry p u h tcxhhkh n H c a r e jn c K o r o Tpyaa. M.: Cob. n H c a r e n t, 1962. C. 317. 51. AjibTM aH , M.C. Pyccme peB O JnouH O H H bie aorrejiH XIX seita — nporoninu jnrrepaiypHbix repocB // Hcropiu CCCP. 1968. N a 6. C. 129,131,145. 52. A n & T M a H , M.C. ripwKOB h AocroeBcuifi // KaTopra h ccbunca. 1931. K h. 8/9 (81/82). C. 58. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 Speshnev found reflection in Stavrogin, although they, too, were subjected to a complex subjective reinterpretation [nepeocMhicjieHHe] .5 3 At least two major Western studies of the last few decades, by contrast, seem to favor Speshnev almost to the utter exclusion of Bakunin. In a study of Dostoevsky of 1978 (published in English in 1989), French scholar Jacques Catteau wrote that Stavrogin “was also partly inspired by Speshnev, rather than by Bakunin.”5 4 In a short article devoted to the debate which appeared a year later, Catteau stated more categorically that Besy is “not a monograph on Bakunin at all,” while “Stavrogin is not a 'caricature of Bakunin,’ as Grossman continued to affirm.” In Catteau’s words, which echoed those of Polonsky and Borovoi, the Bakunin thesis was “mere legend,” since “Stavrogin comes from another world.”5 5 Following Catteau, American scholar Joseph Frank asserts in his multi-volume biography of Dostoevsky that Grossman’s thesis “has now been generally rejected,” and that “if we are to link Stavrogin to any actual person,” the “likeliest candidate” remains Speshnev.5 6 A similar verdict issues from the Russian specialist L.I. Saraskina, who devoted a recent study to Dostoevsky’s attitude toward Speshnev. While her work contains only a few specific comments on the debate over Grossman’s thesis during the 1920s, at one point in her study 53. AocToeBCKHfi, 4>.M. riojiHoe co6paHHe co<noieHHA : B 30 t. T. 12: Becu. PyKoimcHwe peoajuotH. HaOpocnt, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 227. 54. Jacques Catteau, D ostoevsky and the Process o f Literary Creation, trans. Audrey Littlewood (Cambridge UP, 1989) 331,511. 55. Jacques Catteau, “Bakounine et DostoTevski,” Bakounine: Combats e t Debats (Paris: Lnstitut d’dtudes slaves 1979) 103. 56. Joseph Frank, D ostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865-1871 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1995) 465-466. See also: Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The Seeds o f Revolt, 1821-1849 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1976)258,263. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 Saras kina agrees that “the pressure of indisputable facts” compelled Grossman to recognize Polonsky’s position, which proved more correct.5 7 There are, of course, many other possible individuals whose characteristics may have found reflection in Stavrogin, and the commentary to the scholarly edition of Besy in 1974, for example, presents a virtual encyclopedia of possible prototypes for all the characters in the novel. In addition to Bakunin and Speshnev, Stavrogin may be identified with the Decembrist M.S. Lunin, whom the narrator recalls as Stavrogin withstands the slap from Shatov; literary characters like Dostoevsky’s own Svidrigailov, whom Polonsky suggested;5 8 Shakespeare’s Prince Hal, as the elder Verkhovensky calls Stavrogin early in the novel; or Hamlet, as the younger Verkhovensky suggests; Dickens’ Steerforth, according to one scholar;5 9 Lermontov’s Pechorin, who appears in the notebooks;6 0 Pushkin’s Onegin, and the many other Byronesque “superfluous” men in Russian literature before 1870, including Turgenev’s Rudin, perhaps, who was inspired to some extent by Bakunin.6 1 In light of the overwhelming lack of support by scholars for the idea of a single prototype for Stavrogin, and also in light of the many possible prototypes, both 57. CapacutHa, JI.H. Oeaop AocroeBCXHfi: Oaonetoie acmohob. M.: Cornaote, 1996. C. 333 58. For a discussion o f Stavrogin and Svidrigailov, see: Charles A. Moser, “Svidrigailov and Stavrogin,” Forum International 3 (1980): 88*98. The author does not comment on Grossman’s Bakunin thesis. 59. Cited in: Aocroeaciodi, O.M. noimoe co6paime comtHeHHft: B 30 t. T. 12: Becu. PyKonHCHue peranum . Ha6pocnt, 1870*1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 229. 60. Ahao, A. K HcropHH o6para rierpa BepxoBeticxoro (“Becu”) // AocroeBcmfi: G ram t h MaTepHanu. T. 7. JI.: Hayxa, 1987. C. 184*185. 61. JIocToeBCKHft, < t> .M . IIonHoe co6painie co<umeHHfi: B 30 t. T. 12: Becu. PyxotmcHue peAaxmm. HaCpocxn, 1870*1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 228-229. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 historical and fictional, that have, in fact, been discovered and proposed, it seems all the more remarkable that Grossman seems to have adhered to his Bakunin thesis throughout his long scholarly career. In his lengthy article on Besy from 1934, “Dostoevsky’s Political Novel,” Grossman repeated that the image of Stavrogin reflected “the leaders of two generations” of revolutionaries, Bakunin and Speshnev, but he placed greater emphasis on the role of Bakunin, from whom “Stavrogin was mainly copied” [cimcaHHufi b ochobhom c EaicyHHHa].6 2 According to one document from his personal archive in Moscow, at some point during the 1950s Grossman included “Stavrogin and Bakunin” among a list of his lecture topics pertaining to Dostoevsky.6 3 Without a more detailed outline of its content, of course, one cannot be certain that Grossman’s lecture in fact advanced his earlier position. All the same it seems likely that his lecture anticipated the biography of Dostoevsky which he wrote within the next few years. In spite of his revisions regarding Stavrogin’s conception at the Geneva Congress described earlier, Grossman’s biography of 1962 continued to attribute Stavrogin’s origins to the historical Bakunin. Drawing upon his article of 1934, Grossman insisted once again that Bakunin stood at the “foundation” of Stavrogin, who thus represented Dostoevsky’s “interpretation” of the famous revolutionary: 62. rpoccMaH, Jl.n. n<vnrnnecKHfi pouaH A o c ro e B C K o ro / / J ^ o c to c b c k h A , (DM. Becu. T. 1. M., 1935. C. LVm, LXD. 63. PTAJIH, $. 1386, on. 2, ea. 15, ji. 103. The list o f topics may have been prepared for the Moscow Pedagogical Institute, where Grossman lectured during the 1950s. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 The enigmatic image of [Stavrogin] emerges from the darkness of a most complex psychological secret and receives its necessary interpretation. Dostoevsky resolved to embody his own impression of the famous Russian rebel within this image and to show that his noisy activity was as fruitless and abstract as his glorified personality. According to Dostoevsky’s interpretation, the bearer of world revolutionary glory is a Russian gentleman [6apmi], fettered by introspection, a wanderer in Europe, tom from the roots of his native soil, a captive of refined thought, powerless to accomplish anything, doomed to inactivity and an inglorious end.6 4 Thus if his opponents wished for Bakunin to disappear from Besy altogether or, at least, to assume a much less conspicuous place alongside the many other possible prototypes for Stavrogin, Grossman continued to preserve a central place for the famous anarchist in Dostoevsky’s novel-pamphlet. Like his claims that Stavrogin represented a “portrait” of Bakunin, and his claim that Dostoevsky “conceived” Stavrogin upon observing Bakunin as early as 1867, Grossman proved willing to modify his claim that Bakunin was “the” prototype; but he refused to concede, as Polonsky and Borovoi desired, that Bakunin played only an insignificant role, if any at all, in the evolution of Stavrogin. 1.4 Conclusion Grossman’s resolution of the three problems reviewed in this chapter provided little satisfaction to his opponents. From the standpoint of Borovoi, Grossman’s failure to defend the most explosive claims of his first argument indicated complete defeat. The “banality” o f Grossman’s revised positions, Borovoi wrote, did not at all resemble 64. fpoccMaH, JI.IL AocroeBCHtfi. M.: M ojioau rBapium, 1962. C. 450. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 “the fireworks that preceded it.”6 5 Polonsky, meanwhile, asked in bewilderment, “Why does [Grossman] so passionately continue to defend an already antiquated hypothesis, whose lack of foundation he probably sees clearly himself?” (134) One reason for Grossman's persistence and refusal to concede defeat was undoubtedly the equally adamant refusal of Polonsky and Borovoi to allow for any identification between Stavrogin and Bakunin at all. By insisting that Stavrogin shared “ no internal or external, historical, logical or psychological link whatsoever” with Bakunin (71) [Polonsky’s italics], Polonsky not only rejected the least defensible premises in the argument—that Besy is a monograph on Bakunin, that Dostoevsky “conceived” Stavrogin at the Peace Congress of 1867, and that Bakunin was both “the” prototype yet only one of several prototypes—but also advanced a provocative argument of his own, as well as a clear challenge to Grossman to produce evidence for the analogy. Borovoi essentially issued the same challenge by his declaration that "Besy could have been written and was written without Bakunin.”6 6 Responding to Polonsky’s invitation, Grossman devoted most of his second and his fourth articles in the debate to a closer analysis of the evidence for the link between Stavrogin and Bakunin. As the following chapters will demonstrate, the strongest support for Grossman’s argument lay, firstly, in evidence of Dostoevsky’s 65. BopoBoft, A.A. EaxyH H H b “Eecax” // SopoBofi, A.A., OTBcpaceHHfdfl, HX. M w { > o EaxyHHHe. M., 1925. C. 73. 66. BopoBofi, A.A. EaicyHHH b “Eecax” // EopoBoti, A .A., O rB ep aceH H u ft, HX. Mh<|> o EaxyHHHe. M., 1925. C. 144, 148. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 source materials for the “pamphlet” in Besy and, secondly, in a few of the many specific “coincidences” he perceived between the biographies of Stavrogin and Bakunin. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 Chapter 2 The Problem of Dostoevsky’s Sources An important assumption of Grossman’s thesis was that Dostoevsky would have “studied” the historical Bakunin closely when preparing his pamphlet against the Russian nihilists. Throughout his first article on “Bakunin and Dostoevsky,” Grossman enumerated many sources from which Dostoevsky likely gathered information about Bakunin, beginning with Dostoevsky’s personal “meeting” with Bakunin at the first Congress of the League of Peace and Freedom in Geneva,1 mentioned in the previous chapter. In his second article and first reply to Polonsky, Grossman defended his initial claims and offered more evidence of Dostoevsky’s “familiarity” with Bakunin. His fourth article Grossman then devoted almost entirely to the issue of Dostoevsky’s sources of knowledge about Bakunin. Along with evidence of the novelist’s direct contact with Bakunin, Grossman presented a number of examples of indirect contact, first through their mutual associates in Russia during the late 1840s, when Dostoevsky’s literary career began, and then through the two leading representatives of the Russian revolutionary emigration of the 1860s, A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev. Grossman also described a number of important written sources about Bakunin, including works by Bakunin himself, which Dostoevsky must have drawn upon for information about his future prototype. According to Grossman’s scheme, the many 1 . Hereafter referred to as “Peace Congress” or simply “Congress.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 informative oral and written reports about Bakunin available to Dostoevsky before the first drafts of Besy supplemented the undisputed source for much of the political plot in the novel: the protocols from the trial of the Nechaevists. Like his notion of prototypes, Grossman's claims about Dostoevsky’s sources met persistent disagreement from Polonsky in his first two articles, who insisted that much of his evidence for Dostoevsky’s knowledge about Bakunin, even if conceivable, remained only speculative, a view supported by more recent analyses, as well. While Polonsky and in some cases Komarovich successfully identified weaknesses in some of his evidence, however, a number of Grossman’s discoveries proved highly convincing, and may not have deserved the vehement opposition raised by Polonsky. As this chapter will attempt to demonstrate, at the root of the dispute over Dostoevsky’s sources of information about Bakunin lay a conflict between two very different conceptions about Dostoevsky’s views and methods as a commentator on political questions. In their evaluation of Dostoevsky’s possible meetings with Bakunin, his potential use of information about Bakunin from Bakunin’s associates, as well as information about Bakunin in the Russian press, Grossman and Polonsky relied on certain important assumptions about Dostoevsky that inevitably sharpened what might otherwise have been a dispassionate investigation into the creative history of Besy. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 2.1 Dostoevsky’s possible meetings with Bakunin Grossman presumed Dostoevsky’s knowledge of Bakunin, firstly, from evidence of the writer’s direct contact with him. As Grossman acknowledged in his opening lecture, their contact was not extensive. Unlike V.G. Belinsky, M.N. Katkov, V.P. Botkin, I.S. Turgenev and other "men of the forties” whom he knew first-hand, Dostoevsky never met Bakunin during the early period of his career, since Bakunin left Russia for Europe in 1840, still several years before the young writer met many of Bakunin’s old friends. Although Dostoevsky and Bakunin both spent their final years of exile in Siberia between 1856 and 1859, there is no evidence that they met there, either. By the 1860s, however, when living abroad, Dostoevsky finally crossed paths with Bakunin. As described in the previous chapter, Grossman opened his argument with a dramatic picture of Dostoevsky’s personal ’‘meeting” with Bakunin at a session of the Peace Congress on September 10,1867, when Bakunin’s “steel words about the destruction of religion and patriotism,” according to Grossman, “resounded painfully in Dostoevsky’s heart,” thereby hastening the “birth” of his future novel’s demonic hero, Nikolai Stavrogin. Bakunin’s speech at the Peace Congress remained a key piece of evidence for Grossman’s position, even after he eventually revised his initial claim that the “birth” of Stavrogin occurred during the speech itself. Regardless of the precise moment of Stavrogin’s conception in his author’s mind, Grossman continued Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 to treat the speech at the Peace Congress as the most significant example of Dostoevsky’s first-hand experience with Stavrogin’s prototype. Grossman determined Dostoevsky’s attendance during Bakunin’s speech primarily on the basis of testimony by the novelist’s wife, Anna Grigor’evna, whose memoirs describe their visit to the September 10 session (29,47).2 As additional evidence of their attendance Grossman cited two letters Dostoevsky wrote soon after the Congress, one to his friend A.N. Maikov of September IS, 1867, in which Dostoevsky recalls his visit to the Congress, and another to his niece S.A. Ivanova (Khmyrova) of September 29, in which he writes of “landing at the Peace Congress” and conveys his impressions of its proceedings (73-74). Grossman also suggested that Dostoevsky’s visit to the Congress may be reflected in the text of Besy itself, where Liputin announces to the older Verkhovensky that Kirillov calls for “over a million heads” to bring about “common sense” in Europe, “more than demanded at the last Peace Congress” (76).3 Despite evidence of Dostoevsky’s attendance at the second session of the Congress, Polonsky adamantly opposed Grossman’s belief that the writer actually witnessed Bakunin’s speech in person. Based on Anna Grigor’evna’s statement that she and Dostoevsky attended the Congress for only “about two hours” before leaving, and since according to Polonsky’s own source, the memoirs of Congress participant 2. AocroeBCKM, AX. BocnoM HH aH H* / riofl pea. JI.I1. rpoccMtma. M.: Toe. h u -bo, 1925. C. 114. 3. JlocToeBCKHfl, rioJiHoe co6pafate C O T H H em rii: B 30 t. T. 12: Sec hi. PyKonHCHue peaaicmiH. Ha6pocKH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayica, 1975. C. 77. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 James Guillaume,4 “Bakunin spoke last,” Polonsky deduced that the Dostoevskys, on the contrary, probably did not remain long enough to hear Bakunin speak. Had the fateful meeting described by Grossman actually occurred, Polonsky insisted, it would certainly be more apparent in Dostoevsky’s correspondence. In his letter to Maikov of September IS, 1867, Polonsky pointed out, Dostoevsky mentions seeing only Garibaldi, but never once utters the name of Bakunin (45). In the same letter to Ivanova (Khmyrova), Dostoevsky again describes his visit to the Congress without mentioning Bakunin’s name (46). Polonsky found no other evidence of a meeting between Dostoevsky and Bakunin in Anna Grigor’evna’s memoirs. Among the noteworthy individuals she and Dostoevsky met at the time of the Congress, Anna Grigor’evna, too, recalls only the celebrated arrival of Garibaldi, but not Bakunin (47). In his response to Polonsky, Grossman firmly reiterated his belief that the Dostoevskys were present when Bakunin appeared to speak. Turning to a more authoritative source, the official protocols of the 1867 Congress, Grossman demonstrated that five more speakers followed Bakunin during the second day’s session.5 Regardless of Anna Grigor’evna’s failure to mention Bakunin’s speech explicitly, therefore, Polonsky was incorrect to assume Bakunin spoke last, that is, 4. Polonsky identifies his source simply as “Guillaume.” He is probably referring to volume one of Guillaume’s work, L ' Internationale: Documents e t Souvenirs (Paris, 1905). A selected Russian translation of the work appeared in 1922: Thumm, JJy u . (Guillaume, J.). HHTepHamioHan: (BocnoMHHaHiu h Marepfuvra, 1864-1878). T. 1/2 / C 6Horp. saM encaM H o JJyt c . rmibove IX KpononcHiia h <t>. Epyn6axepa; Ilep. c dip. H A. KpirrcicoA; non pea. h c aon. H.K. JIe6eaeBa. 1 X 6 .; M.: roaoc Tpyaa, 1922. 5. Grossman cites: Annales de Congres de Geneve of September 9-12, 1867 (Geneve, 1868). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 after the Dostoevskys had already left the auditorium where the Congress met. In addition to chronological details, Grossman also cited Dostoevsky’s attitude toward the radical delegates at the Congress. Recalling Dostoevsky’s great interest in the political life of Europe, Grossman insisted Dostoevsky would not have missed an opportunity to observe a figure as conspicuous and important at the Congress as Bakunin, the “chief theoretician” of the League. "No logical formulations will prove,” Grossman explained, “that the writer [Dostoevsky], deeply interested in the problems of this uncommon discussion [at the Congress], left the auditorium at the precise moment when the Congress...came to life, heated up intensely, when its agitated crowd triumphantly met ‘le celebre revolutionnaire russe,’ ...who immediately captured the international crowd of thousands with his powerful speech” (78-79). The “most famous, most audacious, perhaps most brilliant contemporary destroyer of all things sacred,” Grossman believed, “could not have failed to agitate the ever-dynamic element of Dostoevsky’s creative spirit” (82). Several of Grossman’s examples not only confirmed Dostoevsky’s attendance at the Congress, but also demonstrated the strong emotions the novelist felt upon observing the speakers. In her recollections of the Congress, Anna Grigor’evna describes the “painful impression” the Congress left on her husband.6 In his oft-quoted letter to S. A. Ivanova (Khmyrova) of September 29, Dostoevsky criticizes the revolutionary tendencies at the Congress and emphatically rejects proposals to achieve 6. AocroeBCKa*, AX. BocnoMHHamu / floa pea. JI.II. TpoccMaHa. M.: Toe. m a -B o , 192S. C. i 14. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 peace by means of “fire and sword” (9). His letter to Maikov of September IS, 1867 reflects Dostoevsky’s skepticism toward the Congress, whose proceedings he characterized as “utter confusion,” the likes of which he had “never seen nor heard before in [his] life” (73-74). Grossman added more support in his fourth article, “Dostoevsky at Work on Bakunin,” in which he determined Dostoevsky’s reaction to Bakunin’s speech on the basis of a critique offered by Maikov. Writing to Dostoevsky from Petersburg on September 20, 1867, Maikov confesses he “could not believe his eyes” when reading the reports on the Congress in the Russian newspapers. Singling out Bakunin’s speeches and ideas in particular, Maikov speaks with irony of their “lack of restraint” which merely “leads to a dead end.” In spite of his negative impressions, however, Maikov implores Dostoevsky to “collect accounts [of the Congress]” and to send him his “personal impressions of that Walpurgis Night.” If Maikov, far from Geneva, followed Bakunin’s speech “with such avid interest,” Grossman insisted, then “one can imagine how closely Dostoevsky, who lived in Geneva,...must have followed it” (210-211). In his turn Polonsky conceded that the Dostoevskys’ visit to the Congress on September 10, 1867 could have, in theory, coincided with Bakunin’s speech, were the protocols, which he had not consulted, in fact more accurate than the memoirs of Guillaume. Nevertheless, proceeding from the same sources cited by Grossman, Polonsky still arrived at a very different conclusion about Dostoevsky’s interest in Bakunin. If, as Grossman claimed, Dostoevsky had been so “stirred” by his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 impressions of Bakunin, he reasoned, researchers should logically expect to find more reverberations of Dostoevsky’s contact with Bakunin in the writer’s letters, as well as in Anna Grigor’evna’s memoirs. Based on Anna Grigor’evna’s comment that the speeches at the Congress produced a “painful impression” on Dostoevsky and even prompted them to leave after only two hours, Polonsky assumed, contrary to Grossman’s hypothesis, that Dostoevsky was not so “deeply interested” in the problems raised during the Congress that day at all (128). Whereas Dostoevsky’s attitude toward the Congress convinced Grossman that Bakunin obviously “shook” and “agitated” the novelist into a condition of “creative tension” (82), Polonsky concluded that Dostoevsky must have been virtually indifferent toward Bakunin’s speech. Here Polonsky claimed to enjoy the support of Komarovich, who agreed that the evidence fails to indicate any noteworthy reaction by Dostoevsky to Bakunin’s speech (126). Like Polonsky, Komarovich believed that Bakunin’s supposedly great impact on Dostoevsky should be more apparent in the writer’s “indignant assessment” of the Congress to his correspondents, particularly in view of his usual “candidness” with close friends like Maikov. If he spoke to Maikov so openly of his chance meeting with Herzen in Geneva in his letter of March 20, 1868, Komarovich argued, then Dostoevsky would not have “concealed such a significant event of his inner life” in the letters cited by Grossman. Also like Polonsky, Komarovich insisted that Grossman’s theory should explain why Dostoevsky, when complaining to Maikov of the League’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 proposal for radical political changes in Europe, failed to distinguish Bakunin’s speech from the others at the Congress.7 Despite the objections of Polonsky and Komarovich, Grossman continued to argue that Dostoevsky observed Bakunin’s speech at the Peace Congress of 1867. In his introductory article to the 1934 publication of Besy, Grossman embellished his picture of the Peace Congress even more, claiming that Dostoevsky “listened to Bakunin’s fiery speech with suppressed rage.” He also suggested that Dostoevsky’s stay in Geneva offered him other opportunities to meet Bakunin beyond the Congress itself. As an example Grossman cited a letter from Herzen to his son of February 27, 1868, in which the former names both Bakunin and Dostoevsky among the constant visitors who ‘Troubled” the ailing Ogarev.8 Clearly implying that Bakunin and Dostoevsky may have run into one another at Ogarev’s, Grossman concluded “there can be no doubt that Dostoevsky saw Bakunin many times throughout this period” and “was able to observe him directly and freely.”9 By 1962, Grossman declared firmly that the “personal meeting” between Dostoevsky and Bakunin remained an “indisputable fact” in Dostoevsky’s literary biography.1 0 As before, he reiterated once again that the two finally “met” at the Peace Congress in Geneva, where Dostoevsky 7. KoMapoBm, B J I . “Eecu” AocroeBCKoro h B axyH H H // Bbuioe. 1925. N f l 27/28. C. 30-31. 8. TepueH, A.H. IIhcmio k A.A. repaeny h M. Me(beH6yr, 27-28 (15-16) $eBp. 1868 // TepaeH, A.H. Co6paHHe cohmhchhA: B 30 t. T. 29. Kh. 1 . M.: AH CCCP, 1963. C. 284. 9. rp O C C M B H , JI.n. n O J IH T O T C C K H fi p O M a H J J O C T O e B C K O r O // flo C T O C B C K H fl, Eecbi. T. 1. M., 1935. C. LVI-LVn. 10. TpoccMaH, JI.n. XIoctocbckmA. M.: Manoaa* rBapmu, 1962. C. 261. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 “eagerly” followed the speech of Bakunin, the “remarkable Russian” whose “power and force” was long familiar to him from stories he heard within the Belinsky circle." Commentary on the question over the past three decades suggests that the issue of Dostoevsky’s attendance at Bakunin’s speech remained open until very recently, and may still be unresolved in the minds of some scholars. Among other Russian biographers of Dostoevsky, K.V. Mochulsky asserted in his study of Dostoevsky, first published in 1947, that at the Peace Congress in Geneva Dostoevsky heard the speech by Bakunin.1 2 Similarly, in a work from 1971, reprinted in 2000, one Western scholar also noted that Dostoevsky heard Bakunin’s speech and, like Mochulsky, linked the impressions Dostoevsky conveyed to Ivanova (Khmyrova) in the letter of September 29 directly to his impressions of the session at which Bakunin spoke.1 3 In the wake of more recent discoveries, however, other scholars have supported Polonsky and Komarovich by denying Dostoevsky’s attendance during Bakunin’s speech. By far the most important evidence in contradiction to Grossman’s claim emerged from a thorough study of Anna Grigor’evna’s original diary drafts during the 1960s. As indicated earlier, evidence of the Dostoevskys’ attendance at the second session of the Congress on September 10—the session at which Bakunin delivered his speech—came exclusively from Anna Grigor’evna’s memoirs, cited earlier in this 11. TpoccMaH, JI.n. AocroeBCKHfi. M.: Mojioaax r B a p a t u , 1962. C. 411. 12. MoqymcKHfi, K.B. AocrocBCKHfi: 3 Km 3hb h T B opiccreo. riapiac: YMCA, 1947. C. 269. 13. Ellis Sandoz, P olitical Apocalypse: A Study o f D ostoevsky’ s Grand Inquisitor, 2nd ed., rev. (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2000) 19. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 chapter, which became available to Grossman and Polonsky first in manuscript form, then as an official publication in 192S. In her recollections of events from the year 1867, Anna Grigor’evna relied to a great extent on a shorthand diary she kept regularly from April through December of that year. In 1894, when she began deciphering those original stenographic notes for use in the future publication of her memoirs, Anna Grigor’evna managed to work through only the entries she made between June 22 and August 12, 1867. Those entries were published in 1923, two years before the memoirs.1 4 Anna Grigor’evna’s original entries from September S through December 31,1867, the period which included the Peace Congress, remained undeciphered in her archive. As a result, her remarks about the Peace Congress in her memoirs are based not on the documentary record of it from her original diary, but rather on her own distant recollection. When during the 1960s Ts.M. Pomeshanskaia successfully deciphered Anna Grigor’evna’s obscure diary entries, it became apparent that they contradict the published memoirs in a number of important details, one of which bears directly on the issue of the Peace Congress. According to her original diary entry, Anna Grigor’evna and Dostoevsky attended the Congress not for the second session on September 10, as described in the memoirs, but rather for the third session on 14. JlocroeBCKM, AX. JJhcbhhk 1867 r. / non pea. H .< D . B e jib H H K O B a. M.: Honan Modcaa, 1923. This first edition contains entries from two of Anna Grigor’evna’s notebooks. The first includes entries she made from April 14-June 9/21 (c. 1-138), and the second includes entries from June 10 / 22 - August 12 / 24 (c. 139-368). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 September 11.1 S The nature of the proceedings on the third day of the Congress as well as the Dostoevskys’ reaction to them also support the probability of their visit on that day, rather than on the second. As Carr indicated in his review of the 1867 Congress, whereas general enthusiasm and “little dissent” prevailed on the first and second days, the third day, which followed the early departure of the popular Garibaldi, saw “the tone of the proceedings” deteriorate before growing criticism and “constant interruption” of the speakers, while “acrimonious exchanges” took place over various social and religious questions.1 6 The chaotic atmosphere of the third session partly explains the negative reactions of both Dostoevsky, who criticized the Congress in his lener to Ivanova (Khmyrova), and also of Anna Grigor’evna, who in her diary denied the “stupid congress” any purpose at all.1 7 Thus if one accepts the accuracy of Anna Grigor’evna’s original stenographic note and its interpretation, then the Dostoevskys did not attend the Congress on the day Bakunin spoke. This seems to be the prevalent opinion among scholars today, beginning with the authors of the Notes to the scholarly edition of Besy, who insist 15. AocroeBcica*, AX. Ahcbhhk 1867 r. / Haa. noaror. C.B. X C frT O M H p c ic a x . M.: Hayica, 1993. C. 396-400. The diary entries in question appeared first in 1973, then again in the definitive edition of the diary in 1993. See the informative article on the history o f the diary by S.V. Zhitomirskaia in the 1993 edition (391-422). See also: Pacimi$poBaHmifi imeBHHK AX. AocroeBCKOft / noaror. reiccra k nenaTH, Bcryn. c t. h npmie<i. C.B. X C irroM H pcK oft; Pactmn^poBica Tettcra U.M. rioMeinaHCKoft // JlKTeparypHoe HacJieacroo. T. 86: < D .M . AocroeacKHfi. Hoaue MarepHamt h HCCJieaoBamu. M.: Hayica, 1973. C. 155-291. 16. E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 331. 17. Aocroeacicaii, AX. Aiwbhhk 1867 r. / Has. noaror. C.B. X CirroM H pcicax. M.: Hayica, 1993. C. 249. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 flatly that Dostoevsky “did not hear Bakunin's speech.”1 8 If so, then Grossman’s probable error—the result, in part, of the stenographic error of Anna Grigor’evna—appears to destroy his vision of Dostoevsky’s dramatic reaction to Bakunin’s speech at the Congress, and Grossman’s theory of the writer’s “meeting” with Bakunin at the Congress therefore remains plausible only in the event that he saw Bakunin in some other capacity on the one day he attended.1 9 The latter scenario remains possible in light of Bakunin’s prominent position at the Congress. As Grossman emphasized, Bakunin clearly ranked among the noteworthy delegates and for many represented, next to Garibaldi, the “most outstanding personality” at the Congress. As Carr explains, “[e]veryone present had heard of the achievements and sufferings of the great enemy and martyr of Russian tyranny, but few had ever seen him.”2 0 As Congress participant G.N. Vyrubov testified in his memoirs, when Bakunin first approached the stage to deliver his speech, shouts of “Bakunin!” resounded in the auditorium, and the audience responded with a prolonged, enthusiastic standing 18. AocroeBCKHft, O.M. nojmoe co6paime cokhhchhA : B 30 t. T. 12: Becu. PyxomfCHue peaaKUHH. HaOpocm, 1870*1872. JI.: Hayica, 197S. C. 200. 19. Here it is worth noting, however, that at least one recent source still subscribes to Grossman’s claim regarding the Peace Congress. In their biographical sketch o f Dostoevsky in a new dictionary of Russian writers, authors T.I. Omatskaia and V.A. Tunimanov seem to leave open the possibility of Dostoevsky’s attendance on September 10, stating that “while in Geneva Dostoevsky follows the Russian emigration closely and attends the session [aaceaaime] of the League of Peace and Freedom at which Bakunin spoke” [Erne a 1867 b X C eH eae R . HanpxxeHHo npHCMatpHBaeTca x peBOjnouHomioft aMHrpauHH, nocemaer 3aceaaHHe JIhth M H pa h cbo&miu, H a xoropoM Bucrynan M.A. B aicy H H H ]. Do the authors here simply fail to distinguish die “session” in question from the general “conference” itself, or do the authors retain, in spite of the original diary, some other grounds for supporting Grossman’s claim? See: OpHarcicaa, T.H., TymniaHOB, BA . AocroeBCKHfi, Oeaop MftxaftnoBin: [Enorp. cnpaBica] // Pyccxae nHcarejm, 1800-1917: Em>rp- cnosapb. T. 2. M.: E P 3,1992. C. 171. 20. E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 329. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 ovation to the embrace between Bakunin and Garibaldi which followed. Vyrubov emphasized, furthermore, that Bakunin's activity at the Congress was not limited to his ten-minute speech on the second day, but included the organization of meetings, the drafting of projects, programs and proclamations.2 1 According to Grossman’s findings, after the second meeting on September 10 Bakunin occupied a seat on the stage behind the President’s table as a member of the organizing Committee (7S), and may well have sat through the Congress, like fellow committee member Ogarev, from beginning to end. In that case Bakunin would have remained visible and conspicuous not only during his appearance on the second day, but also on the third day, when the Dostoevskys attended. It also remains very likely that Dostoevsky acquired some knowledge of Bakunin’s speech at the 1867 Congress through other sources, and as Grossman suggested in his first reply to Polonsky, Liputin’s remarks about the Congress in the text of the novel confirm Dostoevsky’s familiarity with the League of Peace and Freedom and its congresses.2 2 He may have learned some of the details of the speech 21. Bupy6oB, r.H. PeB O jnouH O H H bie BO cnoM H H aH tui: TepueH, BaxyH H H , JIaBpoB // Becnnnc EBponu. 1913. N‘ 2. C. 54,66. 22. At the same time, it may not have been the Geneva Congress of the League Dostoevsky had in mind when drafting Liputin’s remarks, but rather the Beme Congress o f the following year. As the commentary to the scholarly edition o f Besy points out, Liputin refers in the text (part one, chapter three, sub-chapter four) to “the last Peace Congress” [my italics], which logically recalls the Congress of 1868 rather than the first Congress of 1867. Thus with regard to the actual material of the novel Dostoevsky may have studied the speeches from the 1868 Congress more closely than those from the Congress o f 1867, particularly since a detailed report o f them appeared m the journal Russian M essenger [PyccxHft aecniiuc], a journal he knew well. See: A ocT oeBCK H ft, Q.M. riojmoe co6pam<e cowHemrii: B 30 t . T. 12: Becu. PyxonHCHwe penanum . Ha6pocmt, 1870-1872. JL: Hayica, 197S. C. 201. The reference could refer, for that matter, to the third Congress, which took place in Lausanne in 1869. See: E.H. Carr, “The League of Peace and Freedom: An Episode in die Quest for Collective Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. g o indirectly, for example, through newspapers like the Independence Beige and others, which Grossman cited in his first reply to Polonsky (75), and which was one of the specific publications, moreover, which Anna Grigor’evna mentioned in her diary a few months earlier.2 3 Considering Dostoevsky’s diligent reading of the foreign press, at least one contemporary scholar agrees with Grossman that the writer “was quite well informed” about the contents of Bakunin’s speech.2 4 Maikov’s commentary on the Congress in his letter of September 20, 1867, also demonstrates that Dostoevsky could have acquired at least some notion of Bakunin’s speech without necessarily witnessing it in person. Thus although Grossman probably exaggerated the impact of Bakunin’s speech on Dostoevsky, as Polonsky suspected, he may well have been correct to claim that Dostoevsky learned of it through other sources, an issue to be addressed in the following section. One more discovery by Grossman deserves mention. By 1962, when he published the first edition of his biography of Dostoevsky, Grossman presented fairly convincing evidence of a chance “meeting” between Dostoevsky and Bakunin in July 1862, when Dostoevsky visited Herzen in London during his first trip abroad. Citing a report from the files of the Third Section, whose agents apparently followed Dostoevsky’s movements closely in London, Grossman proposed that Dostoevsky ran Security,” International A ffairs 14 (1935): 844. 23. ZJocToeBcicax, A T. JIhcbhhk 1867 r. / Hia. noaror. C.B. X C H T O M H p c x a x . M.: Hayica, 1993. C. 25. 24. Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The M iraculous Years, 1865-1871 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1995) 236. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 into Bakunin in person at Herzen’s on June 4.2 5 Thanks to the preservation of the report,2 6 there seems to be some acceptance of this possibility by scholars today,2 7 although chroniclers now date the meeting a day later, on June S.2 8 Studying the details of Herzen’s activity, one recent team of scholars even suggested that Dostoevsky met Bakunin at Herzen’s first on June S, and again on June 7.2 9 Their frequent attendance at Herzen’s from January 1862 to late February 1863 clearly strengthened the plausibility of “discussions” between Dostoevsky and Bakunin in London and thereby offered Grossman an additional example of the writer’s direct observation of Stavrogin’s future prototype. The dispute over Dostoevsky’s first-hand “meeting” with Bakunin provides a good illustration of the larger problem surrounding Grossman’s biographical evidence. For Grossman, who believed firmly that Dostoevsky would have taken any and every opportunity to see and hear Bakunin personally, the mere possibility that Dostoevsky witnessed Bakunin’s speech at the Congress was as good as an established fact, 25. TpoccMaH, JI.n. JIocroeBCKHft. M.: Mojioom rBapaiu, 1962. C. 260-263. In his first article (1923) Grossman incorrectly wrote that Dostoevsky met with Herzen in London in “ 1863,” rather than 1862. If the error was not merely typographical, then it may explain why Grossman failed to indicate the possible meeting between Dostoevsky and Bakunin until the 1960s. 26. KoraH, r.4>. Pa3ucicainu o JlocroeBCK O M // JlHTeparypHoe Hacjieacrao. T. 86: < D .M . ZIocrocBCK Hfi: Hoaue MarepHanu h HCcneaoaaHwi. M.: Hayica, 1973. C. 596. 27. Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The Stir o f Liberation, 1860-1865 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986) 192. 28. JleronMCb X H 3 H H h TBopqecna < D .M . JJocroeBcicoro, 1821-1881: B 3 t .. T. I: 1821-1864 / Coer. HJL Acy6oBim, T.H. OpHarcicax. Cn6.: AxaaeM. npoeicr, 1993. C. 370. 29. EpycoBaHH, M.H., I~ansnepuHa, PT. 3arpamnHHe nyremecTBHX O.M. AocrocBcicoro 1862 h 1863 r. // JIo c T O C B C K H it: MarepHanu h HccneaoBamu. T. 8. JI.: Hayica, 1988. C. 280-281. The authors explain, moreover, that Dostoevsky’s failure to record his visits to Herzen's place in his travel sketch, Winter N otes on Summer Im pressions [3hmhhc 3 a n H C K H o 3anamtux Bnemjiemuix], indicates Dostoevsky’s fear o f censorship, but not his failure to meet with Herzen. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 regardless of the ambiguity of the evidence. For Polonsky, Dostoevsky’s hostile attitude toward the Congress and its contingency of radical socialists appeared as virtual proof of precisely the opposite: that Dostoevsky would not have made the effort either to track down Bakunin, or to “study” him. The discrepancy between their respective approaches to Dostoevsky stands out in their dispute over Dostoevsky’s second-hand information, as well. 2.2 Discussions with Bakunin’s associates Dostoevsky developed a “second-hand familiarity” [3ao<moe 3HaxoM CTBo] (28) with Bakunin, Grossman argued, both during the time of the Peace Congress, as well as throughout his entire career as a writer. Even if Dostoevsky had but few opportunities to observe Bakunin personally, Dostoevsky acquired substantial information about Stavrogin’s prototype, Grossman believed, from the very beginning of his literary career (28). Dostoevsky could have heard about Bakunin after 1845, for example, when he entered the circle of Belinsky, who carried on a stormy but enduring relationship with Bakunin until his death in 1848. There the young Dostoevsky “felt acutely the deep trace left by the great dialectician in the conversations and thoughts of his recent disciples,” for Belinsky, Turgenev and others in the circle, Grossman insisted, “uttered Bakunin’s name constantly,” probably in connection with his well- known revolutionary activity abroad. Dostoevsky undoubtedly heard Bakunin’s name still more often upon entering the circle of Petrashevsky, who “vigilantly followed” the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 course of the revolution in the West in 1848. The young radicals in Petrashevsky’s milieu ‘‘mentioned repeatedly” the name of Bakunin, the first Russian to join the European revolution, especially in the wake of numerous rumors and oral reports about his fearless struggle against reaction. Dostoevsky also “heard a great deal about Bakunin” while exiled in Siberia during the 1850s, Grossman added, presumably from fellow exiles like Petrashevsky and Speshnev, who lived alongside Bakunin in Irkutsk at one point (28-29). When traveling in Europe in the 1860s, Grossman continued, Dostoevsky had several more opportunities to receive information about Bakunin. Among Bakunin’s close associates of the early 1860s, one of the most significant was Herzen. During his first trip abroad, when he traveled to London, as indicated already, Dostoevsky made a point of visiting Herzen. Herzen’s “direct ties” to current social issues in Europe suggested to Grossman that in all likelihood he and Dostoevsky “discussed” Bakunin, who immediately returned to political activity upon arriving in London in December 1861 from his Siberian exile. Following Strakhov, who once claimed that Dostoevsky’s Winter Notes on Summer Impressions of 1862 “bears a certain influence by Herzen, toward whom Dostoevsky felt a particular inclination,” Grossman presumed that Herzen’s critical attitude toward Bakunin must have been of interest to Dostoevsky. Quoting from Herzen’s letter to Bakunin of September 1,1863, Grossman noted that by that time Herzen had already begun to reproach Bakunin openly for the “deluded” nature of his agitational activity. Thus if he criticized Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 Bakunin himself for “living to the age of fifty in a world of phantoms,” Grossman reasoned, Herzen probably conveyed to Dostoevsky in person the same “sweeping psychological outline” of Stavrogin’s future prototype (29). As the novelist indicated in his letter to Maikov of March 20, Grossman pointed out, Dostoevsky ran into Herzen while living in Geneva, and apparently met with him on at least one other occasion before that, as well.3 0 Grossman believed that Dostoevsky’s most frequent associate and the most likely source of information about Bakunin in Geneva was Bakunin’s close friend and political ally, N.P. Ogarev. At virtually the same time he witnessed the dramatic spectacle of the Peace Congress, Grossman explained, Dostoevsky was gathering “essential” and “extensive” information about Bakunin through his meetings and “close relationship” with Ogarev, “one of the most conspicuous representatives of the local emigrant community,” as Grossman later described him.3 1 For proof of their close ties, Grossman recalled Anna Grigor’evna’s reference to the “friendship and constant conversations” between Dostoevsky and Ogarev in Geneva in 1867.3 2 Because he “studied the personality of Bakunin thoroughly,” Grossman argued, Dostoevsky’s “constant correspondent in Geneva” could have “revealed Bakunin’s 30. Referring to information supplied to him by the historian M.K. Lemke, Grossman suggested that Dostoevsky may have met with Herzen in Florence (29). Lemke probably had in mind the meeting between the two in Genoa. 31. TpoccMaH, JI.n. nommnecKHfi powan Aocroeacicoro // AocroeacKHfi, < D .M . Been. T. 1. M., 1935. C. LVI. 32. Here Grossman mistakenly wrote “ 1863” in the original but clearly meant “ 1867,” since the year refers to Anna Grigor’evna’s memoirs of Geneva from 1867-68. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 entire biography3 ' and thus “illuminated his character in detail.” Bakunin's lengthy “confessions” to Ogarev in several extant letters, which Grossman presumed Ogarev “did not conceal” from Dostoevsky, may have provided the writer with important material for his future novel. Bakunin’s letter to Ogarev of November 23, 1869, for example, included a detailed characterization of T.N. Granovsky in “the very same spirit” as Dostoevsky’s subsequent depiction of Stepan Verkhovensky (29-30). Grossman noted that the same monograph on Granovsky3 3 which inspired Bakunin’s letter to Ogarev also became a primary source for Dostoevsky, who from Dresden, in a letter of February 26, 1870, in the midst of work on Besy, implored Strakhov to send him a copy of the book. In a letter from Bakunin to Ogarev from December 1869, Grossman found that Bakunin’s reports about his wife,3 4 who returned to him three weeks prior to giving birth, his complaints of financial troubles, his reference to a midwife and other details reflect “ "the entire unusual conjunction of events” which Dostoevsky included in the story surrounding Mariia Shatova’s pregnancy in Besy. Grossman proposed that even specific passages from the letters, such as “our eternal 33. Grossman cites: CramceBtn, A.B. Tmio^efi HtacojiaeBm T p a H O B C K H fi: Eaorp. otepic. M.: Tan. rpaneaa, 1869. 34. Antonia Ksawerievna Kwiatkowski, Bakunin’s legal wife, lived with him from 18S8 until his death in 1876, but beginning in 1867 she carried on an open affair with one o f Bakunin’s political allies, Carlo Gambuzzi. The child referred to in 1869 was Antonia’s second by Gambuzzi. See: E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 227-228,322,3S4,372,384. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 friend Badingue”3 5 and “Alea jacta est” [The lot is cast]3 6 Dostoevsky reproduced literally in Besy (31). Like the evidence for a meeting with Bakunin at the Peace Congress, Polonsky rejected most of the novelist’s supposed second-hand sources. Neither the reports from the Belinsky and Petrashevsky circles nor the conversations with Herzen strengthened Grossman’s argument, Polonsky insisted, without more documentary proof to support them (139). Grossman’s claim that Dostoevsky heard about Bakunin while in Siberia Polonsky disputed because of inconsistencies of time and place, since, as he indicated, Bakunin settled first in Tomsk in 1857, when Dostoevsky lived in Semipalatinsk, then moved to Irkutsk only in 1859, that is, after Dostoevsky had already left Siberia to 35. riH C bM a M.A. B aicyH H H a k A.H. TepueHy h H.n. OrapcBy / C 6norp. bbcji. h oG m chht. rrpH M en. M.n. JIparoMaHOBa. CII6.: Hin. Bpy&ieBcxoro, 1906. C. 358. In the French publication of Bakunin's letter, commentator M.P. Dragomanov suggests in a footnote that an "illegible word” [mot illisible] following Bakunin’s reference to "our eternal friend” is "Badingue,” hence Grossman’s reference to an utterance by Stepan Verkhovensky in part one, chapter two o f the novel, where he describes himself “a prisoner, a Badinguet” [Je suis un format, un Badinguet] at the hands o f Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina. See: Correspondance de M ichel Bakounine. Lettres a Herzen et a O gareff (1860- 1874). Publides avec preface et annotations par Michel Dragomanov. Traduction de Marie Stromberg (Paris: Librarie Academique Didier, 1896): 300. Emperor Napoleon m assumed the name of Badinguet, a French stone mason, for his escape from prison in 1846, after which his political opponents referred to him as "Badinguet” See: AocroeacxHfi, < D .M . Ilojnioe co6paHHe commettitft: B 30 t . T. 10: Eecu. JI.: Hayica, 1974. C. 65; see also: AocroeBCXHii, O.M. nojmoe co6paiute commeHHfi: B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyKOtmcHue peaaxuHH. Ha6pocxH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayica, 1975. C. 290. According to a more recent researcher, however, the "illegible work” in question is not "Badinguet” in fre t but "Boquet” (Jean-Batiste Boquet). See: Pocxmta, H A . K phthko- TeKcranonnecKHe o63opu onyfrnmcoBaHHux mtceu k TepueHy h OrapeBy (no aBrorpai^aM "ripaaccKOfl K O JineK H H H ^: ILicbMa M.A. B aicy H H H a // JIirrepaTypHoe Haaieacrao. T. 62. M.: AH CCCP, 1955. C. 776. 36. See: riacbMa M A B a ic y H H H a k A.H. TepueHy h H.n. OrapeBy / C 6aorp. BB ea. h o 6 m chht. npHMen. M.n. AparotiaHoaa. CTI6.: Hut. Bpyfrneacxoro, 1906. C. 367. Stepan Verkhovensky utters this phrase at the very end o f part 2, chapter 5. See: JfocroeacxHli, noimoe co6pamie comtHemdt: B 30 t. T. 10: Eecu. JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 266. The expression is sometimes translated as: "The lots are cast” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 return to European Russia. Even if Dostoevsky did, in fact, hear about the personality and activity of Bakunin during the late 1840s and 1850s, Polonsky added, such information hardly would have served him in a project which began nearly twenty years later (139-141). Agreeing with Polonsky, Komarovich added that references to Bakunin by Dostoevsky’s former colleagues Belinsky and Petrashevsky remained too “chronologically distant” from the writing of Besy to be of any significance, while Dostoevsky’s conversations with Herzen he considered too purely “hypothetical” to serve as reliable evidence.3 7 Polonsky also refused to accept the idea that Dostoevsky learned important information about Bakunin from Ogarev. In this instance he questioned not Grossman’s use of sources, but their reliability. Anna Grigor’evna’s memoirs should not be accepted without question as convincing evidence for the “close relationship” between Dostoevsky and Ogarev, Polonsky argued, since Anna Grigor’evna composed them at least twenty years after the Geneva period of 1867-68. As an example of their unreliability, he pointed out that whereas the edited manuscript describes how Ogarev visited the Dostoevskys “frequently” [qacro], the unedited version describes the visits as occurring “from time to time” [H3pemca] (56).3 8 Polonsky also noted that Dostoevsky’s own view of their social life in Geneva fails to corroborate Anna Grigor’evna’s testimony and even contradicts it. Whereas Anna Grigor’evna describes 37. K oM apoB H H , B _ J I. “Eecu” AocroeBcxoro h EaxyitHH // Bunoe. 192S. N B 27/28. C. 29. 38. AocroeBCiaui, AX. BocnoMHHaHM / rioa pea. JI.n. rpoccMaHa. M.: Toe. H 3A -BO, 192S. C. 114. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 regular visits from Ogarev, Dostoevsky himself complains to Maikov in a letter of October 24,1867 that he and Anna Grigor’evna feel as if stranded on an “uninhabited island” and “nearly mad with loneliness...alone, alone and nothing more.” In another letter to Maikov from August 28, 1867, Dostoevsky laments “landing on alien ground” in Geneva, where “there are not only no Russian faces, no Russian books, Russian thoughts or cares, but not a single friendly face at all.” If Dostoevsky in fact developed a “close friendship” with Ogarev at this time, Polonsky insisted, then it remained inexplicable why he failed to mention Ogarev in his letters of that period (57). He acknowledged that Dostoevsky could have avoided the name of the politically dangerous Ogarev intentionally, for fear that Russian authorities might be monitoring his correspondence, but in that case, he reasoned, Dostoevsky would not have dared to develop a close friendship with Ogarev in Geneva at all and probably would not have indicated to Maikov in his letter of March 20, 1868, albeit cryptically, that he met with Herzen. As his description of that meeting demonstrates, Polonsky explained, Dostoevsky regarded the entire Russian revolutionary community in Geneva with undisguised “hostility”: I don’t know anyone here and I’m glad. It’s disgusting even to meet with our know-it-alls. What poor, worthless trash they are, inflated with vanity, what shit! It’s disgusting. I ran into H[erzen] on the street We spoke for about ten minutes in a politely hostile tone, scoffed at each other a bit and parted [Hmcoro-To He 3Haio 3necs h pan T O M y . C H am w M H yM H m caM H npormiHo h B crp eT HTb c a . 0 , 6 ejiH & ie, o, H m rro x H u e , o, o p x H b , pacnyxmax o t caMOjno6Hx, o, to b h o ! IIpoTHBHO. C r . c jiy n a ftH o Bcrpemncx Ha ymme, jtecirrb M HHyr nporoBopHjra B p ax n eG H o -B ex jiH B b iM to h o m , c H acM em H H K aM H , aa h pa3onuracs...] (58). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 Polonsky conceded that Dostoevsky could have, in principle, “made an exception for Ogarev”; but in light of his general antipathy toward all “Russian traitors abroad,” as he referred to the Russian revolutionary community in a letter to Maikov of February 18, 1868, Polonsky still doubted, firstly, that the writer would have befriended Ogarev, one of the “leaders” of the Genevan revolutionary community and a close associate of both Herzen and Bakunin. Secondly, Polonsky doubted that Ogarev would have “opened his heart” to Dostoevsky or revealed to him his written correspondence with Bakunin (57-58). Well aware of the dangers facing a Russian revolutionary at that time, Polonsky explained, Bakunin had already begun to observe the strictest secrecy in his correspondence with Ogarev and Herzen. When tsarist spies began a systematic hunt for Nechaev in Europe, Bakunin encoded his letters and demanded a close record of the posting and receipt of each one (59-60). Thus although Dostoevsky and Ogarev may have maintained contact beyond the one instance cited by Anna Grigor’evna, Polonsky believed their “rare meetings” could not have been so “friendly” in nature and hardly would have served the writer as a “rich source” of knowledge about Bakunin. The only correspondence from Bakunin which Ogarev could have shared with Dostoevsky consisted of two insignificant letters3 9 prior to the summer of 1868. The “intense” correspondence between Bakunin and Ogarev to 39. The two letters, one of August 5-6,1866 (in his first article Polonsky mistakenly wrote “ 1868”) and another o f November 8, 1867, are from the Dragomanov collection. See: IlHcsMa M.A. S aicy H H H a k A.H. repueiiy h H.IT. Orapeay / C 6norp. bbca. h oGm chht. npraieH. MJ1. AparoMaHoaa. CI16.: H m Bpy&iewicoro, 1906. C. 295-296,323-324. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 which Grossman referred, by contrast, began only after that summer, in other words, when the Dostoevskys had already moved from Geneva to Italy. Ogarev could not have shared Bakunin’s characterization of Granovsky with Dostoevsky, it followed, since Bakunin wrote it only in 1869, when Dostoevsky and Ogarev were no longer in contact (61). Replying to Polonsky, Grossman refused to question the strength of their friendship, reminding him that Anna Grigor’evna testified not only that Ogarev visited Dostoevsky “often,” but that she also described Ogarev as the “only acquaintance” in Geneva with whom they enjoyed meeting and conversing (97), a fact, Grossman added, which Strakhov established in his own memoirs (98).4 0 According to Grossman, Ogarev’s habit of passing on newspapers to Dostoevsky indicated that their relationship was close, not superficial, and motivated by “intellectual, cultural and literary interests” (97). Grossman also cited evidence of Dostoevsky’s respect for Ogarev as a poet, such as Anna Grigor’evna’s statement that her husband “valued many poems by this soulful poet” (99). There was no reason to expect Dostoevsky to mention the name of Ogarev in his correspondence, Grossman concluded, for the writer would have been well aware of the Third Section’s inspection of his letters to Russia, even if he misunderstood the danger of meeting with Ogarev personally in Geneva. Here Grossman encountered no explicit disagreement with Komarovich, who 40. Grossman cites: CrpaxoB, H.H. BocnoM HH aH iM o Oeaope MmaftnoBine Aoctocbckom // AocroeBCKHfl, riojiHoe coOpaHHe coiHHCHidi. T. 1. CI16.: A T. AocToeBCKax, 1883. C. 206. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 granted that “the question of Ogarev’s openness and friendly trust” toward Dostoevsky during their three months together in Geneva “remained open.”4 1 Polonsky, however, continued to oppose the idea of Ogarev as a source, pointing out that Dostoevsky’s feelings toward Ogarev prove nothing about Ogarev’s attitude toward Dostoevsky (145). Although he continued to reiterate his claims of “discussions” about Bakunin within Dostoevsky’s circle of acquaintances, Grossman’s evidence suffered from the same problems that beset his theory of Dostoevsky’s ostensible meetings with Bakunin. He failed to produce any documentary proof of discussions about Bakunin in the form of accounts or references in the writings of Dostoevsky’s associates. In some cases Grossman also failed to indicate the specific circumstances under which Dostoevsky may have heard information about Bakunin. When advancing the idea of a “close relationship” and discussions between Dostoevsky and a French political ally of Bakunin in 1868, the future Paris Communard, Charles Victor Jaclard (29,197), for example, Grossman failed to indicate where, exactly, they may have met, what the nature of their meeting might have been, or what circumstances could have prompted a discussion of Bakunin. Grossman may have presumed the two met through Jaclard’s wife, A.E. Korvin-Krukovskaia, who knew Dostoevsky well and apparently kept in 41. KoMapoBHH, BJI. “Bccbi” AocroeBcicoro h SaicyHHH // Ewioe. 1925. N a 27/28. C. 32. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 touch with him throughout the 1860s.4 2 According to one commentator on Grossman’s thesis, a meeting between Dostoevsky and Jaclard could not have taken place anytime between the fall of 1867 and 1869, since Korvin-Krukovskaia was already back in Russia by that time, and met Jaclard in Paris, furthermore, no earlier than May 1869.4 3 Grossman repeated the claim in his fourth article of 1925, but he may have withdrawn it later, for he did not mention Jaclard in connection with Bakunin in the biography of 1965. While nearly all his examples of Dostoevsky’s second-hand information about Bakunin, like his first-hand information, remained purely speculative, however, in retrospect they proved to be more plausible than any personal meetings between the writer and the revolutionary. In support of Grossman, the sudden growth of Bakunin’s reputation in progressive circles in the early 1840s leaves it more than conceivable that discussions of Bakunin by Belinsky and other associates in fact took place. If, in Carr’s words, Bakunin earned among Belinsky, Herzen, Botkin and other Russian liberals a “European reputation” for the article “Reaction in Germany: the Notes of a Frenchman” [Die Reaction in Deutschland. Ein Fragment von einem Franzosen],4 4 42. A recent chronicle of Dostoevsky’s life and work refers to a possible meeting between Dostoevsky and Korvin-Krukovskaia in Geneva in 1867 and a letter from Korvin-Krukovskaia to Dostoevsky of May 31 (June 12). See: Jleromtcb xh3hh h TBopiecraa 4>.M. AocroeBcicoro, 1821- 1881: B 3 t. T. 2: 1865-1874 / Coer. HJ1. J!k v6obhm, T.H. OpHarcxaa. CII6.: A ic & ae M . npoeirr, 1994. C. 136,180. Korvin-Krukovskaia had declined a proposal from Dostoevsky in 1865. See: TpoccMaH, Jl.n. A ocT oeBCK H ft. 2-e ran. M. Mojioaaa raptnm , 1965. C. 330. 43. K iQ D K H H K -B e r p o B , H.C. A 3 . K o p B H H KpyxoBcicax QKaicuip): Zlpyr /locroeBCKoro, ztearejihHHua napmxcKoS K O M M yrai. M.: B cecoK >3. o6iu-bo nojnrr. xaropaaH h ccujibHonocejieHueB, 1931. C. 42. 44. E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 111. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 then one can presume Bakunin’s ideas and activity in Europe remained very topical among the Petersburg intelligentsia, as Grossman implied, throughout the 1840s. While Grossman did not indicate specifically how Bakunin’s friends learned of his activity abroad, one can also presume that Turgenev brought fresh news of Bakunin back to Petersburg from Germany in December, 1842, having just spent several weeks with Bakunin in Dresden just two months earlier.4 5 Turgenev seems to have sent news of Bakunin to Petersburg again in 1847, when he, Bakunin, P.V. Annenkov and other Russian friends lived in Paris. In a revealing letter to Annenkov of December 1847, Belinsky asks the latter to tell Turgenev, from whom Belinsky had just received a letter, “not to refer to the names of certain persons, like my friend and believer [Bakunin], in letters to me.”4 6 News of one kind or another about Bakunin also probably reached Dostoevsky after October 1847, when Belinsky himself returned to Petersburg after a visit to Bakunin and his other friends in Paris,4 7 or possibly through Annenkov, who returned to Russia from Paris not long after the revolutionary events of February 1848. Talk of Bakunin likely reached not only the Petrashevsky circle, as Grossman maintained, but also the Durov circle, which Dostoevsky frequented in 1848-49. Participants in Durov’s literary evenings certainly had cause to raise 45. JIcronH C b J K H 3 H H h TBopnecrBa H.C. T ypreH C B a, 1818-1858 / Coer. H.C. H m c M T H H a . 016.: Hayiea, 1995. C. 73-74. 46. JleTOimcb * h3hh h TBopqecraa H.C. TypreHeBa, 1818-1858 / Coer. H.C. Hmomnia. CFI6.: Hayxa, 1995. C. 130-131. The editors o f this chronicle identify the “friend and believer” as Bakunin. 47. CreicnoB, IO.M. Mnxaiin AjieKcanapoBira EaKytnm: Era x h3hi> h aerrejn»Hocn>: B 3 t. T. I (1814-1861). 2-c H 3 A ., nenp. h aon. M.: Kom. axaaeMiu, 1926. C. 208-210; E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 137-138. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 Bakunin’s name in connection with his friend Proudhon, whose theories, one member of the circle later recalled, stimulated discussions that lasted throughout the evening.4 8 Also in defense of Grossman, it seems that the dismissal of such early sources on the grounds of their temporal “distance” from Besy, as Polonsky and Komarovich argued, may not be justified in the case of Dostoevsky, who, as scholars often note, remained throughout his life obsessed, so to speak, with the ideological mentors of his early years. One biographer emphasizes, for example, the “powerful influence” Belinsky exercised on Dostoevsky throughout the writer’s entire career.4 9 Because of their close, active association with Bakunin at the time of their meetings with Dostoevsky, Herzen and Ogarev were probably the most likely sources suggested by Grossman. Among Dostoevsky’s acquaintances, Herzen and Ogarev unquestionably knew Bakunin well, saw him often, and therefore could have served as natural reservoirs of information about him. Grossman’s repeated insistence that Dostoevsky “constantly visited” with Ogarev in Geneva remains plausible, despite the obvious problems of demonstrating that Ogarev actually shared his letters from Bakunin with Dostoevsky, and of establishing what specific information Ogarev conveyed. That discussions between the two touched on current political events seems fairly certain, since according to Anna Grigor’evna it was Ogarev, after all, who 48. JleronHCbXH3HH hTBopqecTBailocToewKoro 1821-1881: B 3 t. T .2 : 1865-1874/Coer. HJJ. ilicySoB H M , T.H. OpHarcioui. CII6.: AicaaeM. npoen, 1993-1995. C. 153. 49. Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The Seeds o f Revolt, 1821-1849 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1976) 182-183. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 informed Dostoevsky that the Peace Congress was open to all and convinced him to attend.5 0 One recent Russian study of their relationship even concludes—very much in the spirit of Grossman’s argument—that “Dostoevsky and Ogarev could not have failed to discuss the speeches at the League of Peace and Freedom Congress, which was such a significant event in European life of the 1860s.”5 1 Grossman may well have derived his notion of Dostoevsky’s interest in Herzen from the analysis by fellow scholar A.S. Dolinin, who insisted that Herzen’s position on many social and political issues formed “an extremely important stage” in the evolution of Dostoevsky’s views in the 1860s.5 2 While Dostoevsky’s contact with Bakunin in London remains a matter of conjecture, Dostoevsky’s meeting with Herzen is documented clearly in Herzen’s and Dostoevsky’s own letters. Herzen clearly would have been a logical and valuable source of information about Bakunin in 1862, particularly since Bakunin actively sought to collaborate in Herzen’s newspaper The Bell [K ojiokoji] throughout the six months preceding Dostoevsky’s visit. Bakunin’s revolutionary fame had just increased, moreover, thanks to his improbable escape from Siberia and successful journey across both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, a feat celebrated in reports in Herzen’s newspaper. If Dostoevsky sought Herzen’s opinion of 50. AocroeBciaui, A T. Z I hcbhhk 1867 r. / Haa. noaror. C.B. X C H T O M H p c ic a a . M.: Hayxa, 1993. C. 246. 51. K ohkhh, C.C. OrapeB h AocroeacicHJi: (K hctophh hx jiothux B 3aH M O O T H om eH H fi h TBopqecKHx cajoefi) // Potmoe ripHcypae: JlHT.-xyaox. c6. CapaHcx: Mopaoa. k h. m , 1980. C. 237. 52. J X ojihhhh, A.C. A ocroeB C K H fi h repueH: (K rayqeHH io o6mecTBeHHO-namrnneciaix B 0 3 3 p cH H fi /locroeacKoro) // J lo jiH H H H , A.C. Z I o c T o e B C K M t i h apyme: C raT M i h Hccaeaoaaina o pyccxofl KJiaccmecKoit ameparype. JI.: Xyaox. am ., 1989. C. 14S. This work by Dolinin first appeared in the collection: < D .M . ixocroeaciaifi: CrarbH h Matepiianu. fir., 1922. C. 273-324. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 recent revolutionary events in Russia, as many scholars believe/3 then the latter must have made some reference to Bakunin's ideas and activity. In his 196S biography of the writer, Grossman even proposed that Herzen himself was “undoubtedly present during the discussions” between Dostoevsky and Bakunin described earlier. That day, when the writer “discussed the Russian people with Bakunin and Herzen,” Grossman contended, proved to be one of his “most remarkable days.”3 4 In her discussion of Dostoevsky’s relationship with Herzen in the 1860s, scholar E.N. Dryzhakova reviewed still another meeting between the two which took place by chance, it appears, while both were sailing en route from Naples to Genoa on November 13, 1863. On the following day, Dostoevsky- and Herzen dined together in Genoa. Their discussions could well have included more talk of Bakunin, whose recent political collaboration with Herzen’s son— who happened to be traveling with Herzen at the time—had increased tensions between father and son, tensions which Dostoevsky “certainly could feel.”5 5 One other likely possibility remains which Grossman suggested vaguely, but did not elaborate upon in detail. Throughout the year’s time Dostoevsky spent in 53. See, for example: /IpmtcaKOBa, E.H. AocroeacxHfi h TepueH: (Y hctokob poMaiu “Eecbi”) // AocToeBcnrii: M arepiianu h HccjieaoBamui. T. 1. JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 22S; BpycoBaHH, M.H., rajmnepima, PX. 3arpaHHHHwe nyrem ecT B H X O.M. JJocToeBcxoro 1862 h 1863 r. // AocroeBcxHfl: MarepHanu h H C C Jie n o a a H H X . T. 8. JI.: Hayxa, 1988. C. 279; Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The Stir o f Liberation, 1860-1865 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986) 189. 54. TpoccMaH, J I.F I. JIocT oeB C K H fi. 2-e H3fl. M.: Monoaaa raapjuu, 1965. C. 260-263. 55. Apbnxaxoaa, E.H. JIocT ocB C K H ft h TepueH: (Y hctokob poMaiia “Been”) // /locToeBCK H fi: Marepnajiu h HCCJienoBamu. T. 1. JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 229. Anna Grigorievna also alludes briefly to the meeting. See: AocroeBCxaa, AX. JIhcbhhk 1867 r. / Haa. noaror. C.B. JKtrroMHpcxaa. M.: Hayxa, 1993. C. 253,438. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Geneva between 1867-68, he may well have become acquainted and perhaps even socialized with some of the many young Russian revolutionaries in Geneva at that time. One former member of the revolutionary underground in Russia, N.I. Utin, had escaped arrest in 1863 and fled to Geneva, where he became active among the Russian revolutionary colony there and collaborated briefly with Bakunin.5 6 Dostoevsky’s familiarity with Utin is reflected in his letter to Maikov of August 16, 1867, in which he criticizes the “Utins,” “Turgenevs” and “Herzens” of the world for their atheism and lack of love for Russia.5 7 There also exists at least one reference to a probable meeting between the two in Geneva. In the same letter cited earlier, Herzen names Utin, in addition to Bakunin and Dostoevsky, among Ogarev’s visitors in February 1868. In the opinion of Dolinin, who wrote the commentary to an authoritative collection of Dostoevsky’s letters in the 1920s and 1930s, this letter “demonstrates, indirectly but with high probability, that Dostoevsky met personally not only with Bakunin, but also with Utin, a fact which we should bear in mind when analyzing Besy.nSt Grossman himself also knew about Utin, and even cited his extensive observations about Bakunin and Nechaev. If he was aware of the collaboration between Utin and Bakunin in publishing the first issue of their radical journal, 56. Utin had been a member o f the Central Committee of the “Land and Liberty” [3eMiu h boom] revolutionary organization. For biographical sketch and bibliography about N.I. Utin (1845-1883), see: V 'thh, Hmconafi H caaroain: [ E n o r p . cnpaaica] // Aexremi peB O jnouH O H H oro aBHaceHH* a Pocchh. T. 1. H. 2. M.: BcecoKU. o6m-ao nojnrr. KaropacaH h ccbuibHonoceneHueB, 1928. C. 420-421. 57. AocToeacKHft, Q.M. riitcbMa. T. 2:1867-1871 / Iloa. pea. h c np H M C R . A.C. AonHmma. M.; JI. T O C . H 3A -B O , 1930. C. 31. 58. AocroeacKHft, Q.M. IlHCbM a. T. 2:1867-1871 / Iloa. pea. h c npimeH. A.C. AoJiionma. M.; JI. foe. H 3a-B O , 1930. C. 402. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 People's Cause [HapoaHoe nejio], which they had already begun to prepare, in all likelihood,3 9 when they visited the ailing Ogarev in February 1868, then Grossman must have considered the significance of “conversations” between Dostoevsky and Utin, who may have known more about Bakunin’s revolutionary activity at that time than even Ogarev. Like Dostoevsky’s personal observation of Bakunin at the Geneva Peace Congress, the belief that Dostoevsky discussed Bakunin with the latter’s associates rested on the assumption that Dostoevsky would have made a concerted effort to gather information from all potential sources. Yet if Grossman’s examples of hypothetical conversations about Bakunin failed to provide a basis for Grossman’s theory by themselves, they provided effective supplementary support to his most convincing evidence: the many written publications concerning Bakunin throughout the decade preceding Besy. 2.3 Writings by and about Bakunin Whereas Grossman failed to demonstrate conclusively, as Polonsky demanded, that Dostoevsky knew the content of Bakunin’s letters to Ogarev, he made a much more convincing case for the writer’s knowledge of several other written sources about Bakunin, sources that illuminated “Bakunin’s entire life story in its inner impulses and its outer manifestations” prior to Besy (214). 59. KoauuHH, EJI. Pyccicaa cen o n nepBoro HirrepHaiiHOHana. M.: AH CCCP, 1957. C. 84-85. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 To begin with, Grossman proceeded from an assumption for which there existed some documentary evidence. Having published a work of research on “Dostoevsky’s Library” a few years earlier, Grossman had some knowledge of Dostoevsky’s general reading habits.6 0 He also found support in the remarks of Anna Grigor’evna, who in May 1867 recorded Dostoevsky’s expressed intention “to read thoroughly all forbidden publications” concerning Russia.6 1 Finally, there was Dostoevsky’s later admission that he derived his knowledge of the Nechaev affair almost exclusively from the newspapers. Armed with the knowledge that Besy was “constructed empirically, like a documentary, on the solidly factual basis...of historical experience,” Grossman had a much firmer basis for speculating about the texts that “passed over the novelist’s desk one by one, from his inkwell to his manuscript” as he worked on Besy (214-215). In his opening article Grossman assumed Dostoevsky’s familiarity with three works Bakunin wrote before his reunion with Herzen in London in 1862. Attempting to illustrate certain similarities between the early ideas of Bakunin and Stavrogin, Grossman quoted liberally from Bakunin’s article on “Communism” of 1843,6 2 his nationalistic “Appeal to the Slavs” [Bo33BaHHe k cjiaBJmaM] of 1849, and also his 60. r poccMaH, Jl.n . EiriviH O TeK a AocroeBCKoro // TpoccMaH, Jl.n . CeM H H apH ft no AocroeBCxoMy: MarepHajni, 6H6jiHorpa4>iu h K O M M eirrap H H . M.; Ilr.: Toe. h m - b o, 1922. C. 7-20. 61. AocToeBCKaa, A T. Ahcbhhk 1867 r. / Han. noaror. C.B. XCm nM HpcKaa. M.: Hayxa, 1993. C. 62. See also the analysis o f this remark by commentator S.V. Zhitomirskaia on p. 401. 62. The article in question appeared without a signature in the journal Swiss Republican [Schweizerische Republikaner], but Bakunin’s authorship of the article seems fairly certain. See: CreKnoa, IO.M. MnxaHJi AjtexcaiuipoBim EaxyHHH : Ero a a a ra h aejrrcnbH O C T b: B 3 t . T. 1 (1814- 1861). 2-e m j i , Hcnp. h non. M.: K o m . axaaesnu, 1926. C. 148-152. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 prison letter to Tsar Nikolai I, also known as the “Confession” [HcnoBe,m>] of 1851. In his article “Dostoevsky at Work on Bakunin,” Grossman described more explicitly how Bakunin’s works of the 1860s reached Dostoevsky through Herzen’s newspaper The Bell, which Dostoevsky read frequently while abroad. Perusing issues from early 1862, Grossman pointed out, Dostoevsky would have learned about the famous revolutionary from the article “To Russian, Polish and all Slavic Friends” [PyccKHM , nojibCKHM h BceM cji&bxhckhm itpy3MM],6 3 in which Bakunin not only “presents his own curriculum vitae briefly,” but also “broadly develops” his revolutionary philosophy of the time (206-207). Grossman also called attention to the ‘Various essays and brochures that circulated freely” in the book shops and reading rooms of European cities like Geneva, where Dostoevsky could have read Bakunin’s pamphlet of 1862, The People's Cause: Romanov, Pugachev or PesteV [H ap on H oe nejio: Pom shob, riynneB h jih n e c r e jn .? ].64 As he “unconsciously absorbed” material from works like People’ s Cause (211-213) and “assimilated” others, Grossman insisted, Dostoevsky gained “a very strong impression” of their author (206-207). 63. EaxyHHH, M A PyccK H M , iiojimkhm h b c c m c jia B X H C K H M apyjunt // K ojiokoji: raw ra A.H. rqjueHa h H JI. Orapeaa. Bun. 5:1862, JIouhoh. O a K C H M H Jib H o e ma. M.: AH CCCP, 1962. C. 1021- 1028. [Kojiokoji, a. 122/123 ot IS ({leap. 1862]. 64. Written by Bakunin in July, the pamphlet P eople’ s Came appeared as an independent brochure in London in early September, 1862, then in several subsequent editions. See: Ctckjiob, K D .M . Maxaiui AnexcaHapoam EaxyHHH: Era aooHb h a«rrejn>Hocn>, 1814*1876: B 3 t. T. 2: Flepexojrauft nepaoa, 1861-1868. M.: Toe. kui-bo, 1927. C. 28,66; E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 266-267. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 In addition to publications by Bakunin himself, Grossman devoted substantial space to literary profiles of Bakunin by other political activists. The works of Herzen in The Bell and also the 1855 and 1861 issues of his journal Polar Star (TIojupHaji 3Be3.ua] provided glimpses into Bakunin’s activity between the 1840s and the mid- 1860s (206). “Herzen’s memoirs” (8), My Past and Thoughts [Bujioe h nyM Bi], for example, which first appeared serially in Polar Star, offered Herzen’s passing commentary on Bakunin, such as his description of Bakunin’s position in the Stankevich circle when Herzen met him in Moscow.6 3 The first year of Bakunin’s stay in London saw the publication of several current reports about Bakunin in The Bell, like the announcement of his flight from Siberia in the issue of November 22, 1861,6 6 and the editorial board’s “polemic with a Pole” of September 8, 1862,6 7 which included quotations by Bakunin. In “Dostoevsky at Work on Bakunin,” Grossman singled out, in particular, Herzen’s sketch “M.A. Bakunin” from January 15, 1862,6 8 the same issue in which Bakunin’s “To Russian, Polish and all Slavic Friends” appeared. In this work, Grossman emphasized, Herzen gave “a complete outline of Bakunin’s activity,” paraphrased his “revolutionary” speeches, and described all the 65. repueH, A.H. K 3 h u Mockm // nojupHaa 3B e3.ua. )Kypnan A.H. Tepueiia h HJL OrapeBa, 1855-1869: B 8 kh. Kh. 1: 1855. OaxcHMHJiMioe m a. M.: Hayxa, 1966. C. 16,22-23,43. 66. repueH, A.H. < B aicyH H H CBo6oaeH> // repueH, A.H. Co6paHH e c o H H H eH H ft: B 30 t. T. 15. M.: AH CCCP,1958. C. 194,408. [Kojiokoji, ji. 113 ot 22 h o x 6. 1861, c. 941]. 67. Although Grossman does not indicate the exact title o f this work, he is probably referring to the “Response to Mr. Pole.” See: repueH, A.H. O raer “r. rionny” H a craru o h im cuio // repueH, A.H. CoOpamie commeHBft: B 30 t. T. 16. M.: AH CCCP, 1959. C. 243-244,437-438. [Ko jio k oji, ji. 144 ot 8ceirr. 