Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Art and politics in the Russian satirical press, 1905-1908
(USC Thesis Other)
Art and politics in the Russian satirical press, 1905-1908
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ART AND POLITICS IN THE RUSSIAN SATIRICAL PRESS, 1905-1908.
by
Oleg Minin
_______________________________________________________________
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)
December 2008
Copyright 2008 Oleg Minin
ii
DEDICATION
To my wife Denise, son Nikita, daughter Julia and mother, Ludmila, for their love,
patience and unwavering support.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Throughout several years of researching and writing this dissertation, I received
support, encouragement and practical assistance from my family, academic mentors,
colleagues and friends, without whose generosity I would not have been able to succeed.
Firstly, I am greatly indebted to my wife Denise, son Nikita, daughter Julia and mother
Ludmila for their unwavering support, practical assistance, love and, above all, patience.
Secondly, I sincerely thank my principal advisors Dr. John Bowlt, Dr. Marcus Levitt and
Dr. Azade-Ayse Rorlich for providing me with guidance and valuable advice throughout
the entire process of researching, writing and editing this dissertation. I am very grateful
to them for the time and effort they spent carefully reading my drafts and for their
thoughtful and constructive comments.
Extending my gratitude to the entire faculty and staff of the Slavic Department at
USC and its chair Dr. Thomas Seifrid for the mentorship, generosity and lasting support,
I especially would like to thank Susan Kechekian for the help and care she bestows on the
department’s graduate students. Special thanks go to Dr. Mark Konecny and the Institute
of Modern Russian Culture for logistical support and the use of the Institute’s
comprehensive resources. I would also like to thank Dr. John Malmstad for valuable
advice and information provided through an informal exchange at Pasadena’s Norton
Simon Museum. Dr. Gabriella Safran and Dr. Serhy Yekelchyk are owed my gratitude
for reading select chapters and supplying valuable comments. I am also grateful to Dr.
Nicholas Galichenko and Dr. Zina Gimpelevich for their ever-present encouragement and
iv
support. Through a generous Dissertation Research Grant, the Borchard Foundation made
it possible for me to travel to the Russian Federation to conduct my field research. I am
very grateful to all of these individuals and organizations.
I am greatly indebted to many people in Russia. I would especially like to thank my
good friend and colleague Denis Valerievich Soloviov of the Russian National Library,
whose assistance was crucial for soliciting primary and rare secondary sources. Elena
Valentinovna Barkhatova, and the entire staff of the Print Department of the Russian
National Library were of tremendous assistance during my research in St. Petersburg.
Iulia Lvovna Solonovich and the staff of the Watercolor and Drawing Department of the
State Russia Museum were very accommodating in supplying a great many rare visual
materials which I relied upon. Dr. Nikolai Alekseevich Bogomolov was very generous to
supply me with some of Viacheslav Ivanov’s unpublished correspondence. I am also
grateful to Dr. Andrew Wachtel for putting me in touch with Dr. Bogomolov. Lastly, I
would like to thank Lev Iakovlevich and Liudmila Nikolaevna Solonovich as well as Ms.
Lilia Grishko for making my stay in St. Petersburg and Moscow possible.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Figures vi
Note on Transliteration and Dates xiii
Abstract xv
Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Bugbear: A Journal of Artistic Satire 29
Chapter 2: The Graphic Art of Bugbear and the Response to the Journal
by the Regime 77
Chapter 3: From Bad to Worse: Hellish Post and the Transformation
of the Public Sphere 161
Chapter 4: Satirical Journals of the Russian Right 234
Conclusion 317
Bibliography of Satirical Journals and Periodicals 323
Alphabetized Bibliography 326
Appendix: Press Laws of the Transitional Period, October 1905-March 1906 348
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Anon., “A Gallery of Beheaded Kings,” (Gallereia obezglavlennykh
korolei), Al’bom revoliutsionnoi satiry 1905-1906 g.g.
Ed. S. I. Mitskevich (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925) 127. 63
Figure 2. Kustodiev, Boris. “Resignation. From the Left and from the Right.”
(Otstavka. I s levoi i s pravoi) Zhupel 2 (24 Dec. 1905): 10. 67
Figure 3. Chekhonin, Sergei. “Your Excellency.” (Vashe prevoskhoditel’stvo)
Zritel’ 18 (30 Oct. 1905): 3. 71
Figure 4. Remizov, Nikolai. “Remove that Swine Immediately.”
(Nemedlenno ubrat’ etu svin’iu) Strely 5 (27 Nov. 1905): 5. 72
Figure 5. Anon., “From the Trough to the Gallows.”
(Ot koryta do eshafota) Strely 7 (22 Dec. 1905): 5-7. 75
Figure 6. Gaido, “Tsar’s Rescript.” (Le Rescrit du Tsar)
Pasquino (12 March, 1905). 82
Figure 7. Golia, “Nicholas’ Appreciation.” (Le Remerciements de Nicolas)
Pasquino (17 Dec. 1905). 83
Figure 8. Anon., “The Blessed Stamp.” (Miropomazannyi shtempel’)
c. 1905-1906. 84
Figure 9. Anon., “Juggling Life Recklessly.” (Zhongler otchaiannoi zhizni)
c. 1905-1906. 85
Figure 10. Anon., “Today it is You, Tomorrow it will be Me.”
(Segodnia ty, a zavtra ia) c. 1905-1906. 86
Figure 11. Anon., “The Breaking Up of the Ice on the Neva River.”
(Ledokhod na Neve) c. 1905-1906. 87
Figure 12. Anon., “Tsar and People.” (Tsar’ i narod) c. 1905-1906. 88
Figure 13. Riznichenko, V. V. “Tsar Nicholas II and Gendarmes.”
(Tsar’ Nikolai II i zhandarmy) Iskra (c. 1902-1903). 89
vii
Figure 14. Riznichenko, V. V. “Tsar Nicholas and Prince Obolensky.”
(Tsar’ Nikolai II i kniaz’ Obolenskii) Iskra (c. 1902-1903). 89
Figure 15. Riznichenko, V. V. “Caring Sincerely about Students.”
(Serdechnoe popechenie ob uchashcheisia molodezhi)
Iskra (c. 1902-1903). 90
Figure 16. Riznichenko, V. V. “Bowing to the Knout.” (Poklonenie knutu)
Iskra (c. 1902-1903). 90
Figure 17. Grzhebin, Zinovii. “Be Strong! One Last Step is Left to be Taken!”
(Krepis’! Eshche odin poslednii shag!) Zhupel 3 (Jan. 1906): 4. 92
Figure 18. Gulbransson, Olaf. “The Blind Tsar.” (Der Blinde Tsar)
Simplicissimus 48 (21 Feb. 1905): 1. 93
Figure 19. Grzhebin, Zinovii. “Werewolf-Eagle or Domestic and Foreign Policy.”
(Orel oboroten’ Ili politika vneshniaia i vnutrenniaia)
Zhupel 1 (2 Dec. 1905): 8. 95
Figure 20. Bilibin, Ivan. “Ass [Equus Asinus] 1/20th Natural Size.”
(Osel (Equus Asinus) v 1/20 natural’noi velichiny)
Zhupel 3 (Jan. 1906): 9. 99
Figure 21. Bilibin, Ivan. “Sic Transit.. .” Zhupel 2 (24 Dec. 1905): 4. 100
Figure 22. Grandjouan, Jules. “From Louis XVI to Nicholas II.”
(De Louis XVI à Nicolas II) Le Cri de Paris (29 Jan. 1905). 102
Figure 23. Linse, J. “Message of the Tsar.” (Le Message du Tsar)
Nederlandische Spectator (Nov. 1905). 103
Figure 24. Langa, Rata. “ Tsar’s Vision.” (La Vision du Tsar)
Der Wahre Jacob (22 Aug. 1905). 104
Figure 25. Bilibin, Ivan. “Tsar Dadon.” Zhupel 2 (24 Dec. 1905): 1. 105
Figure 26. Photograph of Nicholas II and the Empress Aleksandra, 1903. 107
Figure 27. Camara, “Nicholas and His Wife.” (Nicolas et Sa Femme)
L’Assiette au Beurre (26 Sep. 1903). 108
Figure 28. Chekhonin, Sergei. “25 silhouettes. 4.” (25 siluetov. 4)
Zritel’ 10 (14 Aug. 1905): 8. 110
viii
Figure 29. Chekhonin, Sergei. “The Tale about a Mother and an Untidy Boy.”
(Skazka ob odnoi mamashe i nechistoplotnom mal’chike)
Zritel’ 21 (17 Nov. 1905): 4-5. 110
Figure 30. Bilibin, Ivan. “Bugbear ‘Spider’ Badge.”
Zhupel 2 (24 Dec. 1905): 8. 113
Figure 31. Paul, Bruno. “Insulted Pride.” (Oskorblennaia gordost’)
Zhupel 2 (24 Dec. 1905): 11. 114
Figure 32. Bilibin, Ivan. “Bugbear ‘Imp’ Logo.” Zhupel 2 (24 Dec. 1905): 9. 116
Figure 33. Serov, Valentin. “Soldiers, Brave Lads! Where is Your Glory?”
(Soldatushki, bravy riabiatushki! Gde-zhe vasha slava?)
Zhupel 1 (2 Dec. 1905): 5. 118
Figure 34. Serov, Valentin. “Cossacks Dispersing a Demonstration in 1905.”
(Razgon demonstratsii kazakami v 1905 godu) 1905. 119
Figure 35. Serov, Valentin. “Year 1905. After the Suppression.”
(1905 god. Posle usmireniia) 1905. 120
Figure 36. Kustodiev, Boris. “Moscow I. Entry.” (Moskva I. Vstuplenie)
Zhupel 2 (24 Dec. 1905): 3. 124
Figure 37. Kustodiev, Boris. “Moscow I. Entry.” (Moskva I. Vstuplenie)
Variant, 1906. 126
Figure 38. Lancéray, Evgenii. “Moscow II. The Battle.” (Moskva II. Boi)
Zhupel 2 (24 Dec. 1906): 6. 127
Figure 39. Ivanov, A. “Before Leaving Abroad. The Second Bell.”
(Pered ot”ezdom za granitsu. Vtoroi zvonok)
Signal 1 (13 Nov. 1905): 4. 129
Figure 40. Dobuzhinsky, Mstislav. “Moscow III. Pacification.” (Moskva III.
Umirotvorenie) Zhupel 2 (24 Dec. 1905): 7. 130
Figure 41. Dobuzhinsky, Mstislav. Graphite sketch for “Moscow III. Pacification.”
(Moskva III. Umirotvorenie), Department of Drawing and Watercolor,
State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg. 131
Figure 42. Remizov, Nikolai. “Admiral Dubasov is Taking a Bath.”
(Admiral Dubasov prinimaet vannu) Strely 9 (7 Jan. 1906): 1. 134
ix
Figure 43. Dobuzhinsky, Mstislav. “How Our Valiant General Conquered
Our Fortress.” (Kak nash slavnyi general nashu krepost’ pokorial)
Zhupel 2 (24 Dec. 1905): 12. 135
Figure 44. Dobuzhinsky, Mstislav. “The October Idyll.”
(Oktiabr’skaia idilliia) Zhupel 1 (2 Dec. 1905): 4. 140
Figure 45. Remizov, Nikolai. “A Sure Way to Become a Flügeladjutant.”
(Vernoe sredstvo sdelat’sia fligel’-ad”iutantom)
Strely 6 (3 Dec. 1905): 1. (cover) 148
Figure 46. Repin, Ilia. “The Grand Opening of the Session of the State Council
on May 7, 1901.” (Torzhestvennoe zasedanie Gosudarstvennogo
Soveta 7 maia, 1901 goda) 1903. 186
Figure 47. Kustodiev, Boris. “Count Ignatiev.”
(Graf Ignat’ev) Adskaia pochta 3 (1906): 1. (cover) 188
Figure 48. Photograph of Count Ignatiev, 1906. 189
Figure 49. Grzhebin, Zinovii. “Durnovo.” Adskaia pochta 3 (1906): 3. 190
Figure 50. Grzhebin, Zinovii. “Stolypin.” Adskaia pochta 3 (1906): 3. 191
Figure 51. Kustodiev, Boris. “Dubasov.” Adskaia pochta 3 (1906): 4. 192
Figure 52. Kustodiev, Boris. “Kokovtsov.” Adskaia pochta 3 (1906): 5. 193
Figure 53. Grzhebin, Zinovii. “Trepov.” Adskaia pochta 3 (1906): 6. 194
Figure 54. Kustodiev, Boris. “Pobedonostsev.” Adskaia pochta 3 (1906): 8. 195
Figure 55. Kustodiev, Boris. “Goremykin.” Adskaia pochta 2 (1906): 8. 196
Figure 56. Lancéray, Evgenii. “Glad to Serve, Your Excellency.”
(Rady starat’sia vashe prevoskhoditel’stvo)
Adskaia pochta 2 (1906): 5. 199
Figure 57. Chekhonin, Sergei. (attributed) “New Kind of Predators
from the Panther Family – Kaul-bars.” (Novaia paroda
khishchnikov iz parody barsov – Kaul-bars) Maski 3 (1906): 5. 201
x
Figure 58. Lancéray, Evgenii. “Happiness on Earth Thanks to
the Fundamental Laws.” (Radost’ na zemle osnovnykh
zakonov radi) Adskaia pochta 1 (1906): 8. 202
Figure 59. Lancéray, Evgenii. “Funeral Feast.”
(Trizna) Adskaia pochta 2 (1906): 4. 203
Figure 60. Repin, Ilia. “Manifestation in Honor of October 17, 1905.”
(Manifestatsiia v chest’ 17 oktiabria 1905 g.), 1906-1911. 204
Figure 61. Anon., “Patriotic March of October 22, 1905 in Moscow
on the Kamennyi Bridge.” (Patrioticheskaia manifestatsiia
v Moskve na Kamennom Mostu 22 oktiabria 1905 g.)
Zritel’ 20 (13 Nov. 1905): 7. 207
Figure 62. Lancéray, Evgenii. “Black Hundredist-Nobleman.”
(Dvorianin-chernosotenets) Zritel’ 3 (1908): 4. 208
Figure 63. Bilibin, Ivan. “Shlusselburg Fortress.”
Adskaia pochta 2 (1906): 2. 215
Figure 64. Chodowiecki, Daniel. Engraving, c. 1750-1790.
Adskaia pochta 2 (1906): 2. 215
Figure 65. Anisfeld, Boris. Vignette. Adskaia pochta 1 (1906): 2. 217
Figure 66. Anon., 16
th
century engraving. Adskaia pochta 1 (1906): 2. 219
Figure 67. Dobuzhinsky, Mstislav. “Sovereign’s Tower.”
(Gosudareva bashnia) Adskaia pochta 2 (1906): 3. 219
Figure 68. Dobuzhinsky, Mstislav. “Baba Iaga.” Adskaia pochta 2 (1906): 7. 220
Figure 69. Mikhailov, Mikhail. “Shlusselburg Fortress.”
Zarevo 3 (Feb. 1906): 1. (cover) 220
Figure 70. Heine, T. T. “Strike.” (Stachka) Adskaia pochta 3 (1906): 9.
Originally published under the title “The Horror Show”
(Grimmitschau) in Simplicissimus 43 (19 Jan. 1904): 337. 227
Figure 71. Kardovsky, Dmitrii. “Well, Keep on Going, You Nag.”
(Nu, tashchisia, sivka) Zhupel 3 (Jan. 1906): 9. 230
xi
Figure 72. “Liudi-Zemlia.” (pseudonym) “Land and Liberty.”
(Zemlia i Volia) Maliar 1 (1906): 6. 231
Figure 73. Anon., “Deft Coachman.” (Likhoi iamshchik) Knut 1 (1906): 1. 245
Figure 74. Anon., “The Savior is Near.”
(Izbavitel’ blizko) Zhgut 1 (1907): 6-7. 251
Figure 75. Klang, Ivan. (attributed) “Anarchy, Constitution.”
(Anarkhiia, konstitutsiia) Zhgut 1 (1907): 1. (cover) 253
Figure 76. Anon., “Days of Laughter and Fun.”
(Dni smekha i zabavy) Knut 6 (1907): 8. 259
Figure 77. Klang, Ivan. (attributed) “The Third Duma Delegates.
Fedia Rodichev.” (Chleny tret’ei Dumy. Fedia Rodichev)
Zhgut 4 (1907): 8. 261
Figure 78. Anon., “Peaceful Regeneration.” (Mirnoe obnovlenie)
Kazanskii raeshnik 1 Jan. 1907: 16. Originally published in
Glas naroda 1 (26 Nov. 1906): 5. 264
Figure 79. “Pero,” (pseudonym) “Magic Transformations.”
(Chudesnye prevrashcheniia) Knut 1 (1908): 4-5. 270
Figure 80. Klang, Ivan. (attributed) “The Epic Hero.”
(Bogatyr’) Zhgut 1 (1907): 4-5. 273
Figure 81. Anon., “Celebrated Aces Abroad When They Were in Russia.”
(Slavny bubny za granitsei v bytnost’ ikh v Rossii)
Kazanskii raeshnik 1 (1908): 9. 274
Figure 82. Grabovsky, Ivan. “His Worker Majesty All-Russian Proletarian.”
(Ego Rabochee Velichestvo Proletarii Vserossiiskii)
Pulemet 2 (1905): 1. (cover) 277
Figure 83. Shestopalov, Nikolai. “Brothers in Arms.”
(Soratniki) Zritel’ 24 (4 Dec. 1905): 1. (cover) 278
Figure 84. Anon., “What a Vile Creature, Vladimir Said.”
(T’fu, gadina! molvil Vladimir) Knut 7 (1907): 4-5. 282
Figure 85. Anon., “Ilia of Murom.” (Il’ia Muromets) Knut 9 (1907): 4-5. 285
xii
Figure 86. Anon., “On the Occasion of Russia’s War against Japan.”
(K voine Rossii s Iaponiei) Popular War Lubok Poster, c. 1904. 287
Figure 87. Samokish-Sudkovskaia, E. “The Great War.” (Velikaia voina)
Postcard, c. 1914. 288
Figure 88. Anon., “The Devil in Despair.” (D’iavol v otchaian’i)
Zhgut 2 (1907): 6. 295
Figure 89. Anon., “Sakhalin Siren Began to Sing Again.”
(Sakhalinskaia sirena, kazhetsia opiat’ zapela)
Zhgut 4 (1907): 7. 299
Figure 90. Taganrogsky, M. “The Zoo of Knout”
(Zverinets Knuta) Knut 5 (1908): 1. 302
Figure 91. Anon., “Non-resistance to Evil.” (Neprotivlenie zlu)
Knut 11 (1907): 4-5. 303
Figure 92. Anon., “The Way Gurka-the-Figure Manages the Money
for the Hungry.” (Kak Gurka-figurka rasporiazhaetsia
golodnymi den’gami) Knut 1 (1906): 4. 312
Figure 93. Anon., “The Way Our General Stessel Fought at Port Arthur.”
(Kak nash Stessel’ - general v Port-Arture voeval)
Zhgut 1 (1907): 8. 313
xiii
NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION AND DATES
In this dissertation, I adhere to the simplified US Library of Congress transliteration
system used by the Slavic and East European Journal. This system is applied consistently
throughout the manuscript. The following rules are followed in order to maintain greater
legibility of the text:
1. All Slavic last names that appear in the body of the text are Anglicized: in proper last
names -sky is used at the end in place of -skii, though not at the end of first names. The
first names are not Anglicized, but transliterated, except for the name “Alexander.”
2. Wherever there is an accepted form that is different from the Anglicized transliteration,
proper names appear in their conventional and not directly transliterated form: e.g.
“Alexander Benois (not Benua), Evgenii Lancéray (not Lansere).
3. Those names which appear in the footnotes and the bibliography are transliterated in
accordance with the above system. Soft and hard signs in the Russian words and names
are then observed.
4. At the beginning of proper names, newspaper and journal titles the standard Ia and Iu
are used instead of Ya and Yu (e.g. Iurii, not Yurii).
5. Geographical names with Anglicized spellings are used in their common appellation
(e.g. Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc) unless they are a part of an original Russian source. In
such cases, they are transliterated in accordance with the above system.
6. Words such as “ruble” and “kopek” are used in their Anglicized transliteration
according to the guidelines of the Slavic and East European Journal.
xiv
7. In the footnote entries, which are based on the Russian archival holdings, the proper
names are Anglicized, while the archival meta-data is identified as “Op,” “Fond,” “ed.
khr.” and “kart.” The letter “l” is used to denote the Russian word “list.” A typical
reference, therefore, appears as follows “E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 15 March 1905,
Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 320, l. 8.
8. Dates of historical events prior to 1918 are recorded in accordance with the Julian
calendar then in use in Russia. This is thirteen days behind the Georgian system used in
the West.
9. Translations from Russian into English are my own unless otherwise noted.
xv
ABSTRACT
The principal subject of inquiry in this dissertation is the satirical press of the First
Russian Revolution, 1905-1906. The politically polarized satirical journals of this period
are looked at as representing a constituent part of what Jürgen Habermas termed “the
liberal-bourgeois public sphere” – a new socio-political environment created in Russia in
the fall and winter of 1905 through a confluence of societal pressure, Tsar’s edicts and
government legislation.
With Habermas’s emphasis on the role of the press in the evolution of bourgeois
liberalism in mind, and, in particular, examining the publishing histories as well as the
visual and textual content of several major Russian left and right-wing satirical journals,
in this dissertation I seek to elucidate larger questions, such as how these politically
diverse media forums worked to expand through image and word the boundaries of the
new public space and what external conditions and intrinsic contradictions prevented
them from achieving this objective.
Although the presence of the politically stratified satirical press revealed the healthy
workings of the newly opened public sphere capable of accommodating such competing
critical discourses, I argue that its stability and, indeed, legitimacy, were continuously
challenged not only by the autocratic state but, paradoxically, by the satirical press itself.
Closely modeling their discourses on radical monarchist dogma, the right-wing satirical
journals hindered the advancement in Russia of the liberal-bourgeois public sphere by
xvi
denying some of its key elements through their ridicule of bourgeois parliamentarism,
constitutionalism and, in certain respects, the capitalist market.
At the same time, the overly critical and unbending oppositional stance occupied vis-
à-vis the tsarist state by the liberal-bourgeois and revolutionary satirical journals, like that
of the left-wing political opposition, outweighed other, potentially more constructive
forms of satirical journalism. Characteristic of the left-wing press as a whole and of the
select journals explored in this study, such a stance presented an earlier example of what
Louise McReynolds gauged as the Russian intelligentsia and the post-1905 periodical
press retreating to a position of “a moral high ground” precluding both from finding
compromises with the regime, and, ultimately, failing to secure the achievements of
Russia’s incipient bourgeois liberalism.
1
gh
INTRODUCTION
The principal concern of this dissertation is the satirical press of a specific period in
modern Russian history – the Revolution of 1905. In Russia, periodical satirical
journalism did not originate in 1905. Flourishing throughout the nineteenth century, it
traces its genesis to several satirical journals published during the reign of Catherine the
Great.
1
However, 1905 is arguably one of the most memorable and significant episodes
in the history of this genre. This was not solely because there emerged in a matter of a
few months a hitherto unparalleled number of periodicals of satire and humor, althou
undoubtedly this was one of the distinct and telling features that set 1905 apart from the
preceding eras.
2
More remarkable for a turn-of-the-century autocratic Empire in which
political opinion and public information were traditionally controlled by the Imperial
1
On the subject of the eighteenth and nineteenth century Russian satirical press, see I. F. Masanov, Russkie
satiro-iumoristicheskie zhurnaly. Bibliograficheskoe opisanie. Vypusk pervyi. I. Vesel’chak. (1858-1859
gg.). II. Iskra. (1859-1873 gg.) (Vladimir na Kliaz’me: Tipografiia gubernskogo pravleniia, 1911); L. B.
Lekhtblau, Russkie satiricheskie zhurnaly XVIII veka (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe uchebno-
pedagogicheskoe izdatel’stvo Narkomprosa RSFSR, 1940); I. G. Iampol’skii, Satiricheskaia zhurnalistika
1860-kh godov; zhurnal revoliutsionnoi satiry “Iskra,” 1859-1873 (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia
literatura, 1964); I. G. Iampol’skii, Satiricheskie i iumoristicheskie zhurnaly 1860-kh godov (Leningrad:
Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1973).
2
Over four hundred periodicals of political humor and satire with an overall circulation of close to thirty
million issues appeared across Russia and its regions between 1905 and 1908. In 1916, a well-known
bibliophile, Nikolai Vinogradov, registered three hundred and seven different titles of both centrally and
provincially published satirical journals. Although Vinogradov’s count absorbed earlier figures provided by
V. Kranikhfeld, S. Mintslov, B. Bodnarsky and L. Zheverzheev, the list was still incomplete. Vladimir
Botsianovsky’s 1925 registry included four hundred and twenty-nine titles. See V. Kranikhfel’d,
“Zhurnal’nye otgoloski. O russkoi satiricheskoi zhurnalistike,” Mir bozhii 7 (1905): 109-132; S. R.
Mintslov, “14 mesiatsev “svobody pechati.” 17 oktiabria 1905 g. - 1 ianvaria 1907 g. Zametki bibliografa,”
Byloe 3 (15) (1907): 123-148; B. S. Bodnarskii, Spravochnyi ukazatel’ knig i zhurnalov, arestovannykh s
17 oktiabria 1905 goda. Vypusk I. po 1-e maia 1907 g.; Vypusk II. S 1-go maia 1908 g. po 1 ianvaria 1909
g.; Vypusk III. S 1 ianvaria po 1 maia 1909 g.; Vypusk IV. S 1 maia 1909 g. po 1 ianvaria, 1910 g.
(Moscow: Osnova, n. d.); L. Zheverzheev, Opis’ moego sobraniia, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1915) 285-451;
574-580; N. N. Vinogradov, “Satira i iumor v 1905-1907 gg. Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’,”
Bibliograficheskie izvestiia 3-4 (1916): 126-135; V. Botsianovskii, and E. Gollerbakh, Russkaia satira
pervoi revoliutsii 1905-1906 (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925) 210-222.
2
government and the Crown was the very appearance of privately published journals
which expressed independent political views.
3
Uncensored expression of political
opinion, be it either one that took the autocracy to task or one that worked in its defense,
was indeed a special, albeit brief moment in the history of tsarist Russia and its satirical
press. It signaled the emergence, in the wake of the reforms of 1905, of a new, liberal
bourgeois public sphere
4
despite the fact that efforts to mold Russia into a Western-style
constitutional monarchy would ultimately fail.
3
The emphasis here is on the adjective “political.” Of course, leading to 1905 Russia possessed a thriving
industry of independently published periodicals, newspapers and even satirical journals. Apart from the
publications devoted to art, literature (e.g. Sergei Diaghilev’s journal World of Art [Mir iskusstva]) and
other subjects, there were several prominent journals of satire and humor published in both St. Petersburg
and Moscow. In this connection, a mention could be made of R. R. Golike’s well-established artistic
journal of caricatures, Buffoon (Shut), N. A. Leikin’s Splinters (Oskolki), V. D. Levinsky’s satirical journal
of caricatures, Alarm clock (Budil’nik) and the artistic journal of humor, Dragonfly (Strekoza), published by
G. K. Kornfeld. Yet, a politicized press or periodical journals devoted exclusively to political satire did not
emerge in Russia until the fall and winter of 1905. As a result of the liberalization of the Russian press that
followed the political crisis of the 1905 revolutionary period, many of the aforementioned satirical
periodicals also politicized their content. Leaning to the left, they addressed political (as opposed to merely
social) themes and criticized certain aspects and personalities of the tsarist establishment. For a
contemporaneous (to these journals) thematic survey and reproductions of graphic art taken from some of
them, see A. L. Avel’-Avok, “Otsy otechestva i Duma v sovremennoi satire,” Vestnik znaniia 5 (1906):
104-110. In her study, Margaret Betz gauges the gradual radicalization of one of these journals, Dragonfly,
by comparing caricatures and cartoons appearing in this publication before and after the general strike of
October 1905. See Margaret Betz, “The Caricatures and Cartoons of the 1905 Russian Revolution: Images
of the Opposition,” diss., City U of New York, 1984, 26-28. A brief survey of the journals mentioned may
be also found in L. A. Evstigneeva, “Satiricheskie i iumoristicheskie zhurnaly,” Russkaia literatura i
zhurnalistika nachala XX veka, ed. B. A. Bialik (Moscow: Nauka, 1984) 295-297.
4
In the present study, the notion of the liberal bourgeois public sphere is understood in terms of the model
advanced by Jürgen Habermas. Public sphere is a realm of social life in which public opinion can be
formed by the citizens conferring “in an unrestricted fashion – that is, with the guarantee of freedom of
assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions – about matters of general
interest.” See Jürgen Habermas, “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964),” New German
Critique 3 (Autumn, 1974) 49. In Russia, advances in this direction were made by the Tsar and the
government prior to the fall of 1905. This was the so-called “government spring” (pravitel’stvennaia
vesna), the “epoch of trust” (epokha doveria), which corresponded to Sviatopolk-Mirsky’s occupying the
post of the Minister of the Interior (from August 1904). During this brief period, censorship was relaxed
and local self-government (zemstvo) congresses were permitted to convene. After Mirsky’s resignation
following the events of Bloody Sunday, an attempt was also made to establish the first representative body
– the “Bulygin” Duma. However, it was not until 1905 -1906 that Russia saw the emergence of institutions
and conditions which, according to Habermas, signal the advent of a bourgeois public sphere – a
constitutional charter, the relaxation of censorship, the creation and convocation of the country’s first
3
The primary intention of this dissertation is not to offer an exhaustive analysis of the
political and social components constituting the emerging liberal bourgeois public sphere
in turn-of-the-century Russia. Nor is it to trace its historical evolution as does, for
instance, Jürgen Habermas in relation to the early European models in his seminal book
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of
Bourgeois Society. Rather, with Habermas’s expositions in mind and, specifically, with
his emphasis on the role of the press in the evolution of the original European paradigms
of the liberal bourgeois public sphere, I invoke the socio-political background and history
of the period as indispensable elements in the assessment of one of the constituent parts
of this new public domain and the principal subject of this inquiry – the satirical press.
Much attention, therefore, is focused in this research on the cartoons and texts – the
primary instruments at the disposal of the satirical press. The themes they addressed,
political events, issues, institutions and personalities they commented on as well as the
visual and verbal mechanisms employed to generate both satire and message – all figure
prominently in this study, the scope of which extends to include the ideational
considerations and rationale used by the creators to construct the respective discourses of
their journals. By investigating the 1905 satirical press, I hope to also elucidate larger
questions such as how it worked to expand through image and word the boundaries of the
new public space and what external conditions (e.g. censorship) and intrinsic
elected parliament, the State Duma, the creation of political parties and, significantly, the appearance of a
party and satirical press. It was the latter two elements in particular which assumed the functions of forums
for “the critically debating public” – one of the core elements signifying the emergence of a public sphere.
Although Habermas’s analysis is focused on Western (e.g. British, French and German) paradigms, the
Russian situation may be modeled in comparison. See Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of
the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger and Frederick
Lawrence (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000) 57-73.
4
contradictions (anti-democratic nature of the right-wing journals and the
uncompromising, critical stance of the left-wing satirical press) prevented it from
achieving this objective.
Socio-political context
In the fall of 1905, the Russian Empire was in the throes of domestic turmoil that
threatened the stability of the Tsarist regime. In no small measure, this was precipitated
by the events that took place in the Russian capital, St. Petersburg, on January 9, 1905;
set out to petition the Tsar, a peaceful march of industrial workers was met with an armed
response from government troops. Leaving many marchers dead, this action shattered the
popular belief in the good Tsar. Bloody Sunday, as the tragedy of January 9 was recorded
in the annals of Russian history, was followed by student, labor and rural disorder, and, in
the spring of 1905, by a series of humiliating military and naval defeats in the war with
Japan. Fuelled by the ever-active liberation movement and revolutionary propaganda,
burgeoning popular discontent with the Imperial government and the Tsar reached its
peak in October of 1905. By the middle of the month, the Russian capital was at a
standstill gripped by a massive general strike led by the popular St. Petersburg Soviet of
Workers’ Deputies.
5
A politicized satirical press emerged in Russia as a direct result of major liberal
reforms brought forth by the Crown following the revolutionary violence that culminated
5
For detailed historical accounts of this period see, for instance, Laura Engelstein, Moscow, 1905.
Working-Class Organization and Political Conflict (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1982); Gerald D. Surh, 1905 in
St. Petersburg. Labor, Society, and Revolution (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1989); Leon Trotsky, 1905 (New
York: Random House, 1971); Andrew M. Verner, The Crisis of Russian Autocracy: Nicholas II and the
1905 Revolution (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1990).
5
in the October 1905 general strike and, in December of the same year, the armed uprising
in Moscow. The great catalyst of these reforms and of a new socio-political environment
was the Imperial Manifesto of October 17, 1905.
6
Received by the public and the press as
a constitution,
7
this seminal act granted Russian society, for the first time in the history of
the country, the “inviolable foundations of civil liberty [based] on the principles of
genuine inviolability of person, the freedoms of conscience, speech, assembly and
association.”
8
Apart from promulgating this “catalogue” of basic rights of men, in the
October Manifesto the Tsar granted voting powers to disenfranchised segments of the
population. Most importantly, Tsar Nicholas also pledged to convene a popularly elected
parliament, the State Duma, further stipulating that no law would acquire force without
its express approval.
Legitimizing so cogently the new public sphere, the October Manifesto had an
immediate and resounding effect on the social and political life of tsarist Russia. Freedom
of assembly and the promise of a representative parliament resulted in the unprecedented
creation of new political and professional entities. Opening the floodgates of partisan
politics, the Manifesto gave impetus to the emergence of a great variety of political
parties, unions, soviets and occupational groups. Springing up in the country in October-
December 1905, these organizations challenged the patrimonial autocracy’s exclusive
6
Henceforth, “the October Manifesto.”
7
See M. Ganfman, “Iavochnyi period svobody stolichnoi pechati,” Svoboda pechati pri obnovlennom stroe
(St. Petersburg: Tipografiia t-va “Obshchestvennaia Pol’za,” 1912) 49.
8
The full text of the October Manifesto may be found in Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990) 43.
6
monopoly on political authority and claimed the right to formulate and express public
opinion.
Although visible prior to October 1905, the processes of the political division of
Russian society gained greater momentum during the post-Manifesto period and leading
to the first Duma elections in the spring of 1906. Differing greatly in terms of their
ideological positions and objectives, the new political organizations ran the gamut from
those of the radical revolutionary persuasion (still illegal inside Russia) to others on the
far right of the ideological scale. Occupying the moderate left-wing of Russian politics,
the liberal-bourgeois agenda, as the first two parliamentary elections had revealed,
dominated the sympathies of the Russian public from 1905 through 1907. Remarkable for
a country that only a short time before 1905 had been confined to the unilateral political
dictates of the autocratic state, the political polarization of this period was a telling
indication of the onset and growth of hitherto limited public participation in the realm of
politics.
Further reducing the autocracy’s control over public information, the “freedom of
speech” provision of the October Manifesto and the subsequent relaxation of censorship
regulations by the new press laws of November 1905 (the so-called The Temporary Press
Rules), heralded the long-awaited, legal liberation of the Russian press.