1862, c. 1195-1196]. 68. repueH, A.H. NLA. E a x y H H H // repueH, A.H. Co6paHH e c o H H H e H H ft: B 30 t. T. 16. M.: AH CCCP, 1959. C. 16-20,349. [Kojiokoji, ji. 119/120 ot 15 mnap* 1862, c. 989-990]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 “stages” of his life in prisons, trials and exile. Grossman also cited the articles “Ultimatum” [“YjibTHM aTyM ”] of May 15, 1862,6 9 “The Newspapers Day and BelV' [/leH b h Kojiokoji] of June 20, 1863,7 0 as well as Herzen’s open letter to I.S. Aksakov,7 1 all of which saw Herzen systematically defend Bakunin, as well as himself, from various political attacks against them in the conservative press (206-207). News of Bakunin’s activity also may have reached Dostoevsky through the observations of a certain Paphnutii of Kolomensk [Tla^HyTHfi K ojiOM eHCKHft], who met with Bakunin in London in 1862. An influential bishop among the Old Believers in Russia, Paphnutii traveled from Russia to London in order to seek Herzen’s assistance in the political aspirations of the Old Believers, mainly by allowing them to utilize Herzen’s publishing facilities.7 3 Unlike Herzen, Bakunin apparently took an interest in Paphnutii and managed to engage the Old Believer in lengthy discussions.7 3 Included within another work in several issues of the journal Russian Messenger 69. Judging by his quotation, Grossman had in mind the article “Ultimatum.” See: repueH, A.H. Ultimatum // repueH, A.H. Co6paHHe coH H H eH H ft: B 30 t . T. 16. M.: AH CCCP, 1959. C. 99-101, 386-387. [Kojiokoji, ji. 133 or 15 Mas 1862, c. 1101-1102]. 70. See: repueH, A.H. Aem. h K ojio koji // repueH, A.H. Co6paHHe cohmhchhH: B 30 t . T. 17. M.: AH CCCP, 1959. C. 194-197,432-433. [K ojio koji, ji. 166ot20 h u im 1863, c. 1370-1371]. 71. See: repueH, A.H. IlHCbMO k H.C. AKcaxoay // repueH, A.H. CoOpaime cohhhchhA : B 30 t . T. 19. M.: AH CCCP, 1960. C. 238-239,453-454. [Kojiokoji, ji. 239 or 15 anp. 1867, c. 1950-1951]; also: E axyH H H , M.A. H3 nHcuta k HaaaTejMM “Konoxojia” // Kojiokoji: Ta3era A.H. TepueHa h H JI. OrapeBa. Bun. 9:1866-1867, XCeHesa. <X>aKCHMHjibHoe h m . M.: AH CCCP, 1964. C. 1966-1967. 72. Paul Call, Vasily Keisiev: an Encounter between the Russian Revolutionaries and O ld Believers (Belmont: Nordland, 1979) 85-86. 73. riHCbua M.A. EaKymma k A.H. TepueHy h H.n. Orapeay / C 6w>rp. bbcu. h o G m ch h t. npHM eq. M.n. JJparoMaHOsa. CI16.: H au. Bpy&ieecKoro, 1906. C. 76-78; E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 262-263. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 [PyccKHft BecTHm c] in 1866-67,7 4 the memoirs of Paphnutii appeared first alongside Dostoevsky’s own Crime and Punishment [ripecrynjieirae h Haxa3aHHe], and then alongside Turgenev’s novel Smoke [Aum]. Emphasizing that Dostoevsky definitely read the issue containing Turgenev’s novel, Grossman concluded that the Old Believer’s description of conversations with Bakunin, too, “could have served the novelist” as material for Besy. He noted that the excerpts in question detailed Bakunin’s “outward manner, his voice, his habits and the character of their conversations,” which were “of unquestionable interest” to Dostoevsky for an evaluation of Bakunin’s world-outlook (205). Throughout the debate Grossman also described a number of “very important” reports in both Russian and foreign newspapers that not only indicated Nechaev’s role in the Ivanov murder conspiracy, but also “categorically, firmly and with great fervor cited the name of Bakunin.” As the reports “loudly, repeatedly and unanimously” named him the “soul” of the murder, the “organizer of the conspiracy” and the “instigator of Nechaev’s activity,” Bakunin, the “Genevan leader of the Russian revolution,” came to occupy “the center of attention of all those interested in the unprecedented political murder” (198). Referring to Dostoevsky’s own assertions in his letters, Grossman indicated that the novelist read two Russian newspapers thoroughly and consistently from 1867 through 1870. Both newspapers, Moscow 74. Cy66oTHH, H. Pacxon xax opyzwe Bpaaue6Hux Pocchh napraft // PyccKHfi bccthhk. 1866. N a 9 (ccht.). C. 105-46; 1866. N * 11 ( ho« 6 .). C. 5-78; 1867. N a 4 (anp.). C. 690-724; 1867. Na 5 (Mall). C. 312-356. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 Gazette [M ockobckhc bcaomocth] and The Voice [T ojioc], reported on the Nechaev incident and, consequently, his link with Bakunin on a regular basis.7 5 In 1869, just months before Dostoevsky set to work on Besy, there appeared the first of several editorials in Moscow Gazette, Grossman explained, in which Katkov, the paper’s conservative editor, “took full advantage” of the opportunity to connect the murder of Ivanov with the broader threat of “revolutionary danger” represented by Bakunin (199). In its issue of December 25,1869, upon mentioning the name of Nechaev, Katkov’s newspaper referred to his “meetings with the Genevan heroes of our so- called revolution,” a group which clearly included Bakunin (199-200). On January 4, 1870, the paper announced that Bakunin had “suddenly assumed an unexpected significance” for the Russian public (198), and on January 6, Katkov devoted “almost completely to Bakunin” a leading editorial which Grossman quoted at length: The calls to pick up axes pour in from [Geneva]; from [Geneva] arrive the emissaries; from [Geneva] the Khudiakovs7 6 and the Nechaevs come running here for inspiration and orders. No one speaks of the publishers of The Bell anymore. The scepter of the Russian revolutionary party has passed into the 75. Grossman cites an entire series of letters in which Dostoevsky remarks on his reading of Moscow G azette and The Voice. Most noteworthy are his letters to Maikov from Geneva of January 12, 1868 CSocroeacicHJi, < D .M . ITonHoe coGpaime cohkhchhA : B 30 t. T. 28. H. 2. JI.: Hayxa, 1984. C. 244), in which he claims to be reading “every word in every issue of The Voice and Moscow Gazette,” and then from Dresden o f October 20, 1870, in which he describes “several newspapers daily, including two Russian newpapers” (JIocToeBCK H fi, O.M. riojiHoe co6pai»ie comtHeiorii: B 30 t. T. 28. H . 1 . JI.: Hayxa, 1983. C. 146). 76. Katkov probably refers here to I.A. Khudiakov, a leading member of the Petersburg branch of “Hell” and associate of D.V. Karakozov, the young revolutionary who attempted to assassinate Tsar Aleksandr II in 1866. In 1865, four years before Nechaev, Khudiakov apparently traveled to Geneva, where he met Bakunin among others, hence Katkov’s reference to him here, perhaps. See: Franco Venturi, Roots o f Revolution, trans. Francis Haskell (New York: Grosset & Dunlap) 337. Also: Tya, A. Hcropiu peaomouHOHHux A BH xeH Hft a Po c c h h / riep. B. 3acymm, JI. Konauoaa h ap. d I6 .: EH&THorexa ana Bcex, 1906. C. 103. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 hands o f their other famous celebrity, to that same Bakunin who in 1849 rebelled on the streets o f Dresden..., the leader o f the Russian revolutionary party and organizer o f the conspiracy, whose network has now covered all o f Russia... [and who] has suddenly assum ed such unexpected significance [O rcioaa chnunoTcs B033BaHHx k TonopaM, oTcioiia oTnpaBJunorca k h& m 3MHCcapu, ciona 6 eiy r 3a aaoxnoBeHiMMH h npHxa3aHHiiMH XymncoBbi h HenaeBbi. 06 H3naTejwx “Kojioicojia” yxce He roBopjrr. CxHnerp pyccKoft peBOjnoixHOHHoft napTHH nepemeji b pyKH hx npyrott 3HaMeHHTOcra, k tomy EaicyHHHy, KOToputt b 1849 roay SyHTOBaji Ha npe3aeHCKHX yjnmax... Bot oh, 3 tot b o x c u b pyccxoft peBOJnouHOHHoft napTHH, opramnaTop 3aroBopa, noKpUBmero tenepb CBoeft cerbio bcio Poccmo...] (200-201). Grossman also cited the editorial’s analysis of Bakunin’s proclamation “Several Words to Our Young Brothers in Russia” [HecxojibKo cjiob k M O JioabiM opaTbJtM b Pocchh], in which Bakunin directed his “revolutionary jargon,” Katkov wrote, toward both “the most spoiled and most immature part of our nihilistic youth” as well as to “the highest levels of our society and administration.” Through his “proclamations of hatred for the all-Russian state,” Katkov declared, “Bakunin congratulates our poor young generation for its 'anti-state destructive’ spirit” (201- 202). Two days later, on January 8, Moscow Gazette indicated that “substantial reports” about the Nechaev affair had begun to appear in the foreign press, which, Grossman noted, clearly “attached great significance to the matter of a nihilist revolution in Russia” (198). One newspaper in particular, the General News [Allegemeine Zeitung], confirmed that “Bakunin is the founder and leader of the conspiracy, whose goal is no more nor less than the destruction of any basis for the state, the rejection of any personal property and the accession of Communism” (199). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 The second newspaper, The Voice, Grossman demonstrated, like Moscow Gazette, also emphasized Bakunin’s responsibility for the Nechaev incident and attempted to expose his dangerous activity. A paragraph from January 9, 1870 bearing th e su b h ea d in g “ A F irebrand from A b ro a d ” [3arpaHHHHbifi noacTpeicaTejn.] d escrib ed one of Bakunin’s proclamations as an example of “wild nonsense,” and expressed outrage at the “disturbing absurdities...spoken by these universal outsiders who consider themselves revolutionaries.” The article concluded that “having become acquainted with [Bakunin’s proclamations], now the public will appreciate fully who this gentleman is, and of course if among our various perplexed people are found some who take Bakunin seriously, then having become acquainted with the essence of the proclamations, even these infants will turn away from the Genevan bandit with pity and disgust” (204). In a similar vein the newspaper declared on January 11: It’s fine for the outsider Bakunin to call in his mind for the destruction o f the Russian state while sitting in a safe place, but what about the pitiful, half literate political activists working under his direction but living under that same state he is preparing to destroy? [...] Such destroyers o f states, of course, states do not fear, but unfortunately, the sphere o f their political activity apparently includes the murdering o f those whose political convictions are not to their taste. That changes the issue. As long as the experts o f revolution inundated Russia from their wonderful and safe distance merely with inflammatory proclamations capable o f igniting only cigarettes, they generated laughter; but as soon as their empowered representatives began to commit murders like the one at the Petrovsky Academy, then that is no longer funny. Even among revolutionaries, Bakunin was always reputed to be an unbalanced, half-witted man; but the recent proclamations and exploits o f his delegate Nechaev are simply vile. (TIpHiiuieuy EaxyHHHy xopomo MbicjieHHo pa3pyman> pyccxoe rocyaapcrao, chjui b 6e3onacHOM Mecre, ho ic a K O B O xamcHM, nojiyrpaMOTHUM nojnmiHecKHM aejrrejirat, aeficrByiomHM noa ero pyxoBoacTBOM, b tom ca M O M rocyaapcTBe, pa3pyman> xoxopoe oh Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 coOnpaeTca? ...TaKHX pa3pymHTejiefi rocynapcra, kohchho, rocynapcraa He onacaioTca, h o, k coacaneHHio, b c<t>epy hx hmchho nonHTHHecKoft aeaTejiBHOCTH bxojiht, no-BHUHM OM y, h y6neHHe Tex, nojiHTHnecKHe yOexcaeHHX Koropux hm He no BKycy. 3 ro yxee H3MeHaeT Bonpoc. rioica wacrepa peBOjnouHH H 3 cBoero npeicpacHoro h 6e3onacHoro najieKoro H aB O flH X JIH P O C C H K ) T O J IB K O 3 a JK H T a T e JU > H b IM H npOKJiaM ailHXM H, K O T O pU M H moxcho 3axatran> tojibko naimpocbi, ohh B036yxcnajiH CMex; ho icax cxopo hx ynojiHOMOHeHHue HanHHaior 3aHHMan>ca yOnftcTBaMH, b pojie coBepniHBineroca b IleTpoBCKoft AxaaeMHH, Toraa yxce He no cMexa. EaicyHHH Bceraa, aaxe Meacay peBOjnomioHepaMH, cjiuji 3a B36ajiMomHoro, nonoyMHoro HejioBexa; ho nocjiejnuui ero npoKJiaMamw h nojiBHrH ero nejieraTa HenaeBa—npocro HH30cn>.] (203-204). According to Grossman's model, the information about Bakunin and the Nechaev affair which reached Dostoevsky through the Moscow Gazette and The Voice was then substantiated, reinforced and supplemented by the many details from the the trial of the Nechaevists, whose protocols began to appear in the Russian newspaper State Messenger (TIpaBHTejiBCTBeHHuft bccthhk] beginning in July, 1871. Citing the protocols in detail, particularly the testimony by both the lawyers and the main defendants themselves, P.G. Uspensky, A.K. Kuznetsov, I.G. Pryzhov and N.N. Nikolaev,7 7 Grossman demonstrated how the show trial exposed publicly not only Nechaev’s own conspiratorial methods, but also his collaboration with revolutionaries in Europe like Bakunin. “Studying the trial of the Nechaevists,” Grossman stated in his opening article, “Dostoevsky more than once encountered the name of Bakunin, and 77. Uspensky, Kuznetsov, Pryzhov and Nikolaev all belonged to Nechaev’s group and accompanied him when he murdered Ivanov. For a useful review o f the trial and its participants, see: AocroeBcxHfi, «D .M . flojiHoe codpaHHe cohhhchhA: B 30 t. T. 12: Becu. PyxoimcHue peoaxuH H . Ha6pocxn, 1870- 1872. JI.: Hayxa, 197S. C. 202-209. For more about Nechaev and the activity of his “People’s Justice” group in Russia, see also: Franco Venturi, Roots o f Revolution, trans. Francis Haskell (New York: Grosset & Dunlap) 354-388. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 th e c o m p le x rela tio n s b e tw e e n th e tw o fa m o u s a c tiv ists o f th e con tem p orary r ev o lu tio n o ffe r e d h im n o sm a ll a m o u n t o f m a teria l for h is n o v e l” (1 2 ). G ro ssm a n p o in ted o u t that N e c h a e v ’s lin k to B a k u n in b e c a m e apparent, fo r e x a m p le , in th e form al statem en t o f c h a r g e s a g a in st th e N e c h a e v ists, w h ic h e sta b lish e d th at B a k u n in h ad en ro lled N e c h a e v in to h is “International A llia n c e ” [M excnyHapoitHufi ajraiH c] prior to th e m u rd er, and e v e n a p p o in ted h im o r g a n izer o f th e “R u ssia n S e c tio n ” o f a n e w “ W orld R ev o lu tio n a r y A llia n c e ” [BceM H pH ufi peBOjnoiiHOHHbifi cok>3]. U sp e n sk y te stifie d , m o r e o v e r , that N e c h a e v had sh o w n h im the d o c u m e n t c o n fir m in g h is rank w ith th e sig n a tu re o f B ak u n in . G ro ssm a n a ls o n o ted that a n o th er d efen d a n t and a sso c ia te o f N e c h a e v , E .K h . T o m ilo v a , a ls o te s tifie d that N e c h a e v h a d w ritten to h er from abroad an d in fo rm ed h er o f h is jo in t a c tiv ity w ith B ak u n in . K u z n e tso v , in h is turn, an n o u n ced th at N e c h a e v h a d p a ssed o n to h im a jo in t rev o lu tio n a ry p ro cla m a tio n b y N e c h a e v and B a k u n in , a s w e ll a s th e “S ta tu tes o f th e International S o c ie ty ” [Y craB MextayHapojmoro obm ecT B a], b etter k n o w n as th e “C a te c h ism o f a R ev o lu tio n a ry ” [KarexH3HC peBOJOOOHOHepa], w ith a n a p p en d ed n o te fro m B a k u n in (108). Grossman demonstrated that according to the protocols, the “Bakunin question” particularly interested the defense in the trial. Through his examination of Uspensky and Pryzhov, defense attorney V.D. Spasovich sought to demonstrate that the defendants did not instigate the conspiracy in Russia themselves, but instead followed the directions of Bakunin, the well-known leader of the European revolution who had inspired Russian youth with his agitation from Geneva. From the testimony Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 of Uspensky the court learned that Nechaev had won Uspensky’s confidence by assuring him that Bakunin offered his enthusiastic support, and Pryzhov described how Nechaev tried to send him abroad in order to meet with Bakunin and gather revolutionary literature (109). In their own statements, attorneys Spasovich and A.I. Urusov suggested clearly that Bakunin stood behind the activity of the Nechaevists. Urusov, for example, told the court that only a veteran, experienced revolutionary like Bakunin could have organized and drafted a “Catechism” for such a bureaucratically complex conspiracy, while Spasovich declared that Nechaev “borrowed” his revolutionary ideas, plan of action and organization from the emigrant community, and that he remained “tied closely to several emigrants, like Bakunin” (110-111). Grossman also argued that when the trial publicized and discussed the “Catechism of a Revolutionary,” many of whose ideas Dostoevsky unquestionably critiqued in Besy, “no one at the trial doubted that the author was Bakunin.” As evidence Grossman quoted the suggestive words of Spasovich, who claimed the document could not have been written solely by a “man of action” like Nechaev, but rather “a theoretician.” one, moreover, “who at his leisure, far from the business at hand, devises revolution, sketches it out on paper, condemns one group to death, proposes to rob another, intimidate a third, etc.— in other words, pure abstract theory.” By suggesting the source was an emigre, Grossman argued, Spasovich made an obvious, albeit indirect, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 reference to Bakunin. In the wake of the trial, Grossman added, Utin also declared publicly that Bakunin was the author (113).7 8 Despite his extensive evidence for Dostoevsky’s familiarity with published information about Bakunin, Grossman once again met firm opposition from Polonsky, who addressed the issue in his first two replies. Beginning with Bakunin’s early writings, Polonsky emphasized the lack of any documentary proof that Dostoevsky studied any of the publications in question before 1869. The earliest examples Polonsky dismissed simply on logistic grounds. Like M.P. Dragomanov’s landmark biographical sketch of Bakunin of 1896 (SI),7 9 from which Grossman derived much of his information about Bakunin, Bakunin’s article on “Communism” of 1843, discovered fifteen years after Dostoevsky’s death (55), and his “Confession” to the Tsar of 1851, which during Bakunin’s lifetime was known only to Nicholas I and Count Orlov, the chief of political police (130), Polonsky emphasized, were not available to Dostoevsky.8 0 Without further evidence, moreover, Dostoevsky’s 78. (Jtin was a member of the Russian delegation to the Fifth Congress of the First International at the Hague in September 1872. On the instructions of the London Congress o f 1871, he compiled and delivered a lengthy report to the Congress attacking and exposing the politically harmful activity of Bakunin’s secret revolutionary party, the Alliance o f Socialist Democracy. The report formed the basis of a lengthy critical analysis of Bakunin’s Alliance by Marx, Engels and Lafargue in 1873. Grossman clearly refers here to Utin’s report, although he does not cite it directly. See: “Report o f N. Utin to the Hague Congress of the International Working Men’s Association,” Documents o f the First International. The Hague Congress o f the First International Sept. 2-7, 1872. M inutes and Documents (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976) 437; Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Collected Works, vol. 23 (New York: International Publishers, 1988) 706. 79. See: AparoMaHOB, M JI. Etforpa$inecKHti onepie M.A. EaxyHHHa // IlncbMa M.A. E axyH M H a k A.H. TepueHy h HJ1. Orapeay. CfI6., 1906. C. 3-107. 80. Besides Nicholas himself and Orlov, there seem to have been at least a few other readers o f Bakunin’s letter among the tsar’s closest confidants, like, for example, Orlov’s deputy L. Dubel’t [3y6ejibr] and the chair o f the tsar’s State Council [TocyaapcTaeHHufl Coaer], A.I. Chernyshev Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I l l acquisition of knowledge about Bakunin from sources like the memoirs of Paphnutii, Polonsky argued, remained no more than Grossman’s own subjective “supposition” (141). Polonsky agreed that the newspaper publicity on the Nechaev affair prior to the trial “prompted the idea for Besy” (151), but he questioned the extent to which Dostoevsky relied on the trial protocols for the novel, which supposedly served as Dostoevsky’s main source of knowledge about the role of Bakunin. Most significant for Polonsky was the fact that the protocols from the trial itself began to appear only after part one of Besy, as well as the first two “Night” [Horn,] chapters of part two, had already been published. By that point in the novel, Polonsky believed, Dostoevsky had firmly established the “characters” and “main personal characteristics” of Stavrogin and Verkhovensky, and from that point on he left them “fundamentally unchanged” (148). The beginning of part two of the novel, for example, reveals Stavrogin’s relationship with Petr Verkhovensky, Kirillov and Shatov, including their plan to meet clandestinely with Liputin, Virginsky and Shigalev to discuss a course of political action. The pre-trial chapters also include Stavrogin’s meeting with Fedka Katorzhnyi, after which it becomes apparent that Fedka will attempt to murder the Lebiadkins (150). None of these key details, Polonsky insisted, could have followed from the trial. [HepHumea], but apparently no one besides them ever saw the document See Steklov’s commentary to the letter in: EaxyHHH , M.A. Co6paHHe comtHeiorii h imceM, 1828-1876. T. 4: B nopuuax h ccunxe, 1849-1861. M., 193S. C. 418. See chapter four for more on the “Confession.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 While he acknowledged Dostoevsky clearly utilized certain facts from the trial, such as the principles of the “Catechism of a Revolutionary” and the details of Ivanov’s murder, Polonsky insisted the trial did not reveal to Dostoevsky, as Grossman claimed, any “complex relationship” between Nechaev and Bakunin, primarily because none of the defendants on trial at the time knew of any such “complex relationship” (50, 145-146). As for Bakunin’s authorship of the “Catechism of a Revolutionary,” Polonsky again pointed out that the fact had been established only in recent years,8 1 and argued that “not a single scholar” at the time of the trial would have accepted the idea on the basis of a speech by the lawyer Spasovich, who, as the defense lawyer for the Nechaevists, sought to shift the blame as much as possible onto emigrants like Bakunin. The testimony of Utin, whose insistence on Bakunin’s authorship was driven by “party hatred,” was also unreliable. In the end, the trial provided grounds only for suspicions of Bakunin’s authorship of the Catechism, Polonsky emphasized, but no conclusive proof at all. The science of history “does not permit one to assert as proven,” Polonsky reminded Grossman, “what still stands to be proven” (157-158). Although he never managed to reply to Grossman’s fourth article, which offered the most complete presentation of evidence, Polonsky successfully exposed the 81. Polonsky referred to “the memoirs o f A.I. Uspenskaia” and the “declarations o f M.P. Sazhin” for evidence o f Bakunin’s role in the drafting o f the “Catechism o f a Revolutionary” (156). See: y c n e H C K a a , A.H. BocnoKHHamui in ecT n aecjtT H H U U // Eunoe. 1922. N f l 18. C. 37-41; and: CaaatH, M.n. BocnoM HH aH H* / flpeoHcn. B JI. rio jio H C K o ro . M.: Bcecoxn. o6m-ao nojnrr. xaropacaH h ccbLTbHonoceneHueB, 1925. C. 14. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 weakness of some of Grossman’s evidence. With regard to the sources before 1862, Polonsky’s objections remain sound and convincing, for Grossman never produced any evidence which might suggest Dostoevsky’s familiarity with Bakunin’s early works like the “Confession” to Nikolai, whose contents were generally unknown, or People's Cause, for which Grossman failed to offer even a scenario, according to which Dostoevsky, while in Geneva, might have obtained and read the work. It should be noted that Grossman defended his claims about works like the “Confession” merely in order to characterize Bakunin’s world-view, which Dostoevsky could have learned about through other sources, “probably oral, such as his conversations with Belinsky, Herzen, Ogarev, Katkov and others” (89). Herzen and Ogarev undoubtedly were familiar with many, if not all, of Bakunin’s writings up to that time, including even the “Confession”;8 2 regardless of Herzen’s and Ogarev’s knowledge of Bakunin’s writings, Dostoevsky’s knowledge of them still lacked documentary proof. Polonsky was probably also correct to dismiss the significance of accounts of Bakunin prior to the late 1860s, that is, before the newspaper reports about Bakunin, even if Grossman’s examples remained more conceivable in theory than Polonsky would admit. Dostoevsky very well may have studied the references to Bakunin in the memoirs of Bishop Paphnutii, thanks to their proximity to installments of Turgenev’s 82. Herzen definitely knew of the existence o f Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai, if not its contents, and even mentioned it in his article “M.A. Bakunin,” cited earlier. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 Smoke [ZIh m ],8 3 a novel which Dostoevsky definitely read closely. If Dostoevsky knew Smoke well enough to discuss it passionately with Turgenev himself when the two writers met in Baden-Baden in July 1867,® * then he may well have been familiar with the memoirs by that time, too. While problematic in certain respects, the writings of Herzen should also be considered a likely source, thanks mainly to indisputable proof of Dostoevsky’s general interest in them. Here Grossman may have followed the intuition of Dolinin, who had recently written that Dostoevsky “could have read” several of Herzen’s works of the late 1850s and early 1860s, “either in Russia or while abroad.”8 3 In her many diary entries pertaining to Dostoevsky’s reading habits, as Grossman noted, Anna Grigor’evna refers on several occasions to Herzen’s publications, and at least two entries confirm Grossman’s assertion that Dostoevsky “systematically purchased the latest issues of The B elt’ (206). Which issues, exactly, passed through the writer’s hands or even fell under the writer’s scrutiny unfortunately cannot be determined from Anna Grigor’evna’s recollections, and therefore Dostoevsky’s actual contact with material by or about Bakunin in The Bell can still only be presumed. The situation with Herzen’s journal Polar Star, which Grossman 83. Turgenev’s Smoke first appeared in the third issue of the Russian M essenger [PyccKHft bccthhk] in 1867. See: TypreneB, H.C. IlojiH oe co6pamie co<nnieHHfi h miceM: B 30 t. T. 7 .2-e tan. M.: Hayxa, 1981. C. 509. 84. Jleronacb X H 3H H h TBopaecrBa < D .M . flocroeBCKoro 1821-1881: B 3 t. T. 2: 1865-1874 / Coct. H JI. 5lKy6oBin, T.H. OpHaTCtcaa. CI16.: AxaaeM. npoeirr, 1993-1995. C. 122. See also: Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The M iraculous Years, 1865-1871 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1995) 215-220. 85. J J o jih h h h , A.C. AocroeBCKHft h TepueH: (K royHeHMo o6mecTBeHHo-noiiHTmecKHx B033peKHft AocroeBCKoro) 1 1 Z I o jih h h h , A.C. AocroeBcmfi a apyrae: C n n u i h uccneaoBainui o pyccKott KJiaccmecKoft jnrreparype. JI.: Xyao*. j i h t . , 1989. C. 145. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 mentions in passing, is somewhat clearer in this respect, since Anna Grigor’evna indicates at one point that in Geneva they purchased the 1855 and 1861 issues specifically, while at another point she mentions Dostoevsky’s reading of Herzen’s memoirs, My Past and Thoughts [Ebinoe h nyMu], which Dostoevsky followed with great interest.*6 None of these facts would have weakened Polonsky’s position, however, for contrary to Grossman’s claims, the two issues of Polar Star would have offered Dostoevsky only a small amount of material about Bakunin. With the exception of a few brief recollections of Bakunin from the early days of the Stankevich circle, none of the installments of Herzen’s memoirs before 1870 provide any significant analysis of Bakunin’s activity. The installments of Herzen’s memoirs which appeared in Herzen’s Collection o f Posthumous Essays [C6opHHK nocMepntux crareft] of 1870, the year of Herzen’s death, provide better evidence, since they included one of Herzen’s key chapters about Bakunin, “Mikhail Bakunin and the Polish Affair” [Mnxaiui BaxyHHH h nojmcKoe neno].8 7 Why Grossman did not emphasize the importance of the work as a source for Dostoevsky is not clear, for he definitely knew the chapter and even drew several quotes from it for his own commentary on Bakunin (29,36,40,87). He may have excluded it from his list of sources for logistic reasons, since—like some of Bakunin’s own works reviewed earlier—the chapter was not included among any of the 86. A o c ro e B C in a , A T. A iw b h h k 1867 r . / Hia. a o a r o r . C.B. )K H T O M H p cicaa. M.: Hayxa, 1 9 9 3 . C. 20, 117,425. 87. fepueH, A.H. CSopmuc nocMepraux crareft. X C e H C B a : H. Georg, 1870. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 installments which Dostoevsky could have read before 1868, when the final installment during Herzen’s lifetime was issued in Polar Star.** Perhaps because it appeared only months before Dostoevsky returned to Russia from Dresden, and without further evidence that the Collection found its way into Dostoevsky’s hands, Grossman apparently resolved not to insist that Dostoevsky read it. As it turns out, proof of Dostoevsky’s familiarity with the Collection does, in fact, exist. According to the commentators to the scholarly edition of the novel, at a certain point in Besy Dostoevsky refers to the chapter in My Past and Thoughts on “The Young Emigration” [Mojioaaa 3MHrpamui], which also appeared for the first time only in the Collection.* * If so, then one can assume Dostoevsky’s familiarity with the rest of the material in the Collection, including the aforementioned article on Bakunin, as well as Herzen’s criticism of Bakunin’s revolutionary program in his letters “To an Old Comrade” [K crapoMy TOBapmny],9 0 which also could have offered Dostoevsky valuable information about Bakunin. Following the same logic, one Russian scholar wrote in 1976 that “one cannot imagine that Dostoevsky, who avidly sought any publication by Herzen, would have read only a portion of the Collection'*1 88. For a review o f the rather complex history of the work’s publication, see the commentary in: repueH, A.C. Co6paHHe co<m HeHH fi: B 30 t . T. 8. M.: AH CCCP. C. 439*440. 89. AocToeacKHii, < t> .M . riojiHoe co6pamfe cohhhchhR: B 30 t. T. 10: Secu. JL: Hayxa, 1974. C. 269; AocroeBCKHfl, < X > . M . riojiHoe coOpaHHe coHKHemtfl: B 30 t. T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCHbie peuaxiiHH. HafipocKH, 1870-1872. JL: Hayxa, 1975. C. 178,303. 90. repueH, A.H. K crapoMy ToaapHiny // repueH, A.H. CoOpatue co*nnteHHfi: B 30 t . T. 20. Kh. 2. M.: AH CCCP, 1960. C. 575-593,850-862. 91. JlHiUHHep, CJL repueH h AocroeacKHfi: ihtanexTHxa ayxoBHwx H C x a H H fi // Pyccxaa jurreparypa. 1990. N a 2. C. 57. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 In any case, had Dostoevsky learned little or nothing about Bakunin from incidental recollections by Paphnutii or even the more personal recollections by Herzen, he almost certainly would have noticed the reports of Bakunin’s political activity on the eve of Besy. Notwithstanding Polonsky’s skepticism toward the actual role which it actually played in Dostoevsky’s plans for the novel, the references to Bakunin and his connection with Nechaev in the Russian press provided by far the most solid evidence for Grossman’s argument. Among scholars in recent decades who have included reports from the The Moscow Gazette and The Voice among the most important raw material for the plot of Besy, the authors of the scholarly Notes to Besy also confirmed Dostoevsky’s use of many of the same details to which Grossman called attention. Referring to the same “venomous ‘recollections’” of Bakunin by Katkov, for example, the authors effectively agreed with Grossman that Dostoevsky “without question” took note of Katkov’s sketch of Bakunin, which they describe as being “of the greatest interest for an understanding of the sources of Dostoevsky’s pamphletic attacks” in the novel. In addition to Grossman’s own examples, the authors added other evidence of Bakunin’s name in Katkov’s Moscow Gazette, such as an earlier article of May 24, 1869, which mentioned the rumor that Bakunin had authored one of Nechaev’s revolutionary proclamations. Another article of December 20, 1869 reviewed the content of two proclamations that had appeared in recent months. One of them, Katkov wrote, the proclamation “Beginnings of Revolution” [Hanaia peBOJnoQHH], “instructs all Emigres to come to Russia immediately,” and “permits only Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 a few certain honorable ones, Bakunin, Herzen, etc., to remain wherever they please.”9 2 It also appears, that Grossman’s emphasis on the role of the trial protocols proved to be more justified, in retrospect, than Polonsky acknowledged. Dostoevsky’s obvious use of the trial protocols for the plot of Besy had long been noted by observers, beginning with Dostoevsky’s own contemporaries, some of whom criticized the novel’s artistic merits for that very reason.9 3 Following Grossman, the authors of the Notes include many of the statements from the trial among the material which Dostoevsky borrowed liberally for his novel. They also review the many revolutionary proclamations and programmatic documents enumerated by Grossman, in particular the well-known “Catechism of a Revolutionary,” as well as a few others.9 4 Thus even if he formulated the “complex relations” between Stavrogin and Verkhovensky before the trial protocols appeared in print, as Polonsky argued, Dostoevsky surely could have gathered no small amount of material for the plot from the protocols. Finally, one other discovery deserves mention for the additional support it lends to Grossman’s theory. Concluding, much like Grossman, that while in Geneva in 1867-68 Dostoevsky “followed Bakunin’s speeches and the growth of Bakuninist 92. A ocroeB C K H ft, < D .M . riojraoe co6pame co'chhchhA: B 30 t. T. 12: Eecu. P yiconH C H ue penaxuH H . H a6pocK H , 1870-1872. JL: Hayica, 1975. C. 198-200. The commentary to Besy incorrectly cites this document as “Haiano pcbojuoiihh” instead of the correct “Havana peBoaiouHH.” 93. For a useful survey of the initial reception o f the novel, see: A o cT o eB C K H ft, d>.M . riaiHoe co6paime comHemdt: B 30 t. T. 12: Eecu. PyxonH CH ue peranum. H aOpocxH, 1870-1872. JL: H ayica, 1975. C. 214,257-272. 94. flocroeBcraft, < D .M . (Iojraoe coEpame commeimft: B 30 t. T. 12: Eecu. PyvoimcHue peaaxuHH. Hafipocnt, 1870-1872. JL: Hayica, 1975. C. 209-211. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 moods among the young Russian revolutionaries with alarm,”9 5 the authors of the Notes to Besy establish the probability that Dostoevsky read a critique of Bakunin’s speeches at the 1868 Peace Congress in the journal Russian Herald, a critique which also quoted from a published outline of Bakunin’s political goals.9 6 As the first systematic exposition of Bakunin’s anarchist program to appear in print, the unsigned document, “Our Program” [Hama nporpaMMa],9 7 spelled out some of the radical principles by which Bakunin hoped to revolutionize the liberal Congress.9 8 The document enjoyed a fairly broad publicity, first as a leading article in the opening issue of the Russian-language journal People's Cause [Hapozmoe aeno],9 9 and then as an independent brochure in French in September, 1868. Along with Molinari, the author of the critique in Russian Herald, other French and German newspapers apparently reviewed the program and attributed it to Bakunin.1 0 0 Through this cycle of reviews 95. JJocrocBCKHft, < t» .M . nojiHoe co6paime commeHHft: B 30 t. T. 12: Eecu. PyKomicKue peaaKUHH. HaOpocm, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayica, 197S. C. 166. 96. X locT oeB C K H ft, Q.M. riojiH oe coGpaime co H H H C H H ft: B 30 t . T. 12: B ecu. PyiconHCHue peaaxiiHH. Ha6pocni, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayica, 197S. C. 201. According to the commentators, G. de Molinari reviewed and quoted from Bakunin’s speeches at the Congress in an article on “International Congresses” (Pyccndl Beermat. 1868. N ® 10. C. 462-502). 97. [EaxyHHH, M.A.]. Hama nporpaMMa// BaxyHHH , M.A.. H36paioaie comtHemu. T. 3: OeaepamoM, cotmamoM h aHTH-TecuionDM . M.; 116.: Tonoc xpyaa, 1920. C. 96-97. 98. CreiuiOB, K3.M. Miixaiui AjieiccaitapoBHH BaxyH H H : Ero m a in h aarrenbHOCTb, 1814-1876: B 3 t. T. 2: IlepexoaHMfl nepaoa, 1861-1868. M.: Toe. k m -bo, 1927. C. 359-360. See also: E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 339-343. 99. The first issue of the journal People’ s Cause appeared on September 1, 1868, under the editorship o f Bakunin and his close ally N. Zhukovsky. Utin and his followers took over the journal alter their split with Bakunin soon thereafter. 100. Ko3bMHH, E.n. Pyccicaa cemnu nepaoro HHTepHauHOHana. M.: AH CCCP, 1957. C. 87-88, 97. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 Dostoevsky may well have become familiar with important aspects of Bakunin’s political philosophy even before the Nechaev affair erupted. The likelihood of Grossman’s claim that Dostoevsky assimilated information about Bakunin for Besy increased substantially with his discovery of the many references to Bakunin in the publicity surrounding the Nechaev affair. Unlike the hypothetical meetings with Bakunin or conversations about Bakunin with the latter’s associates, the references and commentary pertaining to Bakunin were clearly documented in organs of the Russian press, which Dostoevsky was known to have read regularly, and therefore virtually indisputable. Their effectiveness as support for Grossman’s argument, however, still depended on a broader assumption about Dostoevsky’s creative methods. The nature of Grossman’s position may be inferred from suggestive remarks he made in his first article. When “depicting the Russian revolution,” Grossman reasoned, “Dostoevsky could not have ignored its central figure, and when projecting the main characters in Besy, certainly could not have passed up the most outstanding activist of the entire movement, its leader and director, who by that time had achieved universal fame.” Because Dostoevsky “did not overlook” in his novel the “secondary representatives of Nechaevshchina” like Uspensky and Zaitsev,1 0 1 Grossman argued, Dostoevsky “could not have left out the 101. V.A. Zaitsev (1842*1882), a nihilist, associate o f Bakunin and regular contributor to the journal Russian Word [Pyccxoe cjiobo] appears in Dostoevsky’s notebooks for Besy as one o f the prototypes for Shigalev. Uspensky, who probably served as a partial prototype for Liputin and Virginsky, also appears in the notebooks. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 most significant episode of Nechaev’s activity, his well-known link with Bakunin” (33). If Dostoevsky studied political tendencies of the day closely, in other words, then he must have taken note of the revolutionary ideas and program promoted by Bakunin. Polonsky’s response, by contrast, suggests a fundamentally different view of Dostoevsky’s methods, one which found expression in his third contribution to the debate. In Polonsky’s reading, the outstanding characteristic of the political critique in Besy is its enormous scope. Because Dostoevsky treated the radicals and revolutionaries in the novel so broadly and indiscriminately, amalgamating “liberals and socialists” alike with no concern for the differences between them, Polonsky explained, Besy should be seen not primarily as an attack on the revolutionaries and ideologists responsible for the Nechaev affair, but rather as a sweeping satire, an enormous “tragic farce” [TparHHecKHft 6ajiaraH] directed against all of Russia. From its conception the foremost task of the novel, Polonsky pointed out, was to “expose, ridicule and punish” those “infected with the revolutionary plague,” the '‘ nihilists and westemizers” who ‘“demanded a conclusive lashing,”’ as Dostoevsky declared in a letter to Strakhov of March 24, 1870. The Nechaev affair served merely as “a pretext” for the novel, like “that part of a crystal which, upon entering the amorphous mixture [HacumeHHufi pacraop], serves as a catalyst for the entire process of crystallization.” Although it catalyzed the subsequent development of the plot and represented the key event of the plot, however, the Nechaev affair failed to occupy a central place in the novel, but instead coexisted alongside elements “of an entirely different plan and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 origin.”1 0 2 In Polonsky’s view, the lack of a more specific target for Dostoevsky’s “tendentious” attack, as well as the ultimately secondary role of the Nechaev affair in the composition of the novel, only weakened the probability that Dostoevsky, according to Grossman, “avidly studied” Bakunin for his novel-pamphlet (141,172, 174, 175). No particular information about Bakunin would have been necessary for Dostoevsky, even if it were, in fact, at his disposal, it followed, insofar as a specific parody of the character and views of Bakunin was not among Dostoevsky’s creative tasks in Besy. If, to Grossman’s mind, Dostoevsky’s general hostility toward “nihilists and westemizers” suggested his likely obsession with a radical like Bakunin, to Polonsky it suggested just the opposite: that references to Bakunin and his agitation would neither have struck Dostoevsky nor caused a sudden creative “shift” such as the one Grossman envisioned at the Peace Congress, described in chapter one. Polonsky’s response thus recalled, in a sense, the response of unsympathetic “revolutionary democrats” like P.N. Tkachev, who criticized the novel, among other reasons, for treating representatives of the younger generation like Kirillov, Shatov, Verkhovensky and Stavrogin as “mannequins” who are virtually indistinguishable, except for the type of madness which afflicts them, and who belong, moreover, “not only to different, but opposing camps,” the result of Dostoevsky’s unsuccessful attempt to depict as “reality” what he 102. Here Polonsky had in mind Dostoevsky’s project for a work with the preliminary title, Life o f a Great Sinner PKtohs aejiHxoro rpeamiuca], whose significance for the debate will be addressed in chapter three. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 a c tu a lly p e r c e iv e s w ith in h im s e lf [coO cT B em rae BHyrpeHHocTH]. 1 0 3 M u c h lik e T k a c h e v , P o lo n sk y b e lie v e d that D o s to e v s k y ’s “o u ter w o rld e x p r e sse d h is inner w o r ld ,” that h is ch aracters a n d th eir id e a s b e lo n g e d m o re to th e w o r ld o f h is o w n fa n ta sy than to th e w o r ld o f reality. D o s to e v s k y ’s characters are u n iq u e in w orld literature, P o lo n sk y e x p la in e d , p r e c ise ly b e c a u se th e y s o v iv id ly r e v e a l h is o w n inner stru g g le. “It is fo r that re a so n that o n e c a n n o t d raw c o n c lu s io n s [yM03aKjno<nrn>] ab ou t s o c ia l, e v ery d a y or h isto rica l e v e n ts o f h is e p o c h ,” P o lo n sk y w r o te , fo r D o sto e v sk y is “th e m o st a -h isto rica l w riter in th e w o rld ” (181). 2.4 Conclusion Just as he eventually modified his initial claims that Besy represented a “monograph on Bakunin,” and that Stavrogin was “conceived” at the Peace Congress of 1867, in his fourth article Grossman also stated his claim about Dostoevsky’s sources in a less provocative manner. Thanks perhaps to the criticism by Polonsky and Komarovich, Grossman no longer insisted on the established fact of Dostoevsky’s “study” of Bakunin, but instead contended that Dostoevsky “could have studied Bakunin diversely, thoroughly and fully” (209). On the basis of the convincing examples Grossman offered in support of it, the mere possibility that Dostoevsky 103. TnmeB, FI.H. Bom im e jdohh // TxaieB, I1.H. H36pamwe anMHemn Ha couHanbHO- (icuiirnmecKHe tcmu: B 4 t. T. 3: (1873-1879). M.: BcecoK>3. o6m-BO noriHT. xaropacaH h ccbtn&HonoceneHneB, 1933. C. 35,36,40. Tkachev’s review first appeared in issues 3 ,4 of the journal The Cause [Qeno], 1873. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 gathered information about Bakunin invited little opposition. Regardless of which day Dostoevsky attended the Peace Congress and regardless of the nature of his relationship with Ogarev, the many references to Bakunin and his writings in the Russian press, as well as the many published comments about Bakunin by Herzen, Katkov and others demonstrated convincingly that Dostoevsky could have, in theory, learned a great deal about Bakunin’s character and views before he completed work on Besy. By itself the issue of Dostoevsky’s sources did not exhaust the problem of identifying Bakunin with Besy, of course. From the standpoint of Polonsky, Grossman had to prove not only that Dostoevsky “could have” modeled Stavrogin after Bakunin, but also that “he did, in fact” (138). Grossman’s attempt to reveal “the face of Bakunin” in the text of Besy itself forms the subject of the following chapter. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 Chapter 3 Grossman’s “Coincidences” and the Problem of Stavrogin’s Role in Besy In order to prove that Bakunin served as a leading prototype for Stavrogin, Grossman had to demonstrate not only that Dostoevsky “studied” Bakunin, but also that he actually endowed Stavrogin with recognizable characteristics of Bakunin. As evidence of their resemblance, in his opening article Grossman presented a complex system of twenty “coincidences” [cjioacHaa cttcreMa coBnaaeHHft] (83) between Stavrogin and Bakunin, including a group of six similarities from the early stages of their biographies; three “episodes” from Stavrogin’s life for which Grossman found parallels in the life of Bakunin; two traits of a physiological nature; and seven similarities in their thought and activity. In addition to the first eighteen examples, which pertained to specific aspects of their biographies, Grossman crowned his system with two broader, more general points about Stavrogin that formed the basis of Dostoevsky’s “interpretation” of Bakunin, to be examined later in this dissertation.1 Grossman apparently staked much of his thesis on the strength of his twenty examples, for he defended them firmly throughout the debate and even supplemented them with 1. Grossman described twenty “coincidences” in his first article, but he did not enumerate them formally until his second article, at which point he modified the originally order somewhat, combined a couple of earlier points and separated others. For the sake o f convenience and because his “system” retained the same points, regardless o f how he arranged them, they will be treated in this dissertation as a group of “twenty,” without any particular hierarchy or priority. Henceforth all suggestions o f a numerical order (e.g. “the first eleven examples”) refer to my own arrangement of the points, not to Grossman’s. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 more examples later in his career. When Polonsky questioned the value of several coincidences as support for Grossman’s thesis, Grossman explained that his coincidences formed an indivisible conglomerate of evidence whose strength could not be undermined by criticism of individual points, but only by a refutation of the entire set, whereupon he proceeded to reiterate all of his points once again. As this chapter will attempt to demonstrate, by means of both an examination of Grossman’s first eighteen points of evidence and his opponents’ responses, as well as through a separate analysis of Stavrogin’s role in Verkhovensky’s conspiracy, the most important issue raised by Grossman’s reading of Besy concerned Stavrogin’s political career and outlook. Although Grossman cited some convincing similarities in the evolution of Stavrogin’s and Bakunin’s views and won the support of some observers, his opponents made it a priority to refute them and, in Polonsky’s case, to dispel the notion that Stavrogin even belonged to the “pamphlet” within the novel. Closely connected to the debate over Dostoevsky as a political writer, the subject of the previous chapter, the dispute over Grossman’s twenty “coincidences” revealed two fundamentally different approaches to Besy as a political novel. 3.1. Grossman’s “less essential” evidence and the issue of “fortuitous coincidences” Eleven of Grossman’s twenty coincidences provided mostly secondary support for his argument, but his persistent defense of them, as well as his efforts in later years to find related coincidences, justifies a review of them here. Grossman located six Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 points of similarity, first of all, in the social and intellectual development of Stavrogin and Bakunin. In spite of an aristocratic upbringing, both the fictional character and his historical prototype eventually became “democrats.” Both men were influenced strongly during their youth by an “idealist and man of letters,” Bakunin by N.V. Stankevich2 and Stavrogin by Stepan Verkhovensky. Like Bakunin, Stavrogin became a well-educated “representative of European culture” who at one time attended lectures at a German university. Both the young Stavrogin and young Bakunin gained access to high society in Petersburg and also served in elite military regiments, only to be demoted and sent to the provinces for bad behavior. Stavrogin later ‘ 'wandered throughout all of Europe,” also like Bakunin, and even participated in a scientific expedition to Iceland, just as Bakunin had traveled to Sweden (11-12). Grossman’s second group of examples consisted of three “fundamental episodes” [KanHTajiLHue 3nH 3o,m »i] from Stavrogin’s and Bakunin’s biographies. The first two, the incident in which Shatov slaps Stavrogin, along with Stavrogin’s subsequent duel with Gaganov, he believed, Dostoevsky borrowed directly from the life of Bakunin, who also received a similar slap and a summons to duel in a confrontation with M.N. Katkov. Grossman argued that Bakunin’s behavior during the incident illuminated one of the “mysterious” and “glaring psychological 2. N.V. Stankevich (1813-1840) was the leader o f a Moscow philosophical circle which Bakunin joined in the mid-1830s. On their activity in the circle, see: Lydia Ginzburg, “Bakunin, Stankevich and the Crisis o f Romanticism,” Lydia Ginzburg. On Psychological Prose, trans., ed. Judson Rosengrandt (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991) 27-57. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 contradictions” of his character which Dostoevsky sought to resolve. Stavrogin’s failure to retaliate seems to reflect “shameful cowardice” at first glance, but in fact reveals a “super-human effort of will power” [cBepxHeJioBenecKoe HanpraceHHe BO JieBoft 3HeprHn] worthy of Bakunin himself. Grossman recalled that Bakunin’s “hesitation, postponements, apologies” after the incident generated “disgust and undisguised contempt” from associates like Belinsky and Ogarev, who regarded Bakunin’s behavior as base and cowardly. Later in his life, however, Bakunin demonstrated great fearlessness in the face of personal danger and death, first through his defense of the barricades during the popular uprisings of 1848-49 in Prague and Dresden,3 and then during the periods of incarceration he then endured in Saxony and Austria. Bakunin’s reputed love of swashbuckling during his early years, when he summoned not only Katkov but even V.K. Rzhevsky4 and Karl Marx, also contrasted sharply with his subsequent opposition to murder and with his confession that “[his] soul was incapable of evil acts.” In a similar fashion, Stavrogin’s initial refusal to duel with Gaganov, who regards him as a “shameless coward,” violates his reputation of one who, like the poet M.Iu. Lermontov and the Decembrist M.S. Lunin, “intentionally pursued danger,” loved to duel, and in general “belonged to that category of individuals who know no fear.” In fact, Grossman added, Stavrogin admits after the 3. On Bakunin’s revolutionary activity in Prague and Dresden during these years, see: E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 161,191-193,197-209. 4. V.K. Rzhevsky (1811-1885) was the cousin of the Beyer sisters with whom Bakunin shared a close relationship during his youth. For more on the reasons for the duel, which never took place, see: Kopmuioa, A A . M anoaue ronu Mfoawia S a ic y H H H a : H 3 hctophh pyccaoro poM atrnoM a. M.: Hm-bo M. h C. C a 6 a m H H K O B U X , 1915. C. 235. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 incident that he “does not wish to kill anyone else” but rather “seeks a burden” for his “enormous will power,” which allows him to accept a slap in the face without destroying his offender on the spot (14-15). The culmination of Stavrogin’s relationship with Liza Tushina (Drozdova) formed the third “fundamental episode” in Grossman’s scheme. Here the hero’s “physical decline, complete organic impotence and sexual defects” [(J)H 3H HecK aa ymep6HOCTB, opraHHHecxoe deccmme, ceK cyanbH aa ne^eKTHBHocn,] become apparent both to Liza, who accuses him of “standing as if without arms and legs” and to Petr Verkhovensky, who brands him “an old, leaky, worthless, broken-down barge” [crapaa b u , utipaBaa, npxHHax 6apxa Ha cjiom]. Citing the critic A.L. Volynsky,5 Grossman believed that one of the key sources of Stavrogin’s strange lack of passion and natural instincts lies in the “degeneration of [his] masculinity,” which he had squandered, he confesses in his final letter to Dasha, by “practicing great depravity.” In spite of the “danger” it poses for biographical researchers, Grossman contended, this sphere of sexual relations reveals Stavrogin’s direct relationship to Bakunin, who, according to at least two biographers,6 demonstrated signs of sexual deficiency throughout his life. Grossman noted evidence of Bakunin’s reputation in the remarks 5. A.L. Volynsky (pseudonym o f Khaim Lcibovich Flekser, 1861-1926), a literary critic and art historian, published a collection o f essays on Dostoevsky in 1906. 6. Here Grossman quotes from recent biographies of Bakunin by Iu.M. Steklov, who wrote that “the sexual moment played no role whatsoever in Bakunin’s life,” and by Polonsky, who wrote that “Bakunin had no children nor was able to have children” (IS). See: Ctckjiob, K3.M. MnxaHii AjiexcaiuipoBim BaxyH H H : Ero aooHb h ae*T eJii»H O cn> (1814-1876). H. 1. M.: T-b o Cbmoia, 1920. C. 3SS; and: tlonoHCKHft, BT1. MHxaan AjiexcaHopoBm B axyH H H (1814-1876). M.: Toe. km-b o, 1920. C. 455. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 of his contemporaries like Katkov, for example, who reportedly called his adversary a “eunuch” during their confrontation, and like Belinsky, who at some point ridiculed Bakunin's apparent chastity [neBC TBeH H O CTb]. Thus it was “not accidental,” Grossman insisted, that Herzen described Bakunin a “revolutionary ascetic” and “monk of the revolution.” Although the letters of Belinsky suggested strongly that Bakunin, like Stavrogin, in his early years also practiced “great depravity” and, according to Annenkov, “submitted easily to earthly pleasures” [BecbMa noaaTJiHB Ha xorreftcKHe Hacjiaacaemui], nevertheless in later years, Grossman wrote, Bakunin's “emotional experiences quickly died out” and afforded him no true conjugality in his marriage (15-16). Grossman’s system included one example of physical resemblance between Stavrogin and Bakunin. Noting Dostoevsky’s general tendency upon perceiving a striking appearance “to transfer that appearance forthwith into his artistic plan,”7 Grossman reasoned that the writer must have “envisioned his future hero” when he scrutinized Bakunin, whose physical characteristics, according to Grossman, “so closely coincide with Stavrogin’s.” Referring to the testimony of Bakunin’s associates Annenkov, Richard Wagner,* and others, as well as to three early portraits of Bakunin—which Dostoevsky probably saw, Grossman believed, when visiting 7. Here Grossman cites the memoirs o f M A Beketova, who describes how in the mid-1 870s, while visiting A.P. Filosofova, Dostoevsky met Aleksandr Lvovich Blok, the father o f the poet AA. Blok, whose intriguing appearance gave him the idea “to depict [Blok] as the leading character in one of his novels” (17). 8. Wagner’s autobiography describes his association with Bakunin in Dresden in 1849. See: Richard Wagner, My Life, trans. (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1935) 466-471. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 Belinsky, Herzen or Ogarev—Grossman argued that the young Bakunin’s handsome appearance and elegance, like Stavrogin’s, was both attractive and repulsive at the same time. In one woodcut portrait of the young Bakunin Grossman found that the “distinctive correctness” of features and oval shape of [Bakunin’s] face, along with “a sort of unpleasant and repulsive expression,” creates the impression of a ‘‘ frozen and frightening mask,” and thus recalled a similar description of Stavrogin, whose “picture-book attractiveness” is “somehow disgusting” and akin to a “mask” (18-19). In addition to their distinctive faces, Grossman explained that despite their relatively high level of education and upbringing, Stavrogin and Bakunin both suffer from a “low degree of literacy,” which explains why Stavrogin’s final letter to Dasha, with its “abnormally broken, helpless and incorrect French-Russian speech,” resembles “a poor translation and irritates the listener with its traces of foreign syntax.” Bakunin, too, while often considered a “brilliant master of the spoken word,” Grossman insisted, demonstrated a poor command of grammar. Grossman perceived a concrete example of Bakunin’s sub-standard writing style in his letters to Ogarev, which are “replete with unsuccessful Gallicisms,” and he noted that Belinsky often criticized Bakunin for the poor grammar of his letters. Recalling the narrator’s comment in the epilogue of Besy, Grossman asserted that Bakunin, like Stavrogin, to the end of his life “never quite learned to speak correct Russian” (16-17). Grossman’s first eleven points of similarity between Stavrogin and Bakunin met a brief and negative response from his opponents, primarily from Polonsky, who Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 found Grossman’s analogies no more convincing than Dostoevsky’s knowledge of Bakunin. Polonsky rejected the first six biographical details because of the impossibility of applying them only to Bakunin alone. While plausibly relevant to the historical Bakunin, he argued, none of the six examples are obviously unique to him. One may observe Stavrogin’s transition from aristocrat to democrat not only in the life of Bakunin, but also in the lives of Herzen, Ogarev and other representatives of the Russian intelligentsia of the 1840s. Although Bakunin, like Stavrogin, was well- educated, represented high European culture and attended German universities, Polonsky noted, one could argue that Herzen, Stankevich or Turgenev possessed those characteristics to an even greater degree. Polonsky criticized one example for its lack of greater factual accuracy. While Bakunin’s travels throughout Europe may bear some resemblance to Stavrogin’s in a general sense, he explained, the details of those travels reveal no concrete evidence that Bakunin, like Stavrogin, journeyed specifically to Iceland or some of the other destinations mentioned by the narrator in the novel (48- 49). Polonsky dismissed the significance of the three “fundamental episodes” in Stavrogin’s development for their lack of resemblance to the corresponding events in Bakunin’s life. In his analysis of Stavrogin’s failure to retaliate for the slap from Shatov, Polonsky pointed out, Grossman overlooked that in reality Bakunin—unlike Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 Stavrogin—provoked the blow he received by first striking Katkov with his cane.9 In his notebooks for the novel, Dostoevsky planned for Stavrogin to strike Shatov, Polonsky recalled, and not the other way around. Bakunin, moreover, demonstrated no “super-human will power” following the slap, but merely left the country and declined to pursue the duel further. Polonsky also failed to see evidence of Stavrogin’s '‘ physical degeneration” in the text of Besy. While admitting that “a good deal of evidence” supported the idea that Bakunin suffered from a lack of sufficient animal “instincts,” Polonsky insisted that Stavrogin’s sexual functions are normal. Polonsky granted that one could interpret Stavrogin’s attempt to practice “great depravity” in the '‘physiological sense,” but refused to accept that “the tragic hero of the novel, broken, destroyed and preparing his noose, would complain to Dasha about the decline of his sexual functions.” Recent research had certainly established, Polonsky admitted, that the “spiritual life” and intellect of an individual depend to a certain extent upon normal sexual health, and thus any “exhaustion” of sexual powers correspondingly undermines one’s “spiritual constitution,” but he rejected the reverse formulation, that “any mental devastation, damage or derangement” necessarily results from sexual dysfunction. For Polonsky, the “ideological transformations of a literary type” should be studied in light o f “literary-artistic” rather than “clinical” material, and Stavrogin’s 9. That is, according to Belinsky, the sole witness o f this incident between Bakunin and Katkov, which occurred at Belinsky’s apartment in Petersburg in 1840. Belinsky’s testimony was most likely the main source o f this information for both Grossman and Polonsky. In actual fact, as Polonsky also pointed out in his first response to Grossman, it was Bakunin who summoned Katkov following the conflict. See: E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 86-87. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 condition should be understood not physically, but “mentally,” hence Stavrogin’s words that he “knew he cannot love” Liza and “therefore destroyed [her].” Finally, Polonsky pointed out that whereas Bakunin remained childless, in the novel Mariia Shatova delivers to Shatov “Stavrogin’s child” (53-54). The other two points reviewed thus far—Stavrogin’s and Bakunin’s weak command of Russian and their “mask’ Mike faces, which both attract and repel their associates—Polonsky ignored for the most part, rejecting the assumption that Dostoevsky had access to sources like Bakunin’s letters to Ogarev, the letters of Belinsky to Bakunin or the testimony of Bakunin’s European associates. With regard to the physiological level of comparison, Polonsky emphasized only the striking contradiction between the “silent,” “reserved” Stavrogin and the “thunderous, dynamic, wildly gesticulating, indefatigable and unrestrained” Bakunin [nooBHXHbift, c rpoMOBofi pe<ibio, pa3MamHcn>iMH xecraMH, HeyroMOHHufi H pa3M3Hblfi] (55). Two of Grossman’s other opponents in the debate, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, essentially supported Polonsky’s objections on all the points reviewed here and offered little additional commentary, save for Borovoi’s reminder that because Bakunin was not a brunette, as Grossman assumed, one should not attempt to establish such a close likeness between Stavrogin and Bakunin. Much like Polonsky, Borovoi considered the question of “biographical” and “portrait”-like similarities to be too “formal” in nature Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 for additional commentary, and of little relevance to a comparison of Stavrogin and Bakunin as “types,” to which he devoted his statement in the debate.1 0 Grossman himself may have recognized the somewhat superficial nature of the foregoing examples, for he admitted that the details of Stavrogin’s and Bakunin's faces were “less essential” than other examples. Justifying his use of these rather random details, Grossman claimed to include them mainly for the sake of discounting “fortuitous coincidences” [cnyqa&Hue coBnaaeHHx] in his argument (20). As he explained in his second article, in which he defended the significance of traits that could also be applied to other “men of the [eighteen] forties” besides Bakunin, his examples together formed an entire complex of characteristics that as an indivisible group pertained only to Bakunin. In his second article he even attempted to apply A.N. Veselovsky’s formula for the borrowing of plots [cioxceTHoe 3aH M C TB O B aH H e] to his own argument, explaining that only a “complex system of coincidences” provides grounds for an analogy between prototype and character, just as a similarity between plots, as Veselovsky argued, demands a similarly complex system (83). Grossman’s transposition of Veselovsky’s theory prompted a response from Komarovich, who insisted that Veselovsky’s system excludes contemporary novels like Besy, whose “center” lies in character “types” rather than in the kinds of plots studied by Veselovsky. Komarovich also pointed out that some of the motifs Grossman compares 10. EopoBofl, A.A. B axyH H H b “Becax” // BopoeoB, A.A., OrBcpxeHHuft, HX. Mh$ o B axyH H H e. M., 1925. C. 81-82; OraepxeHHufi, HX. B axyH H H h CraaportiH // BopoBoA, A .A ., OrsepxeHHufi. HX. M h4> o BaxyH H H e. M., 1925. C. 151. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 are obviously “migratory” [nepexoxeaft] in nature and not limited to Besy alone, since they recur throughout Dostoevsky’s works, even in works that precede Besy, or in other literary traditions. Thus Stavrogin’s “aristocratism” emerges clearly in the notebooks, when he is still referred to as “Prince,” and may also be found in the character of Myshkin from Dostoevsky’s earlier novel Idiot, which contains a slapping incident.1 1 Other objections, some rather obvious, may be raised with respect to the foregoing eleven coincidences. With regard to Bakunin’s abuse of Gallicisms, the same criticism could be applied to Herzen or other Russians who spoke French and German throughout their lives. In Besy, Stepan Trofimovich displays this habit, perhaps, but not Stavrogin, who does not express himself in other languages. Like the many hypothetical conversations with Bakunin’s comrades discussed in chapter two, Dostoevsky’s familiarity with the young Bakunin’s face cannot be established conclusively. Dostoevsky most likely would have seen Bakunin or heard accounts of his appearance only after Bakunin’s escape from prison and penal servitude, which severely damaged his physical health and undoubtedly affected his appearance. A famous photographic portrait of Bakunin (with cane) from the 1860s suggests a burly man long past his prime, with aging eyes peering out from his characteristic “lion’s mane,” an image far different than the “strikingly handsome” young Bakunin of the portraits described by Grossman. Another objection to Grossman’s evidence logically 11. KoMapoBm, BJ1. “Eecu” Aocroeacicoro h B axyH H H // Bunoe. 1925. Na 27/28. C. 35,44-45. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 follows from his theses on Speshnev. As reviewed in chapter one, Grossman called attention to the handsome yet “mask’Mike face, European education, wanderings abroad, and aristocratic origins in his description of Speshnev, in other words, virtually the same “coincidences” he identified when comparing Stavrogin and Bakunin. As Polonsky correctly observed, if they are not unique to Bakunin, then such characteristics offer no convincing support to Grossman’s case for Bakunin in Besy. Finally, an inexplicable contradiction remains between the young “Pechorin-like lady killer” [TleHopHH-cepjmeeii] Stavrogin,1 2 as Liputin describes him,1 3 and the revolutionary “monk” Bakunin, who belonged to the older generation of revolutionary “fathers,” not to the younger generation of revolutionary “sons” represented by Stavrogin and Verkhovensky. In spite of opposition to the eleven examples in question, Grossman continued to gather potential allusions to Bakunin, presumably with the goal of strengthening his system of coincidences. In his 1962 biography of Dostoevsky, for example, Grossman noted that the setting in Besy in several respects resembles the real Russian city of Tver’, where Dostoevsky lived briefly, where the monastery of the real-life bishop Tikhon stood, and—most importantly for his theory about Stavrogin—where Bakunin spent his youth. On that basis he suggested that in Besy Dostoevsky “brought Bakunin 12. “Pechorin” refers to the hero of Lermontov’s novel, A Hero o f our Time [repoft Hamero BpeMemi]. 13. AocroeBCKHfi, riojiHoe coOpamte comnieHHfl: B 30 t . T. 10: Becu. JI.: Hayica, 1974. C. 81. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 into Tikhon’s cell.”1 4 Not all of Grossman’s opponents dismissed details of this kind. In his review of the debate in 1926, the scholar P.M. Bitsilli offered Grossman another source of “Stavrogin’s mask” which Grossman added to the third edition of his articles in 1928. According to the recollections of T.P. Passek,1 5 when Bakunin frequented the Herzen residence in Moscow during the 1840s, his “dull, white face” [M aTO Bax 6ejiH3Ha] left an “unpleasant” impression on many of Herzen’s other guests.1 6 Regardless of how much evidence Grossman could have accumulated in his attempt to eliminate the possibility of “fortuitous coincidences,” however, it seems likely that his opponents would have continued to reject any collection of evidence which failed to demonstrate that Stavrogin, like Bakunin, held similar views and followed the same revolutionary path as Bakunin. Before turning to Grossman’s analysis of Stavrogin’s political career, which formed the basis of his next six coincidences, it is necessary first to review Stavrogin’s role in the main plot in Besy. 3.2 Stavrogin and the political conspiracy in Besy Among the many different dimensions and sub-plots within Besy, most relevant to Grossman’s thesis is the political conspiracy which stands at the center of 14. rpoccMaH, Jl.n. AocroeBCKHft. M.: Monona* raapjuix, 1 9 6 2 . C. 4 S 4 . For more examples of Dostoevsky’s use o f the city of Tver’ in Besy, see: AnbTMan, M.C. Dnonu o poM aH e Aocroeacxoro “Eecu” // rtpoMerefi. T. 5. M.: Monona* raapnitx, 1 9 6 8 . C. 4 4 2 - 4 4 3 . 15. Tat’iana Petrovna Passek (Kuchina) ( 1 8 1 0 - 1 8 8 9 ) was a relative and childhood friend of Herzen’s who published memoirs of Herzen between 1 8 7 2 and 1 8 8 7 : See: naccex, T.n. tb nan&HHx ner: BocnoM im aH H *. T. 1 -3 . CII6.: A.C. CyaopHH, 1 8 7 8 -1 8 8 7 . 16. Ehuhjuih, n.M. Pea. H a jch.: Cnop o B axy H H H e h AocroeacxoM. Crana Jl.n. T poccM aH a h BJI. riojiO H C xoro (JI.: Toe. mn-ao, 1 9 2 6 ) / / CoBpeMetnnie 3aim cK H . (IT ap H X ),1 9 2 6 . Na 2 8 . C. 4 8 9 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 the narrator’s “chronicle” of events in his provincial town. Most of the action in the novel is related from the perspective of the narrator “G-v,” who recounts his chronicle from a subjective point-of-view, often relying on second-hand reports and * "rumors” to supplement and support his own recollections of events, especially those which took place in the two decades before the chronicle. Although he presents his chronicle in retrospect, reporting on the course of the political conspiracy with full knowledge of its main results and consequences, G-v leaves the reader with a number of questions concerning its goals, its strategy, its scope, its sources and its leadership. One of the most mysterious aspects of the conspiracy is the role of Stavrogin, which appears to have changed significantly by the time the narrator’s chronicle begins. The uncertainty which surrounds Stavrogin’s views and his involvement in the revolutionary “society” allows for a certain amount of speculation about his character and also, as demonstrated by Grossman’s approach, his origins. The primary mover of events in the political conspiracy is clearly Petr Verkhovensky, who comes to the provincial town to stir up disorder and prepare it for the great revolutionary uprising he envisions throughout Russia. In order to carry out his plan of destruction, Verkhovensky recruits several representatives of the “reddest liberalism,” as the narrator describes them (511/7:302),1 7 and persuades them to form 17. Henceforth all references to the text of Besy will begin with a “E” followed by the part/chapter of the novel, a colon and the page number, all enclosed within parentheses following the reference. All such citations refer to the Academy’s scholarly edition of Dostoevsky’s collected works: AocroeBCKHft, Q.M. flojiHoe coOpamie conmeHtril: B 30 t. T. 10: Eecu. JI.: Hayxa, 1974. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 an official “circle of five," [rurrepxa] which he controls by exploiting their pronounced allegiance to “the common cause" [ofimee aeno] (E 11/7:315). During one of their meetings with Verkhovensky, “five” member Shigalev verifies his understanding of Verkhovensky’s “plan”: ...for every active group, by winning converts and spreading out with branch divisions far and wide, and by means of systematic denunciatory propaganda, to discredit the authority of local power, to cause confusion in the countryside, generate cynicism and scandals, complete disbelief in everything possible and a thirst for something better, and finally, through the use of fires, which are popular in essence, to reduce the country at a predetermined moment, if necessary, to utter desperation, [...xaacoaa H 3 aeftcTByioiuHx Kynex, aenaa npo3ejiHTOB h pacnpocrpaHJUicb 6okobumh OTneneaaaMa b 6ecK O H eH H O cn>, H M eeT b 3aaane cBCTeManraecxoio o6iiHHHTejn>Hoio nponaraaaoft SecnpepuBHo pomrrb 3aa<ieHne MecTHoft BJiacni, npoH3BecTH b cejieHaxx aenoyMeHae, 3apooHTb qhhh3M h cxaHaanbi, nojiHoe 6e3Bepne bo hto 6 bi to hh 6bmo, acaacny nyamero h, Haxoaeii, neftcTByx noacapaMa, icax cpencTBOM H apoziH M M no cymecTBy, BBeprayrb crpaHy, b npennacaHHuft momcht, ecjm Haao, naace b OTHajraae (E 111/4:418).] Later, in the epilogue to the novel, when the authorities inquire about the cause of all the “scandals” and abominations, Liamshin replies with another summary of Verkhovensky’s program: ...to shock and demoralize society, its foundations and all its principles; to discourage everyone and to make a mess o f everything; and having raised the banner o f revolt, to take in our hands the society we’ve shattered, sickened and spoiled, a society overcome with cynicism and lack of belief, but with a boundless thirst for some kind o f guiding thought and self-preservation, relying on an entire network of five-man groups, who will have exercised, adopted and searched out all devices and all weaknesses which we can seize upon, [...ana CHcreMaTHHecKoro noTpaceHaa ochob, ana cacreMaTHHecKoro paajioaceaaa ofimecraa a B cex Haaan; ana Toro, h to 6 Bcex ofiecKypaaom. a H 3o Bcero caejian. Kamy a pacmaraBmeeca tbkhm o6pa30M ofimecrao, 6one3HeHHoe a pacaacmee, aaaaaecxoe a aeBepytomee, ao c fiecxoaeaaoio acaacaofi xaxott- Ha6yob pyxoBoaamefi mbicjib a caMocoxpaaeHaa,—aopyr B3an> b cboh pyxa, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 rioaHJiB 3H3M S 6yHTa h oimpaacb Ha aejiyio cen> mrrepoic, T eM BpeMeHeM neficxBOBaBmHx, Bep6oBaBmHx h H3ucKHBaBmHx npaimjHecKH Bee npaeMbi h Bee cna6bie wecra, 3a Koxopue moxho yxBaxHTbCH (E 111/8:510).] As the narrator’s chronicle progresses, the readers finds that Verkhovensky directs his campaign for chaos and rebellion to two main layers of society. To reach the radical and unsettled elements directly, he conducts agitation by means of leaflets and proclamations printed abroad. With the help of his associates, Verkhovensky manages to circulate the pamphlets throughout the district, to centers of discontent like the Shpigulin factory, where squalid conditions have already created a mood of disaffection, and within the ranks of the local military, where the pamphlets turn up at the residence of the lieutenant who assaults a superior officer and then commits suicide (E 11/6:269). Lebiadkin outlines the content of the pamphlets during his dialog with Stavrogin. Recalling how he once circulated Verkhovensky’s pamphlets while living in Petersburg, Lebiadkin tells Stavrogin he was troubled by their commands to “Close the churches immediately! Destroy God! Do away with marriage! Destroy the rights o f inheritance! Pick up your knives!” [3aroipaftTe cxopee uepxBH, ymrrroHcaih-e Sora, Hapymafrre 6paxH, ymnrroacaftTe npaBa HacjieacTBa, 6epHTe hohch] (E 11/2:212- 213). At least two pamphlets reach Von Lembke, the town governor, who then interrogates Verkhovensky about their origins (E 11/6:272). As the reader leams from their dialog, one pamphlet has an axe inscribed at the top, and therefore probably Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 makes a similar appeal to violence.1 8 It also appears to be the same “leaflet from abroad” whose demands the members of Verkhovensky’s “group” [Hanm] discuss and evaluate as an acceptable program of action. At the first of their two meetings with Verkhovensky, the “lame teacher” paraphrases one leaflet’s commands “to close ranks and form tightly-knit groups with the single goal of universal destruction,” a goal which includes “the radical step of lopping off a one hundred million heads” (E 11/7:314). The other leaflet to reach Von Lembke contains a short ballad in verse, “A Noble Character” [CBeTJiaa JiHHHocTb], in which a young man of humble origins faces extreme suffering, prison and torture from the tsarist regime for preaching “brotherhood, equality and freedom” to the people and preparing them for an uprising. When the “noble character” hides from the authorities after instigating the revolt, the leaflet declares, the people wait for him to return to help them “do away with the tsar, nationalize the land, and commit to eternal vengeance the churches, marriage and the family” (E 11/6:273). At the same time that he urges the angry and oppressed elements in town to violence and destruction of traditional institutions, Verkhovensky and his agents also manipulate the fears of some of the older “liberals” in town who, thanks partly to the 18. The axe symbol on the proclamation also identifies it with the proclamations of Nechaev’s “People’s Justice” [Hapojraaa pacnpaaa], whose official seal consisted o f an axe surrounded by the words, “People’s Justice Committee, February 19,1870.” Venturi suggests (through translator Francis Haskell) “People’s Summary Justice” as an English translation o f the Russian title o f Nechaev’s circle. Venturi adds that “a more expressive term such as ‘ jacquerie’ or ‘pugachevshchina’ interprets the meaning rather better.” See: Franco Venturi, Roots o f Revolution, trans. Francis Haskell (New York: Grosset & Dunlap) 370. The word may also be translated as “lynching.