9
In and of itself,
9
In actuality, the Russian periodical press claimed its freedom immediately following the October
Manifesto, when many newspapers and journals (not without support from the St. Petersburg and Moscow
Soviets) were printed in accordance with what became known as iavochnyi poriadok or publishing without
prior approval by the censoring authorities. See Ganfman 43-61; S. I. Makhonina, Istoriia russkoi
zhurnalisitki nachala XX veka (Moscow: Nauka, 2002) 24-25. Ironically, the Temporary Press Rules of
November 24, 1905 were regarded by the representatives of the St. Petersburg press community, which by
that time were united under the aegis of the Union for the Protection of the Freedom of the Press (Soiuz v
zashchitu pechati), as restrictive and limiting. For more on this, see B. V. Anan’ich, and R. S. Ganelin,
7
this development also signaled the advancement of a new public domain the same way
the elimination of the institution of censorship in seventeenth century England marked a
new stage in the development of the prototypical British model of the liberal-bourgeois
public sphere.
10
Although the period of the so-called “days of liberty” of the press in
revolutionary Russia proved to be rather short,
11
it was characterized by the emergence of
periodicals of every editorial propensity and in many of the empire’s languages.
12
Fostered by relaxed censorship, the establishment of political organizations went
hand in hand with the creation of affiliated newspapers and news agencies as these
entities sought to transmit their programs, views and opinions independently of the
authority of the government and the Crown.
13
Seeking to sway public opinion to its side,
the government itself attempted to establish new media organs in order to propound the
Sergei Iul’evich Vitte i ego Vremia (St. Petersburg, 1999) 252-253; E. A. Valle-De-Barr, Svoboda russkoi
pechati: Posle 17 oktiabria 1905 g. (Samara, 1906) 20-32.
10
Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere 58.
11
The diversity of government actions taken and legal acts passed between October 1905 and July 1907
which granted liberties and took them away necessitates a differentiation between the temporal margins of
the so-called “Days of Liberty” in political terms and in terms of the freedom of the press. In his book,
Abraham Ascher, for instance, conservatively places the margins of political days of liberty within the
period of October 18 – December 3, 1905. The latter date is connected with the arrest of the St. Petersburg
Soviet, which the historian argues signified the onset of political reaction. See Abraham Ascher, The
Revolution of 1905: Russia in Disarray (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1988) 275-303. Other historical accounts
tend to extend this period to Stolypin’s parliamentary coup of June 3, 1907. By contrast, freedom of the
press, which, in the context of the present study is understood narrowly as freedom of the periodical press,
is defined in accordance with a period of four months between November 24, 1905 and March 18, 1906 –
the dates corresponding to the abrogation and reinstatement of the preliminary censorship of periodicals.
An overview of the laws and provisions that regulated the urban press during this period may be found in
Appendix.
12
Louise McReynolds, The News under Russia’s Old Regime. The Development of a Mass-Circulation
Press (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991) 220; Ascher 144.
13
A. V. Shevtsov, Izdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’ russkikh nesotsialisticheskikh partii nachala XX veka (St.
Petersburg: Rossiiskaia natsional’naia biblioteka, 1997); S. I. Makhonina, Russkaia dorevoliutsionnaia
pechat’ (1905-1914) (Moscow: Izd-vo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1991).
8
views and values favorable to the regime and to secure positive coverage of the events of
the rapidly developing political scene.
14
The Satirical Press
Displaying great geographical and linguistic diversity, the satirical press swiftly
became one of the most thriving publishing industries of the period.
15
Like the party
press, satirical periodicals also reflected the processes of political stratification. First and
foremost, this was seen in the dualistic position the emerging satirical journals occupied
vis-à-vis the state, autocracy and the country’s supreme authority – the Tsar. Although
their separation into those of the left (e.g. oppositional, anti-tsarist) and those of the right
(anti-liberal, pro-monarchist, protective of autocracy) may somewhat simplify the
situation, such a taxonomy gauges the basic political division between the satirical
journals of the period fairly accurately. In this dissertation, I am concerned principally
with exploring the ways in which the polarized satirical press of 1905-1907, acting in the
capacity of a new public forum and underscoring the pluralistic nature of the public
14
See A. V. Likhomanov, Bor’ba samoderzhaviia za obshchestvennoe mnenie v 1905-1907 gg. (St.
Petersburg: Rossiiskaia national’naia biblioteka, 1997).
15
As noted by Botsianovsky, approximately two hundred satirical publications emerged in St. Petersburg
(among them journals in Estonian, Latvian and Armenian) and close to one hundred in Moscow, some of
which were in Yiddish. Many more were available in large provincial towns such as Astrakhan, Kazan,
Tver and Krasnoyarsk as well as in the Ukraine (Kiev, Odessa, Vilno), Georgia (Tiflis) and Poland
(Warsaw). See Botsianovskii 210-222. For more on the revolutionary satirical journals available in the
Russian provinces, the Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia and Estonia, see V. V. Shleev, Revoliutsiia 1905-1907
godov i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo. Vypusk vtoroi. Moskva i rossiiskaia provintsiia (Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe
iskusstvo, 1978); V. V. Shleev, Revoliutsiia 1905-1907 godov i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo. Vypusk tretii.
Ukraina i Moldaviia (Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, 1981); V. V. Shleev, Revoliutsiia 1905-1907
godov i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo. Vypusk chetvertyi. Latviia, Estoniia (Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo,
1989). For additional information regarding provincial right-wing satirical periodicals, see the sources
listed in footnote 49.
9
sphere, fulfilled its dual objective of criticizing or defending the autocracy and functioned
vis-à-vis the public sphere itself.
The Left-Wing Satirical Press
Emerging at a rapid pace in the wake of the October Manifesto, when every week
seemed to bring one or two new journals,
16
satirical periodicals of left-wing persuasion
became some of the harbingers of liberated speech in a country where the very concept of
free expression had no legal precedent prior to the fall of 1905. Pushing the boundaries of
the nascent public sphere, the left-wing satirical press tested the limitations of the new
order and the regime’s commitment to reform.
Just as there were major subdivisions and differences within the political parties and
the associated press of the left, so was there a diversity of political preferences within the
left-wing satirical journals. Some of them went as far as openly proclaiming their
adherence to a particular, often radical, party platform. For instance, in one of its original
issues, S. Usas’s illustrated weekly Liberty (Svoboda, St. Petersburg) stated that the
journal accepted “in its entirety the program adopted at the Second Congress of the Social
Democratic Workers’ Party.”
17
The majority of the left-wing journals, including the ones
discussed in this study, were more moderate. Leaning toward the liberal bourgeois
agenda, they were less conspicuous when it came to revealing or publicizing any political
affiliations.
16
See Vinogradov 122.
17
See Svoboda 2 (Nov. - Dec., 1905): 2.
10
Notwithstanding the differences in the political leaning of their creators, in the winter
of 1905 and spring of 1906 - the period which this research specifically focuses on as
regards the left-wing press - the oppositional satirical journals were united by a common
desire to antagonize and discredit the regime despite the steps the autocracy took to
advance the liberal order. In the wake of Bloody Sunday as well as other recent domestic
and international blunders committed by the regime, this position of left-wing satire was
as much moment-specific as it was genre-specific. This is to say that the liberal public
sought to take the regime to task for particular transgressions choosing satire as one of
the most appropriate tools for the objective at hand. The references to Bloody Sunday and
the disastrous episodes of the Russo-Japanese War – the two most notorious debacles
which damaged the autocracy’s public image prior to the winter of 1905 - enter the
discourses of the left-wing satirical periodicals in conjunction with the coverage of the
developing events of the revolution. Commenting on the latter, the left-wing satirists
likewise sought to implicate the regime and its personification – the Tsar - as responsible
for much of the outrageous and often excessive violence of the post-Manifesto period. By
doing that, in the winter of 1905-1906, the left-wing satirical press was becoming an
independent institution of the new public sphere – one that could assert itself against the
government and the Crown and make critical commentary against autocracy be part of
the normal state of affairs.
18
The pronounced critical edge of the left-wing satirical journals spurred their
popularity. Sold on the streets, at kiosks, bookstores and distributed by subscription, these
18
K. Kluxen, Das Problem der Politischen Opposition (Munchen, 1956) 71. Quoted from Habermas, The
Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere 60.
11
mid-size, typically two-color publications aroused enormous public interest. This appeal
was predicated on their sudden ability to laugh at taboo subjects which only a short while
ago were beyond the permissible limits of the periodical media: domestic and foreign
affairs, government officials and, significantly, the holy person of the Russian Autocrat
were among the frequent targets of their satire and invectives.
As suggested by Sergei Isakov, the often semi-legal status of the left-wing satirical
periodicals also drove the demand;
19
published within legal parameters but, after
November 1905, without prior approval by the censoring authorities, many of these
journals were subsequently banned due to their subversive content after only a few issues.
Exponentially increasing their desirability (and price) in the eyes of the reading public,
the repressions were also a clear indication of the limitations of the autocracy’s
commitment to the creation in Russia of a genuine liberal public order. Yet, the
confrontation between the autocracy and the press, and, in this case, specifically the
satirical press, was also symptomatic of a certain critical strength of the nascent public
sphere representing a tangible factor in its evolution.
20
The popularity of the left-wing satirical journals led to their increasing appearance on
the market. Realizing the commercial potential of such publications, a legion of
enterprising individuals-turned-editors and publishers sought to capitalize on the demand,
often at the expense of artistic quality. Those journals that were among the first to gain
recognition were emulated by other lesser-known publications seeking to ride on the
19
See S. Isakov, 1905 v satire i karikature (Leningrad: Priboi, 1928) 53.
20
Habermas 60, 73.
12
coattails of their more popular counterparts.
21
Symbolizing the revolution, the color red
also appealed to the public; it was said, for instance, that the value of an oppositional
satirical journal and its run were often determined by the amount of red ink used. “There
were cases,” – writes a contemporary observer, “when the vendors would refuse to
distribute certain issues that did not have red color in them.”
22
Along with commercially-
minded editors and publishers also came new illustrators who often had little to do with
art as such: a lack of concern for the quality of the artwork on the part of the
entrepreneurs made it possible for anyone capable of sharpening a pencil and using an
eraser “to apply himself to depicting something. … This was the triumph of vulgarity
manifested in the most grotesque and strange forms.”
23
Although these observations are not without merit, there were also plenty of truly
artistic satirical journals of left-wing persuasion. The quality of their graphic art was
assured by some of the most gifted young artists of the period; their texts were often
supplied by writers of talent. Published in St. Petersburg, such journals as Juvenal
(Iuvenal), Wood Goblin (Leshii), Masks (Maski), Signal, Harlequin (Skomorokh) and
Arrows (Strely) were illustrated by, among others, Isaac Brodsky, Sergei Chekhonin,
Nikolai Feshin, Valerian Karrik and Nikolai Remizov. The editor of Signal, Kornei
Chukovsky, was also one of its principal literary contributors, while one of the most
talented poet-satirists of the period, Alexander Glikberg (Sasha Chernyi), wrote for Wood
21
This was the case with Nikolai Shebuev’s Machine Gun (Pulemet) – one of the first post-October
Manifesto left-wing satirical journals. In 1906, P. I. Shoshin, who had little to do with Shebuev or his
journal, published five issues of a journal titled My Machine Gun (Moi pulemet). See Botsianovskii 217.
22
Maliazh, “Nedavnee i nastoiashchee. Kharakteristika satiricheskikh zhurnalov,” Otkliki khudozhestvennoi
zhizni 1 (1910): 70-75.
23
Maliazh 73.
13
Goblin, Masks and other journals. Special mention should be made of Iurii Artsybushev’s
Spectator (Zritel’, St. Petersburg) - the first de facto artistic and literary satirical journal
of that period with a distinctly political, anti-establishment agenda.
24
Spectator was
illustrated by Chekhonin, Evreinov, Shestopalov and Traubenberg as well as other
competent graphic artists.
Geared to foment dissent among the public, these satirical journals reached a wide
range of primarily urban readers as they were published exclusively in the cities. A
certain number of them more than likely filtered down to the countryside, where, like
other periodicals, they could be obtained at railroad stations.
25
The critic M. L-sky
gauged the extent of their appeal when he recalled that the newspaper vendors who
distributed these publications would be approached by “a young sailor, a pharmacy
assistant of the ‘comrade’ variety, a preoccupied general and a busy merchant,” as well as
by “a scruffy old man in a coat, female students and bank employees.” Passport registrars
and even local police officers as well as other rank and file policemen would express an
interest in them.
26
Government censors, officials in the Ministry of the Interior and the
courts also represented undisputable categories of readers of these periodicals. Evidence
suggests that members of the aristocracy, including the Tsar, were also familiar with the
24
Significantly, Vinogradov points out that Spectator, the first issue of which came out on June 5, 1905,
was preceded by several satirical leaflets (listki) published by one Evges Potseluev as early as April 1905.
Each edition of these colorful, fairly brave and quick-witted publications with social and political overtones
was issued under a different title. Potseluev’s leaflets were very popular among the reading public in the
capital cities and in the provinces, creating a new market, which was soon filled with other similar
rudimentary publications. Among these, Vinogradov cites Echo (Ekho), Bell (Kolokol) and Spinnaker
(Parus), all of which were published by Niktopolion Poshekhonsky. See Vinogradov 121.
25
For a good overview and statistics regarding distribution locations of periodicals in turn-of-the-century
Russia, see Jeffrey Brooks, When Russia Learned to Read. Literacy and Popular Literature, 1861-1917
(Princeton: Princeton UP, 1985) 109-165; Makhonina, Russkaia dorevoliutsionnaia pechat’, 56-57.
26
M. L-skii, “Vo vlasti gluposti,” Istoricheskii vestnik 4-5 (1912): 97-98.
14
journals.
27
Writers, artists and journalists, especially of St. Petersburg and Moscow,
naturally followed them out of professional interest, themselves often turning into editors,
publishers and contributors. Some satirical journals like Spectator were also available
abroad thus reaching Russian and foreign readers outside of Russia. Signified by its
popularity and mass appeal, such an all-embracing penetration of the mass audience by
the left-wing satirical press signaled the expansion of the public sphere at the same time
alarming the authorities to take drastic measures to curb its advance.
Liberal - Bourgeois Journals of Artistic Satire Bugbear and Hellish Post
From among the vast number of left-wing satirical periodicals issued during the
heady days of press liberty, two in particular are examined in this study - Bugbear
(Zhupel) and Hellish Post (Adskaia pochta). Published in St. Petersburg between
December 1905 and June 1906, these two publications were among the first left-wing
journals of satire to appear and to be banned. Their publishing histories and content
highlight the artistic intelligentsia’s response to the revolution, the immediate
achievements of the revolution and the liberation movement in the area of press freedom
as well as the limitations and contradictions of the ensuing liberalized order. Regarding
their oppositional content and the characteristically punitive response to it on the part of
the regime – the two aspects that are treated at length in this study - Bugbear and Hellish
Post may be said to represent the entire corpus of the left-wing satirical periodicals. Their
critical stance is also indicative of the part the left-wing satirical press as a whole came to
play in the winter and spring of 1905-1906 in its capacity as a vibrant element of the new
27
See, for instance, N. Shebuev’s account in “Istoriia moego “Pulemeta,” Zhurnalist 12 (28) (1925): 21-25.
15
public sphere and in Russian society’s struggle with the autocracy for a more open and
just order.
Perhaps like no other satirical periodicals, Bugbear and Hellish Post reflected one
special feature of the post-October Manifesto liberal period, which was also indicative of
an emerging public domain - the ability of socially concerned private individuals of
diverse political and aesthetic convictions to unite in pursuit of common anti-
establishment objectives. From the moment of their inception, the two journals combined
on their pages cartoons and texts by the artists, journalists and writers of disparate and
even conflicting trends in Russian turn-of-the-century arts and letters. At one and the
same time, Bugbear, for instance, solicited contributions from the journalists of the
Socialist Revolutionary newspaper Son of the Fatherland (Syn otechestva) as well as
from Symbolists and neo-Realists – two groups of writers, which prior to 1905 would
appear to be highly implausible parties for mutual collaboration.
28
Moreover, the writings by the Symbolist and the neo-Realist writers, who, among
others, included Konstantin Balmont, Valerii Briusov, Ivan Bunin, Maksim Gorky,
Viacheslav Ivanov, Alexander Kuprin and Fedor Sologub were combined on the pages of
28
In this dissertation, the terms “Symbolist” and “neo-Realist” are applied to identify two distinct groups of
writers of prose and poetry active in both Moscow and St. Petersburg c. 1893-1910. In relation to the
former, of specific interest is the so-called “second” generation of Symbolists comprised of writers close to
Viacheslav Ivanov and his Tower (Bashnia) salon. The term “neo-Realists” is applied to the writers
originally grouped around Nikolai Teleshov’s Moscow “Wednesday” circle (1899) and, later, Konstantin
Piatnitsky and Maksim Gorky’s Knowledge (Znanie) cooperative. It is used to distinguish the younger
generation of turn-of-the-century realist authors from their mid-nineteenth century precursors in the same
manner Nicholas Luker does in his book An Anthology of Russian Neo-Realism: The “Znanie” School of
Maxim Gorky (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1982). The distinction between the Symbolists and the neo-Realists is a
complicated matter; although in their choices of themes and narrative strategies the writers of Gorky’s
circle may have differed from their Symbolist counterparts, they were certainly far less didactic (and in
that, like the Symbolists, more “modern”) than their nineteenth century counterparts. At the same time, the
antagonism with which the Symbolists viewed the writers of neo-Realist persuasion was a factor real
enough to draw a line between these two movements in turn-of-the-century Russian literature.
16
Bugbear and Hellish Post with the graphic works prepared by artists of the World of Art
group and their associates.
29
Boris Anisfeld, Ivan Bilibin, Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, Zinovii
Grzhebin, Evgenii Lancéray, Boris Kustodiev and Valentin Serov were their chief artistic
contributors, supplying the journals with some of the most audacious and artistically
potent political cartoons that appeared in print during the two revolutionary years.
Ranging greatly in their political ambitions and beliefs, these diverse personalities
were united on the pages of Bugbear and Hellish Post by a common desire to express
publicly their sympathy for the revolution and protest against the Tsarist establishment.
As their particular weapons, they chose satirical ridicule, snide visual allusion, a
suggestive verbal joke, a symbolic graphic image and, at times, even texts and drawings
that were not strictly satirical.
Bugbear and Hellish Post, however, were more than just compilations of oppositional
cartoons and texts. It would be more appropriate to think of them as literary-artistic clubs
in which the offices and residences of their editors and contributors doubled as places of
gathering for addressing issues of common concern in a rational and critical way. These
gatherings resembled the original European hotbeds of critical public debates – the
English coffee houses, French salons and the German learned table societies, which,
29
It should be noted that by 1905, the World of Art collective had grown to be a very large and rather
disparate group that counted among its members and associates not only its core, founding members (e.g.
Benois, Diaghilev, Filosofov, etc.) but also a large list of artistic and literary contributors to the journal
World of Art. In this study, I am concerned predominantly with members of the principal group, which
included Leon Bakst, Alexander Benois, Sergei Diaghilev, Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, Evgenii Lancéray and
Ivan Bilibin.
17
characteristically, gave rise to many a notable periodical publication including Addison
and Steele’s prototypical The Spectator.
30
Made possible by the revolution and reform, the new socio-political environment
warranted the strange literary-artistic coalitions of Bugbear and Hellish Post. Although
fleeting and only in very few cases surviving beyond 1905-1906, they are of special
interest to this research for representing defining features of both journals as well as for
exemplifying novel public practices, which at this point were still working toward
strengthening the developing liberal order. This is despite the often-conflicting overall
political convictions of their members.
In critical literature on the left-wing satirical press, and, in particular, on Bugbear and
Hellish Post, this phenomenon represents a somewhat grey area. Alliances such as the
one in Bugbear between the publisher of the Socialist Revolutionary Son of the
Fatherland, Sergei Iuritsyn, and the artists of the World of Art, or between miriskusniki
and the Mystical Anarchists Georgii Chulkov and Viacheslav Ivanov in Hellish Post have
hardly been addressed. The latter union presented an especially problematic issue for
Soviet art historians. Neither one of the major early Soviet studies of the left-wing
30
Immediately prior to 1905, the assemblies and banquets of the local rural and urban self-governments
(zemstva) and especially the zemstvo-generated discussion group called Symposium (Beseda, c. 1899),
were the principal places to host critical public debates on political and social issues of national
significance. For more on Symposium, its importance and role in the organization of public opinion c.
1901-1902, see Shmuel Galai, The Liberation Movement in Russia, 1900-1905 (Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 2002) 133-156. For an informative overview of various other institutions of public discourse and
opinion in turn of the century Russia, see the section titled “In the Public Sphere” in Mark D. Steinberg’s
“Russia’s fin de siècle, 1900-1914,” The Cambridge History of Russia, ed. Maureen Perrie, D. C. B. Lieven
and Ronald Grigor Suny (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006) 77-82.
18
satirical press discuss it.
31
In his 1928 book 1905 v satire i karikature, Sergei Isakov
alludes to it sarcastically and only in passing. Following in the footsteps of Dulsky,
Isakov and Botsianovsky, Gomberg-Verzhbinskaia and Shleev’s accounts do not delve
into it either; neither do the Western critics.
32
Gauging Benois’s aesthetic stance during
1905-1906, Lapshina comes very close to addressing it, but unexpectedly abandons the
subject.
33
In a recent (2006) article, Iulia Demidenko traces the interaction between the
Symbolists of Ivanov’s Tower and the miriskusniki artists of Bugbear and Hellish Post.
Oddly, their mutual partnership in Hellish Post is not mentioned.
34
Hitherto, consideration was given only to Maksim Gorky’s collaboration in Bugbear
and Hellish Post. Z. Karasik’s article titled “M. Gor’kii i satiricheskie zhurnaly ‘Zhupel’ i
‘Adskaia pochta,’”
35
and N. Priimak’s essay “Novye dannye o satiricheskikh zhurnalakh
31
Among these, see P. Dul’skii, Grafika satiricheskikh zhurnalov 1905-1906 gg. (Kazan, 1922) as well as
Botsianovskii and Gollerbakh.
32
See E. P. Gomberg-Verzhbinskaia, Russkoe iskusstvo i revoliutsiia 1905. Grafika. Zhivopis’ (Leningrad:
Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1960); V. V. Shleev, Revoliutsiia 1905-1907 godov i izobrazitel’noe
iskusstvo. Vypusk pervyi. Peterburg (Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, 1977); John E. Bowlt, The Silver
Age: Russian Art of the Early Twentieth Century and the "World of Art" Group (Newtonville, Mass.:
Oriental Research Partners, 1982); John Bowlt, "Art and Violence: The Russian Caricature in the Early
Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," Twentieth Century Studies 13/14 (1975); John Bowlt, “Russian
Caricature and the 1905 Revolution,” Print Collector’s Newsletter 1 (1978): 5-8.
33
N. Lapshina, “Mir Iskusstva.” Ocherki istorii i tvorcheskoi praktiki (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1977).
34
See I. B. Demidenko, “Khudozhniki na Bashne,” Bashnia Viacheslava Ivanova i kul’tura Serebriannogo
veka, ed. A. B. Shishkin, et al. (St. Petersburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet S.-Peterb. gos. un-ta, 2006) 212-
219.
35
See Z. M. Karasik, “M. Gor’kii i satiricheskie zhurnaly ‘Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta,’” M. Gor’kii v
epokhu revoliutsii 1905-1907 godov. Materialy, vospominaniia, issledovaniia (Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii
Nauk SSSR, 1957) 357-387.
19
1905 goda ‘Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta’”
36
are very informative and helpful. Introducing
some key archival sources and information regarding the origins of Bugbear and Hellish
Post which were absent from prior criticism, these studies touch upon Gorky’s
relationship with the participating miriskusniki.
37
Karasik, and less so Priimak, gauge the
positive reception of Gorky by, for instance, Lancéray (as based on one of his letters to
Benois), but omit a not-so-flattering assessment of the iconic proletarian writer by Benois
in his response to Lancéray and in Benois’s letter to Somov of the same period. Alluding
to the mystical anarchist currents in Hellish Post, neither one of the critics attempts to
discuss the doctrine and its effect on the discourse of the journal. Their evaluation of
Symbolist participation in Hellish Post is largely negative and, at any rate, not analytical.
Karasik tangentially touched upon the union between the miriskusniki and Iuritsyn
stating, however, that it was limited only to the publication and the distribution of
Bugbear. The fact that Iuritsyn also contributed to the journal textually and took an active
part in molding the literary section of the journal is not addressed, even though it would
seem that here lay one of Iuritsyn’s “political” (e.g. Socialist-Revolutionary) motivations
for financing the journal.
38
In part, this study is devoted, therefore, to the exploration of several of the
aforementioned literary-artistic alliances and corresponding aesthetic and ideational
rationales their members contributed to the construction of these journals’ messages of
36
N. L. Priimak, “Novye dannye o satiricheskikh zhurnalakh 1905 goda ‘Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta,’”
Ocherki po russkomu i sovetskomu iskusstvu. Sbornik statei, ed. B. Iashchina (Moscow: Sovetskii
khudozhnik, 1965) 114-124.
37
Margaret Betz also alludes to this relationship, but her assessment relies solely on the sources employed
by Karasik and Priimak. See Betz 44-45.
38
Iuritsyn’s other motivation was no doubt that of financial gain.
20
protest. As regards Bugbear, relying on the extant archival materials,
39
in chapter one I
explore more fully the relationship between the artists of the World of Art and Sergei
Iuritsyn, the miriskusniki and Maksim Gorky (also addressing Benois’s reception of the
writer as based on the artist’s correspondence with Lancéray) as well as Gorky’s role as
the editor of the literary section of the journal. The collaboration in Hellish Post between
the artists of the World of Art – the founders of the journal – and the Symbolist writer-
contributors grouped around Ivanov’s Tower salon is examined in chapter three.
This alliance informed the discourse of the journal more profoundly than the union
with Gorky and the neo-Realist writers of the Knowledge collective. Inadvertently, the
Symbolists brought to Hellish Post more than their texts. The promotion in the winter and
spring of 1906 by Chulkov of his “teaching about the ways of ultimate liberation,”
mystical anarchism, coincided with the creation of the satirical journal. During this
period, the miriskusniki became acquainted with Chulkov and Ivanov (also one of the
proponents of the doctrine) and began to frequent the Tower gatherings where they were
exposed to mystical anarchist ideas. Resulting from the ensuing interaction between the
39
In particular, I introduce a larger corpus of the correspondences of the editors, publishers, artists and
writers of Bugbear and Hellish Post, which previously had been engaged only partially or not at all. Among
these, the 1905-1906 exchange of letters between Evgenii Lancéray and Alexander Benois (the archive of
A. N. Benois, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum) is perhaps the most important and informative.
Equally significant and largely unknown are the extant letters of, for instance, M. Dobuzhinsky, A.
Gornfeld, Z. Grzhebin, V. Ivanov, S. Iuritsyn, F. Sologub and L. Zinovieva-Annibal that were collected
from the Manuscript Section of the Russian National Library (St. Petersburg). The Manuscript Section of
the State Russian Archive of Art and Literature (Moscow) also yielded several important items of
correspondence, among them Grzhebin and Troiansky’s letters to Bunin, Siunnerberg’s letters to F.
Sologub, a letter from the editorial board of Hellish Post to Somov and Bilibin’s letter to P. Shcherbov.
This personal correspondence and the letters written by the editors to the contributors of Bugbear and
Hellish Post provided much of the factual data that underscores my research in the first three chapters. The
Department of Drawing and Watercolor at the State Russian Museum and the Manuscript Section at the
Russian National Library contain a wealth of relevant visual material (e.g. Dobuzhinsky’s caricature
drawings and sketches for the art work published in Bugbear), some of which was introduced in the thesis.
21
Symbolists and the artists of the World of Art was their collaboration in Hellish Post and
the penetration of mystical anarchist rhetoric into the journal. Gauging this cooperative
effort and providing a brief assessment of mystical anarchism, I investigate the World of
Art artists’ reception of this doctrine and the way in which it was manifested in Hellish
Post. I argue that the readiness on the part of the artistic producers of Hellish Post to view
mystical anarchism positively stemmed from the sentiment of anti-establishment protest
they shared with this otherwise politically vague and, as concerned the liberal bourgeois
public sphere, counter-productive, “ideology.”
The creative coalitions and personalities in charge of the editorial decisions supplied
Bugbear and Hellish Post with visual and verbal content that was, in the majority of
cases, detectably subversive – something that was immediately recognized and
condemned by the censoring authorities. This was especially true in regard to the graphic
art of Bugbear and Hellish Post, which illustrated best the critical prowess of these
journals as well as their significance to the advancement of free expression and expansion
of public sphere in post-October Manifesto Russia. In this study, the cartoons and
pictures of Bugbear and Hellish Post are examined thematically rather than formally
although some consideration is given to the techniques, stylizations and specific devices
employed by the artists to create their highly symbolic and suggestive images. Moreover,
the drawings of Bugbear and Hellish Post are discussed against the socio-political
background of the period with historical contextualization becoming the key method for
their interpretation.
22
Overall, in Soviet and Western critical literature, the graphic art of both Bugbear and
Hellish Post has received significantly more attention than their textual content. This is
despite the fact that the efficacy of the journals’ commentaries was often achieved
through the confluence of the verbal as well as the visual. Perhaps with the notable
exceptions of Botsianovsky’s study and Isakov’s book, both of which reprinted some of
the texts that appeared in Bugbear (although primarily those by the neo-Realist
Knowledge writers and not the Symbolists of Hellish Post), almost no other source
engages their literary material.
In this study, the texts of Bugbear and Hellish Post are discussed as much as their
graphic works. In chapter one, the verbal content of Bugbear is examined against the
background of Gorky’s editorial decisions as well as the writer’s own contributions and
designs to make the journal a tool for the tendentious criticism of middle class
indifference along with denunciations of the tsarist regime. The more esoteric, artistic
and, therefore, often-ambiguous Symbolist writings, which effectively dominated the
textual content of Hellish Post, are explored more fully in chapter three.
The Right Wing Satirical Press
The proliferation of left-wing satirical periodicals during the months following the
October Manifesto did not signify that they had the entire field to themselves or that their
reception by the Russian public was uniformly positive. As noted by Evgenii Lancéray,
the founder of and contributor to Bugbear and the publisher of Hellish Post, the society
23
and the country were “still full of ‘God Save the Tsar’ and such other vulgarities.”
40
This
is to say that monarchist sentiment was running high among the people and that not all
segments of the Russian public sympathized with the liberal-bourgeois or revolutionary
agenda that the left-wing journals strove to convey and advance. Although it can hardly
pass as an all-embracing evaluation of the negative reception of the left-wing satirical
journals, the Symbolist poet Mikhail Kuzmin’s subjective reaction is nonetheless rather
telling; in a diary entry for December 2, 1905 (the day the infamous “Financial
Manifesto” of the St. Petersburg Soviet was made public
41
) the poet writes: “Today the
‘manifesto’ of all the scoundrels came out. … the traitors and the rascals are killing
Russia; they will not destroy it, but they may bring it to the brink of deficiency and
disgrace. … And these awful things: ‘Spectator,’ ‘Arrows,’ ‘Machine Guns’ … What is
Russia, Russian culture, history and wealth to them? … ‘Manifesto!’ Be damned, be
damned, be damned.”
42
Prior to and after the opening of the first Duma in April 1906, political life in Russia
was characterized by antagonism between the various forces of the left and those of the
right. The October Manifesto and the changes in censorship regulations gave as much of
a boost to the extreme right-wing as it did to left-wing politics and the press. The creation
40
E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 5 Jan. 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed.
khr. 322, l. 4.
41
Issued by the St. Petersburg Soviet jointly with the Peasant’s Union, the Polish Socialist Party, the
Socialist Revolutionaries and the Social Democrats, the Financial Manifesto was published on December 2,
1905 in several left-wing newspapers including the Bolshevik New Life (Novaia zhizn’). The Manifesto
called for a financial boycott of the government by cutting it off from its financial revenue. As Gerald Surh
explains, the Manifesto appealed to “the citizenry to refuse the government taxes and redemption
payments, to withdraw deposits from the savings banks, and to demand wages in hard currency.” See Surh
400.
42
See Mikhail Kuzmin, Dnevnik 1905-1907, ed. N. A. Bogomolov and S. V. Shumikhin (St. Petersburg:
Izd-vo Ivana Limbakha, 2000) 79.
24
of the first monarchist political organizations throughout the spring and winter of 1905
precipitated the appearance of many affiliated periodicals as these parties and unions
sought to establish their own media organs.
By 1906, the overpowering presence of the left-wing satirical journals was countered
by the emergence of several satirical periodicals which displayed a distinct right-wing
orientation. Like their left-wing counterparts, these publications varied in the complexity
of their content as well as graphic excellence. In comparison with the provincial journals,
the centrally published periodicals were more sophisticated artistically and of better
polygraphic quality. The artwork in the provincial right-wing publications was rather
crude and evidently prepared by amateur artists of quotidian talent. The textual content of
these journals was of no great erudition either, although the same may be said about a
great many of their left-wing counterparts. At times, the provincial journals would also
borrow content from those published in Moscow and St. Petersburg. For the most part,
the artwork and texts of the right-wing satirical magazines remained anonymous.
43
The
journals published in the capitals addressed issues of national distinction while in the
provinces there tended to be more focus on concerns of local significance.
The readership of the right-wing satirical journals, like that of their left-wing
counterparts, depended on the citizens’ political preferences rather than social status.
Since the majority of readers were likely to have been recruited from among the members
or sympathizers of the right-wing parties and unions, to which some of these journals
were distributed wholesale, the social make up of one of the first, mass-based right-wing
43
I have established the identities of several of the artistic contributors to the right-wing journals in chapter
four.
25
political organizations, the Union of the Russian People, may yield a reasonably accurate
estimation of their audience. The Union was said to have been active primarily in the
cities, where it had supporters among the representatives of local administrations, parts of
the intelligentsia, petty merchants, artisans, urban lumpens, the majority of the clergy
(primarily of lower and middle rather than higher rank), retired officers and policemen.
44
Mikhail Kuzmin, who temporarily joined the Union of the Russian People in November
1905, left a curious description of various types of urban dwellers he encountered at the
Union’s St. Petersburg office at the time of his enlistment. Kuzmin records in his diary:
“I joined the ‘Union of the Russian People.’ There were a lot of people there; workers
bring fees and registers of many more who wish to join, shop boys, officers, ladies
(damy), typical bureaucrats, simple men (muzhiki) … a gentleman with a Ukrainian
mustache ardently argues with two awful looking students that the word ‘miting’ is not of
Russian origin. Ladies are chirping, an officer of the guards … requests ‘proclamations,’
meaning the newspaper Russian Banner (Russkoe znamia).”
45
Not differing much from
those of the left-wing periodicals, the methods and locations of distribution of the right-
wing satirical journals made them available to a significantly larger reading audience than
just the members of the pro-monarchist political organizations.
46
44
D. I. Raskin, “Ideologiia russkogo pravogo radikalizma v kontse XIX – nachale XX v.,” Natsional’naia
pravaia prezhde i teper’. Istoriko-sotsiologicheskie ocherki. Chast’ 1. Rossiia i russkoe zarubezh’e, ed. R.
S. Ganelin, et al. (St. Petersburg, 1992) 5-47. The subject of the social make up of the right-wing parties
and their membership in various regions of the Russian Empire was also assessed by I. I. Kir’ianov in
Pravye partii v Rossii 1911-1917 (Moscow: Rosspen, 2001) 69-103.
45
See Kuzmin 79. (Dairy entry for Nov. 29, 1905). Founded by A. Dubrovin, Russian Banner was the
official newspaper of the Union of the Russian People.
46
For more on this, see Shevtsov 177-188.
26
The right-wing satirical journals started to appear when the revolutionary tide in the
country was turning and the government and the Crown were regaining their authority.
Despite reaching the public belatedly and being outnumbered quantitatively, these
publications nonetheless represented a genuine part of the new public sphere and of
1905-1907 periodical journalism. For various reasons, the study of the right-wing
satirical press has been neglected in the existing Russian, Soviet and Western scholarship
on the subject, which since the 1905 Revolution itself, has focused exclusively on left-
wing satirical periodicals.
47
In the 1990s, a resurgence of scholarly interest in the political
culture of the turn-of-the-century Russian Empire resulted in the appearance of many
notable studies that focused on right-wing politics and ideology. Yet, even those that
addressed the publishing endeavors of monarchist political organizations did not discuss
the affiliated satirical press.
48
47
Initially, the left-wing satirical journals came under scrutiny during the period contemporaneous to their
appearance. Written in 1906-1907 by Russian liberal critics, these short reviews ascertained the presence of
a new periodical genre and commented on its prevalent trends. Applauding the critical acumen of the
journals, they emphasized their oppositional orientation and recorded valuable data that allowed later
commentators to better interpret the various shades of meaning of their cartoons and verbal texts. Some of
these reviews (none of which addressed the right-wing satirical press) included: A. L. Avel’-Avok, “Satira
v zhurnalakh i gazetakh,” Vestnik znaniia 2 (1906): 382-393; A. L. Avel’-Avok, “Obshchestvennye
sobytiia pered sudom satiry,” Vestnik znaniia 3 (1906): 373-382; A. L. Avel’-Avok, “Ekho politicheskoi
satiry,” Vestnik znaniia 4 (1906): 500-508; A. L. Avel’-Avok, “Otsy otechestva i Duma v sovremennoi
satire,” Vestnik znaniia 5 (1906): 104-110; A. L. Avel’-Avok, “Na Shipke vse spokoino. Satiricheskie
motivy v literature,” Vestnik znaniia 6 (1906): 251-255; A. L. Avel’-Avok, “Okhrana i ‘okhranniki’ v
satiricheskoi literature,” Vestnik znaniia 7-8 (1906): 444-450; A. L. Avel’-Avok, “Oskolki satiricheskoi
literatury,” Vestnik znaniia 12 (1906): 366-371; M. I. Ivinskii, “Russkaia revoliutsionnaia satira,” Vestnik
znaniia 1 (1906): 33-49; V. Kranikhfel’d, “Zhurnal’nye otgoloski. O russkoi satiricheskoi zhurnalistike. -
P. S. Nash otvet ‘Synu otechestva,’” Mir bozhii 12 (1905): 109-131; S. R. Mintslov, “14 mesiatsev
Svobody pechati 17 ok. 1905-1 ianv. 1907 g.,” Byloe 3/15 (1907): 123-134; A. Vengerov, “Satiricheskie
zhurnaly,” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ F. Brokgauza i I. Efrona, 1907 ed.; A. Chebotarevskaia, “Russkaia
satira nashikh dnei,” Obrazovanie 5 (1906): 37-46.
48
Especially noteworthy in this regard is A. V. Shevtsov’s aforementioned book Izdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’
russkikh nesotsialisticheskikh partii nachala XX veka (St. Petersburg: Rossiiskaia natsional’naia biblioteka,
1997).
27
An express objective of this dissertation is to remedy this neglect by exploring some
of its extant paradigms and to reconsider the history of Russian periodical satirical
journalism by integrating the right-wing satirical press into the overall public discourse of
the period. Four right-wing satirical periodicals receive particular attention in this thesis:
two Moscow-published journals Knout (Knut) and Rope (Zhgut), and two provincial
magazines, The Kazan Barker (Kazanskii raeshnik, Kazan) and Starling (Skvorets,
Orenburg).
49
In these publications, as in the right-wing party press, the autocracy
acquired welcomed, albeit unauthorized allies given the fact they were not officially
sanctioned to speak for the regime. Originating through the efforts of private individuals
with no apparent connection to and funding from the government or the Crown, these
journals rose in defense of the autocracy speaking for those segments of the Russian
public that cherished their monarchist values and heritage, belonged to right-wing
49
As opposed to the left-wing satirical journals, which are well documented and preserved in several
collections in the Russian Federation and in the United States (see, note in the opening part of the
bibliography), the right-wing periodicals of satire are not readily (or easily) available. The list of their titles
is not exhaustive either. The evidence suggests that apart from The Kazan Barker and Starling, there were
several other satirical journals of right-wing leaning published during the period of 1906 through 1914 in
large provincial centers of the Empire. In Staritsa, Tver province (guberniia), I. P. Krylov founded a journal
titled Tver Stinger (Tverskoe zhalo). V. Botsianovsky describes it as a “popular political weekly
newspaper” and a “Black Hundred leaflet published by the Union of the Russian People.” Eighty-eight
issues of this periodical were published between 1907 and 1908. See Botsianovskii 221. Starting with issue
sixty-eight, the title of the journal was changed to simply Stinger (Zhalo). It was now published by I.
Bulanov and edited by A. Germeier. See I. V. Omel’anchuk, Chernosotennoe dvizhenie v Rossiiskoi imperii
(1901-1914) (Kiev: MAUP, 2006) 688. The author is grateful to I. M. Omelianchuk for this reference,
although the journal itself was not available for this research. Botsianovsky’s register also documents a
publication titled Odessa Rubber (Odesskaia rezina), which is identified as the “organ of the Odessa
Chapter of the Union of the Russian People.” Despite its title, it was printed in Kiev as a replacement for a
journal called Kiev Club (Kievskaia dubinka), presumably also of right-wing leaning, and had only one
issue published in 1907. See Botsianovskii 218. S. A. Stepanov points out that in 1912, the Krasnoyarsk
Chapter of the Union of the Russian People published a humorous journal called Shaft (Ogloblia). See S.
A. Stepanov, Chernaia sotnia v Rossii (1905-1914 gg.) (Moscow: Izd-vo VZPI, A/O “Rosvuznauka,”
1992) 103. A Moscow-published journal Passenger (Passazhir, Ed. and publ. N. Emel’ianov) also
displayed a distinct right-wing bias in its cartoons and texts, which were reprinted from other similar
publications. These journals are ripe material for future study.
28
political organizations and provided for these satirical journals a readership that came
from among their ranks.
By being oriented toward the public and by expressing independent political views,
the right-wing satirical press, like its left-wing counterpart, also appeared to be expanding
the new public space. Yet, by virtue of adhering so closely to the intrinsically anti-
democratic and anti-constitutional right-wing ideology – an aspect of their discourse that
is explored more closely in the present study - these journals were in this regard largely
counter-productive as they in fact worked to deny the public sphere its legitimacy. This
was one of the great paradoxes of Russia’s first constitutional experiment, which, along
with other contradictory political developments, contributed to the country’s failure to
evolve into a successful, liberal-bourgeois constitutional state.
The right-wing satirical journals and the ways in which they defended the autocracy,
its cultural and social values while at the same time advancing criticism of the forces
representative of the revolution and liberalism are explored in chapter four of this
dissertation. By introducing the right-wing satirical periodicals into the critical discourse
and by discussing them in conjunction with select left-wing journals of satire, I hope to
present a more balanced overall evaluation of the 1905 satirical press and expose the
ways both types of satirical periodicals exemplified the unique pluralistic nature and the
inner workings of the period’s public domain.
29
CHAPTER 1: BUGBEAR: A JOURNAL OF ARTISTIC SATIRE
Gaining considerable pre-publication freedom after the promulgation of the October
Manifesto, the left-wing satirical press became an effective public platform for launching
what a contemporary historian called “merciless attacks on the authorities.”
50
The journal
of artistic satire Bugbear (Zhupel) was one of the original post-October Manifesto
paradigms of anti-government public opinion expressed in satirical form.
Originating in St. Petersburg in the spring of 1905, Bugbear was published in early
December of the same year after a nine-month period of creative fermentation and
practical problem solving. Ultimately inaugurating its first issue on the eve of the
burgeoning uprising in Moscow, Bugbear was brought out primarily to respond to the
events of the revolution and to express the anti-establishment protest that had been
brewing for some time within the country’s educated classes as well as society at large.
The history of Bugbear is most revealing in regard to the modernist artistic intelligentsia
and, specifically, select artists belonging to St. Petersburg’s World of Art collective.
Several core members of this group came to play a pivotal role in the production of the
journal (and, later, of its sequel – Hellish Post [Adskaia pochta]) - an endeavor in which
they collaborated not only with their other likeminded counterparts, but also with such
unlikely individuals as Maksim Gorky and Sergei Iuritsyn. This chapter is a case study
inquiry into the origins, literary-artistic coalitions and oppositional textual content of
Bugbear - overall, some of the key elements which exemplify the grass roots workings of
50
Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905: Russia in Disarray (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1988) 275-276.
30
the left-wing satirical press in its capacity as one of the constituent parts of the emerging
public sphere.
The Russian Simplicissimus: Bugbear and the World of Art
The type of satirical journal that the artists of the World of Art had in mind was
inspired by the German, Munich-based satirical weekly Simplicissimus, which had been
their instant favorite from the time of its initial appearance in 1896. In their estimation,
the overall appeal of the German magazine, and, especially, the superior quality of its
cartoons, placed it above all other Western European and Russian periodicals of humor.
“I remember,” writes Evgenii Lancéray in regard to Simplicissimus, “that we were very
interested in it and enjoyed its every sporadic issue, which was hard to get because the
journal was under censorship restriction. Nobody really read its articles, but the drawings
– especially those of T. T. Heine, with his biting, angry satire of the middle class and
social injustice - were very popular.”
51
Although the idea to create a Russian version of the German weekly was on the
minds of many miriskusniki, its principal promoter was Mstislav Dobuzhinsky’s
51
E. Lansere, “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii 1905 goda,” Iskusstvo 6 (1936): 41. See also Dobuzhinsky’s
recollections, in which the artist wrote in regard to Simplicissimus: “This journal was the wittiest and the
most progressive of the time and I eagerly awaited its every issue.” M. V. Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia
(Moscow: Nauka, 1987) 157. The World of Art relationship with Simplicissimus proved to be a lasting
affair. It evolved from the artists’ early fascination with the art featured in the journal and its ultimate
popularization in the World of Art journal, through the emulation of its style in the satirical journals of their
own, to their later assessments of the journal, such as the ones found in Konstantin Siunnerberg’s The
Golden Fleece (Zolotoe runo) review of May 10, 1906 (No. 5) and Alexander Benois’ December 1909
article in the newspaper Rech’ 348 Dec., 19, 1909. See also L. A. Spiridonova (Evstigneeva), Russkaia
satiricheskaia literatura nachala XX veka (Moscow: Nauka, 1977) 95.
31
acquaintance Zinovii Isaevich (Zelikh Shievich) Grzhebin.
52
Dobuzhinsky, who met
Grzhebin in Munich at the art school of Simon Hollosy in the early 1900s, recalled that
his acquaintance envisioned a new type of contemporary and independent satirical
publication that would position itself to impart non-partisan opinions, lashing out
(bichuiushchim) as much at the faults of the right as at those of the left.
53
Grzhebin
argued that such a journal would also allow artists to comment on current events and by
doing so affirm their opposition toward the regime. The future editor of Bugbear felt that
despite the fact that the contribution of the artists to the overall “business of Russia” (delo
Rossii) may not be all that significant, they still must live a life of intensity and respond
to contemporaneous developments “like people of the country, where it is impossible to
remain uninvolved in the fateful events of the present and the future.”
54
Grzhebin’s initiative to launch a satirical journal was received enthusiastically by the
majority but not all of the artists of the World of Art. Writing to Alexander Benois in
early December 1905, Lev Bakst, for instance, recorded his excitement about the new
project as follows: “Do not laugh at my enthusiasm, but in Zhupel I can see en réalité
what Seriozha [Diaghilev OM] and the World of Art lacked. Everyone was very fervent
52
M. Dobuzhinsky, letter to L. Bakst, 15 March 1905. Quoted from: Dobuzhinskii, M. V. Pis’ma. Ed. G. I.
Chugunov (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2001) 65. To count Grzhebin as a member of the World of Art
collective would be overstretching the issue. Unlike Dobuzhinsky, who had been with the society since the
end of 1902, Grzhebin came into close contact with the majority of the artists only upon his return to
Russia in 1905. Prior to this time, it is more appropriate to think of Grzhebin as separate from the core
group of the World of Art associates. In 1905, especially as plans to publish a satirical journal were gaining
strength, Grzhebin became a close colleague to and creative collaborator with those miriskusniki embracing
the idea of a Russian Simplicissimus.
53
Dobuzhinskii 299. See also E. Lansere, “’Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta,’” Sovetskoe iskusstvo 59 (1935): 5.
54
Z. Grzhebin, letter to I. Grabar, 26 March 1905. Quoted from: I. Grabar’, Pis’ma. 1891-1917 (Moscow,
1974) 375.
32
but no one did anything. But in Zhupel everyone is fervent and works feverishly … I
believe that the dawn is nigh.”
55
The enthusiasm of Bakst, however, was shared neither by Benois nor by Diaghilev.
This is despite the fact that the former was listed as a prospective contributor to both
Bugbear and Hellish Post,
56
and the latter was invited to attend initial organizational
meetings of Bugbear in the spring of 1905.
57
The impediments to a broader participation in Bugbear by the leading miriskusniki
varied in detail but the overriding reason remained the same – a refusal to betray their
commitment to the arts for the sake of social and political activism. Diaghilev, for
instance, questioned the intentions of his more proactive friends to participate in an
oppositional satirical publication, regardless of the fact that he too might have been
affected by the all-pervasive atmosphere of liberalism of the period.
58
Remembering a
conversation between himself, Serov and Diaghilev around that time, Lancéray quotes
55
L. Bakst, letter to A. Benois, 9 Dec. 1905. Quoted from: John E. Bowlt, The Silver Age: Russian Art of
the Early Twentieth Century and the "World of Art" Group (Newtonville, Mass.: Oriental Research
Partners, 1982) 113.
56
Apart from Benois, the back cover of the inaugural issue of Bugbear listed among the prospective artistic
contributors to the journal such World of Art artists and their associates as Anisfeld, Bakst, Bilibin,
Filosofov, Grabar, Grzhebin, Dobuzhinsky, Karrik, Kardovsky, Kustodiev, Lancéray, Makovskaia,
Ostroumova, Pasternak, Serov, Somov, Troiansky and Shcherbov.
57
See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 15 March 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond
137, ed. khr. 320, l. 8.
58
In his book, Serge Lifar, tracing the evolution of Diaghilev’s political preferences writes that “the young
Diaghilev, in the years 1890-5, took little, if any, interest in politics, and might have been called a skeptical
conservative. But the destruction of so many of the treasures he held dear was bound to make him still
more antagonistic to revolution. Thus, it is all the more strange to observe him, to some extent, affected by
the wave of liberalism which, in 1905, swept over the country, understandable though it may be, in view of
the shifting, unsettled state of public opinion. In congratulating her daughter on the manifesto of October
the 17
th
of that year, Mme Filosofov writes: ‘We are rejoicing. Yesterday, we even had champagne. You
would never guess who brought the manifesto … Seriozha, of all people. Wonderful!’ The dots before
‘Seriozha,’ and the concluding ‘Wonderful’ need no comment.” See Serge Lifar, Serge Diaghilev. His Life,
His Work, His Legend. An Intimate Biography (London: Putnam, 1945) 160.
33
rlds to
y
the latter exclaiming in surprise: “What do you want … with these caricatures and
drawings of yours? Does an artist, this true servant of the arts … and the creator of all
true and lasting values, have anything in common with all of these ephemeral everyday
concerns?”
59
Unlike Benois, who left for France in February of 1905, Diaghilev stayed in Russia
long enough to witness the destructive power of the revolution, which consumed
whatever liberal sentiment he might have cherished. Disenchanted with the revolutionary
chaos, Diaghilev expressed no interest in partaking in a partisan satirical publication that
would in one way or another support that “wild bacchanalia.”
60
Leaving Russia
altogether in the spring of 1906, as Lifar put it, in search of new lands and new wo
be conquered
61
Diaghilev left his colleagues to interpret his departure as running awa
“from the revolution.”
62
Benois, who, in his own estimation, was “organically alienated from politics,” also
stayed uncommitted to social and political activism and to the Russian Simplicissimus
project by leaving Russia for the entire duration of the revolution. Fundamentally,
Benois, like Diaghilev, felt that his collaboration in Bugbear – a journal with a projected
political rather than purely artistic orientation – would mean delving into tendentious art,
59
See Lansere, “’Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta’” 4.
60
S. Diaghilev, letter to A. Benois, 16 Oct. 1905. Quoted from: John Bowlt, “Early Writings of Serge
Diaghilev,” in The Ballets Russes and Its World, ed. Lynn Garafola and Nancy Van Norman Baer (New
Haven: Yale UP, 1999) 70. The letter is reprinted in Russian in E. P. Gomberg – Verzhbinskaia, Russkoe
iskusstvo i revoliutsiia 1905. Grafika. Zhivopis’ (Leningrad: Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1960)
138-139.
61
Lifar 161.
62
See Lansere, “’Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta’” 4.
34
something that went against his basic aesthetic beliefs rooted in devotion to Beauty above
all else. Responding to his friends (especially Lancéray), who were continuously urging
him to return to Russia and to become engaged socially, Benois often argued that art and
politics were not compatible and that the artist did his job for humankind in general and
not for any particular form of human co-existence.
63
Among other things, upon learning
of Maksim Gorky’s participation in the project, Benois was afraid that Bugbear would
turn into an “organ of an ultra progressive party.” In his December 1905 letter to Somov,
Benois writes: “The essence of the question for me is … what is worse – Grand Dukes or
Minsky and Gorky. I admit that the latter is more revolting to me. … I do not want at all
to say that I would prefer the preservation of the old regime to a social-democratic
republic, but … I want to say that I cannot extend a helping hand to the gigantic boor that
is approaching along with Minsky and Gorky. … At the same time, I am afraid that
Bugbear will most certainly be an organ of an ultra progressive party.
64
… Bugbear does
not excite me – a person … who is madly in love with culture. It seems to me that the
journal will be the stronghold of insolence and banality… .”
65
63
See N. Lapshina, “Mir Iskusstva.” Ocherki istorii i tvorcheskoi praktiki (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1977) 167.
64
In his assessment of the future direction of Bugbear, Benois relied on Vladimir Argutinsky’s opinion. In
a November 24, 1905 letter, in which he tried to dissuade Benois from participating in Bugbear, Argutinsky
writes: “I feel that Bugbear will be a revolutionary, party or perhaps even anarchist, leaflet. A journal
which expects Gorky’s participation cannot help but be banal (ne mozhet ne byt’ poshlym) … I know that
you are against everything that is crass, cynical; I know that you and I are constitutionalists; I know … that
you can not and should not lend your name to an undertaking that is quite clearly destructive.” See V. N.
Argutinsky, letter to A. Benois, 24 Nov. 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed.
khr. 645, l. 24-27. It is interesting to note in connection to Argutinsky’s commentary, how acutely he
realized the anti-liberal bourgeois public sphere essence of the Socialist Democratic agenda, represented to
a certain extent in Bugbear and Hellish Post by Gorky.
65
See K. A. Somov, Mir khudozhnika. Pis’ma. Dnevniki. Suzhdeniia sovremennikov (Moscow: Iskusstvo,
1979) 448-449. Among other reasons that precluded Benois from participating in Bugbear and, later, in
Hellish Post and that the artist invoked on more than one occasion in his correspondence with Lancéray
35
A similar, if not identical, aesthetic position was occupied by Konstantin Somov. In
December 1905, amidst the raging armed revolt in Moscow, Somov was confessing to
Benois that he could not “give himself to the revolutionary movement” because he was
first and foremost “in love with Beauty” and wanted to serve only Beauty.
66
As a result,
the artist never contributed anything to either Bugbear or Hellish Post despite being one
of the original founders of both journals.
Conversely, other members of the World of Art such as Bilibin, Dobuzhinsky,
Kustodiev, Lancéray and Serov, embraced Grzhebin’s initiative proceeding to create a
was his physical distance from Russia, St. Petersburg and the realities of life in the capital. The artist felt
that in order to comment satirically on the situation in Russia, he had to be in the country or, as he put it,
dans la meleé, and not on the periphery or in a distant land. In his December 1, 1905 letter to Lancéray,
Benois expresses his reservations: “I do not know if I will be able to contribute anything to Bugbear. You
cannot even imagine how much I lack a sense of the atmosphere, interest and bias. The events appear to be
completely different when one is far away, as opposed to when one is in the midst of it. One must be ultra-
party-oriented (ul’trapartiinym), burning with hatred, but I do not have it here.” A. Benois, letter to E.
Lancéray, 1 Dec. 1905. Quoted from: Lapshina 169.
66
Somov 89-93. Despite the aesthetic considerations that prevented their participation in Bugbear (and in
all fairness to Benois and Somov), it should be noted that both artists were sympathetic to the Russian
Simplicissimus project. Somov was explaining to Benois that he remained true to Bugbear because all of
his friends were actively involved with it and that some of them (Serov, Nurok, Bakst, Dobuzhinsky)
possessed the energy and hope of doing something useful. See Somov 91. Benois’s correspondence with
Lancéray reveals that he was indeed looking forward to receiving fresh issues of the journal, at times even
commenting on the artistic and creative merits of its contributing artists. In a February 12, 1906 letter,
Benois writes: “I received Bugbear. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Bilibin has greatly improved
his technique, but he is still rather weak in expression and shallow in [the premise] for his idea. Your
‘Moscow,’ to the contrary, is well thought out, but c’est pas tout à fait ça – it is not Moscow. Dobuzhinsky
is very diligent (I believe in his great talent and love his talent very much), but he fails to express
symbolism. Anisfeld is garbage.” See A. Benois, letter to E. Lancéray, 12 Feb. 1906, Manuscript Section,
State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 308, l. 14-16. Questioning Lancéray as to the fate of the second
issue of the journal, in one of his other letters, Benois urges his friend to forward it to him: “whatever
happened to Bugbear? Did the second issue come out? If it did, then forward it to me for Christ’s sake!”
See A. Benois, letter to E. Lancéray, Dec. 1905-Jan. 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum,
Fond 137, ed. khr. 308, l. 9-12. Moreover, Benois was quite curious about Hellish Post at one point even
agreeing to participate in it, although the underlying reasons for this appeared to be more of a financial
rather than ideational nature. In his March 24, 1906 letter to Lancéray, Benois writes: “And what is this
new journal all about? Certainly, they will not allow its publication. Do consider me among its contributors,
however (I hope this time a lasting contributor). Unfortunately, I cannot contribute free of charge.
Nonetheless, I am not asking for much and will comply with all of the conditions – as long as they pay…”
See A. Benois, letter to E. Lancéray, 24 March 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond
137, ed. khr. 308, l. 21-24.
36
media forum which would allow them to voice their protest against the regime. As
remarkable as their oppositional stance may have seemed in light of these artists’ largely
apolitical position prior to 1905, it speaks of the period’s all-pervasive preoccupation
with politics and the widespread anti-government sentiment that characterized the height
of the 1905 revolution. As concerned the World of Art artists, the evidence suggests that
they harbored particular grievances against the government, which they planned to
express by means of political satire. A World of Art associate and contributor to the
journal, Anna Ostroumova-Lebedeva, for instance, recorded the mood of the moment as
follows: “I remember the times when we, the artists, would get together; we could not
talk about anything else but political events. We were outraged with the government for
its reprisals against the workers and peasants. To express our protest and solidarity with
the oppressed, the artists of the World of Art as well as many writers decided to publish a
journal of political satire. … It was decided that the journal must vilify the tsarist regime
for its duplicity, pettiness, stupidity and cruelty.”
67
Decades later, Evgenii Lancéray also
recalled: “The general indignation at the regime, vague hopes for a more just style of life
gripped us, a small circle of artists directly connected with the World of Art journal, too.
We sympathized with the liberal line of the left-wing of the zemstvo activists. We
sympathized with any opposition to the government. Our circle was in complete accord
with the prevailing general mood which seized liberal society upon the defeat in
Manchuria, [and] after January 9th, after Russia’s internal events.”
68
67
Anna Ostroumova-Lebedeva, Avtobiograficheskie zapiski (Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2003) 330-331.
68
See Lansere, “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii 1905 goda” 40-41. Lancéray had been far more outspoken in his
private correspondence of the period. Indignant about the Russian armies’ disastrous defeat at Mukden
37
To say that countering and ridiculing the regime was the only incentive to partake in
the creation of Bugbear would be to ignore other factors which were at play and which
stimulated the World of Art artists’ interest in Grzhebin’s idea. The appreciation of
caricature art, as seen in their enthusiasm for the work of T. T. Heine and other artists of
Simplicissimus, was certainly one such factor. Equally significant was their awareness of
the sudden popularity and profitability of the new breed of satirical periodicals spawned
to life by revolution and reform. Popular demand for an oppositional satirical press,
which merged critical opinion with elements of entertainment, was at its peak. Thus, the
artists saw in the journal not only a perfect vehicle for delivering their oppositional views
to mass audiences, but also a source of revenue. After all, Bugbear was designed as a
capitalist venture and the expectation of profit was at the heart of the entire project.
Historical precedents created by the commercially successful Spectator (Zritel’) and
Machine Gun (Pulemet) solidified the intent of the miriskusniki to pursue the publication
of a satirical journal of their own. After inaugurating the new genre of a politically
oriented satirical periodical in the summer of 1905, Iurii Artsybushev’s Spectator went
through a phase of rigorous battles with censorship and state authorities. Causing the
displeasure of top government functionaries already after only its third issue and
(Manchuria) in early March, two months later the artist wrote the following to Alexander Benois: “I cannot
help but to be angry: here’s one more terrible, unheard of defeat, a pogrom - but before a feeling of pity and
horror, there is a feeling of horrid anger, hatred toward our damn government and toward this stupid,
stubborn, petty and vile Nicholas the II. How despicable and dishonest this whole gang is; what petty
impudence is in this ever present hope that all might go well! It would serve them all well to be placed in
one bag and drowned in the first cesspool.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 19 May, 1905, Manuscript
Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 320, l. 19-20. For a meaningful discussion of the
oppositional sentiments of several of the World of Art contributors to Bugbear (e.g. Dobuzhinsky and
Lancéray), see the chapters devoted to these artists in Bowlt, The Silver Age.
38
withstanding a series of punitive measures designed to undermine the journal,
69
Spectator
reinvented itself as a popular and highly sought-after oppositional satirical journal. By the
late fall of 1905, Nikolai Shebuev’s Machine Gun, the first issue of which came off the
press on November 13, 1905, also caused a stir in the minds of St. Petersburg dwellers
and the state administration alike through its unusually audacious mockery of the
ministers of the Imperial government and, indirectly, the Tsar.
70
The artists of the World of Art did not fail to notice the popularity of Spectator and
the “thunderous success” of Machine Gun.
71
Despite being critical of the artistic content
of Spectator, the day after the October Manifesto was made public, Lancéray was writing
to Benois with regards to Artsybushev’s journal: “I asked the newspaper vendor for [an
issue] of Spectator, but he did not have any left. To my inquiry, as to whether it was
selling well, the vendor mysteriously responded that, indeed, it was selling very well,
especially issue number ten, which featured a drawing depicting the Black Hundred
together with the Tsar!! This audacity seemed to represent something novel, unheard
of.”
72
A contemporary observer recalled that the demand for Shebuev’s Machine Gun
was also so extensive that after midday it was only possible to purchase an issue of the
69
See, for instance, Chief of Police and Deputy Minister of the Interior D. F. Trepov’s letter of June 30,
1905 to the Chief Department for Press Affairs (Glavnoe upravlenie po delam pechati), in which the Major
General, implicating Spectator in the dissemination of anti-governmental propaganda and development of
revolutionary sentiment in the masses, requested the journal be closed “forever.” Trepov’s letter is
reprinted in V. Botsianovskii, and E. Gollerbakh, Russkaia satira pervoi revoliutsii 1905-1906 (Leningrad:
Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925) 176-177.
70
See “Prigovor. 1905 goda. Dekabria 7-go dnia.” Quoted from: Botsianovskii 205-208.
71
See Lansere, “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii” 40-43.
72
See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 19 Oct. 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond
137, ed. khr. 321, l. 18. On the popularity of Spectator and Sergei Chekhonin’s cartoon 25 silhouettes. 4
(25 siluetov. 4), which Lancéray is referring to in his letter, see also V. Botsianovskii, “Khudozhnik dvukh
revoliutsii S. V. Chekhonin.” Byloe 1 (29) (1925): 242-243.
39
journal at a cost fifty times greater than its original price. The journal was highly sought
after due to its unprecedented subversive content, which made its circulation literally
fraught with danger as it was incessantly persecuted by the police. The newspaper
vendors, who stood to benefit from its distribution, nonetheless, were taking certain risks
to dispense it from under the table.
73
Sergei Mintslov, a well-known bibliophile and
connoisseur of Russian turn-of-the-century satirical journalism, noted in this connection
that satirical journals were often distributed by certain shady characters of the type
described by Gorky who dealt exclusively in this kind of illicit literature. Special folders
in their hands contained issues of Dubrovin’s Black Hundred newspaper Russian Banner
(Russkoe znamia) as a decoy to ward off dutiful police, while their coats concealed
“goods of a different kind.” Several tearooms doubled as warehouses for issues of
confiscated journals and newspapers. All that an interested person had to do was to speak
73
M. L-skii, “Vo vlasti gluposti,” Istoricheskii vestnik 4-5 (1912): 116. Two decades later, Nikolai Shebuev
also recalled in regards to his journal: “The entire [first] issue was composed and drawn overnight. It took
one more day to set it up and get the proofs ready. Then, littering the printer’s floor with red paint, it was
printed for almost a month - so great and unexpected was the success of the journal that it totally astounded
me. An edition of 100-150.000 [copies] was amazing for a journal of the period. Paperboys and newspaper
vendors would literally fight for the issues in front of the printer’s. On several occasions, the manager of
the printing shop Trud on Fontanka had to flee and hide from an angry crowd of newspaper vendors, who
seemed to believe that the management of the shop purposefully did not print [fresh issues] fast enough and
distributed them preferentially to the wholesalers as opposed to the retail customers. My apartment was
also constantly invaded by people who threatened me and demanded more issues. It was starting to appear
that after publishing the first issue, I became publicly responsible to guarantee its supply. Already on the
first day, the maiden issue of the journal was sold for 50 kopeks. [The retail price of Machine Gun,
indicated on its front cover, was 10 kopeks. OM] Later, after it was banned, the price reached a 5 to 10
ruble margin. Both readers and newspaper vendors were arrested because of Machine Gun. Yet, in spite of
everything, it was both published and in high demand. Moreover, every new issue would be met with
something akin to sporting passion. Now, twenty years after the issuance of Machine Gun, when I can
composedly assess the reasons for its success, I conclude that [it was popular] because it was simple and
audacious.” See N. Shebuev, “Istoriia moego ‘Pulemeta,’” Zhurnalist (Moscow) 12 (28) (1925): 21.
40
to one of the Gorky types and in several minutes’ time, he would return with what was
requested.
74
New satirical journals were often advertised publicly: their titles, augmented by witty
limericks of the street peddlers, were publicized loudly for everybody’s consumption.
Nikolai Vinogradov enthusiastically recalled this atmosphere a decade later:
The voices of the newspaper vendors that offered freshly printed issues of
new satirical journals still sounded lively and brisk. Clever and sharp
announcements were shouted freely to attract your attention: the journal
Arrows (Strely) is very brave (ochen’ smelyi) – it will live a long life!
Vitte’s Dance (Vittova pliaska) - Trepov will get a shaking (Trepovu
vstriaska)! Vitte is dancing, Trepov is drumming! Blaze (Plamia) burns
and scorches, advises not to steal! Liberty (Svoboda) – is for the entire
population! Signal - do not spare the bullets! Woodpecker (Diatel) –
behind bars, Beak (Kliuv) – is the only thing that is left. Bugbear – is for
bureaucrats. It frightens them the same way incense scares Satan! Cossack
Whip (Nagaechka) blasts with the same very whip, but at a different spot!
And so on. The public was eagerly buying these novelties. Certain issues
of popular journals were bought up immediately going up in price by
nighttime.
75
Thus, by late fall of 1905, when Bugbear was being prepared for debut, Machine Gun
was continuously selling out (despite the arrest and trial of its proprietor-editor, Shebuev)
and Spectator, after having been temporarily stopped from circulation, victoriously
resumed its soaring success after the October Manifesto. The excitement and publicity
created by these two harbingers of the novel genre focused public attention on the
74
Sergei Mintslov, “14 mesiatsev svobody pechati,” Byloe 3 (1907): 125, 129.
75
N. Vinogradov, “Satira i iumor v 1905-1907 gg. Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’,” Bibliograficheskie
izvestiia 3-4 (1916): 123. In this connection, a radical journal of satire, Blaze (Plamia), published in its
December 15, 1905 issue a parodic take on the euphoric distribution of satirical journals by street vendors.
This joke, titled “On Nevsky prospect,” read as follows: “Street vendor (Yelling at the top of his voice):
Banned journals! Banned journals everyone! Here’s the banned Free Word (Svobodnoe slovo) and Blaze.
Police officer (moving gracefully): Why are you yelling so loud? You are scaring people off. Sell them, but
do it quietly.” See Plamia 2 (1905): 12.
41
ted
journals of political satire making them popular products, potentially profitable ventures
as well as perfect channels for transmitting messages of protest to mass audiences.
A sudden demand for politically outspoken satirical journals made the publication of
a similar journal particularly attractive to the artists of the World of Art, who, despite
their privileged background, had to rely frequently on the production and sale of art as
their means of subsistence.
76
This is so much so that the political instability in the
country in general and in St. Petersburg in particular was progressively depriving these
artists of their traditional sources of income; purchases of art by the wealthy clients were
on the decline, while the termination of the World of Art journal in early 1905 spelled the
end of commissions coming from Diaghilev. The appearance in Moscow of the
Symbolist literary journals New Path (Novyi Put’) and Scales (Vesy) could not be coun
on as neither one of these publications was committed to featuring art the way it was
76
Although the question of financial well-being of miriskusniki largely remains outside the scope of this
study, the argument advanced above requires several substantiating remarks. Originally coming from
essentially moneyed bourgeois backgrounds, not all of the core artists of the World of Art, especially those
involved in the production of Bugbear, were any longer independently wealthy. If Benois could resort to a
modest inheritance to subsidize his life in France during 1905-1906, Lancéray, for instance, could not
afford such a luxury. In a letter to Benois of April 1905, Lancéray responded as follows to his friend’s
invitation to come and visit with him in France: “You keep inviting us, but quite positively we have no
money and you do not appear to believe this; all of the current income disappears without a trace covering
everyday expenses, while personally we do not have even 300 rubles in the bank. I refuse to take an
advance or borrow (even from my mother, who finds it difficult to manage even without me asking) – I am
afraid that it will take too long and be very difficult to pay it back.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 21
March 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 320, l. 28. Benois would also
often complain to Lancéray about his lack of money. For instance, in a letter of September 1905, he writes
the following about his financial needs: “(About money) Things are bad and, perhaps, even very bad; that
is, I am completely bankrupt (to the point of looking for work at the post office), if it turns out that I lost all
of my money after foolishly depositing it with the Odessa Credit Society.” See A. Benois, letter to E.
Lancéray, 2 Sept., 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 307, l. 27-35. That
is why many miriskusniki had to rely on their artistic commissions and sales to make a living and that is
also why artists like Dobuzhinsky, Lancéray and Kustodiev had a vested financial interest in the Bugbear
venture. This conclusion, supported by the extant archival materials, directly contradicts the interpretation
of the subject advanced, for instance, by Erikh Gollerbakh, who argued that growing up in a bourgeois
intelligentsia environment of material wealth, artists of the World of Art did not have any personal or
economic interest in political satire. See Botsianovskii 157.
42
, Igor
This
done in the World of Art journal.
77
Whatever vignette-style graphic fillers they did
purchase were commissioned primarily from Moscow Symbolist artists. In Moscow
Grabar attempted to publish an art-oriented magazine which would perpetuate the legacy
of the World of Art journal and provide a new forum for the artists of the collective.
initiative never materialized due to the imposing appearance, also in Moscow, of the
luxurious Symbolist journal The Golden Fleece (Zolotoe Runo).
78
Although this journal
was a welcomed financial respite for many of the miriskusniki,
79
generally speaking, their
role in it was, if not secondary, then significantly contested by the Moscow Symbolists.
On the other hand, the prospect of publishing Bugbear, in which they could occupy
positions of prominence as its founders and principal artistic contributors, promised
greater benefits. Moreover, such a capitalist venture could be commercially successful
precisely by propagating bold and popular oppositional views.
80
77
Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia 299.
78
Lapshina 317.
79
In a spring 1906 letter, Lancéray writes to Benois in this regard: “There was a time, at the beginning of
the winter [of 1905], when all of a sudden, commissions dried up. Politics, of course had much to do with
it. We were very happy to see The Golden Fleece, which promised to, and indeed, did pay us promptly. I
personally, for instance, once found myself having three or four rubles left and the thirty rubles I received
from Moscow (from The Golden Fleece) were a salvation.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 17 April
1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 322, l. 22-23. Generally, the
relationship between the miriskusniki and The Golden Fleece was a complicated and strained affair. For
some of them, the point of contention was its wealthy, but unrefined publisher, Nikolai Riabushinsky. Very
informative and telling in this regard is Benois’s March 1906 letter to Somov, in which he calls The Golden
Fleece – “the golden excrement” (zolotoe govno). See Somov 450-452.
80
Makhonina, Russkaia dorevoliutsionnaia pechat’ 184.
43
Sergei Iuritsyn, Son of the Fatherland and the Russian Simplicissimus
Apart from the artists of the World of Art, another person who welcomed Grzhebin’s
initiative to create a Russian Simplicissimus was Sergei Iuritsyn – a Sorbonne-educated
journalistic entrepreneur, as well as the editor and publisher of the St. Petersburg-based
Socialist Revolutionary newspaper Son of the Fatherland (Syn otechestva).
81
Savoring
the possibility of creating something similar to the German weekly, Iuritsyn proposed
that such an endeavor might be better facilitated if the project was underwritten by his
newspaper. Demanding no editorial privileges in return, he offered the material assets of
his publication (e.g. publishing space, machinery, etc.), all free of charge, to be at the
disposal of the founders of the new journal. Present at the meeting between Iuritsyn and
the World of Art artists, Lancéray described the proposal as follows:
Iuritsyn, the editor of Son of the Fatherland was overcome by the thought
of creating … something similar to Simplicissimus, a journal he is truly
fond of, and that is why he is suggesting, so to speak, a union with his
newspaper. … He offers his staff, machinery, space, commercial
advertisement, distribution and his clientele (75.000 subscribers) (that is,
granting his subscribers certain bonuses and by doing this also promoting
the publication). … It is proposed that in the future the income will be
shared. Iura (Artsybushev) was also invited because he already had a
permit. He would become the official editor, but in actuality all matters
would be resolved by the entire group or a committee specially elected for
81
A daily Son of the Fatherland was published in St. Petersburg from December 1904 to February 5, 1905.
Affiliated with the party of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Son of the Fatherland was one of eight left-wing
newspapers to feature the seditious “Financial Manifesto.” This caused its suspension as well as legal
trouble for its editor, Shreider. Prior to publishing Son of the Fatherland, Sergei Petrovich Iuritsyn (1873-
1920) was also in charge of a daily newspaper Southern Russia (Iuzhnaia Rossiia) and a bi-weekly journal
Ceramic Review (Keramicheskoe obozrenie), both of which were based in Nikolaev (Ukraine). See Fond
222 (Kantseliariia Nikolaevskogo gradonachal’nika), State Archive, Nikolaev region, Ukraine, Op., 1, d.,
82, l., 54. Also see “Iuritsyn, Sergei Petrovich,” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’: Nikolaevtsy, 1789-1999 gg.,
1999 ed.
44
this purpose. There is nothing else to say but that everyone is cherishing
great hopes.
82
Despite this seemingly advantageous arrangement, the miriskusniki were reluctant to
accept Iuritsyn’s offer and forge a union with his newspaper for fear of being defrauded
and forced to adhere to his dictates.
83
At the same time, they were pragmatic enough to
realize that the artistic quality of their journal alone would not be enough to, as James
Mill put it, catch the immediate applause of the reading public.
84
The union with Iuritsyn and Son of the Fatherland, however, may have safeguarded
the competitive edge of Bugbear and guaranteed its distribution.
85
Indeed, Iuritsyn not
only put the facilities, staff and circulation network of his newspaper at the disposal of
82
See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 15 March 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond
137, ed. khr. 320, l. 7-8. A part of this letter is reprinted in Z. M. Karasik, “M. Gor’kii i satiricheskie
zhurnaly ‘Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta,’” M. Gor’kii v epokhu revoliutsii 1905-1907 godov. Materialy,
vospominaniia, issledovaniia (Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1957) 360.
83
The question of whether or not to collaborate with Iuritsyn was discussed among the artists of the World
of Art at one of their meetings. Writing to Benois, Lancéray recorded in his letter their reservations:
“Yesterday, we had a private conference at my place. … The principal topic of discussion was how not to
be taken over by Iuritsyn (kak by ne popast’sia v lapy Iuritsyna). Artsybushev and Somov are especially
afraid of him; Artsybushev in particular insists on the independent organization of the venture. … We
would not necessarily want to borrow money from Iuritsyn; although, on the other hand, our capitalists,
Somov, Bakst and Grabar, are afraid to give money. At any rate, I think that without Iuritsyn, it will not go
further than just talking about it. Iuritsyn is the only force that is ready to fight and take a risk. I do not
think that his intention is to use us to get rich or to rob us; he really wants to be important and in control. …
Of course, the danger is in the fact that, being practically the principal publisher, Iuritsyn will be pressuring
us and making us do what the public likes. By the way, he has absolutely no taste; among our artists, he is
probably familiar only with Aivazovsky.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 15 March 1905, Manuscript
Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 320, l. 11. In another letter, Lancéray writes the
following in regard to Iuritsyn: “Outwardly, Iuritsyn is not very pleasant – [he is] a Don Juan from the
provinces or even a swindler (shuler); middle height with a voice that is not very loud, moustache à la
William (a la Vil’gel’m) and side burns. [He is] all business talk; without saying much about the concept
and the direction [of the journal], the conversation shifted to approximating the expenses. [Iuritsyn]
conducted the calculations effectively – quickly calculating and pondering.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A.
Benois, circa March 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 320, l. 9.
84
James Mill, “Periodical literature,” Quoted from: Lyn Pykett, “Reading the Periodical Press: Text and
Context,” Investigating Victorian Journalism, eds. Laurel Brake, Aled Jones, and Lionel Madden (New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990) 12.
85
See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, circa March 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum,
Fond 137, ed. khr. 320, l. 9-12.
45
the new venture – something that undoubtedly contributed to the commercial success of
Bugbear - but also provided the bulk of the initial capital necessary to launch the journal.
According to Lancéray, Iuritsyn paid all of the initial expenses by investing 10,000 rubles
of his own money into the publication of the journal. An understanding was reached
between Iuritsyn and the artists of the World of Art that if, in two to three months’ time
this capitalist venture would appear to lose money, Iuritsyn would stop its financing and
lose the funds he already invested.
86
If the journal proved to be a success, its financial
structure would then be reorganized into a society of shareholders (tovarishchestvo na
paiakh), within which Iuritsyn’s 10,000 rubles would be divided into equal shares of 500
rubles each. These shares could subsequently be bought out from the publisher either by
the artistic and literary participants within the core group of contributors or be offered, by
way of invitation, to interested parties from outside of the group.
The financial incentive to purchase these shares was tied to the schema of profit
distribution. It was agreed that sixty percent of the profit would be divided among the
contributor-shareholders (sotrudnikami-paishchikami), each of whom would be paid in
accordance with his labor (proportsional’no vlozhennomu trudu).
87
The remaining 40
percent of the “pure revenue” (chistogo dokhoda) would be paid in the form of dividends
on each of the shares. Thus, within this financial arrangement, some of the participating
86
According to such arrangements, Sergei Iuritsin fit the profile of the so-called “ideational capitalist” as
delineated by L. Slonimsky in his The European Herald (Vestnik Evropy) article “Periodicheskaia pechat’ i
kapitalism” (1910). The critic describes a type of journalistic entrepreneur, who, in order to advance a
certain idea or carry out an intent, is brave enough to publish (e.g. finance) a journal under strict censorship
conditions at the risk of losing the invested capital and going bankrupt. Quoted from: Makhonina, Russkaia
dorevoliutsionnaia pechat’ 59.
87
It was agreed, for instance, that a full-page drawing would normally be worth 50 rubles, a half-page
drawing-25 and a quarter-page-12.
46
miriskusniki stood to benefit to the fullest, providing they owned shares and continuously
contributed to the journal artistically.
88
Due to strict censorship measures taken against the journal, Bugbear was never able
to develop into a publication which would consistently generate high profits and enrich
its contributors and investors. However, despite its short life (it only lasted for a month
and a half), the journal did prove to be extremely popular with the public. Lancéray, for
instance, recalled that the reader response to the journal was phenomenal and that the
issues were sold out in literally several hours after the release of the run from the
printer.
89
Estimated at 30,000 to 95,000 copies, the circulation figures of the first issue of
the journal were remarkably high.
90
Thus, if roughly 90,000 copies of the first issue of
Bugbear sold at the retail price of 15 kopeks per issue, upon its release the journal would
have made in excess of 13,000 rubles. This sum not only guaranteed the return of
88
See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 28 March 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond
137, ed. khr. 320, l. 15-18. Lancéray also indicated in his letter that apart from himself, Bugbear shares or
pai were expected to be purchased by Artsybushev, Bakst, Bilibin, Dobuzhinsky, Filosofov, Grabar,
Grzhebin, Iuritsyn, Karrik, Ostroumova, Somov and Zamirailo. Benois, who was also invited to invest in
Bugbear by purchasing a pai, adamantly refused to do so, his refusal motivated by a lack of money. He
writes to Lancéray in this regard: “Everything you tell me about this journal of humor is curious … but I do
not like [the talk about] these 500 rubles. Where in the world am I going to get them? The time has come
when I can only receive as opposed to give. This is truly impossible! This is some kind of robbery.” See A.
Benois, letter to E. Lancéray, 6 April 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr.
307, l. 10.
89
See Lansere, “’Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta’” 4.
90
Olga Lancéray, Evgenii Lancéray’s wife, writing to her brother-in-law shortly after the publication of the
first issue of Bugbear, noted excitingly that the journal was in extremely high demand even before it was
printed. She writes: “How do you like Bugbear? … We do not know how well the public is buying it, but
even prior to its appearance, Bugbear was literally snatched up (bukval’no byl na raskhvat). Here, 30,000
issues were paid for with cash by the newspaper vendor cooperatives prior to its issuance.” See O. E.
Lancéray, letter to N. E. Lancéray, 5 Dec. 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 38, ed.
khr. 11, l. 3-4. Grzhebin, writing to Grabar on December 22, 1905, informed his colleague that 70,000
copies of the first issue of the journal were distributed; 500 copies were confiscated by the police, and an
additional 25,000 copies were concealed in a secret location. See N. L. Priimak, “Novye dannye o
satiricheskikh zhurnalakh 1905 goda ‘Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta,’” Ocherki po russkomu i sovetskomu
iskusstvu. Sbornik statei, ed. B. Iashchina (Moscow: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1965) 118-119.
47
Iuritsyn’s original investment, but also allowed the artists, whose contribution to the
journal up to that point was only artistic and not monetary, to expect reasonably high
earnings.
The World of Art and Maksim Gorky
Feeling confident about the artistic talent and commitment of the miriskusniki,
Grzhebin applied himself to building a network of literary contributors to Bugbear.
Assuring the participation of the journalists of Son of the Fatherland through Iuritsyn’s
corroboration, Grzhebin also approached Gorky in an attempt to solicit his personal
participation as well as that of his associates in the Knowledge (Znanie) cooperative.
91
Gorky’s response to Grzhebin’s proposal was quite positive. Shortly after meeting the
writer, the editor informed his World of Art associates that Gorky, Kuprin, Andreev and
others from Knowledge would participate in the journal with great interest: “We are
91
In June of 1905, Grzhebin informed Gorky that “in the fall, a group of artists (Bakst, Benois, Bilibin,
Grabar, Grzhebin, Dobuzhinsky, Lancéray, Karrik, Ostroumova, Pasternak, Somov, Serov, Shcherbov and,
evidently, Gallen, Edelfeld and others from Finland), will commence publishing, here in St. Petersburg, a
weekly journal dedicated to public and social affairs. … The contingent of artistic participants is organized
rather well. However, this is not the case with the literary section. … I would like to speak with you
personally about our venture, which, if organized properly, might have tremendous cultural significance. …
Andreev, Skitalets and others often visit your summer house. Is it possible to organize our joint meeting at
your place?” See Z. Grzhebin, “Letter to Gorky,” 11 June 1905, in M. Gor’kii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii.
Pis’ma. 1905-1906 (Moscow: Nauka, 1999) 319. The meeting took place at Gorky’s summer house in
Kuokkala on July 10, 1905. It brought together, in an unprecedented way, the artists of the World of Art,
the writers from Gorky’s Knowledge collective as well as journalists of Son of the Fatherland. Apart from
Grzhebin, present at the meeting with Gorky were Bilibin, Dobuzhinsky, Grabar, Nurok, Serov as well as
Pavel Shcherbov – a celebrated Jester (Shut) caricaturist, who attended the meeting at Bilibin’s request. In
this letter, urging Shcherbov to attend the meeting at Gorky’s, Bilibin states that he was asked to
“absolutely convince him” to do so. Although Shcherbov was listed as a prospective contributor to both
Bugbear and Hellish Post, he never published in either one of the journals. Knowledge writers present at
the meeting included Andreev, Chirikov, Kuprin and Gorky’s protégé – poet Stepan Petrov (a.k.a.
Skitalets). Slated to participate in both Bugbear and Hellish Post, Skitalets, like Andreev, never published
anything in either one of the journals. In addition, attending were Iuritsyn, Iablonovsky and Gornfeld – all
three representing Son of the Fatherland - as well as the Finnish artist Eero Iarnefelt. See I. Bilibin, letter to
P. E. Shcherbov, 6 July 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Archive of Art and Literature Manuscript
Section, Fond 952, Op. 1, ed. khr. 12, l. 5 -6.
48
knocking at doors that are already open” – writes Grzhebin to Dobuzhinsky. “They are so
fond of the idea that are prepared to work (not to participate, but to work) together with
us, and share with us success and mistakes. Like us, they see in this venture a great
cultural significance for a renewed Russia of writers and artists. They find, as we do, that
by uniting our forces, we will do a great deal of good for life and for art. ‘Laughter will
be very important in the future’ (Gorky).”
92
The enthusiasm and readiness with which Gorky and the neo-Realist writers
embraced the idea of collaborating with Grzhebin and miriskusniki was met by the latter
with suspicion, curiosity and excitement. Some of the World of Art artists appeared to be
doubtful of Gorky’s sincere intentions and, possibly, as suggested by Karasik, of his
political affiliation with the Social-Democratic radicals.
93
The sentiment of ambivalence
toward Gorky emanated most visibly from Benois. It was seen, for instance, in his
skeptical response to the thrill of some of his younger artistic colleagues about meeting
the writer in person. In one of his correspondences to Lancéray, Benois voices wariness
about forming a union with Gorky. The artist states that he can only say about Gorky the
same thing that Merezhkovsky once said about him, when the writer appeared in the
Symbolist camp around the 1900s: “Do not forget that a Russian petty bourgeois is
92
Z. Grzhebin, “Letter to M. Dobuzhinsky.” Quoted from: Karasik 359. From the beginning, Gorky’s
Knowledge group included Andreev, Bunin, Chirikov and Skitalets, who were later joined by Aizman,
Eleonsky, Elpatievsky, Garin-Mikhailovsky, Gusev-Orenburgsky, Iablonovsky, Iushkevich, Kuprin,
Naidenov, Serafimovich, Teleshov and others. Not all of these writers had a chance to publish their writing
in Bugbear. See A. Volkov, M. Gor’kii i literaturnoe dvizhenie kontsa XIX - nachala XX veka (Moscow:
Sovetskii pisatel’, 1951) 137-140.
93
See Karasik 358. Maksim Gorky joined the Social-Democratic party in the fall of 1905 – timing that
roughly coincides with the production of Bugbear.
49
devilishly cunning and is a master of disguise for all sorts of things. I do not trust him, as
I do not trust his soft smile that all of you are writing about.”
94
Despite his original idea of attracting Gorky to collaborate with Bugbear, Grzhebin,
like Benois, also appeared to be rather wary of granting the writer too much control over
the journal. In his letter to Dobuzhinsky, Grzhebin wrote that the miriskusniki must not
relinquish their control of this venture and that was why they had to be twice as cautious.
“Of course,” – writes Grzhebin, “it is good to have Gorky, but Gorky is not yet the entire
venture (no delo, eto eshche ne Gor’kii).”
95
Yet, the prospect of having Gorky, a writer at the height of his fame, as one of the
literary contributors and, indeed, editors, of the new journal was attractive as much to
Grzhebin as it was to the younger miriskusniki. The feeling of mistrust and cautionary
attitude toward the writer expressed by Benois and Grzhebin were superseded by a belief
that Gorky’s involvement would, in fact, spell great benefits for their journal; it would
secure participation in Bugbear by some of the up-and-coming young writers from his
Knowledge collective, with Gorky himself occasionally contributing. Moreover, not
unlike Gorky’s Social Democratic associates,
96
some miriskusniki understood that the
writer’s famous name, reputation and notoriety would not only add credibility to the
journal, but also make Bugbear more provocative and attractive to the reader. Like the
94
See A. Benois, letter to E. Lancéray, 10 Jan. 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond
137, ed. khr. 308, l. 7-8. In regard to Gorky and his “soft smile,” Benois refers to Somov’s letter of
December 1905, in which Somov informed his friend about meeting Gorky at one of Bugbear gatherings.
Somov writes: “I saw him just briefly. He appeared to be nice with his friendly face and not resembling his
countless portraits - with a kind, suffering smile.” See Somov 92.
95
See Z. Grzhebin, letter to M. Dobuzhinsky, June 1905. Quoted in Karasik 360.
96
For more on the assessment of the value of Gorky’s name by the Bolsheviks, see Irwin Weil, “Gor’kij’s
Relations with the Bolsheviks and Symbolists,” Slavic and East European Journal 4.3 (1960): 201-219.
50
alliance with Iuritsyn, their collaboration with Gorky was believed to safeguard the
demand and circulation of the journal – something that would ensure its profitability –
and help “single it out among the likes of various Buffoons, Dragonflies and Alarm
Clocks.”
97
Lancéray, for instance, felt that cooperation with Gorky might be beneficial to the
journal as well as to the artists of the World of Art. Writing to Benois in July 1905,
Lancéray reflects with the youthful enthusiasm of a maximalist: “I am aware that you feel
deep antipathy toward Gorky. And I do not know how long he and we will be able to
work together, but it seems to me that this union should be tested with an open heart
because something significant, some entirely new combinations, may come out of it.”
98
In September 1905, Dobuzhinsky was informing Benois that Grzhebin’s idea to invite
Gorky seemed wild at first and the combination of Benois, Somov and Gorky was rather
unusual. Nevertheless, like Lancéray, the artist believed that something unexpectedly
positive might come out of their association. Surmising that the most important thing was
Gorky’s name, Dobuzhinsky wrote:
Besides, upon close encounter, Gorky turned out to be quite different from
what was anticipated and, perhaps, with time, [he will] even [be] inclined
to accept the beneficial influence of the artists. He surprised us with his
lack of arrogance and the interest with which he spoke about art. Of
course, considering himself to be a realist (?), he is not fond of
retrospective art. He likes the Finns and does not like Somov. However, he
values Somov the same way he values Balmont (what a comparison!).
“Somov is very generous” – not bad! He is completely at odds with
metaphysics and mysticism. However, he understands the non-partisan
97
See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, March 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137,
ed. khr. 320, l. 11.
98
See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 1 July 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137,
ed. khr. 321, l. 8-9.
51
and anarchical (broadly speaking) objectives of Monday absolutely
correctly and advises us to part ways with the politically affiliated Son of
the Fatherland.
99
The union between the artists of the World of Art and Gorky was a very brief and
temporary encounter conditioned both by the immediate mercantile objectives of raising
the profile of the journal and a mutual desire to counter the regime, rather than by any
profound ideological or artistic affinity. Yet, for the time being, it was as tangible as it
was unusual.
Gorky and the Literary Content of Bugbear
Despite Benois’ skepticism and Grzhebin’s territorial concerns regarding Gorky, the
writer was granted considerable freedom in shaping the literary section of Bugbear and,
consequently, its overall discourse.
100
It may be argued that the composition of the
textual content of the journal reflected not only Gorky’s biases and prejudices, but also
the care he took to safeguard the consistency of its oppositional orientation. This was
99
M. Dobuzhinskii, “To A. N. Benua,” 1 Sept. 1905, Pis’ma, ed. G. I. Chugunov (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii
Bulanin, 2001) 67. Monday (Ponedel’nik) was one of the titles originally considered for Bugbear.
100
Writing to Chirikov about Bugbear, Gorky assured him that “no one will interfere with the literary
department.” See M. Gor’kii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Pis’ma. 1905-1906, 66. Iuritsyn, as well as select
journalists of Son of the Fatherland, also appear to have been engaged in the creation of the literary
department of Bugbear. For instance, Iuritsyn composed the original list of prospective writer-contributors
to the journal, which however, was augmented by Gorky. Moreover, in his September 1905 letter to
Arkadii Gornfeld, a seasoned journalist and critic with the liberal journal Russian Wealth (Russkoe
bogatstvo) and Son of the Fatherland, Iuritsyn indicates that apart from Gornfeld, Gorky and himself, the
literary committee of Bugbear was projected to include Andreev, Chirikov, Karrik, Kuprin, (all four
representing Knowledge) and Iablonovsky (Son of the Fatherland). See S. Iuritsyn, three letters to A. G.
Gornfeld, 6 Sept. 1905, Manuscript Section, Russian National Library, Fond 211, ed. khr. 1139, l. 2.
Although the editorial selections may have been made collectively by the representatives of these two
groups, the evidence suggests that as regarded literature, Gorky’s choices were clearly given preference.
For instance, out of the three Symbolists Iuritsyn included in his list (e.g. Merezhkovsky, Gippius and
Balmont), only the rebellious Balmont, not without Gorky’s blessing, would publish one of his poems in
the journal. The exclusion of Sologub from the list of contributors (discussed below) was also telling.
52
)
t
ander Lukianov.
seen not only in Gorky’s inclusion of the works of the Knowledge writers (and his own
which contained discernible revolutionary overtones, but also in his attempt to enlist
those authors who were closer to him ideologically
101
and select Symbolists he favored a
the time.
102
Valued by Gorky for his oppositional verses, Konstantin Balmont saw his
poem “A Fable about the Devil” (Pritcha o cherte) published in the maiden issue of the
journal along with the contributions by the Knowledge affiliates Sergei Gusev-
Orenburgsky and Alex
101
This was the case with A. Amfiteatrov - a renowned publicist whose oppositional and denunciatory
writing earned him journalistic fame and the displeasure of the government at the same time. Amfiteatrov
was personally included by Gorky on the list of contributors to Bugbear. In his letter to Gornfeld, Iuritsyn
writes: “We managed to include Amfiteatrov as well. More than that, M. Gorky himself, with his own
hand, added ‘Amfisha’ to my list.” See Iuritsyn l. 2. Despite Gorky’s support, Amfiteatrov never published
anything in either Bugbear or Hellish Post.
102
In this instance, mention should be made of Konstantin Balmont and Valerii Briusov. Certainly, the
attention Gorky paid to these Symbolists and their poetic output had much to do, for example, with his
growing appreciation of their “love for the language,” “vital interest in literature” and “substantial service
to culture.” See Peter Yershov, ed., Letters of Gorky and Andreev, 1899-1912, trans. Lydia Weston (New
York: Columbia UP, 1958) 104. At the same time, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that it may have
also had to do with Gorky’s design to utilize the discernible anti-establishment notes of their poetic works
for the immediate purposes of countering the tsarist regime (if not to altogether attract them to his camp
and remold them in a more democratic vein, as was suggested, for instance, by S. V. Kastorsky). See S. V.
Kastorskii, “M. Gor’kii i poety-‘znan’evtsy,’” M. Gor’kii i poety “Znaniia” (Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’,
1958) 31. Other Symbolist writers, such as those that were close to the artists of the World of Art, did not
as easily meet Gorky’s approval. This was the case with Fedor Sologub; despite the fact that the writer was
invited to participate in Bugbear by Grzhebin, Dobuzhinsky and other World of Art associates, Sologub’s
name was not entered on the list of literary contributors to the journal and his tales, originally submitted for
Bugbear, were featured only a few months later in Hellish Post – the journal that was published largely
without Gorky’s direct participation. See K. Siunnerberg, letter to F. Sologub, 7 July 1905, Manuscript
Section, State Archive of Art and Literature, Fond 482, Op. 1, ed. khr. 428. Also instructive in this instance
is Dobuzhinsky’s November 13, 1905 letter to Iuritsyn, in which the artist writes: “Fedor Sologub … is
surprised by the fact that his name is not among the contributors of Bugbear. Please, do include his name as
soon as possible… He received the invitation during the summer, before the meeting at Gorky’s, from
several of the founder-participants, incidentally, from Nurok, Grabar, Bilibin, Grzhebin and I. His name
was then mentioned during the meeting at Gorky’s and hitherto no objections have been voiced. Then he
stated that he received an invitation from Karrik, and, lastly, just seeing him recently, I reminded him that it
was desirable to see him in our midst. It seems to me that the fact that Gorky does not approve of his
participation should not be spoken of any longer. The invitation to Sologub should be regarded as a fact. He
treasures his participation in Bugbear and I feel rather ill at ease for him. I strongly request you include his
name.” See Dobuzhinskii, Pis’ma 71-72.
53
As unusual as Gorky’s decision to synthesize Symbolist and neo-Realist works in
Bugbear might have appeared, it was likely to have been conditioned once again by his
efforts to make the literary section of the journal consistently oppositional. This was also
in tune with Grzhebin’s own aspirations of combining writers of different schools within
the same publication for the purposes of making a stronger anti-establishment statement.
Despite being criticized at times by some miriskusniki for not being as good an organizer
as, for instance, Diaghilev was, Grzhebin was recognized, as Siunnerberg put it, for his
ability to “reconcile individuals, who at first glance appeared to be incompatible and to
unite groups of writers and artists of diametrically opposed directions. When Grzhebin
was told that it was impossible to combine these individuals within one journal, the editor
would respond: “That’s all right, as long as he is talented and a leftist.”
103
Moreover,
placed in an oppositional satirical journal in the company of works by neo-Realist
writers, Symbolist poems and prose (such as Balmont’s “A Fable about the Devil” in
Bugbear as well as Valerii Briusov, Viacheslav Ivanov, Aleksei Remizov, Fedor Sologub
and Lidiia Zinovieva-Annibal’s contributions to Hellish Post) served as an indication of a
certain ideational shift occurring within the Russian modernist literary and artistic
intelligentsia. Triggered by the disastrous outcome of the Russo-Japanese War, the events
of Bloody Sunday and the ensuing general strike, this transformation developed into what
William Richardson called “a new sense of social consciousness” among many modernist
artists, writers and poets.
104
Arguably, this new sense of awareness prompted many
Symbolist writers to display distinct oppositional tones. It also made it possible for them
103
See E. Grzhebina, and G. N. Kovalevskaia, “’Zhupel.’ Istoriia sozdaniia zhurnala,” Opyty 1 (1994): 190.
104
William Richardson, Zolotoe Runo and Russian Modernism: 1905-1910 (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1986) 27.
54
to be appreciated by editors like Gorky and Grzhebin, paving the way for the inclusion of
their works alongside those of the progressively-minded neo-Realist writers. Balmont’s
poem “A Fable about the Devil,” for instance, revealed its oppositional sentiment (no
matter how mild in comparison with his other revolutionary verses of this period
105
) in its
subtle criticism of dithering Russian liberals and ridicule of the Tsarist regime.
106
The critical edge of “A Fable about the Devil” allowed Gorky to praise it as “sharp
and timely” and to recommend it for publication, prior to its appearance in Bugbear, in
New Life (Novaia zhizn’) - the first legal Marxist newspaper formally (and paradoxically)
105
See, for instance, his poem “The Tsar is Deceit” (Tsar’-lozh) from the collection titled “Songs of the
Avenger” (Pesni mstitelia). In the poem, Balmont writes that the Tsar is made “entirely of deceit,” and that
one day he will be swept way. It is for the poems of this kind that Balmont was implicated in inciting an
armed uprising so much so that he had to flee Russia with his family on December 31, 1905 to avoid arrest.
However, the sincerity of Balmont’s revolutionary sentiment was highly debatable and, together with his
denunciatory poetic oeuvres, became the butt of ridicule in radical satirical journals of the period. The St.
Petersburg journal Poison (Iad), for instance, featured the following satire of Balmont in its first issue for
1905: “Poor Balmont is no longer young / And the working hammer is heavy / For his feeble hands. He has
found a little hammer, a bit of red fabric, picked up a tiny little nail and started hammering … And
accompanied by these weak sounds (he is a master for this sort of things), he sings in a thin voice: My eyes
are finally open, I am a proletarian, I am a worker. Thusly, he bellows, entertaining everyone.” Quoted
from: Botsianovskii 134-135.
106
In Balmont’s poem, the Devil appears to the poet and takes him to see an enormous fifteen story-tall
house burning. The house was built and set on fire by the Devil himself. The firefighters, who appear to be
looking brave, but somewhat “showy” (kartinno), are attempting to rescue people and their belongings. The
Devil, evidently enjoying the blaze, makes sarcastic remarks about the firefighters’ bravery, scolding them
for drinking a short while prior to the fire. The Devil’s arsonist zeal, however, appears to be unusually
halfhearted and limiting, for there is only so much of havoc that he is able to create. Moreover, his self-
restraining streak urges the Devil to pick up a water pump and start extinguishing the fire he caused in the
first place. In this allegory, the burning edifice signifies the old, tsarist regime - a collective entity rather
popular with left-wing critics and satirists during the two years of the 1905 revolution; the halfhearted
Devil is likely to signify an uncommitted member of Russian liberal-bourgeois intelligentsia, which helped
to erect the edifice of the old regime. The Devil’s half-heartedness is evident in the fact that he does not
allow the building to burn all the way by adopting rather treacherous (by Marxist standards) half measures
– “no v noch’ i s meroiu my vvodim svetozarnost’” (but only at night and only to a certain degree do we
introduce the shining of light). The great meta-textual irony of the fact that “A Fable” was published in
Bugbear is that in his poem Balmont laughs at the Russian liberals – the very people whose political stance
won the sympathies of the artistic contributors to the journal.
55
edited by Vilenkin-Minsky - the founder of Russian Symbolism.
107
Balmont’s poem was
likely to resonate with Gorky as much for its message as for the allegorical method of
portrayal that was not entirely alien to Gorky’s own earlier works as well as to the pieces
he published in Bugbear. The third issue of the journal, for instance, featured Gorky’s
highly didactic tale “The Dog” (Sobaka). Devoid of humor and employing allegorical
devices used in Balmont’s “A Fable about the Devil,” the story tells about an ugly and
sickly dog that voluntarily and quietly passes away in a ditch. The dog is praised by the
author for its timely decision to die, unlike the old and ailing regime that is not willing to
take a similar step: “I said to the dead dog: - I praise thee! You lived among people and
you left them to die alone. You did not want to insult them with the sight of your demise
in life, you were proud and did not allow them to see you as an old, ailing and cowardly
sponger, who lives by his memories of the past and feasts on the people’s insulting pity
… I praise thee! A truly wise one passes on in a timely fashion.”
108
It may also be argued that Gorky’s appreciation of Balmont’s poem and its
subsequent inclusion in Bugbear was motivated by his original intent of making the
107
In his letter to P. P. Rumiantsev, one of the editors of New Life, Gorky wrote in regard to Balmont’s
poem: “…do not print Balmont’s ‘Ivan and Maria,’ but, instead, I highly recommend ‘A Fable about the
Devil.’ This piece is very sharp and timely (veshch’ ostraia i svoevremennaia).” Indeed, prior to its
appearance in Bugbear in early December 1905, Balmont’s “A Fable about the Devil” appeared in the
seventh, November 8, 1905 issue of New Life. See M. Gor’kii, “To P. P. Rumiantsev,” 1 (2) Nov. 1905,
Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Pis’ma. 1905-1906, 100, 371. Interestingly, Minsky’s newspaper also
represented an attempt, albeit a failed one, at a syncretic literary-political union between Symbolism, in its
“Minskiesque,” mystic incarnation, and the radical Social-Democratic agenda. For more on Minsky’s ideas,
see, for instance, his tract “Religion of the Future” (Religiia budushchego) (St. Petersburg, 1905).
108
Zhupel 3 (1906): 3. Gorky and his story “The Dog” were satirized by Osip Orsher (a.k.a. O. L. D’Or) in
V. E. Turok’s journal Signals (Signaly) in a short, rhymed pastiche titled “Gorky and the Dog. (A
continuation to Gorky’s fable published in the third issue of Bugbear).” It read: “Once again, one warm
evening, when the moon was redder than poppy, Maksim was out for a walk. Under a shrub, he sees a
familiar looking dead Dog … Feeling sorry for the Dog, he comes up closer to it … when the Dog suddenly
says to him: ‘I praise thee, Maksim!’” Signaly 3 (1906): 4.
56
journal a venue for mocking and ridiculing politically uncommitted citizenry – a process
the writer labeled as “the weekly, public flogging of the Grey Person, who is the principal
enemy of life and who … vacillates between the Black and the Red.”
109
Gorky himself
addressed the theme of the average, politically passive person of the middle class in his
contributions to other satirical journals of the period. A short, didactic piece titled “On
the Grey Person” (O Serom), which opened the first 1905 issue of the radical journal of
satire Stinger (Zhalo), provided a good understanding of Gorky’s definition of the grey,