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 weakness of their own convictions, accept the correctness of the new ideas that contribute to the atmosphere of rebellion in town. In a final argument with Stepan Trofimovich, Varvara Petrovna relies on phrases and aphorisms she has adopted from Verkhovensky and other local nihilists to attack his outmoded esthetic of beauty and unfashionable principles like charity for the poor, which will no longer exist, she tells him, in the coming “new order” (E 11/5:263-264). Iuliia Mikhailovna, the Governor’s wife, refuses to discourage or condemn the young “communists,” but instead resolves to treat them with “mercy” and “appreciation,” to “console” them and thereby “save them from the abyss” (E 11/4:235-236). The “great writer” Karmazinov, meanwhile, assures Verkhovensky that he has “sympathized with every movement” by young Russians, and that he is certain of the success of their “secret propaganda” and their pamphlets, with their ability to “look truth straight in the eye.” When Karmazinov, anxious to flee Russia before the coming storm, asks him for the precise date of the planned uprising, Verkhovensky realizes that he and his followers “have no reason to doubt” themselves (E 11/6:287,289). Part three illustrates Verkhovensky’s plan in practice, beginning with a wave of nasty incidents that precede the main events in the chronicle. Recalling the “strange mind-set” and “certain mental disarray” that prevailed at the time, the narrator describes how several local citizens became the victims of a number of calculated “pranks,” some of them very “unruly,” which instead of outrage generated mostly laughter (E 0/5:249-250). The escapades of “rogues” like Liamshin and the seminary Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 student who, for example, secretly insert pornography into the bag of a travelling book seller, scandalizing the “respectable woman” and even leading to her arrest, help promote the general “cynicism” and “time of troubles” [cMyTHoe BpeMx] (6111/1:354) which Verkhovensky longs to spread throughout the entire country. Verkhovensky’s program of cultural nihilism culminates in the sabotage of Iuliia Mikhailovna's festivities, where ushers Liamshin and Liputin intentionally admit a number of the “vilest riff-raff’ (E ID/1:358) from out-of-town in order to disrupt the festivities. After abusing the speakers during the literary events and applauding the antics of Liamshin during the “literary quadrille,” the rowdy elements finally drive the governor out of his mind, just in time for the convict Fedka to carry out arson and murder the Lebiadkins in accordance with Verkhovensky’s arrangement. Along with the deaths of Liza Tushina, Mariia Shatova, and her newborn baby, for which he bears at least indirect responsibility, the goal of Verkhovensky’s mission concludes with the murder of Fedka himself, the suicide of Kirillov, and finally the murder of Shatov. Although some of his achievements in the provincial town may be attributed to his propaganda and attacks against traditional institutions, which Liputin, Liamshin and others adopt and practice with great enthusiasm, Verkhovensky’s success also depends to a great extent on the strength of his reputation. In the manner of Gogol’s Khlestakov, a simile which appears in Dostoevsky’s notebooks for Besy,1 9 19. jJo cT O C B C K H ft, riojiHoc co6paHHe cowHeHHfi: B 30 t . T. 11: Bee hi. noaroroBirrejiMiue MarepH&jm JI.: Hayica, 1974. C. 200. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 Verkhovensky mystifies his admirers in the town with a facade of authority derived from his ostensible connections to the forces of revolution in Europe. Speculating on the reasons for Verkhovensky’s success in town, the narrator notes early in the novel that Verkhovensky “enjoyed the reputation of a revolutionary from abroad” who had “participated in certain revolutionary publications and congresses” in Europe (E 0/1:169). He later tells the reader that everyone in town “now believes” that “the International” directed Verkhovensky’s activity (E 10/1:354). The effectiveness of Verkhovensky’s mystique is demonstrated by the reaction of Iuliia Mikhailovna, who imagines Verkhovensky to be connected with “everything revolutionary in Russia” and longs to discover the “conspiracy” he represents (E 0/6:268). His connections also impress Von Lembke, whom Verkhovensky must convince that he has “already explained to someone” his revolutionary activity abroad, that his explanations were “found satisfactory” (E 0/6:273), and that the revolutionary organization he belonged to abroad, moreover, consisted of merely “three and a half men” (E 0/6:276). To add to the prestige of his agitational verse, “A Noble Personality,” with which he seeks to incriminate Shatov, Verkhovensky tells Von Lembke that none other than Herzen may have composed it for Shatov “in memory of their meeting” and as “a recommendation” (S 0/6:276). He then later confirms to Shatov that he, Verkhovensky, “assured gymnasium students that Herzen himself wrote the verse in [Verkhovensky’s] album” (E 0/6:294). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 At first Verkhovensky mystifies the “red liberals” and his “circle of five” no less successfully than he mystified Varvara Petrovna, the Von Lembkes and Karmazinov. At the meeting between Verkhovensky and the fifteen local activists who gather at Virginsky’s, the narrator confirms that “they all took Petr Verkhovensky for an authorized emissary from abroad, an idea which immediately took root and, naturally, flattered them” (E 0/7:302). Verkhovensky even succeeds in obtaining reports from the members, he tells Stavrogin, as they spy on one another (E 0/6:298). Verkhovensky never secures his power over the five completely, however, and even before the meeting at Virginsky’s Verkhovensky complains to Stavrogin that the circle believes he deceived them about the existence of “a central committee and the 'countless branches’” (E 0/6:299). Following the murder of the Lebiadkins in part three, his authority over the “five” begins to weaken considerably. Shocked by the unexpected murders and the danger they suddenly find themselves in, the circle of five openly question the existence of the “fantastic center” which Verkhovensky describes (E 01/4:416) and demand an explanation. In order to convince the circle to assist in the murder of Shatov, Verkhovensky must remind them again that they are “merely one knot in an endless network of knots and are obliged to follow orders from the center blindly” (E 10/4:418). He also tries to convince them of Kirillov’s plans to commit suicide and take responsibility for the murder by insisting that such steps had already been planned “f/iere” [italics in original], where “they miss neither a thread nor a speck,” and “everything is done for the common cause” (E 01/4:420). By the end of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 novel, virtually all members of the “five”—with the exception of the “fanatically” devoted young Erkel, whose nature, the narrator emphasizes, “thirsts for subordination to another’s will” (E 111/5:439)—suspect that Verkhovensky’s network is smaller than he would have them believe. On their way to see Kirillov following the meeting, Liputin attacks the “stupidities” of the leaflets, and tells Verkhovensky he thinks their “circle of five” may in fact be the only one, and that he no longer believes there will be an uprising in May (S 111/4:423-424). Unable to win their allegiance on the basis of his program or vision, Verkhovensky can only secure his power over the “five” by compelling them to bloody their own hands through the murder of Shatov. The true extent of Verkhovensky’s organization, his links to an actual “center,” and his relationship with Stavrogin remain among the most significant problems surrounding the conspiracy in Besy, and alongside the many suggestions that the entire conspiracy begins and ends with Verkhovensky’s own fantasies a reader may also find evidence of Verkhovensky’s and Stavrogin’s genuine involvement in a broader political movement. Contrary to Liputin’s suspicion that Verkhovensky is posturing, when Verkhovensky meets with “our group” [y Hanmx] at Virginsky’s near the end of part two, the narrator suggests that before he finally managed to form the “circle of five” in their town, Verkhovensky formed a similar “circle of five” in Moscow, as well as among the officers in their district, and, according to reports, in “X” province, too (E 0/7:302). There is also evidence that Verkhovensky truly does belong to some kind of “society” abroad, perhaps the same “Organization” to which he refers in his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 discussion with Shatov. When verifying Kirillov’s intentions to commit suicide, Verkhovensky reminds Kirillov that he was “a member of the Society under its old organization” and indicated his intentions to another member (E 11/6:290). The narrator, too, confirms that although Kirillov “did not participate in anything closely,” nonetheless he remained “somewhat entangled” in it through “instructions from abroad” (E 111/5:444). The first and perhaps most reliable reference to Verkhovensky’s mysterious “society” occurs in Stavrogin’s dialog with Shatov near the end of the first chapter of part two, when he indicates his awareness that Shatov joined “that society” only two years ago, “under its old organization” (E 0/1:191-192). Thus when the skeptical Shatov questions the strength of Verkhovensky’s forces, Stavrogin replies that he is only partially correct: Certainly there is a great deal o f fantasy [in Verkhovensky’s mind], as we always find in such cases. The group exaggerates its size and significance. If you would like my opinion, then I would say that they consist o f Petr Verkhovensky alone, and he is being too gracious by considering himself only an agent o f his society. The fundamental idea is no more foolish than others of its kind. They have their connections to the International; they have managed to deliver their agents to Russia; and they have even devised a rather original plan...although it is merely theoretical, o f course. [C omhchhx Her, <rro MHoro $aHTa3HH, icaic h Bceraa b cthx cjiyMaxx: xynxa npeyBejiHHHBaer C B oft pocr h 3HaneHHe. Ecjih xothtc, to, no-MoeMy, ax Bcero h ecn> ohhh Ilerp BepxoBeHCKHfi, a y * oh cjihiukom ao6p, <rro noaaTaer ce6a TOJibKO areH T O M CBoero ofimecraa. BnponeM, ocHOBHaa ajiex He rnynee apyrax b 3tom poite. Y hhx C B X 3 H c Internationale; ohh cyMejia 3aBecra areHTOB b P occhh, aaxce HaTKHyjracb Ha aobojibho opHrHHanbHbift npaeM... ho, pa3yMeerca, tojibko TeoperHHecKH (E 11/1:193).] According to Stavrogin’s version, then, Verkhovensky’s organization does exist, but its leader may be Verkhovensky alone, and the “authority” [nojraoMoqae] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 Stavrogin assures Shatov that Verkhovensky carries, therefore, may be self-appointed. In any case, Verkhovensky does not stake the long-term success of his plans for revolution in Russia only on himself. Instead his plan also calls, in his own words, for “a great idolic despotic power resting on something not arbitrary and standing outside” [xyr Hyaena ojma B CJiH K O JienH aa, xyMHpHaa, aecnoTmecicaa bojui, oirapaiomaxca Ha Henro He cjiynaftHoe h BH e croamee] (5111/3:404). As the reader leams by the end of part two, Verkhovensky has reserved the role of leader for Stavrogin, in whom he envisions an “Ivan Tsarevich,” a tsar-like dictator to rule the “herd” in Russia once the old order has been completely destroyed (E 11/8:323-325). In many ways the extent of Stavrogin's participation in the plan, his attitude toward Verkhovensky and the relationship between their respective views also remains somewhat uncertain. Unlike Verkhovensky, Stavrogin appears as neither an “enthusiast,” as he describes Verkhovensky, nor even a willing participant in Verkhovensky’s schemes to promote the “common cause.” In his discussion with Shatov, Stavrogin himself reveals that strictly speaking I do not belong to this society at all. I did not belong to the society before, either, and I reserve the right to leave them much more so than you, since I never intended to join. On the contrary, from the very beginning I informed them that I am not their comrade, and if I happened to contribute, then I did so only as an idler. I participated to a certain degree in the reorganization o f the society according to the new plan, but in nothing else. But now they’ve reconsidered and decided it is too dangerous to release me, as well. So it appears that I, too, am doomed. [BaoHTe, b crporoM cMucne a k aroMy oGmecray coBceM He npHHaouieacy, He npenHaoneacaji h npeacne h ropaazto 6onee Bac hmwo npaBa hx ocraBHTb, noTOM y <rro h He nocrynan. HanpoTHB, c caMoro Havana 3aaBHJi, «rro a hm He TOBapmn, a earn a noMoran Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 CJiynaftHO, t o toju>xo Tax, xak npa3jmiafl qejioBex. 5 1 OTqacTH yqacTBOBaii b nepeopraHH3auHH o6mecraa no hobo My luiany h tojib xo. Ho ohh Tenept onyMajiHCb h peuiHjiH npo ce6a, h to h mchji OTnycTHTb onacno, h, xaxceTca, a TO )xe npnroBopeH (E 0/1:193).] In his own mind, then, Stavrogin considers himself independent of Verkhovensky’s society, and seems convinced, moreover, that he is no less disposable than Lebiadkin or Shatov. Yet the fact remains that by assuming responsibility for the murders of the Lebiadkins later in the novel, Stavrogin does contribute to Verkhovensky’s plan. The text also suggests in a number of other respects that Stavrogin’s link to the society may be greater than he acknowledges. The uncertainty surrounding Stavrogin’s involvement in the society invites a closer review of his career, particularly in Europe, where the key to his role and position in the chronicle seems to lie. The narrator in Besy describes three distinct periods in Stavrogin’s life: his youth and career until the narrator’s first meeting with him at Skvoreshniki, the Stavrogin family estate; a span of between three and four years after their meeting which Stavrogin spends out of the country; and the main chronicle of about a month’s time2 0 which extends to the end of the novel. Each period reveals a different stage of Stavrogin’s development and provides for a useful outline, however rough or vague, of his political evolution with respect to Verkhovensky and the activity of the “society.” 20. For a chronology of the novel’s time frame in the context o f real historical events and markers, see the useful timetable in: Capacnma, JI.H. “Seen”: PoMaH-npeaynpeacaeHHe. M.: Cob. mtcarenb, 1990. C. 53-57. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 After reviewing briefly Stavrogin’s tutelage under Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky and other events from Stavrogin’s childhood, the narrator describes several scenes from his short-lived service in a military regiment, his life in the capital and then his eventual return to Skvoreshniki, all of which offer the reader glimpses of his character and reputation (E 1/2:34-38). For the most part throughout this early stage the narrator describes a certain “unruliness” [ p a 3 H y 3 a a H H O c n > ] in Stavrogin’s character. His wild behavior manifested itself first in the service, when he fought two duels, killing one man and maiming another (E 1/2:36). His escapades continued in Petersburg, where he “sank” [onycnuica] and reputedly associated with the “rabble” of the city. Finally, upon returning to Skvoreshniki, Stavrogin distinguished himself by committing several “outrages,” such as dragging the elderly Gaganov by the nose, passionately kissing the wife of Liputin, the oldest member of the local progressive “circle” to which the narrator and Stepan Trofimovich also belong, and biting the ear of Ivan Osipovich, the former Governor. The narrator can provide no explanation for Stavrogin’s outlandish behavior during this stage, and eventually Stavrogin wins the reputation of simply being out of his mind (E 1/5:156). Stavrogin’s move to the capital provides an early opportunity for his entry into revolutionary politics, for it was there, the reader learns in part one, that he first met the renegades from the revolutionary “society” who figure prominently in the chronicle. In his dialog with Stepan Trofimovich from part one, Liputin reveals that Kirillov and Lebiadkin both know Stavrogin well from his Petersburg days (E 1/3:82- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 83). Verkhovensky also confirms to Varvara Petrovna that Stavrogin first became acquainted with him, Kirillov and Lebiadkin during the period of Stavrogin’s “eccentric behavior” [qyzuwecTBo] in Petersburg (E 1/5:148-149), and Stavrogin notes in his “Confession” that Kirillov, Verkhovensky, Lebiadkin and a certain “Prokhor Malov” all witnessed his wedding to Mariia Timofeevna Lebiadkina in Petersburg.1 1 While the text does not outline Stavrogin’s relationship to Verkhovensky during this period, it appears that Verkhovensky and Lebiadkin, at least, carried on political activity at the time of their relationship with Stavrogin. According to “rumors” reported by the narrator in part one, Verkhovensky not only “loitered about” [cjioH5uica] Petersburg, like Stavrogin, but also participated in the drafting of some “anonymous proclamation” before suddenly having to flee the country (6 1/2:62-63). Based on his conversation with Lebiadkin, however, the reader may assume by early in part two that Stavrogin did not join Verkhovensky in the political activity, since Lebiadkin reminds Stavrogin that he, Stavrogin, “participated in nothing” at that time, while Stavrogin claims that much of the activity which Lebiadkin describes to him he “did not know at all” (611/2:211-212). Other than, perhaps, Stavrogin’s dialog with Liputin, whom Stavrogin ridicules for his interest in outmoded Utopians Considerant and Fourier (E 1/2:44-45),1 2 there are few hints about his political views or ideology 21. AocroeBCKiift, < X > . M . riojiHoe co6pamie cohm hchhA : B 30 t . T. 11: Becu. noaroTOBHTejn.Hue Marepiiaju Jl.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 200. 22. The French thinkers Fran?ois-Marie-CharIes Fourier (1772-1837) and his student Victor Prosper Considerant (1808-1893), both generally described as Utopian socialists, advocated die organization o f society on the basis of voluntary self-sufficient communities called “phalansteres.” See chapter on “Fourier and Fourierism” in: G.D.H. Cole, The Forerunners, 1789-1850. Vol. 1 of A Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 before he leaves Russia, and therefore one cannot assume, in retrospect, that Verkhovensky or his “society” motivated Stavrogin’s action during this first period of his life. The four year period Stavrogin spends abroad represents the most formative stage in the development of his political views and offers the best evidence of his association with Verkhovensky’s society. The otherwise vague outlines of the society emerge most clearly in the activity of Kirillov and particularly Shatov, who associated closely with Stavrogin in Switzerland. In their dialogs with Stavrogin and Verkhovensky, Kirillov and Shatov both indicate that they joined the society under its “old organization.” Kirillov contributed to the society, the reader finds, by agreeing to commit suicide at a necessary moment. During their dialog in the first “Night” chapter, Kirillov confirms that he is “of the same frame of mind” [b Tex ace mucjmx] and simply must wait for “them” to give him the word (E 11/1:187). Later, when clarifying the history of the plan with Verkhovensky, who reminds him that he “belonged to the Society under its old organization,” Kirillov explains that “the thought arose within the Society that I could be of use to them by killing myself’ (E 0/6:290). According to Stavrogin’s understanding, Shatov, too, joined the society “while abroad, two years ago,” under the auspices of “the old organization.” Shatov also seems to be bound to the society by their demand for him to receive a printing press in Russia and then to pass it on to someone “who will appear to [him] on their behalf.” Shatov apparently H istory o f Socialist Thought (New York: St. Martin’s, 1967) 62-74. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154 agreed to fulfill the demand, but considers himself under no obligation, having resigned from the society when he returned to Switzerland from America two years before (E 11/1:191-193). Some important hints about Stavrogin’s views in the course of those crucial four years emerge through the recollections of Shatov. At a certain point during Stavrogin’s trip abroad, Stavrogin met with Shatov and Kirillov in Europe, presumably in Switzerland. From Stavrogin’s dialog with Shatov early in part two, it appears that about two years earlier, while they were abroad and just before Shatov and Kirillov traveled to America together, Stavrogin served as an intellectual mentor or “teacher” [yH H Tejn>] to Shatov, who refers to himself at that time as Stavrogin’s “pupil” [yneHHic] (E 11/1:196). Their relationship could have begun earlier, either when Shatov lived in Geneva or when he “wandered about Europe” (E: 1/1:27), but in any case probably concluded sometime after Shatov’s departure for America, since Shatov reminds Stavrogin that he then waited “two years” in vain for Stavrogin (EII/1:195), but in response to his letters to Stavrogin from America received only money (E 1/4:110). Stavrogin contributed largely to the world-view of Kirillov, as well. As Shatov learned from Kirillov while the two lived together in poverty in America, where they attempted to experience “the arduous social conditions of the American worker,” at the same time—“maybe even on the very same days”—that he “propagated God and motherland” in the heart of Shatov, Stavrogin also “poisoned the heart” of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 Kirillov and “drove his reason into a frenzy” [n o B e jra pa3yM ero no HCCTyimeHHJi] (E: 1/1:197). Stavrogin’s relationship with Shatov and Kirillov on the eve of their departure for America allows for some speculation about his possible link to Verkhovensky and the society at that point. As indicated earlier, Stavrogin himself denies his official membership in the society, claiming to have participated only in the “reorganization” of the society which took place sometime after Shatov returned from America and resigned from the “old organization.” The “new plan” to which Stavrogin contributes must have been conceived sometime after Shatov’s and Kirillov’s departure for America, for Shatov, it turns out, knew nothing of Stavrogin’s association with the “society.” All the same, Stavrogin must have preserved some kind of relationship with the society, for as he and Shatov discuss their relationship two years earlier, Stavrogin reminds Shatov that he, Shatov, joined the society “right after hearing my words,” and left for America only later (E n/1:196). On the basis of their conversation, it seems possible that Stavrogin retained a certain connection with the society, unbeknownst to Shatov, even under the “old” organization, and thus may have somehow encouraged Shatov to join it. Unless Stavrogin became involved in Verkhovensky’s society just before Shatov’s and Kirillov’s departure for America, then his participation in the “ “ new plan” probably dates from the months that precede the chronicle, the period which Stavrogin spends in Switzerland, then in Petersburg, where his conflict with Gaganov occurred Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156 roughly a month before the main action in the chronicle (E n/1:185), and where Verkhovensky purchased the clothes, on Stavrogin’s recommendation, that arrive in Stavrogin’s trunk (511/1:181) not long before they appear in Skvoreshniki. From the reports of Praskoviia Ivanovna Drozdova, the wealthy widow and mother of Liza Tushina, the reader discovers that in Switzerland Stavrogin also met with Petr Verkhovensky. According to Praskoviia Ivanovna, Verkhovensky appeared on the scene in Switzerland just after Liza quarreled with Stavrogin, who was spending the summer with her and her mother. Eager to arouse Stavrogin’s jealousy, Liza began to cultivate closer relations with Verkhovensky, but Stavrogin responded by “befriending” Verkhovensky and eventually leaving them to stay with another family with eligible daughters (E 1/2:54-55). The arrival of Verkhovensky may mark the beginning of the “reorganization” to which Stavrogin refers, for they both take the occasion to discuss Shatov and his ability to operate a printing press. According to Liza, it was Verkhovensky who told her in Switzerland about Shatov’s skills. She also heard “a great deal” about Shatov from Stavrogin (E 1/4:105). Stavrogin’s connection with Verkhovensky apparently continued after he left Liza to stay with “Count K,” since Verkhovensky later thanks Stavrogin for obtaining the letter of recommendation from the Count which helps him win the respect and confidence of Iuliia Mikhailovna (E 11/1:179). Stavrogin’s most direct contribution to Verkhovensky’s “plan” also must have occurred sometime between that summer in Switzerland and their brief period together in Petersburg. As Verkhovensky reminds him during one of their exchanges Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 in part two, Stavrogin composed the list of “rules” [ycraB] for the society (B 11/6:298). Even if Stavrogin downplays his affiliation with the society and does not wish to cooperate with Verkhovensky, who has been “pestering” him “practically since [they were] abroad” (511/8:320), his agreement to write the “statutes” represents an obvious and significant contribution to Verkhovensky’s society. More evidence of Stavrogin’s association with Verkhovensky surfaces as the chronicle unfolds. In the first “Night” chapter of part two, Verkhovensky’s reports on his activity since arriving in town—his secret transfer of Lebiadkin and his sister to the other side of the river, his establishment of contact with the local circle [Hanra], his discovery of a local proletariat at the Shpigulin factory, Fedka Katorzhnyi’s arrival in town, etc.—suggests that Stavrogin already has at least a general idea of Verkhovensky’s plans there, if not the details. Verkhovensky also promises to be “open” with Stavrogin “from now on,” thereby implying, as Stavrogin remarks, that Verkhovensky was not open with him “before” (5 0/1:175). Stavrogin also seems to know how Verkhovensky intends to use him, for when Verkhovensky attempts to persuade Stavrogin to visit the circle, Stavrogin asks Verkhovensky suddenly if he has presented him as “some kind of boss” [Bbi xaM icaKHM-HH6yju> me$OM Memi npeacraBHiiH?] (E 0/1:178). Already by this point in the chronicle, however, Stavrogin’s attitude toward Verkhovensky seems unambiguously negative. In contrast to the previous stage of Stavrogin’s life, which outlines the image of a man who discussed political philosophy with his associates and flirted with—if he never Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 committed to—a rudimentary revolutionary society, this third and final stage finds Stavrogin now indifferent, even hostile to the plans and machinations of Verkhovensky. In the same scene Verkhovensky admits he seeks to “compromise” Stavrogin through their “association” [TOBapnmecTBo] and provokes Stavrogin to insist there is no “deal” [cramca] between them, despite Verkhovensky’s presumption. His only genuine contribution to Verkhovensky’s plan during the chronicle, his payment to Fedka to “keep killing and stealing” [peacs eme, ofioxpaoH eme] (E 1/2:221), follows more from his “malice” toward the Lebiadkins and others rather from any desire to assist or participate in Verkhovensky’s political plans. Fully aware that the society may murder him, too, for acting independently and against the interests of the society’s plan, Stavrogin remains suspicious toward Verkhovensky throughout the main chronicle in Besy, and even attempts to sabotage Verkhovensky’s plans to murder Shatov. Thoroughly occupied by inner struggles with his own “little demon,” Stavrogin never demonstrates the enthusiasm for either the theory or practice of destruction which possesses Verkhovensky. Thus the problem which arises within the main action of the chronicle—the third stage in Stavrogin’s brief life—becomes one of reconciling the cynical, apolitical Stavrogin with the Stavrogin who once so passionately inspired Kirillov, Shatov and even Lebiadkin. Based on the evidence under review here, there are two broad explanations for the contradictions in Stavrogin’s character between the second and third periods of his life. According to the first scenario, Stavrogin’s participation in the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 society “as an idler” during the period he spent abroad was very limited, and represented little more than his submission to the relentless effort of Verkhovensky to recruit him. He exhibits a similarly reluctant willingness, for example, to accompany Verkhovensky to the conspiratorial meeting at Virginsky’s, but no apparent political motivation on his part. Stavrogin’s participation in Verkhovensky’s plan, however small and unconscious it may be, could be motivated by a number of different sources. Stavrogin may be driven, firstly, simply by sheer boredom like he experienced in Petersburg, as he writes in his confession, boredom to the point of “stupefaction” [no onypn];2 3 he may be guided by the same kind of urge which inspires his dream of suicide, as he tells Kirillov, following “a ridiculous and base act,” somewhat like those he committed in the local town before his trip abroad. One can also interpret Stavrogin’s passive involvement as a fruitless attempt to find a cause to follow and believe in, something to arouse his passions and add fire to his “lukewarm” condition, of which Tikhon takes notice,2 4 or something to “hope” for, like the other nihilists he envies, as he tells Dasha in his final letter (B 111/8:514). Any one of these explanations remains consistent with Verkhovensky’s obsequious behavior toward Stavrogin and near desperation to elicit Stavrogin’s participation in his plan. It is not Stavrogin who needs Verkhovensky, after all, but Verkhovensky who needs Stavrogin, and who 23. AocroeacKHJI, < t> .M . ncum oe co6paime cohmhchhA: B 30 t. T. 11: Bee hi. noaroroBHTejihHhie MarepHanu JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 20. 24. A ocroeB curit, Q.M. riojiHOC coOpamie comHemffi: B 30 t. T. 11: Becu. noaroTOBHTenhHhie MarepHarai JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 11-12. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 insists that without Stavrogin he, Verkhovensky, is “nothing” [6e3 Bac a H yjn»] (E 11/8:326,324). The reader has no reason to doubt Verkhovensky’s declaration to Stavrogin, therefore, that he “invented” [BhinyMaji] Stavrogin when they were abroad. The key to the other version lies in the attitudes of Shatov and Kirillov toward Stavrogin. As he explains to Stavrogin in their discussion, Shatov slapped Stavrogin violently during the dramatic scene at Varvara Petrovna’s not because of Stavrogin’s marriage to Mariia Timofeevna (and insult, it follows, to Dasha, Shatov’s sister), but rather because of Stavrogin’s “fall” [naaeirae], his “lie” and because Stavrogin “meant so much in [Shatov’s] life” (S 11/1:191). Shatov’s recollections of his teacher Stavrogin suggest a very different individual than the one whom the reader observes throughout the chronicle. In Shatov’s memory, Stavrogin inspired his pupil with a Slavophile-like vision of the Russian people as the only “God-bearing people” [Hapoa- “6oroHocen”] in the world and destined “to save the world in the name of the new God” (E 0/1:196). Shatov also quotes Stavrogin’s words to the effect that “an atheist cannot be Russian” (E 0/1:197); that Catholicism evoked the “antichrist” and “destroyed the entire Western world”; that if were proven ‘’ mathematically” that truth lies outside of Christ, then he would still prefer to stay with Christ (fi 0/1:198); that a nation cannot exist on the basis of science and reason alone, that socialism in essence “must be atheism,” and that a nation develops “only through its search for God” (E 0/1:198). Stavrogin, meanwhile, who admits to receiving a “very unpleasant impression” from the recoUection of his “past thoughts,” fails to deny Shatov’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 quotations outright, but only “cautiously” disagrees that Shatov “did not modify something,” insisting that Shatov “absorbed [the ideas] passionately and altered them passionately without knowing it” (E 0/1:199). Does Shatov really misrepresent the former Stavrogin by grossly exaggerating the nature of his agitatation for “God and the motherland,” or has Stavrogin so completely “fallen” since that time that he retains hardly any recollection of his former views at all? Kirillov presents an even greater challenge to the reader, for unlike Shatov, Kirillov never quotes or refers directly to his discussions with Stavrogin, and therefore one can only speculate on their content. To judge, once again, by Shatov’s recollection of their trip to America, one must assume that Stavrogin inspired Kirillov with ideas of an entirely different nature than those he conveyed to Shatov. If reflected in Kirillov’s philosophy of “Man-God” [HeJiOBexo6or] (B 11/1:189), the “new man” of the future who attains freedom and “becomes God,” as Kirillov tells the narrator, by conquering fear and pain (E 1/3:93), then Stavrogin must have nourished Kirillov’s mind with ideas following from or presupposing a radical brand of atheism. Perhaps the best evidence of Stavrogin’s role in the evolution of Kirillov’s thought arises when Stavrogin notes with irony that Kirillov has remained a believer. Denying Stavrogin’s accusation, Kirillov reminds Stavrogin—just as Shatov and Lebiadkin also remind Stavrogin—how much he meant in his life (E 11/1:189). From the perspectives of Shatov and Kirillov, then, Stavrogin is a “fallen” mentor, one who, from Shatov’s point-of-view, once adhered to a brand of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 Slavophilism capable of combating Catholicism and atheism, and one who, from Kirillov’s point-of-view, once conquered his fear of God by proclaiming atheism. In both cases, Stavrogin once carried a banner for a cause only to abandon it; he betrayed Shatov’s cause of Slavophilism, firstly, by returning to atheism, and he betrayed Kirillov’s cause of atheism, by proving unable, like Kirillov, to overcome his fear of death. Little other evidence of the political thinker Stavrogin remains in the spiritually barren individual of the narrator’s chronicle, and the two revealing autobiographical documents within the text, Stavrogin’s confession and his final letter to Dasha, contain no reference to the propaganda mentioned by Shatov. Perhaps the only glimpse of a different, more sentient Stavrogin, capable of overcoming his cynicism toward the world, appears during his vision of an eden-like “golden age” of humanity, which for the first time in his life brought tears of happiness to his eyes.2 3 If viewed primarily on the basis of the views and convictions he expresses to Verkhovensky, Shatov, Kirillov and the rest of the “society” since returning to Skvoreshniki from abroad, Stavrogin seems completely indifferent to the political interests of the society and the very antithesis of a passionate revolutionary like Bakunin. From a perspective which assigns great importance to his past, however, particularly as Shatov, Kirillov and Verkhovensky all knew him, Stavrogin recalls an individual, perhaps even a revolutionary, who has passed through different stages of a 25. ilocToeBCKHft, Q.M. rtajmoe co6paHHe cohm hchhA : B 30 t . T. 11: Eecu. noaroTOBHTejibHwc MarepHajtH JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 21. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 political career before returning to Skvoreshniki. The difference in these two approaches appeared at the center of the debate over Grossman’s approach to Stavrogin. 3.3 Similarities between Stavrogin’s and Bakunin’s revolutionary activity As seven of the nine remaining points in Grossman’s system demonstrate, Grossman clearly considered Stavrogin to be a former revolutionary whose views had evolved in much the same way as Bakunin’s. Six of his examples consisted of brief allusions to Bakunin’s revolutionary career which Grossman found, for the most part, in the four years Stavrogin spent abroad. Grossman perceived reflections of Bakunin’s career in the novel’s many references to Switzerland, which plays an important role in Stavrogin’s life. Based on Shatov’s recollections, Grossman noted that in Switzerland Stavrogin, like Bakunin, “joined the cause of world revolution.’’ Also like Bakunin, Stavrogin spread “propaganda of his political-philosophical convictions” to devoted followers, Shatov and Kirillov, in an attempt to convert them to his views. Thirdly, Grossman saw a parallel between Stavrogin’s collaboration with Verkhovensky, evident in Stavrogin’s drafting of the statutes for the revolutionary organization in Russia, and Bakunin’s alliance with Nechaev in Switzerland. Not unlike the “strange friendship and subsequent enmity” between Bakunin and Nechaev, Grossman observed, Stavrogin’s and Verkhovensky’s initial “enthusiasm” for one another leads subsequently to “disenchantment,” hence Stavrogin’s contemptuous attitude toward Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 Verkhovensky as the chronicle unfolds (12-13). Those in the “society,” in turn, have grown hostile toward Stavrogin, as Stavrogin informs Shatov, and even consider him a “spy,” an accusation, Grossman added, also leveled against Bakunin (17). Grossman noted two more coincidences in the tactics which both the Bakunin-Neehaev and Stavrogin-Verkhovensky alliances employed in their subversive activity. Like Bakunin, who attempted to entice Natalie Herzen into his secret revolutionary movement with the help of Nechaev, Verkhovensky attempts to deliver Liza Tushina to Stavrogin. Although the “roles [of Bakunin and Stavrogin] are reversed” in this instance, Grossman explained, nonetheless “the basis of the incident—the exploitation of a romantic moment for covert revolutionary ends—remains solid.” By encouraging the criminal Fedka to “keep killing and stealing,” Stavrogin demonstrates his willingness, like Bakunin, to enlist the services of the “Russian bandit” for his political goals. Just as Verkhovensky insists that Stavrogin “with [his] unique proclivity for crime, could play the role of a Stenka Razin,” Grossman pointed out that Bakunin, too, heralded the coming of another “era of Stenka Razin” in Russia (13). Grossman’s seventh example from the political biographies of Stavrogin and Bakunin attempted to illustrate Dostoevsky’s intention “to depict the complex ideology of Bakunin, whose views evolved from mystical idealism and political conservatism to militant atheism and the philosophy of anarchism.” Despite their “significant artistic transformation” in the novel, Grossman argued, nonetheless the “fundamental essence of the thoughts and sermons of the young Bakunin resound Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 clearly and are conveyed quite accurately” (23). Grossman recognized three stages of Bakunin’s thought in the ideas of Stavrogin’s associates Shatov, Kirillov and Verkhovensky. He contended that Shatov expresses Bakunin’s “early” ideas of “Pan- Slavism” [naHCJiaBH3M ], “religiosity” [peJiHrH03H0cn>] and “nationality” [HapoxtHocTb]. In Stavrogin’s teaching o f “religious communality and even mystical revolution,” in “his fundamental thesis, ‘God is the synthetic personality of the people,”’ and, “above all, in his belief that the renewal of the world will proceed from Russia,” Grossman discerned “something of the same political Slavophilism from which neither Herzen nor Bakunin were free” (24). Throughout his philosophical development in the 1840s, Grossman argued, Bakunin, too, “combined in his own world-view the ideas of revolution, a cult of the Slavic peoples and, in particular, the religion of Russia.” Here Grossman stressed the metaphysical side of Bakunin’s views, recalling that the young Bakunin, “even after turning to revolutionary activity. ..and to a large degree in his old age...retained the religiosity of his earlier years and even an unquestionable tendency toward mysticism.” In his early article on “C om m unism , ” 26 Grossman observed, Bakunin called for “a new religion, a religion of democracy,” and as late as 1862 told Turgenev that he “believed in a personal God” (25). While he fosters within Shatov a “mystical-patriotic” ideology, Grossman continued, Stavrogin teaches “militant atheism” to his other disciple [aaerrr], Kirillov, “with the same conviction and success.” Concluding that man’s freedom demands a 26. See note 62 in chapter two. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 denial of God’s existence and an affirmation of deified man, or “man-God-ness” [HejioBeKofioiKecTBo], Kirillov professes Bakunin’s “late” ideology, Grossman claimed, in his syllogism “There is no God, and therefore I am God” [6 0 ra hct h, crano 6 brn>, a—6or] .27 Referring to an important work from Bakunin’s anarchist period, “Federalism, Socialism and Anti-Theologism” [<DenepanH3M, coitHajiH3M, aHTHTeojiorH3M], G ro ssm a n d em o n stra ted h o w B a k u n in attack ed a ll fo rm s o f th e o lo g y and religion for their “systematic, absolute belittlement, destruction and enslavement of humanity in the service of God.” “Since God is everything,” Grossman quoted, then the real world and man are nothing. Since God is truth, justice and eternal life, then man is falsehood, injustice and death. Since God is master, then man is a slave.... The existence of God is logically linked to the renunciation of human reason and human justice; it represents the negation o f human freedom and necessarily leads not only to theoretical, but also to practical slavery.... Anyone who desires to adore God must renounce the freedom and dignity of man. God exists, therefore man is a slave. Man is rational, just and free, therefore God does not exist. [Tax xax Bor—Bee, to peanbHbift Map h qejiOBex—hhhto. Tax xax Bor—H C T H H a, enpaBeanHBoerb a 6ecxoaeaaaii X C H 3 H B , to aejioBex—jioxcb, HecnpaBeAJiaBocTb h cMepn>. Tax xax Bor—rocnoaaa, to aenoBex—pa6.... CymecTBOBaaae Bora noraHecxa caioaHO c caMooTpeaeaaeM HejioBeaecxoro pa3yMa a aejioaeaecxofi cnpaBeiuiBBOCTB; oho aBJuerca OTpanarejieM aenoBeaecxoft c b o6o. z &i a HeofixouHMo npaaoABT He tojibko k TeoperaaecxoMy, ho a x npaxraaecxoMy paficmy.... Bcaxafi, acejiafomad oficnxarb Bora, nomxeH 6yaeT oTxa3aTbca ot C B o6o;ibi a aocroHHCTBa aejioBexa. Bor cymecrayeT, 3HaaaT aenoBex—pa6. HejioBex pa3yMeH, cnpaBemiHB, cBofioaeH,—3HaaaT Bora Her (26).]2 S 27. Here Grossman paraphrases Kirillov, whose exact words are: “Ecjih Her 6 0 ra, to a 6 or.” AocToeacKHft, Q.M. narao e co6 paraie c o hh h c hhH : B 30 t. T. 10: Eecu. JL: Hayxa, 1974. C. 470. 28. These particular passages may be found in the 1920 Russian edition o f “Federalism, Socialism and Anti-Theologism,n translated from the French, in: B axyH H H , M.A. H 3 6 paHHbie cohhhchh*. T. 3. M.; n 6.: Tojioc Tpyaa, 1920. C. 149-150. Compare the same passage in a more recent edition: “Ecjih Bor—ace, to peanuw ft M H p a <wjioaeic—hhhto. Ecjih Bor—Bcnma, cnpaaejutHaocrfc h 6 ecxoHe<iHaa aooHb, to qejioaeK—Jioaca, Hecnpaaejumocrb h cMepra. Ecjth Bor—rocnojiHH, to lenoaeK—pa6 .... CymecxBoaaHHe Bora o6 a3arenHO npeanajiaraer orpeneHHe or HejioaeHecKoro paiyMa h Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 While Dostoevsky, “of course sharpened and stylized” Bakunin’s philosophy “in agreement with his artistic conception,” all the same Kirillov’s rationalization of suicide, Grossman asserted, "transposes exactly the fundamental theses of Bakunin’s anti-theologism” (26). Grossman maintained, lastly, that to some extent Verkhovensky applies the “practical side of Bakunin’s teaching” and ‘the essence of his anarchism,” which Grossman described as “unlimited destruction in the name of destruction.”29 With respect to Grossman’s ultimate aim to present Besy as a work which illuminates certain characteristics of the historical Bakunin, the seven coincidences from the careers of Stavrogin and Bakunin were more essential than the coincidences of appearance, manner of speech, etc. described above, which for the most part served only as superficial indicators of Bakunin’s link to the novel, but suggested little “about” Bakunin. As in the case of the first eleven examples, however, Grossman’s opponents rejected most of them either for their insufficient historical accuracy with regard to Bakunin, or because he failed to prove that the attribute or event in question pertained exclusively to Bakunin. The first three examples—joining the revolutionary movement, carrying on revolutionary activity in Switzerland, and spreading propaganda to devoted disciples—unquestionably applied to Bakunin, who was •tenoBe'tecxoft cnpueanHBocni; o h o a ju e rc * orpHuamieM icnoKMecKoft c b o 6 o . h u h h ch 3 6 c x h o n p H B O A H T H e t o jim c o k TeopeTmecKOMy, h o h k npaicnnecxoMy paficray.... BcxkhA, k t o xom ct noKnoHjmca Eory, aojmceH onca3ancx o r c b o 6 o . h u h aocroHHCTBa qenoBexa. Eor cymecnyeT, 3Ha<orr, qenoaex—pa6. Hejiosex paayMeH, cnpaBeajiHB, cBo6oaen,—3 h h h h t, Eora Her.” (B axyH H H , M.A. (Phjioco^hx, coaHononu, noaiHTHxa / Bcryn. cr., cocr., nonror. Texcra h npHMen. B.O. riycrapHaxoM. M.: ripaaoa, 1989. C. 43-44). 29. Grossman’s remarks here on Bakunin’s anarchism formed an entire issue in themselves and form the basis for chapter five o f this study. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168 certainly the most well-known Russian radical working in Switzerland, and one, moreover, who had inspired and then broken with younger revolutionaries like Utin and eventually, Nechaev. All the same, in his own review of Stavrogin's involvement in the cause of international revolution and his propaganda to loyal disciples in Switzerland, Polonsky again suggested that Herzen seemed a more likely source for Stavrogin than Bakunin, particularly in light of Stavrogin’s desire to become a Swiss citizen “like Herzen” (48-49). The two examples of Bakunin’s and Stavrogin’s revolutionary “tactics”—the exploitation of a young woman and the use of a criminal—Polonsky regarded as inaccurate analogies. He dismissed the parallel Grossman drew between Nechaev’s and Verkhovensky’s manipulation of Natalie Herzen and Liza Tushina, respectively, pointing out that while Bakunin intended to involve Natalie Herzen in a revolutionary conspiracy, Verkhovensky delivered Liza Tushina to Stavrogin “for different purposes” (50-51). He rejected the idea of a “coincidence” in this case, for the same reason that he rejected the “coincidence” between Bakunin’s slapping of Katkov and Shatov’s slapping of Stavrogin; for although Bakunin did, in fact, provide the initiative in the attempt to recruit Natalie Herzen for revolutionary work with Nechaev, in the novel it is Verkhovensky who anempts to deliver Liza to Stavrogin, not the reverse (129-130). Polonsky disagreed with the analogy between Stavrogin’s and Bakunin’s “connection with a representative from the world of the brigand” on similar grounds, since Bakunin, in Polonsky’s words, only “considered the Russian brigand a primordial Russian revolutionary in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 theory,” while Stavrogin virtually hires the criminal Fedka to murder the Lebiadkins (130). On the latter point Polonsky received support through the convincing objection by Komarovich that Dostoevsky could well have taken the same “link with the criminal world” motif from the French adventure novel, a possibility which Grossman himself had already discussed in an earlier article.30 Meanwhile, the sixth example—suspicions of “espionage”—although a definite fact in the biographies of both Stavrogin and Bakunin, added little support to Grossman’ thesis, primarily because he failed to describe the coincidence in any detail, apparently citing it simply as another supplementary example for the purpose of discounting “fortuitous coincidences.” Grossman’s seventh example from the political biographies of Stavrogin and Bakunin, by contrast, offered the most effective illustration of their similarity and, as a result, provoked the most mixed response, including both sharp disagreement and limited concessions from his opponents. The importance of this point for Polonsky is borne out by his decision to devote an entire article—his third in the debate—to the question of Stavrogin’s evolution and his relationship to the political conspiracy in Besy.3 1 Polonsky’s analysis in that article proceeded from a much different reading of Stavrogin’s place in Besy. In the first place, Polonsky denied that Stavrogin shares or 30. KoMapoBHH, BJI. “Eecu” Aocroeacicoro h BaicyHHH // Bbuioe. 1925. Na 27*28. C. 46. 31. Polonsky’s third article, “Nikolai Stavrogin and the novel Besy,” is the most frequently reproduced among his contributions the debate, the most recent edition having appeared in: AocToeacKHfi, < 1 > .M . Eecu. “Eecu”: AnTooionu pyccicoft k p h t h k h / Coer., noaror. reitcra, nocnecn. h k o m m c h t. JI.H. CapacKHHoft. M.: Corjiacne, 1996. C. 619-638. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 ever shared Bakunin’s “cult of Russia,” his “militant atheism” and his “[call for] total destruction.” Referring to Stavrogin’s key dialog with Shatov cited earlier, Polonsky believed that Shatov’s lack of knowledge about Stavrogin’s membership in the society indicates that Stavrogin never “recruited” [Bep6 oBaji] Shatov, as Grossman implied, and therefore Shatov never became a “disciple” [azteirr] of Stavrogin in the political sense. Through his many references to “they” who have sent agents to Russia, and to “their” connection with the International, Polonsky argued, Stavrogin “betrays [his] estrangement [oTH y»cneH H O Cn>] from the ‘“ movement,”’ in which he served not as a “leader,” Polonsky insisted, but as a mere “accidental guest” and “idler” [npa3A H i» ift qenoBex], as he admits both to Shatov and Dasha. With regard to Stavrogin’s “political-philosophical propaganda” to Shatov, as Grossman described it, Polonsky reminded Grossman that Stavrogin’s eulogies to the Russian people as the only God- bearing people on earth, his attack on atheism and Catholicism, and his vow always to accept Christ, if necessary, instead of the “truth” recall nothing of the propaganda of a “leader” of nihilists or socialists. According to Polonsky’s reading, the more essential fact in the text is not that Shatov once belonged to the society, but rather that he left it, thanks in part to Stavrogin’s propaganda (188-192). Polonsky also opposed Grossman’s approach to Stavrogin in light of his role in earlier drafts for Besy. Having examined the final version of Besy together with Life o f a Great Sinner, the incomplete project which Besy incorporated and adapted to some extent, Polonsky emphasized that Stavrogin inherited many of his “most essential Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 characteristics”—his “depravity,” “animalistic voluptuousness” [3BepHHoe cjiaaocTpacrne], his '‘ plunge into the abyss”—from Dostoevsky’s “sinner,” who originated independently of any overtly political plot. The Stavrogin of the finished Besy may exhibit some “attachment” [npH K ocH O B eH H O C Tb] to the conspiracy, Polonsky conceded, but only indirectly, as a result of the “joining” of the two different plans: the initial plan for a “genuine tragedy” with the original “sinner,” and the realized plan, which became a “tragic farce.” For lack of an “organic” link with the earlier plan, those places in the novel which reveal the “joint” [cnaftxa] remain compositional weaknesses, “accidentally motivated” elements of the story, such as Stavrogin’s uncertain association with Verkhovensky (193-194): Verkhovensky and Stavrogin meet by accident. Their close association was dictated not by the organic development of the preconceived “tendentious” work, but by their chance location together which the author needed to resolve compositionally in some way. The author discovered the resolution artificially. The hero of the tragic farce [Verkhovensky], losing his independence and ceding his place to the hero of a high tragedy [Stavrogin], turned into his sword-bearer, but this transformation remained external, accidental and deceptive, since each of them, in spite of his superficial similarity, continued to fulfill his original role: the first, of a Khlestakov, the other, of a “Russian individual” who has lost God and in his search for him passes through the “abyss” of his fall, disbelief and depravity (196). In Polonsky’s version, then, Stavrogin stands far apart from the realm of a prototypical revolutionary like Bakunin not only in his ideas, as Shatov describes them, but also compositionally. Polonsky’s theory of an artistically alienated Stavrogin was also consistent with his argument, reviewed briefly in the previous chapter, that the relationship between Stavrogin and Verkhovensky had been “outlined definitively” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 [oKOHnaxejibHo odpncoBaHbi] in the installments of the novel that appeared before the trial protocols, one of Dostoevsky’s main sources of information about the link between Nechaev and Bakunin. Borovoi, too, challenged Grossman on the issue of Stavrogin’s ideological evolution, which he addressed in his essay on “Bakunin in Besy” of 1925. Like Polonsky, Borovoi believed that Stavrogin’s views were never revolutionary or truly “Bakuninist,” a fact which he sought to demonstrate mainly through a closer look at Stavrogin’s propaganda. Borovoi insisted that Bakunin’s Pan-Slavism bore little resemblance to the philosophy which Stavrogin teaches Shatov. Not “a bit mystical” nor “connected with any God,” Borovoi argued that Bakunin’s Pan-Slavism merely expresses his hatred for the German oppressors of the Slavs. The basis of Bakunin’s teaching was not “national self-love” or some kind of “Slavic chauvinism,” Borovoi asserted, but “a belief and certainty in the future of the Slavs.” Whereas Shatov’s Pan- Slavism expresses a mystical religious idea, Bakunin’s Pan-Slavism in 1862 expresses a concrete political idea; whereas Shatov calls for the nation to deliver its religion to the world, Bakunin issued “a call to oppressed peoples to break their chains.” Warning against an exaggeration of “the significance in individual coincidences, no matter how tempting they are,” Borovoi did not dispute Grossman’s claim that Verkhovensky Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173 recalls “something of Bakunin”; but he rejected Grossman’s “extreme simplification of Bakunin’s anarchism” for reasons that will be addressed in chapter five.33 Borovoi also made a certain concession to Grossman’s approach to Kirillov, a figure whom Polonsky ignored for the most part, but ultimately disassociated his views, like those of Shatov and Verkhovensky, as much as possible from the views of Bakunin. Borovoi acknowledged that Kirillov’s formulas of “militant atheism” at first glance may recall the world-view of the mature Bakunin, and admitted that “some of Kirillov’s individual expressions seem to resemble closely” some of Bakunin’s theses on anti-theologism. As in the case of Shatov, however, Borovoi pointed out that Kirillov’s philosophy contains an obvious religious dimension. Although ostensibly a God-fighter [fiorofiopen] and nihilist, Kirillov “makes peace” with his landlady’s icon and tends to the candle before the image of the Savior. In Borovoi’s view Kirillov also remains to some extent “the heir of idealist philosophy,” for “only a despairing and militant idealism” can conclude on the basis of the cruel death of Christ that the ‘the laws of the planet’ are a ‘lie’ and a ‘Vaudeville of devils’” [ztbO B O JioB BoaeBHJib] .33 Thus Grossman’s statement that Kirillov “precisely conveys” Bakunin’s theses on anti-theologism, Borovoi claimed, rests upon “a clearly superficial, verbal similarity between separate pronouncements” which ignores the contradictory spirit of the 32. EopoBoff, A.A. S a x y H H H b “Eecax” // Gopoaoft, A A , OraepaceHHufi, H T. M h $ o EaKymme. M., 1925. C. 134-144. 33. Here Borovoi quotes from Kirillov’s words to Verkhovensky in part three, just before his suicide. See: AocroeBCHdi, Q.M. IlojiHoe co6 pamie comraemifi: B 30 t . T. 10: Eecu. JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 471. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 teachings of Stavrogin and Bakunin. Referring to the findings of Otverzhennyi, Grossman’s other anarchist opponent, Borovoi suggested that a more likely prototype for Kirillov’s philosophy than Bakunin’s “universal brotherly communism” was the “nihilistic individualism” of Max Stimer’s Ego and its Own [Der Einzige und sein Eigentum], a work which Dostoevsky apparently knew. Perhaps inspired to some degree by Grossman’s claims, Otverzhennyi demonstrated that the “extreme individualism” of Max Stimer “lies at the foundation” of Kirillov’s views. Citing Stimer’s words that “man killed God only in order to become the ‘only God’” [qejioBex yMepTBHJi 6 0 ra tojibko njist Toro, r to 6 u caM OM y cran. “czihhum 6oroM”] ,34 Otverzhennyi claimed that the “coincidence between [Stimer’s] idea and Kirillov’s philosophy is not at all accidental,” particularly since Dostoevsky must have learned of Stimer’s writings through references by Russian writers A.A. Grigor’ev and A.S. Khomiakov, both familiar names to Dostoevsky.33 Otverzhennyi offered the analogy with Stimer as grounds for rejecting a resemblance between Kirillov’s individualism and that of Bakunin,36 since only Kirillov’s denial of God’s will, and not his Stimerian 34. This passage has also been translated from German into English as: “Man has lolled God in order to become now—‘ sole God on high.’” See: Max Stimer, The Ego and Its Own, ed. David Leopold (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995) 139. 35. O rBcpaceH H U fi, H .I\ U lT H p H ep h AocToescKHft. M.: Tonoc Tpyaa, 1925. C. 20-25,49. 36. Implicit in Otverzhennyi’s distinction between Stimer and Bakunin is their different approach to liberty, which for Stimer issues only from the individual, and for Bakunin depends foremost upon the liberty o f the entire collective. See: George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History o f Libertarian Ideas and M ovements (New York: Meridian, 1962) 156. For a concise discussion o f Stimer and his ideas in the history o f anarchism, see pages 94-105. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 self-deification, can be traced indisputably to the passage from Bakunin’s “Anti- Theologism” speech. As with the issue of Dostoevsky’s knowledge about Bakunin, discussed in the previous chapter, Grossman’s opponents provided a strong refutation of his approach to Stavrogin’s views and Stavrogin’s relationship to the ‘‘ pamphlet” in Besy. The opposing arguments by Polonsky, Komarovich, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi certainly find support, for example, in evidence of other potential sources for the ideas of Stavrogin’s “adherents.” At least one possible inspiration for Shatov won acclaim for the same combination of revolutionary Pan-Slavism and religiosity which Grossman ascribed to Bakunin. In his commentary to Dostoevsky’s Letters, A.S. Dolinin identified Shatov’s prototype as V.I. Keisiev, a young Russian liberal with revolutionary leanings who agitated on behalf of religious schismatics during the early 1860s and circulated Herzen’s Bell illegally in Russia before changing his views and surrendering to Russian authorities in 1867.3 7 Dolinin pointed out that Dostoevsky knew of Keisiev’s turn away from revolutionary activity, probably met him personally at Herzen’s in 1862, and undoubtedly read Herzen’s biographical sketch of Keisiev in The Bell in 1868, where Herzen described him as “a nihilist with religious ways.” Dolinin noted that Keisiev and Shatov shared both a common path [cioacer] and a similar “mental constitution” [aymeBHaa opramoaima]. In Kelsiev’s published 37. Co kojiob, H.I1. KenKHea, Bacfumft Hmhobh1 ! (1835-1872): [EHorp. cnpaaica] // Pyccnie nHcareim 1800-1917: Eaorp. cnoaapb. T. 2. M.: E P 3 ,1992. C. 526. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. memoirs of 1868, which Dostoevsky also may have read, Dolinin discovered a sketch of a disturbed, introspective young man who lived alongside Keisiev, enduring life “with great difficulty” before committing suicide, much like Kirillov.38 Other sources of Shatov’s views reflect a degree of “mysticism” far greater than can be attributed convincingly to Bakunin, whose “Pan-Slavism,” as Borovoi argued, aimed primarily for political liberation of the Slavs rather than for emulation of Slavic ideas and values. The views of N. Ia. Danilevsky, for example, whose Russia and Europe of 1869 Dostoevsky regarded highly, included a notion of Russia as a “God-bearing” nation and apparently provided the basis for Shatov’s theories.39 Another potential source of inspiration for Shatov, K.E. Golubov, whose religious philosophy Dostoevsky probably learned about from an article in Russian Messenger [PyccxHfi B ecT H H K ] in 1868, was an Old Believer, and of doubtful relation to any of Bakunin’s “stages.”40 Although Shatov’s desire to raise the Russian nation to God recalls elements of Slavophilism, Bakunin’s Slavophilism, as Borovoi indicated, did not proceed from religious principles. Other possible sources for the ideas of Kirillov and Verkhovensky have been suggested, as well. In addition to the writings of Stimer, to which Borovoi and 38. AocroeBCKHft, O.M . IlHCbMa. T. 2:1867-1871 / rioa pea. h c npHMei. A.C. JlojiHHHHa. M.; JI. roc. H3A-BO, 1930. C. 397-399. 39. AocroeB C K K fi, <D.M. riojiHoe co6paH He co k h h c h h A : B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonH C H ue peaaxuHH. Ha6pocxH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 197S. C. 233-234. 40. J J o c T o e B C K H f i, <D.M. noiiHoe co6paraie c o H H H C H H f t : B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonH CH ue peaaxuM H . H aCpocxH , 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 179. Golubov’s name appears in some o f the first sketches for the novel. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 Otverzhennyi called attention, Kirillov’s philosophy has also been seen as a reflection of Feuerbach. Dostoevsky likely became familiar with Feuerbach’s revolutionary ideas concerning the origins of religion through the writings or statements of Petrashevsky, Speshnev, Herzen and especially Belinsky, all of whom embraced Feuerbach’s atheistic philosophy in one sense or another.41 In an implicit reference to Feuerbach, Speshnev once wrote in a letter that the concept of “anthropotheism” revised an earlier notion of “God-creation” [ofioroTBopemie], so that “instead of ‘God-man’ we now have ‘man-God,’” a conclusion which almost literally foreshadows those of Kirillov.42 The most obvious “Nechaevist” elements in Verkhovensky’s character—his use of conspiratorial methods for dictatorial ends, or his formation of “groups of five,” for example— may be attributed to other revolutionary figures like Speshnev or P.G. Zaichnevsky, whose ideas Dostoevsky knew long before the Nechaev affair.43 The main “Bakuninist” characteristic which Grossman ascribed to Verkhovensky, the theory o f“destruction,” also may be traced to other nihilists of the 1860s, including 41. HaroBa, H.A. Pons $Hjioco$cicoro noarexcra b poMaHe “Eecu” // 3 a n H C K H pyccxoft axaaeMtnecxoit rpynnu b CILIA. T. 14.1981. C. 83-86. 42. A ocT oeB C K H fl, < D .M . riojiHoe co6paHHe c oH H H eH H fi: B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCHue peaaxuHH. Hafipocxn, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 222. The authors of the commentary credit G.M. Fridlender with the analogy between Speshnev’s and Kirillov’s statements concerning “Man- God.” 43. On Dostoevsky’s familiarity with Zaichnevsky’s activity in the “Young Russia” group of the early 1860s, see: Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The Stir o f Liberation, 1860-1865 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986) 146-148; JtocroeB C K H ft, riojiHoe co6pamie c o H H H C H H fl: B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCHue peaaxmtH. Ha6pocxH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 215. On echoes of Speshnev’s conspiratorial “Project” in Besy, see: flocroeBC K H fi, Q.M. riojiHoe co6paHHe co h k h ch h H : B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCHue peaaxuHH. Ha6pocxH, 1870-1872. JI. Hayxa, 1975. C. 220. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 D.I. Pisarev and another literary prototype, Turgenev’s Bazarov, both of whom also appear in the notebooks.44 Grossman’s attempt to highlight the Bakuninist elements in the ideas of Stavrogin’s associates is also complicated by discoveries of other prototypes for Shatov, Kirillov and Verkhovensky themselves. As indicated in chapter one, in the discussion of the other possible prototypes for Stavrogin, Grossman acknowledged in his article “Speshnev and Stavrogin” that Dostoevsky’s sources appear to be a complex combination of “Petrashevists” and "Nechaevists” (162). Other scholars have confirmed this notion, as well, as more prototypes from the Petrashevsky circles have emerged over the years. Grossman himself believed, for example, that the “excited activity” [B036yacaeHHas axTHBHocn.] of Petrashevsky remains more recognizable in the character of Verkhovensky than the “cold” and “methodical” Nechaev (162), while commentators V.A. Tunimanov and N.L. Sukhachev add that Petrashevsky may have been the source ofVerkhovensky’s characteristic “hustle, bustle and persistence” [xnonoTJiHBOCTb, cyerjiHBOCTb, H eyroM O H H O CTb ].43 As Polonsky pointed out, Verkhovensky also has an obvious literary prototype in Gogol’s Khlestakov, to whom Dostoevsky’s notebooks compare the early version of Verkhovensky,46 and to whom 44. For discussion o f “nihilists” and “nihilism” in Dostoevsky’s plan for the novel, see: AocroeBCKHft, < t> .M . riojiHoe co6paHMe comraeHHft: B 30 x. T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCHue peaaxuHH. HaGpocxu, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 173-175. 45. JJocT oeB C K H fi, < D .M . riojiHoe coGpamte c o h h h c h h H : B 3 0 1 . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCHue peaaxmoi. HaGpocxu, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 1975. C. 219. 46. JJocrocBCKHft, riojiHoe co6pume coHKHemth: B 30 x. T. 11: Eecu. noarcrroBHxe.’ ibHue Maxepnanu. JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 200,203. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 the trial reports in the newspapers later compared Nechaev.47 As a model for “Shaposhnikov,” another name for Shatov’s predecessor in the notebooks, M.S. Al’tman proposed the Petrashevist P.G. Shaposhnikov, who awaited execution alongside Dostoevsky and distinguished himself as the only one among the condemned who did not refuse the confession offered by the priest.48 Kirillov, too, shares his surname with a former Petrashevist, N.S. Kirillov, the publisher of Petrashevsky’s Pocket Dictionary o f Foreign Words [KapMaHHuft cjiOBapb HHocrpaHHbix cjiob], whom Dostoevsky may have recalled when assigning a name to his “engineer” of the rough drafts for Besy. In his 1962 biography of Dostoevsky, Grossman suggested that still another Petrashevist, K.I. Timkovsky, whose “swift turn from religiosity to atheism” and “self-sacrifice to the maniacalism of a dominant idea” [caMonoxceprBOBaHHe npn M aH H axajibH O C T H rocnoacTByiomeft Hnen], among other qualities, might have served as a model for Kirillov.49 A member of the Durov circle, A.P. Miliukov, to name still another example, represented the future Liputin in the notebooks.50 Grossman’s conception of the Stavrogin-Verkhovensky relationship also remains somewhat problematic, for the text does not appear to suggest that 47. AocrocBCKHfl, <P.M. normoe coGpaime co h h h ch h A : B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCHue peaaxmra. Ha6 pocxH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 197S. C. 203. 48. AjikTMaH, M.C. PyccxH e peaajnooH O H H ue a o rre jiH XIX B exa — n p o T o n m u jn n e p a T y p ra x re p o e a / / H c ro p m CCCP. 1968. NB 6 . C. 147-148. 49. TpoccM aH, JIJI. AocroeacKHfi. M.: Moaoaa* raapaiix, 1962. C. 107. 50. AocToeacxHii, riojiHoe co6paHHe co ^ h h ch h H : B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCHue peaaxuHH. HaOpocxH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 197S. C. 218. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180 Verkhovensky was ever a “disciple” of Stavrogin to the same extent as Shatov or Kirillov. Whereas the effects of Stavrogin’s “propaganda” to Shatov and Kirillov during their years abroad are documented, so to speak, in Stavrogin’s discussion with Shatov, who reminds the former how he inspired him, Shatov, and Kirillov with different ideas, there is little evidence that Stavrogin ever served as an ideological mentor to Verkhovensky. Although Verkhovensky admires Stavrogin as a handsome aristocrat whom everyone “fears” and “hates” (E 11/8:323), it is he, Verkhovensky, who “created” Stavrogin, as their dialog at the end of part two suggests. Yet in spite of evidence that favors the position of Grossman’s opponents, and in spite of the failure of the many minor “coincidences” to provide more than merely vague hints of Bakunin in Besy, Grossman’s argument for Bakuninist echoes in the ideas of Stavrogin’s associates, particularly Kirillov and Verkhovensky, should not be rejected entirely. In the first place, a resemblance between Kirillov’s “militant atheism” and the ideas of other thinkers does not contradict or exclude its resemblance to Bakunin; insofar as Kirillov’s conception of “Man-God” [qenoBeKo6or] does not merely paraphrase the “anthropotheism” of Feuerbach and Stimer, but virtually quotes Bakunin’s pronouncements from the 1867 Peace Congress (“if God exists, then man is a slave” and “if man is free..., then there is no God”), Bakunin’s anti-theologism certainly appears to be the most recent and essential source of Kirillov’s atheism.51 The SI. Without reference to Grossman’s findings, N. Natova noted the same similarity between Kirillov’s and Bakunin’s statements. See: Haroaa, HA. Pons <t»uioco<t>cK oro noareKcra a poMaHe • ‘Been” // 3anacKH pyccicoft aicaneMmecKoit rpynnu b C 111A . T. 14.1981. C. 92. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 same may be said of Verkhovensky. It seems hardly disputable that none of Verkhovensky’s possible or partial prototypes applied principles and methods of “merciless destruction” more violently than Nechaev, Bakunin’s political “agent” in Russia throughout 1869. As Grossman proved convincingly in his study of Dostoevsky’s sources, moreover, the two aspects of Bakunin’s thought that inspire Kirillov and Verkhovensky, “militant atheism” and “merciless destruction,” had been explicitly associated with Bakunin and sensationalized in the Russian press, along with the suspicion that Bakunin, like Stavrogin, “wrote the statutes” for the conspiratorial organization. Grossman’s vision of a link between Besy and Bakunin becomes even more conceivable if not restricted to the ideas of Stavrogin and his associates. In a sense Bakunin stands “off stage” throughout the novel as an implicit source of the ideas from “Geneva” that threaten Russia. Much like Herzen, whose name occurs at several points in the novel, Bakunin may be said to enter the novel indirectly as perhaps the most well-known Russian member of the “International,” 52 which is referred to at several points. Bakunin should also be considered one of the most conspicuous revolutionaries abroad who longed for revolution in Russia on the eve of the Nechaev affair. The “mysterious finger” which points at Russia as the “only country capable of 52. Bakunin’s active participation in the International Workingmen’s Association began with the Basle Congress o f 1869, shortly after which the General Council agreed to admit a section of Bakunin’s own organization, the Alliance of Social Democracy, into the IWA as a separate Geneva section. See: G.M. Stekloff [Steklov, Iu.M.] H istory o f the First International (New York: International Publishers, 1928) 158-159. This English edition is translated from the third Russian edition: CreicnoB, IO.M. riep B u ft HHTepHauHOHan. 3-e ran., ncnp. h non. M.; fir.: Toe. k u - b o , 1923. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 fulfilling the ‘great task’" (E 11/6:314), in the words of the “lame teacher” at Virginsky’s, logically belongs to Bakunin. The image of Bakunin may also come to mind when Liputin complains to Verkhovensky that all the revolutionary “centers” abroad “have forgotten Russian reality” (E 111/4:424). As Tunimanov and Sukhachev note in their commentary to the novel, Dostoevsky referred in his notebooks to the “false idea, conceived somewhere in Switzerland, that Russia is prepared for revolt,” a remark which suggests Dostoevsky’s awareness and disapproval of Bakunin’s efforts to encourage revolution in Russia53 Finally, Grossman received support from at least two contemporaries who refused to disregard his strongest evidence. In his commentary on the debate published in 1930, Dolinin wrote that Besy contains “an unquestionable reflection” of Bakunin’s ideology, if not his “image” [o6 pa3]; and therefore while he found Polonsky’s and Borovoi’s counter-arguments “certainly much more convincing,” nonetheless Dolinin agreed with Grossman that “the spirit of Bakunin’s ‘destructive’ ideology lingers above and throughout the entire novel” [Beer Has poMaHOM bo BceM ero ucjiom].5 4 Bitsilli’s review of the debate in 1926 also seemed to vindicate Grossman to some extent. On the one hand, Bitsilli considered Polonsky’s analysis of Stavrogin within the “two plans and two styles” of Besy “the most important” contribution to the entire 53. A ocT oeB C K H fl, riojiHoe co6paHHC cowHemdi: B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCHue pejtanniH. HafipocxH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayxa, 197S. C. 200. 54. ApcroeBCKHft, < t> .M . IIkcum. T. 2:1867-1871 / Hoa pea. k c npnaeq. A.C. JtcuiH H H H a. M.; JI.: Toe. roa-BO, 1930. C. 391. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 exchange. Bitsilli agreed with Polonsky—and implicitly with Borovoi—that Dostoevsky first conceived Besy as a satire not only on nihilists, but on the representatives of “all social layers and movements” of Dostoevsky’s time. He also agreed with Polonsky that Stavrogin and those characters “linked to him organically” were initially absent from the final plan, entering it only after Dostoevsky began incorporating characters and motifs from the Sinner project. On the other hand, disagreeing with Polonsky and Borovoi, Bitsilli concluded that the “observation [Ha6jnoiieHHe] which formed the basis o f Grossman's unsuccessful construction” remained “completely correct.” If not a “prototype” or a “portrait” of Bakunin, Bitsilli wrote, nonetheless Stavrogin recalls Bakunin “in the cerebral sense” [b yMonocTHraeMOM miaHe]. Whether or not Stavrogin became a revolutionary is less essential from a “metaphysical” point-of-view, Bitsilli believed, one which locates Stavrogin’s and Bakunin’s essential similarity in their “negation of God”: As a negator of God, [Stavrogin] is even more terrible than Bakunin. And like Bakunin, he agonizes over his lack of religious strength and creates more for others than for himself a religion of a “God-bearing people.” Shatov and Kirillov are two mirrors that simultaneously emit a true reflection of the two dialectical stages of Stavrogin-Bakunin’s “ideas.” And Verkhovensky- Nechaev, of course, is his “ape.”55 By acknowledging a reverberation of Bakunin’s ideas in the utterances of Shatov and Kirillov, Bitsilli offered a much greater concession to Grossman than 55. Bhiuuuih, n.M. Pea. Ha kh.: Cnop o EaKyiarae a Aoctocbckom. C ranH JI.n. TpoccMaHa h B J I. IIojiOHCKoro (JI.: Toe. hm-bo, 1926) // CoBpcMCHHue 3amicKH. (TIapHx),1926. N a 28. C. 488- 489. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 Polonsky, Borovoi, or even Komarovich—for whom, too, the absence of Bakunin-like characteristics in the original “sinner” undermined Grossman’s thesis*6 —and encouraged readers, it seems, not to dismiss the analogy between Stavrogin and Bakunin completely. 3.4 Conclusion Through their comparison of Stavrogin’s and Bakunin’s ideologies and intellectual profiles, Grossman and his opponents collided with the problem outlined earlier in this chapter: the nature of Stavrogin’s relationship to Verkhovensky’s “society” and its revolutionary program. Grossman resolved the problem by demonstrating how the Stavrogin of the narrator’s chronicle, who expresses only hostility and suspicion toward Verkhovensky and his motives, conceals a different, more passionate and politically active Stavrogin of the past, who left his stamp on Shatov, Kirillov, and to some extent Verkhovensky. Unable to perceive anything overtly political in Stavrogin’s ‘‘propaganda” to Shatov and Kirillov, Polonsky explained Stavrogin’s alienation from the political conspiracy in the finished novel as the natural result of Dostoevsky’s attempt to integrate two very different literary plans, while Borovoi and Otverzhennyi simply maintained that the ideas with which Stavrogin allegedly inspired his associates in fact resembled the ideas of other thinkers familiar to Dostoevsky more so than the ideas of Bakunin. Yet as the remarks of other 56. KoMapoBin, B JI. “Been” AocroeBcicoro h EaicyH H H // Ebuioe. 1925. N a 27-28. C. 49. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 commentators confirm, Grossman discovered sufficient evidence of Bakunin’s ideology in the minds of Stavrogin’s former “disciples” to preserve a certain association between Stavrogin and Bakunin. Although insufficient for his initial aspiration to project the “face” of Bakunin onto Stavrogin, nonetheless Grossman successfully revealed a certain shadow of Bakunin’s intellectual evolution in the biography of Stavrogin. Grossman’s first eighteen points of similarity between Stavrogin and Bakunin, like his examples of sources from which Dostoevsky may have “studied” Bakunin, clearly provided some of the grounds for the debate over Grossman’s thesis. Regardless of the conclusions that may (or may not) be objectively drawn from it, however, Grossman’s evidence of Bakunin’s reflection in the text of Besy, like his evidence o f Dostoevsky’s knowledge of Bakunin, still does not explain the persistent attempts by Polonsky, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi to refute Grossman’s thesis so completely. While they constituted an important aspect of the debate, in the end Grossman’s approach to Dostoevsky and to Stavrogin derived its significance to a large extent from his approach to Bakunin. As his final two points of similarity between Stavrogin and Bakunin, Grossman advanced a pair of suggestive generalizations about Bakunin’s character and ideology that inevitably linked his thesis to controversies surrounding the legacy of Bakunin in Soviet Russia. The following two chapters will examine Grossman’s two preconceptions about Bakunin in the context of disputes that directly affected the reception of Grossman’s thesis. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186 Chapter 4 The Problem of Bakunin’s “Fall” The source of opposition to Grossman’s thesis was not only his analysis of Stavrogin, but also his conception of Bakunin, which inevitably linked “the debate over Dostoevsky” to a much broader historical and political “debate over Bakunin.” The replies by his three most outspoken adversaries in the debate, Polonsky, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, were all clearly motivated by their concern for the fate of Bakunin’s legacy. Thus in his prefatory remarks to his first response Polonsky expressed his fear that “the superficial persuasiveness” of Grossman’s thesis “might hinder a correct understanding of Mikhail Bakunin,” and he warned that “a legend” might “take deep root in the mind of the reader” (42). Regardless of fundamental differences between Polonsky’s position and their own, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi also lamented that the mythology about Bakunin “grows tirelessly,” that it “threatens to efface the living, historical image of the revolutionary 'Romantic’ in all his concrete originality, and to supplant it with a legend.” Naming their collection The Myth About Bakunin, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi declared their intention “to break through the nearly impenetrable wall of human fantasies to the ‘real’ Bakunin.” 1 One of the most problematic “legends” or “myths” about Bakunin current at the time of Grossman’s thesis threatened the traditionally high reputation of Bakunin’s 1. EopoBoA, A A , OraepxeHHUft, H .f. Mh$ o EaxyimHe. M.: Tonoc tpyaa, 1925. C. 3. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 character. Long considered a model of revolutionary will and passion, after the October revolution Bakunin suffered a great fall in the eyes of many of Grossman’s contemporaries with the discovery of unknown letters he wrote to Tsar Nikolai I, Aleksandr II and others while incarcerated during the 1850s. The most sensational of the letters, Bakunin’s “Confession” to Nikolai I of 1851 mentioned earlier in this dissertation, 2 generated a storm of controversy upon its publication in 1921. Based to a large extent on the “Confession,” Grossman’s critique of Bakunin’s character reinforced certain assumptions which readers like Borovoi, Otverzhennyi and Polonsky wished to refute. This chapter will review Grossman’s conclusions, examine their historical sources, and demonstrate the close relationship his approach to Bakunin shared with the discussions surrounding Bakunin’s “Confession” between 1920 and 1926. 4.1 Grossman’s critique of Bakunin’s character in light of the “Confession” As chapter three demonstrated, Grossman’s “twenty coincidences” included a number of established, incontrovertible facts from Bakunin’s life, such as his noble origins, his travels throughout Europe, his association with Nechaev and others. For his final two examples, however, Grossman relied on more sweeping assumptions about Bakunin, the first of which provided grounds for the second (to be examined in 2. Henceforth the “Confession” will be capitalized and placed in quotes, following the Russian convention, rather than italics (however, italics are preserved when in an original quote). The “Confession” will also be referred to throughout this chapter as the “letter to Nikolai (of 1851).” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 ch ap ter fiv e ). In order to fo rm u la te th e first a ssu m p tio n c o n v in c in g ly , G ro ssm a n had to r e s o lv e p erh ap s th e m o st co n tra d icto ry a sp ect o f S ta v ro g in w h e n co m p ared w ith B a k u n in . R eg a rd less o f th e a ss e s s m e n t o r v a lu e a ssig n e d to B a k u n in ’s leg a cy , n o read er fa m ilia r w ith B a k u n in ’s ca reer a n d p erso n a lity w o u ld fa il to p e rceiv e th e glarin g d isc r e p a n c y b e tw e e n B a k u n in ’s life lo n g p a ssio n , en th u sia sm an d co m m itm en t to r e v o lu tio n an d S ta v ro g in ’s lu k ew a rm in d ifferen ce to th e e v e n ts that u n fo ld in Besy. W h erea s B ak u n in p u rsu ed r ev o lu tio n a ry a c tiv ity righ t u p u n til h is death in 1876, S ta v r o g in sp en d s th e fin a l p e r io d o f h is life at b e st an u n w ittin g participant in th e “c o m m o n ca u se .” G ro ssm a n a c k n o w le d g e d that, at first g la n c e , S ta v ro g in ’s “deathly, c o n g e a le d life le s s n e s s ” [MepTBeHHOcn>, 3acTbuiocn>, 6e33KH3HeHHOcn>] ap p ears ju st th e o p p o site o f th e “sto rm y , a c tiv e ” nature o f B ak u n in ; b u t th e p u b lica tio n o f B a k u n in ’s “C o n fe ssio n ,” G ro ssm a n argu ed , had re v e a le d th at th e “p a ssio n a te figh ter” B a k u n in , w h o s e fiery n atu re w a s in ex h a u stib le, a cco rd in g to leg en d , in fa ct p ro v ed su sc e p tib le to b ou ts o f “ in sip id h o p e le s s n e s s ” [Tynan 6e3H aaexcH ocn>], and w a s ev en le d , lik e S ta v ro g in , to c o n sid e r s u ic id e . A s B a k u n in ’s p riso n e x p e r ie n c e d em on strated , n o t o n ly d id B ak u n in o n c e en terta in se r io u s th o u g h ts o f th ro w in g h im s e lf in to th e S e in e w h e n liv in g in P aris in 1 8 4 5 , G ro ssm a n p o in te d o u t, b u t h e sec r e tly req u ested p o is o n w h ile in R u ssia n p riso n ( 1 6 ) .3 B a se d o n th eir m o m e n ts o f su icid a l d e sp o n d e n c y , G ro ssm a n d eterm in ed th at b oth B a k u n in an d S ta v ro g in su ffered from a 3. Bakunin reputedly told Herzen how he instructed his brother Aleksei to deliver poison to him when the latter visited him in the SchlQsselberg fortress in 1856. See: E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 222-223. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. certain “spiritual sterility” (34) and “spiritual inadequacy” [ityxoBHaa ymep6 H O cn>] (36) which dramatically undermined their apparent strength of will. “Shackled and doomed,” Grossman wrote, “[Bakunin] apparently experienced moments of moral stupor [oneneHeHHe] that recall the deathliness [MepnieHHOCTb] of Stavrogin.” Grossman also discovered in Bakunin’s “Confession” evidence for the “exclusively intellectual, cerebral force” which oppresses Stavrogin. Like Bakunin, who admitted to Nikolai that his early preoccupation with abstract concepts in German philosophy led to his “estrangement from the soil,” Stavrogin remains a “genius of the abstract,” Grossman explained, “full of logical diversions and completely carried away by the limitless perspectives of powerful and fruitless theories.” It was “this specific condition,” he emphasized, which Dostoevsky “needed to bring forward for his philosophical design and to concentrate in the psychological structure of his hero” (34, 38). If judged according to the amount of space which he devoted to it in his analysis, Grossman’s attempt to reconcile Stavrogin and Bakunin on the basis of certain shared “spiritual” deficiencies and their moments of suicidal despondency might not appear among the most important issues in the debate. When examined in the context of the well-publicized discussion over Bakunin’s “Confession” on the eve of Grossman’s thesis, however, the close relationship between Grossman’s thesis and the historical question of Bakunin’s legacy becomes more apparent. In order to appreciate fully the impact of the “Confession” and related documents on Russian Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 readers, it is necessary first to consider Bakunin’s reputation prior to the Russian revolution of 1917. For years after his death in 1876, Bakunin remained a conspicuous but problematic figure in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement. Notwithstanding the fame he earned through his efforts in libertarian struggles in Europe and Russia between 1848 and 1876, Bakunin’s legacy had suffered in the eyes of many because of his involvement in the Nechaev affair, which his letters and documents from Dragomanov’s collection of 189S had exposed,4 and also because of his opposition to Marx in the First International, which to a large extent proved responsible for its collapse. Although they generated widespread interest among activists of the 1870s, Bakunin’s political ideas and principles found little support among the first proponents of Marxism in Russia. They met sharp criticism from G.V. Plekhanov* in works like Anarchism and Socialism, which described Bakunin as a “decadent of Utopianism” who completely misunderstood the materialist conception 4. The Ukrainian historian M.P. Dragomanov [Mykhailo Drahomanov] effectively attributed the “Catechism of a Revolutionary” to Bakunin by including it in the first (Geneva) edition of Bakunin’s letters to Herzen and Ogarev. See: rincbMa M.A. BaKymma k A.H. Tepneiiy h H.n. OrapeBy / C npano*. ero naMtfrneroB, 6 norp. B B en. h o G m c h h t . npHMei. M il. AparoManoBa. Geneve: Georg et Co. Libraires Editeurs, 1896. C. 490-498. The “Catechism” was removed from the collection for the first edition o f the book in Russia (1906). 5. At one point, however, Plekhanov (1856-1918) acknowledged his debt to Bakunin. In the preface to the first edition o f his collected works in 1905, Plekhanov wrote: “In the populist period [HaponHmecKHfl nepiion] o f my development I, like all our populists, was under the strong influence of Bakunin’s works, from which I gained great respect for the materialist explanation o f history” (fbiexaHOB, T3 . C o H H H eH H * : [T. 1-24]. T. 1 / non pen. A.B. PnaHoaa. 2-e nan. M.: Toe. k u i - b o , 1923. C. 19). The editor of the second edition o f Plekhanov’s works, D.B. Riazanov, nonetheless believed that Plekhanov exaggerated Bakunin’s role in this respect (c. 12). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 of history,6 and “The International Workingmen’s Association,” in which Plekhanov described the harm caused to the international proletarian movement by the ‘ ‘ metaphysician” Bakunin.7 While it continued to live in one form or another in the work and activity of Kropotkin in Europe8 and of anarchists in Russia between 1905 and 1917,9 with the rise of social democracy Bakunin’s thought lost much of its former attraction among most revolutionaries in Russia. In sp ite o f reserv a tio n s about h is id e o lo g y , h o w e v e r , to b e a d d ressed in m ore d eta il in ch a p ter fiv e , e v id e n c e su g g e sts th at a d ifferen t sid e o f B a k u n in ’s leg a cy co n tin u ed to e n jo y great p restige. R e c a llin g B a k u n in ’s c o n trib u tio n s to th e R u ssia n p o p u list m o v e m e n t in th e m id -1870s, w h e n u n d er th e im p u lse o f h is propaganda, p rin cip a lly h is w o r k Statism and Anarchy [TocyaapcTBeHHOCTb h aH apxiia], an en tire g en era tio n o f R u ssia n stu d en ts v o w e d to d e v o te th eir liv e s to “th e p e o p le ,” 1 0 a n u m b er 6 . rbiexaHOB, T.B. A H apxH 3M h couHanmM // rinexaHOB, T.B. Cohhhchhji: [T. 1-24]. T. 4 .2-« raa. M., 1923. C. 211. Written in French in 1894 and published first in German in 189S, this work appeared in Russian in 1906 (116.: m a. M. Manwx). According to V. Vaganian, who compiled an invaluable annotated bibliography of Plekhanov’s works in 1923, two other Russian versions of Plekhanov’s essay also existed from this period. See: Barawnt [Tep-BaraiMH], B.A. Onarr 6 H 6 jm o rp a< t> H H T.B. IlnexaHOBa. M.: Toe. hm-bo, 1923. C. 58. 7. rinexaHOB, T.B. MeacayHapoaHoe TO BapH utecTBO pafjonnx // rinexaHOB, T.B. Cohhhchhx: [T. 1- 24]. T. 16.2-e H 3A. M., 1928. C. 304-305. This article appeared first in: Hcxpa. 1904. N a 75. 8 . See, for example, Kropotkin’s tribute to Bakunin in M odem Science and Anarchism, first published in 1903 (Russian edition: Kponom cHH, n.A. Xiie6 h bojm. CospeMeHHaa Hayxa h aH apxM x / Bctyn. cr., cocr., noaror. Texcra h npreueH. C.A. Maaoxmja. M.: ripaaoa, 1990. C. 320*321), and in a statement quoted by V. Cherkezov (HepicejoB, B.H. 3HaneKHe E aicyH H H a b H H repH auH O H ansH O M peBOjnouHOHHOM ABmxeHHH: [Bcryn. c t.] // EaxyHHH, M.A. H36paHHue coHHHeHHX. T. 1. M.: OAKT, 1920. C. VII-XIII). Kropotkin (1842-1921) also worked on an edition o f Bakunin’s writings which appeared in 1915. See: George Woodcock, Ivan Avakumovich, The Anarchist Prince: A Biographical Study o f Peter Kropotkin, 2nd ed. (New York: Schocken, 1971) 370. 9. Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 20-21. 10. Thhsom, Rpc. (Guillaume, J.). MHxawi AjieKcaHoponm EaxyHHH: Enorp. o<tepx / riep. c aocraaneHHoft aaropoM pyxonHCH) // Eunoe. 1906. Na 8 . C. 249. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 of veteran populists in Russia paid homage to Bakunin’s magnetic personality and “ ‘revolutionary spirit.” 1 1 Activists who had come into contact with Bakunin during the 1870s, either directly, through personal association with him in Switzerland, or indirectly, through his writings and the reports of others, recorded testimony of Bakunin’s outstanding agitatorial skills, for example, among which Dragomanov included “great activity, lively energy [noaBroKHaa 3Hepnui], great talent as an orator and the ability to attract and captivate people, if not for long.” 12 In 1912 Bakunin’s “right-hand man” from 1872 to 1876, M.P. Sazhin, recalled the “great imprint” which his first meeting with Bakunin left on his life. Convincing Sazhin that his work was “not a sham [6yTa4>opwi], but real organizations” that crossed national boundaries, Bakunin gave “final definition” to Sazhin’s views and made of him “the most earnest follower o f his outlook.” 1 3 One of the founding fathers of Russian social democracy, P.B. Aksel’rod, also made a “conscious and resolute turn toward Bakuninism” in 1874 following his contact with “Bakuninists” in the south of Russia and with Bakunin’s writings, which his followers brought back to Russia from Switzerland. Together with other representatives of the “radical youth” at that time, Aksel’rod grew “intoxicated” 11. Here I borrow the words of historian F. Venturi, who writes that “Bakunin was able to inspire a revolutionary spirit but not an organization.” Venturi goes on to argue that from Bakunin [the Russian populists] “sought—and obtained—not so much an organization as a conception of the world which had a profound and lasting effect on the entire revolutionary movement” See: Franco Venturi, Roots o f Revolution, trans. Francis Haskell (New York: Grosset & Dunlap) 429-430. 12. IlHCbMa M A B aicy H H H a k A.H. TepaeHy h H JI. Orapeay / C 6uorp. b b c a . h oG m c h h t . npH M e< i. M IL AparoM aHoaa. CI16.: Haa. Bpyfrjieacxoro, 1906. C. 5-6. 13. CaaoiH, M U . BocnoMHHamta o (IJI. Jlaapoae // CaxHH, M il. BocnoMHHamu. M.: Toe. aaa- b o , 192S. C. 34. Sazhin (1845-1934) wrote this article in 1912. It first appeared in: T o jio c MHHyamero. 1915, N « 10. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 with the “revolutionary phraseology and flaming oratory” of Bakunin, whose theory he remembered mainly for “the radical manner in which it resolved all questions, without any reservations whatsoever.” 14 In his Memoirs o f a Revolutionist, which appeared in Russian for the first time in 1902, P.A. Kropotkin confirmed Bakunin’s significance for those who, like Kropotkin, began their political careers during Bakunin’s final years. Describing the intellectual atmosphere in the Russian colonies of the Swiss Jura region in 1872, Kropotkin recalled the encouragement which Bakunin’s image provided to his young followers, among whom “Bakunin’s influence was felt much less as an intellectual authority than as a moral personality.” Having “given up everything for the sake of the revolution, borrowing from his conception of it the highest and purest views of life,” Kropotkin wrote, Bakunin’s “colossal figure” continued to inspire them. 1 5 Another “activist of the seventies” [ceM H uecH TH H K ] and founding Social Democrat, L.G. Deich, felt strongly that when he was still a young man, Bakunin’s works “roused the very best aspirations” within him. 16 Although he did not succeed in meeting Bakunin, having arrived in Switzerland for the first time 14. AKcempoa, n.5. nepeaorroe h nepeayM aHHoe. Kh. 1. E epjiH H : H o h - b o 3.H. TpacedH H a, 1923. C. 109-111,114. Reprinted in 1975 by Oriental Research Partners, Cambridge. P.B. Aksel’rod (1850- 1928) mentions I.I. Kablits (1848-1893), N A. Charushin (1851-1937), N.K. Sudzilovsky (1850-1930) and V.K. Debagorii-Mokrievich (1848-1926) among Russian populists who introduced him to the ideas of Bakunin. 15. Peter Kropotkin, M emoirs o f a Revolutionist (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1899) 288-89. The first five Russian editions of the memoirs of Kropotkin (1842-1921), all published before 1925, were based upon the original English edition. The first complete text based upon Kropotkin’s original Russian notes for the memoirs appeared in 1933. See: KpononcHH, ILA. 3anHcm peaojoouHOHepa / rioaror. lexcia k nenarH a npHMea. H.K. JlefieaeBa. M.; JI.: Academia, 1933. C. XV. 16. JteftH, JIT. 3a nonaexa. 3-e ton. M.; JI.: Toe. k u i- b o , 1926. C. 36. This article first appeared as: JJeifa, JIT. IToieMy a cran peaomooHOHepoM // T o jio c MHHyamero. 1919. N a 5/12. C. 5-39. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 only in 1878, two years after Bakunin’s death, he remembered how Russian emigrants and foreigners alike referred to Bakunin “with reverence,” and how the “old veterans” [crapHKH], when speaking of Bakunin, carried in their eyes “a boundless devotion” which Deich had “not observed among the leaders and teachers of youth ever since.” 1 7 Bakunin even inspired a short but glowing panegyric from a non-activist of an entirely different generation. In a book review of 1906 for the thirtieth anniversary of Bakunin’s death, an event which included the publication of new studies of Bakunin as well as the first volume in a new collection of his works, the poet A. A. Blok compared Bakunin to “an unflickering bonfire, still not yet at full flame” [He noryxaiomfifi...eme He pacnfcuiaBimifica xocrep] (31). Acknowledging the “veritable quagmire of anecdotes, legends, scenes, be they funny, touching or dramatic” that surround the personality of Bakunin, Blok insisted that “we can forget the trivial facts of [Bakunin’s] life in light of his redemptive fire” [HCKymrrejibHujl oroHb] . ' 8 In addition to his legendary spirit, Bakunin won great respect and authority in the revolutionary movement thanks to his remarkable experiences. Former revolutionary VI. K. Debagorii-Mokrievich included “Bakunin’s past” among the many other qualities of “enormous, unusual proportions” that impressed and drew him 17. Aeita, JIT. Pyccicaa peBOjnoiiHO HHas aMHrpamu 70-x roaoB. 116.: Toe. hm-bo, 1920. C. 60. 18. E jio k, A.A. MHxafin AjieKcaaopoBtn SaxyH H H (1814-1876) // E jio k, A .A. Co6paHHe c o H H H C H H fi: B 8 t . T. S. M.; JI.: Xyao*. .t o t ., 1962. C. 3 1 , 3 3 . This essay first appeared in: nepesaji. 1907.N»4(4eap.). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 in 1873 to Switzerland to meet Bakunin in person. 19 Deich, too, was captivated by Bakunin’s past and the “extraordinary adventures” of Bakunin’s life, which fed the imagination of Deich and many of the young enthusiasts in his circle and “to no small degree” secured the success of Bakunin’s teachings among them. Noting that whereas the fate of Chemyshevsky evoked from the youth of the 1870s, along with great respect, a kind of “sorrow,” Deich explained that Bakunin’s fate produced on them an entirely different feeling, one not of grief but of “delight, amazement and admiration.” The “living stories” of those who knew Bakunin directly, Deich wrote, greatly “strengthened the sense of marvel” which Bakunin had already inspired. At times it seemed to Deich that his imagination returned “to those legendary times, when bogatyrs and titans roamed.” 20 Even Steklov, who rejected Bakunin’s anarchism, expressed great admiration for the resilience Bakunin exhibited throughout the most difficult experiences of his life. “Is not the very life of Bakunin a profoundly interesting and instructive phenomenon?” Steklov asked in one of the many tributes to Bakunin for his jubilee in 1914: Utterly devoted to an idea, an apostle, engulfed by fire descending upon him from on high, never ceasing, even under the most difficult personal and social conditions to preach ‘to all tongues’ [noynaTb “b c h insnra”], the example of Bakunin should stir the hearts of all who believe in man’s great calling on the earth and in the progress of the human species. However one may regard the 19. Jle6aropHfl-MoKpHeBHH, B.K. BocnoMHHaiuu. CII6.: Cb o6ohhuA xpya, 1906. C. 84,93-94. This 1906 edition of Debagorii-Mokrievich’s memoirs was apparently the first in Russia. They had appeared a decade earlier in Paris. See: Jle6aropHfi-MoKpHeBHM, B.K. BocnoMHHafou. Bun. 1 . Paris: J. Allemane, 1894. C. 21. 20. ijeftn, JLT. Pyccicaa peBOJnomiOHHa* 3MHrpaiuu 70-x roaoB. f!6.: foe. raa-BO, 1920. C. 60. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 views and actions of Bakunin, his loyalty to his convictions, his tireless work for the sake of what he considered to be the common good, his steadfastness and deep optimism, in spite of all the blows of fate—all this grants him the right to universal recognition and affection.” 2 1 The eight years he spent incarcerated between 1849 and 1857 provided convincing evidence of Bakunin’s revolutionary will and fortitude. Following six years of association with leading socialists and communists in Europe, and nearly two years of open revolutionary activity, including active participation in the uprisings of Paris and Prague in 1848, Bakunin was finally arrested in May 1849 for his leading role in the Dresden uprising. The Saxon authorities imprisoned, convicted and sentenced Bakunin to death, then commuted his death sentence to incarceration for life and handed him over to Austria, where he was confined in jail for another year, including five months during which he was chained to a wall. Following another sentence of death, also commuted to life imprisonment, the Austrians turned Bakunin over to Russia, where he was locked in the Peter-and-Paul fortress in Petersburg from May 1851 to March 1854, then moved to the Schliisselburg fortress for another three years. In March 1857 Bakunin’s eight-year period of incarceration finally ended when Tsar Aleksandr 0 exiled him to Siberia for life.22 Despite damage to his health, including the loss of all his teeth from scurvy, the forty-two year old Bakunin stepped out of 21. CrewiOB, K D .M . M A . BaxyH H H : (K 100-jierHcfi ronoBQume co m u era poacaemui) // Eopuu 3a comiajiH3M: OnepicH H 3 hctophh o6mecTaeHKUX h pcbojhouhohhux aBHxeHHft b Pocchh. M.: AeHHHua, 1918. C. 124. In his preface to a second edition o f this work in 1923 (see note 75, chapter 5), Steklov explains that he had completed the article on Bakunin in 1914 for the journal European H erald [Bccthhk Eaponu], which failed to print it. 22. E.H. Carr, M ichael Bakunin (London: Macmillan, 1937) 207,209. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197 prison alive and unbroken. More impressively, as demonstrated by his escape from Siberia and immediate return to revolutionary activity three years later, Bakunin apparently emerged from the ordeal with his enthusiasm for revolution intact. Summarizing Bakunin’s journey through prison and exile to his arrival in London in December 1861, which was celebrated on the front page of The Bell, Herzen recalled with admiration that Bakunin seemed unchanged when he appeared in London, that he had aged only in body but not in “spirit,” and that as soon as he established contact with local Russians and Poles he set to work with his familiar “passion for preaching, for agitation.” 23 Herzen’s account supported Bakunin’s own words about his experience that appeared for the first time in Russia in the 1906 edition of Bakunin’s letters. In his letter to Herzen of December 8 , 1860 from Irkutsk, Bakunin revealed details of his prison terms in Saxony, Austria and Russia, with particular emphasis on the difficult conditions he had to endure in the Schldsselburg fortress. At times overcome, he admitted, with the fear of having “to drag out [aaaHHTb] life without a goal, without hope, without interest,” and with “the constant feeling that ‘lam a slave, a dead man, a corpse!”’ Bakunin insisted he “did not fall in spirit,” but instead nurtured the desire not to betray, submit or to seek reconciliation and “to preserve completely and to the 23. TepueH, A.H. Muxami SaxymiH h nonbcxoe ncno // r epueH, A il. Co6pamie c o hm hchhA: B 30 t . T. 11: Bbuioe a ayMhi. M.: AH CCCP, 19S7. C. 3S3,3S9. Herzen’s essay first appeared in: repueH, A il. CfiopHHK nocMepniux CTaxeft. XCemaa: H. Georg, 1870. C. 179-208. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 end the sacred sense of revolt” [cBjrroe qyB C T B O 6yHTa].2 4 The Swiss anarchist James Guillaume later added more color to the picture of Bakunin’s prison experience by means of a story which he heard directly from Bakunin himself. Relying mostly on Bakunin’s own words about his days in the Schliisselburg fortress, Guillaume, like Herzen, believed that [i]f his body weakened, then his spirit remained unshakeable. More than anything else [Bakunin] feared the erosion of his mental faculties by the enfeebling effect of incarceration [...]. He was afraid to lose his feeling of hatred and passion for revolt which supported him, and to reach the point of forgiving his executors completely, of submitting to his fate. But that fear proved exaggerated. His inner strength [aHeprmi] did not leave him for a single day, and he left prison the same as he had entered. In order to distract himself from the tedium, according to his own words, Bakunin loved to recreate in his mind the legend of Prometheus, the titan and benefactor of men, chained to a cliff in the Caucasus by the order of King of Olympus. He intended to write a drama on that basis, and I still recall the melody he composed, soft and mournful, which the chorus of sea nymphs sang as they carried peace to the victims of Jupiter’s wrath.25 Guillaume’s story was repeated in a history of socialism by the Belgian Emile de Laveleye,26 and later, in a slightly different form, by Z.K. Ralli (Arbore), another veteran “Bakuninist” who met Bakunin in 1871 while studying in Zurich and worked 24. riHCMia M.A. EaxymiHa k A.H. repueHy h H.n. Orapesy / C 6Horp. b b c x h o G m c h h t . n p H M C H . M.n. XlparoMaHOBa. CI16.: Haa. BpyfineBcicoro, 1906. C. 185-186. The first and most complete Russian edition of this work was first published in Geneva in 1896 (see note 4, above). The collection was translated into German (Stuttgart, 1895) and also into French (Paris, 1896). 25. Th jis o m , JJ ?k. (Guillaume, J.). MHxaiui AneKcaaopoBHH SaxyHHH: Enorp. oqepic / Flep. c aocraajieHHoft aaropoM pyxomcH) // Ehuioe. 1906. Na 8. C. 237. In this biographical sketch of Bakunin, which he prepared as an introduction to a French edition o f Bakunin’s works, Guillaume (1844-1916) indicates that he had originally paraphrased the story for an obituary o f Bakunin thirty years earlier. He cites the original source as: Bulletin de la F6d6ration jurassienne de 1 ’Intemationale, supplement au numero du 9 juillet 1876. 26. See: Emile de Laveleye, The Socialism o f Today, trans. G.H. Orpen (London: Field and Tuer, 1885) 197. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 closely with him for about two years. In memoirs published in 1908, Ralli contended that Bakunin had “maintained his iron character” while incarcerated in Saxony, “steadfastly believing in his rightness.” Bakunin described to Ralli, too, his vision of Prometheus, with whom Bakunin virtually identified himself, according to Ralli’s version. In a passage which remained forever in Bakunin’s biography, Ralli quoted Bakunin as saying that he “endured chains for six months and conceived an entire motif, depicting [himself] as a Prometheus, bound to a cliff." “When I hummed about this quietly to myself,” Bakunin reportedly said, “the Germans were surprised to find me so merry and singing.”27 Bakunin was also alleged to have exhibited great restraint and resolve during interrogations by the Germans, Austrians and Russians. In his sketch of Bakunin for The Bell in January 1862, Herzen told his readers how the Austrians demanded from Bakunin information on the Slavic liberation movement under the threat of life imprisonment, but received nothing from him.28 Herzen’s claims again corresponded closely to Bakunin’s own explanation in the same letter of December 8 , 1860, in which Bakunin wrote that he refused to give the Germans and Austrians any important information, but merely recited his revolutionary principles and ordered his captors to 27. PanjiH, 3.K. MnxaHJi AjiexcaaopoBin B a ic y H H M : H3 m o h x BocnoMHHafodt // MHHyBnme roan. 1908. Na 10 ( o k t .) . C. 148. Ralli (1847-?) also writes that a Prussian officer guarding Bakunin later explained how Bakunin “preserved the iron character of a revolutionary” while incarcerated. 28. TepaeH, A.H. M A . B aicy H H H // repueH, A.H. CoOpaHHe commeHHft: B 30 t . T. 16. M.: AH CCCP, 1959. C. 18. [ K o jio k o ji, a. 119/120 or 15 xhb. 1862]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200 condemn him.29 Once in Russia, Bakunin wrote, he sat in the fortress for two months with his fate unknown before the tsar suddenly demanded a “confession of sorts” [pon HcnoBejm], which Bakunin worked on for at least a month before submitting it to the tsar in early August of 1851.3 0 Bakunin speaks openly of the “Confession” in his letter to Herzen nine years later. According to Bakunin, he had no reason to reject the tsar’s demand since his actions were well known and left him “nothing to hide,” and therefore “with a few exceptions” he described to the tsar “[his] entire life abroad, with all [his] designs, impressions and feelings.” Except for “softening the forms” of his statements [cmxthhtl $opMu], Bakunin believed he wrote “very firmly and bravely” to the tsar and even added several “instructive remarks” concerning his policies. As in Saxony and Austria, moreover, Bakunin refused to provide Nikolai with information about “other persons’ sins.” The letter offered neither Nikolai nor his successor Aleksandr II any grounds for ameliorating Bakunin’s condition. Nikolai continued to confine Bakunin until his (Nikolai’s) death in 185S, and Aleksandr, upon taking the throne, personally removed Bakunin’s name from a list of prisoners to be amnestied. Seeing “not the least bit of repentance [le moindre repentir]” in the “Confession” of 1851, Aleksandr consented to Bakunin’s release, as Bakunin explained to Herzen, only thanks to the entreaties of Bakunin’s family.3 1 29. IlH C bM a M A. EaKymnia k A.H. r e p u e H y h H JI. OrapeBy / C 6aorp. a b o . h o& u i c h h t . n p H M e n . M.n. JJparoMaHoaa. CXI6.: Haa. BpyGaeBCKoro, 1906. C. 184. 30. S aicyH H H , M A. Co6paime covraemifi h iik c c m , 1828-1876. T. 4: B nopbMax h ccbinxe, 1849- 1861. M., 1935. C. 415-417. 31. riH C bM a M A. E a a y H H H a k A.H. repueHy h H JI. OrapeBy / C 6aoip. Baca. h o G m c h h t . n p H M en . M.n. J J p a r o M a H O B a . 016.: Hm. BpyGueacicoro, 1906. C. 184-186. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201 For nearly half a century, the few general comments from Bakunin’s letter to Herzen represented the most thorough source of information about the “Confession.” In his article on “Bakunin and the Polish Affair,” Herzen mentioned Bakunin’s “leading editorial” [xypHajibHufi leading article] to Nikolai on the German and Slavic movement in Europe, but he did not divulge any details, if he knew of any, or speculate on its contents.32 Dragomanov could offer no further information about Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai, suggesting only that it “might be possible” to locate it in the archives of the Third Section.33 For his sketch of Bakunin in 1908, Guillaume, in his turn, failed to provide any new information about the document. With reference only to the two well-known sources, Guillaume reiterated that Bakunin had agreed to write the “Confession” but refused to name names. The first significant hint about the contents of the document seems to have come from Ralli, whose distant recollections suggested a different attitude toward the letter on Bakunin’s part. When he and a friend asked Bakunin about the letter to Nikolai, Ralli wrote, Mikhail Aleksandrovich always replied with the following evasive statement: ‘That was a great mistake on my part In my letter to Nikolai I said a lot of true things, but nonetheless appealed to him as to a man who loves Russia, and I should not have done that because N. was a fool [h...k] and could not have understood me. I would have given a lot for that letter not to have existed! 32. repneH, A.H. MmaHji B a x y H H H h nooibCKoe aeao // repneH, A H . Co6paHHe co<nm eH H fi: B 30 t . T. 11: Bunoe h ayM W . M.: AH CCCP, 1957. C. 357. In the sentence quoted here, Herzen uses the English term “leading article.” 33. riHCbMa M A. BaayraHa k A H . repueHy h H JI. Orapeay / C 6m>rp. aaen. h o G m c h h t . npHMen. M .n. AparoMaHoaa. CII6.: Hm . Bpy&ieacicoro, 1906. C. 67. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202 Bakunin regretted having written the letter, Ralli recalled, mainly for its misguided nationalism, with which Bakunin “advised to take upon himself the role of the liberator of the Slavs from the Austrian yoke.” As Bakunin admitted to Ralli, The letter was Slavophilistic. At that time I placed too much significance on Russia in the question of liberating the Slavs from the German yoke. It was written under the influence o f the insults I had endured in Austrian jails [Ralli’s italics]. I should not have written to Nikolai, for at that point his rule had revealed the entire lie of his state system. He had already driven Russia to the brink of ruin.”34 The evidence provided by Ralli invited more speculation about the full text of Bakunin’s letter, but little, if any, more information about it appeared for another eleven years. If other associates of Bakunin like Sazhin or Kropotkin knew about the letter, according to some testimony,35 then they failed to publish any information about it. Although the years 1914-15, in particular, saw a number of new publications on Bakunin, 36 the lack of information about the “Confession” and other important documents from his period of imprisonment and exile left a conspicuous gap in the 34. Panmi, 3.K. MHxawi AnexcaiiapoBim EaKymm: H3 m o h x BocnoMKHamdi // MHHyBume ro w . 1908. N a 10 (orr.). C. 148-149. 35. In an interview conducted by Polonsky, Sazhin confirmed that Bakunin described for him “the entire contents of the ‘Confession’ in detail” (see note 94, below). M. Nettlau asserted in 1921 that “there is a report that Kropotkin was shown the document (the existence o f which was widely known) and—that he saw nothing in i t ” See: Max Nettlau, “Bakunin’s So-Called ‘Confession’ of 1851,” Freedom 35 (Dec. 1921): 75. 36. Historian A.A. Kornilov, for example, provided a wealth of information on the first two decades of Bakunin’s life in a collection of Bakunin’s letters (see: KoptnuioB, A.A. Moaoaste roost Mftxaitna EaxyHHHa: H3 Hcropmi pyccxoro poMasnoMa. M.: Haa-BO M. h C. Ca6 am H H K 0 Bux, 1915); V.I. Bogucharsky wrote at length on Bakunin’s role in Russian populism in the 1860s and 1870s (see: BorynapcKHfi [ A k o b jw b ] , B J I. AxraBHoe HapoommecTBO ceMHaecxTux roaoB. M.: Haa-ao M. h C. Ca6 a iH H H K 0 Bux, 1912); and Steklov described Bakunin’s activity in the International Workingmen’s League in several works (see, for example: CrexnoB, IO.M. [locneaHHe roast x h s h h EaxyHHH a // T o jio c MttHyamero. 1914. Nf l 5. C. 32-82). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 factual outline of Bakunin’s life. Until the first years of the Soviet era, the 1850s remained an obscure period which veteran revolutionaries like Vera Figner had always ignored in their memories of Bakunin.37 The missing chapter from Bakunin’s life began to unfold at last after the revolution, but not without an apparent struggle which foreshadowed the coming debates over Bakunin’s legacy and, subsequently, over Grossman’s analogy between Stavrogin and Bakunin. Between 1917 and 1920, when the archives of the deposed monarchy began to open, at least four historians gathered material from Bakunin’s case in the files of the Third Section. According to Steklov, whose commentary on Bakunin’s writings of this period is still the most thorough to date, professor L.K. II’insky was the first to discover the letter to Nikolai as well as several other important documents, some of which he even confiscated and thereby brought “administrative measures” of some kind upon himself.38 One of the documents, an unknown letter from Bakunin to Aleksandr II from 1857, about which more will be said below, was recovered only through the intervention of Central Committee member G.E. Zinoviev.39 At some point in 1917 Il’insky reportedly presented a copy of Bakunin’s 37. OHraep, B.H. “HcnoBeas” M A. E axyH H H a // OHniep, B.H. FIojiHoe co6 pamie comiHeHHfi: B 7 t. T. S. M., 1932. C. 365. This article first appeared in: “3aapyra”: EfonjiereHb xmnxHoro Marauma. 1921. Nf l 1 (aex.). 38. E a x y H H H , M A. Co6paHHe c o H H H e H H ft h iraceM , 1828-1876. T. 4: B nopuiax h ccunxe, 1849- 1861. M., 1935. C. 420. 39. CreicnoB, IO.M. Mnxawi AnexcaaapoBHH E a x y H H H : Ero h o o h x h aearenxHocTb (1814-1876). H. 1. M.: T-bo C b iT H H a , 1920. C. 341. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204 letter to Nikolai to the journal Voice o f the Past [T ojioc MHHyBmaro], whose “Kadet”40 editors did not print it, Steklov speculated, “apparently not wishing to compromise an opponent of the Marxists and thereby provide joy...to the hated Bolsheviks.”41 In an introductory note to IT insky’s original article on the “Confession,” the editors of Voice o f the Past admitted not wanting to publish Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai in 1917, but neglected to indicate the “many reasons” for their decision.42 Meanwhile, historian M.K. Lemke also tried to obtain material from Bakunin’s dossier for his commentary to a new edition of Herzen’s collected works in 1919. On the basis of the material he gathered, Lemke managed to provide readers of Herzen’s article “Mikhail Bakunin and the Polish Affair” with many new details about Bakunin’s daily life in Russian prisons and exile; but his commentary on the letter to Nikolai amounted to only a few words and a footnote, in which he lamented that “Bakunin’s ‘Confession’ was not given to me or to others at the Historical-Revolutionary Archive,” and that “the state will print it first, but, unfortunately, not anytime soon.”43 By late 1919 Il’insky succeeded in bringing Bakunin’s “Confession” to light through several excerpts that 40. The term “Kadet” refers to the Russian party of “Constitutional Democrats,” who opposed the Bolsheviks in 1917. 41. EaxyH H H , M A. Co6 paiute c o h h h c h h H h mtceM, 1828-1876. T. 4: B nopuuax h ccunxe, 1849- 1861. M., 193S. C. 422. In a more recent observation on this incident, but without reference to Steklov’s comment, Lawrence Orton also suggested that “the moderate editors apparently deemed the Confession too damaging a weapon to place in the hands of the Marxist parties.” See: Mikhail Bakunin, The Confession o f M ikhail Bakunin, with the Marginal Comments of Tsar Nicholas I, trans. Robert C. Howes, ed. Lawrence D. Orton (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1977) 20. 42. H jis h h c k h H , JI. Hoaue M arepHami o SaxymiHe // Tonoc M H H y B m e r o . 1920/1921. C. 128. 43. T e p a e H , A.H. tlojraoe c o 6 p a m ie c o h h h c h h H h imceM. [T. 1-22]. T. 14: Bunoe h nym i. H. 6-7 / non pea. M.K. Heme. n6.: foe. taa-so, 1920. C. 426,654. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 accompanied his analysis of the document, but his short article offered only a glimpse of the entire letter.44 Sometime in 1919 the letter also reached the hands of Steklov,45 who included more excerpts and a more thorough review of it in his biography of Bakunin the following year. Near the end of 1920, Polonsky gained access to the Bakunin documents46 and received an invitation from the new State Publishing House to write an introduction to its publication of the letters.47 In 1921, Bakunin’s “Confession” to Nikolai and letter to Aleksandr finally appeared.48 The text of Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai of 1851 in many ways confirms Bakunin’s own characterization of it ten years later. Just as he told Herzen in his letter of 1860, Bakunin summarizes his life for the tsar, devoting by far most of his long narrative to the main political episodes of the 1840s that preceded his arrest in Saxony in 1849. True to his words to Herzen, at the outset of the letter Bakunin asks the tsar not to question his sincerity nor to ask him to speak of the “sins” of anyone but himself, and throughout the entire document Bakunin offers no compromising 44. H ntH H C K H fi, JI. H cnoaeab M A. EaxyHHHa // B e c n m x jnrrepaT ypu. 1919. Na 10. C. 2-9. 45. EaxyHHH, M A. Co6paime c o h h h c h h A h t iH C C M , 1828*1876. T. 4: B TiopbMax h ccbunce, 1849- 1861. M., 1935. C. 567. 46. In the preface to a collection of archival materials on Bakunin in 1923, Polonsky indicated that he and Steklov were the only two researchers who “managed to become acquainted with them more or less thoroughly.” See: Marepnanbi ana 6H orpa4> H H M. EaxyHHHa. T. 1 / Pea. h npmieq. B.n. IlojiO H CK oro. M.; ITr.: Toe. H 3 A - B O , 1923. 47. Polonsky describes his role in the 1921 edition in: MarepHanu ana 6H orpa4> H H M. EaxyH H H a. T. 2 / Pea. h npHMen. B.IT. IIonoHCKoro. M.; JI.: Toe. c o u .- 3 k o h o m . H aa-B O , 1933. C. 13. 48. E axyH H H , M A. HcnoBenx h im cbM O Anexcaiuipy Q / Bcryn. cr. B.n. nonoHcxoro. M.: Toe. Kia-Bo, 1920. A second and more carefully prepared edition under Polonsky’s editorship followed in 1923 (see: EaxyHHH , M A. Hcnoaeztb // MkrepHanu ana 6Horpa4>HH M. EaxyHHH a. T. 1. M.; n r., 1923. C. 95-248). Twelve years later, Steklov edited a third edition o f the “Confession” with more corrections and additional commentary. See: E axyH H H , M A . CoGpamie c o < tH H eH H ft h r h c c m , 1828- 1876. T. 4: B nopuaax h ccunxe, 1849-1861. M., 1935. C. 99-207. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 information about the revolutionary movements within the Russian empire at that time. Much of the letter contains Bakunin’s commentary on political events in Europe, which he often interprets from the standpoint of a Slavic nationalist, as he later reported to Ralli. Recalling his feeling of alienation while living in Paris in 1848, Bakunin admits he was “unable to make of [himself] either a German or a Frenchman” and increasingly felt himself once and forever “a Russian.” In the “Slavs” he met in Paris he found “unbelievable freshness and incomparably more innate sense [npHpoaHhifi yM ] than in the Germans.” Emphasizing the need to unite and defend the Slavic peoples from the German and Austrian empires, Bakunin informs Nikolai that his fellow Slavic nationalists were prepared in 1848 to appeal to Nikolai to create and lead a new Pan-Slavic federation in Europe, and that he, Bakunin, even intended to write a letter to the tsar for that purpose. Other passages in the “Confession” support Bakunin’s contention that he wrote “very firmly and bravely” to Nikolai. Thus alongside words of patriotism calculated to please Nikolai, Bakunin’s letter also expressed thoughts of an outright revolutionary nature. At one point Bakunin applauds the efforts and heroism of workers in Paris during the 1848 revolution and assures Nikolai that “no other class” was capable of such “noble self-sacrifice.” He also declares the Russian state guilty of more “evil, oppression and wrong” than any other Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207 state and insists that to live in Russia is “difficult and painful for anyone who loves truth.”49 For all its boldness and verity to his own characterization of it years later, Bakunin’s “Confession” also contains many significant details which Bakunin completely failed to mention in his statements to Herzen and Ralli. Among the most striking of them is the recurring theme of Bakunin’s remorse for his revolutionary activity of the 1840s. Beginning with his initial promise to confess to Nikolai as to “a spiritual father,” and concluding with his signature as a “repentant sinner [icaiomHftcfl rpenramc] Mikhail Bakunin,” Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai is marked throughout with signs of heartfelt regret for the path of his political evolution, which culminated in his decision in 1846 to promote and incite a revolution in Russia. Bakunin expresses great compunction for his “political weakness,” which manifested itself, for example, in his turn “from philosophy to politics” in the early 1840s, his association with leading European socialists and communists like Weitling,s o and his role in the uprisings of Paris, Prague and Dresden of 1848-49. He characterizes his actions throughout this 49. E ax y H H H , M.A. HcnoBeab // MaTepnanu asa 6 H 0 rp a 4 > H H M. E axyH H H a. T. 1 . M.; nr., 1923. C. 103, 121, 130, 144, 162-163, 183-184. 50. Wilhelm Weitling (1808-71) was a poor tailor and early German socialist who organized a Communist society in Switzerland, where Bakunin met him in 1843. Although Bakunin may have adopted some of Weitling’s ideas, he claims in his “ ‘ Confession” that he never became a “Communist” like Weitling. On Weitling and Bakunin see: rionoHCXHfi, B JI. Mnxami AiexcaHopoBHH EaxyH H H : X C m H b, jtejrreJibHocrfc, MuuuieHHe. T. 1.2-e naa. M.; JI.: Toe. raa-ao, 1925. C. 125-141. On Weitling also see: GJ3.H. Cole, The Forerunners, 1789-1850. Vol. 1 of A H istory o f Socialist Thought (New York: S t Martin’s, 1967) 226-228. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 period as “sins” and “crimes” resulting from “madness” and “Don Quixotism.” 51 In subservient and desperate tones Bakunin also assures his “Highness” Nikolai that his love of Russia and the tsar remained in his heart since childhood, that his “criminal” mind led him astray in Europe, and that he “knew Russia but little.” By the time he was finally arrested in Dresden, Bakunin was “exhausted and drained” not only physically, but “more so morally.” “Indifferent” to his arrest and fate, Bakunin wrote, he merely hoped for execution and the end of his “empty, useless and criminal” life.52 Three other unknown letters by Bakunin in the archive of the Third Section suggest Bakunin’s remorse more strongly than his letter to Nikolai. The first, a letter to his parents and siblings of February 1852 which the authorities permitted Bakunin to write but then refused to forward, exhibits the same symptoms of regret that stand out so conspicuously in his “Confession” of the previous year. Disparaging the “sad legacy” of interest in German philosophy which he bestowed upon his brother Aleksandr, Bakunin reminds his brother’s wife that his “philosophical musings” led him only to a jail cell. He discourages his brother from studying “abstractions” and describes his life as one of “fantasy and madness.” To his brother Q’ia he declares that he “stands out here [in his prison cell] like a signpost which reads, ’Don’t follow this road.’” To his parents Bakunin insists that his “thoughts torment and oppress him with 51. E axyH H H , M.A. Hcnoaeob // MarepHajw a m 6Horpa$HH M. E axyH H H a. T. 1. M.; ITr., 1923. C. 105,137, 176. 52. E ax y H H H , M.A. HcnoBenb // MarepHanu am 6 H o rp a < |> H H M. E axyH H H a. T. 1. M.; rir., 1923. C. 102,130, 132, 138, 160, 168, 176,248. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 late and fruitless regret of the past, late repentance.'’ Again calling himself a “Don Quixote,” he expresses his “feeling of deep, sincere gratitude” that instead of execution, which he deserved, he was “handed over to one of the kindest men in Russia.” Thus what he “once considered a misfortune” has become “a genuinely good fortune.” Bakunin’s repentance becomes even more explicit in the letters he wrote after two years of confinement at SchlQsselburg. In 1857, following rejection of two formal pleas from Bakunin’s mother for his permission to spend the rest of his life confined at home for the sake of his poor health, Bakunin himself appealed to Aleksandr for pardon and at the same time offered his emphatic assurance to the head of the Third Section V.A. Dolgorukov, who delivered the appeal, that his declaration of repentance to the tsar was sincere and that he would “never again abuse” his freedom. To the tsar Bakunin expresses his regret in no uncertain terms. Acknowledging that he could not have satisfied Nikolai with his letter of 1851, which he wrote while still “in the lingering smoke of the recent past” [b nazxy HenaBHero npomeamero], Bakunin claims to realize that his hope for clemency rests solely on “complete, sincere openness” on his part. Incarceration carries the “great and unquestionable benefit” of forcing the incarcerated to “see [his] life in its true light,” Bakunin writes, and as a result Bakunin now describes his past as “empty, useless, harmful,” a life “wasted on chimerical and fruitless aspirations and ending in crime” which he would “spend otherwise” if he possibly could. Bakunin concludes his short and humiliating statement with an expression of “deep gratitude” to “his Highness,” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210 Aleksandr, as well as to his “unforgettable parent,” Nikolai, for all their mercy toward him.53 Although he had been reportedly unmoved, like his father, by Bakunin’s “Confession” of 1851, Aleksandr saw sufficient repentance in Bakunin’s appeal of 18S7 to release him from the fortress. The four documents discovered in the archives of the Third Section outline a picture of Bakunin which none of his own subsequent statements or recollections by others could have suggested. The “Confession” of 1851 not only demonstrates Bakunin’s willingness to bow submissively before his enemy, the despot and “hangman” Nikolai, but also suggests that Bakunin had jettisoned most of his progressive views in favor of a narrow, even reactionary nationalism for which he would be criticized later by other revolutionaries, including Marx and Engels. The letters to his parents, to Dolgorukov and, especially, to Aleksandr II all indicate that his regret for his past, his concern for his fate, and his willingness to plead for mercy grew throughout his years in prison until they eventually overcame his ability to withstand incarceration. With none of the elements that mitigate his “Confession” to Nikolai, no offer of compromise, no criticism of the Russian state, no advice regarding official policies, for example, the appeal to Aleksandr from the “pleading criminal” S3. CrewioB, IO.M. Maxaiui AjiexcawipoBHH E a x y H H H : Era judhs h flerrcjib H O C T b (1814-1876). H . 1. M.: T-bo Chthhb, 1920. C. 326-330,342,343-346. All three documents cited here are included in: E a x y H H H , M A. Co6pajme c o R H H e H H fi h naceM, 1828-1876. T. 4: B nopbMax h ccunxe, 1849- 1861. M., 1935. C. 209-228,272-276. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211 presents a truly penitent, defeated and demoralized Bakunin. To those who so eulogized him, Bakunin was unrecognizable. By 1923, when Grossman presented his thesis on Stavrogin and Bakunin, the Soviet press had already witnessed four years’ worth of polemical exchanges between historians and political activists, among them Borovoi, Otverzhennyi and Polonsky, over the significance of Bakunin’s “Confession.” The conclusions which Grossman derived primarily from Bakunin’s “Confession”—that “the legend about Bakunin is inclined to exaggerate his inexhaustible activity” (16), that Bakunin had a “defective spiritual constitution” which precluded any genuine “political fanaticism” in his heart (35-36)—were anticipated to a large extent by some of the first reactions to the unusual documents. 4.2 First responses to the “Confession” The response to the long-awaited publication of Bakunin’s letters was immediate. In his introductory article to the documents Polonsky counted the letters to Nikolai and Aleksandr among “the most stunning documents we know about revolutionaries.”54 For one reviewer, the historian A.A. Kornilov, Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai was of “universal literary significance”;5 S and as the author of another article 54. riojioH C K H ti, B.n. M H xaH Ji E ax y H H H b anoxy copoxoBux-mecmaecxTux ronoB // E ax y H H H , M A. HcnoBeab h micuto Ajiaccaunpy 0. M., 1920. C. 5. 55. K o p H H J iO B , A.A. Eme pai o EaxyH H H e h ero “HcnoBeaH” Hmcanaio // Becnanc jnrrepatypu. 1921. N f l 12 (36). C. 13. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212 wrote, “In 1922, whenever anyone speaks of a “Confession,” everyone understands that the reference is to Bakunin’s so-called ‘Confession. ’”36 While a few made an attempt to approach the letters dispassionately and without judgment, Bakunin’s uncharacteristically submissive, repentant tone before the tsar compelled most respondents either to censure Bakunin for his capitulation, or else to defend his actions through an explanation of his circumstances at the time. A proper assessment of Bakunin’s experience in Russian prisons and its significance for his legacy required consideration of several factors, including the extent of Bakunin’s sincerity, the conditions under which he composed the prison letters, and also the nature of his thought and personality before and after his prison years. The letter to Nikolai contains contradictory evidence for each of these questions. Bakunin’s ethos throughout the “Confession” rests on honesty and thoughtful candor, yet he both flatters and criticizes the tsar and his policies. He emphatically renounces his revolutionary activity of the previous decade and assures the tsar of his loyalty, yet he also refuses to denounce anyone and in so doing failed to convince Nikolai of his sincerity.57 To Aleksandr he delivered a desperate plea for mercy and release from prison. Once he arrived in Siberia, he began to enjoy the favors of the Governor of 56. “HcnoBeob” [M A. EaxyHHHa] // IIo h h h : Koonepaiuu — CmuuwanKiM — 3nw a. 1922. N a 4/5. C. 14. The main editor of this journal and possibly the author of the article cited here, A. Atabekian, was a long-time associate of Kropotkin who wrote a number o f pamphlets in defense of anarchism in the early 1920s and served on the Kropotkin Museum Committee in Moscow after Kropotkin’s death in 1921. See: Avrich, P. Russian Anarchism (Princeton: P. Univ. Pr., 1967): 237. 57. E a x y H H H , M A . Hcnoaeas // Mareptuuiu ana 6H orpa$HH M. E a x y H H H a . T. 1. M.; fir., 1923. C. 103. In the margins o f the manuscript Nikolai wrote that “only a complete confession, not a conditional one, can be considered a real confession.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 Eastern Siberia N.N. Muraviev-Amursky, an ambitious statesman who exercised a generally liberal and tolerant attitude toward political exiles until they failed to support him.58 Yet as soon as the chance arose, Bakunin fled exile, returned to Europe and immediately resumed the revolutionary activity he repented so emphatically in his letters to Nikolai and Aleksandr of a few years earlier. Even more problematic than the psychological problem of Bakunin's motivation, however, was the “moral” question of Bakunin’s decision to offer his repentance, sincere or not, to the tsars. Had Bakunin failed to repent, everyone seemed to agree, he would never have emerged from the fortress at all. Yet some respondents believed that no circumstances could account for such a complete surrender. For some readers in 1921, Bakunin’s appeals to Nikolai and Aleksandr represented an unforgivable breach of revolutionary morality which forever lowered his standing in the canon of Russian revolutionaries. It was the “moral” question which overshadowed all other issues and illuminated the relevance of the “Confession” to the problem of Bakunin’s legacy for the Russian revolution. The first commentator on Bakunin’s letters, II’insky, approached the documents with a certain neutrality, but not without an awareness of the implications which the letters carried for Bakunin’s legacy. In his review of 1919, B’insky for the most part accepted the sincerity of Bakunin’s self-criticism and characterized his letter 58. N.N. Muraviev-Amursky (1809-1881) denounced the exiled Decembrist D.I. Zavalishin (1804- 1892) and particularly Petrashevsky, for example, for their failure to support his policies. See: riojioH C icH fi, B.n. Mhxshii AjieKcampoBin E axyH H H : XftoHb, aerrejibHocTb, Mumnemie. T. 1.2-e m a. M.; JI.: Toe. ma-ao, 1925. C. 354-379. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 to Nikolai as “the tragedy of an activist who has come to doubt the rightness of his cause.” Bakunin’s “self-flagellation” and many lamentations over the “fantastic projects, empty hopes, and criminal enterprises” of his career in Europe, or his ‘"ridiculous, senseless and brazen” ideas of old, II’insky explained, reflected Bakunin’s genuine desire to discover the reasons for his political failures, for his “pitiful story,” which he came to understand in the isolation of his prison cell, II’ insky argued, more clearly than at any other time before. In the end Il’insky questioned only Bakunin’s confessions of “sinfulness,” whose sincerity he found difficult to ascertain on the basis of the letter to Nikolai alone. Due to “mitigating” circumstances surrounding the letters, principally Bakunin’s indefinite confinement and isolation from all but his family, Il’insky concluded that at the moment he wrote it Bakunin “could have been completely sincere.” He added, however, that Bakunin’s sincerity had its limits insofar as he recounted only his own “sins,” as he later assured Herzen, but gave the tsar no new information about the sins of fellow activists in Russia or Europe other than those whom the tsar already knew. As for the letter to Tsar Aleksandr of 1857, which for some reason he did not discuss at length, Il’insky acknowledged only that it left an impression “not at all in favor of Bakunin” [najiexo He b nojn&y EaxyHHHa], primarily because of Bakunin’s attempt to conceal it later. Otherwise Il’insky perceived only “a certain complaisance” before the monarch on Bakunin’s part.59 In his longer article of 1920, II’insky argued for Bakunin’s sincerity again and added an additional 59. H n u m c K H f i, JI. H c n o a e a f c M.A. B ax y H H H a // Becranc j r a T e p a r y p u . 1919. N a 10. C. 3-4,6-7,9. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 qualification in Bakunin’s favor. Attributing the more compromising aspects of the letter to Nikolai to Bakunin’s extraordinary circumstances, Il’insky emphasized that Bakunin’s words of penitence “become lost somehow” and fail to undermine its value as a “truly brave...speech of a man independent in his inner view.” At the same time, however, Il’insky admitted that “of course one cannot speak of justifying Bakunin” for humbling himself so extremely before Nikolai. With regard to the letters of 1857, which he addressed in more detail this time, Il’insky could offer no defense of Bakunin. Thus in acknowledging the sincerity of Bakunin’s appeals to Dolgorukov and Aleksandr, Il’insky confirmed that “Bakunin’s physical and spiritual strength” had collapsed so completely that the cost of his freedom was of no concern. In his consideration of Bakunin’s silence about the appeals in his letter to Herzen, II’insky also found “no explanations that reconcile us with Bakunin.” Il’insky warned against a “tendentious” interpretation of Bakunin’s prison letters, insisting that “it is difficult to gain an impression of an entire book based only on its individual pages”; but he also concluded that the prison documents “are deadly for Bakunin-the-revolutionary,” and if “tom from his life as a whole,” suggest the work of a renegade or “of those who save themselves and their own skin.”60 The excerpts of Bakunin’s letter in II’insky’s article prompted a response in November 1919 from Victor Serge (Kibalchich), a leading French activist of anarchist 60. H jib H H C K H ft, JI. Hoaue MsrepHanu o EaKymme // Tojioc MHHyBinero. 1920/1921. C. 132*133, 137*139,142-143. According to the editors of the journal, they had originally intended to publish llinsky’s article in 1917, along with the full text of the “Confession.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 sympathies who at the time worked as a translator, among other capacities, in the Russian branch of the Comintern.61 Serge followed Il’insky in assuming Bakunin’s sincerity, but he seemed to accept Bakunin’s defeat with less reservation than Il’insky. Describing as a “euphemism” Bakunin’s claim (to Herzen) that he attempted merely “to soften the forms” of his remarks, Serge confirmed that Bakunin “humiliated himself,” “weakened” and “faltered” at this point in his life: The iron man, the irreconcilable revolutionary who for several days was the rebel dictator of revolutionary Dresden, who was chained to the wall of his prison in the citadel of Olmfltz and sought after by two emperors, and who was to remain until the end of his life an initiator and a source of inspiration for great activists, the spiritual father of anarchism clearly suffered a moral crisis and did not emerge unaffected. Maybe it took but little to uproot and bring down the oak... Despite some disenchantment, Serge attempted to defend Bakunin on familiar grounds. More so than Il’insky, Serge insisted that Bakunin’s seemingly hopeless condition at the time, his many “astounding lines” of accurate political analysis of events in Europe and Russia, as well as his refusal to “betray” anyone all indicate that the “Confession” ultimately failed to humiliate Bakunin’s “spirit.” He concluded his article, however, with an indirect acknowledgment that Bakunin’s legacy required revision. Had an “ordinary” man written such letters to the tsars, then the extraordinary conditions of incarceration would explain everything. Yet N.G. Chemyshevsky spent twenty years in prison and exile, at times bordering on madness, Serge explained, but 61. Victor Serge, Memoirs o f a Revolutionary, 1901-1941, trans., ed. Peter Sedgwick (London: Oxford, 1963) 89. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 “did not weaken”; the populists N.A. Morozov and V.N. Figner spent twenty years in Schlusselburg without ever offering repentance; and “all those, famous or unknown, who lost their minds or died in the jails of the tsar,” even if they doubted themselves or their work, or even if they occasionally failed, Serge emphasized, “they remained silent,” and “their executioners never knew of it.”62 To all those who “have inherited their spirit,” he admitted, Bakunin’s letter would remain “painful,” and among Bakunin’s “many enemies,” Serge predicted, “someone will begin to speak with malevolent joy of the ‘fall of Bakunin. ’”63 In 1921, only months before the full text of Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai became available, Serge’s review appeared in German, then French editions, and thereby ushered in a series of articles devoted to the “Confession,” as well as to anarchism in general, according to Steklov.64 Meanwhile, back in Russia, just before the publication of II’insky’s second article, Steklov offered a fundamentally different analysis of 62. N.G. Chemyshevsky (1828-1889) sat in the Peter-and-PauI fortress from July 1862 to May 1864, then in other jails and stockades until 1871, when his long exile began. N.A. Morozov (1854- 1946) and V.N. Figner (1852-1943) spent from 1881 to 1905 and 1884 to 1904 in the SchlQsselburg fortress, respectively. 63. Victor Serge, “La Confession de Bakounine,” Bulletin Communiste 56 (22 Dec. 1921): 941- 943. Quotations here are based on an unpublished translation by Alexander Choate, and also on a Russian translation of selections from the article which appear in: B a K y H H H , M A . Co6paHHe c o H H H G H H fi h nHceM, 1828-1876. T. 4: B nopbMax h ccbunce, 1849-1861. M., 1935. C. 421. 64. Although Serge signed his review “Petrograd, November 7,1919,” there seems to be no evidence of its publication in Russia. According to Steklov ( B a K y H H H , M.A. Co6pamte c o h k h c h h A h nH ceM , 1828-1876. T. 4: B nopuaax h ccsunce, 1849-1861. M., 1935. C. 420), Serge’s review appeared for the first time only in June, 1921. in German translation, in the Berlin journal Forum (June 1921), and then in the Swiss and Italian press. The original French edition o f the article was published for the first time in Bulletin Communiste on December 22, 1921. In his preface to Serge’s article, Boris Souvarine noted that Serge’s original text had been misrepresented in the German, Swiss and Italian translations that had appeared earlier. See: Victor Serge, “La Confession de Bakounine,” Bulletin Communiste 56 (22 Dec. 1921): 941. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 Bakunin’s prison letters in the first volume of a new epic biography of Bakunin. Despite a thorough analysis of all the prison letters from the archive, in the end Steklov remained unconvinced of Bakunin’s sincerity. He admitted that Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai on the surface “gives the impression of deep sincerity, truth and passionate conviction,” and on occasion seems to include elements of repentance; but to the question, “Did [Bakunin] really find himself at that moment in a state of fallen spirit owing to his disappointment in the revolution which had suffered a complete rout?” Steklov answered that it was “difficult to say” and would never be known, since Bakunin “carried the answer to his grave.” More often than not, Steklov expressed skepticism toward Bakunin’s words, and at one point he reminded readers of the potential role of “Bakunin’s characteristic diplomacy and political calculation.” He emphasized that on the whole the “Confession” could not be considered a true repentance “in the sense which is generally ascribed to that word.” Bakunin’s predicament at the moment, his failure to offer Nikolai any new information about revolutionary conspiracies in the empire, his willingness to speak the “cruel truth” to Nikolai about the condition of Russia, together with Bakunin’s own understanding that his repentance “came too late” all persuaded Steklov that the letter of 1851 contained no “true repentance.” Recalling Bakunin’s active role in the revolutionary struggles of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 1848-49, moreover, Steklov claimed that for Bakunin suddenly to regard all of his revolutionary activity as “criminal” was simply “psychologically improbable.”65 Apart from the question of Bakunin’s motivation, Steklov also addressed the issue which had concerned Serge: From our perspective today such an act [of confession] seems utterly inadmissible. We recall how severely the public opinion of revolutionaries chastised any attempts to enter into “open explanations” with the gendarmes, even if those explanations contained no element of “sincere repentance” and were limited to reports of an “informative nature.” [...] Among the most steadfast [revolutionaries] it even became customary and obligatory not to give any deposition at all nor to enter into any explanations with the gendarmes whatsoever. In that sense Bakunin’s act is unquestionably reprehensible, regardless of its content, and from the point of view of a contemporary revolutionary appears absolutely inadmissible. Here, too, however, Steklov exonerated Bakunin, this time by calling attention to the historical conditions surrounding Bakunin’s activity. Unlike the revolutionaries, or “raznochintsy,” of the 1860s, Steklov explained, Russian revolutionaries of the 1820s, 1830s and 1840s “did not feel so psychologically alienated” from the monarchy as the revolutionaries of subsequent generations, and therefore evaluation of their activity required different standards. Steklov also refused to concede that Bakunin truly capitulated to Aleksandr in 18S7. Referring to Bakunin’s fear of losing the “sacred sense of rebellion” while in prison, Steklov concluded that “his powerful spirit overcame all the physical and spiritual deprivations, and he emerged from prison in the same frame of mind with which he entered.” Steklov went further. Admitting that such 65. CreuioB, K D .M . Maxawi AjieKcaaopoBin B aK y H H H : Era h o o h k h jwarcibHOCTb (1814-1876). q. 1. M.: T-ao C unoia, 1920. C. 295-301,318. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220 an evaluation “might seem paradoxical” in light of “the moments of weakness and renunciation” in Bakunin's letters to Nikolai and Aleksandr, Steklov declared that “in general Bakunin remained the same as he had been, and in certain respects became even more extreme, which he demonstrated as soon as he broke from the obstinate paws of the autocracy and plunged into his familiar revolutionary element” [poACTBeHHaa eMy peBOJHOQHOHHaa cthxhx]. In Steklov’s mind, [Bakunin] might have been disappointed by many things: by his bright hopes, by the means he chose for the struggle, perhaps temporarily even by the revolutionary path (under the influence of a complete rout of the revolution in Europe and the absence of a revolutionary movement in Russia). But that Bakunin, as before, hated the enslavement and exploitation of man by man, that he particularly hated vile Russian despotism and sympathized with the working masses—of this there can be no doubt. Steklov offered two possible explanations for Bakunin’s decision to “repent.” If Bakunin had already been thinking at that time of his subsequent escape and return to the revolutionary struggle, then he must have realized the need to act against his own conscience [noxpHBHTb nymoft] and make one more “‘formal’ concession” to the monarch. Such a decision would have been easy for Bakunin, Steklov pointed out, who was “not very scrupulous” with regard to means and as a rule was willing “not to stand on ceremony” with his enemies. The second hypothesis Steklov considered more likely: Tired and ill, perhaps [Bakunin] simply longed for freedom, even ‘limited freedom.’ He simply wished for a philistine lifestyle [noxHTb ofruBarejibCKoft XH3Hbio]. Perhaps he hoped that in time he would be allowed to return to Russia, to dear Premukhino, where he would again live among his own family, in a comfortable manor house, in a robe, with a pipe in hand, to read Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221 newspapers, to enlighten and edify neighbors and visiting friends, recalling former days with them and arguing all night about the fate o f mankind, philosophy, etc. The latter hypothesis simplified the problem o f Bakunin’s motivation, but it also contradicted Steklov’s attempt to exonerate Bakunin. If Bakunin was prepared simply to retire to his family estate, then Bakunin’s prison experience obviously exerted a more substantial and lasting effect on his character than Steklov was willing to admit, and the question of Bakunin’s ‘ Tall,” in that case, remained open. Bakunin’s prison letters soon received another close analysis by Grossman’s future opponent Polonsky. Nearly a generation younger than Steklov and without the latter’s experience as a historian, nonetheless Polonsky had maintained an interest in Bakunin’s life since the early 1910s, when he conceived of a dissertation on “anti-state teachings.”6 6 Alongside his articles on literature and the arts, which comprise the greater part of his bibliography, before the revolution Polonsky also published on history and contemporary politics in Petersburg journals and newspapers, including several articles on anarchism for Gorky’s newspaper New Life [HoBaa xouHb], In 1919 he completed what would be the first o f many writings about Bakunin over the next decade. Just before Q’insky’s review of Bakunin’s “Confession” appeared in the Literary Herald, the State Publishing House issued Polonsky’s “popular sketch” of Bakunin’s life. Polonsky’s book provided a useful survey o f Bakunin’s entire life, but 66. PrAJTH, $. 1328, on. 4, ea. 72, jl 21. In these autobiographical notes, Polonsky indicates that his subsequent work on Bakunin grew out o f his original proposal, which was never realized. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222 its scope was intentionally narrow, as he explained himself, since he conceived it as only one part o f a larger work on the history o f anarchism.6 7 With only a few pages devoted to Bakunin’s prison years and no references to the letters that had not yet become available, Polonsky’s first work on Bakunin included no more than a passing mention o f Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai. Upon the publication of Steklov’s work in 1920, however, Polonsky intensified his study o f Bakunin, particularly the first half of his life, in light o f the new discoveries. Over the next few years Polonsky produced several works on Bakunin, including an entire monograph on Bakunin’s life up to 1861 which significantly expanded his sketch o f 1920, and at least one public lecture entitled “Bakunin on his Knees.”6 8 Although they proceeded from Steklov’s work in certain respects, Polonsky’s studies managed both to accept the fact of Bakunin’s capitulation and yet also to provide a subtle defense o f Bakunin. Polonsky’s reading of Bakunin appeared first in a critique o f Steklov’s biography before the end o f 1920. There Polonsky adamantly disputed Steklov’s conclusions and accepted the sincerity of Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai without qualification. In the wake o f the “painful impression” left by Bakunin’s “repentance, disappointment and self-reproach,” Polonsky declared that “there can be no talk o f Bakunin’s Prometheanism” [npoMereficTBo]. Dissatisfied with 67. I T o jio H C K H fi, B.n. Maxaiui AjieKcaaopoBm E a ic y H H H (1814*1876). M.: Toe. ma-Bo. 1920. C. 3. 68. The title o f Polonsky’s lecture is taken from the “Chronicle” section of the journal Press and Revolution. See: ITeron h peaojuomu. 1922. N * 2. C. 398. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223 Steklov’s ambiguous analysis o f Bakunin’s motives, Polonsky rejected Steklov’s two hypotheses and argued instead that the “Confession” and the letter to Tsar Aleksandr indicated a period o f a “most profound moral ‘fall,’” and a “genuine reconciliation” with reality.6 9 Through a review of Bakunin’s activity in Siberia between 18S7 and 1861, Polonsky also refuted the idea that Bakunin’s views underwent no significant changes throughout his years o f exile. Instead o f returning to the rebel o f old, Polonsky emphasized that Bakunin lived under the wing o f Muraviev and exhibited no “revolutionary pathos” or penchant for rebellion in his activity. In a study o f Bakunin’s years in exile for the journal Red Virgin Soil [KpacHaa hobb], Polonsky maintained that Bakunin’s enthusiastic support of Muraviev’s policies was genuine and consistent with the “transitional mind-set” [yMOHacrpoeHHe nepexo/moro BpeMemi] which succeeded Bakunin’s fall. Bakunin’s transitional state in turn preceded the “new outburst o f revolutionary passion” which “lay dormant, buried beneath the ashes o f his ordeals, but still not completely extinguished and smoldering unseen somewhere in the depths o f his soul.” Thus Bakunin’s “spiritual decay” [nymeBHBift M apa3M ] was already “coming to an end” by 1860, Polonsky conceded, hence Bakunin’s insistence upon the need for revolution in Russia in his letter to Herzen o f December 8, 1860; but in the same letter Bakunin spoke only of his desire to return to Russia, Polonsky noted, not to the W est Bakunin’s “enthusiasm for a great cause” had awakened by that time, Polonsky explained, but he still did not understand “the character of that cause.” In 69. nonoHCKHft, B.n. H oua K H H ra o E aicyH H H e // Tbop>mctbo. 1920. N a 7/10. C. 45-46. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224 Polonsky’s mind, it was only after Muraviev was removed from his post in Irkutsk that Bakunin lost hope for a return to Russia and resolved suddenly to try to return to the West.7 0 In an introductory article for the 1921 publication o f the “Confession,” Polonsky developed his hypothesis in light o f Bakunin’s thought and activity before and after his prison and exile, that is, during the 1840s and 1860s. Responding to the question, “How could Bakunin fall so far,” Polonsky insisted that the letters demonstrated not “the cunning maneuver o f a man resolved to purchase his freedom at any cost,” but rather “a genuine reconsideration and rejection o f his former world view.” Polonsky found the letter to Nikolai striking “not so much for its tone of debasement...as for its profound and sincere condemnation o f [Bakunin’s] past.” In Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai Polonsky saw Bakunin’s return to the “right-Hegelianism” of his youth, a stage which revealed “no traces o f any political radicalism or influence of the socialist ideas we find in Herzen and Ogarev.” Although Bakunin moved in the circle o f Westemizers, Polonsky believed that Bakunin was “never infected with a Western, socialist spirit” before he left Russia in 1840 and “had no taste” for progressive political and social ideas. The “moving force o f Bakunin’s searches” throughout his entire life up to his arrest, Polonsky claimed, was “not an intellectual longing to discover the unsolved mysteries o f man’s existence, but an unsatisfied 70. nojiOHCKHfi, BJ1. Kpenocraue h CH6Hpcme roau M. BaKymou // KpacHM H O B b . 1921. Kh. 3. C. 132, 140-141. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225 thirst fo r activity” [Polonsky’s italics]. Throughout the 1840s in Europe, Polonsky noted, Bakunin remained alien to ideas o f communism and socialism propagated by his acquaintances Weitling, Proudhon and Marx, and for that reason he failed to attach himself to a single movement or group. While in exile in Siberia, Bakunin’s had “no anarchistic, rebellious plans whatsoever,” and even after he joined Herzen and Ogarev in Europe “had no thoughts o f destroying statism.” Polonsky believed that Bakunin became a conscious revolutionary only after the Polish uprising of 1863, when Bakunin was suddenly shaken from his “condition o f wavering equilibrium” and “the old anxiety, the unrestrained expanse of his nature, the belief in the creative powers o f destruction which had nearly faded, his revolutionary passion, [all] reawakened powerfully in his soul.” Just as he had denied the revolutionary aspects o f Bakunin’s thought which Steklov identified, Polonsky thus formulated a vision of Bakunin as a passionate but essentially conservative activist before 1863.7 1 Soon the study Polonsky had intended to publish as “Bakunin and his Time” grew into a two-volume project. By 1922, when the State Publishing House published the first volume o f his new monograph on Bakunin, Polonsky had begun to link the problem o f Bakunin’s prison letters to the larger task o f determining “how the right Hegelian Bakunin was transformed in the West into a furious radical.”7 2 As he 71. nanoHCKHlt, B.n. Maxaan Eatcyaaa b anoxy copoxoBux-tnecmaecxTbix roaoB // Baxyaaa, M.A. H cnoB C O fc a nacu<o Anexcaaopy II. M., 1920. C. 24-26,35,37,42. 72. nojioacxaft, B.n. Maxaan AnexcaHapoBaa BaxyHaa: XCaaab, aeaTensaocrb, Mumeaae. T. 1. 2-e m a. M.; JI.: Toe. h oh-bo, 1925. C. V. The second volume o f the project, which was advertised as forthcoming by the State Publishing House but never appeared, was to be called “Bakunin as an Anarchist” Polonsky managed to publish individual chapters in Russian journals, and drafts o f other Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 examined Bakunin’s activity during the years leading up to his arrest in 1849, Polonsky perceived a glaring lack of direction in Bakunin’s thought and activity, and therefore he opposed those historians who, like Steklov, treated Bakunin as a conscious political thinker at this stage. He disputed the claims o f the Austrian scholar Nettlau, for example, that as early as 1843, after becoming acquainted with Weitling and the German Communists, Bakunin “embraced socialism with all its extreme conclusions,” and that he “quickly and confidently arrived in essence at his later views, not believing in the reality of any kind of compromise.”7 3 “On the contrary,” Polonsky wrote, Bakunin’s world-view developed “very slowly and uncertainly, not in a straight line but in zig-zags.” Before the Dresden uprising, Polonsky insisted, Bakunin’s views were neither clear nor systematic, for they consisted o f little more than “bold revolutionism.” On the same question Polonsky also disagreed with two well-known pre-revolutionary historians o f nineteenth-century social thought, V.Ia. Bogucharsky (Iakovlev) and Ivanov-Razumnik (R.V. Ivanov), who both referred to Bakunin as an “anarchist” during the 1840s. Reiterating a fundamental point in his critique of Steklov’s book, Polonsky stressed that between 1825-48 “one cannot identify Bakunin seriously with any kind o f anarchism.”7 4 parts o f the volume survive in the Russian State Archive o f Literature and Art in Moscow. 73. Polonsky quotes fro m : Hetmay, M. 3 K h 3 h & h a o r r e jik H o c n . MHxawia S a x y H M H a / Ilep. c H e m . n r.; M.: Tonoc tpyna, 1920. C. 13-14. 74. II o J io H C K H fi, B.n. M axaan AjieKcaanpoam B aK yH H H : X C a a H b , necTejnHocn, MumneHae. T. 1 . M.: Toe. h m - b o, 1922. C. 368,379. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 Not satisfied with the hypothesis that Bakunin simply feigned his repentance before the tsar out of desperation, Polonsky believed that Bakunin truly regretted his past. Once again a correct understanding of Bakunin’s sudden renunciation o f revolutionary politics, in Polonsky’s view, required a proper estimation o f Bakunin’s evolution before his arrest in Saxony. Despite his passionate involvement in the political struggles o f 1848-49, Bakunin was far from the convinced, conscious revolutionary which he became much later in life: Bakunin in fact was merely a “desperate democrat” [oTHasHHuft neMoxpar], without democratic ties, with no defined political or social program, for which he possessed no knowledge, no inner discipline, no clearly conscious goals. His desire for action and readiness to throw him self into the first revolutionary enterprise he saw made o f him a poet of the revolution, but not a politician. Having landed in Europe without means, without a trade, without connection to any class or group among the population, Bakunin found him self outside [3a 6oproM] o f the European movement, a declasse intellectual in the fullest sense of the word [Polonsky’s italics]. Guided more by passion and “belief’ than by a clear understanding of reality, Bakunin stood out in Polonsky’s mind as “a kind o f political romantic,” whose temperament “knew no middle ground.” Bakunin’s characteristic preference for “extremes” was “natural, elemental and organic” in Bakunin, Polonsky wrote, and for that reason his disappointment in revolution could easily assume the same “hyperbolic dimensions” as his former delight with revolution. Just as his “ascents” knew no measure, neither did his “falls,” and after two years o f solitary confinement, facing the probability o f spending the rest o f his life in the walls o f a prison cell, but retaining a “passionate, unbridled desire for action and physical activity,” Bakunin “could have, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228 o f course, temporarily” lost faith in the revolutionary path. Contrary to what he wrote to Herzen, in his “Confession” to Nikolai and even less so in his appeal to Aleksandr, Polonsky concluded, Bakunin preserved little o f his “sacred flame of revolt.”7 S A wave of responses followed Steklov’s and Polonsky’s critiques and immediately raised the number o f possible angles from which to view Bakunin’s repentance. A few respondents managed to avoid a pronouncement on Bakunin’s legacy by downplaying the question o f his “fall.” The young historian B.P. Koz’min, who would survive the Stalin era and become one o f the foremost historians o f the Russian revolutionary movement in postwar Soviet Russia, believed firmly in the sincerity o f the “Confession” but not for the reason advanced by Polonsky. Had he truly intended to dupe the tsar, Koz’min claimed, Bakunin would not have interrupted the consistency o f his submissive tone with critical remarks about Nikolai’s regime. Koz’min adamantly disagreed with Polonsky, moreover, on the question o f Bakunin’s motivation. Reviewing passages from Bakunin’s “right-Hegelian” article o f 1839, his “Preface” to Hegel’s Gymnasium Speeches,7 6 Koz’min pointed out that Bakunin’s criticism o f the social order in his letter to Nikolai demonstrated little resemblance to his former “reconciliation with the existing order,” and Koz’min agreed with Steklov, therefore, that throughout his ordeal Bakunin preserved his “hatred o f hum an 75. rianoHCKHft, B.n. MHxaan AneKcampoBim SaxyHHH: 3Kh3hs, aeaT enbH ocrb, M um neHH e. T. I. M.: Toe. k u i - b o , 1922. C. 268,270-271,273,281. 76. For the text o f Bakunin’s preface to Hegel’s “Gymnasium Speeches,” see: B axyH H H , M-A. H36paaHue $moco$CKHe conHHemu a nHcuia / Bctyn. cr. B . < X > . (IycTapHaKoaa. M.: Mucnb, 1987. C. 117-127,535. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229 exploitation” and his “sympathy for the working masses.” His “disenchantment” occurred not during his imprisonment, as Polonsky described, but after the failure of the 1848 revolutions. From that point, Koz’min explained, before he fell into the hands of Nikolai, Bakunin lost faith in the parliamentary aspirations of revolutionaries in the West and embraced instead a dream of uniting all the Slavs under a revolutionary dictatorship led by a powerful leader like Nikolai. Koz’min perceived no particular “fall” on Bakunin’s part, but only more evidence o f the central place which “democratic Caesarism” [ne3apH3M] occupied in Bakunin’s thought from 1848 through 1862.7 7 A.S. Izgoev (Lande), found it “difficult to say which of the two letters [to Nikolai and Aleksandr, respectively] is more frightening, more painful for the memory of the man who was once the first ‘world renowned’ Russian revolutionary,” and he declined to take a position on Bakunin’s “fall” until the effect o f the “Confession” on Bakunin’s life after prison and exile could be clarified further. The most problematic aspect of the episode from Izgoev’s point of view lay not in Bakunin’s willingness to write such a self-debasing letter to Aleksandr, which could be explained easily by his circumstances, but rather in his behavior after escaping to Europe. “From the standpoint o f any man who preserves even a bit of self-respect,” Izgoev wrote, such a shameful appeal to the tsar [Aleksandr] should have been followed by “an 77. K o 3 u i h h , 5J1. Pea. H a k h .: Hcnoaeiib h im c b M o AneiccaHapy Q. M.: Toe. k u i- b o , 1921 // Becnnac Tpyaa. 1921. N “ 9 (12). C. 152-156. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230 unconditional refusal to engage in any further revolutionary activity.” Bakunin, however, continued to pursue his revolutionary career with the constant fear in his soul, like a Damoclean sword above his head, that the discovery and publication of his letters would bring about his political death. “The tragedy o f Bakunin awaits researchers who would illuminate a number of still unclear sides of his life,” Izgoev concluded, and “only then will it be possible to pronounce a sentence o f one kind or another on him.”7 * Despite attempts to approach Bakunin’s letters impartially, for some the impact o f Bakunin’s “fall” was too great to conceal. One o f the first respondents to the publication o f the “Confession,” Vera Figner, approached the new documents much like Polonsky, but as a respected veteran o f Russian populism and the Schlusselburg fortress her conclusions were less forgiving than those of Polonsky or even Serge. “When we, friends or enemies, uttered the name ’Bakunin,’ aloud or mentally,” Figner recalled, “in our minds arose the image o f a powerful revolutionary monolith, whose entire life was illuminated by a singular idea o f ‘liberty,’ and heated by a singular feeling o f indignation against despots, despotism and any form o f oppression, be it national, political or economic.” Figner’s love for Bakunin’s “magnificent figure” still remained, she wrote, but she agreed that the “Confession” opened “a completely new page” in Bakunin’s spiritual life. She found it not only “shocked the reader,” but also created “an enormous breach [npopuB] in the standard profile o f the rebel-giant” 78. Hjroea, A.C. Tpareoiu EaryHHHa // Jleroimcfc flowa jwreparopoa. 1921. N° 3 (1 aeic.). C. S. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231 [Syirrapb-B eJiH K aH ]. F ig n e r h a d n o d o u b t th a t th e “ C o n fe s s io n ” w a s s in c e r e . R e je c tin g th e id e a o f B a k u n in ’s p r e te n s e a s a m e a n s to a ju s tifia b le e n d , sh e d e c la r e d th a t w h ile in p r iso n B a k u n in e x p e r ie n c e d h is o w n k in d o f “ d e a th th r o e s” [c B o e r o p o a a npeacM epT H w e M y x a ], a s w e ll a s th e b irth o f a c e r ta in “ a ta v ism ” in h is p s y c h e w h ic h retu rn ed h im to “th e B a k u n in o f th e 1830s a n d 1840s.” F rom th is p e r s p e c tiv e o n e ca n “understand" th e “ C o n fe s s io n ,” F ig n e r w r o te [h e r ita lic s ], b u t s h e a d m itte d th a t “b o th th e a d m irers [noH H TaTejra] a n d d e tra cto rs [xyiiH T ejiH ] o f B a k u n in , w h o c r e a te d a d rea m a n d a n illu s io n o f h is n atu re a n d h is lif e ,” s a w th e ir illu s io n to m a p a rt b y B a k u n in ’s le tte r s .7 9 Bakunin’s letters made a great impression on another historian and Social Democrat, B.I. Gorev (Gol’dman), who contributed several observations on Bakunin’s prison letters to a review o f Steklov’s biography in 1921. Except for a few comments on Steklov’s work as a whole, Gorev devoted nearly all his commentary specifically to Steklov’s treatment of the new Bakunin documents. If Steklov had been an “objective historian” in his earlier writings on Bakunin, Gorev wrote, then in his biography of 1920 he appeared more as “Bakunin’s attorney.” Gorev upheld Polonsky’s criticism of Steklov for attempting to “rehabilitate” Bakunin. “In truth,” Gorev believed, “no mitigating circumstances, no explanations about the character o f Bakunin’s epoch, etc. can reduce the blemish which these facts leave on Bakunin’s historical reputation.” It 79. (bmnep, B .H . “H cn oieob ” M .A. EucyHHHa // <t>Hinep, B.H . n<uraoe co6pamie comraemift: B 7 t . T. 5. M ., 1932. C . 365-367. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232 had long been established “morally,” Gorev emphasized, “that a fighter [6open] cannot and should not beg for mercy from a victorious enemy.” Without citing “an endless gallery o f martyrs” from the People’s Will party, Gorev noted that it was “enough to mention Chemyshevsky in order to see the genuine image o f a real Prometheus.”® At the discussion o f Polonsky’s lecture on Bakunin, Gorev expressed doubt in the verity o f Bakunin’s repentance. Emphasizing Bakunin’s penchant for “cunning,” which Gorev considered a more characteristic feature of Bakunin’s personality than honesty, as Polonsky’s analysis assumed, Gorev believed that Bakunin clearly resorted to the principle “the end justifies the means.” The lack of any sincerity in Bakunin’s repentance did not excuse Bakunin in Gorev’s eyes, however, but instead revealed another aspect o f Bakunin’s “moral” fall. According to Gorev, Polonsky’s understanding o f Bakunin’s fall was too narrow. By claiming that Bakunin simply “lost heart” [oica3ajica M ajiOAymHUM ], Polonsky in essence tried to justify Bakunin’s act. According to Polonsky’s reasoning, Bakunin’s fall was only “political” or “intellectual” insofar as he rejected his former revolutionary ideas. Gorev declared that neither Polonsky nor Steklov sufficiently appreciated the full significance of Bakunin’s act, which he considered o f “extraordinary importance” and “o f a certain danger for our revolutionary youth”: 80. Topes, EH. M.A. B ucyH H H b HOBcftmeft peaojnoimoHHoA jnrrepaiype // nerora h peBOjnomu. 1921. K h. 2 . C. 77-78. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233 When Blanqui8 1 was handed a paper to sign, he slapped his superior in the face and chased him out of his cell. You all know that only in one case did a martyr [M yneH H K ] o f the Schlusselburg fortress ever submit an appeal for clemency, and the veterans o f Schlusselburg considered that instance a shameful blemish on the collective conscience of the martyrs. It seems to me that had such appeals begun to appear en masse [MaccoBa* nonana npomeHHft], then the revolution would have suffered.8 3 Gorev stated his position once more in his short biography o f Bakunin of 1922. After holding up bravely and with resilience in German and Austrian jails, Gorev asserted, “Bakunin collapsed in spirit” [ynaji ityxoM] when he landed between Russian walls. Through his letters to Nikolai and Aleksandr, which he wrote partly out of disappointment in the failure o f the European revolution and his dislike o f the Germans, and partly out o f his fear o f solitary confinement for life, which he would not have endured, Bakunin won his freedom “at the price o f a profound moral fall.”8 3 If the letters to the tsars forever destroyed any illusions which Serge, Figner and Gorev ever held about Bakunin, they utterly devastated Deich. Soon after the publication o f the “Confession” by the State Publishing House, Deich added an entire chapter on Bakunin’s letters to the second volume of his memoirs o f the 1870s. In his review Deich first described--with even greater emphasis than in his articles quoted 81. Louis-Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881) spent thirty three years o f his long revolutionary career in prison. See: G.D.H. Cole, The Forerunners, 1789-1850. Vol. 1 o f A History o f Socialist Thought (New York: SL Martin’s, 1967) 163. 82. PrAJIH, $. 1328, on. 3, en. 304, j i. 1-4.1 have not yet managed to identify the “one case” of an appeal for clemency to which Gorev refers. It is not likely a reference to Bakunin, whose appeal, of course, remained generally unknown to the “veterans of Schldsselburg” until the publication of the “Confession.” 83. Topes, B.H. M.A. B axyH H H : Ero XH3HS, narrejrbHOcrs h ywHHe. 2-e mu. HsanoBo- BoaH eceH CK : OcHoaa, 1922. C. 32. The first edition o f Gorev’s biography, which appeared in 1919, preceded the publication o f Bakunin’s letters and therefore includes no commentary on them. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234 earlier— the great respect which Bakunin won among the many Russian “rebels” [6yHTapH]M of the seventies through “his remarkable past and the torture and suffering he had endured.” Deich and his friends were so enamored of Bakunin, he emphasized, that none of them found it unnatural for Bakunin to incite [non6HBaTb] them to undertake “the most daring, desperate acts,” thus in effect sending them to their “certain death.” Because they lacked the heroic reputation of Bakunin, Deich assured his readers, neither Lavrov nor Tkachev8 3 could have ever convinced the “best revolutionary youth” in Russia to sacrifice themselves as Bakunin did. Deich recalled the “great amazement and delight” he and his friends felt when they heard o f Bakunin’s resilience in German and Austrian fortresses, and their “admiration for him was strengthened even more upon reading and hearing oral accounts of all the trials he endured courageously during his long incarceration” in the terrible prisons o f Russia. They were “seized with incredible delight and extraordinary happiness” upon learning o f the success o f the “unbending hero’s” brave flight from Siberia. Neither Bakunin’s young followers nor “even his foes questioned his sincerity, righteousness, honesty and bravery,” Deich wrote, and for that reason he found Bakunin’s renunciation o f his entire revolutionary past in the letter to Nikolai “all the 84. In the history o f Russian populism the term “buntari” generally refers to specific revolutionary groups in the south of Russia during the 1870s that employed “Bakuninist” tactics. Venturi suggests that a better translation for the word “buntari” would be “supporters o f local risings.” See: Franco Venturi, Roots o f Revolution, trans. Francis Haskell (New York: Grosset & Dunlap) S80. 85. Like Bakunin, P.L Lavrov (1823*1900) and P.N. Tkachev (1844*1886) both promoted revolution in Russia from Europe, but the ideas of both seem to have appealed less to the Russian revolutionaries of the seventies than those of Bakunin. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235 more unlikely, improbable.” With the publication o f the “Confession” at last before him, Deich asserted that “now there remains no doubt that the man who appeared to us all as an unbending fighter prostrated himself and groveled before the monster [H3Bepr] Nikolai.” Turning to the response o f his contemporary Figner, Deich denied her claim that “the magnificent figure of Bakunin and love for him will remain,” for no love for Bakunin remained in Deich’s heart. For Deich there was no question of Bakunin’s return to an earlier outlook; like Gorev, Deich identified the source of Bakunin’s behavior during prison and exile with the same “dogma” and “Jesuitical principle” o f Bakunin’s later years, "the end justifies the means”: With regard to Bakunin’s concealment [of his recantation] from his allies and followers, like his “Confession” and in general his faint-hearted and unworthy behavior in Russian prisons and in Siberia—they all followed from the Jesuitical dogma, ‘the end justifies the means.’ Had he confessed to them fidly, had he reported to them candidly that he referred to himself as ‘a repentant sinner,’ as ‘criminal, unworthy, loyal’ and other such epithets, then o f course he would not have been able to call upon our ‘sincere and honest youth’ not to stop at anything and to sacrifice themselves for the sake o f the working masses.” For Deich the consequences o f Bakunin’s deceit were greater than he and his young fellow revolutionaries could have realized: It is clear that had the young revolutionaries known the truth, had they learned o f his disgraceful “Confession” and slavish letters to the tsars and other officials, one can say with firm certainty that Bakunin would not have played any kind o f decisive role [Deich’s italics] either among us or in Western Europe. [...] Had the European socialists found out about the “Confession” and related documents, Bakunin’s political reputation would have been compromised forever and, o f course, he would not have entered the International. It follows that he would not have competed with Marx for influence and there would not have been a sp lit Thus the history o f the world Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236 labor and socialist movement would have avoided countless regrettable episodes and the conditions o f the entire world today would have been different.1 6 Grossman may not have attributed as much significance to the “Confession” as Deich; but the reaction of Deich stands out as a striking example o f the seriousness with which Russian revolutionaries approached Bakunin’s legacy. 4.3 Counter-responses to the “Confession” Alongside the expressions o f indignation over Bakunin’s “fall,” the Soviet press also carried statements o f defense less ambiguous or veiled than Steklov’s or Polonsky’s, and some as vigorous and passionate in their praise o f Bakunin as Deich was in his denunciation. Two loyal admirers of Bakunin interpreted Bakunin’s behavior in prison in much the same way as Polonsky, but both attempted to raise Bakunin from the depths o f his “fall” with less ambiguity. The first of them, Iu.S. Grossman-Roshchin (no relation to L.P. Grossman), a sympathizer of the Soviet regime from the anarchist ranks, like Serge, and a friend o f Lunacharsky and Lenin,8 7 acknowledged that Bakunin’s talk o f the “sins,” “delusions,” “crimes” and “madness” o f his past, his expressions o f repentance and his submission before the “tsar- executioner” shocked many, and “was received with pain, with great alarm in the 86. Zleftn, JIT . 3a nonaeica. [T. 1-2]. T. 2: Topxecrao 6axyHH3Ma a Pocchh. EepjiHH: I~paHH, 1923. C. 212-214,215-217,224-225. 87. Victor Serge, Memoirs o f a Revolutionary, 1901-1941, trans., ed. Peter Sedgwick (London: Oxford, 1963) 120. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237 hearts o f Bakunin’s co-thinkers.” Grossman-Roshchin argued, however, that when he wrote the “Confession” Bakunin was not yet an anarchist, but rather a “liberal- federalist, a romantic of the Slavic world,” and on that basis he rejected the interpretation of “those who would ‘use the Confession’ for factional purposes.” Grossman-Roshchin did not deny the sincerity o f Bakunin’s letter, but, like Polonsky, treated it as the rather natural end o f the incorrect political path which Bakunin followed during the pre-anarchist stage o f his life. In Grossman-Roshchin’s view the letter was a “final payment of shame and fall which Bakunin paid for his attachment to the old gods,” and a “discussion of Bakunin’s spirit with itself about the great twilight o f his own soul.” For all the limitations in revolutionary theory which he never overcame, Bakunin won a complete victory over the weaknesses in his character, Grossman-Roshchin believed, when he finally broke forever with his “dreamy nationalistic utopianism” and became an “anarcho-communist.”u Grossman-Roshchin thus adhered to the interpretation o f Polonsky to a certain extent, but his review placed more value on the glories and achievements o f Bakunin’s later years. For Grossman- Roshchin Bakunin’s resurrection later in life fully eclipsed the setbacks o f his past. Because he later conquered “the spirit o f submission” and “the dragons o f his soul,” 88. The attitude o f the Russian “anarcho-communists” toward Bakunin will be described in chapter five. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238 Grossman-Roshchin emphasized, Bakunin eventually won back the right to be compared with Prometheus.8 9 Some readers managed to deny Bakunin’s “fall” simply by refusing to acknowledge anything extraordinary or shocking about the “Confession.” From the moment he entered the discussion o f Bakunin’s documents with a sharp critique of Serge’s article, Nettlau suspected nothing unusual in Bakunin’s behavior. In an article for the English anarchist organ Freedom, Nettlau declared that the tsar’s cruel treatment o f Bakunin was “less repulsive than the efforts which have been made recently to insinuate that Bakunin’s statement is an expression of repentance and a repudiation of his revolutionary past.” Referring to Serge as “a decoy duck to allure Anarchists to support the present regime in Russia,” Nettlau accused him o f “beginning a campaign against Bakunin’s memory by presenting parts o f the document in his own way,” instead o f reserving judgment until the document appeared in full. Based on the excerpts presented in an Italian article on Bakunin’s letters, evidently composed by “an under-Kibalchich, who repeats and, to all appearance, exaggerates even Kibalchich’s statements,” Nettlau wrote that they “presume to tell the worst.”9 0 89. r poccM aH -P outH H , H.C. C y m ep ic H Beimicoft ayum // Ifotarfc h peaojnouH*. 1921. Kb. 3. C. 48, 55-56. 90. Based on Nettlau’s statements here, it appears he had seen only an Italian version of the article signed by one “Genosse” [comrade] in “the Milan review Comunismo (August 1,1921). If so, then Steklov’s remark (SaxyHHH, M A Co6paHne cotHHeHHfi h nHceM , 1828-1876. T. 4: B nopuiax h ccbuixe, 1849-1861. M., 1935. C. 421) that “Nettlau answered Serge’s article from the [German] Forum” is misleading. The (ostensibly) original French version of December, 1921, cited earlier, seems to have been published only after Nettlau’s article in Freedom, although the editor, Souvarine, makes no reference to it. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239 Still, Nettlau claimed that Bakunin’s “so-called ‘Confession’” did not affect him very much, and he presumed that Bakunin’s attempt to mislead the tsar, to downplay the significance and danger of his revolutionary activity, and “just to tell the tsar some plain truths about nationalism as he interpreted it” would be sufficient to explain “everything which may be contained in the document." For Nettlau, the two halves of Bakunin’s life showed “an unbroken evolution, and “it would be extraordinary indeed,” therefore, “if this were interrupted or contradicted by one single act [Nettlau’s italics], that document of 1851 .”9’ Nettlau expressed no surprise or astonishment at the “Confession” when he finally saw it for himself. In Nettlau’s view the document proved that Bakunin “was determined to win his liberation by honorable means” rather than through “a real recantation—which he never dreamed o f doing.” Nettlau disagreed with Polonsky and others who argued that in 1851 Bakunin was still not a true anarchist, and who ascribed “what to us appears strange, if not simply ugly” in the letter to Nikolai to Bakunin’s “undeveloped state o f mind on Socialism and Anarchism” during that period. Nettlau claimed that Bakunin knew “the ins and outs of Anarchist and Socialist thought” as well as anybody during the 1840s, but he simply refused “to take sides,” to become either “Marxist or Proudhonist,” since “all one-sided developments were too imperfect for him.” The one aspect o f Bakunin’s “Confession” Nettlau did not defend was the “coarse and brutal nationalism” which lay at the root of his invitation to the 91. Max Nettlau, “Bakunin’s So-Called ’Confession’ of 1851,” Freedom 35 (Dec. 1921): 75-76. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240 tsar to lead a new Slavic federation and thus “drove [Bakunin], at least in spirit and intention, into the arms o f Nikolai.” The “demon” of nationalism haunted Bakunin constantly until 1864, Nettlau admitted, and continued to slumber within him until the end o f his life. Thus the “Confession” marked “no defection, no recantation,” he argued, but merely “the strictly logical outcome o f a nationalist conception.” As for the letter to Aleksandr, which contained “about ten times as much submissive phraseology,” Nettlau considered it simply a “ceremony” which Bakunin had to perform to avoid a slow death in solitary confinement.9 2 Whatever Bakunin may have concealed from his friends about the letters made little impression on Nettlau, for he believed that Bakunin characterized the “Confession” fairly to Herzen when he described it as a mixture of “truth and fiction.” Kornilov, who was also associated with the “Cadets,” like H’insky and Izgoev, proceeded from the same assumption in his brief defense o f Bakunin for the same Literary Herald in which Il’insky’s article had originally appeared. Kornilov argued that Bakunin’s “Confession” to Nikolai was not a unique act in Bakunin’s life, that he had also “confessed” to his father, his sisters and his friends long before he “confessed” to Nikolai. Although he said nothing o f Bakunin’s appeal to Aleksandr, Kornilov insisted that Bakunin “would have laughed had he known how he would be criticized for standing ’on his knees’ before Nikolai!” In Kornilov’s mind, Bakunin’s 92. Max Nettlau, “Bakunin’s ‘Confession’ to Tsar Nicholas I (1851),” Freedom 36 (May 1922): 28- 29. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241 words to Herzen about the letter served as sufficient proof of his openness and lack of shame about the letter, and he was convinced that Herzen must have known about the documents in detail. “There is no doubt Herzen later questioned Bakunin thoroughly about the contents o f the confession,” Kornilov insisted, “and that Bakunin told him everything.”9 3 In March o f 1921 Bakunin’s old ally Sazhin, who remained active after the revolution in the society of political prisoners, provided similar grounds for Bakunin’s defense in an interview with Polonsky, who preserved a record o f the conversation and quoted from it briefly in his biography o f Bakunin o f 1922. According to Sazhin, Bakunin revealed the entire contents o f the “Confession” to him “in detail” and without concealing its “repentant” character. If Bakunin spoke frankly about the documents both to Herzen and Sazhin—and perhaps others as well—then he could not be accused o f deceiving his friends about the real nature of his letter to Nikolai. Based on what Bakunin had told him, Sazhin also believed that Bakunin had definitely deceived Nikolai in a desperate urge to recover his freedom “at any cost.” Sazhin reminded Polonsky, moreover, that Bakunin “held him self above” his contemporaries o f the forties and must have been convinced that he would never be released. When Orlov appeared with the offer from Nikolai to write a “Confession,” Bakunin suddenly recognized the “road to freedom.” By this reasoning Sazhin 93. K opH H noB , A A Eme pa3 o BaK ym rae h era “HcnoBejm” H h k o j u i o // BecnmK jnrrcparypu. 1921 N “ 12 (36). C. 13-14. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242 accepted the obvious possibility that Bakunin simply resorted to Machiavellian tactics to achieve his ends.9 4 As Gorev’s response had demonstrated, however, Bakunin’s use of Machiavellian means did not necessarily absolve him o f a moral fall. Another veteran o f the populist movement, N.S. Tiutchev,9 5 addressed the dilemma in a review of July, 1922. Tiutchev disagreed with Polonsky, Figner and Koz’min on the question of Bakunin’s sincerity, and he also denied the claims o f Steklov that the answer simply could not be determined. Agreeing with the conclusions o f Sazhin, Tiutchev believed that only Bakunin’s complete pretense could explain the unpleasant “surprises” in his letters. Tiutchev suggested that Bakunin clearly—and mistakenly—counted on the “chivalry” o f Nikolai to accept his repentance, and therefore Bakunin devised his letter with that in mind. With regard to the “moral” aspect o f Bakunin’s behavior, Tiutchev concurred with Gorev that “no extenuating circumstances” or personal “convictions” at the time could efface the blemish which Bakunin’s conciliatory words and thoughts left on the image o f his personality. Even if Bakunin feigned his repentance, the discovery of the letters forever “dethroned the moral image” of the ‘apostle of 94. PrAJIH, < ( > . 1328, on. 2, ea. 59, ji. 47. When Polonsky asked Sazhin why he and Guillaume failed to discuss the “Confession” earlier (that is, in their publications on Bakunin before the revolution, presumably), Sazhin replied that he saw no reason to raise any questions about it since no one knew about it. The transcription of Polonsky's interview with Sazhin, whose accuracy Sazhin verified with his signature, is dated “March 31,1921.” Polonsky cites part of this interview in: IloJioHCKHfi, B .n. MmaHn AjiexcaiupoBHH Eaxyioni: X C H 3 H & , aejrren&Hocrk, MbiuuieHHe. T. 1. M.: Toe. H 3 A -B O , 1922. C. 260. 95. N.S. Tiutchev (1856-1924) spent a great deal of his revolutionary career in jail and exile in Russia, including five months in the Peter-and-Paul fortress in 1878. From 1917 until his death less than a year after the publication o f his article on Bakunin’s “Confession,” Tiutchev held a research position in the same Historical-Revolutionary Archive which prepared the first publication of Bakunin’s letters to Nikolai and Aleksandr. See: npH6unea, A 3 . Hmcojiafi Cepreeum Tionea // Karopra h ccunica. 1924. Kh. 9. C. 232-237. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243 destruction’ and destroyed the illusion o f his “integrity, solidity, and ideal character.” All the same, unlike Gorev, Tiutchev concluded his analysis with an undisguised defense o f Bakunin’s legacy. Emphasizing that Bakunin’s letters to the tsars “in no way diminish what he did for the revolution” later in his life, Tiutchev declared that Bakunin’s “deed” “lives and will continue to live, and his services to the revolution remain great.”9 6 The most avid supporters of Bakunin also assumed a complete lack o f sincerity on Bakunin’s part, but without acknowledging any kind o f “moral fall” whatsoever. The thin anarchist newsjoumal Initiative [TIokhh] published a vigorous defense of Bakunin and an undisguised attack on his detractors. Bakunin’s decision to confess, the authors reasoned, could be considered a moral fall only by those who would unfairly idolize Bakunin and expect him to be more than “human.” By contrast the authors valued Bakunin, they declared, “precisely as a human being,” who expressed “indignation against any kind o f coercion and enslavement more loudly than anyone.” For the authors, Bakunin’s acknowledgments o f the letter to Herzen were sufficient evidence o f his insincerity. They also disagreed with “those who would see only a ‘Macchiavellian element’ [M aK K H aB ejuiH eB C K oe Hanajio] to the letter.” The principle “the end justify the means” presupposes “aggressive unscrupulousness,” they explained, and should not be confused with Bakunin’s “tactical lie” to the tsars merely in the interests of his own self-defense. The real “moral significance” o f the 96. TreneB [H. C.]. BaicyHHH no H c n o B C O H // Khhtb h peBamoiuu. 1923. N a 11/12 (23/24). C. 1-5. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244 “Confession” lay in its effect on Bakunin, who thereafter came to appreciate better “the essence of state power.” The authors located Bakunin’s importance as a social phenomenon in his “human” ability “to love freedom passionately and hate state coercion,” and “to awaken the same feelings that slumber within all o f us who are oppressed and robbed.” They loved Bakunin as a human being, they insisted, and not as an “idol” in the manner o f the “idol-worshipers o f statism, who bum incense before the serpentine wisdom of their ‘leaders.’”9 7 Respondents to the “Confession” also included Grossman’s future opponents Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, whose interpretations generally coincided with those of Bakunin’s defenders, mainly Grossman-Roshchin, Nettlau, Sazhin and the editors of Initiative. Along with Grossman-Roshchin, Borovoi also attempted to defend Bakunin without denying his fall. In a review from the same issue of Press and Revolution, Borovoi admitted that Bakunin’s “repentance” and “merciless self-reproach” in his letter to Nikolai definitely “leave a painful impression”; however, they did not occupy the “center” o f the letter, in Borovoi’s mind, but represented a mere “insignificant addition” [npnaaroic] to the narrative of Bakunin’s dreams and hopes that “cascades over the edges” of the docum ent More outstanding than its “base tone,” Borovoi believed, is the letter’s “profound and sincere criticism o f reality,” as well as 97. “Hcnoseob” [M.A. EaxvHHHa] // F I ohhh: Koonepamu— Chhjih k& jiidm — 3 n « a . 1922. N B 4/S. C. 14-15. The main editor o f this journal and possibly the author of the article cited here, A. Atabekian, was a long-time associate o f Kropotkin who wrote a number of pamphlets in defense of anarchism in the early 1920s and served on the Kropotkin Museum Committee in Moscow after Kropotkin’s death in 1921. See: Avrich, P. Russian Anarchism (Princeton: P. Univ. Pr., 1967): 237. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245 Bakunin’s visions o f an unprecedented socialist revolution in the future, which “in their force, brilliance and originality” place the “Confession” among “the rarest of examples of world political literature.” Borovoi also saw a different source of motivation for the letter. In Borovoi’s view, Bakunin needed to confess not only for the sake of the tsar, but more so for “his own personal spiritual calm, as a means of ridding himself o f his past, o f incinerating his oppressive phantoms,” and for that reason Bakunin’s “Confession” is above all a “Confession before himself.” His desire to overcome and “avenge” his past was the “natural product o f the injuries and failures of that period o f Bakunin’s revolutionary activity.” Borovoi warned against an “intentionally tendentious” reading or any attempt to depict Bakunin as a renegade who had renounced his views. Bakunin remained “deeply devoted to his social ideals,” Borovoi believed, and therefore he renounced only the unsuccessful path o f the revolution, but not revolution itself. In Bakunin’s criticism o f revolutionary movements in the West Borovoi perceived that Bakunin had grown “tired o f the revolutionary phraseology o f conspiratorial adventurers” and had become all too conscious of “the fruitlessness and emptiness of ‘revolution’ staged by means of garrulous but powerless democracy.” Like Polonsky and Grossman-Roshchin, Borovoi associated Bakunin’s prison years with the earlier epoch in his life, when Bakunin was more “romantically inclined” and still captivated by “the covenants of Utopian Socialism.” Following the logic o f Steklov and Polonsky, Borovoi agreed, moreover, that because he belonged from birth to the nobility, Bakunin was still bound to the tsar Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246 by “psychological threads.” In contrast to those who “grieve” over the “Confession,” therefore, Borovoi instead greeted its appearance with enthusiasm. In Borovoi's opinion, the “Confession” cast no shadow on the world-view o f Bakunin, but rather demonstrated “the formation o f the great soul of a great revolutionary,” the “secret growth of its maturing strength.”9 8 Otverzhennyi, too, denied any sincerity in Bakunin’s letters, but his justification of Bakunin’s “Machiavellian” tactics rested on more than simply the difficult circumstances that dictated them. In an article on “The Problem o f the ‘Confession,’” which he and Borovoi included in their collection The Myth About Bakunin in 1924, Otverzhennyi developed the position which he had “tried to systematize,” he wrote, first in a polemic with Polonsky and Grossman-Roshchin in 1921, and then in a paper which he read at the Moscow Press House in 1922." In reply to Polonsky’s hypothesis, Otverzhennyi rejected the ideas o f Bakunin’s disenchantment with his revolutionary past and his “return” to more conservative views, mainly because Polonsky drew his evidence from the same letter to Nikolai whose reliability had still not been proven. In order to avoid a “vicious circle o f reasoning,” Otverzhennyi insisted that Bakunin’s attitude toward his past must be demonstrated on the basis of sources other than the “Confession.” In the meantime, 98. EopoBoft, A.A. Pea. Ha kh.: M. A. EaxyBHH. H cnoaeob h imcbMO AjieKcanopy Q / Iloa. pea. BJ1. IlojioHCKoro (M.: Toe. h m -bo, 1921) // Fleqarb h peBo.uo m u . 1921. Kh . 3. C. 202-207. 99. OraepxeHH&ifi, H.I~. Ilpo&ieMa “HcnoaeaH” // Eopoaoft, A.A., OrBepxemnifi, HX. M h$ o BaxyHHH e. M., 192S. C. 3. Otverzhennyi’s comments on Polonsky’s lecture are preserved, along with Gorev’s, in the same transcription described earlier (see note 82). The month, date and place of Otverzhennyi’s own paper is not clear. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247 Otverzhennyi argued, Polonsky’s conclusions are contradicted by Bakunin’s steadfast behavior in Austrian jails, by his open announcement o f his revolutionary designs to his defense lawyer in Saxony,1 0 0 and also by his statement to Herzen that his eight years of prison and exile only strengthened his convictions. Except for the few instances in which Bakunin “lifted his skillful mask o f pretense” to praise the French workers or to criticize conditions in Russia, Otverzhennyi believed that while in Nikolai’s hands Bakunin “played his role to the end.” Otverzhennyi raised similar objections to the analysis of Grossman-Roshchin, who perceived a logical resemblance between Bakunin’s “Confession” to the tsar and the values he absorbed as a member of the nobility. Grossman-Roshchin’s theory ignored Bakunin’s own statements, Otverzhennyi wrote, that he loved the “common people” [qepHUft Hapon] more than the nobility and that the future o f Russia rested with them. Neglecting Bakunin’s well- known preference for “unwashed siminarists and nihilists” over the nobility,1 0 1 Grossman-Roshchin distorted the facts, Otverzhennyi concluded, and created a “mythic” Bakunin. Otverzhennyi believed that even his ally Borovoi overestimated the “confessional” character of Bakunin’s letter to the tsar.1 0 2 100. Otverzhennyi cites Bakunin’s letter o f 17 March 18S0 from a Saxon jail to his defense lawyer Franz Otto, a document which demonstrates Bakunin’s unconcealed opposition to Nikolai’s state. See: B a ic y H H H , M A riHcuio aaaoxary < D . Orro // MarepHajnt k 6Horpa$HH M. B a x y H H H a . T. 1. M.; Fir., 1923. C. 47-54. 101. Otverzhennyi cites Bakunin’s letterto Herzen of 19 July 1866. 102. OraepxeHHHfi, HX. npoCuieua “Hcnoaejm” // Eopoaoft, A A , OraepxenHuft, HX. Mh$ o Baxymme. M., 1925. C. 12, 14-15,19,23-24,30-32,44,46-47,49-50. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248 As Otverzhennyi explained in his comments on Polonsky’s theses in 1921, the appeal to Aleksandr speaks for Bakunin’s integrity by virtue o f the time which separates it from the “Confession.” Had Bakunin truly been sincere in his repentance, he would not have waited another six years before issuing such a desperate plea for freedom. By the same logic, Otverzhennyi reasoned that an entire decade o f “philistinism” [M em aH CTBo] would not have given way so suddenly to the revolutionary activity which Bakunin resumed as soon as he reached London. If in 1860 Bakunin wished only to return to Russia, moreover, as Polonsky surmised, then he must have realized he could return to Europe from western Russia more easily than from Siberia.1 0 3 Otverzhennyi did not deny that the “Nechaevist element” [HeqaeBCieaa cthxhx] in Bakunin’s activity, of which the “Confession” was “the first living manifestation,” certainly “stifled” Bakunin’s other, more positive side and deprived it o f “the passion and revolutionary pathos that break through on occasion in the ‘Confession,’” but he perceived no grounds for condemning him. According to Otverzhennyi’s interpretation o f Bakunin’s life, the “Nechaevist element” was itself one sign o f Bakunin’s “deep, organic alienation” from the moral obligations and social dogma typical o f his class. Reviewing Bakunin’s early years, Otverzhennyi cited several instances in which Bakunin’s contemporaries criticized Bakunin for his lack o f moral foundations. Granovsky described Bakunin as “intelligent, like few others, but without any moral 103. PrAJDi, < t > . 1328, on. 3, ea. 304, j i. 6-8. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249 convictions,” Belinsky reportedly accused Bakunin of “Machiavellianism,” and Katkov and his friends never forgave Bakunin for failing to carry out his invitation to duel. These individuals could not understand Bakunin’s “antipathy to popular dogma,” Otverzhennyi explained, the same inner impulse which later motivated Bakunin to confess to Nikolai. Like Nettlau and Sazhin, who also failed to find anything unusual about Bakunin’s act, Otverzhennyi believed that Bakunin “fearlessly threw his honor, courage and revolutionary implacability on the altar in order to receive his freedom.”1 0 4 Having studied closely both the “Confession” and the discussions surrounding it between 1921 and 1923, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi naturally associated Grossman's conclusions about Bakunin with the negative responses that followed the discovery of Bakunin’s letters to Nikolai and Aleksandr. For both Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, Grossman’s uncritical use o f the “Confession” severely weakened the very foundation o f his theory, which proceeded from an extremely incorrect assessment o f Bakunin’s character, and allowed him to identify Stavrogin with an individual whom they considered the complete opposite o f Bakunin. Thus in an attempt to prove to Grossman that Bakunin “as a psychological image” could not have served as Stavrogin’s prototype, Otverzhennyi argued that Stavrogin’s “mental formula” [aymeBHaji $opMyjia] represents “the deepest negation o f the Bakunist element” [BaxyHHHCKaa cthxhx]. Emphasizing that Stavrogin never possessed the 104. OraqHceHHufi, HX. npoGnewa “HcnoBCflH” // Eopoaoft, A.A., OracpxeHHufi, HX. Mh$ o B aicy H H H e. M., 1925. C. 7, 10,53,55,59. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250 “revolutionary pathos” which Bakunin expressed throughout his life, Otverzhennyi insisted that “the foundation” of Bakunin's pathos always remained, even when his “intransigence lost its sharp, exaggerated character.” Otverzhennyi rejected Grossman’s suggestion that tradition has exaggerated the “stormy, fiery” nature of Bakunin’s activity. Citing the “Confession,” which he recognized as the m ain source o f Grossman’s idea, Otverzhennyi reiterated that Bakunin’s apparent “hopelessness” was but the “face o f pretense, the mask o f a cunning game,” just the opposite o f his genuine “desire for movement” and “demand for action.” In his world view Bakunin passed through “different stages,” but “at a certain moment he is a fiery enthusiast,” Otverzhennyi noted, who “believes boundlessly in his ’truth.’” Unlike Stavrogin, Bakunin was above all a “fanatic of revolution” whose “mental exaltation” remained free of Stavrogin’s “duality” [pa3jtBoeHHOcn>], Otverzhennyi declared, and the condition which appears in his prison letters “cannot be compared with the condition of the free man.”I 0 S Bakunin remained a “Prometheus” in the eyes o f Borovoi, as well. In the “Confession” Borovoi saw above all Bakunin’s “thirst for movement in life.” “Burning with activity and life,” Borovoi wrote, the essence o f Bakunin’s “soul” survived to the end o f his days, and “neither the Ravelin, nor SchlOsselburg, nor Siberia calmed it.” Like Otverzhennyi, Borovoi rejected the idea that history had 105. OraepxeHHUfi, HX. BaxyHHH h Cruponra // EopoBoft, A.A., OraepxeHHUft, HX. Mh$ o E aicyH H H e. M., 1925. C. 159,168,172, 180,184. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251 “exaggerated” Bakunin’s “tireless activity” and reminded Grossman of the “hundreds o f unquestionable, indisputable examples” of Bakunin’s “truly super-human 'activity.’” Insisting that “every machine has periods o f inactivity,” Borovoi noted that there was not “one great man in history” who had not experienced “a sudden moment o f the most trying hesitation.” Nonetheless the ostensible “legend” of Bakunin’s tireless activity “exaggerated nothing,” and “history stands behind the legend.” Considering the many serious hardships and “thickets” he had to pass through, in Borovoi’s mind Bakunin “more than anyone else had a human right to doubts and hesitation.” Borovoi also believed it unlikely, as Grossman’s argument assumed, that for his profile of Stavrogin Dostoevsky would have focused his attention on the “rare, exclusive” moments o f Bakunin’s life that appear in the “Confession.” Grossman’s idea that Stavrogin represents Bakunin “without the fire o f heroism” Borovoi compared to the idea o f “an orator without a tongue.” A prototype cannot be deprived o f his “fundamental characteristic,” Borovoi argued, and yet Grossman’s thesis attempted to remove the very soul o f Bakunin, in other words, “everything that made him Bakunin.”1 0 6 The opposition by Borovoi and Otverzhennyi to Grossman’s conception o f a demoralized Bakunin follows logically from their interpretation of the “Confession.” Less obvious, however, are Polonsky’s reasons for challenging Grossman on this 106. EopoBoft, A j\. E a x y H H H b “Eecax” // EopoBofi, A.A., OrBepaceH Huft, HX. Mh$ o B a x y H M H e . M., 1925. C. 98, 109-116. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252 point. As his citations and references demonstrate, in his conception of Bakunin Grossman proceeded to some degree from the claims of Polonsky himself.1 0 7 Before Grossman, Polonsky described “the stormy and contradictory soul of a great man, who proved capable not only of great rebellion, but also o f a great fall.” Polonsky emphasized, as Grossman would after him, that Bakunin was far from anarchism at the end of 1861, that when he left Russia Bakunin was a stranger to the political and social ideas o f his time, that he did not know Russia at all and that even in Europe he never attached himself to a single movement or group. Polonsky also referred to Bakunin’s solitude, loneliness, depression and thoughts o f suicide, as described in “Confession” and by Herzen. Thus if compared with Polonsky’s analysis of the “Confession” in 1921, Grossman’s conclusions about Bakunin seem scarcely distinguishable from Polonsky’s.1 0 * Certain aspects of his work on Bakunin between 1921 and 1925 suggest that Polonsky’s attitude toward Bakunin was less hostile than Bakunin’s more outspoken defenders may have believed. By virtue o f his allusions to Bakunin’s “fall,” Polonsky’s approach to some extent resembles the responses of Gorev, Figner and Deich; but as Izgoev recognized,1 0 9 Polonsky, too, offered a defense of Bakunin, albeit a more subtle and less direct one than Nettlau, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi. By means 107. Grossman cites Polonsky’s biography o f 1922 directly (IIo jio H C K H fi, BJI. Mhxshji AjieKcaiupoBfm E a ic y H H H O K ia H k , jxeaTenuiocTfc, Mumneime. T. 1. M.: Toe. k u -b o , 1922). 108. B a x y H H H , M.A. Hcnoaens h nncufo AneKcaiupy II / Bciyn. cr. B JI. IIojioHCKoro. M.: Toe. h m -bo, 1920. C. 5,9,25,26,29. 109. (broea, A.C. Tparegmi BaKymma // JlerotiH C h floMa nmepaiopoB. 1921. N* 3 (I aeic.).C. 5. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253 o f a clear distinction between Bakunin’s years o f prison and exile and his later years, when he became an international “anarchist,” Polonsky was able to reason simply that Bakunin’s letter to Nikolai “should not cast any shadow on the anarchist world*view o f Bakunin.”1 1 0 When he addressed the problem o f Bakunin’s apparent lapse of “revolutionary morality,” Polonsky implicitly agreed with Steklov’s explanation, noting that “it would be a mistake to apply our contemporary standard o f revolutionary morality to the ‘Confession.’” Like Steklov, Polonsky believed that since Bakunin was raised and educated within the culture of the nobility, who experienced no principled break with the tsar, he naturally looked upon the tsar as the country’s “leading noble,” and therefore to appeal to the tsar was not as “disgraceful” for B aku n in as it would become for later generations.1 1 1 Thus although Polonsky believed Bakunin truly kneeled before the tsar, one o f his goals, as he had explained to his listeners at the Press House in November, 1920, was in fact “to raise Bakunin from his knees.”1 1 2 How Polonsky intended to explain Bakunin’s reverse transformation from his neo-conservatism o f the 1850s back to the radicalism o f the 1860s and 1870s unfortunately may never be known. Although he planned and even drafted the second volume of his biography, “Bakunin as an Anarchist,” which would have studied the remaining fifteen years o f Bakunin’s life, for reasons that are not clear, Polonsky never 110. non oH C K H fl, BJI. M hxbhji B a x y H H H b anoxy copoxoBux-mecnuiearrux ronoB // B a x y H H H , M.A. HcnoBCiu a hhcm io Ajiexcaaopy Q. M., 1920. C. 10. 111. n onoH C K H fl, B JI. MHxaan AnexcaH apoB H H B a x y H H H : J C H 3 H X , aearrejikH ocrx, M H U L ie H H e . T. 1. M.: Toe. Haa-BO, 1922. C. 393. 112. K o M M y H H C T H H e c x H fl Tpya / Opnut MocxoBcxoro xoMHrera PKTI. h VtocxoBcxoro CoBera PKfl. 1920. N “ 208,27 ho*6. C. 3. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254 managed to complete and publish the work.1 1 3 One reason for the delay may have been a rather sudden change in Polonsky’s interpretation of the “Confession” which occurred in 1925. In that year, just before his death, the same Kornilov who had studied Bakunin’s early years and rejected the idea o f Bakunin’s sincerity1 1 4 published a second collection of letters from the Bakunin family archive which historians had long believed lo st1 1 3 Encompassing the years 1840 to 1857, the collection included a letter which Bakunin secretly passed to his sister Tat’iana when she visited him in the fortress in February 1854,1 1 6 that is, nearly three years after he submitted his repentance to Nikolai. In that note Bakunin informed his family that incarceration had “not altered [his] former convictions in the least,” but “on the contrary, it has made them more passionate, more resolute and more absolute” [plus ardents. plus resolus, plus absoluts (6ojiee njiaMeHHue, Sojiee pemHTejibHbie, 6oiiee 6e3ycjioBHbie)] than before,” so that “from now on all that remains for me in life may be reduced to a single 113. Advertisements o f Polonsky’s second volume appear in other publications by the State Publishing House, and a number o f Polonsky’s drafts survive in the archives. See: PTAJIH, $-1328, on. 2, ea. 18. 114. See note 36, above. 1 1 S. In his biography on Bakunin o f 1920, Steklov wrote that the archive was lost (CreicnoB, K D .M . M h x sh ji AjieKcaaopoam EaKymm: Ero aaoHb h ne*T ejn > H ocn > (1814-1876). H. 1. M.: T-bo Cbmma, 1920. C. 28). In 1922 Polonsky noted only that he had not managed to verify the rumor (IlojioHcicHft, B.n. M maiui A iieK ca H a p o B H M B a x y H H H : X C kihb, aeaTensHocra, M unuieH H e. T. 1. M.: Toe. hm-b o , 1922. C. 353). 116. Tat’iana was allowed to visit Bakunin thanks in part to assistance from distant relatives of Bakunin. As Kornilov determined, Bakunin’s prison ward, LA. Nabokov (1787-1852), who oversaw the first visit between Bakunin, his sister Tat’iana and brother Nikolai in October 1851, was the father o f Elizaveta Ivanovna Pushchina, with whom Tat’iana corresponded and eventually stayed when she arrived in Petersburg to visit Bakunin again in 1854. Nabokov’s other daughter, and Pushchina’s sister, Ekaterina Ivanovna, was married to one A.P. Poltoratsky, Bakunin’s uncle on his mother’s side. Thus Bakunin had a family connection at the Peter-and-Paui fortress during his first year. See: K o p h h j io b, A .A. Toau C T p a H C T B H fi MHxaHjia BaxyH H H a. JI.; M.: Toe. khi-b o , 1925. C. 474. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255 word: freedom.”1 1 7 Polonsky confirmed the implications o f Bakunin’s statement in a review of Kornilov’s book for the July issue o f Press and Revolution in 1925, several months after his final reply to Grossman. Singling out the secret note to Tat’iana of 1854 as “o f the greatest value” for Bakunin’s biography, Polonsky declared there was “no longer any room for arguments” on the question o f Bakunin’s sincerity. “The meaning o f the note leaves no doubt,” he wrote, “that Bakunin wrote his ’Confession’ with a preconceived, calculated intention to mislead Nikolai, to assume the guise of ostensible repentance, to win a pardon at any cost, in order to break free and resume the same cause which landed him in the fortress.”1 1 8 Polonsky also revised his conclusions about Bakunin’s “fall” in time for the second edition of his book on Bakunin (volume one), which appeared the same year. In a revised analysis o f the “Confession,” Polonsky announced that Bakunin’s letter to Tat’iana “has now revealed the ‘secret’ which Bakunin ‘carried to his grave’” and “put an end to the disputes over the sincerity o f Bakunin’s repentance.”: Bakunin pretended. With consummate art, amazing tenacity and unusual boldness, Bakunin took a risk. His confessions, self-debasement and flattery were all lies by means o f which he wished to purchase his freedom. It was necessary to deceive Nikolai, so Bakunin deceived him. It was necessary to feign humility, so he feigned it. It was necessary to condemn his past, so Bakunin condemned it, cursed it and disavowed it forever, so that if successful he could resume his former struggle and fulfill his past calling. 117. K o p h h j io b, A.A. roaia c r p a H C T B H ft Mnxaiuia B a x y H H H a . JT .; M.: Toe. hm-b o , 192S. C. 493, 495. 118. noiiO H C K H ft, B JI. Pea. Ha k h .: K o p h h j io b , A.A. Toau crpaHcraHit Mmaiuia BaxyH H H a (JI.; M.: foe. h m - b o , 1925) // rieqara h pe no.no u h * . 1925. K h . 5/6. C. 408-409. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256 As before, Polonsky repeated that “from the standpoint of revolutionary morals the character [of the “Confession”] cannot be justified”; more so than in his previous works, however, Polonsky attempted to qualify Bakunin’s moral breach and in the end essentially denied it. After his escape from Siberia, Polonsky argued, “Bakunin redeemed the ‘Confession’ through all his subsequent activity,” and “therefore the ‘Confession’ demands no historical justification.” Admitting that the “reprehensible” aspects o f Bakunin’s behavior—his self-debasement, repentant tone, etc.—required an explanation, Polonsky nonetheless insisted that they constituted “not a moral problem, but a psychological one.” Comparing Bakunin with his revolutionary descendants like Chemyshevsky and Nechaev, Polonsky explained that Bakunin lacked the close connection with a revolutionary “society” which the following generation o f leaders enjoyed. Chemyshevsky and Nechaev proved willing to endure their hardship and accept death without resorting to any compromise or appeals to their captors because they believed their personal suffering or death “would serve the revolution” and “the cause of the collective.” By contrast Bakunin “saw no collective standing behind him which would have continued his cause or supported his fallen spirit” The only “collective” standing by Bakunin during the 1850s, Polonsky wrote, were the abstract concepts of “humanity” and the “Slavic peoples,” and therefore Bakunin could neither conceive o f nor expect support from anyone, “/n the field o f battle” Polonsky concluded, “ Bakunin was alone” [Polonsky’s italics]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257 Polonsky’s reversal must have dismayed but also encouraged the anarchists, who just a few years earlier had opposed Polonsky on the issue o f Bakunin’s “fall.” Polonsky’s new position apparently perplexed Otverzhennyi, who wrote in a letter to Borovoi: Yesterday [Polonsky] unexpectedly declared to me that he is revising his interpretation o f the “Confession.” Bakunin is a Machiavelli—there was no repentance. I just shrugged my shoulders with surprise. For on the main point we agreed [Otverzhennyi’s underscore].1 1 9 Nonetheless Polonsky’s book received the praise o f Nettlau, who agreed with Polonsky that “we can only now understand” that Bakunin was “as isolated and deprived o f really helpful friends as any man ever was, whilst, as we see, his spirit was unbroken and his desire to obtain liberation or to look for death was unalterable.” Citing Polonsky’s revised opinion, Nettlau added that “[t]his is what we all said since 1922.” “The closer one examines Bakunin’s life,” Nettlau concluded, “the more one sees the distance which separates the fullness of that life from the few morsels picked out in the ’Confession’ for the use of the Tsar.”1 2 0 While their approaches to Bakunin remained different in many respects, Polonsky’s concession allowed even Steklov to claim victory on the question of Bakunin’s behavior in prison. Seizing an opportunity to avenge Polonsky for the latter’s criticism of his original interpretation, Steklov wrote in the second edition of his biography that Bakunin’s newly discovered letter o f 1854 “only confirmed the 119. PrAJIH, < t > . 1023, on. 1, ea. 299, ji. 18. 120. Max Nettlau, “A Last Word on Bakunin’s ‘Confession,’” Freedom 39 (Sept 1923): 43. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258 interpretation o f the ‘Confession”' which he presented in the first edition o f his book in 1920: that the “Confession” contained no genuine repentance, that Bakunin wished only for liberation from the fortress, and that Bakunin felt disappointment only in certain “methods and leaders” o f the revolution. Reviewing the “odd ‘hypothesis’” which Polonsky was “now forced to reject,” Steklov commented triumphantly: Better late than never! Only we think that even without the statements by Bakunin that compelled Polonsky, in the end, to take the correct stance on this issue, the problem would have been clear without them. The entire past of Bakunin, all his subsequent political work, his entire psychology, finally, the “Confession” itself from the first line to the last all support our point o f view. In addition to a desire to “have one’s say,” an analysis of such documents demands a certain degree o f acumen for psychology and a certain degree of historical insight.1 2 1 That both Nettlau and Steklov found vindication in Bakunin’s letter to Tat’iana did not suggest a reconciliation between their two opposing camps. Along with his reply to Polonsky, Steklov also criticized Borovoi and other anarchists who “will not allow any spots to blemish the sun of Bakunin’s greatness,” and who “attempt to remove the spots by means o f incorrect citations and false interpretations.”1 2 2 Steklov’s remarks to Polonsky and Borovoi in this instance added little to the debate, but they indicate that a certain tension over the question of Bakunin’s “Confession” lingered well into 1926. 121. CrexnoB, K).M. Maxawi A aex caH ap o B in BaxyHHH: Ero j k h s h b h aerrejisH O C T b: B 3 t . T. 1 (1814*1861). 2-e ion., H cnp. h a o n . M.: Kom. axaaeMHa, 1926. C. 426. Polonsky answered Steklov in a review the same year. 122. CTexnoa, IO.M. MHxami AnexcaaapOBiFi B a x y H H H : Ero b o o h b h aenenbH O C T fc: B 3 t . T. 1 (1814*1861). 2-e m a., H cnp. h aon. M.: K om . axaaeMm, 1926. C. 424. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259 4.4 Conclusion Borovoi, Otverzhennyi and Polonsky all adamantly opposed an analogy between Stavrogin and Bakunin based on the suggestion that Bakunin, like Stavrogin, was at heart a demoralized “genius of the abstract” prone to suicidal despair. Had such an extreme notion belonged to Grossman alone, then it seems unlikely that Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, at least, would have devoted so much space to the question in their book; but undoubtedly like other defenders of Bakunin at the time, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi both immediately saw in Grossman’s claims about Bakunin an echo of the idea, popularized by the publication o f the “Confession,” that the real Bakunin in fact failed to live up to the reputation which had inspired generations of revolutionaries in Russia, while Polonsky must have recognized the mistaken position he himself had originally maintained. The “Confession” did not necessarily create a new “myth” about Bakunin, but rather reinforced a traditional one, a fact which prompted Borovoi to point out both “old and new legends” about Bakunin in Grossman’s thesis.1 2 3 In fact the “Confession” was probably not the original source o f Grossman’s controversial claim about Bakunin. More than a decade before the publication o f Bakunin’s “Confession,” for example, Blok wrote that “an entire swarm [T yro] o f the sharpest contradictions abound” in Bakunin’s soul, “‘poetry and prose, fire and ice,”’ an observation which 123. Eopoaoft, A A E a ic y H H H a “Becax” II Eopoaoft, A A ., OraepaceKHuft, H.r. M h < |> o EaxyHmte. M., 1925. C. 133. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260 foreshadows Grossman’s notion o f Bakunin’s “glaring psychological contradictions,” derived in part from the “Confession.”1 2 4 Another important source for the idea of Bakunin’s “contradictions” may have been Turgenev’s fictional “portrait” o f Bakunin in his short novel Rudin,1 2 3 a work with which Grossman was well familiar and which seems to have been a standard point o f reference in biographical sketches of Bakunin for years.1 3 6 Regardless o f other differences, Rudin and Bakunin apparently share the same important “contradiction” as Stavrogin and Bakunin. According to Rudin’s friend Lezhnev, Rudin is “intelligent...but empty in essence,” and although he “pretends to be passionate [npHKHnwnaeTca nnaMeHHbiM],” in reality he is as “cold as ice.”1 2 7 It may not be accidental, moreover, that a thorough study o f Bakunin and Rudin appeared just after Grossman’s articles. In a remark which reflects his obvious awareness o f the “debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky” and perhaps his effort to avoid the criticism which Grossman provoked, N.L. Brodsky emphasized that it is 124. Ejiok, A.A. Mfocaiui AnexcaHnpoBHH EaicyHHH (1814-1876) // Ejio k . A .A . Co6pamie c oH H H eH H ft: B 8 t . M.; JI.: Xyno*. j i h t . , 1962. C. 32. Blok quotes from Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin here. 125. As discussed briefly in chapter one of this dissertation, Grossman referred to Rudin only as an example of a character who was dearly modeled after Bakunin but nonetheless fails to resemble him in important and obvious ways. 126. See, for example: riHcuua M.A. B axyH H H a x A.H. TepueHy h H.n. Orapeay / C 6aorp. B B en. h o G m c h h t . npH M C T. M JI. Z lp a ro M a H o a a . CI16.: (fan. Bpy&ieacicoro, 1906. C. 93; A M ^ H te a T p o a , A.A. M A E aicyH H H , xax xapanep // JlHTepaiypmift atm6oM. 2-e H an., non. CII6.: OOmecraeHHaa nonua, 1907. C. 1-16; Creiuioa, IO.M. MA. E aicyH H H : (K 100-neniefi r o n o a u iH H e co n H a ero poacaeHHa) // Eopuu 3a coiiHanicm: OtepxH H 3 h c t o p h h o6mecraeHHUx h p c b o j u o u h o h h u x namnHHfi a P o c c h h : B 2 « t. H. 1.2-e Han., Hcnp. h non. M.: Toe. H3n-ao, 1923. C. 168-169. 127. Typrema, H.C. IlonHoe co6paHHe comraeHHtl h mtceM: B 30 t . T. 5 .2-e Han. M.: Hayxa, 1980. C. 252,255. In these examples, Lezhnev describes Rudin to Aleksandra Pavlovna (Lipina). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261 only “the young Bakunin [Brodsky’s italics] who is distinctly recognizable [othctjihbo pacno3HaeTca] in Rudin.”1 2 8 The discovery in 1925 o f Bakunin’s letter to Tat’iana might have satisfied many readers that Bakunin’s confessions o f the 1850s were, after all, truly insincere and therefore not worthy o f further polemics; but the discussions surrounding Bakunin’s “fall” represented only one manifestation o f the campaign against Bakunin with which Grossman’s opponents associated his thesis. The other manifestation o f the campaign, an ongoing polemic over the nature of Bakunin’s ideology, also continued well into 1926, the year in which the Grossman-Polonsky collection o f articles appeared. Its course and consequences for the reception o f Grossman’s thesis will be examined in the following chapter. 128. SpoacKHfi, H JI. BaxyHHH h PyflHH // Karopra h ccunxa. 1926. Kh. 26. C. 139. For a shorter analysis of Bakunin and Rudin in English, see: Marshall S. Shatz, “Bakunin, Turgenev and Rudin,” The Golden Age o f Russian Literature and Thought, ed. Derek Offord (New York: S t Martin’s, 1992) 103- 114. Compare also the view o f Lydia Ginzburg in: Lydia Ginzburg, “Bakunin, Stankevich and the Crisis of Romanticism,” Lydia Ginzburg. On Psychological Prose, trans., ed. Judson Rosengrandt (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991) 47. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262 Chapter 5 The Problem of “Bakuninism" As chapter four attempted to demonstrate, Polonsky, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi all opposed Grossman’s approach to Bakunin because it rested on certain misconceptions about Bakunin’s character, chiefly the “legend" of Bakunin’s ‘ Tall” from the ranks o f genuine revolutionaries which had provided grounds for the attacks on Bakunin in response to his “Confession.” The second misconception about Bakunin which Grossman’s opponents sought to dispel pertained to Bakunin’s ideology. According to Grossman, Besy was not simply a “depiction o f Nechaevshchina,” as traditionally assumed, but also a critique o f “Bakuninism” [6axyHH3M], with which Grossman identified specific aspects o f the views of Stavrogin and, in part, o f his “ape” Verkhovensky. Because it revived negative preconceptions about Bakunin’s intellectual legacy, Grossman’s critique o f Bakuninism naturally encountered opposition from the anarchists Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, who evaluated it from the standpoint o f an entirely different tradition. At the same time, although Grossman’s assessment of Bakunin proved to be consistent in many ways with a traditional Marxist critique in certain respects, it also met vehement opposition from the Marxist Polonsky. Revising a certain tradition in the Marxist attitude toward Bakunin, Polonsky believed that Bakuninism contained a positive, constructive side which Grossman’s critique ignored. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263 To an even greater extent than his claims about the great “contradictions” in Bakunin’s character, Grossman’s claims about Bakuninism also introduced into his study o f Besy another recent historical debate, but one o f even greater political relevance than the discussion over Bakunin’s “Confession.” In the wake of the Bolshevik victory in Russia, the traditional dispute over the nature o f Bakuninism inevitably became absorbed by analyses o f the role o f anarchism in the October revolution. This fifth and final chapter will identify the controversial aspects of Grossman’s interpretation o f Bakunin, consider the reasons for the objections by Borovoi, Otverzhennyi and Polonsky, and explain how the anarchist episode of the Russian revolution, more so than all other factors, proved responsible for the controversial reception o f Grossman’s thesis. S. 1 Grossman’s critique o f Bakuninism and its sources in the Marxist tradition As reviewed briefly in chapter four, Grossman described the twentieth and final “coincidence” between Stavrogin and Bakunin as a “fatal intellectual hypertrophy.” Consumed by a “cold and powerful reason” and driven by an “exclusively intellectual, cerebral force,” Stavrogin remains, like Bakunin, a mere “genius o f the abstract,” a spiritual corpse who can offer the world “only negation.” According to Grossman’s reading, at the root of Stavrogin’s intellectual “hypertrophy” lies an outlook which resembles the philosophy of “universal destruction” [Bceo6mee pa3pymeHHe] preached by Bakunin (83), who “had to compensate for his defective Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264 spiritual constitution with the power of his destructive muscles” (36). Because he lacks a “powerful creative will,” Grossman explained, Stavrogin fails “to elevate the idea of destruction to the category o f creation” or “to identify the will to destroy with the creative passion.” In this respect, Grossman argued, Stavrogin resembles Bakunin, who also suffered from an inability to create, he believed, because his famous slogan o f 1842, “The passion for destruction is also a creative passion” [Die Lust der Zerstdrung ist zugleich eine schaffende Lust (crpacn> k paspymemoo ecn> BMecre c T eM h TBopnecKas crpacTb)],1 “carries within itself an insuperable contradiction which leads to tragic sterility” (33-35). As Grossman illustrated in his opening description of Bakunin’s speech at the League of Peace and Freedom Congress in 1867, the principle o f destruction occupied a conspicuous place of Bakunin’s thought a full two years before he met Nechaev. Following his break with the League a year later, Bakunin and his followers then proclaimed the principle of destruction in their anarchist program for the journal People’ s Cause [Hapoimoe aejio], which demanded the “eradication of all statism with its ecclesiastical, political, military, civil-bureaucratic, juridical, scholastic and financial-economic institutions.”2 As reviewed in chapter three, Grossman described Verkhovensky’s methods as the manifestation o f Bakunin’s “practical teaching.” Like Nechaev, Verkhovensky 1. The statement is from Bakunin’s essay “Die Reaction in Deutschland, Fragment eines Franzosen,” which appeared in the journal Deutsche Jahrbucher fu r W issenschaft und Kunst (17-21 October, 1 8 4 2 ). 2 . EaicyHHH, M. A. HrfpaHHue comraemu. T. 3 . M.; f l 6 .: T o jio c Tpyaa, 1 9 2 0 . C . 9 7 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265 applies '‘ the teaching o f unlimited destruction in the name o f destruction, a new Pugachevshchina,3 the great ‘shake-up’ o f old Russia” (24), all of which, in Grossman’s view, represent the “essence” o f Bakunin’s anarchism (27). Verkhovensky reveals the nature o f his plan in a feverish speech which Grossman characterized as “an outstanding reflection of Bakunin’s intense pathos” and “a fluent exposition of Bakuninism”: First we’ll start a time o f troubles...we’1 1 penetrate among the people themselves... We’ll proclaim destruction...why oh why is this little idea so captivating? [...] We’ll start fires, we’ll start legends... And the turmoil shall begin! Such a rumble will break out as the world has never seen... Ol’ Russia will cloud over, the earth will weep for the old gods...and the earth will let out a great groan: ‘a new just law is coming’, and the sea will heave, and the circus will collapse. [M u cnanajia nycTHM CMyry...Mu npomncHeM b caMufi Hapon... M u npoB03rnacHM pa3pymeHHe.. noqeuy, noqeMy, oium>-TaKH, ara mteftxa Tax o6 ajrrejn»Ha? [...] M u nycraM noxcapu, m u nycTHM Jiereaou... Hy-c h HaHHeTca cMyra! Pacxanxa Taxaa nollaeT, xaxofi eme Map ne Baaaii... 3aTyMaHHTca Pycb, 3aiuiaHer 3eMJia no crap mm 6oraM...n 3acroHeT c to h o m 3eMJia: “ h o b u B npaBUft 3axoH oner,” h B3BOjmyeTca Mope, h pyxner 6ajiaraH...](27).'* Although he appears to disdain Verkhovensky’s vision, nonetheless Stavrogin provides a certain inspiration for it through his penchant for criminal acts or, as Grossman described it, his “passion for destruction.” In an early sketch for the novel, Grossman recalled, Stavrogin himself explicitly proposes “to bum everything” [B ee 3. Referring to the rebellion led by the cossack E.I. Pugachev (1740-177S), “Pugachevshchina” generally suggests a violent, elemental revolt o f the masses against autocratic rule. On Pugachev see: Paul Avrich, Russian Rebels, 1600-1800 (New York: Schocken, 1972) 180-2S4. 4. Verkhovensky utters these lines to Stavrogin in the chapter “Ivan-Tsarevich” (part two, chapter eight). See: .Z lo c T o eB C K H fi, < I» .M . rioraoe co6paHHe coumeHHii: B 30 t. T. 10: Eecu. JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 319-326. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266 cxeqb],5 a formula which “coincides completely” with one o f Bakunin’s (27). By accommodating the demands o f the convict Fedka, Grossman pointed out, Stavrogin shares direct responsibility for the wave o f murders and arson prepared by Verkhovensky. When he encourages Fedka to “keep killing and stealing,” Stavrogin effectively forges the alliance with “the brigand” which Verkhovensky requires for his plan, thereby endorsing a well-known element o f Bakunin’s revolutionary program. In this way he also fulfills the role Verkhovensky envisions for him, “with his unique proclivity for crime,” as a kind o f “Stenka Razin,” an image which Bakunin evoked, Grossman noted, in one o f his agitational proclamations: The time o f Stenka Razin6 is approaching... Brigandage is one o f the most honorable forms of Russian popular life. [...] The brigand in Russia is the true and only revolutionary, a revolutionary without phrases, without bookish rhetoric, an implacable revolutionary, tireless and indomitable in his deed... And when both the revolt o f the brigand and the peasant unite, the people’s revolution arises. Such were the movements o f Razin and Pugachev. [TIpH 6jiH 3 K aioT C Ji BpeMena CreHbKH Pa3HHa... Paj6oft—ozraa H 3 noqeTHetarax < t> o p M pyccKofi HapoaHoft 3 K H 3H H . Pa36oftHHK b Pocchh—HacrosmHft H eO H H C T B eH H B lft p eB O JU O U H O H ep , peB O JH O lIH O H ep 6e3 4>pa3, 6e3 K H H X H O fi p H T O pH K H , p eB O jnO IX H O H ep HenpHMHpHMhlft, H ey T O M H M B ld H H eyK pO T H M U fl Ha aejie... A Korna 0 6a 6yHTa, pa36oftH H M H fi h KpecruracKHfi, cjmBaiorcx, nopoautaercx HaponHaa peBcunomw. TaxoBu 6m jih ziBHaceHHa Pa3HHa h riyraHeBa...](13) 5. The entry is included in: AocroeBCKHft, O.M. llojiHoe co6paHHe coBHHemdt: B 30 t . T. 11: Eecu. noaroTOBineji&Hue Marepnanu JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 186. Stavrogin explains the need “bum everything” in his dialog with Shatov (from the scene called “A fantastic page,” dated June 23,1870). Grossman included this page in: Taopqecrao Aocroeacicoro: C6. cr. a Marepaanoa / Iloa pea. JI JI. TpoccMaHa. Oaecca: Bceyicp. roc. aaa-ao, 1921. C. 16. 6. A century before Pugachev, the cossack S.T. Razin (1630-1676) led a series o f violent uprisings across southern Russia. See: Paul Avrich, Russian Rebels, 1600-1800 (New York: Schocken, 1972) 50- 122. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267 Readers familiar with Bakunin’s writings o f this period would have recognized that in the foregoing excerpt Grossman actually cited two proclamations, both of which were produced during the collaboration between Bakunin and Nechaev in Geneva in 1869. The document containing the first line o f the excerpt here (“The time o f Stenka Razin is approaching”), Bakunin’s signed proclamation “Several Words to Our Young Brothers in Russia” [HecjcoJibico cjiob k mojioaum 6pan>XM b Pocchh], was the work which he composed shortly after meeting Nechaev for the first time and the one which Katkov campaigned against in his editorial, described in chapter two of this dissertation. The proclamation “Several Words” carried on the spirit o f the People’ s Cause program of 1867, urging young Russian radicals to hasten the destruction o f all “statism” in Russia “by all possible means” and applauding Stenka Razin’s revolt against the state “from below.”7 The remainder o f the excerpt Grossman drew from “Posing the Revolutionary Question” UIocraHOBKa peBomooHOHHoro Bonpoca], an unsigned proclamation, often attributed to Bakunin, and probably the most outspoken example of his glorification o f the Russian brigand. In all probability Grossman’s readers would also have recalled that the proclamation not only described the brigand as the “true and only revolutionary in Russia,” but also insisted on the necessity o f “entering his world.”* Having joined the revolt o f the peasant, young 7. E a x y H K H , M.A. HecKOJiuco c jio b k m o jio h u m 6paTMM b P o c c h h // E aicyH H H , M.A. Pe<m h B 0 3 3 B B H H B . CII6., 1906. C. 232-234. 8. As Cochrane has shown is his unsurpassed study o f the Genevan proclamations of 1869, if in “Several Words” Razin was “only an allegorical figure,” in “Posing the Revolutionary Question” “the brigand was developed into a fundamental concept for the revolution. See: Stephen T. Cochrane, The Collaboration o f Nechaev,Ogarev and Bakunin in 1869: N echaev's Early Years (Giessen: Wilhelm Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268 revolutionaries must also join the “brigand’s revolt” [p a3 6 o ftH H H H fi 6yHT], in order to “unite all the disconnected peasant explosions into a people’s revolution, meaningful and merciless” [ocMucjieHHaa h fiecnomaAHaa].9 Both appeals—for destruction and for brigandage—entered the so-called “Catechism of a Revolutionary” [KarexH3Hc peBOjnoQHOHepa], which demanded “the most immediate and certain destruction of this vile order” (article 3), defined the cause o f the revolutionary as “terrible, complete, universal and merciless destruction” (article 24), and called for “unification with the valiant world o f the brigand” in order to form “a single, invincible, all-destructive force” (articles 25-26).1 0 Had Grossman argued only for a certain consistency between the ideas o f “destruction” and “brigandage” in Bakunin’s revolutionary theory, well documented in his agitational writings between 1867 and 1869, and the nihilistic ideas that appeal to Stavrogin and Verkhovensky, then he may not have provoked any serious objections; but in defining Bakuninism as “destruction in the name o f destruction,” by describing it as the logical result of Stavrogin’s psychological affliction, and by linking it to the Schmitz Verlag, 1977) 117. 9. BaicyHHH, M.A. nocraH osica pcBOjnonHOHHoro B onpoca // BaxyHHH, M.A. Pc th h b o 3 3 B 3 h h ji. CI16., 1906. C. 239-241. Bakunin’s words suggest a deliberate inversion o f Pushkin’s famous statement [6eccM ucjieH H ufl h 6 ec n o iu a o H u ft (6yirr)] from the conclusion o f his story, “The Captain’s Daughter.” 10. IU h jio b, A .A. “KaxexKmc peaajnouHOHepa”: (K HcropHH “HesaeacKoro aena”) // Sopb6a icnaccoB. 1924. N a 1/2. C. 268,271-272. This Russian edition o f the “Catechism of a Revolutionary” is generally regarded as the definitive transcription o f the original encoded text, which had no title. A complete English translation of the twenty six “articles” is included in: Michael Confino, ed., Daughter o f a Revolutionary. Natalie Herzen and the Baktmin-Nechayev C ircle (LaSalle: Library Pr., 1973) 224- 230. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269 brutal murders that take place in Besy, Grossman revived another historical dispute which formed the broader context o f his debate with Polonsky and others. As indicated in chapter two o f this dissertation, the extent of Bakunin’s responsibility for Nechaev’s crimes in Russia remained unknown at the time o f their exposure in the Russian press. During the trial o f the Nechaevists, both the state and the defense lawyers for the Nechaevists (and therefore Dostoevsky himself, according to Grossman’s reasoning) perceived the ideas o f Bakunin behind the more violent propaganda of the “People’s Summary Justice.” In the view of defense lawyer Spasovich, the “Catechism o f a Revolutionary” was a work of “pure abstract theory” which could not have been authored by a “man o f action” like Nechaev, but only by a “theoretician,” “who at his leisure, far from the business at hand, devises revolution, sketches it out on paper, condemns one group to death, proposes to rob another, intimidate a third, etc.,” an assumption which led him to suggest that its author was Bakunin.1 1 Unlike the proclamation “Several Words to our Young Brothers in Russia,” which Bakunin composed, signed and published, however, neither the “Catechism” nor the other anonymous proclamations which Nechaev circulated in Russia, “Posing the Revolutionary Question,” “Beginnings o f Revolution” [Haiajia peBOjnomiH] and the first issue o f the thin periodical The People s Summary Justice [Hapojmas pacnpaaa], could be attributed definitively or exclusively to Bakunin. Notwithstanding even his 11. £eno He'ueBneB // TepoiaM peaajnotoiH: H ct.-jiht. xpecTOManu XIX h XX b. T .l / Coer. JLH. B o 0 t o jio b c k h J1. M.; JI.: foe. k u - b o , 1927. C. 294. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270 support for Nechaev’s revolutionary aspirations, clearly evident in the document of endorsement he signed on behalf of the “World Revolutionary Alliance,” Bakunin’s precise contribution to the plans and methods o f Nechaev remained a controversial question in the revolutionary movement. It assumed great importance within the International Workingmen’s Association during its final years and, eventually, within the development of the anarchist movement in Russia, whose fate proved to be an important factor in the reception of Grossman’s thesis. While the complex history o f the International and Bakunin’s relationship to its de facto leader, Karl Marx, are beyond the scope o f this discussion, a number of events during its final years o f existence played an important role in the development of Bakunin’s intellectual legacy and warrant brief review.1 2 In the fall o f 1868, still several months before he became acquainted with Nechaev, Bakunin left the League of Peace and Freedom,1 3 moved to Geneva and began to recruit followers into a new organization with an anarchist program, the Alliance of Socialist Democracy, which then applied for entry into the International. In July 1869, the International accepted the Alliance into its organization on the condition that the Alliance transform itself from an independent organization with an independent program into a mere section of 12. Literature on the history o f the International and on the conflict between Marx and Bakunin is vast. Fundamental works in English include: G.M. Stekloff [Steklov, Iu.M.] H istory o f the First International (New York: International Publishers, 1928), which first appeared in Russian in 1918; Franz Mehring, Karl Marx. The Story o f His Life, trans. Edward Fitzgerald (New York: Covici & Friede, 1935), from the German edition, first published in 1918: Karl M arx.Geschichte seines Lebens (Leipzig, 1918); G.D.H. Cole, Marxism and Anarchism, 1850-1890. VoL 2 o f A H istory ofSocialist Thought (New York: S t Martin’s, 1969). 13. See chapter two for a discussion of the League and its place in Grossman’s thesis. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271 the International which would abide by the policies of the International’s General Council. The Alliance agreed and formally became one of several Geneva sections o f the International, but Bakunin continued to build the Alliance as a separate organization and to promote anarchist views that contradicted those o f the General Council. Some o f Bakunin’s anarchist principles, for example, his desire for the complete destruction o f state power and the reconstruction of society along federalist or “collectivist” lines, entered the statutes o f his “secret” Alliance, as it came to be known. Although Bakunin enjoyed no official authority in the International, he attracted a growing number o f sympathizers, particularly in Switzerland, France, Belgium, Italy and Spain. The extent o f his following became apparent to Marx and the rest o f the General Council at the Basel Congress o f September 1869, where Bakunin gathered support sufficient to defeat one of the General Council’s resolutions. Wary o f a growing anarchist tendency in the International and suspecting Bakunin’s desire to win control o f the International, Marx and the General Council began to support the development of another Geneva section o f Russians, led by N.I. Utin, who were particularly hostile to Bakunin and to his efforts to win support among the Swiss sections. By the summer o f 1870, when Marx learned o f Bakunin’s involvement with Nechaev, who had returned to Switzerland from Russia in February, he began to seek Utin’s assistance in an effort to expel Bakunin. In 1871 the General Council invited Utin to a private conference o f the International in London attended mostly by Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272 supporters o f Marx and assigned him the task o f gathering information about Bakunin’s role in the Nechaev affair. Utin’s report, delivered to the Hague Congress of the International in 1872, served as a primary source o f information for Marx about Bakunin and provided important grounds for his expulsion from the International. Reviewing the history of the Nechaev affair according to the trial records and other documents, chiefly proclamations and other writings by Bakunin, the report emphasized the responsibility of Bakunin and his principles o f anarchism for the murder o f Ivanov and the persecution o f the “Nechaevists.” Utin accused Bakunin o f giving Nechaev “the right to rely on him in his criminal activities” and the right to participate in “similar undertakings o f revolutionary anarchy.” He explained that Nechaev had acted according to Bakunin’s principles as outlined in the proclamations and, specifically, “as ordered by Bakunin’s ‘Catechism’ [of a Revolutionary].” The proclamation “Beginnings o f Revolution,” Utin noted, “preaches to youth the destruction, the eradication o f highly-placed persons, which must begin by actions, that is by individual assassinations.” Along with the example of Ivanov, Utin indirectly accused Bakunin for an apparent attempt on his life by a group o f Bakunin’s followers1 4 and alleged that it “was only one o f Bakunin’s feats, only one o f the loyal applications of 14. The alleged incident occurred in Zurich in June 1872. Utin claimed he was attacked by behind, beaten in the face and nearly killed. Sazhin claimed that Utin suffered a fall and then made up the story. See: Jan M. Meijer, Knowledge and Revolution: The Russian Colony in Zurich, 1870-1873 (Assen: Van Gorcum & Co., 1955) 101, 188. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273 the revolutionary principles which he preaches in his pamphlets and in his ‘Catechism’ against all those who do not obey him.” In other words, the murder was merely “a practical expression of the ‘great struggle o f great principles’ as understood by Bakunin’s supporters.” Utin also tried to demonstrate that the secret program which Bakunin circulated among sections o f the International was virtually the same as the program outlined in the proclamations. Citing Bakunin’s secret “Program” for the Alliance, Utin noted that by “anarchy” Bakunin “understands ‘the unleashing of what today are called the evil passions,’ ‘the complete manifestation o f the people’s life unfettered.’” Utin also suggested that Bakunin's involvement in the Nechaev affair was not an aberration or accident; on the contrary, he predicted that Bakunin would not admit any mistake but would “continue his scheming” and “eagerly sign in public with his hand, stained with the blood o f an innocent man, his approval of all the acts and doings o f Nechaev.”1 3 Based for the most part on Utin’s allegations, the article in which Marx and his allies formally denounced Bakunin’s activity and justified his expulsion, “The Alliance o f Socialist Democracy and the International Working Men’s Association,” sought to demonstrate that the anarchist principles o f Bakunin provided the formula for Nechaev’s crimes. The authors agreed with the trial reports that the Catechism definitely belonged to Bakunin and represented “only a supplement” to the IS. “Report o f N. Utin to die Hague Congress of the International Working Men’s Association,” Documents o f the F irst International. The Hague Congress o f the F irst International. Sept 2-7, 1872. M inutes and Documents (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976) 374,394-395,408,436-437,439. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274 proclamations and other works by Bakunin, which it resembled both in “form and content." The “spirit and even the terms” of the Catechism, the authors concluded, were “identical” to Bakunin’s statutes and guidelines for the “secret” Alliance. The “pan-destruction” and “systematic assassination” ordained by the Catechism, moreover, could also be found in the proclamations “Beginnings of Revolution” and The People's Summary Justice. Paraphrasing lines from issue one o f The People’ s Summary Justice, the authors remarked, “What terrible revolutionaries! They want to annihilate and amorphise everything, ‘absolutely everything.' They draw up lists of proscribed persons, doomed to die by their daggers, their poison, their ropes, by the bullets from their revolvers.” The authors also pointed out the logical connection between the “pan-destruction” celebrated in the proclamations with the conspiratorial designs o f the Alliance group within the International as a whole: “Their [the Alliance’s] resounding phrases about autonomy and free federation, in a word, war- cries against the General Council, were thus nothing but a maneuver to conceal their true purpose—to disorganize the International, and by doing so to subordinate it to the secret, hierarchic and autocratic rule o f the Alliance.” “Stripped of its melodramatic finery,” the authors concluded, the program o f the Alliance amounted to a proposal “to let loose the street hooligans...and thus place gratuitously at the disposal o f the reactionaries a well-disciplined gang of agents provocateurs.”1 6 Suspicions of 16. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Collected Works, vol. 23 (New York: International Publishers, 1988) 326,344,348,549,353, S80. Marx, Engels and Lafargue all contributed to the work, which appeared first as a brochure in French in September 1873. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275 Bakunin’s criminal activity also provided one of the formal grounds for his expulsion. In addition to founding the secret Alliance, the pamphlet announced that Bakunin had been expelled for an unmentionable “personal deed,” which referred to a demand, on threat o f violence, made on the student N. N. Liubavin, to release Bakunin from obligations to repay money advanced to him for a translation o f Marx’s Capital}1 The fallout from the Nechaev affair and its effects on Bakunin’s reputation did not end with the demise o f the International or even with the death o f Bakunin himself in 1876. Bakunin’s militant rhetoric and the most extreme formulations of his ideas from the Nechaev period drew attention to the more violent dimensions of Bakunin’s thought. In his study of socialist thought in 1885, for example, the Belgian historian Laveleye placed Bakunin at the “lowest stratum” o f revolutionary socialism. “It is impossible to go further,” Laveleye wrote, for Bakunin “is the apostle o f universal destruction, of absolute Anarchism, or, as he himself terms his doctrine, of ‘Amorphism.’” Reviewing the proclamation “Beginnings o f Revolution,”1 1 Laveleye wrote that “[Bakunin] dreams o f the total destruction o f all existing institutions, and 17. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, C ollected Works, vol. 23 (New York: International Publishers, 1988) S80. Acting as representative for the Russian publisher Poliakov, the student N.N. Liubavin advanced a sum to Bakunin late in 1869 for the translation o f Marx’s C apital. When Nechaev learned of Bakunin’s occupation with the translation, he wrote a threatening letter to Liubavin demanding to release Bakunin from his obligations to the publisher. For the history of the incident and relevant documents, see: K h c t o p h h HeHaeBiUHHu / ny&i. E. Ko3bMHHa h C. nepecejiemcoaa // JlmepaiypHoe HacneacTBO. T. 41/42. M.: AH CCCP, 1941. C. 151-163. 18. Laveleye’s translator used the more traditional title for this proclamation, “Principles of Revolution.” As Cochrane demonstrates, the question of the “beginning” of the revolution, not its principles, is a central theme in the work. See: Stephen T. Cochrane, The Collaboration o f Nechaev, Ogarev and Bakunin in 1869: Nechaev s Early Years (Giessen: Wilhelm Schmitz Veriag, 1977) 137. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276 the formation o f an ‘amorphous’ society; that is to say, a society without any form, which means, in reality, a return to the savage state.” The means Bakunin sanctioned “for overthrowing everything and establishing amorphism,” Laveleye noted, quoting from the proclamation, included “poison, dagger and noose,”1 9 and Laveleye repeated the allegation that Bakunin was responsible for an assassination attempt on Utin’s life. Describing Nechaev as “Bakunin’s lieutenant,” Laveleye concluded “not only from the statutes o f the Alliance, but from its acts, that [Bakunin’s Alliance] does not shrink from the assassination o f its members.”2 0 Nearly two decades later, in one o f the first studies o f the International, historian Gustav Jaeckh added to the sinister profile of “the man who disorganized the International.” With an “enormous head of hair and the gloomy, crafty eyes o f a predatory animal” [MpanHue, KOBapHue rna3a xjraraoro 3Bepa], even Bakunin’s appearance “inspired little trust,” Jaeckh wrote, and Nechaev’s actions had exposed Bakunin, he added, as “a pan-Slavic agent” Jaeckh also suggested that by themselves “the Swiss mountain towns” that supported Bakunin in the International “never could have desired to destroy the International" had Bakunin not inspired them. Their “destructive ideas...required a stronger will which, like a 19. L a v e le y e ’s translator wrote “poignanT instead o f “dagger.” In the original Russian, the phrase reads: an , h o * , n e r j u h T.n.! See: BaKymm, M A Hanana peaojnoaH H // BaxyHHH, M A . Pew h B 0 3 3BaHHa. CII6., 1906. C. 250. 20. Emile de Laveleye, The Socialism o f Today, trans. G.H. Orpen (London: Field and Tuer, 1885) 192, 193,203,204,206,207. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277 secret force, constantly agitated and electrified them.” The task was left, Jaeckh declared, to “the politically criminal nature of Bakunin, that demon o f destruction.”2 1 The claims and statements o f Spasovich, Utin, Marx (as one o f the authors of the “Alliance” pamphlet) and Jaeckh, all o f whom Grossman cited directly at least once in his articles on Bakunin, formed the primary basis for his analogy between Stavrogin and Bakunin. In his second article he referred both to Utin’s report and to the brochure on the “Alliance”2 2 for proof of the “identity” between the “Catechism” and Bakunin’s statutes for the Alliance (75,113-114). In his first article he recalled Jaeckh’s comparison o f Bakunin’s eyes with those o f a “predatory animal” (19), and he certainly knew o f Laveleye’s work, perhaps through the review o f Bakunin’s “Confession” by Grossman-Roshchin, for example, who noted Laveleye’s comparison of Bakunin “with the demons o f Dante’s Hell.”2 3 All o f the aforementioned sources provided consistent evidence for Grossman’s description of Bakuninism as “unlimited destruction in the name of destruction.” From the standpoint o f the anarchists Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, however, they fostered another “myth about Bakunin” which demanded correction. 21. Herat, r . H irr ep H a u H O H a n // riep. c H e M . H. E poH iirreftH a; IlpeaMcn. K D . CreicnoBa. 2-e M .; JI.: Toe. H 3A -B O , 1926. C. 124,125, 129,241. First published in German (Leipzig) in 1908 with a preface by K. Kautsky. According to Steklov, the first Russian edition o f the work appeared in 1908. 22. Grossman cited the original French edition of the brochure: L ’ Alliance de la democratic socialiste et I ’ association intem ationale des travailleurs. Rapports e t documents, publics par ordre du Congres international de la Haye (Londres-Hambourg, 1873). 23. f poccMaH-PomHH, H.C. CyMeprai bcjuwoA ayuiH // IIe< « n h peaajnomia. 1921. Kh. 3. C. 44. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278 5.2 The responses of Borovoi and Otverzhennyi in light o f the anarchist tradition While agreeing with Grossman’s analysis o f Stavrogin and his inner affliction, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi maintained that Bakunin’s most characteristic intellectual qualities are precisely those which Stavrogin lacks. Because Bakunin’s pathos for destruction also contained an essential creative element, they believed, Bakunin could not have served as the “impulse” for Stavrogin’s overdeveloped powers o f reasoning and corresponding lack o f creative will. Both writers also rejected the indiscriminate, oversimplified identification o f Bakunin’s anarchism with “Nechaevshchina,” by means o f which Grossman reduced “Bakuninism” to the idea of “unlimited destruction in the name o f destruction,” as Grossman described it and — according to Grossman — as Dostoevsky depicted it. In his article on “Bakunin and Stavrogin,” Otverzhennyi argued that Stavrogin’s “mental formula” [aymeBHaa 4>opMyjia] represents “the most profound negation” of Bakunin’s ideas. Agreeing with Grossman that Stavrogin is a “genius of the abstract,” Otverzhennyi insisted that Bakunin, on the contrary, was “an eternal preacher and tribune” who invariably turned abstract ideas into “a living sermon of great organizational significance,” and whose “creative path was deeply instilled into the living fabric o f events.” Citing several o f Bakunin’s contemporaries on his “inexhaustible energy as a propagandist,” Otverzhennyi added that Bakunin’s “colossal mind was inextricably bound with a powerful creative will,” and that Bakunin’s “pathos” prevented any “flight into abstract worlds.” In Otverzhennyi’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279 reading, Stavrogin is merely a “a lifeless theoretician” who represents “the full victory of rationalism in life,” while Bakunin, advocating “the primacy of the irrational,” “sought the meaning of life in revolutionary and social creation.”2 4 Borovoi arrived at a similar conclusion in “Bakunin in Besy,” where he described Stavrogin as “a variety of ‘Shigalevshchina,’” the philosophy of the long-eared, sullen member of the conspiratorial “five” whose vision of equality through enslavement and compulsory mediocrity inspires Verkhovensky. “Outwardly brilliant, but internally just as depraved [nopommtt] and just as fatally doomed to complete sterility,” Borovoi explained, Stavrogin is linked to the “demons” of “Shigalevshchina” by “spiritual birth,” “by a singularity of approach to ideas and things.” Apart from some obvious differences between Stavrogin and Shigalev, Stavrogin represents the same “conspiratorial aristocratism” that “despises to the end ‘the herd’...which it graciously takes upon itself to guard.” The mental capacity which Stavrogin lacks, Borovoi declared, “not only analyzes and negates, but also affirms and creates.” It is “inspiration, belief, all-encompassing conviction, capable of uniting the ‘perceptions’ of the mind and the ‘observations’ of the heart into a single, whole aspiration, indisputable and irreplaceable for the creator,” a quality, in other words, which was fundamental to Bakunin. An “insatiable, incessant, eternal nomad” in whom “the searcher, rebel, warrior, the thinker, the fanatic dreamer” are all “concentrated into a 24. OnepxeHHUfi, H T . E aK y H H H h CruponiH // Eopoaofi, A .A., OnepxeHHiift, H .r. Mh$ o B aicyH H H e. M., 1925. C. 159,161, 163, 164,184,185, 186. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280 single, powerful, active whole,” Borovoi asserted that Bakunin had “no intimate comer” in the revolution, but only the vision of “Revolution, in all its scope and possibilities, paths and conclusions.” Borovoi explained that Bakunin’s world-view was absolutely “alien and hostile” to “abstract, armchair, sectarian, rationalistic” thought. Whereas Stavrogin’s negation amounts to “negation for negation’s sake,” a “naked, formal nihilism...bom outside time and space” in which “thought itself becomes meaningless and the pretentious creator perishes in the hopeless dead-ends of skepticism,” Bakunin’s rebellion was “a living, concrete elementary force” [cthxhji] which “drew its inspiration and program from the masses.” Both writers acknowledged that Bakunin played a certain role in the violent propaganda of “Nechaevshchina.” As indicated earlier, Borovoi conceded that insofar as Nechaev inspired Verkhovensky, and since Nechaev “contained something of Bakunin,” then one cannot dispute that Verkhovensky carries “elements of Bakunin.” Borovoi agreed with Grossman that Verkhovensky’s plan as he describes it to Stavrogin reflects the “intense pathos of Bakunin,” who became an “incessant instigator of explosions and movements against authority, law and the old world order,” an “apostle o f worldwide destruction, appealing to the passions of the people, calling for their unbridling, for the arousing of the terrible, ruthless and vengeful elements of the popular fury.”2 3 Neither Borovoi nor Otverzhennyi denied Bakunin’s 25. Eoposoft, A -A. EaxyH H H b “Becax” // Eoposofi, A.A., OnepxeHHUfi, HT. M h < J > o B a ic y H H H e . M., 1925. C. 87,88,89,91,95,98, 104,107,142. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281 authorship of the “Catechism of a Revolutionary,” the document which probably best captured the nature of “Nechaevshchina” in Dostoevsky’s interpretation. Otverzhennyi admitted that in the “Catechism” Bakunin’s “Nechaevist element” [HenaeBCKas cthxhji] reached its “logical completion,” and that it was “only by way of a long and slow path” that Bakunin overcame it. Otverzhennyi described the “Catechism” as a product of “cold reason,” an “impenetrable mask concealing everything living and personal” within Bakunin’s thought, in which Bakunin’s “unbridled passions and pathos are stifled,” in which “logic killed the life and drained the blood from [Bakunin’s] creative organism.” The statement in the “Catechism” that “for the revolutionary everything is ethical which advances the revolution,” in Otverzhennyi’s words, constitutes “a fundamental principle” of the Nechaevist element. For both writers, however, Bakunin’s collaboration with Nechaev formed only a temporary stage in Bakunin’s career and represented only a secondary aspect of his legacy. In Otverzhennyi’s view it deserved to play “no role whatsoever” in an evaluation of Bakunin as a revolutionary. Like Bakunin’s letter to Aleksandr Q, Otverzhennyi regarded the “Catechism” as “an unnecessary detail in the living process of [Bakunin’s] creative psyche.” Alongside the moments in which the ‘"Nechaevist element” momentarily dominated Bakunin, Otverzhennyi maintained that “the more creative and inspired vortex” of Bakunin’s life “truly liberated him from the dead schemes of frozen ideas” [3aKOHeHeBmHe aaen]. The other, more essential side of Bakunin’s legacy was his anarchism, his “inspired, passionate enthusiasm for revolt” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282 w h ic h “c e le b r a te s v ic to r y o v e r c a r e fu l r e a so n a n d a p r e c o n c e iv e d p la n .” 26 A c c o r d in g to O tv e r z h e n n y i’s a n a ly s is , th e “ B a k u n in is t e le m e n t” [6axyHHHCKaa c th x h ji], th e “ e v e r m o v in g p r in c ip le , ly in g in th e d e p th s o f h is sp ir it” [bchho aB H xeym ee H an ajio, j ie x a m e e b rjiy6HHe e r o a y x a ] a s B e lin s k y h a d d e sc r ib e d it ,2 7 u ltim a te ly d is p la c e d th e “N e c h a e v is t e le m e n t” in B a k u n in ’s lif e a n d p r o v id e d h is a n a r c h ism w ith its m o st c h a r a c te r istic c o m p o n e n t. In “w h ic h e v e r g u is e th e y m ig h t a p p ea r,” O tv e r z h e n n y i a r g u e d , a n a r c h ism a n d N e c h a e v s h c h in a r e p r e se n t tw o d is tin c t “p o la r itie s ” o f h u m a n th o u g h t th a t “o n a b a s ic le v e l” are “c o n tr a d ic to r y , h o s tile an d a lie n to o n e a n o th e r .” The world view of Nechaevshchina, he explained, represents “the apotheosis of abstract thought, a cult of the abstract idea,” the triumph of reason over “the unique, complex and living process of human life.” Nechaevshchina “demands ever newer and newer bloody sacrifices in the name of an idea.” The human personality becomes “a submissive automaton, a social slave, a dumb appendage, blindly fulfilling its role.” A cardinal precept of anarchism in general and a “fundamental of Bakuninism,” Otverzhennyi emphasized, by contrast, was Bakunin’s “belief in the creative powers of the masses.”2 * Borovoi defended the same distinction. In spite of its superficial resemblance to the philosophy of Bakunin, the “Nechaevshchina” practiced by Verkhovensky in 26. OrBepxceHHutt, HX. ITpo&ieMa “HcnoBeaH” // BopoaoA, A A , OraepxeHHwA, HX. Mh$ o B aicyH H H e. M., 1925. C. 42,52,61,68,70. 27. OraepxeHHuA, HX. EaxyHH H h CraBponm // BopoaoA, A A., OraepxeHHuA, HX. Mh$ o BaicyHHHe. M., 1925. C. 163*164. 28. OraepxeHHuA, HX. Ilpo&ieMa “Hcnoaezui” // BopoaoA, A A ., OraepxeHHuA, HX. M h < ( > o BaicyHHHe. M., 1925. C. 63,69. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283 Besy, Borovoi wrote, is “unquestionably more calculated [pacneTjiHBaa]” than that of Bakunin, and Borovoi rejected Grossman’s “extreme simplification of Bakunin’s anarchism,” which he reduced to the formula of “unlimited destruction in the name of destruction.” According to Borovoi’s definition, Bakuninism is fundamentally “an anti-rationalistic contraction, dictated by the pathos of revolutionary romanticism.”2 9 Roughly a year after his exchange with Grossman he addressed the problem in a long article on Bakunin for a collection devoted to the fifty-year anniversary of his death. For Borovoi, as for Otverzhennyi, Bakunin’s “creative” urge had to be considered as one of the fundamental elements of “Bakuninism.” In Bakunin’s overall conception of the world, Borovoi explained, Bakunin conceived the world as a limitless, perpetually moving stream of development in which the “negative moment, naturally, occupies an important place.” In the dialectical process of life, every affirmation conceals within itself “elements of destruction,” and thus negation becomes a necessary precondition of affirmation. Yet it is incorrect to consider Bakunin a “nihilist” and “universal negator” not only of laws, but of law itself. Beyond the notes o f’‘ negation” that rage within Bakunin, Borovoi noted, beyond his “pathos of destruction,” historians generally fail to perceive “the power of his constructive genius” [ycrpotrrejibHBifi reHHft]: The aphorism “The passion for destruction is also a creative passion”...expresses a formula for culture which has nothing in common with 29. EopoBoft, A A . EaicyHHH b “Eecax” // Boposott, A A ., O T B epx eH H u fi, HX. Mh$ o BaicyHHHe. M., 1925. C. 96, 143. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284 e ith e r n ih ilis t fa s tid io u s n e s s o r stu b b o r n s k e p tic is m . C r e a tio n [T B opnecT B o] is im m a n e n t to d e s tr u c tio n . D e s tr u c tio n c a r r ie s m e a n in g o n ly in s o fa r a s it is a c c o m p a n ie d b y c o n s tr u c tio n [co3n ziaH H e]. T h is is w h e r e th e a c c e n t fa lls in th e a p h o r ism . A t th e v e r y le a s t o n e c a n sp e a k o n ly o f th e e q u iv a le n c e o f b o th p a rts o f th e fo r m u la , b u t o n e c a n n o t in te r p r e t it to m e a n th a t B a k u n in in g e n e r a l d id n o t w is h to b u ild a n d d r e w a ll h is str e n g th e x c lu s iv e ly fr o m n e g a tio n .3 0 Borovoi’s and Otverzhennyi’s distinction between “Bakuninism” and “Nechaevshchina” clearly followed a tradition in anarchist thought which had developed during the first two decades of the century. The years between 1905 and 1915, in particular, saw the publication of memoirs by Bakunin’s surviving associates and political supporters (to some of whom the previous chapter alluded briefly with regard to Bakunin’s Confession), including James Guillaume, the leading figure in the Jura (Swiss) Federation of the International and one of Bakunin’s closest allies within the International who had also suffered expulsion at the Hague Congress; M.P. Sachin, Bakunin’s devoted supporter who oversaw the production of Bakunin’s work Statism and Anarchy in 1873; and Z.K. Ralli, another young follower of Bakuninist leanings who worked with Bakunin and later disseminated his ideas.3 1 During the same period a former “Nechaevist” who had since become an anarchist, V.N. Cherkezov, collaborated with P.A. Kropotkin in publications that celebrated the life and work of Bakunin, while the historian Max Nettlau gathered material about Bakunin from 30. EopoBoft, A.A. B axyH H H . M.: H m -b o KYB, 1995. C. 4 ,9 . This is a reprint o f Borovoi’s original article, “Bakunin,” which he included in the collection: Mmaitny E aicyH H H y, 1876-1926: O iepnt no H cropH H a H a p x m e c K o ro ABHaceHiM a P o c c h h / non. pea. A. B o p o s o ro . M.: T o jio c Tpyaa, 1926. C. 131-169. 31. Franco Venturi, Roots o f Revolution, trans. Francis Haskell (New York: Grosset & Dunlap) 438-439. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285 virtually everyone alive who had personally known Bakunin, primarily his supporters in Switzerland, for a massive, three-volume biography of Bakunin of 1900.3 2 From 1895 to 1913 Nettlau and Guillaume also produced the first large collection of Bakunin’s works in French. All these writers presented a different interpretation of Bakunin’s involvement in the Nechaev affair and the reasons for his expulsion from the International. A new opportunity for the circulation of their views in Russia arose between 1919 and 1922, moreover, when the “Voice of Labor” [Tojioc Tpyaa] publishing house, an institution of the “Union of Anarcho-Syndicalists,” published and distributed a long list of titles devoted to the history of anarchist thought and the anarchist movement Anarchist historians in general perceived Bakunin more as the victim, rather than the instigator, of the Nechaev affair, and they remained convinced that Nechaev failed to appreciate or accept Bakunin’s anarchism. Guillaume attempted to absolve Bakunin before Russian readers in his biographical sketch of Bakunin of 1906 and in an article for the historical almanac Years Past [MirayBmHe rojud] in 1908. In the latter article he insisted that the threatening letter to Liubavin which served as one of the grounds for Bakunin’s (as well as Guillaume’s) exclusion from the International belonged to Nechaev, not to Bakunin, who learned of Nechaev’s action only months later, whereupon he protested to Nechaev and expressed his anxiety in a letter to 32. Arthur Lehning, “Necrology o f Max Nettlau,” From Buonarotti to Bakunin. Studies in International Socialism (Leiden: E J. Brill, 1970) 17. Nettlau printed only forty copies of his biography, M ichael Bakunin. Eine Biographie, which remains extremely rare. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286 Ogarev.3 3 When Bakunin realized that Nechaev was “using him as a weapon for securing his own personal dictatorship through Jesuitical means,” Guillaume wrote, Bakunin broke off all relations with him. Thus Bakunin suffered “for his excessive trust” and amazement at Nechaev’s 4 “ frightful energy.”3 4 Ralli defended Bakunin in memoirs published in 1908 and 1909. Dismissing the “false denunciations of Utin and others,” Ralli stated that in the Liubavin incident “Bakunin was guilty of nothing,” since he believed the matter had been settled in a proper fashion. Ralli attributed the unfortunate incident rather to Bakunin’s “enthusiasm” for individuals, like Nechaev, who were “energetic,” if “not irreproachable from an ethical standpoint.”3 5 In general Ralli considered Bakunin at fault for much of the Nechaev affair, but primarily because he proved to be “an excessively naive conspirator” and “too trusting” toward individuals like Nechaev whose “psyche” he completely failed to understand.3 6 In 1916 Sazhin prepared a similar defense of Bakunin in which he claimed that “no secret alliance whatsoever” had ever existed with the goal of secretly directing the affairs of 33. TiuibOM , A*- (Guillaume, J.). K Hcropmi H cm noH C H H * B aic y H H H a H 3 HHTepHamioHana // MHHyBorae roan. 1908. N B 4. C. 72. The letter to Ogarev o f 14 June 1870 appeared in: riHcuia MA. B aicy H H H a k A.H. TepueHy h H JI. Orapeay / C 6m>rp. BBea. h oGmchht. npHMen. M.fl. AparoMaHoaa. CII6.: Haa. Bpy&ieacicoro, 1906. C. 388*390. 34. T m ibO M , A*. (Guillaume, J.). M nxaw i AjieiccaitapoBHM BaxyHHH: E uorp. onepic / Ilep. c aocTaajieHHofi aaropoM pyxomicH // Eunoe. 1906. Nf l 8. C. 243*244. This article introduced the second volume o f a French edition o f Bakunin’s works in 1907. 35. Pajura, 3.K. lb mohx BOcnoMHHaHHft o M. A. BaicyHHHe // O MHHyaiueM: Her. c6. Cn6.: Tim. B.M. Bom^a, 1909. C. 323. 36. Paium, 3.K. Mnxann AneacaiuipoBin E aicyH H H : H3 mohx B O c n o M H H a H H ft // MHHyiuiHe ronu. 1908. Na 10 (o n .). C. 160. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287 the International, as the General Council had charged.3 7 The historian V.Ia. Bogucharsky (Iakovlev) supported the same position when he wrote that Bakunin was expelled from the International “for sins of which Nechaev was guilty.”3 8 The testimony of Bakunin himself in the wake of his final split with Nechaev, moreover, helped to indicate the line separating the principles and deeds of Bakunin from those of Nechaev. In a letter to A. Talandier of 24 July 1870, published in Russia in 1906, Bakunin warned his friend of Nechaev’s ruthlessness toward his associates, whom “it is allowed and even ordered [according to Nechaev’s principles] to trick, compromise, rob and even destroy if need be,” and how he, Bakunin, had to save Nechaev from a reckless plan “to form a band of thieves and brigands in Switzerland, with the aim, naturally, of building up revolutionary capital.”3 9 Evidence of Bakunin’s great efforts to spare his closest friends from Nechaev’s designs demonstrated clearly that Nechaev’s independence far exceeded that of a mere “lieutenant,” as Laveleye described him. From Nettlau’s standpoint “an entire volume would be necessary to 37. CaxHH, M il. BocnoM HH aH H* / IlpcaHcn. B.II. noJioHcicoro. M.: Bcecora. o6iu-bo nomrr. KaropxaK h ccwibHonoceneHueB, 1925. C. 59. Sazhin prepared the article in 1916 as a reply to German Lopatin for accusations against Bakunin and his “Alliance,” but the editors of Voice o f the Past [Tojioc M HHyBmaro], he wrote, refused to print it at the time. 38. EoryqapcKHft [JfacoaneB], BJ1. A kthbhoc HapoatomecrBO ceMnaeorrux roaoB. M.: H3a-Bo M. h C. C a 6 a m H H K O B U X , 1912. C. 87. 39. riHcufa M A. B aicy H H H a k A il. TepaeHy h H .n. Orapeiy / C 6Horp. B«ea. h oGmchht. npHMen. M il. AparoMaHOBa. CII6.: Haa. BpySjieacicoro, 1906. C. 394,397. The translation here (from the French) is from: Michael Confino, ed., Daughter o f a Revolutionary. Natalie Herzen and the Bakunin-Nechayev Circle (LaSalle: Library Pr., 1973) 306, 308. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 288 sort out the relations in which Bakunin was a victim of excessive kindness and enthusiasm.”4 0 In 1922 N.K. Lebedev reiterated the traditional anarchist position in an article published by the “Voice of Labor” publishing house. In Lebedev’s interpretation, Marx and Utin merely “took advantage of [Nechaev’s] unsightly deeds to cast suspicions on Bakunin. “To please Marx,” he wrote, Utin attempted to turn the history of the Nechaev affair into the history of the Alliance and “closely tied the activity of Bakunin to the actions of Nechaev.” Marx then repeated the “foul lie and shuffling of facts” in his brochure against Bakunin (on the Alliance), in which he falsely accused Bakunin of “blackmail and thievery.”4 1 The same year saw the first Russian edition of Guillaume’s well-known history of the International, in which he demonstrated that Marx attributed to Bakunin Nechaev’s threatening letter (to Liubavin) with the full knowledge that Bakunin had protested against the letter and had even broken off relations with Nechaev because of it.4 2 In 1922, on the eve of Grossman’s thesis, Nettlau continued to argue that an adequate assessment of Bakunin’s objectives and 40. Herrnay, M. E axyH H H // MHxawiy EaxyH H H y, 1876-1926: Onepx HcropHH aHapxmecxoro A B m ceH H H b Pocchh. C6. cr. M., 1926. C. 109. Nettlau’s article is dated “ 10.V.22.” 41. JIe6eaea, H.K. Kapn Mapxc h HHTepHamioHan b nepHoa 1871*1872 r. // Thjoom, R x . Kapn Mapxc h HHrepHaoHOHan. 116.; M.: Tojioc ipyaa, 1921. C. 108. 42. Thjimm, R x . (Guillaume, J.). HinepHaiiHOHan: (BocnoiaaiaHHa h uarepHanu, 1864-1878). T. 1/21C 6Horp. 3 8 M e T K a M H o R x . f HjnoMe IL KponorxHHa h O. EpynOaxepa; Ilep. c < b p . HA. KpHTcxofl; Iloa pea. h c aon. H.K. JIe6eaeaa. 116.; M.: Tojioc tpyaa, 1922. C. 130. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 289 views as described by Utin and the General Council required more substantial proof and documentation.4 3 Bakunin’s defenders did not deny that Bakunin’s aims contradicted those of Marx and the General Council; rather, they rejected the idea that Bakunin aimed to split and destroy an organization (the International) in which, they believed, Bakunin enjoyed mass support among the rank and file. Nettlau argued that Bakunin “revived” the International and provided it “with its real initiative,”4 4 and the evidence of Bakunin’s other, more obviously constructive activity during the Nechaev period, in Nettlau’s view, provided a more reliable record by which to judge him. When Nechaev entered Bakunin’s life in the spring of 1869, Bakunin had begun to work actively in the new “Romance” federation of the International’s Swiss sections, including the Jura section to which his close ally Guillaume belonged. His work included regular contributions to the official organ of the federation and one of the biggest and best Continental socialist newspapers,4 3 L Egalite, as well as to Guillaume’s newspaper Le Progres. Throughout that year Bakunin also carried on an enormous correspondence with individuals from several countries, a fact which led Nettlau, writing in 1922, to 43. Max Nettlau, “Mikhail Bakunin: A Biographical Sketch,” The Political Philosophy o f Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism , ed. G.P. Maximoff (London: Free Press, 19S3) 46. The original date o f this article is not indicated. At one point Nettlau refers to a document discovered in 1921, but he neglects to mention another important document publicized in 192S. On that basis I believe it dates from between 1922-24. 44. Max Nettlau, “Mikhail Bakunin: A Biographical Sketch,” The Political Philosophy o f Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism , ed. G.P. Maximoff (London: Free Press, 1953) 46. 45. Woodford McClellan, Revolutionary Exiles: The Russians in the First International and the Paris Commune (London: Frank Cass, 1979) 85. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290 conclude that “a serious study of Bakunin” after 1869 demands a close examination of his connections in Switzerland, France, Italy, Spain and Russia. “For a real understanding of all that Bakunin accomplished as well as what he failed to accomplish [during this time],” Nettlau added, “it is essential to know all the individuals, young and old, who passed through his life.”4 6 Among them were Sazhin and Ralli in Zurich, who in 1872 helped Bakunin to organize there a small Slavic section of the International, and who were among the eight signatories of a public letter of protest against Bakunin’s and Guillaume’s expulsion from the International.4 7 The same period saw his support grow within the Jura federation led by Guillaume. Kropotkin left a glowing tribute to Bakunin’s allies in the Jura region, whom he visited during his first trip abroad from Russia. The ideas of anarchism that developed and flourished there, thanks mainly to Bakunin, he explained, made such a great impression on him in part because the workers of the Jura lent them “concrete form” and liberated them from the sphere of “pure abstraction.” Their “consciousness of complete equality among all members of the federation,” the “independence of their ideas” and their ability to express them all helped to make of Kropotkin, upon leaving 46. Heroiay, M. SaxyH H H // Mmaiuiy EaicyHHHy, 1876-1926: Oiepic HcropHH aHapxmecxoro A B iC K G H H H b Pocchh. C6. C T . M., 1926. C. 104-106. 47. The letter denounced the charge o f “fraud and blackmail” as “a flagrant violation o f the most elementary principles of justice” and assured Bakunin’s detractors that the calumny would not affect him for he “enjoyed too much respect and esteem.” The letter appeared in the newspaper La Liberie (Brussels), S October 1872. Quoted in: rnjuoM, flx . (Guillaume, J.). Mhxuut AnexcaHapoBira B axyH H H : Enorp. otepx / Ilep. c aocraaneHHoft aaropoM pyxonHCH // Eunoe. 1906. N B 8. C. 250. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 291 them, a convinced anarchist.4 8 In a short tribute to Bakunin of 1905, Kropotkin testified that the many individuals who “gathered around Bakunin,” many of whom he, Kropotkin, knew personally, were of the very highest “moral” character and did not deserve the “hatred” they aroused from their persecutors in the International.4 9 The guardians of Bakunin’s heritage also made it a point to assign the proclamations from the Nechaev affair only an insignificant place among Bakunin’s writings. Long after the trial of the Nechaevists in 1871 there remained some question—then as now—about the extent of Bakunin’s actual contribution to the agitational writings on the basis of which the Russian press, Utin and, consequently, the General Council evaluated Bakunin’s ideas. Dragomanov revived the issue in 1895 by including six of the proclamations, as well as the “Catechism of a Revolutionary,” in the Russian edition of Bakunin’s letters to Herzen and Ogarev, cited earlier. Published for the first time in Russia in 1906,5 0 the agitational writings from Dragomanov’s collection provided the first concrete basis for studying the Russian propaganda campaign which Bakunin, Ogarev and Nechaev conducted together in 48. Kpononam, (I A . Co6pamte conraefuntft. T. 1:3aimcKH peBomouHOHepa / IIpenHCJi. I~ . Epanaeca; riep. c aHm . Ahoiwo; rio a . pea. arropa. 3-e k m . M.: T-b o C urran, 1918. C. 222-223. 49. Quoted in: H epice 3 0B, B.H. 3H a<tem ie B a ic y ra o n b mrrepHauHOH&JibHOM pesojuouH O H H O M aBmceHHH: [Bcxyn. cr.] // EaxyHHH , M.A. H36pamiue cohhhchiu. T. 1. M.: OAKT, 1920. C. XI-XII. 50. The proclamations and the “Catechism” were included in the first Russian-language edition of Bakunin’s letters to Herzen and Ogarev (see: fbtcuia M.A. EaKymma k A.H. TepueHy h H JI. Orapeay / C npraioac. ero nawtuieroB, 6norp. Baea. h oGbichht. aprne*. M il. AparoMaHOBa. Geneve: Georg et Co. Libraires £diteurs, 1896. C. 490-498). The proclamations were removed from the first publication o f that book in Russia (1906), but then included in a different collection o f Bakunin’s speeches and writings the same year (see: E aicyH H H , M A Pchh h so 3 3 B aH iu . CTI6.: Hm. H. Banamoaa, 1906. C. 226-268). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292 Geneva in 1869. Apart from the two proclamations which Bakunin actually signed, “Several Words to Our Young Brothers in Russia” and “To Officers in the Russian Army” [K otfcnuepaM pyccicoft apM HH], the set consisted of five anonymous documents. Like Spasovich and others before him,1 1 Dragomanov believed that the most familiar of the documents, the “Catechism,” belonged to Bakunin, since it contained “much in common with Bakunin’s other writings,” although he admitted that “the question requires verification.” He also attributed to Bakunin two other familiar documents, the proclamations “Posing the Revolutionary Question” and “Beginnings of Revolution,” also mentioned earlier, despite a lack of any substantial proof.5 2 The “Bakuninists” naturally wished to see Nechaev as the author. In his history of the International, Guillaume criticized Marx for falsely attributing “many of Nechaev’s proclamations” to Bakunin.1 3 When Ralli reached the topic of Nechaev in his memoirs of Bakunin, he admitted that Bakunin had once struck him as “the author of...the old Nechaevist program,” but he added that the document “of course, was later edited [nepepenaicrHpoBaHa] by Sergei Gennadievich [Nechaev] in his own way [Ralli’s italics].1 4 Cherkezov tried to disassociate Bakunin from them altogether when 51. In addition to Laveleye, cited earlier, the German historian Alphons Thuns attributed the proclamations and “Catechism” to Bakunin in his popular history of Russian revolutionary movements, which ran through several printings in Russia. See: TyH, A. Hcropiu p c b o ju o llh o h h u x a B H x e im fl b P o c c h h / riep. B. 3acyjiHH, £ . Konsuoaa h ap. CI16.: E H & iH O T eica ana scex, 1906. C. 109. 52. SaxyHHH, M A. Pe«ra h aoxnaHHa. CFI6.: Han. H. Banamoaa, 1906. C. 235,245. 53. rHjibOM, JIpc. (Guillaume, J.). HKrepHauHOHan: (BocnoMHHamta h Marepiianu, 1864*1878). T. 1/2 / C 6norp. 3aM encaM H o JJpt. nrnkOMe II. KponontHHa h < t > . Epyn6axepa; riep. c 4 > P - HA. KpirrcitoR; lion pen. h c non. HJC. JIe6eneaa. 116.; M.: Tonoc rpyna, 1922. C. 130. 54. PaiuiH, 3.K. H3 mohx BocnoMMHatoifi o M A SaicyHHHe // O M HHyam eM : Her. c6. Cn6.: Tun. E.M. Bojiwpa, 1909. C. 336. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293 he criticized Dragomanov for including “the disgraceful ‘Catechism’ of Nechaev among the letters and articles of Bakunin [Geneva, 1895] on the pretext that the savage fabrications of the unfortunate and poorly educated Nechaev recall Bakunin!"3 5 When Nettlau studied the proclamations, he concluded that Nechaev had probably authored “Beginnings of Revolution” and the first issue of People’ s Summary Justice', but he also noted that Sazhin had seen a copy of the “Catechism” in Bakunin’s hand and concluded, therefore, that Bakunin wrote it.5 6 In any case, regardless of Bakunin’s role in their production, Nettlau, Guillaume and Cherkezov did not consider the proclamations to be representative of Bakunin’s views, nor worthy of publication, apparently, alongside his other writings of the same period. In their collection of Bakunin’s works in French,5 7 Nettlau and Guillaume included virtually all of his publications of 1869, principally his articles for L 'Egalite, but none of the proclamations, not even the two which he signed. Unlike the leaflets which Nechaev carried to Russia, most of Bakunin’s articles of this time were not furious, agitational proclamations, but calmer works of propaganda on the nature of popular education, 55. H epicejO B , B.H. 3H aneH H e SaicyHHHa b HHTepHauHOH&nbHOM peBOjnouMOHHOM a b io k c h h h : [Bcryn. cr.] // SaxyH H H , M.A. H36paHHue c o t o h c h h ji. T. 1. M.: < t> A J C T , 1920. C. XXVI. 56. Max Nettlau, “Bakunin und die russsische revolutionfire Bewegung in den Jahren 1868*1873,” Archrv fu r die G eschickte des Soziaiismus und der Arbeiterbewegung. Fiinfter Jahrgang (Leipzig: Veriag von C.L. Hirschfeld, 1915) 388-389. Sazhin later repeated this claim at a public lecture at the Moscow Press House in 1921. See: K o3 m «h h , E.II. rierp T tc an e a h peBajnomiOHHoe m u n ceH H e 1860-x r. M.: Hoauft M a p , 1922. C. 193. 57. See: Michel Bakounine, CEuvres (Paris: P.V. Stock, 1895-1913). Nettlau edited the first volume (1895) and Guillaume edited die remaining five volumes (1907-1913). A convenient list o f all the individual works in this collection is included in: Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchy. Selected Works by the Activist-Founder o f World Anarchism, trans., ed. Sam Dolgoff (New York: Vintage, 1972)401-2. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 294 syndicalism and cooperation that reflected the more constructive side of Bakunin’s anarchism. In an introduction to a volume of Bakunin’s writings in Russian prepared by Kropotkin and his supporters in London,5 1 Cherkezov suggested that to the six volumes of Bakunin in French could also be added Bakunin’s “well-known correspondence to Spanish, Italian and other federations and activists of the International.”5 9 In Russia itself, the only pre-revolutionary attempt to publish a large edition of Bakunin’s works, comparable in scope to the French edition, produced only two volumes before the censors terminated it.6 0 Throughout this time Sazhin apparently began to make preparations to gather and publish in Russia rare Bakunin materials from Nettlau’s and Guillaume’s archives, but the plan was never realized.6 1 Between 1919 and 1922, the “Voice of Labor” publishing house finally managed to issue five volumes of Bakunin’s works, among them the essays for L Egalite, but they did not include the proclamations.6 2 58. George Woodcock, Ivan Avakumovich, The Anarchist Prince: A Biographical Study o f Peter Kropotkin, 2nd ed. (New York: Schocken, 1971) 370. 59. Hepxesoa, B.H. 3naHeHHe BaicyHHHa b HHTeptiam toHan&HOM pcbojhouhohhom naiaceHHH: [Bcryn. cr.] II EaxyHHH, M.A. IttfipaH H ue coqtmeHiui. T. 1. M.: OAKT, 1920. C . V-Vl. Cherkezov’s article, “dated 4 O cto b er 1915,” originally appeared in: EaxyHHH, M.A. H 36pam nie coqH H em u. T. 1 JIohaoh: Xne6 h aoiia, 1915. Sazhin, too, participated in the p ublication o f th e L ondon volum e. See: Hepm ncicaa, JI.C . K H cropim k u u ih iu coHHHemifi M.A. BaicyHHHa: (TIhcbmo C a aa m a M.H. rioicpoBCKOM y, 1923) // O ieqecraeH H ue a p x m u . 1992. Na 1. C . 110-111. 60. According to Polonsky, the two volumes in question (EaxyHHH, M.A. noiraoe co6paime comraeHHfi. T. 1-2 / Iloa. pea. A H . B aicyH H H a. CII6.: Haa. H. Banamoaa, 1906-1907) were “arrested and destroyed in part” so that only an “insignificant” number o f copies survived and circulated by hand. See: IIonoHCKHfi, B.II. Mmuuin AnexcaitapoBHq E axyH H H (1814*1876). M.: Toe. loa-ao, 1920. C. 3. 61. qepHxacxaa, JI.C. K HcropHH Haoamui coHHHeHHft M.A. BaicyHHHa: (ILfcuio M.n. CaxHHa M.H. FIoxpoBcxoMy, 1923) // O reqecraeH H ue apxaau. 1992. N a 1. C. 110-111. 62. EaxyHHH, M A H36paHHue co h k h c h h u. T. 1-5. M.; FI6.: fonoc Tpyaa, 1919-1922. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295 Borovoi’s and Otverzhennyi’s predecessors attempted to defend Bakunin’s legacy for another reason, as well. While on the one hand they opposed the myth that Bakunin was responsible for the more violent, unscrupulous methods and tactics of “Nechaevshchina,” on the other hand they wished to prevent a misleading identification between the aims of “Bakuninism” and “Nechaevshchina.” Nettlau’s position on the question anticipates Borovoi’s distinction between “Shigalevshchina” and “Bakuninism.” In Nettlau’s view, “Nechaev had nothing in common with anarchism” and merely made “overtures to anarchism during his stay in Switzerland” in order to win the interest and support of Bakunin. Insisting that he held his “own homespun socialism [caMoponHuft coimajiH3M],” nourished by other traditions, Nettlau characterized Nechaev as “in essence an authoritarian communist.”6 3 Among the other thinkers whose ideas bear a resemblance to Nechaev’s, Nettlau undoubtedly had in mind P.N. Tkachev. As in the case of Bakunin, the participation of Tkachev in the Nechaev affair had been established through the trial of the Nechaevists, where he was convicted for spreading propaganda during the student movement of 1869, and through Ralli, another participant in the movement, who had later described Tkachev as the co-initiator, along with Nechaev, of a plan to form a central Committee to direct the movement.6 4 The circle of Nechaev, Tkachev, Ralli and others produced a 63. HcTTJiay, M. EaxyHHH // MHxaany B axyH H H y, 1876-1926: Oqepx hctophh aHapxmecxoro A B fC K e m iH a Pocchh. C6. ct. M., 1926. C. 109. 64. PajuiH, 3.K. Ceprefi reHHaaMBin H naea: (M 3 m ohx BOcnoM fmaHHil) // Bujioe. 1906. N f l 7. C. 138. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296 “Program of Revolutionary Actions,” a document which the trial reports publicized in 1871 and which the historian S. Svatikov attributed to Nechaev in 1909, considering it an important step toward Nechaev’s formation of the “People’s Summary Justice” group in the fall of 1869." When Koz’min reviewed the sources of Nechaev’s views in a study of Tkachev in 1922, he agreed that alongside certain “anarchist” ideas derived from Bakunin’s People's Cause, such as the call for propaganda among the people and the spreading of organizational initiative to the provinces, the group’s program also included a call for the “reform” of the state and the working out of the “form of the future state organization,” ideas that directly contradicted the anarchism of Bakunin. Koz’min noted several remarkable similarities between the views of Nechaev and Tkachev, one which recalled one of Marx’s analogies in his analysis of the Alliance propaganda. In a Russian translation of a work on the labor question which appeared in 1869, during the period o f his collaboration with Nechaev, Tkachev added an appendix of commentaries in which he explained that the realization of a future socialist society, according to Koz’min’s paraphrase, “required the complete levelling of all people in their moral and intellectual capacities.” In order “to eliminate competition and the contradiction of interests between different individuals,” Tkachev proposed “to sacrifice all that distinguishes one individual from another, to destroy in 65. CaanncoB, C.I~. CiyaeHqecicoe O B ioceH H e 1869 r.: (B axyH H H h He^aes) // Hama crpaHa. CII6., 1907. C. 187-188. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 297 a person all traces of individuality.’1 6 6 Although Koz’min did not indicate it directly, one of the formulas for social organization ridiculed by the authors of “The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Working Men’s Association” in 1873 appears to share the same goal of compulsory equality. Reviewing the article “The Fundamental Principles of the Social Order of the Future,” which envisioned the elimination of “ambition” between laborers within a network of mandatory workers’ societies, strictly controlled and regulated by a central Committee, and with “no right of access either to the communal eating places or to the communal dormitories” for anyone who wishes to live outside of it and who, as a result, will have “no other alternative but work or death.” These “Fundamental Principles,” moreover, “can be accomplished only by concentrating all the means of social existence in the hands of OUR COMMITTEE” [caps in original]. In response to this vision the authors of “The Alliance” pamphlet exclaimed with irony, “What a beautiful model of barrack-room communism! Here you have it all: communal eating, communal sleeping, assessors and offices regulating education, production, consumption, in a word, all social activity, and to crown all, our committee [Marx’s italics], anonymous and unknown to anyone, as the supreme director. This is indeed the purest anti-authoritarianism.”6 7 The article under attack appeared in the second issue of The People’ s Summary Justice, a 66. Ko3umhb, B.n. rierp TicaaeB a peBomoaHOHHoe oBHxeaae 1860-x r. M.: Hoauft Map, 1922. C. 119, 145-152. 67. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, C ollected Works, vol. 23 (New York: International Publishers, 1988)542-543. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298 publication from the spring of 1870 which almost certainly belonged to Nechaev alone,6 8 and which therefore provided obvious grounds for Nettlau’s distinction between Bakunin's and Nechaev’s views. All three premises of the traditional anarchist approach to Bakunin—the distinction between his theory of destruction and Nechaev’s practice of individual terror, emphasis on the “creative” component of his philosophy and the more constructive examples of his activity during the Nechaev affair, and Nechaev’s own “authoritarian” views—entered the arguments of Borovoi and Otverzhennyi against Grossman’s characterization of Bakunin. The defense of Bakunin’s legacy did not represent the entire purpose of their response to Grossman, however; through the debate over Besy Borovoi and Otverzhennyi also sought to call attention to the value of anarchism and its contribution to the social revolution in Russia. Both writers maintained that the concept of “Bakuninism” contained within itself “the genuine pathos of the anarchist movement and anarchist thought”6 9 In an essay devoted to Bakunin for his jubilee in 1926, Borovoi seized an opportunity “to declare boldly, that the fundamental set of ideas by which contemporary anarchism lives, particularly Russian anarchism, belongs to Bakunin. Having forced the anarchists to reexamine their ideological and pragmatic baggage,” he added, the experience of the October 68. CrexnoB, K D .M . MHxawi AjiexcaiupoBm EaxyHHH: Era boohi h aejrrejn.Hocn>. T. 3: E axyH H H a HfrrepHauHOHane. M.; JI.: Toe. hxh-bo, 1927. C. 510. 69. OraepaceHHufi, H. AHapxmecxHfi nyrb EopoBoro. Pyxoimcb. PrAJHi, $. 1023, on. 1, ea. 1047, ji. 12. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 299 r e v o lu tio n , “w h ic h in v is ib ly a b so r b e d th e e le m e n ts o f B a k u n in ism ” [He3pHMO BnH TaBm eft b c e 6 a cthxhh 6aicyH H 3M a], ...le f t B a k u n in ’s fu n d a m e n ta l th e o r e tic a l a n d ta c tic a l th e s e s u n sh a k e a b le a n d p r o v id e d d e c is iv e p r o o f o f h is in g e n iu s in s ig h t.” 7 0 Most remarkably, for proof that “the real study” of Bakunin began only in the twentieth century, Borovoi cited not an anarchist, but a Soviet Marxist historian: “The author of the broadest work on Bakunin in Russian, Iu.M. Steklov,” he noted, “admits that Bakunin’s plan at the end of the 1840s in its fundamental aspects represents an unquestionably prophetic anticipation [npeaBocxHmeHHe] of the October revolution of 1917.”7 1 In an effort to justify his defense of Bakunin, Borovoi thus sought to ignore the traditional Marxist treatment of Bakunin as a servant of reaction and to seek support instead among Soviet historians like Steklov whose attitude toward Bakunin and “Bakuninism” revealed signs of occasional tolerance, if not enthusiasm. 5.3 Polonsky’s reply to Grossman and the Bolshevik attitude toward anarchism Polonsky’s view of “Bakuninism,” like his view of Bakunin’s character, entered the debate for the most part indirectly, through his studies of Bakunin that appeared at roughly the same time as his exchanges with Grossman over Besy. As indicated in chapter four, Polonsky produced a biographical sketch of Bakunin in 1920 70. OraepxeHHUlt, H. AHapxmecxHft nyrb Sopoaoro. PyxoriHCb. PrAJW, $. 1023, on. 1, ea. 1047, ji. 11. Otverzhennyi singled out these lines as essential to Borovoi’s conception o f Bakunin. 71. Eopoaoft, A .A. EaxyHHH // Mnxawiy EaxyHHHy, 1876*1926: Oqepx HcropHH aHapxmecxoro A B H x e e H H X a Pocchh: C6. ct. M., 1926. C. 131-132. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300 and also the first volume of a larger biography of Bakunin in 1922, both of which Grossman cited in his first two articles.7 2 In certain respects Polonsky’s interpretation of “Bakuninism” in the sketch of 1920 remained close to the traditional Marxist assessment which Grossman drew upon for his analysis, and several of his claims clearly provided grounds for Grossman’s conclusions about Bakunin. In his analysis of Bakunin’s theory of social revolution, for example, Polonsky stated, as Grossman would after him, that Bakunin chose to follow the two ‘‘merciless paths” of “Razinovshchina” and “Pugachevshchina.” Polonsky quoted from the same proclamation, “Posing the Revolutionary Question,” to demonstrate how Bakunin created a unique “apology of brigandage” for his theory of revolution. Like Grossman, finally, Polonsky recognized the central place which the idea of “destruction” occupied in B a k u n in ’s r e v o lu tio n a r y p ro g ra m . D e s c r ib in g B a k u n in m o r e a s a “r e b e l” [oyH T apb] th a n a “r e v o lu tio n a r y ” [peB O jnouH O H ep], P o lo n s k y a n tic ip a te d G r o ssm a n ’s e m p h a s is on the “destructive” component of “Bakuninism”: For the revolutionary, revolution is a long process in which the destruction of the old is accompanied by the creation of new forms. The revolutionary concentrates his attention on creation even when he destroys. The revolutionary is a creator, a builder. The rebel is a destroyer. Constructive, creative tasks are alien and incomprehensible to the rebel. The revolutionary strives toward a 72. Grossman probably relied on the work of Polonsky and Steklov to a greater extent than his few passing references suggest He cited Steklov’s study of 1920 (CreKJioa, K D .M . MmaHJi AjtexcaaitpoBHH EaxyHHH : Ero boohs h AesrrenbHocrs (1814-1876). H. 1. M.: T-bo Cunoia, 1920) and Polonsky’s study o f 1922 (TIonoH C K H ft, B. n. Mnxami AjiexcaHopoBHH EaxyH H H : )Kh3hh, tteirreJifcH O C T b, Mumnemie. T. 1. M.: Toe. raa-BO, 1922) in connection with Bakunin’s apparent lack of interest in sexual relationships (p. IS). He cited the latter work also with regard to one o f Herzen’s stories about the young Bakunin (87) and on Polonsky’s acknowledgment that Bakunin authored the “Catechism” (112). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 301 plan, toward organized action; the rebel—toward outbursts, toward separate explosions, toward blows that neither follow nor agree with a system. The revolutionary is an organizer, the rebel is an enemy to any kind of organization, a disorganizer for the most part. On the basis of this strict division Polonsky confirmed that Bakunin was “a classic and still unsurpassed example of reckless and tireless rebelliousness,” that his ideas were “steeped in the spirit of protest, in the readiness to manifest themselves...in an explosion, in a rebellion, regardless of the conditions under which that explosion should occur.”7 3 Polonsky also followed Steklov, who in 1914 defined Bakunin’s ideas by comparing them to the ideas of Marx and Engels. While Bakunin idealized “elemental peasant revolts” led by Razin and Pugachev, Steklov wrote, Marx sought to prepare “a conscious political revolution led by radical democrats and the socialist proletariat.” Marx and Engels opposed “all thoughtless outbursts,” while Bakunin “by virtue of his rebellious nature and the vagueness of his views was prepared, without thinking, to plunge into any kind of elemental revolt.”7 4 In another biographical tribute to Bakunin of 1918, Steklov wrote that Bakunin’s outlook, limited by its “abstract character,” allowed him to formulate “only a bare revolutionary protest, only the aspiration toward complete, elemental and blind destruction, protest and revolt—without any definite task in the near future” [Steklov’s italics]. Steklov described the extreme nature of the “Bakuninist” revolt in terms that may have directly 73. riojiO H C K H fl, B. II. MHxaiui AjieKcaaapoBHM E axyH H H (1814-1876). M.: Toe. km -bo, 1920. C. 67-68, 71-72. 74. Crexnoa, K D .M . Mapxc h E axyH H H // flpocBemeHHe. 1914. Na S. C. 19-21. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 302 inspired Grossman’s vision of “Bakuninism” in Besy. Borrowing one of Bakunin’s own “favorite expressions,” Steklov noted that ‘‘ the real ‘revolutionary passion,”’ according to Bakunin’s view, must “reach an unprecedented intensity” and “instill ‘a devil into the flesh’” of the oppressed masses [aocTHraer HeOuBajioro Hanpracetnu, Bcejuer hm “qopra b Tejio”].7 5 While some of their claims about “Bakuninism” provided the basis for Grossman’s conclusions about Bakunin in Besy, nonetheless in their final assessment of “Bakuninism” Polonsky and Steklov clearly departed in certain respects from Marx, Utin, Plekhanov, Jaeckh and others who contributed to the traditional Marxist literature. While endorsing the view of “Bakuninism” as a merely “utopian” stage of the Russian revolution, Polonsky and Steklov ultimately defended Bakunin from his most extreme critics. Unlike Utin and the authors of the brochure against the “Alliance,” for example, Polonsky believed that Bakunin’s calls for brigandage should not be interpreted to mean a “pogrom” [b norpoMHOM CMbicjie], since Bakunin “did not call for butchery [pe3Hx] or for the primordial Russian red rooster.” “When the matter reached the point of cruelties,” he wrote, “Bakunin found words of reason, cautioning against violence and demonstrating its needlessness and pointlessness.” Regardless of its appropriation by Nechaev, Polonsky argued that Bakunin’s “apology 75. Crexnoa, K D .M . M.A. EaxyHHH : (K lOO-jieraefi ro a o B iu H H e co am ero p o x a e im a ) / / E o p u u 3a C O U H 8 J IH 3 M : OiepKH H 3 HCTOpHH o6m eC TB C H H U X H pCBOJHOUHOHHUXb Pocchh: B 2 h. H. I. 2-e ion., Hcnp. h non. M.: Toe. naa-Bo, 1923. C. 184-185,203. Steklov completed this article in 1914 but it did not appear. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 303 of brigandage” represented only the logical result of his populism. “The apology of the brigand,” he explained, “characterizes only that quality of Bakunin’s temperament which pushed him to the very limit of the path he embarked upon.” Reviewing the question of the “Catechism” and its authorship, Polonsky cited the consensus among historians that Bakunin was the author, and he argued that “revolutionaries in the West” had no choice but to draw the same conclusion; yet Polonsky attributed the “cynicism, deceit and filth” of the “Catechism,” particularly the assassination lists and the rules accepting any means to achieve the end, to Nechaev. Polonsky admitted that Bakunin’s own writings at the time of his collaboration with Nechaev were “decorated with poisonous flowers of Nechaevshchina”; but he also suggested that it was Nechaev who subordinated Bakunin to his “ideological influence.” Polonsky also repeated the claims of Guillaume that Nechaev, rather than Bakunin, was primarily responsible for the threatening letter to Liubavin, and he added that Bakunin later called Nechaev’s act “roguish” [M omeHHHHecKHfl]. Steklov maintained the same position with respect to the Nechaev affair.7 6 Without denying Bakunin’s “responsibility” for it, Steklov wrote that “in the sad episode of ‘Nechaevshchina’ Bakunin was more the victim than the culprit.” He also believed, like Polonsky, that in all probability the “act of hooliganism” against Liubavin “was committed without Bakunin’s knowledge.”7 7 76. nojiOHcmfi, B.I1. MHxawi AnexcampoBHH E axyH H H (1814-1876). M.: Toe. kux-bo, 1920. C. 73-74,104-107. 77. CremoB, lO.M. M.A. EaxyH H H : (K 100-JierHeft roflO Bm H H e co ah* ero poxaem u) // Eopuu 3a couHamoM: OnepxH H 3 hctophh oO iqcctbchhux h pcbojhouhohhux ABHxerarit b Pocchh: B 2 h. M . 1 . 2-e H 3 A ., Hcnp. h aon. M.: Toe. H 3 A -B O , 1923. C. 178,207-208. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 304 The basis for Marx’s “cruel and merciless attitude” toward Bakunin, Polonsky concluded, was his belief that Bakunin was the leader in the Nechaev affair and that Bakunin sought “to undermine the International with his secret intrigues.” Jaeckh’s book on the International, which appeared again in Russia in 1918, represented “an eloquent expression of that suspicious, hateful attitude of many German Marxists toward Bakunin” which, in Polonsky’s view, required a certain revision: Now, many years after the intense struggle between the Marxists and Bakuninists, we know that [the Marxists’] attitude toward Bakunin was unfair. [...] [T]hey saw the unbridled activity of the great rebel, surrounded by passionate supporters who unflinchingly followed their leader. And the more Bakunin’s influence grew—at one time it was enormous, and between 1869 and 1872 showed no signs of dying—the more passionately Marxists carried on the struggle, the more jealously they followed every step of their opponent, the more suspicious they became of him, the more mercilessly they inflicted blows upon him. Unlike Guillaume, Cherkezov, Lebedev and to some extent Nettlau, Polonsky refused to concede that Bakunin fell victim to the “evil will” of his opponents in the International; but in his opposition to Grossman’s remarks about Bakuninism and in his reservations about the traditional Marxist critique of Bakunin’s role in the International, Polonsky provided at least indirect support to the position which the anarchists Borovoi and Otverzhennyi defended in their responses to Grossman. Polonsky agreed completely that with the growth of the Russian revolutionary movement the ideology of Bakunin was destined to be eclipsed by the ideology of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 305 Marx; but he still favored a more “dispassionate” evaluation of the “positive role which [Bakunin’s] destructive activity played in the history of the revolution.”7 8 Polonsky’s desire to arrive at an accurate historical assessment of Bakunin provides one explanation for his opposition to Grossman; by itself, however, the issue of Bakunin’s relationship to Marx and the First International does not explain completely the persistence with which Polonsky on the one hand, and the anarchists on the other, attempted to dispel the “legend” and “myth” about Bakunin which they found at the basis of Grossman’s thesis. As in the case of Bakunin’s “Confession,” historical issues surrounding the ideological legacy of Bakunin proved controversial primarily because of their relevance to current political events. Grossman’s respondents approached his analogy between Stavogin and Bakunin not only by way of the facts of Bakunin’s biography, but also through the lens of Bakuninism as it had evolved since Bakunin’s death. Writing in the wake of the dramatic rise and fall of the Russian anarchist movement which he followed closely over the previous two decades, Polonsky inevitably evaluated Grossman’s thesis in light of the anarchists’ contribution to the Russian revolution, the course of which saw the bold expression of both the “creative” and “destructive” impulses of Bakuninism. Although Bakunin did not live to see it, within three decades after his death in 1876 the first nominally anarchist groups made their entry onto the Russian political 78. IlojioHCKHft, BIT. Maxami AnexcaiiapoBHH EaxyH H H (1814-1876). M.: Toe. hm -bo, 1920. C. 105-107, 114,142, 143. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 306 stage. Appearing initially in small numbers on the fringes of the empire in cities like Belostok and Odessa, the anarchist movement soon spread to Petersburg and Moscow. According to the estimate of historian Paul Avrich, when the movement peaked between 1905 and 1907, there appear to have been about 5,000 active anarchists in the Russian Empire, “as well as thousands of sympathizers, who regularly read anarchist literature and closely followed the movement’s activities without taking a direct part in them.”7 9 The ideological legacy of Bakunin occupied a prominent place in the doctrine of the majority of Russian anarchists.8 0 Bakunin’s dictum, “The urge to destroy is also a creative urge,” seems to have appealed strongly to many anarchists, for a number of groups, including the “Anti-Authoritarians,” the “International” group of anarcho- communists in Riga, the “Commune” group of anarcho-communists in Georgia, the Belostok group, the Kiev group and the Odessa group all placed Bakunin’s pronouncement in the masthead of their flyers.8 1 Yet if the anarchists were all to some extent “Bakuninist” in their determination to eradicate the Russian state and capitalism, then from the start they remained divided in their use and application of the Bakuninist doctrine, particularly on the question of revolutionary tactics. For the 79. Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 69. 80. Avrich noted that among the first anarchists “the influence o f Bakunin was perhaps stronger than any other.” See: Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 106. 81. AHapxHcru: A oicyM eH TU h Msrepiiajm. 1883-1935: B 2 t. T. 1:1883-1916 / Coer., aarop npeflH C Ji., aaea. h kommcht. B.B. KpaaeHMraft. M.: POCCI13H, 1998. C. 104,106, 119,132, 159, 166. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 307 anarcho-communists, one of the broad divisions of anarchists,8 2 the accent in Bakunin’s famous pronouncement fell on the idea of “destruction,” and they distinguished themselves in large part through their “maximalist” aspiration to destroy the state and their militant, indiscrimate means of fulfilling it. Thus a southern Russian group of anarcho-communists with a Bakuninist name, Rebel [EyHTapb], called upon Russian workers and peasants to “fight for the destruction of Capital and the State by means of fire and sword!” and to “remember the testament of the great Bakunin and the first Russian anarchists, brought up on the ideas of the left wing of the International.”8 3 Until he was shot to death by police in Kiev, the brother of Grossman- Roshchin, A.S. Grossman, reinforced the extreme tenets of “Bakuninism” when he advocated “direct, illegal, revolutionary means of warfare” and declared that “the strength of anarchism lies in its total and radical negation of all the foundations of the present system.” Some anarcho-communists followed in the tradition of Nechaev by applying the most violent ideas of the Bakuninist doctrine in practice. Factions within larger anarcho-communist organizations like “Anarchy” and “Black Flag” sought to bring down the state by means of “unmotivated” terror, including expropriations and bombings.8 4 In a declaration of April 1905, the anarcho-communist group of “Anti- 82. The three main divisions o f anarchists are usually defined as anarcho-communists, anarcho- syndicalists and anarcho-individualists. See: George Woodcock, Ivan Avakumovich, The Anarchist Prince: A Biographical Study o f Peter Kropotkin, 2nd ed. (New York: Schocken, 1971) 367; Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 44. 83. HajiaHHe loxHO-pyccicoft aftapxmecicofi rpymni “Byirrapb” // AHapxHcm: AoKyMeirru h Marepnanu. 1883-1935: B 2 t . T. 1: 1883-1916. M., 1998. C. 69-70. 84. Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 44,48,85-86. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 308 Authoritarians” [6e3HaHajn>uhi] called for the “complete destruction of the bourgeois order” and a “merciless, bloody people’s revolution” which recalled the name of Nechaev’s organization thirty five years earlier.8 5 Meanwhile, the more “creative” side of Bakunin’s formula appealed to those tendencies in the movement which discouraged “unmotivated violence” as a fruitless and self-defeating departure from the ideals of traditional anarchism, and which accepted Kropotkin’s explanation for the need to participate directly in the mass political movement in Russia.8 6 Bakunin’s confidence in the constructive abilities of the masses reappeared in the agitation of the “Bread and Freedom” group [xjiefioBOJibuu] surrounding Kropotkin, who campaigned against the Social Democrats’ notion of “proletarian dictatorship.”8 7 The anarcho- communists of a “Bakuninist-Kropotkinist direction” behind the journal Stormy Petrel [EypeBecTHHx] recognized the merits of “Bakuninism” without “Nechaevshchina,” and its editor N.I. Rogdaev criticized the “unmotivated” terrorist group of Anti- Authoritarians for “wanting simply to restore ‘Nechaevist anarchism,’ which blends together marvelously the ideas of pure Bakuninism with various nuances of ‘Blanquism.’”8 8 The anarcho-syndicalists generally disassociated themselves from the bombers of cafes and restaurants, realizing well that indiscriminate violence would 85. JIhctok rpynnu “Ee3H a H a jT H e ” II AHapxHcra: AoKyMctrm H M&repiianu. 1883-1935: B 2 t . T. 1:1883-1916. M., 1998. C. 81. 86. George Woodcock, Ivan Avakumovich, The Anarchist Prince: A Biographical Study o f Peter Kropotkin, 2nd ed. (New York: Schocken, 1971) 355,364-365. 87. Xne6 h Bona: JIh ctk h / OpraH KOMMyHHCToa-aiiapxHCTOB. 1906. N a 1 (30 orr.). C. 5. Quoted in: Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 107. 88. Poraaea, H.H. Aowiaa Ha M exztyH apooH O M aHapxmecicoM Kompecce 1907 r. b AMcrepaaMe // AaapxHcru: AoKyxeHTu h MarepHaau. 1883-1935: B 2 t. T. 1: 1883-1916. M., 1998. C. 409,411. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 309 ultimately damage the integrity of the movement as a whole. The Southern Russian Group of Anarcho-Syndicalists led by D.I. Novomirsky spoke out against terrorist acts not aimed at the “large and active enemies of the Working Class” that “do nothing to clarify the consciousness [of workers],” Novomirsky wrote, “but only harden them and cultivate crude, bloodthirsty instincts.”® 9 The Bakuninist tendencies among the anarchists in Russia provided useful grounds for the Marxists to discredit the movement as a whole. In his 1904 preface to “Anarchism and Socialism,” Plekhanov called the anarchists the “most irreconcilable enemies” of the Marxists, and insisted it would be “an unforgivable mistake” for the workers’ movement to seek “neutral soil for joint activity with the anarchists.” Plekhanov’s pamphlet also formulated what became a fundamental point in the Marxist critique of anarchism: that the anarchists’ hostility toward legal methods of political struggle and their “fear of parliamentarianism” represented nothing more than retrogressive, “perfected Bakuninism” (ycoBepmeHCTBOBaHHufi 6axyHH3M], in which it becomes impossible to determine, moreover, “where the anarchist ends and where the bandit begins.”9 0 In 1914, several years after the anarchist movement had disintegrated, B.I. Gorev reached similar conclusions in his study of anarchist literature from the 1905 revolution. Despite its swift downfall in Russia after 1907, 89. AHapxHcru: AoicyMeHTu h MaTepHanu. 1883-1935: B 2 t . T. 1: 1883-1916 / Coer., aBTop npcuHCJi., bbca. h K O M M eH T . B.B. KpHMHMOifi. M.: POCCTI3H, 1998. C. 301. 90. IlnexaHOB, r 3 . AmpxiOM h couiwih3m // rinexaHOB, T.B. CowHeima: [T. 1-24]. T. 4 .2-e ma. M., 1923. C. 191-192,239,242. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 310 Gorev maintained that between 1906 and 1907 anarchism had been more widespread than was believed and came to represent “a serious danger for the workers’ movement,” having already “caused 'devastation’” [“onycromeHHn”] in the party ranks. Like Plekhanov, Gorev observed that the “theoretical foundations” of Russian anarchism lay in Bakuninism, which demonstrated “the same 'criticism’ of socialism..., the same extolling of the ‘lumpen proletariat’ and tramps [6oc« kh] the same preaching of immediate social revolution, the same attitude toward the political struggle, toward parliamentarianism, democracy, etc.” For the same reasons established by Plekhanov, Gorev argued that anarchism “carried within itself the unavoidable elements of its future degeneration and destruction.” No matter how much the other anarchists disassociated themselves from the criminal elements who carried out terrorism and expropriations, often for their own benefit, “it became difficult to distinguish them from simple bandits and hooligans.”9 1 Following a ten-year period in which the anarchists all but disappeared from Russian political life, the anarchists received the opportunity to regroup under the freer and more revolutionary social conditions of 1917. Spontaneous events in the February revolution, like the wave of uprisings that hastened the fall of the monarchy and the formation of workers’ committees within large factories, encouraged anarchists of all 91. Topes, B.H. AnojnrrmecKHe a aimmapnaMCHTCKHe rpymnt (aHapxacru, MaxcaMaaacni, Maxaeauu) // 0 6 m e c T a e a a o e aaaxeaHe a Pocchh b aaaane XX a. T. 3. Ka. S / I l o a . p e a . JI. Maproaa, F I. Macaoaa h A. nerpecoaa. CII6.: OBmecraeHiuu noaua, 1914. C. 491,495-498. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 311 tendencies, though small in number,9 2 to campaign for the creation of a new social order “from below.” As in the 1905 revolution, the more radical elements in the movement, predominantly anarcho-communist in affiliation, earned the wrath of the other political forces by their insistence on the complete destruction of the state and the capitalist order without transitional political reform. While the Provisional Government and the Soviets continued to search for solutions to issues of war and the economy, anarcho-communists in Petrograd began expropriating private residences and even the printing plant of a Petrograd newspaper.9 3 During the “July days” crisis, some anarchists joined the violent demonstrations and encouraged protesting workers, soldiers and sailors to demand the immediate overthrow of the coalition government, a provocative step which led to strong repressive measures that nearly turned the revolutionary tide irrevocably back upon itself. The anarchist movement in 1917 might have been doomed to disintegrate again from within were it not for an unexpected factor which worked in its favor. Unlike ten years earlier, in 1917 the anarchists appeared to have found a political ally among the Marxists. When Lenin returned to Russia and called for the rejection of the Provisional Government, an immediate end to the war, the assumption of all power by the workers’ Soviets, the abolition of the 92. According to V. Khudolei, a co-founder of the Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups in March 1917, the anarchists formed a small but “conscious” minority of revolutionaries whose strength “lay concealed within the sympathies of the masses” and in their “preparation to respond actively to the call for action.” See: Xyaojiefl, B. AHapxmecKHe Teqemu H axaH yH e 1917 r. II Muxamiy EaxyimHy, 1876-1926: Otepic HcropHH aHapxmecKoro aiH X C H H H a Pocchh. C6. ct. M., 1926. C. 321-322. 93. N.N. Sukhanov, The Russian Revolution 1917. An Eyewitness Account, ed., trans. Joel Carmichael (New York: Harper, 1962) 386-387. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 312 police, army and bureaucracy, and other radical changes,9 4 he won the approval of anarchists who perceived a resemblance between the Bolshevik program and their own. According to Avrich, the anarcho-syndicalists, in particular, found themselves in alliance with the Bolsheviks in their mutual demand for workers’ control o f industry, and they voted together at labor conferences between May and October in support of the factory committees.9 3 During the final weeks of the Provisional Government, when the strength of the Bolsheviks increased within the Soviets, many anarchists threw their support behind the Bolsheviks with the hope that a Soviet government would give way immediately to a stateless form of socialism.9 6 By late October, when the Bolsheviks seized power, some anarchists participated directly in the insurrection and even led military detachments.9 7 In the recollections of anarchist A. Gorelik, the October revolution followed a surge of anarchist sentiment among the masses which compelled Lenin and the Bolsheviks “to throw the greater part of their Marxist, even Leninist, baggage overboard and to begin to speak of ‘Bakuninism’, of federalism, of the negation of state power, of free initiative, of the self-initiative of the masses, of power in the provinces—even of anarchism.”9 8 94. JIch h h , B.H. O M ju n a x nponerapH ara b pgbojdouhh // JIchhh, B.H. riaraoc co6pam ie coiHHeHHfi: B 55 t . T . 31.5-e h m . M.: riojtHT. jih t., 1962. C. 113-118. Lenin’s article, otherw ise know n as the “ A pril T heses,” appeared in Premia o n A pril 7,1917. 95. Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 127-129, 143. 96. ropenHK, A . A H apxH cru a poccHftcroA peBomouHH. EyaHoc-Aftpec: H a a . P a6oneft H m ax. r p y n n u a Pecn. ApreHTHHe, 1922. C . 8. 97.3a& H eH xo, H.M. AHapxHcni a Oim6pbCKoA peaojnouMH // Tonoc Hcropim: C6. Hayn. xpyaoB. Bun. 23. K h. 2. M.: Myaefi peaojnouHH, 1992. C. 92. 98. ropenm c, A . A H apxH cru a pocchAckoA peaoonouHH. SyaHoc-Afipec: Haa. P a& w eft K san . fp y n n u b Pecn. ApreHTHHe, 1922. C. 12. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 313 Thus when the Bolsheviks came to power in October, the anarchists—the traditional arch-enemy o f the Marxists—probably stood closer to them than any other tendency or party, and a number of anarchists thereafter joined both the Bolshevik Party and the Red Army, thereby moving Lenin to place them among “the most sincere supporters of Soviet power.”9 9 As he explained at length in The State and Revolution of 1918,1 0 0 Lenin, of course, never conceived of the destruction of the state machine, like the anarchists, as an end in itself, but only as an essential first step in the ascent of an iron dictatorship of the proletariat which would secure the social revolution and then wither away. The majority of anarchists, by contrast, understood “power of the Soviets” to mean the self-government of the workers, but not the “statist power of a new political party,” as the anarchist Volin wrote,1 0 1 nor the seizure of political power “by the top” or, in other words, by those “who have no faith in the free range and creativity of the masses.”1 0 2 The difference between the Leninist and anarchist conceptions of the state became clearer as the dictatorship grew stronger and more ruthless toward its opponents. By the spring of 1918, when the numbers of anarchists 99. JIchhh, B J i. I1 hcu« o Chhsbhh riaHxepcr // JIchhh, B Ji. fhviHoe co6paHHe coHHHeHHft: B 55 t. T. 39.5-e H3a. M.: IIojiht. jiht., 1963. C. 161. 100. The State and Revolution was first published in May 1918. Lenin wrote the work while in hiding in September 1917. See: JleHHH, B.H. rocyjxapcno h peBOjnoiuu // JIchhh, B.H. nojmoe co6paHHe comtHeHHft: B 55 t . T. 33.5-e Kin. M.: IIo jih t. jih t., 1962. C. 1-120. 101. Voline, The Unknown Revolution, 1917-1921 (New York: Free Life, 1974) 216. Here Volin referred to the position of the anarcho-syndicalist newspaper Voice o f Labor [Tojioc rpyaa]. “Volin” was the pseudonym of Vs.M. Eikhenbaum (1882-1945), older brother of the literary scholar B.M. Eikhenbaum. 102. Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 153. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 314 reached an estimated 10,000,1 0 3 the Bolsheviks began to perceive them as a serious threat. At the same time, increasing state controls and harassment from the Cheka, the state security forces, began to encourage the revival of terrorist tactics by some anarchists that had claimed thousands of lives during the 1905 revolution. The appearance of “maximalist” groups calling for complete destruction or, like the “M.A. Bakunin Partisan Detachment” in Ekaterinoslav, a new “era of dynamite,” was followed by incidents of armed attacks and violent expropriations by underground anarchists. Clashes between armed anarchist “Black Guards” and the Cheka in April of 1918 led to dozens of deaths on both sides, the imprisonment of hundreds of anarchists and the closing of several anarchist newspapers. Another large wave of arrests and executions occurred in response to a bomb attack by “underground anarchists” and left Socialist Revolutionaries on a plenary meeting of the Communist Party’s Moscow Committee in September 1919, a deed which killed twelve and wounded fifty five others, including leading party officials like N.I. Bukharin, as well as Bakunin’s biographer, Steklov.1 0 4 Meanwhile, anarchists in Ukraine saw an opportunity for resistance in the independent guerilla army of the anarcho-communist peasant N. Makhno, who between 1919 and 1920 set up village communes across Ukraine and liberated a number of towns from all political authority. Regarded by the villagers in 103. The estimate belongs to Avrich, who excluded from the figure the Tolstoyans and Makhno’s peasant movement in the Ukraine. See: Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 173-174. 104. ftKoanea, JLA. Pyccndt aHapxmM a aenmcoft pyccxofl peaojDomut. M.: Toe. aaa-ao, 1921. C. 45. Left Socialist Revolutionaries also participated in the attack. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 315 his home town as “a new Stenka Razin or Pugachev, sent to realize their ancient dream of land and liberty,”1 0 3 Makhno also won support of the “Alarm” [Hafiar] federation of anarchists in Kharkov, led by Volin.1 0 6 Despite temporary alliances, when Makhno and the Bolsheviks combined forces to repulse the invasions of Generals Denikin and Wrangel, the Red Army and the Cheka eventually declared war against Makhno. In the words of Avrich, “as long as Makhno remained at large, the spirit of primitive anarchism and the danger of a peasant jacquerie—Pugachevshchina—would remain to haunt the unsteady Bolshevik regime.”1 0 7 Following the defeat of Wrangel, the Red Army shot Makhno’s commanders in the Crimea, the Cheka arrested the “Alarm” Confederation of anarchists in Kharkov and renewed suppression of other anarchists in Russia.1 0 8 The last organized stand of the anarchists took place in March 1921. While the Red Army in Ukraine fought to destroy Makhno and his army once and for all, anarchists in Petrograd took part in the unsuccessful Kronstadt rebellion against Bolshevik rule. After more arrests and executions, by 1922 only a small number of individual anarchists remained politically active in Russia. An important result of the Bolshevik victory over the anarchists was the revival of the ideological campaign against anarchism and especially its “Bakuninist” tendencies. The first Soviet historians of the anarchist movement of 1917-1921 105. Paul Avrich, T he Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 210. 106. Voline, The Unknown Revolution, 1917-1921 (New York: Free Life, 1974) 570-571. Volin’s book was first published in French in 1943. 107. Paul Avrich, T he Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 221. 108. Voline, The Unknown Revolution, 1917-1921 (New York: Free Life, 1974) 673-676. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 316 perceived the familiar pattern by which the anarchists’ hostility to political power led inevitably to ineffectual acts of destruction or, as Lenin had warned, to the “tactics of despair.”1 0 9 One o f the first Bolsheviks to write on the question of anarchism after the October revolution, E.A. Preobrazhensky, attempted to demonstrate that in 1917 the anarchists’ dogmatic opposition to the state, along with their “organic inability to organize the working masses,” condemned them to resort to petty raids on capitalists and terror against individuals, tactics that failed “to shake” the autocracy in the least. Writing in the Ural mountains during the summer of 1918, Preobrazhensky witnessed anarchist agitation against Soviet power at a moment when local Soviet organs were preparing for civil war, an event which demonstrated to him the counter-revolutionary nature of anarchism.1 1 0 Another Bolshevik who collided with anarchists during the civil war, la.A. Iakovlev [Epshtein], maintained in his study of 1921 that the anarchists’ “utter uselessness and worthlessness for any kind of creative work” prevented them from contributing to the organizational and constructive demands of the post-October period. Because of their support for “Bakunin’s ‘people on the fringe’” [6aicyH H H C K H e “ jikxoh B03nyxa”], Iakovlev wrote, the anarchist federations remained vulnerable to infiltration and corruption by outright criminal elements. “Any thief, any counter-revolutionary and robber received the freedom and possibility to use 109. Jle H H H , B.H. rocyaapcTBO k pcbojhouhx // Hemm, B.H. riaraoe co6pamie com iH eH H fi: B S S x. T. 33.5-e H3fl. M.: II ojiht. jih t., 1962. C. 117. 110. ripeoG paxeH C K H fl, E.A. AfiapxiaM h KOMMyHiOM. M.; Ilr.: KoM M yHM cr, 1918. C. 84-86. Preobrazhensky expanded this work for a second edition in 1921. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 317 the anarchist label broadly," he recalled, and as a result the anarchist federations came to include “more thieves and robbers than anarchists." He attacked the “ideological anarchists” [Hueftmae aHapxHcru] for “refusing to fight off the bandits who cling to them” and insisted that although the Moscow federation of anarchists tried to disassociate themselves from banditry in their publications, nonetheless the federation failed “to expel a single crook.” Having served in Ukraine in the political department of the fourteenth Red army during the period of Makhno’s rise,1 1 1 Iakovlev learned of incidents that demonstrated to him the proclivity of Makhno’s guerilla army for petty crime, as during its occupation of Ekaterinoslav near the end of 1918, when “several thousand Makhnovists” flooded the city with “a wave of drunken revelry, banditry, theft and pogroms.” In spite of the reputation of Makhno’s army, Iakovlev noted, the anarchists of the “Alarm” federation entered into a formal alliance with it, after which Makhno “began to describe every one of his acts with quotes from Proudhon and Bakunin.”[23]1 1 2 In their condemnation of the anarchists for “Bakuninism” and “banditry,” the critiques by Preobrazhensky and Iakovlev closely resemble the critiques formulated by Plekhanov and Gorev a decade earlier. Because of its conspicuous role in the October revolution, however, the issue of “Bakuninism” demanded closer study and 111. KpHHCiraft, C. £ kobjm b, il.A.[3ranreflH] (1896-1938): [Enorp. cnpaaica] // flerrejnt CCCP h OimfipbCKOit peBOjnoaHH. M.: Cob. amanaionenHJi, 1989. C. 783. 112. Akobikb, JLA. PyccKHft bhbpxh3m b Bemncoft pyccicofi peBOjnoaHH. M.: Toe. raa-BO, 1921. C. 3,9-10, 12,14,23,49,74. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 318 consideration than it had received after 1905. In the first place, it remained necessary to explain the resemblance between the Bolsheviks’ and anarchists’ aspirations in 1917. The victory of Lenin’s program for an immediate socialist revolution provided his Marxist opponents with a means of discrediting the very nature of the Bolshevik revolution. According to the view of many Social Democrats, in his disregard of Russia’s lack of the necessary social, economic and political preconditions for a proletarian revolution, and in his appeal to the elemental social forces from “below,” Lenin had effectively jettisoned Marxism and raised the banner of Bakuninism. A number of observers perceived a flagrant violation of Marxist fundamentals from the moment Lenin demanded the passing of all power to the Soviets in his “April Theses.” Recalling the reception of Lenin’s ‘‘reckless anarcho-seditious system” at a unifying conference of Social Democrats in April 1917, N.N. Sukhanov quoted from the “brilliant” speech of old Bolshevik I.P. Goldenberg, who remarked that “Lenin has now made himself a candidate for one European throne that has been vacant for thirty years— the throne of Bakunin! Lenin’s new words echo something old—the superannuated truths of primitive anarchism.” Lenin’s speech elicited a similar reaction from Steklov, at that time a member of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, who apparently found in it “nothing but abstract constructions that prove the Russian Revolution has passed him by.”1 1 3 Especially sharp criticism issued 113. N.N. Sukhanov, The Russian Revolution 1917. An Eyewitness Account, ed., trans. Joel Carmichael (New York: Harper, 1962) 287,289. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 319 from Plekhanov, who wrote in his newspaper Unity [E ohhctbo] that Lenin followed “the logic of anarchism,” and that Lenin’s call for the overthrow of the Provisional Government amounted to “an insane and extremely harmful attempt to sow anarchist turmoil on the Russian Earth” [Plekhanov’s italics]. A month later Plekhanov employed the “Bakuninist” metaphor for an attack on Lenin in the article, “Marxism or Bakuninism,” in which he explained that the issue facing Russia in 1917 was not “whether Bolshevism or Menshevism will prevail in Russia,” but rather “which ideas will prevail in our socialist milieu, the ideas of Marx or the ideas of Bakunin.” In June Plekhanov reiterated that “the pseudo-revolutionary tactics of Lenin are the daughter of the pseudo-revolutionary tactics of Bakunin,”1 1 4 and in July, in the wake of the aborted uprisings, Plekhanov emphasized that Lenin’s tactics shared “absolutely nothing” in common with the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels. Like Bakunin, Plekhanov declared, Lenin proved to be “a demogogue to the tip of his toes” in his wish to organize ‘ “ an unbridled mob of laborers’” [pa3Hy3oaHHaa qepHopaSoqaa qepm.].1 1 5 That which Bakunin “formulated in embryonic form,” Plekhanov concluded, “produced luxurious fruit” in the thought of Lenin, who “constructs all his pseudo-revolutionary plans on the undeveloped state of the ‘savage, starving 114. rinexaHOt, T.B. I~oa Ha pooHHe // rinexaHoa, T.B. IlonHoe co6paim e crareft h peneft, 1917- 1918: B 2 t . Paris: J. Povolozky, 1921. C. 28, 11, 191. 1 IS. Here Plekhanov quoted from Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy. M. Shatz translates this expression as “unshackled laboring hordes” in: Michael Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, trans., ed. Marshall S. Shatz (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990) 197. Bakunin’s original Russian text may be found in: E ax y H H H , M.A. rocyaapcTBeHHOCTb h aHapxm // BaxyHHH, M A O hjioco^iu, comtajionu, nojiHTHxn / Bcryn. cr., cocr., noaror. Texcm h npmieq. B.O. nycrapHaxoaa. M.: Ilpaaaa, 1989. C. 503. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 320 proletariat.’”1 1 6 As the crisis in Russia deepened after July, the writer G.I. Chulkov joined the front against Lenin. Reviewing the July demonstrations of the “mob incited by madmen,” Chulkov maintained that in spite of the slogans on their banners, the movement led by “our rebels of 1917,” “who for some reason call themselves ‘Communists,’ ‘Internationalists’ and ‘Bolsheviks,’ among other titles,” contained “no social democracy, no Marxism, no scientific socialism at all.” It was “not Marx, but Bakunin” who provided the inspiration for the “‘second’ revolution”; not the “prudence of Marx,” but rather “the madness of Bakunin” which pushed for an immediate social revolution. Having “committed to oblivion all the preconditions” established by scientific socialism, Chulkov wrote, the Bolsheviks staked their hopes on “the dark, unenlightened masses” in order “to reduce the country to all the misadventures of anarchy.”1 1 7 The Bolshevik seizure of power in October provoked still another wave of criticism from Social Democrats like M. Gorky, who wrote in his newspaper New Life [HoBaa x o u h b ] that “the reason of the working class, its consciousness of its historical tasks will soon open the eyes of the proletariat to the utter unfeasibility [Ha b c io H ec6w T O H H O cn.] of Lenin’s promises, to all the depth of his 116. rbiexaHOB, I\B. Ton Ha pom m e // IljiexaHOB, I\B. IlojtH oe co6pam ie cra re ft h peqeft, 1917- 1918: B 2 x. Paris: J. Povolozky, 1921. C. 31,34. 117. HyjiKOB, r.H. Maxaiui EaayHHH h 6ymapH 1917 r. M.: M ock, npocaer. komhcch*, 1917. C. 5,18,19,29. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 321 madness and his Nechaevist-Bakuninist anarchism” [H eqaeB C K O -E aK yH H H C icH ft aHapxH3M].1 1 8 The Bolsheviks’ campaign against anarchism, the anarchists’ opposition to the Bolsheviks, and the Social Democrats’ criticism of the Bolsheviks in the name of orthodox Marxism all became important factors in the political context which surrounded the study of Bakunin in the new Soviet era and, consequently, throughout the debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky. In 1923, when Grossman formulated his thesis, Soviet historians of the Russian revolutionary movement like Polonsky still faced the difficult challenge of reconciling two different assessments of “Bakuninism” and its manifestation in the Russian revolution. On the one hand, exiled opponents of Bolshevism, often under the banner of orthodox Marxism, continued to employ the concept of “Bakuninism” as a metaphor for the October revolution. In an essay of 1923 on “The Russian Forebears of Bolshevism,” literary scholar and former Socialist Revolutionary M. Slonim wrote that the Bolsheviks found a “spiritual kinsman” [nyxoBufi copojmH] in Bakunin, whose “ordinances” of “anarchist statelessness” and “destruction” by means of “popular instinct” they fulfilled “from the moment they came to power.”1 1 9 Menshevik P.B. Aksel’rod criticized those in the West who “extol Bolshevism as the most revolutionary and consistent form of Marxism and acclaim the 118. ropuoifi, M. HecBoeapeMeHHue m u cjih : 3aM encH o peBamouHM h K y j& T y p e / Bcryn.cT., nyfiji., n o aro T . Texcra h kom m cht. H. BafiH6epra. M.: C o b . n H c a re n t, 1990. C. 149,3IS. Gorky made this statement in the article “Toward Democracy” (Hoaaa *H 3H b. 1917. N® 174,7/20 h o i6 .) . 119. Ch o h h m , MJI. Pyccxxe npeaTe^H 6anuneB H 3M & . Bepnmi: Pyc. ymnepcanMioe k u i-b o , 1923. C. 21. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 322 Bolshevik tyranny as a Communist dictatorship o f the proletariat,” when in fact, he believed, Bolshevism represented merely “a savage and pernicious throwback to Bakuninism” and other “revolutionary ideologies that belong to the earliest and most immature period o f the workers’ movement.”1 2 0 In 1924 Aksel’rod again condemned Bolshevism as a “barbarously violent” manifestation o f Bakuninism and recalled how Marx, Engels and other socialist precursors “clearly saw the danger that anarchism and Bakuninism held for the international labor movement and combated it fiercely.”1 2 1 Although most o f their leaders had left the country, some Mensheviks apparently managed to make their statement in dramatic fashion in Soviet Russia itself. One writer recalled the report o f a “scandal” surrounding Lenin’s funeral in 1924 which appeared in European newspapers at the time. According to the report, at some point while Lenin’s coffin rested in the Columned Hall at the House of Soviets, a delegation o f Mensheviks lay a funeral wreath on it bearing the inscription, “From the Central Committee o f the Social Democratic Party o f Mensheviks to V.I. Lenin, the most outstanding Bakuninist among Marxists” [B.H. JleHHHy, caw oM y xpynHOM y SaxyHHcry cpeflH MapKcncroB, or UK pyccxoft couHan-aeM oxpaTHHecKoft napTHH M eH B m eB H K O B ].1 2 2 On the other hand, there still remained the faint but obstinate voices 120. Pavel Axelrod, “Speech at the International Socialist Conference at Bern,” The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution, ed. Abraham Ascher, trans. Paul Stevenson (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976) 128. 121. From Aksel’rod’s letter to F. Adler, quoted in: Leopold Haimson, ed., The Mensheviks. From the Revolution of 1917 to the Second World War, trans. Gertrude Vakar (Chicago: U Chicago P, 1974) 295. 122. rTojiennca, H.fl. BnaeHHoe h nepeaorroe. Hepycanmc Eh O - ks Anns, 1982. C. 270. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 323 of surviving anarchists to remind the Bolsheviks that October had been in essence a “Bakuninist” event For perhaps the majority of anarchists—predominantly in exile—who had since joined the camp of the Bolsheviks' outspoken enemies, the Bolsheviks’ sin lay not in their overthrow of the Provisional Government and their instigation of an immediate social revolution, as the Mensheviks claimed, but rather in their resurrection of the dictatorial state and their creation of a “commissarocracy”' [KOMMHCcapoaepxcaBHe].1 2 3 As anarchist Emma Goldman explained in 1921 to a young communist associate in Soviet Russia who admonished her belief “that a revolution a la Bakunin would have brought more constructive results,” in actual fact the Russian Revolution “had been a la Bakunin” at first, in her view, “but it had since been transformed a la Karl Marx.”1 2 4 In the minds of anarchists like Gorelik, expelled from the country in the fall of 1921, Lenin’s Marxist explanations for the Bolshevik dictatorship failed to overshadow his usurpation of the anarchists’ program in 1917, evident in his conspicuous use of anarchist formulations at that time. For all his attacks on the anarchist conception of the state, Gorelik recalled how Lenin had proven in The State and Revolution that “the Bolsheviks are greater anarchists than the anarchists themselves,”t2 S and continued to do so, for example, in his twentieth thesis to the First 123. Quoted in: Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 180. 124. Emma Goldman, Living My Life (New York: Garden City, 1934) 826. 125. ropcuHK, A. AHapxHcru a poccHftcKoft peBoraomot. Ey3Hoc-Aftpec: (tut. Pa6oneft (iutar. rpynnu b Pecn. ApreHTHHe, 1922. C. 8. Although he did not cite a specific example from The State and Revolution, Gorelik must have had in mind Lenin’s statement that the task o f the proletariat was “not the improvement of the state machine, but its destruction, eradication” [He yjiy'uneHHe rocyaapcTBCHHoft MammtH, a pcnpyuienue, yuwrnoxeHue ee]. See: JIchhh, B.H. rocyaapcrao h peBOjnomu // JleHHH, B.H. nojraoe coGparae comraeHHfi: B 55 t . T. 3 3 .5-e hui. M.: Itajnrr. jiht., Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 324 Congress of the Comintern, in which he stated that “destruction of state power is the aim set by all socialists.’’1 2 6 More problematic for Bolshevik historians of the revolution, as it turned out, was the position of those anarchists who bad survived the repressions of 1918-22 and remained in Soviet Russia. The so-called “Soviet anarchists”1 2 7 continued to perceive in the October revolution of 1917 a vindication of their own ideological heritage. While serving the Bolsheviks on the Comintern Executive in 1921, former anarchist Victor Serge wrote that “Bakunin had sensed Bolshevism” in his vision, shared by Lenin, of a proletarian dictatorship and in his contempt for European parliamentary democracy.1 2 8 Another writer, G.B. Sandomirsky, who together with Borovoi and Grossman-Roshchin founded a Union for the Ideological Propaganda of Anarchism in 1918,1 2 9 took the opportunity of Lenin’s death to pay tribute to the anarchist nature of the October revolution in an article for a French periodical. Lenin’s principal merit before the working class, Sandomirsky explained, was that he “Bakuninized Marx” [a bakouninise Marx], that he ‘“moved backward’ (according to the anarchists he moved 1962. C. 31. 126. JleHHH, B.H. Te3Hcu h aoicnaa o 6ypxya3Hoft jKMOKpanni h m n m n y p e npojierapH ara // JIchhh, B.H. ria ira o e co6pam ie cohhhchhA: B 55 t . T. 37.5-e roa. M.: nomrr. jih t., 1963. C. 501. 127. A . G orelik gives th e nam e o f tw enty o f the “b e st know n” anarchists w ho becam e, in his w ords, “Soviet anarchists o r A narcho-B olsheviks.” See: ropejnac, A . A iap x M cru a poccHflcicoft peaomouHH. Byntoc-A ftpec: Hm . Pa6o<iefi Hum. r p y n m i b P ecn. ApreHTHHe, 1922. C. 18-19. 128. Victor Serge, “La Confession d ie Bakounine,” Bulletin Communiste 56 (22 Dec. 1921): 942. Quotations here are based on an unpublished translation by Alexander Choate, and also on a Russian translation of selections from the article which appear in: S aicy H H H , M.A. Co6paHHe cohhhchhA h tiH ce M , 1828-1876. T. 4: B nopuiax h ccbunce, 1849-1861. M., 1935. C. 421. 129. The group’s manifesto is included in: AHapxHcru: A oicy M eH T U h Marepnanu. 1883-1935: B 2 t. T. 2: 1917-1935 / Coer., aarop npeaHcn., aaejx. h kommcht. B.B. KpioeHumft. M.: POCCII3H, 1999. C. 149-151. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 325 forward),” and therefore “not to understand him is not to understand October.” With his “synthesis of Marxism and Bakuninism” and his “Bakuninist despisal of the state,” Lenin mercilessly exposed “the mortal enemies of anarchy, democracy and social- democracy, which we see degenerate before our very eyes to fascism.” Admitting that the anarchist movement faced one of its “darkest hours” in 1924, when its enemies wished to annihilate it, Sandomirsky insisted that even if the working class of Russia had “stopped” at the transitional stage instead of following the disciples of Bakunin to the stage of “complete emancipation,” nonetheless it was better that its heart had been seduced not by the “reformist hypocrites,” but by Lenin.1 3 0 The Soviet anarchists must have also found some reassurance in Lenin’s attitude toward Bakunin and his disciples in the revolution. For all his warnings against the “puerile disease” of anarchism and other “leftist” tendencies among communists, evidence suggests that Lenin continued to hold a certain respect for the anarchists throughout the civil war. In July of 1920, even as Makhno’s supporters were winning victories in Ukraine, Lenin remarked that “The best in anarchism may be and should be won over [npHBJieneHo].1 3 1 Lenin apparently preserved sufficient respect for Bakunin after 1917 to grant him a place among the forefathers of the revolution. When Lenin worked out his “Plan for Monumental Propaganda” in 1918, Bakunin’s name won a place on the first official 130. German Sandomirsky, Leninisme et Bakounisme. Hwnaniti [Paris], 6 March 1924, n. pag. The passages cited here were translated from the French by Alexander Choate. 131. JleHHH, B.H. MarepHanu ko II xoHrpeccy KOMMyHHcnnecicoro HHTepHauHOHana // JleHHH, B.H. riojiHoe coOpaHHe c o H H H e H H ft: B 55 t . T. 41.5-e roa. M.: IIojiht. aht.,1963. C. 444. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 326 monument of the new state to “great revolutionaries and socialist thinkers,” a granite obelisk roughly twenty meters high erected near the Kremlin.1 3 2 In accordance with the same plan, the Visual Arts Section of the People’s Commissariat for Enlightenment commissioned sculptor B.D. Korolev to build a statue of Bakunin for placement in a street near the center of Moscow.1 3 3 Lenin seems to have offered no opposition to the publication of Bakunin’s works after the revolution. The five volumes of works issued by the “Voice of Labor” publishing house, including some of Bakunin’s sharpest attacks on Marx, apparently met no serious resistance. Lenin may even have played a role in obtaining funds for Sazhin to travel abroad in 1921 to gather rare Bakunin materials for publication in Russia.1 3 4 The debate over Grossman’s thesis unfolded, then, when the spectrum of attitudes toward Bakunin included the hostility of Social Democrats, the enthusiasm of anarchists, and the ostensibly “dispassionate” approach of Soviet historians, in Polonsky’s words, who attempted to resolve the historical problem of Bakuninism without supporting either of the two other extremes. Polonsky’s position toward 132. M o cK O B C K H fi KpeMJib: riyTeBoaHTCJii, / A bt.-coct. HA. PonmaieBa. JI.: ABpopa, 1987. C. 122*123. The monument still stands today. The other Russian socialists include Chemyshevsky, Lavrov, Mikhailovsky and Plekhanov. 133. Built in a Cubo-futurist style, the monument met severely negative review in a Moscow newspaper and was soon removed. See: John E. Bowlt, “A Monument to Bakunin: Korolev’s Cubo- Futurist Statue of 1919,” Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 10.4 (1976): 577-590. 134. tfepHsacitaa, JI.C. K H cropHH lonam* co«nm eH H fi M A EaxyHMHa: (IIh c u io M.II. Caxftaa M.H. IIocpoBCKOMy, 1923) // OreqecrBeHHue apxmu. 1992. N a 1. C. 110-111. Although Sazhin’s collection never appeared, by 1923 Steklov received an official assignment to prepare a complete edition of Bakunin’s writings and letters. Steklov referred to the appointment in a letter to Polonsky of 1 9 March 1924. See: PfAJIH, (p . 1328, on. 1, ea. 22, j i . 1 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 327 Bakunin and Bakuninism at the time of his exchanges with Grossman remained consistent with the position he formulated in 1919. As Polonsky acknowledged in his first biographical sketch of Bakunin, cited earlier, Bakunin proved to be more a spokesman for elemental “rebelliousness” than a theoretician of political revolution; more an apostle of “merciless destruction,” “Pugachevshchina” and “Razinovshchina” than a propagandist of socialist construction; and like the majority of Soviet historians, Polonsky saw in the successful establishment and defense of the proletarian dictatorship in Russia the victory of Marxism over Bakuninism. Yet as his opposition to Grossman’s sketch of Bakunin demonstrates, Polonsky departed from a Social Democratic tradition in his refusal to reduce the legacy of “Bakuninism” merely to the primitive violence and terror of “Nechaevshchina.” In a series of articles on Bakunin in 1926, the year in which his and Grossman’s collection appeared, Polonsky’s attempt to refute the Social Democrats became more pronounced. In an article for the journal New World [HoBbift Map], Polonsky attacked the statements of Wilhelm Bios, a German Social Democratic historian who wrote a preface to a new edition of the 1873 pamphlet against the Alliance under the title, “Marx or Bakunin? Democracy or Dictatorship?” Polonsky rebuked Bios and others like him who “frighten their young with the name of the terrible Russian [Bakunin],” and who appropriated Marx [Tanuui Mapxca k ce6e] but “gave Bakunin to us.” As in his earlier work, Polonsky wished to explain, in the first place, Bakunin’s role in the collapse of the International. Polonsky again rejected the view popularized by Jaeckh, another “Social Democratic historian,” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 328 that Bakunin was “a disorganizer with a politically criminal nature,” as well as the view of “Jaeckh’s antipode,” the anarchist Guillaume, that Bakunin fell victim to the “evil intrigues” by Marx. He admitted that in the realm of theory Bakunin was by far the inferior of Marx, and also that his revolutionary program proved to be a failure; but as if in response to those who would separate Marx from Bakunin in every respect Polonsky emphasized what they held in common: [T]here is one characteristic which draws [Bakunin’s] image closer to us than the image, say, of Herzen or of any other activist of our past. For all their disagreements, in spite of their implacable hostility [toward one another], Marx and Bakunin were brought together by one common passion, one common feeling: both of them desired the immediate beginning of the social revolution; both of them aspired toward one and the same goal, toward the final victory over the rotten [naraHuft] capitalist system of exploitation, violence and poverty. It is this passion of Bakunin’s which no one will question and which he never betrayed until his death, [which] makes him a figure worthy of a prominent place among the family of representatives of our revolutionary past. The name of the man who gave everything he had to the great idea of liberation should receive his historical recognition.” A second purpose of Polonsky’s article was to spoil the efforts of Bios and others “to cast the shadow of Bakuninism onto Bolshevism.” In the wake of accusations against the Bolsheviks for leading a Bakuninist rather than a Marxist revolution, Polonsky needed to clarify Bakuninism’s relationship both to ideas of modem Russian anarchism, and, above all, to the concept of “Leninism.” Rejecting the notion held by “some comrades,”1 3 3 Polonsky argued that Bakunin was not a 135. Here Polonsky likely had in mind Steklov, whose conception he critiqued in the December (1926) issue of Press and Revolution. See: rio JiO H C K H fl, BXI. O hoboA moire K D .M . CreKJioaa // henaTb h peaojnomu. 1926. Kh. 8. C. 111. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 329 “progenitor” [pojtOHaHantHHK] of the Communist Party, but rather a “forebear [npe;rreHa] of the Russian revolution,” and “between these two concepts,” he noted, “lies a great distance.” Extending an idea which historian M.N. Pokrovsky presented in 1924, Polonsky described Bakuninism as only “one stream” within “the broad revolutionary current” represented by Leninism. As the experience of October demonstrated, he explained, the success of the revolution required the seizure of power by the working class, a fundamental of Leninism without which “our revolution would have been strangled [3ajtymeHa] with the same cruelty, if not more so, as the uprisings of the Parisians of 1871.”1 3 6 The triumph of the Bolsheviks logically spelled the defeat of Bakuninism, which distinguished itself in essence from Marxism and, subsequently, Leninism, as Polonsky wrote in the Large Soviet Encyclopedia, in its “negation of statism in general, negation of the dictatorship of the working class, negation of even transitional state forms toward a stateless structure, negation of political struggle.” In an important qualification to an otherwise traditional distinction between Bakunin and Lenin, anarchism and Marxism, Polonsky added, however, that Bakunin had made important contributions to the revolutionary movement. Polonsky emphasized that a number of Bakunin’s ideas and works represented “brilliant monuments, filled with passion,” and retained great value, it followed, for the Soviet epoch. Despite his “lack of deep, systematic knowledge,” Polonsky insisted, Bakunin’s criticism of the state 136. riojiOHCKHft, B.IL MHxaiui EaxyHHH: (K 50-iienoo co jm cnepTH) // Horafi trap. 1926. Kh. 7.C. 117-131. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 330 remained “rich with ideas, brilliant and true, dictated by revolutionary intuition,” and his “unmasking of parliamentarianism” still preserved “its resonant power.”1 3 7 Bakunin had been correct, like Lenin, in other words, in his opposition to the non revolutionary Marxism which led the majority of Social Democrats astray in 1917. Insofar as Polonsky accepted that the current of Leninism contained a “stream” of Bakuninism, and because he opposed the Social Democrats’ efforts to use the resemblance as a means to discredit Lenin and disassociate him from Marxism, it followed that Polonsky would object to Grossman’s narrow definition of Bakuninism as “unlimited destruction in the name of destruction.” Thus when he warned against the perpetuation of a “myth” about Bakunin, Polonsky undoubtedly had in mind, at least in part, the idea that Bolshevism absorbed Bakuninism in the most negative sense, in other words, as a retrograde, if not outright criminal doctrine which only fosters pure “Nechaevshchina.” Polonsky’s desire to clarify the legacy of Bakunin through the debate with Grossman is particularly evident in the third edition of his articles of 1929, a year after Grossman published a separate edition of his own original articles on Bakunin and Dostoevsky.1 3 * The 1929 edition supplemented Polonsky’s original three contributions to the debate with a sketch of Bakunin, similar in content to his series of articles on Bakunin of 1926. With the addition of the biographical sketch, which became the second article in the series and a supplement to Polonsky’s 137. rionoHCKHft, B.n. BaxyHHH, Mnxaitn AjieKcanapoBm: [Enorp. cnpauca] // Eouumu CoBercicaa 3HiiHiaioneiuu. T. 4. M.: C ob. atmHKJioneiuu, 1926. C. 449-451. 138. See note 38 in chapter one. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 331 first reply to Grossman,1 3 9 Polonsky’s subtle defense of Bakunin in the debate became more conspicuous. As in his earlier work on Bakunin, Polonsky argued that in spite of his “many mistakes and blunders,” Bakunin made lasting contributions to revolutionary movements in Russia and Europe, and ultimately “stands near to our generation” in his “genuine, undying, ever unsatisfied passion for the destruction of the capitalist order.”1 4 0 It followed that even if Stavrogin and Bakunin both nourished a “passion for destruction,” as Grossman insisted, then all the same the objects of their passion remained completely different. From the standpoint of Polonsky, a Bolshevik who defended the victory of the October revolution, neither Bakunin’s nor Lenin’s rationale for social destruction could be compared convincingly with the ideas of Stavrogin. As suggested earlier, by virtue of his opposition to Grossman, Polonsky in effect stood alongside the anarchists Borovoi and Otverzhennyi. It may have been Polonsky’s own words of tribute to Bakunin, moreover, that emboldened the anarchists Borovoi and Otverzhennyi to step forward with their own, much less qualified praise of Bakunin. Describing “Bakuninism” as a predominantly positive, healthy, and constructive impulse in the revolution, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi clearly confirmed the tendency of Soviet anarchists like Sandomirsky and Serge to defend 139. The Bakunin sketch was also included in the most recent collection of Polonsky’s articles: rio jio H C K H fi, B JI. O JHrrcpaType: H36p. pa6oru / Bcryn.cr., cocr. h npHMen. B.B. 3 d o H H O B o fl. M.: Cob. nHcarejw, 1988. C. 196-197. 140. rio n o H C K H fl, B JI. M.A. E aicyH H H // n o n o H C K H fi, B JI. JlHTepaiypa h o 6 m e c T B o : C6. cr. M., 1929. C. 196-197. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 332 Bakunin on the basis of his affinity with Lenin. Because he never addressed their position directly in the debate, nor mentioned their contributions in the preface to the Debate collection of 1926, Polonsky’s attitude toward the views of Borovoi and Otverzhennyi remains difficult to determine. In an expose of the anarchists’ program in 1917, while still a left Menshevik,1 4 1 Polonsky linked the anarchists’ agitation for a “kingdom of anarchist communism” to Bakunin’s misguided identification of the peasant revolt with revolution, or, in Herzen’s words, of “the second month of pregnancy for the ninth,” and he pointed out the resemblance between the anarchists’ “demogogic” propaganda and Bakunin’s wish to unleash “all the instincts of the dark masses.”1 4 2 Throughout his debate with Grossman, however, Polonsky never attacked the anarchists or referred to their susceptibility to “banditism,” as Plekhanov had once noted and Iakovlev had confirmed, and there is good reason to believe that he placed a certain value on their heritage. An interesting indicator of Polonsky’s respect for anarchist thought may be found in the bibliography he compiled at the end of his article on Bakunin for the Large Soviet Encyclopedia in 1926. In a list of roughly twenty books and articles pertaining to Bakunin, Polonsky included no less than seven 141. Polonsky belonged to the Petersburg Committee o f the Menshevik party 1917. In the fall of 1918 he joined the “Russian Social Democratic Party of Internationalists,” a faction of “left” Mensheviks whose membership dissolved itself and joined the Bolsheviks in December 1919. Before officially joining the Bolshevik wing of the party, however, Polonsky served in the Political Administration of the Red Army [ITyP], in which he organized a Department of Literary Publications [ J I h t k u u t] and eventually became Deputy Chief of the Supreme Military Editorial Council [3aMecmens npeaceaaxena BBPC]. See: PrAJIH, $. 1328, on. 3, ea. 56. 142. flonoHCKHfi, B.n. A H a p x a c ru h coapeMeHHaa p e a o n m a m // H onaa aooHb. 1917. N a 1 8 1 (175), 15 (26) Hoa6. C. 1 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 333 works by anarchists, among them the studies by Cherkezov and Guillaume, two of the most outspoken opponents of Marxism.1 4 3 During the debate with Grossman Polonsky still stood well apart from the anarchists in his attitude toward Bakunin, and he never went as far as Borovoi and Otverzhennyi in his defense of him; but for all its doctrinal shortcomings, Polonsky apparently still believed in 1926 that the views of the anarchists on Bakunin deserved a hearing. Polonsky was not the only nominally Marxist historian to qualify his criticism of Bakunin, for several other Soviet historians from the same period approached the problem of Bakuninism and Bolshevism in much the same way. The Marxist scholar D.B. Riazanov, otherwise a very outspoken enemy of “Bakuninism,” reportedly declared at a public meeting in honor of Sazhin in November 1925 that the “bucket” of Marxism which culminated in the October revolution contained a “drop” of Bakuninism. According to I.I. Genkin, a self-described “non-party Communist ,” 1 4 4 Riazanov expressed surprise, moreover, that Sazhin, the “honored veteran of Bakuninism,” had refused “to recognize in the Bolsheviks his own revolutionary characteristics.” Agreeing with the remarks of Riazanov, Genkin explained that despite their many weaknesses, both ideological and organizational, many of which Plekhanov had been correct to expose and criticize, nonetheless “the pupils of M.A. 143. IlonoHCKHft, BJ1. BaicyHHH, Mnxaiui AneKcafutpoBm: [Eaorp. c n p & B ic a] // Eonunax CoBercicax 3Hiu«jioneaHX. T. 4. M.: Cob. aHUHKjroneiiiu, 1926. C. 451. 144. remcHH, H och$ HcaeBm : [Enorp. cnpaBxa] // AexTejm peBounouHOHHoro gM « e n n i b Pocchh: BHO-6H6nHorp. cnosapb. T. S. Bun. 2. M.: Bcepoc. o6iq-bo nojnrr. KaxopxaH h ccw ibaonoceneHaeB, 1933. C. 1201. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 334 Bakunin”—the anarchists of the 1917 revolution—proved to be correct on many political questions and “foresaw better than G.V. Plekhanov the subsequent evolution of the German social-democrats and the entire Second International.” In a more picturesque explanation, Genkin noted that while the “Makhnovshchina” had certainly demonstrated in practice the theoretical bankruptsy of anarchism, all the same “their activity...during the storm and thunder of October...may be considered as something positive, insofar as [the anarchists] played the role of fermenting agents, insofar as they did not allow the proletarians...to become immersed in a condition of orthodox inertia and idleness” but instead “forced them to search...for an antidote to the tocsins, the poisons produced by the developing ‘organism’ of October.”1 4 5 Former Menshevik A.S. Martynov, who joined the Communist Party in 1923,1 4 6 recalled in 1926 how the split between communists and Social Democrats in 1917 “ameliorated the struggle” between communists and anarchists, eventually “drawing them together,” and thereby encouraged “a certain re-evaluation of Bakunin’s historical role” by the Leninists. Once the proletariat managed to subdue the anarchists and subjugate them to its leadership, Martynov explained, it became possible for communists and anarchists to form a united front, in which they could jointly oppose the “parliamentary cretinism” which Bakunin had been so correct to attack. Had Marx appeared during the October 145. TeHKHH H.H. Cpera npeeMHHKOB B axyH H H a: (3aM enat no H cropm poccHflcxoro SHapxmMa) // KpacHM jieronHCk, 1927. N Q I. C. 170, 172, 176. 146. MapniHOB (TlHxep), Ajiexcawip CaMoftnoBin: [Enorp. cnpasxa] // riojurnnecKHe aerrenH P o cch h 1917: Btiorp. cnosapb. M.: BP3, 1993. C. 209. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 335 revolution, Martynov decided, he would have attacked the Social Democrats, and Bakunin “would not have wished to destroy the Communist International.”1 4 7 In his multi-volume biography of Bakunin, finally, Steklov wrote that “the time has now come to give this outstanding figure his due and to acknowledge that, on the whole, his merits far outweigh his shortcomings, that in the entire economy of the world proletarian movement Bakunin’s weaknesses [MHHycu] pale in comparison to his strengths.” No one owes a greater debt to “historical fairness” on Bakunin’s account, Steklov concluded, than the Russian Communist Party.1 4 8 Thus Polonsky was not alone in his respect for Bakunin. Although Bakuninism remained anathema among many Social Democrats and other opponents of the Bolsheviks, Polonsky and others joined anarchists like Sandomirsky, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi in acknowledging the constructive aspect of Bakuninism in the October revolution and, consequently, in firmly denying any true reflection of Bakuninism in the ideas of Verkhovensky and Stavrogin. 5.4 Conclusion The question of Bolshevik attitudes toward Bakuninism and their relationship to the “debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky” naturally raises the question, what did 147. M aprruHoa [rimcep], A.C. M h x b h ji BaKymm b caere MapxcoBoft h JieHHHCxoft anox // K oM M yH H C T H H C C K H f l H H T C p fU Q H O H B T I. 1926. N a 8 (57). C. 82-84,86. 148. CreicnoB, K D .M . Nfaxami AjiexcaaopoBm BaxyHHH: Ero booh* h Aemen&HocTb. T. 4: Pacxon b HtrrepHauHOHane. M.; JI.: foe. h u i- bo, 1927. C. 449-450. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 336 Lenin himself think of Besyl Although Lenin never published any formal statements about Dostoevsky (comparable, for instance, to his famous essay on Tolstoi), there exist first-hand reports of his remarks about both Dostoevsky and Besy. According to former Menshevik N.V. Valentinov, recalling statements by Lenin before the 1917 revolution, Lenin disliked Besy and classified it as the kind of “reactionary filth” he “did not need.”1 4 9 V.D. Bonch-Bruevich heard Lenin express a similar attitude, but he also recalled some additional words that are of some relevance to the dispute over Grossman’s thesis. Although Lenin held a “sharply negative” view of Besy, Bonch- Bruevich wrote, he believed one should not forget that the novel depicts events connected not only with Nechaev, but also with Bakunin. The task of the critic when reading Besy, Lenin reportedly said, is “to establish [pa3o6parbcs] what in the novel pertains to Nechaev, and what pertains to Bakunin.”1 1 0 Lenin’s latter remark offers a convenient model for s u m m a r i z i n g the attitude of Polonsky, Borovoi, Otverzhennyi and perhaps other critics of Grossman toward his attempt to associate Bakunin and “Bakuninism” with Besy. From the standpoint of his three most outspoken opponents, Grossman’s reading failed because his system rested on “coincidences” between Stavrogin and Bakunin but ignored the important distinctions between them. For the anarchists Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, Stavrogin’s 149. BaneHTHHOB, H.B. [Bon&ciadi]. BcrpeMH c JleHHHhnt. Huo-ftopic: Hsa-ao hm . Hexoaa, 19S3. C. 85. 150. B.H. Jle H H H o irnieparype h HCKyccrae. 3-e ma. M.: Xyaoac. jiht., 1967. C. 704. Bonch- Bruevich’s recollections of Lenin’s remarks about Besy first appeared in: JlHTeparypHaa nuera. 1955. 21 anp. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 337 ‘‘passion for destruction,” utterly devoid of any “creative” impulses, represented the very negation of Bakunin’s “passion for destruction,” which they understood as a predominantly creative passion and a great inspiration, moreover, to the development of the anarchist movement in Russia. For Polonsky, Stavrogin’s and Bakunin’s “passion for destruction” made for a poor analogy because it was precisely “passion,” above all else, which Bakunin possessed in excess and which Stavrogin lacked, the passion which the revolutionaries of October, in Polonsky’s view, inherited from Bakunin, and which set them apart from Dostoevsky’s superfluous “types.” Grossman’s opponents could accept an identification between Nechaev and the idea of “destruction in the name of destruction” in Besy . ; but they firmly rejected an interpretation of Dostoevsky’s “pamphlet” which ultimately failed to account for “what pertains to Nechaev and what pertains to Bakunin.” Borovoi and especially Otverzhennyi, as described earlier, made an explicit distinction between “Nechaevshchina” and “Bakuninism” in their responses to Grossman. As anarchists who cherished Bakunin’s demand for a stateless social order, they vigorously opposed the suggestion that the anarchist legacy shared anything in common with “Shigalevshchina,” the authoritarian idea which most appeals to the Nechaevist figure Verkhovensky. Although he failed to address the question directly in his published exchanges with Grossman, Polonsky’s attempts to revise the traditional Marxist critique of Bakunin suggest that he supported the same distinction. A more accurate assessment of Polonsky’s attitude toward Nechaev requires further study both Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 338 of his own views and, of course, the attitudes of other Soviet Marxist historians toward Nechaev. Alongside Bakunin, Nechaev himself formed the subject of interesting investigations during the 1920s, and many of the contributors to the discussions surrounding Bakunin also contributed to the discussions surrounding Nechaev.1 5 1 No less relevant was a dispute over the notion of Blanquism in the Russian revolution,1 5 2 a concept which Nettlau used to distinguish Nechaev from Bakunin, as indicated earlier. A close study of the attitudes expressed in the closely related debates over Nechaev and Blanquism, which the present study will not address, would make a valuable contribution to the study of attitudes toward Besy in Soviet Russia. They would form an important supplement, moreover, to the most important historical issue surrounding 151. See, for example, the memoirs of the Zasulich sisters, V.I. Zasulich and A.I. Uspenskaia, both former associates of Nechaev, and the response of Deich: YcneHCicaa, A.H. BocnoMHtiamu mecTitaecjiTHHUu // Ebuioe. 1922. N a 18. C. 19-45; 3acymra, B.H. Heqaeacxoe aeno: (IlocMepTHaa pyxonHCb) // Tpynna “OcBo6o*aeHHe Tpyaa”. C6.2. M.: Toe. hm-bo, 1924. C. 22-72; Aeflq, JIT. Euji mi Henaea remuneH? // Tpyima “OcBo6o*neHHe Tpyaa”. C 6.2. M.: Toe. raa-ao, 1924. C. 73-86. Another discussion followed a study of Nechaev by A. Gambarov, a young historian who sought the “historical rehabilitation” o f Nechaev on the grounds, among others, that Nechaev was a communist whose reputation suffered because of his unfortunate association with Bakunin, a view which Koz’min and Steklov opposed in separate reviews. See: TaM6apoB, A. B cnopax o Heqaeae: (K aonpocy 0 6 HCTopmecKoft pea6HmrrauHM HenaeBa). M.: Mock. paEomdi, 1926; K o 3 b M H H , E. n. Hcropiu hjih (J> a H T a c T H ic a ? (Peu. Ha kh. A. TaMEapoaa) // rienaTb h peBomotnu. 1926. Kh. 6. C. 96-108; [CrexnoB, iO.M.]. Pen. Ha kh.: A. TaM6apoB. B cnopax o Henaeae (1926) // JleronHCH MapKcwma. 1926. T. 3. C. 148-149; CreicnoB, IO.M. MMxatui AneKcaiupOBin EaxyHHH : Era anoHb h aejrrenbHOCTb. T. 3: E axyH H H b HirrepHaiiHOHane. M.; JI.: Toe. kui-bo, 1927. C. 418-550. 152. The discussion o f Blanquism began with a book on Blanqui by Gorev and a review in Press and Revolution by “Sineira” (pseudonym of B.L. Eidel’man), followed by additional polemical exchanges between the two in Press and Revolution and Penal Servitude and Exile. Also between 1923 and 1925, historians S.I. Mitskevich, N.N. Baturin and die same “Sineira” debated the relationship between Blanquism, Jacobinism and Bolshevism. A review o f some o f the exchanges from both debates, as well as some aspects of the debates over Bakunin reviewed in this chapter may be found in: Volodymyr Varlamov, “Bakunin and the Russian Jacobins and Blanquists,” Rewriting Russian History. Soviet interpretations o f Russia s Past, ed. Cyril E. Black (New York: Praeger, 1957) 302-333. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 339 the debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky, namely, the problem of Bakuninism in the Russian revolution. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 340 Conclusion The Bakunin Jubilee of 1926 and the Aftermath of the Debate The State Publishing House issued the collection The Debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky in 1926 for Bakunin’s jubilee. That year saw a great deal of literature devoted to Bakunin and Bakuninism, some of which was cited in chapter five, as well as a number of public evenings in Bakunin’s memory. As Chair of a special “Commission for the Commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of Bakunin’s Death” [Komhcchs no o3HaM eHOBaHmo mrmaecaTHJienM co m u cMepra BaxyHHHa] formed in April of 1926, Polonsky played a leading role in the promotion and organization of the Bakunin events. Well aware of the potential significance of the occasion, Polonsky appealed to the head of the Press Department of the Party’s Central Committee, S.I. Gusev, to whom he explained the Commission’s plans for the evening and presented their rationale for celebrating it on an official level. Hoping for “a decree of some kind” in order to organize the event effectively, Polonsky asked the Central Committee to express the desire “to observe Bakunin’s anniversary in the Soviet and Party press”; “to re-erect the monument to Bakunin” on Miasnitsky street in Moscow which had been removed in 1919 before being officially unveiled; and to enlist the participation of leading institutes of historical research, including the Communist Academy, the Institute of Marx and Engels, and the Museum of the Revolution. Perhaps in anticipation of some resistance to the Commission’s initiative, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 341 Polonsky emphasized in his letter that “in light of similar commemorations in Moscow of Herzen, Ogarev and Kropotkin, there are no grounds for objecting to a commemoration in Bakunin’s memory.”1 On June 5, Polonsky addressed more proposals to the Presidium of the Communist Academy, which approved a series of public meetings between September and October, including a ceremonial evening [TopacecrBeHHoe 3acenaHHe], approved by the Central Committee, at which Steklov, Polonsky, Figner, Sazhin and even N.I. Bukharin would speak. He also expressed the Bakunin Commission’s desire to rename the city of Nikolaevsk-on-the-Amur (where a memorial to Bakunin was preserved) to “Bakuninsk.”2 On June 11 Polonsky reported back to the Bakunin Commission, which approved the Communist Academy’s plan as well as additional proposals, including the public display of a bust of Bakunin by the artist VI. Domogatsky, which several members of the Commission intended to assess.3 The Bakunin jubilee also saw the participation o f the surviving anarchists, the most passionate supporters of Bakunin and his legacy, who took advantage of the opportunity to emerge from the underground and express their views, if only in an official, controlled forum. Along with Polonsky, Soviet historians Koz’min and S.I. Mitskevich, the Director of the Museum of the Revolution, the Bakunin Commission 1. PrAJDi, $. 1328, on. 4, ea. 60, a. 1*3. As if fearing that Gusev might question the value of an official celebration o f a revolutionary who had fallen on his knees before the tsar, Polonsky also reminded Gusev in the letter that “now we know that the ‘Confession,’ which shook [Kon^Hyaumft] his revolutionary name, was in fact a risky but conscious attempt to gain his freedom at the cost o f an ostensible repentance.” 2. PrAJDi, $ . 1328, on. 4, ea. 60, a. 4. 3. PrAJDi, 1328, on. 4, ea. 60, a. 5-6. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 342 also included the “Soviet anarchist” Roshchin and the anarcho-syndicalist scholar Lebedev, cited in the previous chapter. While by February of 1926 Roshchin described himself officially as “a dialectical materialist and Leninist” who “in class practice completely and to the fullest extent” accepted the party “path,”4 Lebedev apparently kept his distance from the Bolsheviks and continued to serve as secretary in the Kropotkin Museum, one of the last institutional oases of the anarchists in Soviet Russia.3 In a clear concession to the anarchists, the Bakunin Commission entered a stipulation into the plan for Lebedev and Borovoi to read lectures in honor of Bakunin alongside the Marxist representatives of the Communist Academy.6 A large number of anarchists turned out at one of the first public meetings for the Bakunin jubilee. On July 1, 1926, the Bakunin Commission organized an evening in Bakunin’s honor at the Polytechnical Museum in Moscow with speeches by a number of the Kropotkin Museum staff members, including the anarchists A.A. Solonovich, I.V. Kharkhardin, as well as Sazhin, Figner and S.G. Kropotkina. Grossman’s nemeses Borovoi and Otverzhennyi were also present to deliver lectures, Otverzhennyi on “Bakunin’s 4. rpoccM&H-PoiuHH, H.C. I I h c m m o b peaaKmoo // npaaaa. 1926. N f i 37 (3266), 14 $esp. C. 7. 5. JIe6eaeB, H.K. M yxff n.A . Kpononauia. M.; JI.: Bcepoc. o6mecrB. k o m h t c t no yB C K O B eqeH iao naM jrrH n.A . Kpononauia, 1928. C. 79. The Kropotkin Museum was official established in 1923. Its Honorable Chair was Kropotkin’s widow, S.G. Kropotkina, and its Chair was Vera Figner. It should be noted that the Moscow anarchists were not united, but engaged in a heated battle over the ideological direction o f the Kropotkin museum as an institution. Lebedev appears to have been close to Kropotkina and Figner, while Borovoi and Otverzhennyi seem to have been among their opponents. For a useful review o f the split, see: H h k h t h h , AJI. 3aiuno>tHTenaHNft aran pa3BHnu aHapxHcrcxoft m b ic jih b P o c c h h // Bonpocu $ h j i o c o $ h h . 1991. N a 8 . C. 89-101. 6 . PfAJIH, $. 1328, on. 4, ea. 60, ji. 5-6. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 343 Critics” and Borovoi on “The Worldwide Significance of Bakuninism.”7 With at least five speakers representing the anarchist ranks, as well as the reading of a telegram to the participants from the well-known Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta, the Bakunin anniversary evening at the Polytechnical Museum appears to have been one of the last predominantly “anarchist” events in Soviet Russia. As the Party apparatus increased its pressure against oppositionists, the anarchists were soon driven back underground again, this time together with many Communists who suffered repressions for their alleged factionalism within the Party.8 Amidst increasing intolerance toward opponents of the Party line, the outspoken praise for Bakunin and Bakuninism in Borovoi’s and Otverzhennyi’s replies to Grossman naturally caught the attention of some Marxist readers. In a review entitled “Refutation of a Myth, or an Anarchist ‘Iconography’?” historian G. Zaidel’ noted that the book by Borovoi and Otverzhennyi was “not accidental,” but expressed the same desire as other “epigones of anarchism” like Nettlau and Sandomirsky “to present Bakunin as a ‘great rebel,’ a ‘romantic’ of the Revolution”; to efface the significance of the stain which the ‘Confession’ leaves on the ideal image of Bakunin created by anarchist ‘iconography’”; and also “to take revenge on Marxism” by applying “Bakuninist characteristics” to Leninism.9 Another reviewer of The Myth 7. PrAJIH, 4 > . 1023, on. I, ea. 980, ji. 76. 8 . For a discussion o f communist opposition in 1926, see: Robert V. Daniels, The Conscience o f the Revolution: Communist O pposition in Soviet Russia (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1960) 273-288. 9 .3aAaejik, I* . Onpoaepxetaie hjih aHapxHcrcicaa “HKOiioipa$Hx”? (K aonpocy o couHanbHod npnpoae 6axyHH3Ma) // Iloa 3 H a M C H e M wapicciaMa. 192S. NB 4. C. 18S. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 344 About Bakunin observed in the authors’ attitude toward Bakunin an “element of worship” [npexjioHeHHe] and an unnecessarily “elevated style, M l of affectation” in the essay by Borovoi.1 0 Still another reader criticized the “anarchist impressionism” of Otverzhennyi which became so “muddled in the snares of abstract thought” in its attempt to distinguish Bakuninism from Nechaevshchina.1 1 At the same time, evidence of enthusiasm for the book may have led wary readers to see Borovoi’s and Otverzhennyi’s declarations as a rallying call to the few remaining anarchists. One anarchist, a certain “Lev” from Moscow, managed to publish a positive review of their book in an anarcho-syndicalist newspaper in Chicago, The Toiler’ s Voice [Tojioc Tpy5K eH H K a]. With only a few reservations about the style of the work, “Lev” declared that “the campaign against anarchism” in Russia had clearly failed “in its efforts to degrade the representatives of anarchism,” that neither “Nechaevshchina,” nor Bakunin’s “Confession,” nor Dostoevsky’s “types” proved useful for that purpose. “Lev” hoped that the collection would forever bury the “slander” of Bakunin, and that its appearance foreshadowed a new era of “Bakuniana.”1 2 10. K neB eH C K H fi, M. Pen. H a kh.: EopoBoft, A.A., OraepxeHHuft, HX. Mh$ o BaxyHHH e. M.: To jio c rpyaa, 1925 // Karopra h ccumca. 1925. K h. 17. C. 289. 11. ra M 6 a p o a , A. B c n o p a x o Henaese: (K a o n p o c y 0 6 H CTopinecK oft pea6H iD rraiooi HenaeBa). M.: Mo ck. p a6 o < « fi, 1926. See a ls o n o te 151 in c h a p te r five o f th is d isse rta tio n . 12. JleB. PeneKuu H a Hoaue kuuhh* m ockobckoio umroiaaaTejibCTBa ‘ T o jioc Tpyaa”: A. SopoBoft h H. OraepxeHHuft “Mh« 1 > o E aK yH H H e” // T o jio c TpyxeHHxa (Hi«aro).[Be3 aaru]. A clipping of this review, preserved in Borovoi’s archive in Moscow, seems to lack a date (PTAJIH, $. 1023, on. 1, ea. 156). The review is signed “Lev, Moscow” and dated “August 1925,” which suggests that it appeared in one of the final issues o f that year. This anarchist-oriented Russian language newspaper, published in Chicago between 1918 and 1927, was sponsored by the Industrial Workers of the World and obviously reached Borovoi in Moscow in one way or another. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 345 Borovoi made no effort to conceal his anarchist sympathies. In November 1925, not long after The Myth o f Bakunin appeared, and just before the release of Grossman-Polonsky collection, Borovoi’s views caused a scandal of sorts at an evening held in honor of Sazhin, who remained alive and active in Moscow. According to a report on the evening in Pravda, the celebration was intended to honor Sazhin not as an anarchist, supporter of Bakunin and opponent of Marx, but “mainly as a participant in the Paris Commune.” Nonetheless the event proved “remarkable for its political content”: Following a welcome speech by Comrade Vilensky-Sibiriakov,1 3 the anarchist Borovoi appeared with a speech. With great pathos he spoke of “the supreme art: to live boldly, wisely and with dignity,” of “the breadth of the revolutionary movement,” etc. And at the end of his vague speech Borovoi shouted, “Long live the leader of anarchism!” [/la 3opaBCTByeT boxuq> aHapxH3Ma!]. The moment was tense [3aocrpeH]. And the speakers who followed him, comrades Polonsky, Riazanov1 4 and Lozovsky1 5 spoke from the standpoint of Marxism’s struggle with Bakuninism. Comrade Riazanov added particular animation when he declared jokingly that he was not accustomed to delicate anniversary speeches, that he was more inclined to be abusive, and would devote his word to “re a lly abusing” [oT pyran>] Mikhail Petrovich [Sazhin]. And comrade Riazanov took to “abusing” comrade Sazhin. 13. V.D. Vilensky-Sibiriakov (1888-?) was an organizer and active member o f the Society of Former Political Prisoners [Odmecroo nojrancaTopacaH], as well as the editor of the journal Penal Servitude and Exile [Karopra h ccuraa]. Expelled from the Party in 1936 for suspected political opposition, he was most likely shot in 1937. 14. D.B. Riazanov (Goi'dendakh) (1870-1938) was the head o f the Marx-Engels Institute and one o f the world's leading scholars on the life and work o f Marx. He was shot in 1938. 15. S_A. Lozovsky (Drizdo) (1878-1952) was a Bolshevik and leader o f the Profintem who campaigned against anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism in the trade unions. He was shot in 1952 at the age o f 74. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 346 “A bit nervous,” the reviewer observed, throughout the proceedings Sazhin often “grimaced [Mopran] and smiled, alarmed by the old polemic.” 1 6 By the time Borovoi and Otverzhennyi delivered their speeches in honor of Bakunin at the Polytechnical Museum seven months later, they apparently met the disapproval of many listeners in the audience. In a review of the event in the Evening Moscow [Benepmu MocKBa] newspaper, Borovoi’s “passionate” speech and some polemical attacks by Kharkhardin provoked a number of “protests” from the audience. “Having patiently endured the outbursts [buxoakh] and infantile assertions of the anarchists,” the reviewer noted, “toward the end of the evening the public began to lose its reserves of patience, and old Kropotkina could not finish her speech.” When the public demanded “an open discussion and the right to respond to the anti-Marxist speeches,” the reviewer wrote, the anarchists declined further discussion in light of the late hour.1 7 Within the next two years, like the oppositionists within the Party, the anarchists lost their last remaining opportunities for public expression. After 1926, according to Serge, the last free propaganda by the anarchists disappeared for good.1 8 Although the Bakunin jubilee continued throughout 1926 and into 1927, with more 16. B ojiojxhh, C. X C h b u Jiereaaa: (H ecrBOBam ie to b . Caaauia) // ITpaaaa. 1925. 3 h o » 6 . C. 5. 1 7. H.H. AaapxHCTbi - BaxyHHHy // Beseptuu MocxBa. 1926,2 man*. This newspaper article, signed “H. H.,” is preserved in Borovoi’s archive in Moscow (PrAJIH, < j > . 1023, on. 1, ea. 156, a. 70), but without its original page number. 18. Victor Serge, Memoirs o f a Revolutionary, 1901-1941, trans., ed. Peter Sedgwick (London: Oxford, 1963) 223. Avrich believed that “Fishelev” was in fact the anarcho-syndicalist Raevsky, who was eventually released and died o f heart failure at his writing desk in Moscow in 1931. See: Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967) 244. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 347 publications and an exhibition devoted to Bakunin at the Kropotkin Museum,1 9 by 1928, the year in which Grossman's essays on Bakunin from the debate appeared in his Collected Works, neither Borovoi nor Otverzhennyi were able to publicize their anarchist views on the merits of Bakuninism. In light of the fate of the anarchists, it remains difficult to account for Grossman's ostensible failure, as late as 1928, to understand the ‘ "unprecedented storm of objections” to his analogy between Stavrogin and Bakunin. Reviewing the debate of the previous five years for a third edition of his articles, Grossman recalled that the majority of his opponents all believed that his thesis was “founded on absolutely nothing,” that it was “the fruit of unbridled fantasy” and “a hopeless chain of empty and harmful conjectures.” To be sure, Grossman’s defense is understandable in a sense. Regardless of any weakness in Grossman’s conclusions, Polonsky could not prove conclusively, of course, that there were no grounds for “any link whatsoever” between Stavrogin and Bakunin, just as Borovoi could not prove that “ Besy could have been written and was written without Bakunin.”2 0 While his opponents successfully refuted many of his examples for Dostoevsky’s knowledge about Bakunin, and exposed a number of inconsistencies in Grossman’s twenty specific similarities 19. A review o f the exhibition appeared in: K yn, A. Ha BucraaKe M.A. B axyH H H a // Benepinu MocxBa. 1927.21 hob6. One o f the final publications by Borovoi was the essay on Bakunin, cited in chapter five, from the collection of writings by anarchists, To M ikhail Bakunin: MHxawiy EaxyH H H y, 1876-1926: O tepni no HcropHH aHapxmecKoro abhxchhx b Pocchh / rioa. pea. A. Boposoro. M.: Tojioc tpyaa, 1926. 20. EopoBoft, A.A. BaxyHHH b “Eecax” // Eoposoft, A.A., OTBepxemiufl, H.T. M m f> o EaKymme. M„ 1925. C. 144. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 348 between the fictional Stavrogin and the historical Bakunin, nonetheless Grossman produced convincing evidence that Bakunin occupied a conspicuous place in the materials on the Nechaev affair which Dostoevsky studied for the novel, and also that certain aspects of Bakunin’s thought, particularly his militant atheism and his predilection for destruction, very likely provided a model for specific stages or dimensions of Stavrogin’s outlook. Therefore had Grossman sought merely to establish the very possibility of a link, or to demonstrate that some evidence for an analogy between Stavrogin and Bakunin did, in fact, exist, then he would have been correct to insist that his “historical-literary experiment” of 1923 “did not at all deserve the passionate and sharp criticism” which it provoked.2 1 As his opponents recognized, however, there were glaring contradictions in Grossman’s original premise that Stavrogin represented a “portrait” of Bakunin, one which Dostoevsky “conceived” nearly two-and-a-half years before he began drafts of Besy, one in which only a limited number of similarities remained visible and, finally, which also preserved characteristics of other prototypes like Speshnev. As this dissertation has attempted to demonstrate, moreover, for all their disagreement over the guidelines for prototypes, over the issue of Dostoevsky’s ability to “study” Bakunin and over the nature of Stavrogin’s relationship to the “pamphlet” in Besy, Grossman seemed to overlook—or to ignore—that his main opponents, Polonsky, Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, above all 21. TpoccMaH, Jl.n. B a ic y H H H h AocToeacKHft: [ripeaHCJi.] // TpoccMaH, JIJI. Co6paHHe c o H H H C H H ft: B 5 t . T. 2. Bun. 2: AocroeBCKHfi. nyr&, nomnca, TBopiecno. M.: CospeMeHHue npo&ieMu, 1928. C. 214,215,217. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 349 sought to dispel the “myths” and “legends” about Bakunin which Grossman’s analogy threatened to resurrect. In his final attempt to justify his investigation, Grossman cited a positive review of his thesis which, in fact, also provided a perfect example of the kind of simplistic identification between Stavrogin and Bakunin his opponents feared. Having “objectively” characterized his collection of exchanges with Polonsky, Grossman emphasized, the authors of the review “concluded that ‘Nikolai Stavrogin and Mikhail Bakunin henceforth and forever will remain doubles.’”2 3 Determined to pursue his case further, Grossman included three of his four essays in a volume of his Collected Works with the presumption, he wrote, that “the time has come for a completely calm discussion” of his theme.2 3 Soon after 1928, however, Grossman lost his most active discussants, and with their departures the original debate lost its final opportunity for revival. In 1929 Borovoi and Otverzhennyi were both arrested, along with nearly all the remaining anarchists in Moscow. According to a report by an anarchist relief organization, Otverzhennyi was exiled to Kazakhstan.2 4 Borovoi was exiled to Viatka, then to Vladimir three years later, where 22. TpoccMaH, JI.IT. E aicy H H H h AocToeacicHfi: [TIpeaHcn.] // TpoccMax, JI.I1. Codpame c o H H H e H H ii: B 5 t . T. 2. Bun. 2: AocToeBcmft. (Tyro, norrmca, TBopiecrao. M.: CoB pcM eH H ue npoGjieuu, 1928. C. 217. The review Grossman quotes is: “Bakunin und Stavrogin,” Prager Presse 27 November 1926:6. The passage cited here, which concludes the review, reads: “[...es ist wohl anzunehmen, dafi] Nicolaj Stavrogin und Michail Bakunin von nun an ewige Doppelgfinger bleiben werden.” 23. TpoccMaH, JI.IX E aicy H H H h AocroeBcnifi: jTIpeoHCJi.] II TpoccMaH, Jl.IL Co6pairae cokhhchhA: B 5 1 . T. 2. Bun. 2: JZocroeacKHfi. riyrs, norrrmca, TBopnecTBo. M.: CoapeMeiiHue npo&ieMU, 1928. C. 217. 24. G.P. Maximoff, The G uillotine a t Work: Twenty Years o f Terror in Russia, Data and Documents (Chicago: Alexander Berkman Fund, 1940) 592. The original source of the report on Otvcrzhennyi’s exile was The Bulletin o fth e R elief Fund o fth e International Working M en's Association fo r Anarchists and Anarcho-Syndicalists Im prisoned or Exiled in Russia (Berlin-Paris, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 350 he died in 1935.2 5 Meanwhile, although Polonsky managed to publish another edition of his contributions to the debate, together with the sketch of Bakunin described in the previous chapter,2 6 his publications on Bakunin dropped off sharply, in part, perhaps, because of a serious conflict with Riazanov over the latter’s attempt to discredit one of Polonsky’s books of materials about Bakunin, and undoubtedly in part because of Polonsky’s preoccupation with the struggle to combat the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers [PA1111], who attacked Polonsky mercilessly for his support of ‘‘fellow travelers.”2 7 Polonsky was a stalwart fighter on the literary front, but his days were numbered. Having been removed from the editorial staff of Press and Revolution in February 1929, Polonsky was then expelled from the editorial board of the journal New World [H o bmR vmp] near the end of 1931. During a trip to Magnitogorsk, where he was sent on a journalistic assignment in February 1932, Polonsky contracted typhus and died at the age of forty six.2 ' 1929). 25. PrAJIH, 4 > . 1023 (6Horp. cttpaBxa k oiihcxm $om a A A . Eoposoro). Borovoi worked from 1922 to 1929 within the Moscow Goods Exchange [Mocxoscxaa ToaapHax friipaca]. One of the last references to the “Uttdrateur-anarchist” Borovoi in official Soviet literature appeared in a short article in the first edition of the Large Soviet Encyclopedia-. EopoBofi, Aaexcefi AnexceeBiPi: [Enorp. cnpaaxa] // Sojtbiuaa CoBercxaa OHUHxnoneiuu. T. 7. M.: C o b . 3HUHxnoneoHa, 1927. C. 171-172. Otverzhennyi’s fate is less certain. As late as 1927 he delivered a lecture at the State Academy of Artistic Sciences [TAXH] (PTAJIH, < t > . 941, on. 2, ea. 18) and there remains evidence o f his correspondence with Borovoi (PTAJIH, $. 1023, on. 1, ea. 299). 26. Polonsky’s three essays, along with the sketch o f Bakunin, appeared in: nojiOHCKHtt, B JI. JbrrepaTypa h o6m ecno: C6. c r . M.: Qeaepam u, 1929. C. 152-306. 27. Polonsky first described his conflict with Riazanov publicly in: riojiO H CK H fl, B.II. 3aM encH acypHanncra: O jnrreparypHux Hpasax h jnrreparypHOii 6e3HpaBCTBeHHOcrH // H3bccth* BLfHK. 1928.16 o k t . C. 5. Riazanov’s defense appeared in: Px3aaoB, JI.5. O n e r Ha “OrxpuToe mtcuro” B. IIojiO H C K oro // JlerotmcH MapxcKuia. 1928. Kh. 7/8. C. 135-156. 28. To my knowledge the most recent sketch o f Polonsky’s biography, which deserves a full study, belongs to V.V. Eidinova, who edited a collection o f Polonsky’s essays in 1988. See: 3ftnHHOBa, B.B. O B necnase IIo jio h c k o m : [Bcryn. cr.] // IIonoHCKHii, B JI. O airreparype: Ha6p. pa6ont. M., 1988. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 351 As indicated in chapter one of this dissertation, Grossman continued to maintain that Bakunin represented the main prototype for Stavrogin well into the 1930s, and apparently to the end of his long career, but his only known attempt during the Stalin period to reiterate his analogy between Stavrogin and Bakunin ended in failure. Following the death of Polonsky and the silencing of Borovoi and Otverzhennyi, Grossman next repeated his claim that Stavrogin “was copied mainly from Bakunin” in a long introductory article intended for a separate publication of Besy by the “Academia” publishing house in 1935. Together with at least three other major collections of material relevant to Besy, including the full edition of Dostoevsky’s Notebooks, cited in chapter one, as well as Grossman’s own monumental chronicle of events in the life and work of Dostoevsky,2 9 the new edition of Besy promised to encourage more studies of the novel, and might possibly have renewed discussions of Grossman’s thesis. The mere announcement of Academia’s plans to publish the new edition, however, generated an immediate protest in Pravda from journalist D.I. Zaslavsky, who attacked Academia for its “deceitful recommendation [of Besy] as a great work of art” and reminded readers of Gorky’s C. 3-28. 29. TpoccMaH, JI.n. X C H 3 H b h Tpy.au Q.M. AocroeBcicoro: EHorpa^in b oarax h aoicyMeHTax. M.; JI.: Academia, 1935. Grossman’s chronological collection o f biographical material provided much of the foundation for the indispensable Chronicle o f Dostoevsky’s life which appeared between 1993 and 1995 (JleronHCfc xhshh h Taopiecraa d>.M. Aocroeacicoro 1821-1881: B 3 t . / Coer. Jbcy6oain, T.H. OpHarocaa. CII6.: AxaaeM. npoeirr, 1993-1995). In addition to the Notebooks, the year 1935 also saw the collection: O.M. Aocroeaciaifi. MarepHanu h HccjieaoBatnu / Iloa. pea. A.C. AanHmma. JI.: AH CCCP, 1935. This collection included the original plan for the chapter which would have followed “At Tikhon’s,” and which was altered after the letter’s removal. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 352 protests against the staging of Besy not long before the revolution of 1917.3 0 Gorky himself responded to Zaslavsky’s article, but not in order to support him. Declaring Besy, together with The Brothers Karamazov, to be Dostoevsky’s “most successful novel,’’ Gorky insisted that Besy should not be outlawed, as Zaslavsky’s article suggested to him, which would only make it more desirable for unprepared young readers, but rather should be studied closely.3 1 Whether or not the exchange between Zaslavsky and Gorky played a role is difficult to establish, but for whatever the reason, the new edition of Besy, ready for publication by January of 1935, never appeared.3 2 Grossman managed to survive the Stalin period. While teaching at the Moscow City Pedagogical Institute,3 3 he also continued to study and publish on other classics of Russian literature like Pushkin, Lermontov and Belinsky; however, between 1936 and 1956, when official attitudes toward Dostoevsky among the makers of literary policy 3 0 .3acnaB C K H ft, R.H. 3aMencH <nrraTenx: JlHTepaiypHax rHHiib // ITpuaa. 193S. N a 20 (6266), 20 x h b . C. 4. 31. Topbiaifi, M. 3aMencH mrrareju: 0 6 H 3 A B H H H poMaHa “Becu” // ripaajia. 193S. Na 23 (6269), 24 x h b . C. 6. Zaslavsky responded to Gorky in: 3acjiaB C K H & , 3 a M e n n mnarenx: n o noBoay 3aM enaHHfi A.M. Topbicoro // ripaaaa. 1935. N a 24 (6270), 25 x h b . C. 6. 32. A copy o f the first volume, which includes Grossman’s essay as well as “Stavrogin’s Confession,” is preserved in the Book Museum of the Russian State Museum (formerly the Lenin library): AocroeBCKHfi, Eecu. T. 1 / Pen., Bcryn. cr. h k o m m c h t. Jl.n. TpoccMana; npenHCJi. n .n . napamooBa. M.; JI.: Academia, 1935. According to its publication data, volume one was approved for printing [noaiiHcaHo b neiaTb] on December 20,1934 in a press run of 5300 copies, but to my knowledge it has never been established just how many more copies of the first volume were actually printed. The second volume apparently did not appear at all. The interruption of this project was most likely the result o f repressions, including the arrest o f L.B. Kamenev (Rozenfel’d), director of the Academia publishing house, which followed the assassination o f S.M. Kirov in December o f 1934. 33. Anexcees, M.II. Jl.n . TpoccMaH: [Hexponor] // B peM eH H H K nymxHHCXoft k o m h c c h h , 1964. JI.: Hayxa, 1967. C. 64. Grossman worked at the Pedagogical Institute from 1940 to 1959. A sample list of his publications during this period is included in: B c jih h k o b , A.B. TpoccMaH, Jleomui flerpoBHn: [Enorp. cnpasxa] II Kparrxax jnneparypHax sHUHKnonennx. T. 2. M.: C o b . 3HUHKJioneiuu, 1964. C. 399-400. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 353 in the Soviet Union remained predominantly negative, Grossman published little of relevance to Besy. While some scholars continued to praise Dostoevsky as an artist, most endorsed the line expressed by Zaslavsky, according to which readers should be discouraged from even reading anti-revolutionary novels like Besy. Editions of Dostoevsky’s works became scarce, and Besy became virtually an underground novel. After a brief and incomplete “rehabilitation” of Dostoevsky during the war years, when the literary apparatus discovered value in Dostoevsky’s expression of hostility toward Germans, Dostoevsky’s official reputation plummeted suddenly in 1946 with the onset of “Zhdanovshchina” and remained very low for another ten years. Only the grand rehabilitation of Dostoevsky in 1956 made it possible for Grossman to publish his popular biography of the writer for the “Lives of Outstanding People” series in 1962, cited earlier in this dissertation. Appearing in the favorable atmosphere of yet another Dostoevsky jubilee, which resulted in an unprecedented wave of publications, exhibitions, lectures, films and theatrical productions,3 4 as well as the inclusion of Besy in a new edition of Dostoevsky’s works,3 5 Grossman’s biography attracted great interest as “the first attempt in Soviet scholarship to present a study of Dostoevsky’s 34. For a useful review of Dostoevsky scholarship during the Stalin period and the “rehabilitation” of Dostoevsky in 1956, see: Vladimir Seduro, D ostoevsky in Russian Literary Criticism, 1846-1956 (New York: Columbia UP, 1957) 233-345. A A Zhdanov (1896-1948) was secretary o f the Party Central Committee in 1946 when a campaign for greater ideological conformity began. 35. Besy appeared in 1957 as volume seven o f the collection, which Grossman co-edited: Aocroeacnift, CodpaHHe comraeHHfi: B 10 t . T. 7: Becu / n o n . 0 6 m. pen. JIJI. TpoccMaiia, A.C. AamiHHHa, B.B. EpMwioaa, B JL KnpnoTHHa, B.C. Ffeueaoft, B.C. Pmpmcoaa. M.: Xyaone. jm r., 1957. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 354 life on such a broad scale”3 6 and as “a genuine biography, essentially the first biography of Dostoevsky worthy of that title.”3 7 The biography of 1962 afforded Grossman a final opportunity to withdraw his Stavrogin-Bakunin analogy in accordance with the demands of his opponents of the 1920s; but although he revised some of his least supportable claims, as described earlier, Grossman continued to argue that at the “foundation” of Stavrogin’s prototype stood Bakunin.3 1 Thus forty years of meticulous study of the author’s life, which had placed Grossman among the world’s leading scholars of Dostoevsky, had not essentially changed his thesis of 1923, and it appears that he maintained his conviction until his death in 1965 at the age of seventy-seven. Grossman’s discussion of Bakunin and Nechaev as prototypes in 1962 did not revive the polemic of the 1920s, but to some degree it may have helped to inspire a new strategy for the rehabiliation of Besy, one which no longer required, as throughout most of the Stalin period, that commentators emphasize its ideological shortcomings. In 1965, the same year in which a second edition of Grossman’s biography appeared, the journal Russian Literature published a “letter” proposing a means by which Besy might win a “fitting place in the ranks of great works of classical Russian literature.” In an effort “to raise the question of Besy's ideological significance for discussion,” the author of the letter, V. Rozenblat, declared that Besy is “not so much anti 36. <t>piianeaaep, r.M . Hosue khhth o Aoctocbckom // Pycciau jnrreparypa. 1964. Na 2. C. 179. 37. Okc m b b, KDT. Eaorpa^m AocroeacKoro // Bonpocu jnrreparypu. 1964. N a 4. C. 200. 38. TpoccMaH, Jl.n. Aocroeacni&. M.: Mononax nupm u, 1962. C. 4S0. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 355 revolutionary,” as traditionally understood, “as anti-anarchist” [aHTHaHapxHHecKoe]. Acknowledging that Dostoevsky’s “conception” was certainly “reactionary,” Rozenblat emphasized that the final product of his conception was not, insofar as “the pamphlet against the anarchists” in Besy, in retrospect, became its “brightest” element. While the novel failed “to discredit” the revolutionary movement as a whole, as Dostoevsky intended, Besy truly succeeded “as a grotesque representation of the Bakuninists” and “all the points of the anarchists’ program compiled by Bakunin,” down to “the recruitment of criminal elements.” If the pamphlet’s tendentious remarks about socialism and the International remain weak and unconvincing, Rozenblat argued, then its condemnation of the “Bakunin-Nechaev tendency of anarchism,” like the criticism by Marx and Engels, proved to be strong and enduring, and therefore of great value to the contemporary reader. Addressing specialists in the field, he recommended that the “anti-anarchist” component of Besy should be explained to readers, that introductions and commentary [to Besy] should “place an accent not on the reactionary nature of its conception,” which Dostoevsky did not manage to realize, but on “the essence of the work: its criticism of anarchism and political adventurists in the revolutionary movement.” In order to demonstrate the real significance of Dostoevsky’s critique, Rozenblat advised, commentaries should help readers not to mistake anarchists for “genuine revolutionaries,” and detail should be given to “the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 356 harm which anarchism caused to the victory of the Socialist revolution.”3 9 In effect, then, Rozenblat formulated precisely the kind of approach to Besy which Grossman’s opponents Borovoi and Otverzhennyi had discouraged. While scholarship in Russia since Grossman’s death has generally rejected his identification between Stavrogin and Bakunin, as described in the early chapters of this dissertation, nonetheless Rozenblat’s proposal, which to some degree may have followed from Grossman’s attempt to place Bakunin and anarchism at the center of Dostoevsky’s critique, was successfully adopted and integrated into the official line on Dostoevsky between the 1970s and the “Perestroika” period. In the preface to the fullest and most authoritative edition of Besy ever published, the Academy’s edition of 1975, the commentators emphasized that Dostoevsky’s ‘ ‘ warning novel” [poMaH- npenocrepeaceHHe] remains important as a work which helps the modem reader ...to understand better the many phenomena of social collapse that characterize the imperialist epoch, and helps in our own time to draw a dividing line between scientific socialism and the various forms of petit-bourgeois anarchist ideas and moods, be they openly reactionary or pseudo-revolutionary, whose social and ideological nature is deeply hostile to the ethics of the socialist movement, to the humanist principles and ideals of Soviet society. Criticizing the “reactionary critics and publicists” who “without support attempted (and still attempt) to treat the novel as a pamphlet against the Russian revolution,” and thereby by means of a “false and one-sided interpretation” of the novel “hindered a deeper understanding” of Besy, the commentators pointed out that 39. PcraeH&iar, B. K nepecMorpy Heicaropux jnrreparypHUx ueimocTeft: (06 o t h o ih c h h h k poMany “Been”) // Pyccuu jnrrepnypa. 196S. N * 3. C. 253-255. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 357 none other than Marx and Engels had also condemned the “adventurist” ideas and tendencies that led to the Nechaev affair, the event which helped them to expose the “splitting activity” of Bakunin in the First International and to break decisively with the anarchists. With much less emphasis on Dostoevsky’s “skeptical” critique of socialism and the revolutionary movement in Russia, which “history has disproved,” the authors of the commentary to Besy in effect managed to exonerate Besy by suggesting that Dostoevsky shared the same view of Bakuninism as Marx and Engels.4 0 Had Grossman’s anarchist opponents lived to read it, there is little doubt they would have challenged the Academy’s approach to Besy, but the conditions that allowed for a defense of Bakunin during the early 1920s changed dramatically over the next five decades. Unlike Dostoevsky, whose works were finally published in full by the Academy of Sciences, the Party continued its war on Bakunin and the Russian anarchists even after the rehabilitation of Dostoevsky. While a few researchers managed to publish impartial studies of Bakunin,4 1 the official line on Bakunin remained predominantly negative well into the 1980s. Since 1939, when E.M. Iaroslavsky characterized Bakunin as little more than an anti-Semite who was drawn to revolutionary activity above all by ideas of destruction and “devastation,” and who 40. A o cT o eB C K H ft, riojiHoc coO paH H e comuieHHfi: B 30 t. T. 12: Eecu. PyxomiCHue p eaaK U H H . Hafipocni, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayica, 197S. C. 13S, 196,276. 41. For example, scholar N.M. Pirumova (1923-1997), honored in a recent collection of materials about Bakunin (see note 54, below), published a number o f serious studies of Bakunin as early as the 1960s, notably: IlHpyMoaa, H.M. Muxattn E aicyH H H : 3Kh3h& h aearenuiocrb. M.: Hayica, 1966; and: riHpyMoaa, H.M. E aicyH H H . M.: Mojioaaa nap am , 1970. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 358 “saw a prepared revolutionary in any criminal,’'4 2 Bakunin’s anarchist works and ideas endured greater suppression than Besy itself. With the exception of four volumes of his early letters,4 3 none of Bakunin’s works were reprinted during the Stalin period, and only small fragments of his anarchist writings appeared during the 1960s and 1970s.4 4 An anathema also remained on the Russian anarchists of the revolutionary period, none of whose works or ideas received mention, for example, in a long article on “Anarchism” in the Large Soviet Encyclopedia of 1950, and whose activity received the most superficial consideration by Party historians in the 1960s and 1970s, mainly in order to remind readers of the anarchists’ complete “collapse” [icpax] after the October revolution.4 3 Even when the official line allowed for more than narrow, formulaic denunciations of Bakunin and the anarchists, publications by and about them remained very limited. The obstacles impeding a closer study of Bakuninism in Russia began to disappear only with the onset of “glasnost”’ during the 1980s. By 1987 the first substantial collection of Bakunin’s writings since the 1930s appeared in Russia, 42. ApocjiaacKHfi, E.M. AHapxiow b Pocchh: (Kax Hcropiu pa3penutna cnop we*ay aH apxH C T aM H H K O M M y H H C T B M H B p y C C K O fi peB O JnO U H H ). M.: ricW lH T . H 33-B O , 1939. C. 13-14, 20. 43. The four volumes of letters and early writings appeared in: E aicyH H H , M.A. Co6paHHe cotHHeiutfi h nMceM, 1828-1876: T. 1-4 / Pea. R npHMen. K D .M . CreuiOBa. M.: Bcecoicu. o6iq-bo noiiHT. xaTopacaH h ccum>Honoce.ieHueB, 1934-1935. Only four volumes o f this projected twelve- volume collection, covering the years 1828-1861, were ever published. Its editor, Steklov, cited earlier in this study, was arrested in 1937 and shot in 1941. 44. A thorough bibliography o f Russian publications by and about Bakunin is included in: EpMaxos, B J f PoccHficuifi aHspxH 3M h afupXHcm (bt. noji. XEX - koh. XX b.). CI16.: Hecrop, 1996. C. 219-252. 45. KaHes, C.H. OimOpscicaa peBojnouiu h icpax aHapxH3Ma: (Eopafia napmra OonsmeBincoB npoT H B aHapxnma, 1917-1922). M.: Mucus, 1974. C. 375. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 359 followed by another collection which included the most important works of his anarchist period.4 6 By 1989, moreover, signs of open dissatisfaction with the traditional approach to Bakunin became evident in scholarly literature. An unambiguously negative review of a work by a prolific Party historian of the anarchist movement, S.N. Kanev, reflected the change in historiography. In an article for the journal Issues o f History [Bonpocu hctophh], historians A.K. Isaev and D.I. Oleinikov criticized Kanev’s study of anarchism and revolution for treating anarchism as a “comedy of errors...without a single positive characteristic,” and for defining anarchism as ‘“the most evil enemy’” [ajieftmHtt Bpar] of the revolution,”’ “more evil,” it followed, “than monarchy.” Noting that Kanev ignored Lenin’s statement of the need to assimilate “the best” in anarchism, Isaev and Oleinikov lamented that “the most important factual information for an understanding of Lenin’s attitude toward anarchism and the anarchists is often neglected or simply omitted.” One principal goal of Kanev’s study, according to the reviewers, was to disassociate Bakunin from the ranks of “revolutionary democracy” of the nineteenth century because he persuaded young Russian revolutionaries to adopt the “conspiratorial” and “terrorist” revolutionary tactics of “Nechaevshchina”; however, Bakunin’s attitude toward terrorism was “guarded,” they insisted, and the Nechaev incident prompted Bakunin “to reconsider seriously the problem o f ‘conspiratorial politics’” [3aroBopmHHecrBo]. 46. E aicyH H H , M.A. H36pamiue $HJioco$CKHe cohhhchiu h m icuia / Bcryn. cr. B.Q. nycrapHaKoaa. M.: M ucnt, 1987; E aicy H H H , NLA. Qhjioco$hm, couHononu, nojiH T H K a / Bcryn. c t., coct., noaroT. -raccra h npmieq. B .< t> . nycrapHaKoaa. M.: [ipaaoa, 1989. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 360 Kanev’s conclusion that “Bakuninism exerted a pernicious influence” on the revolutionary movement in Russia, therefore, was “unfounded,” and it was “pointless,” they argued, “to make an enemy of revolutionary democracy out of the revolutionary democrat and socialist Bakunin.” In a noteworthy conclusion, strikingly reminiscent of the defense of Bakunin which provided the context for the debate over Grossman’s thesis in the 1920s, Isaev and Oleinikov declared: Bakuninism needs a serious, critical study, and deserves to be examined as one of the currents of socialist thought. As with any ideology, Bakuninism had its strong and weak sides, its flights [B an eru ] and its tragic mistakes. Of indisputable interest is the question of the ideological struggle between Bakunin and the founders of Marxism. [...] His criticism of 'state socialism’ is of extraordinary interest and requires research. Much in his critique is far fetched, but many potential flaws of the socialist state, predicted by Bakunin, unfortunately appeared in the practice of real socialism. Therefore a problem does in fact exist, and it demands resolution. Kanev’s book, however, did not bring us one step closer to resolving it”4 7 The disintegration of the Party apparatus finally provided long-awaited opportunities for scholars and readers to study not only the history of the revolution, of course, but also formerly sensitive works like Besy, in complete defiance of the traditional line. Whereas the Academy’s edition treated Besy exclusively as a critique of political tendencies like “Nechaevshchina,” which caused a “sad deviation from the ethical norms” of the revolution,4 8 by the end of the 1980s the novel was described as a 47. HcaeB, A X , OjieftmncoB, A.H. E aicyH H 3M HynuaeTC* b 6ojiee cepbe3H O M royneHHH // Bonpocu HcropHH. 1989. N a 2. C. 119, 121, 122, 125, 126. The subject o f the review is: K aH eB , C.H. PeBomoom h aiiapxHa: H3 ac-ropm 6opb6u pesajnouHOHHux aeMOKparoB h 6oju>m eB H K O B nporm aHapxrowa (1840-1917). M.: Much*, 1987. 48. A o c r o e a c i a i f t , <p.M. riojraoe co6p«HHe c o H H H C H H fi: B 30 t . T. 12: Eecu. PyxonHCiaie peaaiaiHH. Ha6pocKH, 1870-1872. JI.: Hayica, 1975. C. 196. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 361 “warning novel” [poMaH-npeaynpeacneHHe]4 9 against the Bolshevik revolution itself, and the “retrograde scholars of the Zaslavsky-Ermilov5 0 school” were criticized openly for failing to recognize at whom “Dostoevsky pointed his finger” in Besy.5 1 With the final collapse of the Soviet Union, Besy became firmly established as a “prophetic novel”5 2 and one of Dostoevsky’s greatest works. The new status of Besy in turn encouraged a sudden deluge of new editions of the novel. Between 1989 and 1994, the Russian National Library in Leningrad (St. Petersburg) received at least sixteen different editions of Besy, published from all corners of Russia, and with a combined press run of over two million copies of the novel.5 3 By the middle of the 1990s, Besy may well have become Dostoevsky’s most popular work in Russia. The beginning of the twenty-first century thus finds conditions riper than ever for a serious and open investigation of the issues that formed the background for the debate over Grossman’s thesis in the 1920s. With a constant flow of recent studies about both Bakunin and Dostoevsky,5 4 as well as the availability of a wealth of new 49. For example, in: CapacKHHa, JI.H. “Eecu”: PouaH-npeaynpeautemie. M.: Cob. imcarenb, 1990. 50. Saraskina refers to D.I. Zaslavsky, mentioned above, and V.V. Ermilov, a Party critic who during the years of “Zhdanovshchina,” together with Zaslavsky, led attacks on Dostoevsky as a reactionary writer. 51. CapacKHHa, JI.H. B roprante npeoaojiemu: K BoenpHmno “Eecos” b 20-e ro.au // Oirra6pb. 1989. N « U .C . 197. 52. For example, in: TytaMaHOB, B.A. npoponecicHfi pouaH Q.M. JJocToeBCKoro: [TlocJiecn.] // A ocroeB C K H fi, Eecu. Cri6.: Ataueu. npoeirr, 1994. C. 663-669. 53. The data is derived from a catalog at the Pushkin House library in S t Petersburg, Russia. As of 199S, the holdings did not include at least one other Russian edition of Besy o f 1994, and possibly more. 54. Scholars L.I. Saraskina and IX. Volgin, for example, continue to publish prolifically on Dostoevsky. The year 2000 saw two valuable publications pertaining to Bakunin, a collection of his writings (B ax y H H H , M A. Aaapxwi h nopaaox: Cotohchh* / Coer. M.A. Tmio^eeB. M.: 3KCMO- ripecc, 2000), and a collection o f studies by Russian historians: nausTH M A. SaxyHHHa: [C6. cr.]. M.: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 362 archival material concerning anarchism and other relatively unknown ideas and movements of the revolutionary period, scholars in Russia finally enjoy a golden opportunity to reconstruct the rich and complex political culture of the early Soviet period. The author of this study looks forward to more studies that will help to illuminate the significance of the “Debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky’' in the early Soviet period. Hh-T 3 K O H O M H K H PAH, 2000. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 363 Works Cited Avrich, Paul. The Russian Anarchists. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967. —. Russian Rebels, 1600-1800. New York: Schocken, 1972. Axelrod [Aksel’rod], Pavel. “Speech at the International Socialist Conference at Bern.” The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution. Ed. Abraham Ascher. Trans. Paul Stevenson. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976. 127-30. Bakounine, Michel [Bakunin, Mikhail]. CEuvres. Paris: P. V. Stock, 1895-1913. Bakunin, Mikhail. Bakunin on Anarchy. Selected Works by the Activist-Founder o f World Anarchism. Ed., trans. Sam Dolgoff. New York: Vintage, 1972. —. The Confession o f Mikhail Bakunin, with the Marginal Comments o f Tsar Nicholas I. Trans. Robert C. Howes, ed. Lawrence D. Orton. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1977. 11-28. —. Statism and Anarchy. Trans., ed. Marshall S. Shatz. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1990. “Bakunin und Stavrogin.” Prager Presse 27 Nov. 1926: 6. Bowlt, John E. “A Monument to Bakunin: Korolev's Cubo-Futurist Statue of 1919.”Canadian-American Slavic Studies 10.4 (1976): 577-590. Call, Paul. Vasily Kelsiev: an Encounter between the Russian Revolutionaries and Old Believers. Belmont: Nordland, 1979. Carr, Edward Hallett. “The League of Peace and Freedom: An Episode in the Quest for Collective Security.” International Affairs 14 (1935): 837-44. —. Michael Bakunin. London: Macmillan, 1937. Catteau, Jacques. “Bakounine et DostoTevski.” Bakounine: Combats et Debats. Paris: Institut d’etudes slaves, 1979. 97-105. —. Dostoevsky and the Process o f Literary Creation. Trans. Audrey Littlewood. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 364 Cochrane, Stephen T. The Collaboration o f Nechaev, Ogarev and Bakunin in 1869: Nechaev’ s Early Years. Giessen: Wilhelm Schmitz Verlag, 1977. Cole, G. D. H. The Forerunners, 1789-1850. Vol. 1 o f A History o f Socialist Thought. 5 vols. New York: St. Martin’s, 1967. —. Marxism and Anarchism, 1850-1890. Vol. 2 of A History o f Socialist Thought. 5 vols. New York: St. Martin’s, 1969. Confino, Michael, ed. Daughter o f a Revolutionary. Natalie Herzen and the Bakunin- Nechayev Circle. Trans. Hilary Sternberg and Lydia Bott. LaSalle: Library Pr., 1973. Correspondance de Michel Bakounine. Lettres a Herzen et a O gareff (1860-1874). Publiees avec preface et annotations par Michel Dragomanov. Traduction de Marie Stromberg. Paris: Librarie Academique Didier, 1896. Daniels, Robert Vincent. The Conscience o f the Revolution: Communist Opposition in Soviet Russia. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1960. Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Demons. A Novel in Three Parts. Trans. Richard Pevear, Larissa Volkhonsky. New York: Knopf, 1984. —. Devils. A Novel in Three Parts. Trans. Michael Katz. New York: Oxford UP, 1992. —. The Devils (The Possessed). Trans. David Magarshack. New York: Penguin, 1971. —. The Notebooks fo r The Possessed. Ed. Edward Wasiolek. Trans. Victor Terras. Chicago: U Chicago P, 1968. —. The Possessed. Trans. Andrew R. Mac Andrew. New York: New American Library, 1962. —. The Possessed. A Novel in Three Parts. Trans. Constance Garnett. 2 vols. New York: Dutton, 1931. Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865-1871. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1995. —. Dostoevsky: The Seeds o f Revolt, 1821-1849. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1976. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 365 —. Dostoevsky: The Stir o f Liberation, 1860-1865. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986. Ginzburg, Lydia. “Bakunin, Stankevich and the Crisis of Romanticism.'’ Lydia Ginzburg. On Psychological Prose. Trans., ed. Judson Rosengrandt. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991. 27-57. Goldman, Emma. Living My Life. New York: Garden City, 1934. Haimson, Leopold, ed. The Mensheviks. From the Revolution o f 1917 to the Second World War. Trans. Gertrude Vakar. Chicago: U Chicago P, 1974. Howe, Irving. Politics and the Novel. 2nd ed. New York: Meridian, 1987. Kelly, Aileen. Mikhail Bakunin: A Study in the Psychology and Politics o f Utopianism. New Haven: Yale UP, 1987. Kropotkin, Peter. Memoirs o f a Revolutionist. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1899. L’ Alliance de la democratic socialiste et l’associadon intemationale des travailleurs. Rapports et documents, publies par ordre du Congres international de la Haye. Londres-Hambourg, n. p., 1873. Lampert, Evgenii. Studies in Rebellion. New York: Praeger, 1957. Laveleye, Emile de. The Socialism o f Today. Trans. G. H. Orpen. London: Field and Tuer, 1885. Lehning, Arthur. “Necrology of Max Nettlau.” From Buonarotti to Bakunin. Studies in International Socialism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970. 16-20. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Collected Works. Vol. 23. New York: International Publishers, 1988. Maximoff, G.P. The Guillotine at Work: Twenty Years o f Terror in Russia, Data and Documents. Chicago: Alexander Berkman Fund, 1940. McClellan, Woodford. Revolutionary Exiles: The Russians in the First International and the Paris Commune. London: Frank Cass, 1979. Mehring, Franz. Karl Marx. The Story o f His Life. Trans. Edward Fitzgerald. New York: Covici & Friede, 1935. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 366 Meijer, Jan M. Knowledge and Revolution: The Russian Colony in Zurich (1870- 1873). Assen: Van Gorcum & Co., 1955. Moser, Charles A. “Svidrigailov and Stavrogin.” Forum International 3 (1980): 88-98. Nettlau, Max. “Bakunin’s ‘Confession’ to Tsar Nicholas I,” Freedom 36 (May 1922): 28-29. —. “Bakunin’s So-Called ‘Confession’ o f 1851.” Freedom 35 (Dec. 1921): 75-76. —. “Bakunin und die russische revolutiondre Bewegung in den Jahren 1868-1873.” Archiv fu r die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Ar be iter bewegung. 15 (1915): 357-422. —. “A Last Word on Bakunin’s ‘Confession.’” Freedom 39 (Sept. 1925): 43. —. “Mikhail Bakunin: A Biographical Sketch.” The Political Philosophy o f Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism. Ed. G. P. Maximoff. London: Free Press, 1953. 29-48. Pachmuss, Temira. Soviet Criticism o f the Works o f Fedor Dostoevsky. Diss. U Washington, 1959. “Report of N. Utin to the Hague Congress o f the International Working Men’s Association.” Documents o f the First International. The Hague Congress o f the First International. Sept. 2-7, 1872. Minutes and Documents. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976. 366-480. Sandomirsky, German. “Leninisme et Bakounisme.” Humanite [Paris] (6 March1924). N. pag. Sandoz, Ellis. Political Apocalypse: A Study o f Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor. Baton Rouge: Louisiana St. UP, 1971. —. Political Apocalypse: A Study o f Dostoevsky’ s Grand Inquisitor. 2nd ed., rev. Wilmington DE: ISI Books, 2000. Seduro [Hlybinny], Vladimir. Dostoevski in Russian Literary Criticism, 1846-1956. New York: Columbia UP, 1957. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 367 Serge, Victor. “La Confession de Bakounine.” Bulletin Communiste 56 (22 Dec. 1921): 941-943. —. Memoirs o f a Revolutionary, 1901-1941. Trans., ed. Peter Sedgwick London: Oxford UP, 1963. Shatz, Marshall S. “Bakunin, Turgenev and Rudin.” The Golden Age o f Russian Literature and Thought. Ed. Derek Ofiford. New York: St. Martin’s, 1992. 103-114. Stekloff, G. M. [Steklov, Iurii Mikhailovich] History o f the First International. Trans. Eden and Cedar Paul. New York: International Publishers, 1928. Stimer, Max. The Ego and Its Own. Ed. David Leopold. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Sukhanov, N. N. The Russian Revolution o f 1917. An Eyewitness Account. Trans., ed. Joel Carmichael. New York: Harper, 1962. Varlamov, Volodymyr. “Bakunin and the Russian Jacobins and Blanquists,” Rewriting Russian History. Soviet Interpretations o f Russia s Past. Ed. Cyril E. Black. New York: Praeger, 1957. 302-333. Venturi, Franco. Roots o f Revolution. Trans. Francis Haskell. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1960. Voline [Eikhenbaum, Vsevolod Mikhailovich]. The Unknown Revolution, 1917-1921. New York: Free Life, 1974. Wagner, Richard. My Life. [Trans.] New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1935. Woodcock, George. Anarchism: A History o f Libertarian Ideas and Movements. New York: Meridian, 1962. Woodcock, George, and Ivan Avakumovic. The Anarchist Prince: A Biographical Study o f Peter Kropotkin. 2nd ed. New York: Schocken, 1971. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 368 Sources in Russian AftxeHBajiBa, KD.H. O co 6 o e MHeHHe: K 1 OO-jicthio poacaeHH* O .M . A ocroeB cxoro // BecraHK jnrrepaTypu. 1921. N° 10 (34). C . 1-2. A xcejibpon, n.B. nepeacirroe h nepejiyMaHHoe. Kh. 1. EepjiHH: H3ji-bo 3.H. r pacefiHHa, 1923. [R eprinted in 1975 by O riental R esearch Partners, C am bridge]. AiieKceeB, M .II. JI.II. TpoccMaH: [Heicpojior] // BpeMeHHHK nymxHHCxoft komhcchh, 1964. JI.: H ayxa, 1967. C . 64-68. AjibTMaH, M .C . IlpbDKOB h AocroeBCKHft // K aTopra h ccbuixa. 1931. Kh. 8/9 (81/82). C. 57-71. — . PyccKHe peBOjnooHOHHue aeirrejiH X IX Bexa — npoTOTHnu jrareparypH bix repoeB // H cropH a C C C P . 1968. Na 6. C . 128-147. — . 3 n o a i j o poMaHe A ocroeB cxoro “Becbi” // FIpoMeTeft. T. 5. M .: M ojioaaa rBapm ui, 1968. C . 442-447. AM (|)HTeaTpoB, A .A . M .A . EaxyHHH, icax xapaicrep // JlHTeparypHuft a-ibSoM. 2-e H3n., aon. CI16.: 06mecTBeHHas nojiMa, 1907. C . 1-16. AHapxHCTu: AoxyMeHTbi h M arepHajiu. 1883-1935: B 2 t. / Coct., aBTop npeaHCJi., BBea. h KOMMenr. B.B. KpHBeHBKHfi. M .: POCCnOH, 1998-1999. A a a o , A. K HciopHH o 6 pa 3a I le r p a BepxoBeH cxoro (“B ecu ”) // JJocroeBcxHft: CtaTbH h MarepHanBi. T. 7. JI.: H ayxa, 1987. C . 174-193. BaxyHHH, M .A . A H apxiu h nopanox: Cohhhchhji / C o e r. M .A . THMO$eeB. M .: 3K C M O -IIpecc, 2000. (C ep aa: “AHTOJionw mbicjih”). — . rocyjtapcreeHHOCTb h arap x H a // EaxyHHH, M .A . Qhjioco^ h*, couH ojionm , nojiHTHxa. M ., 1989. C . 291-526. —. H3 nacbM a x HaaarejUM “K onoxojia” // Kojiokoji: Ta 3e r a A.H. TepaeH a h H .n. O rapeBa. Bun. 9: 1866-1867, XCeHeBa. d>axcHMHJU>Hoe H3it. M.: AH C C C P, 1964. C . 1966-1967. [Kojiokoji, ji. 241 ot 15 Mas 1867]. — . H 3 6 paHHbie cohhhchhs. T . 1. JIohjioh: X jie 6 h boju, 1915. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 369 —. H36paHHue cohhhchhji: T. 1-5. M.; 116.: Tojioc Tpyaa, 1919-1922. — . H36paHHue 4 > H Jio c o 4 > C K H e cohbhchhs h iracbMa / B cryn. ct. B .O . riycrapHaKOBa. M.: Mbicjib, 1987. — . HcnoBeflb h rracbMO A nexcaH apy II / B cry n . ct. B .n. FIoJioHCKoro. M .: Toe. H 3a - bo, 1920. —. HcnoBeab // MaTepnaribi an* 6Horpa4>HH M. BaxyHHHa. T. 1. M.; Ilr., 1923. C. 95-248. —. Havana peBomooHH // EaxyHHH, M.A. Penn h B 033B aH H *. CII6., 1906. C. 245- 251. —. Hama nporpaMMa // EaxyHHH, M.A. H36paHHbie cohhhchhji. T. 3: OeaepajnuM, coimanH3M h aHTH-TeojiorH3M. M.; n r., 1920. C. 96-97. —. H eC K O JIb K O C J I O B K M O JIO ab IM 6paTb«M B P O C C H H // EaxyHHH, M.A. PeHH H B033BaH H a. CII6., 1906. C. 230-235. —. riHCbMo aoBoxaTy O. O tto // M arepnanu an* 6Horpa4>HH M. BaxyHHHa. T. 1. M.; n r., 1923. C. 47-54. —. nojiHoe coOpaHHe coHHHeHHft: T. 1-2 / non. pea. A.H. BaxyHHHa. Cn6.: H3a. H. EanamoBa, 1906-1907. —. nocraHOBxa peBOjnonHOHHoro Bonpoca // EaxyHHH, M.A. Penn h B 0 3 3 B aH H X . C n6., 1906. C. 235-245. —. PenH h B 033B aH H fl. C n6.: H3a. H. EanamoBa, 1906. —. PyccxHM, nojibcxHM h B ceM cjihbshckhm apy3b*M // Kojiokoji: Ta3era A.H. r epneH a h H .n. O rapeB a. Bun. 5:1862, JIoHaoH. OaxcHMHJibHoe H3a. M.: AH CCCP, 1962. C. 1021-1028. [K onoxon, a . 122/123 ot 15 $eBp. 1862]. —. CoOpaHHe coH H H eH H fi h nnceM, 1828-1876: T. 1-4 / Pea. h npHMen. K D.M . CTexjioBa. M.: Bcecox>3. o6m-BO hojiht. xaropacaH h ccbuibHonocejieHneB, 1934-1935. — . < t> H Jio c o < t> H a , c o n H o a o n u , noaHTHxa / B c ry n . c r., co c r., noaroT. rexcra h npHMen. B.O. nycrapH axoB a. M.: n p a a a a , 1989. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 370 E ejiH H K O B , A .B . r poccMaH, JleoHHH rierpoBHH: [BHorp. cnpaBxa] // Kpancaa jiHTepaTypHaa SHiiHjcjioneoHa. T. 2. M.: Cob. 3HUHKJionejiHa, 1964. C. 399- 400. B huhjuih, n.M. P ea. Ha kh.: C n o p o BaxyHHHe h JIoctocbckom. Ctbtbh JI.II. rpoccMaaa h B.II. riojioHCKoro (JI.: Toe. h3 h-bo, 1926) // CoBpeMemuae 3anHCKH. (TIapH3K),1926. Na 28. C. 488-489. Bjiok, A .A . MnxaHJi AnexcaHopoBHH BaicyHHH (1814-1876) // Eaox, A .A . C o 6 paHHe coHHHeHHfi: B 8 t. T. 5. M .; JI.: X y a o x . jiht., 1962. C. 31-35. EoraaHOBa, O . BacHjraft JIcohhuobhh KoMapoBHH // B o n p o c u jnrrepaiypbi. 1988. N2 9. C . 130-151. BorynapcKHfi [JbcoaneB], BJL Akthbhoc HapooHHHecrBO ceMHaecanjx roaoB. M .: H 3H-BO M . h C. Ca 6 amHHKOBfcix, 1912. BopoBoft, A .A . BaicyHHH // M H xanny BaicyHHHy, 1876-1926: O ie p x HcropHH aHapxHHecKoro aBHxeHH* b Pocchh: C 6 . c t. M ., 1926. C. 131-169. — . BaicyH H H. M .: H 3h-bo KYE, 1995. — . BaicyHHH b “Becax” // EopoBott, A .A ., O rB epxeH H uft, H T . M h<1> o BaxyHHHe. M ., 1925. C. 71-148. — . P ea. Ha kh.: M . A . BaicyHHH. HcnoBeob h nucbM o A jiexcam ipy n / n o n . p ea. B .n . riojioH CK oro (M .: Toe. h 3A-bo, 1921) // n e n a rb h peBOJOOOHii. 1921. Kh. 3. C. 202-207. EopoBoft, A .A ., OTBepxeHHufi, H.r. Mh$ o BaxyHHHe. M .: Tojioc xpyaa, 1925. BopoBofi, A nexceft AnexceeBHH: [E aorp. cnpaBxa] // B o jiiin aa CoB ercxaa 3HOHKJioneaiu. T. 7. M .: C ob. aHamcjioneoH*, 1927. C . 171-172. EpoacxHfi, H .JI. BaxyHHH h PyaHH // K a ro p ra h cchunca. 1926. K h. 26. C . 136-169. — . P ea. Ha KHH ry: C nop o BaxyHHHe h JIoctocbckom. C rarbH JI.II. TpoccMaHa h B .II. nojioH Cxoro (JI.: Toe. h3 a-bo, 1926) // K a ro p ra h ccunxa.1926. Kh. 25. C . 261-263. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 371 — . TBopqecKaa HCTopmi poMaHa “E e c u ” // C b h to k . K h. 1. M .: H h k h th h ck h c cy6 6 oTHHKH, 1922. C. 84-118. EpycoBaHH, M .H ., ranbnepH H a, P T . 3arpaHHHHue nyremecTBHX O .M . AocroeBCKoro 1862 h 1863 r . // JJocroeBCKHtt: M aTepH anu h HccjieaoBaHHJi. T. 8 . JI.: H ayxa, 1988. C. 272-292. B .H . JleHHH o JiHTepaType h HcxyccTBe. 3-e m a . M .: Xyaoxc. jih t., 1967. B aram ra [Tep-BaraHXH], B.A . O n u r 6H6nHorpa4>HH T.B . IIjiexaHOBa. M .: Toe. H 3a - bo, 1923. B ajieH T H H O B [BoiiBCKHft], H.B. BcrpeHH c JIchhhum. Huo-ftopK: H3ji-bo hm. HexoBa, 1953. BerpHHCKHfl, H. [HenraxHH, B.E.]. JJhh JIocToeBcxoro // B ecTH H K JiHTepaTypbi. 1921. Nfl 12 (36). C. 9. B ojiohhh, C. DKHBas Jiereaoa: (HecTBOBaHHe to b . CaxoiHa) // ripaBaa. 1925. 3 h os6. C. 5. Bhipy6 oB, r.H. PeBOJnooHOHHue BocnoMHHaHHs: TepaeH , EaxyHHH, JIaBpoB // BecrHHK E B ponu. 1913. Na 2. C . 45-70. TaMSapoB, A . B cnopax o HetaeBe: (K Bonpocy 0 6 HcropHnecKoft pea 6 HJQrraiiHH HenaeBa). M .: M ock. pa6oHHft, 1926. r eH K H H H .H . C p e a n npeeM H H K O B EaxyHHHa: (3aMencH no HcropHH poccHficxoro aHapxH3Ma) // KpacHaa JieronHCb. 1927. N9 1. C . 170-205. reHKHH, HochiJ) HcaeBHH: [SHorp. cnpaBxa] // ZlejrreJiH peBOjnoiuioHHoro ABHXcemui b P occhh: EHO-6 H 6 jraorp. ciioBapb. T. 5. B u n . 2. M .: Bcepoc. o6 m-BO nojnrr. tcaropxcaH h ccbuibHonocejieHiieB, 1933. C . 1198-1202. r epuen, A .H . <EaxyHHH CBo6oaeH> // TepneH, A .H . Co6paHHe coH H H eH H fi: B 30 t . T. 15. M .: A H C C C P ,1958. C . 1 9 4 ,4 0 8 . [K ojiokoji, ji. 113 o t 22 h o s6 . 1861, c. 941]. — . JJeHb h K ojiokoji // TepneH, A .H . C o 6 paHHe coHHHeHHd: B 30 t . T. 17. M .: A H C C C P, 1959. C . 194-197,432-433. [K ojiokoji, ji. 166 o t 20 hiohx 1863, c. 1370-1371]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 372 — . K crapoM y TOBapnmy // TepaeH, A .H . Co 6 paHHe co rh h ch h A : B 30 t . T. 20. Kh. 2. M .: A H C C C P , 1960. C. 575-593, 848-862. — . M .A . BaicyHHH // TepaeH , A .H . CoOpaHHe couHHeHHfi: B 30 t. T. 16. M .: A H C C C P , 1959. C. 16-20, 349. [Kojiokoji, ji. 119/120 o r 15 khb. 1862, c. 989- 990]. — . MHxaHJi BaicyHHH h uojibCKoe aejio // TepaeH , A .H . C 6 opHHK nocM eprabix c ra re ft. XCeHeBa: H . G eorg, 1870. C. 179-208. — . MnxaHJi BaicyHHH h nojibcxoe ae u o // rep u eH , A .H . CoOpaHHe cohmhchhA: B 30 t . T. 11: Ebuioe h ayMH. M .: A H C C C P , 1957. C . 353-374. — . O raeT “r . riojuncy” Ha C Taruo h imcbMO // rep u eH , A .H . CoOpaHHe cohmhchhS: B 30 t . T . 16. M .: A H C C C P, 1959. C. 2 4 3 -2 4 4 ,4 3 7 -4 3 8 . [Kojiokoji, ji. 144 o t 8 ceHT. 1862, c. 1195-1196]. — . IlH C bM O k A .A . TepueHy h M . M efoeH 6 y r, 27-28 (15-16) (fceBp. 1868 // repueH , A .H . CoOpaHHe coHHHeHHfi: B 30 t . T. 29. K h. 1. M .: A H C C C P, 1963. C. 283-285. — . riHCbMO k H .C . AxcaxoBy // repueH , A .H . CoOpaHHe coHHHeHHfi: B 30 t . T. 19. M .: A H C C C P , 1960. C . 2 3 8 -2 3 9 ,4 5 3 -4 5 4 . [Kojiokoji, ji. 239 ot 15 an p . 1867, c. 1950-1951]. —. nojmoe coOpaHHe coH H H eH Hft h iraceM. [T. 1-22]. T. 14: Eunoe h uyMbi. H. 6-7 / n o a pea. M.K. JleMKe. 116.: Toe. H 3a-BO, 1920. — . C 6 opHHK nocMepTHbix c ra re fi. ^CeHeBa: H . G eorg, 1870. C . 179-208. — . C o O p arae coHHHeHHfi: B 30 t . T. 8 . M .: A H C C C P , 1956. C . 438-446: [KoMMeHTapnft k h c to p h h nyOjraxaiiHH k h h th “ Ebuioe h ayMbi”]. — . lOHaa MocKBa // rio ju p H a a 3Be3a a . ^CypHan A .H . TepaeH a h H .n . O rapeBa, 1855-1869: B 8 k h . K h. 1: 1855. <t>axcHMHJibHoe H 3n. M .: H ayxa, 1966. C . 16- 43. — . U ltim atum // rep u eH , A .H . CoOpaHHe comiHeHHfi: B 30 t. T. 16. M .: A H C C C P, 1959. C . 9 9 -1 0 1 ,3 8 6 -3 8 7 . [Kohokoh, a . 133 ot 15 Mas 1862, c. 1101-1102]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 373 rHJibOM, JIh c. HHTepHaiiHOHaji: (BocnoMHHaHHH h M aTepnajiu, 1864-1878). T. 1/2 / C 6 n o rp . 3aMencaMH o J I* . rnjifcOMe n. KpononcHHa h <t>. Bpyn 6 axepa; riep . c $ p . H .A . KpHTCKofi; r io a pea. h c a o n . H.K . JIe6 eaeB a. 116.; M .: Tojioc tp y a a , 1922. — . K HCTopHH HCKjnoneHHJi BaxyHHHa H3 HHTepHaoHOHana // MHHyBinHe ro a u . 1908. N® 4. C . 69-76. — . M axaHJi A jiexcaim po bhh EaxyHHH: B norp. onepx / Ilep . c aocraBJieHHofi aBTopoM pyxonHCH // S u jio e, 1906. N® 8 . C. 228-264. TopeB, E.H. AnoJiHTHHecxHe h aHTHnapjiaMeHTCKHe rp y n n u (aH apxH cru, MaxcHMaiiHCTKi, M axaeBou) // 06mecTBeHHoe ABmxeHHe b P occhh b Hanane X X b. T . 3. Kh . 5 / Ilo a . pea. JI. M aproB a, n . M acjioBa h A . IleTpecoBa. CI16.: OOmecTBeHHaa nojiM a, 1914. C . 473-534. — . M .A . EaxyHHH: E ro h o u h b , aejrrejitHOCTb h yneHHe. 2-e H 3a . HBaHOBO- Bo3HeceHcx: OcHOBa, 1922. — . M .A . EaxyHHH b HOBefimett peBo:noiiHOHHoft JiHTepaType // n e n a n , h peBojnouHJi. 1921. Kh . 2. C . 73-78. ropejiHK, A. AHapxHCTbi b poccHftcxoft peBOjnooHH. By3 H oc-Aftpec: H3a. Pa6 oneft H3 aaT. r p y n n u b P ecn. ApreHTHHe, 1922. ropbKHfi, M . 3aM erxH HHTarejw: 0 6 H 3naHHH poMaHa “ B ecu ” // rip aao a. 1935. N® 23 (6269), 2 4 jihb. C . 6 . — . HecBoeBpeMeHHbie m u cjih: 3aM erxH o peBOjnooHH h xym .Type / B cryn.ct., ny6ji., noaroT . T excra h kommcht. H . B a ta 6 e p ra . M .: C ob. nHcaTejn., 1990. rocynapcTBeHHaa AxaaeM Ha X yaorcecraeH H ux Hayx. O thct, 1921-1925. M .: TA X H , 1926. rpoccMaH, Jl.n. EaxyHHH b “Becax” : (O tbct B n . IIojioHCKOMy) // nenaT b h peBOjnoQHa. 1924. Kh . 4. C. 56-77; Kh . 5. C . 39-65. — . EaxyHHH h AocroeBCKHft: [IIpeaHCJi.] // rpoccM an, JI.I1. C o 6 paHHe coHHHeHHfi: B 5 t . T . 2. B u n . 2: AocroeBCXHfi. Flyrb, n o a ra x a , TBopnecTBO. M .: CoBpeMeHHue npo6jieMU, 1928. C . 214-217. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 374 — . EaxyHHH h AocroeBCKHfi // rpoccM aH, J l.n ., IlojioHCKHft, B .n . C n o p o BaxyHHHe H A o C T O eB C K O M . J1-, 1926. — . EaxyHHH h AocroeBCKHfi // rie n a rb h peBOJHOtma. 1923. Kh. 4. C . 82-112. — . EH6 jraoT exa A ocroeB cxoro // TpoccMaH, JI.II. CeMHHapHft no JJocroeBCxoMy: M arepH aabi, 6H6iiHorpa4>HX h KOMMeHTapHH. M .; Fir.: Toe. h u - b o , 1922. C . 7-20. —. JJocroeBcxHfi. M.: M ononax raapnH x, 1962. (CepHx: “)Kh3hi> 3aMeiarejii>Hbix jnoneft”). — . JlocroeBCKHfi. 2-e m a . M .: M ojionax reapim *, 1965. (C eptix: 'OKmHb 3aMeHaTenbHbix jnoneft”) — . AocroeBcxHfi b paffcyre a a a BaxyHHHbiM // K a ro p ra h ccbuixa. 1925. Kh. 3. C . 74-91. — . )KH3 Hb h T p y au 4>.M. JJocroeBCKoro: Enorpa^H X b n a ra x h noxyM enrax. M .; JI.: A cadem ia, 1935. — . HoBoe o JlocroeBCKOM // K pacnax HHBa. 1925. Na 9 (1 M apra). C. 209-210. — . IlojiHTHHecKHfi poMaH JJocToeBCKoro // JJocroeBCKHfi, O .M . Eecbi. T. 1. M., 1935. C . X LD -LX X X . — . IlyTb JJocroeBCKoro. JI.: E poxray 3 - 3 $poH , 1924. — . C nenraeB h CTaBponiH // K a ro p ra h ccbuixa. 1924. Kh. 4 (1 1). C. 130-138. rpoccM aH, JI.II., riojioHCKHft, B .n . C nop o BaxyHHHe h JIoctocbckom. JI.: Toe. b u bo, 1926. rpoccM aH -Ponm H , H .C . IIhcbmo b penaxnm o // n p a a n a . 1926. Na 37 (3266), 14 $eBp. C. 7. — . CyMepxH Bejmxoft a y n m // n e n a rb h peBOjnoiwx. 1921. Kh . 3. C . 44-58. AeSaropHft-MoxpHeBHH, B.K . BocnoMHHaHHx. Bbm . 1. Paris: J. A llem ane, 1894. — . BocnoMHHaHHx. C n 6 .: CBoOoAHbift tp y n , 1906. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 375 Aeftn, J l.r . B u n jih HenaeB reHnaneH? // T pynna “OcBofioxcneHHe Tpyna”. C 6 . 2. M.: Toe. H 3H -B O , 1924. C. 73-86. — . 3a nojiBeica. [T. 1-2]. T. 2: TopxcecxBo 6 axyHH3 Ma b P occhh. E epm ni: TpaHH, 1923. — . 3 a nojraexa. 3-e a m . M .; JI.: Toe. h3h-bo, 1926. — . IloHeMy a c ra ji peBonioaHOHepoM 1 1 Tojioc MHHyBmero. 1919. N° 5/12. C . 5-39. — . Pyccxaa peBOjnouHOHHaa aM Hrpanna 70-x ronoB. 116.: Toe. ron-B O , 1920. Jleno HenaeBueB // repomM peBOjnouHH: H c t.-jih t. xpecroM araa X IX h X X b. T .l / C o c t. JI.H . Bo&TOJioBCKHfi. M .; JI.: Toe. H3n-BO, 1927. C. 294. JJoKyMeHTU n o hctophh JiHTepaTyphi h ofiinecTBeHHocTH. B u n . 1: <D.M. JIocrocBCKHft. M .: IJeHTp. apxHB P C O C P , 1922. JIojXhhhh, A .C . JJocToeBCKHft h repueH : (K iuyneHHio o 6 nxecTBeHHO-nojranniecKHx B033peHHft JIOCTOeBCKOro) // JIOJIHHHH, A .C . JJoCTOeBCKHft H HpyTHe: CTaTbH h HCCJieaoBaHHa o pyccxofi KJiaccHnecKoft jn rrep ary p e. JI.: Xynoac. jih t., 1989. C . 101-162. —. HcnoBem* CTaB ponm a: (B cbb3h c KOMno3HUHeft “EecoB”) // JlHTeparypHaa M uciib: AnbMaHax. B u n . 1/2. Ilr.: M ucjib, 1922. C . 139-162. A ocroeB cxaa, A T . BocnoMHHaHHx / non pen. J l.n . TpoccMana. M .: Toe. H3n-Bo, 1925. — . JlHeBHHK 1867 r. / n o n pen. H.<D. EejiBHHKOBa. M.: HoBaa M ocxBa, 1923. — . JlHeBHHK 1867 r. / H 3n. n o n ro r. C.B . XCHTOMHpcxaa. M .: H ayxa, 1993. JIocroeBCKHfi, O.M. Eecu. T. I / Pen., Bcryn. c t. h k o m m c h t. Jl.n. TpoccMaHa; n p e n a c n . n .n . napanH30Ba. M.; JI.: A cadem ia, 1935. — . E e c u . “E e c u ” : A H Tonoraa pyccxofi k p h t h k h / C o c t., n o n ro r. Texcra, nocnecn. h xoMMeHT. JI.H. CapacxHHofi. M.: C o m a c n e, 1996. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 376 —. 3anHCHue xeTpaaH / noaroT. k n e ^ a ra E.H. KomiiHHoft; K om m cht. H.H. HrHaxoBofl h E.H. KomnHHoft. M.; JI.: A cadem ia, 1935. —. HemaaHHBie pyxoriHCH // TBopqecreo JJocroeBcxoro: C6. ct. h MaTepnajioB. Oaecca, 1921. C. 7-11. —. riacbMa. T. 1-2 / rioa pea. h c npHMeq. A.C. JJojiHHHHa. M.; JI.: Toe. raa-Bo, 1928-1930. —. CoOpaHHe coiHHeHHfi: B 10 t . T. 7: E ecu / n o a . o 6 m . p ea. Jl.n . TpoccMaHa, A.C. JlojniHHHa, B.B. EpMHJioBa, BJ1. KapnoTHHa, B.C. HenaeBOft, B.C. PiopmcoBa. M.: Xyaoac. jih t., 1957. —. rioJiHoe coOpaHHe couHHeHHft: B 30 t. T. 10: Eecu. JI.: Hayxa, 1974. —. riojm oe coOpaHHe coHHHeHHft: B 30 t. T. 11: E ec u . noaroTO BH reabH ue MaTepHaau JI.: H ayxa, 1974. — . n o aH o e coOpaHHe coHHHeHHfl: B 30 t . T. 12: E ecu . P yxoiracH ue peaaxuHH. HaOpocxH, 1870-1872. JI.: H ayxa, 1975. — . lloJiHoe coOpaHHe coiHHeHHfi: B 30 t . T. 18. JI.: H ayxa, 1978. —. nojraoe co6paHHe coHHHeHHfi: B 30 t. T. 21. JI.: Hayxa, 1980. — . IIojiHoe coOpaHHe coHHHeHHfi: B 30 t . T. 28. H. 1-2. JI.: H ayxa, 1983-1984. — . FIo.THoe coOpaHHe coHHHeHHd: B 30 t . T. 29. JI.: H ayxa, 1984. — . IIojiHoe coOpaHHe xyaoxcecTBeHHux npoH3BeaeHH&. [T. 1-13]. T. 7: E e c u / I lo a pea. E. ToM ameBcxoro h K. XaaaOaeBa. M.; JI.: Toe. H3a-BO, 1927. JIparoM aaoB, M .n . EHOipa^HHecxHd oqepx M.A. BaxyHHHa // FtacbMa M.A. EaxyHHHa x A.H. Te p u e n y h H .n . OrapeBy. C nO ., 1906. C. 3-107. JtpuacaxoBa, E.H. JJocroeBCXHft h repueH: (Y hctokob poMana “Becu”) // AocroeBCKHft: MaTepHaau h HccaeaoBaHH*. T. 1. JI.: Hayxa, 1974. C. 219- 239. EpMaxoB, B .JI. PoccHficxftft anapxH3M h an ap x H cru ( b t. n o a . XIX - koh. XX b.). Cn6.: H ecro p , 1996. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 377 3afinem>, T. OnpoBepaceHHe “MHjJja” hjih aH apxH crcxaa “HKOHorparJjHa”? (K Bonpocy o counaabH ofi npH pone 6axym 3M a) // n o n 3HaMeHeM M apxcraM a. 192S. Na 4. C. 184-199. 3afineHKO, H .M . A H a p x n cru b OKTs6pbCKoft peBOjnooHH // Tojioc h c to p h h : C 6. Hayn. T pyaoB . B u n . 23. Kh. 2. M .: M yjeft peBOjnoiiHH, 1992. C . 91-95. 3acjiaBCKHfi, JJ.H . 3aMencH HHTareaa: JlnrepaTypH aa n n u ib // IIpaBna, 1935. N9 20 (6266), 20 a m . C . 4. — . 3aMencH <nrrarejia: Flo noBoay 3aMe*iaHHfi A .M . r opbxoro // rip a a o a. 1935. N9 24 (6270), 25 «hb. C . 6 . 3acyjiHH, B.H. HeiaeBcxoe neao: (TIocMepTHaa pyxonncb) // Tpynna “OcBo6 o 5 KaeHHe Tpyaa” . C 6. 2. M .: Toe. h3a-bo, 1924. C . 22-72. 3uxoBa, T.B . OBcaHHxo-KyjiHKOBCKHft, /iMHTpHft HHKoaaeBin: [EHorp. cnpaBxa] // PyccitHe nHcaTejTH, 1800-1917: B norp. caoBapb. T. 4. M .: E P 3 , 1999. C . 380-381. Hexx, r. HHTepHauHOHan // riep. c H eM . H. EpoHnrreftHa; IIpenHCJi. H D . CrexaoBa. 2-e H3a. M .; JI.: Toe. io a -bo, 1926. (b ro eB , A .C . TparenH a BaxyHHHa // JleronHCb JJoMa HHTeparopoB. 1921. N 9 3 (1 aex .).C . 5. Haaam e toacHo-pyccxoft aHapxmecxoft rpynnu ‘ ‘Eyirrapb” // AHapxHCTbi: JJoxyMeHTU h MaTepHaau. 1883-1935: B 2 t . T. 1: 1883-1916. M ., 1998. C. 69-70. (LibHHCKHfi, JI. H cnoB eab M .A . BaxyHHHa // BecTHHK AHTeparypu. 1919. N9 10. C. 2-9. —. HoBue MarepHaau o BaxyHHHe // Toaoc MHHyBmero. 1920/1921. C . 128-149. HcaeB, A .K ., OaettraxoB, JI.H . EaxyH H 3M Hyxcaaerca b 6oaee cepbe3HOM H 3yneH H H // B o n p o c u h c to p h h . 1989. N9 2. C. 118-126. “H cnoB eab” [M .A . BaxyHHHa] // FIohhh: K o o n e p a m a . — CHHaHxaaH3M. — 3THxa. 1922. N9 4-5. C. 14-15. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 378 K h c to p h h HeHaeBmHHu / riy6ji. E. Ko 3bMHHa h C . nepecejiemcoBa I I JlHTepaTypHoe HacjieacxBO. T. 41/42. M .: A H C C C P, 1941. C . 151-163. K-Jib, A . Cnop JiHTepaTypHhix craTHcroB // Kpacnaa ra3era. BenepHHft Bun. 1926. Nfl21 (1025), 23 hhb. C.5. KaHeB, C .H . Oicra 6 pbCKaa peBOjnooHH h Kpax aHapxH3Ma: (Eopbfia napTHH 6 ojn>meBHKOB npoxHB anapxH3Ma, 1917-1922). M .: M bicnb, 1974. — . PeBOjnoQHfl h aH apxaa: H3 h c to p h h 6 opb 6 u peBOJnoiwoHHUx aeMOKpaTOB h ooabineBHKOB npoTHB aHapxH3Ma (1840-1917). M .: Mbicjn>, 1987. Kay<|»MaH, A .E . A n o ^ e o 3 JlocroeBCKoro: (O tb c t “HeaoyMeBaiomeMy HHTaTejno”) // BecTHHK JiHTepaTyphi. 1921. Na 3 (27). C. 3. KjieBeHCKHft, M . P en. Ha kh.: EopoBoft, A .A ., OraepHceHHbift, H .r . Mh4> o BaxyHHHe. M .: Tojioc rpy.ua, 1925 // K aTopra h ccbunca. 1925. K h. 17. C . 287-289. KHHXCHHK-BerpoB, H .C . A .B . KopBHH-KpyxoBCicaH QKaitiiHp): Zlpyr ZtocroeBCKoro, aejrreabH H na napmxcKoft KOMMyHu. M.: B cecoio 3 . o 6 m-Bo n o jn rr. KaropxaH h ccbuibHonocejieHQeB, 1931. KoraH, r.4>. PasucxaHHH o JIoctocbckom // JlHTepaTypHoe HacjieacrBo. T. 8 6 : <D.M. JlocToeBCKHfi: HoBbie M arepH anu h HccneaoBaHHH. M .: H ayxa, 1973. C . 596-605: AocroeBCKHtt b aoxyMeHTax III OTjxejieHHa. Ko 3bm hh, E.IT. H c to p h h hjih (feaHTacTHxa? (Pen. Ha kh. A . TaM6 apoBa) // rienaTb h peBOJDOHHH. 1926. K h. 6 . C . 96-108 — . r ie r p TxaneB h peBOjnonHOHHoe oBHaceHHe 1860-x r. M .: H obuA MHp, 1922. — . P en. Ha k h.: H cnoBenb h bhcbm o A jiexcanapy n . M .: Toe. h3a-bo, 1921 // BecraHK Tpyaa. 1921. Na 9 (12). C. 152-156. — . P yccxaa ceiaiHH nepBoro HirrepHauHOHajia. M .: A H C C C P , 1957. KoMapoBHH, B J I . “E e c u ” AocroeBCKoro h EaxyHHH // Ebuioe, 1924. Na 27/28. C . 28-49. — . HeHanHcaHHaa noaMa A ocroeB cxoro // <D.M. JlocroeBCiarft: C rarbH h MaTepHanu. 116., 1922. C . 177-207. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 379 K oM M y H H C T H H ecK H ft Tpya / OpraH MocxoBCieoro K O M H Tera PKI1 h M ocKoacKoro C oB era PKR. 1920. Na 208,27 hos6. C. 3. K ohkhh, C.C. OrapeB h JlocToeBCXHfi: (K hctophh hx jihhhux B 3aH M O O T H om eH H fl h T B opnecKHX CBioeft) // PoAHoe ripHcypse: JlHT.-xyao*. c6. CapaHCK: MopaoB. kh. H3fl., 1980. C. 232-243. Kophhjiob, A.A. ToaBi crpaHCTBHd M axaaaa BaxyHHHa. JI.; M.: Toe. H3a-Bo, 1925. —. Eme pa3 o BaxyHHHe h ero “HcnoBeaH” Hracojiaio // BecrHHX jnrreparypu. 1921. Na 12 (36). C. 12-13. —. Moaoabie ro au Mnxanaa BaxyHHHa: H3 hctophh pyccxoro poMannuMa. M.: H3a-bo M. h C. C a 6 amHHX0 Bux, 1915. K pH H C X H fl, C. HxoBJieB, 5LA.[3nnrrefiH] (1896-1938): [EHorp. cnpaBxa] // JJexreaH CCCP h OxTfl6pbcxofi peBOjnouHH. M.: Cob. aHOHxaoneaHx, 1989. C. 782- 783. KponoTXHH, n.A . 3anH C K H peBOjnooHOHepa / FIoaroT. Texcra x nenaiH h npHMen. H.K. JIe6eaeBa. M ; JI.: Academia, 1933. —. Co 6 paHHe coHHHeHHfl. T. 1: 3anHCKH peBOjnooHOHepa / IlpeaH ca. T. B paaaeca; riep. c aHTJi. JjHOHeo; n o n . pea. aBTopa. 3-e H3A. M .: T-bo CbiTHHa, 1918. — . Xne6 h bojix. CoBpeMeHHax Hayxa h aHapxnji / Bcryn. ct., coct., noaroT. Texcra h npHMen. C.A. MHaomma. M.: ripaaaa, 1990. Kyn>, A. Ha BucraBxe M.A. BaxyHHHa // BenepHxa Mocxaa. 1927. 21 ho*6. JIe6eaeB, H.K. Kapn Mapxc h MHTepHanHOHaa b nepnoa 1871-1872 r. // Thjh> om, JI*. Kapa Mapxc h HHTepHannoHaa. 116.; M.: Toaoc Tpyaa, 1921. C. 96-129. —. Myieft n.A. KponoTXHHa. M.; JI.: Bcepoc. ofimecTB. xomhtct no yBexoBeneHHio naMjmi n.A. KponorxHHa, 1928. JleB. PeneH3Hji Ha H O B bie HaoaHHx MocxoBcxoro KHHroH3aareabCTBa ‘ Toaoc Tpyaa”: A. EopoBofl h H. OTBepxeHHUft “Mh$ o BaxyHHHe” // Toaoc TpyaceHHxa (Hnxaro). [Ee3 a ara]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 380 JlettKHHa, B.P. FleTpameBeu H .A . C nenraeB // Bbuioe. 1924. NB 25. C . 12-31. JleHHH, B.H. Te3Hcu h aoxjiaa o 6ypacya3Hoft aeMoxpaTHH h anxTaType npojierapaaT a // JleHHH, B.H . IIojiHoe coOpaHHe coHHHeHHft: B 55 t . T. 37. 5- e H3a. M .: IIojiht. jih t., 1963. C . 491-509. — . TocyaapcTBO h peBOjnomw // JleHHH, B.H . riojraoe coOpaHHe coHHHeHHft: B 55 t . T. 33. 5-e H3fl. M .: II ojiht. jiht., 1962. C . 1-120. — . M arepH ajoa ko II x o m p e c c y xoMMyHHCTHHecxoro HirrepHaiiHOHaaa // JleHHH, B.H . IIojiHoe coOpaHHe coqHHeHHfi: B 55 t . T. 41. 5-e H3a. M .: F Iojiht. jih t., 1963. C. 437-461. — . O 3aaanax n p o aerap H ara b peBOjnoiiHH // JleHHH, B.H . IIojiHoe coOpaHHe coHHHeHHft: B 55 t . T . 31. 5-e H3a. M .: IIojiht. jiht., 1962. C . 113-118. — . riHCbMO C hjibbhh riaH x ep cr // JleHHH, B.H . IIojiHoe coOpaHHe coHHHeHHfi: B 55 t. T. 39. 5-e H3A. M .: IIojiht. jih t., 1963. C . 160-166. JleToiracb H CH 3H H h TBopHecraa H .C . TypreHeBa, 1818-1858 / C oct. H .C . HaxHTHHa. C II6.: H ayxa, 1995. Jle ro m icb JKH3HH h TBOpnecTBa d>.M. JIocroeBCKoro, 1821-1881: B 3 t . / C oct. H.JI. JIxyOoBHH, T.H . OpHaTcxaa. C II6.: AxaaeM . npoexT, 1993-1995. JIhctok rp y n n u “Be3HaHajiHe” // A H apxH cru: AoxyMeHTbi h MarepHajHd, 1883-1935: B 2 t. T. 1: 1883-1916. M ., 1998. C. 80-83. Jlm m iH ep, C.JJ. rep u e H h ZlocroeBcxHft: JjHajiexTHxa ayxoBHbix HcxaHHft // Pyccxaa jnrrepaTypa. 1972. Nfl 2. C . 37-61. MaprbiHOB (IlHKep), A a e x c a a a p CaMoftnoBHH: [B aorp. cnpaBxa] // nojnrnroecK H e aejrrejra P occhh 1917: EHorp. cjioBapb. M .: E P 3 , 1993. C . 208-209. MaprbiHOB [IlHKep], A .C . M a x a a ji EaxyHHH b cBeTe MapxcoBofi h jieHHHCxoft 3nox // KoMMyHHCTHHecxHft HHTepHaiiHOHaji. 1926. N° 8 (57). C . 65-88. MaTepaajibi aaa OHorpat^HH M. BaxyHHHa. T. 1 / Pea. h npHMen. B.n. rioaoHcxoro. M.; Ilr.: Toe. H 3JI-B O , 1923. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 381 M arepH anu n n a 6Horpa4>HH M . BaxyHHHa. T . 2 / Pea. h npHMen. B .II. riojioHCKoro. M .; JI.: Toe. coh.-3kohom. ma-Bo, 1933. M ajuiep, O .O . M aTepH aau a a x xanHeonHcaHHx O .M . JJocroeB cxoro // JlocroeBCKHfi, O .M . Flojraoe co6paHHe coTOHeHHft. T. 1. C II6 .: A T . JIocToeBcxax, 1883. C . 1-176. MHxaHiiy EaxyHHHy, 1876-1926: OnepxH no hctophh aHapxHnecxoro aBHxeHHX b Pocchh / lio n . pen. A . BopoBoro. M .: Tojioc Tpyaa, 1926. MocxoBCKHft KpeMab: nyreBonH Tenb / Abt.-coct. H.A . PonHMneBa. JI.: ABpopa, 1987. MonynbCKHft, K.B. JlocroeBCKHfi: 5K h3hb h TB opnecTB O . napirac: Y M C A , 1947. H.H . A H apxH cru - EaxyHHHy // BenepHxx MocxBa. 1 9 2 6 ,2 m oax. HaTOBa, H .A . P oab $Hnoco<i>CKoro nonrexcT a b poMaHe “B ecu ” // 3anacKH pyccxofi axaneMHHecxofi rpynnu b C IIIA . T. 14. 1981. C. 69-100. H e rm a y , M . EaxyHHH // M a x a n a y EaxyHHHy, 1876-1926: O ie p x hctophh anapxMMecKoro nBHxeeHHH b Pocchh. C 6. ct. M ., 1926. C . 58-130. — . X C h3hb h aejn eab H O C T b M n x a n a a BaxyHHHa / n e p . c HeM . Fir.; M .: Tojioc Tpyaa, 1920. Hhkhthh, A.JI. 3axaK)HHTeai>Huft 3ran pa3BHTHX aHapxHcrcxoft mucjih b Pocchh // B o n p o c u 4 > hjioco(^hh. 1991. Na 8. C . 89-101. HmcoabCKHft, IO.A. TypreHeB h JlocroeBCKHfi: (HcropHX oaHoft Bpaxcau). Co^ hx: Poc.-B oar. kh. H 3n-B O , 1921. H oB ue 3anHCHue TerpanH O .M . JJocroeB cxoro // JIoxyMeHTU n o hctophh nHTeparypu h ofim ecTBeH H O CTH . B u n . 1: O .M . JlocroeBCKHfi. M ., 1922. C. m-vm. OxcMaH, KDT. EH orpa^H x JIocroeB cxoro // B o n p o c u nH T eparypu. 1964. Ns 4. C. 200-204. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 382 OpHaTCKaa, T .H ., TyHHMaHOB, B A . JJocToeBCXHft, O eao p MuxaitiOBHH: [E norp. cnpaBKa] // Pyccxne UHcaTejni, 1800-1917: BHorp. cjiOBapb. T. 2. M .: E P 3 , 1992. C. 165-176. OTBepjKeHHiifl, H.r. AHapxH*iecKHft n y n . BopoBoro. Pyxoim cb. P rA JIH , 4>. 1023, o n . 1, ea. 1047. OTBepxceHHutt, H.r. EaxyHHH a CraBporHH // EopoBofi, A .A ., OrBepxceHHuft, H.r. M h$ o EaxyHHHe. M ., 1925. C . 149-186. —. npoOjieMa “HcnoBeaH” // EopoBoft, A .A ., OrBepaceHHuft, H.r. M h < |> o EaxyHHHe. M ., 1925. C. 5-70. —. UlTHpHep h JlocToeBCkhU. M .: Tojioc Tpyaa, 1925. riaMXTH M .A . BaxyHHHa: [C 6. ct.]. M .: H h-t 3kohomhkh PA H , 2000. riaccex , T.n. H3 aajibHHX a e r: BocnoMHHaHHx. T. 1-3. CI16.: A .C . CyBopHH, 1878-1887. riepeBep3eB, B .O . JlocroeBCKHfi h peBOjnomw // H en an . h peBOjnomui. 1921. Kh. 3. C . 3-10. —. P en. Ha kh.: r poccMaH, Jl.n. CeMHHapnfi no JIocroeBcxoMy // Henan. h peBOJnoinui. 1923. Kh. 3. C . 247. neTpameBiibi b BocnoMHHamuix coB peM eH H H K O B: C 6. MaTepuanoB / Coct. n.E. LLlerojieB. M .; JI.: roc. H3a-BO, 1926. IlHKcaHOB, H.K. Pen. Ha kh.: JJoxyMeHThi no hctophh jnrrepaTypw h o6mecTBeHHocTH. B u n . 1 -ft: <1>.M. JlocroeBCKHfi. M .: H e m p . apxHB P C O C P , 1922 // H en a n . h peBomonHX. 1922. Kh. 2. C . 345. rinpyMOBa, H .M . EaxyHHH. M .: M o a o a a x rB apanx, 1970. (CepHx: “)KH3Hb 3aMeHaTejn.Hbix raoaefi”). — . MHxaHJi EaxyHHH: )Kh3hi> h aejrreJn»Hocn». M .: H ayxa, 1966. riHcarejiH JleHHHipaaa: BHo-6H6jinorp. cnpaBOHHHK, 1934-1981 / A bt.-coct. B.C . EaxTHH h A .H . Jlypbe. JI.: JIeHH3aar, 1982. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 383 riHCbMa M .A . BaxyHHHa x A .H . TepueHy h H.IT. O rapeBy / C npHJioxc. ero naMi^JieroB, S norp. BBea- h o6m chht. npHMen. M.I1. JJparoMaHOBa. G eneve: G eorg et C o. Libraires E diteurs, 1896. riHCbMa M .A . BaxyHHHa x A .H . rep u eH y h H.I1. O rapeB y / C 6H orp. BBea. h o6bxcHHT. npHMen. M .I1. JlparoMaHOBa. C II6 .: t b a . B py6jieB cxoro, 1906. rbiexaHOB, T.B. AHapxH3M h couHajnnM // FLnexaHOB, T.B. Cohhhchhji: [T. 1-24]. T. 4. 2-e H3A. M ., 1923. C . 169-248. —. T o a Ha poAHHe // FLnexaHOB, T.B. flo jrao e co6paHHe craTefi h penefi, 1917-1918: B 2 t. Paris: J. Povolozky, 1921. — . MexcayHapoaHoe TO BapH inecTBO pafioHHX // FLnexaH O B , T.B. Cohhhchhji: [T. 1- 24]. T. 1 6 .2-e H3A. M ., 1928. C . 299-308. — . CoHHHeHHa: [T. 1-24]. T . 1 / n o a pea. fl.B . PinaHOBa. 2-e H3a. M .: Toe. h3 a-bo, 1923. noxpoB cxaa, E. JlocroeBCKHfi h neTpameBiibi // O .M . JlocroeBCKHfi: CiaxbH h MarepHaabi. n r ., 1922. C . 257-272. noaeTHxa, H .n. BnaeHHoe h nepexcaroe. HepycaaHM: BH6-xa Ajihji, 1982. noaoHCKHfi, B .n . AnapxHCTbi h coBpeMeHHax peBomouHJi // HoBax xooHb. 1917. Nfl 181 (175), 15 (26) hox6. C. 1. — . EaxyHHH h JlocroeBCKHfi // r poccMaH, J l.n ., noaoHCKHft, B .n . C nop o BaxyHHHe h JJocroeBCxoM. JI., 1926. C . 41-63. — . EaxyHHH h JlocroeBCKHfi // nenaT b h peBOJnouHX. 1924. Kh. 2. C . 24-50. —. BaxyHHH h JlocroeBCKHfi: n o noBoay “oTBera” Jl.n . TpoccMaHa // neiaTb h peBOiHOOHJi. 1924. Kh. 5 (ceHT.-oxT.). C. 66-100. — . BaxyHHH, MHxaHJi AnexcaHapoBHH: [E ao rp . cnpaBxa] // Eojibm as CoBercxax OHQHxnoneaHH. T. 4. M .: Cob. aHQHXJioneaHx, 1926. C . 449-451. —. 3aMeTKH xcypHajracra: O jnrrepaiypH bix HpaBax h jnrrepaTypHofi 6e3HpaBCTBeHH0CTH // H3BecrHH B U H K .1 9 2 8 .16 okt. C . 5. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 384 — . K penocTH ue h ch 6 h pckhc r o a u M . EaicyHHHa // KpacHax hobb. 1921. Kh. 2. C. 128-145; Kh . 3. C. 164-182. — . JlHTepaTypa h ofimecTBo: C 6. ct. M .: <t>eaepatoui, 1929. — . M .A . EaxyHHH // IIojiohckh&, B.I1. JlHTepaTypa h o6m ecrB o: C 6. ct.M ., 1929. C. 196-210. — . M Hxaori AjieKcaHiipoBHH EaxyHHH (1814-1876). M .: Toe. H3a-Bo, 1920. — . MHxaHJi AjiexcaHiipoBHH EaxyHHH: )Kh3hb, aesT eabH ocn,, MumaeHHe. T. I. M .: Toe. H3JI-BO, 1922. — . M nxaHJi AnexcaazipoBHH EaxyHHH: )Kh3hb, aejrreJU>Hocn>, MumjieHHe. T. 1. 2-e H3fl. M .; JI.: Toe. H3h-bo, 1925. — . MHxaHJi EaxyHHH: (K 50-jieTHio co a m i CMepro) // H o buA MHp. 1926. Kh . 7. C. 117-131. — . M nxaHJi EaxyHHH b anoxy c o p o x o B u x -m e c m a e c x ra x roaoB // EaxyHHH, M .A. H cnoB eab h hhcbmo AnexcaHiipy II. M ., 1921. C. 24-42. — . H nxoaaft CTaBponiH h poMan '‘E e c u ” // rienaTb h peBoaioum i. 1925. Kh . 2. C. 79-104. — . HoBax KHHra o EaxyHHHe // TBopqecTBO. 1920. N° 7/10. C. 45-46. —. O aHTepaType: H 36p. pa6oTbi / B c ry n .c r., coct. h npHMen. B .B . 3&z ih h o b oB. M .: Cob. HHcaTeab, 1988. — . O HOBoft KHHre KD.M. C iexaoB a // rienaT b h peBoaxm m i. 1926. K h. 8. C . 101- 119. — . P ea. Ha kh.: Kophhjiob, A .A . T o a u crpaHCTBHfi M H xanna EaxyHHHa (JI.; M .: Toe. H3A-BO, 1925) // nenaT b h peBOjaooHX. 1925. Kh . 5/6. C . 408-409. npeo6paxceHCKHfi, E .A . AHapxH3M h xoMMyHH3M. M .; Fir.: KoMMyHHCT, 1918. IIpH6buieB, A .B . H axoaafl CepreeBHH TioTHeB // K a ro p ra h ccbunca. 1924. Kh. 9. C. 232-237. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 385 Pam ra, 3.K . H3 mohx BocnoMHHainrfi o M .A . EaxyHHHe // O M H H yB ineM : H c t. c6. CI16.: Thh. E.M . B ojib^a, 1909. C. 287-352. — . M nxaHJi AjiexcaHnpoBHH EaxyHHH: H3 mohx BocnoMHHaHHft // MHHyBnrae r o w . 1908. Nfl 10 (o x t.). C . 142-168. — . C eprefi reHHaafceBiiH HenaeB: (M3 mohx BocnoMHHaHHft) // E u ao e. 1906. Nfi 7. C . 136-146. PacniHt^poBaHHbift aH eB H H K A T . JIocroeBCKoft / IloaroT. Texcra x nenaTH, Bcryn. c t. h npHMen. C .B . ^Chtom hpckoH; Pacnm<t>poBxa Texcra Ll.M. (loMemaHcxofi // JlHTepaTypHoe HacjieacTBo. T. 86: Q .M . JJocroeBCKHft. HoBue MaTepHaau h HccaeaoBairaa. M .: Hayxa, 1973. C. 155-291. PrAJlH, 4>. 941, on. 2, ea. 18. PrAJIH, 4 > . 1023 (6Horp. cnpaBxa x orracxM 4>oHaa A.A. EopoBoro). PrAJIH, 1023, on. 1, ea. 156. PrAJIH, 4>. 1023, on. 1, ea. 299. PrAJIH, 4 > . 1023, on. 1, ea. 980, a. 76. P rA J IH , < t> . 1328, on. 1, ea. 22, a. 1. PrAJIH, $ . 1328, on. 2, e a . 18. PrAJIH, < j> . 1328, on. 2, ea. 59, a. 47. PrAJIH, < |> . 1328, on. 3, ea. 304. P rA J IH , < J > . 1328, on. 3, ea. 56. P rA J IH , 1328, on. 4 , ea. 60. PrAJIH, < |> . 1328, on. 4, e a . 72, a. 21. P rA J IH , $ . 1386, on. 2, e a . 15, a. 103. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 386 PoraaeB, H .H . Jloxnaa Ha MexcayHapoaHOM aHapxiniecKOM xoH rpecce 1907 r. b AMcrepaaMe // AHapXHcna: JJoxyMeHTbi h MaTepHaau. 1883-1935: B 2 t . T. 1: 1883-1916. M ., 1998. C. 404-428. Po3eH6jiaT, B. K nepecMOTpy HexoTopux JiHTepaTypnux neHHOcrefi: (0 6 OTHomeHHH k po.M aH y “E e c u ”) // Pyccxax nHreparypa. 1965. Na 3. C. 253-255. PoCKHHa, H .A . K p H T H K O -T e K C T O JIO rH H eC K H e 063OPU O n y O jIH K O B aH H B IX IIH C e M K r epueHy h O rapeBy (no aBrorpat^aM “npaxccxofi xoanexuHH”): IlHCbMa M .A . BaxyHHHa // JlHTepaTypHoe HacaeacTBo. T. 62. M .: A H C C C P , 1955. C. 771- 776. PyxonncH JlocroeBcxoro // nenarb h peBomomix. 1922. Kh . 1. C . 332. PraaHOB, JI.E. O r a e r Ha “OTxpbrroe nncbM o” B. nonoH cxoro // JleronHCH MapxcH3Ma. 1928. Kh . 7/8. C . 135-156. CaiKHH, M.n. BocnoMHHaHHa / ripenHCJi. B .n . nojioH cxoro. M .: Bcecoio3. o 6 m -B o nojiHT. xaropxcaH h c c u n b H o n o c e a e H n e B , 1925. —. BocnoMHHaHHx o n.JI. JIaBpoBe // CaxcHH, M .n. BocnoMHHaHHx. M.: Toe. H3a- bo, 1925. CaxyjiHH, n.H. 06m ecrB O jnoO nrejiefi poccHficxofi cjiOBecHOcra // n e n a n . h peBomooHX. 1927. Kh . 7. C . 300-306. — . Pyccxaa nHTeparypa h conHajiH3M . H. 1: PaHHHft pyccxnft conHanH3M. M .: Toe. H 3 H -B O , 1922. CapacxHHa, JI.H . “ B ecu ” : PoM aH-npeaynpexcaem ie. M .: C o b . n n c a re a b , 1990. — . B ro p au H e n peoaoaem ix: K BocnpHXTHio “BecoB” b 20-e r. // OxTx6pi>. 1989. Na l l . C . 189-197. — . Oeaop JlocroeBCKHfi: OaoaeHHe aeM O H O B . M .: CornacHe, 1996. CBarmcoB, C .r . CTyaeHHecxoe aBHxeeHHe 1869 r.: (EaxyHHH h HenaeB) // H am a crpaH a. C n 6 ., 1907. C . 165-249. CaoHHM, M J I . Pyccirae npeaxenH 6onbmeBH3M a. EepaHH: Pyc. YHHBepcaabHoe H3a- bo, 1923. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 387 C o 6 o jie s, KD.B. C jiy in aa... // 3 x o . 1923. NQ 11(1 Maa). C. 15. C okojiob, H.n. KenbCHeB, B acairafi H bohobhh (1835-1872): [B norp. cnpaBxa] // P yccioie n n c a re jin 1800-1917: B norp. cnoBapb. T. 2. M .: E P 3 , 1992. C. 526- 527. CTamceBHH, A .B . TnMO<|>eft HnxoaaeBHH TpaHOBCKnfl: B norp. onepK. M .: Tim . TpaneBa, 1869. C rexjioB , HD.M. M .A . EaxyHHH: (K 100-JieTHeft roaoB m nne co im a e ro p o x a e m ia ) // Bopiibi 3a cooHajnuM : O nepxn H3 h c to p h h oOmecTBeHHbix h peBOJnouHOHHUx ABHHceHHfi b P occhh. M .: JleHHima, 1918. C . 81-125. — . M .A . EaxyHHH: (K 100-JierHeft roaoB m nne co im a e ro poacaeHna) // E o p o u 3a cooHajiH3M: O nepxn H3 h c to p h h 0 6 mecTBenHbix h peBOjnoiXHOHHhix OBHaceHHft b P o cch h : B 2 h . H. 1. 2-e H3a., n eap. h a o n . M .: T oe. h3h-bo, 1923. C. 164-209. — . M apxc h EaxyHHH // npocBemeime. 1914. Na 5. C. 17-30; Na 6. C . 15-25. — . M nxaHJi AnexcaHiipoBHH EaxyHHH: E ro aouH b h aearejibHOCTb (1814-1876). H. 1. M .: T -bo C b rn m a, 1920. — . M n x a n n AjiexcaaopoBHH EaxyHHH: E ro acraHb h aesTejn>Hocn>: B 3 t . T. 1 (1814-1861). 2-e H3a., Hcnp. h ao n . M .: Kom. axaaeMHa, 1926. — . M n x a n n AnexcaHopoBHH EaxyHHH: E ro h o u h b h aeaT ejibH ocrb, 1814-1876: B 3 t . T . 2: nepexojm bifi n ep n o a, 1861-1868. M .: Toe. h3ji-bo, 1927. — . M H xann AnexcaHZipoBHH EaxyHHH: E ro jkh3hb h aeaTejibH ocrb. T . 3: EaxyHHH b HHtepHaoHOHane. M .; JI.: Toe. h3h-bo, 1927. — . M nxaHJi AjiexcanzipoBHH EaxyHHH: E ro XH3Hb h aeaTejibH ocrb. T . 4: Pacxoji b HffrepHaiiHOHajie. M .; JI.: Toe. H3a-BO, 1927. — . IlepBbifi HHTepHaunoHaji. 3-e H3a., nenp. n a o n . M .; I lr.: Toe. H3a-BO, 1923. — . riocjieaH ne ro ab i jkh3hh BaxyHHHa // T oaoc MHHyBmero. 1914. Na 5. C . 32-82. — . P e a . Ha kh .: A . TaM6apoB. B cnopax o HeqaeBe (1926) // JleronHCH MapxciuMa. 1926. T . 3. C. 148-149. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 388 — . Pea. Ha k h .: Cnop o EaxyHHHe h JI octo cbckom // JleronHCH MapxcH3Ma. 1927. K h. 3. C. 145-148. CTpaxoB, H .H . BocnoMHHaHHfl o O enope MHxafinoBHHe JlocroeBcxoM // JlocroeBCKHfi, O.M. Ilo jra o e coOpaHHe conHHeHHft. T. 1. C II6.: A S . ZlocToeBCKaa, 1883. C . 177-332. TBopnecTBO JlocroeBCKoro: C 6. c t. h MarepHajioB / lio n pen. JI.I1. TpoccMaHa. O necca: Bceyicp. roc. ran-B o, 1921. TicaneB, n.H. EonbH ue m o n n // TxaneB, n.H. H iOpaH Hue coHHHeHiu Ha conHajiBHo- nojmTHHecKHe TeMu: B 4 t . T. 3: (1873-1879). M.: Bcecoio3. o0m-BO nojiHT. xaropxcaH h ccujiLHonocejieHueB, 1933. C. 5 -4 8 ,4 5 1 -4 5 2 . TyH, A . H ctophh peBOjnooHOHHbix HBHxeeHHfi b P occhh / Ilep . B. 3acyjiHH, JI. KojibUOBa h np. CI16.: BHOnHOTexa nnx Bcex, 1906. T yH H M aH O B , B .A . npoponecKHfi poMaH O.M. JlocroeBCKoro: [Ilocjiecji.] // JlocroeBCKHfi, O.M. Eecu. CFI6.: AxaneM. npoeicr, 1994. C . 663-669. TypreHeB, H.C. riojraoe co6paHHe coHHHemifi h nnceM: B 30 t . T. 5 . 2-e H3a. M.: H ayxa, 1980. — . riojraoe coOpaHHe comnieHHfi h nnceM: B 30 t . T. 7. 2-e ra n . M.: H ayxa, 1981. TioTMeB, [H .C .]. EaxyHHH n o HcnoBenn // KHHra h peBomonHX. 1923. Kh . 11/12 (23-24). C . 1-5. Y cneH cxax, A .H . BocnoMHHaHHx mecTHnecxTHHnu // Ebuioe. 1922. Na 18. C. 19-45. Y thh, HHxojiafi HcaaxoBHH: [EHorp. cnpaBxa] // JJexrejiH peBomonHOHHoro nBHxeHHX b P occhh. T. 1. H. 2. M .: Bcecoio3. oOm-Bo nojiH T. x aropxcaH h ccbuibHonocejieHneB, 1928. C. 420-421. O.M. JlocroeBCKHfi: M arepH anid h HccnenoBaHHx / n o n . pen. A .C . JIojnfHHHa. JI.: A H C C C P, 1935. O.M. JlocroeBCKHfi: G rarbH h MaTepHanu / n o n pen. A .C . JlojmHHHa. n r .: Mucnb, 1922. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 389 OHTHep, B.H. “HcnoBeflfc” M .A . SaxyHHHa // O H raep, B.H. rio jra o e co6paim e coiHHeHHd: B 7 t. T. 5. M ., 1932. C . 365-368. 4>pnzuieHAep, T.M . HoBbie khhth o XIoctocbckom // Pyccxaa JiHTepaTypa. 1964. Na 2. C . 179-190. X yaojiefi, B . AHapxHHecKHe TeneHHX HaxaHyHe 1917 r. // M n x am iy BaicyHHHy, 1876- 1926: O n ep x hctophh aH apxH necxoro HBK>KeHHH b P occhh. C 6. ct. M ., 1926. C . 314-322. UeftTJiHH, A T . T pyn nH careju: B o n p o c u ncH xojionm , TBopnecrBa, KyjibTypu h TexHHKH nHcaxejn>CKoro Tpyaa. M .: C ob. nH carejib, 1962. Hepice3 0 B, B.H. 3HaneHHe EaKyHHHa b H H TepH aiiH O H ajibH O M pcbojiiolxhohhom HBHXceHHH: [B cryn. ct.] // EaxyHHH, M .A . H36paHHbie cohhhchhx. T. I. M .: O A K T , 1920. C . V-LXV1. HepmracKax, JI.C . K hctophh H3aaHH« cotohchhA M .A . SaxyHHHa: (JlHCbMO M .I1. C axH H a M .H . floxpoBCKOMy, 1923) // OreqecTBeHHue apxHBU. 1992. Na 1. C. 110- 111. H yjrK O B, r.H. M nxanji EaicyHHH h SynrapH 1917 r. M .: M ock. npocBeT. komhcchx, 1917. UIhjiob, A .A . “KarexKjHC peBomooHOHepa” : (K hctophh “HenaeBCKoro aejia”) // E opb6a KjiaccoB. 1924. Na 1/2. C . 262-272. UlerojieB, n.E. AnexceeBcxHfi paB&iiHH: KHHra o naaeH H H h bcjihhhh qejioBexa. M .: «t>eaepanHJi, 1929. — . Kapaxo30B b AnexceeBCKOM paBejniHe // My3eft peBOjnomra. C 6.1. ITr.: M y3eft peBOjnoQHH, 1923. C. 11-37. 3fciHHOBa, B.B. O B n ecjiaB e FIojiohckom: [B cryn. ct.] // ITojiohckhA, B.n. O JiHTeparype: H36p. paOoTbi. M ., 1988. C. 3-28. KXrajieft ZlocroeBCKoro // n e n a n . h peBOjnoiDM. 1921. Kh . 3. C . 299-300. AcoBJieB, SI.A . PyccKHft aHapxH3M b Bejraxoft pyccxoft peBOjnonHH. M .: Toe. k w -b o , 1921. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 390 flpocJiaBCKHft, E.M. AHapxH3M b Pocchh: (Kax HcropHX pa3penrajia cnop Mexay anapxHcraMH h K O M M y H H craM H b pyccxoft peBOjnoiiHH). M.: IIojiht. H3a-Bo, 1939. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets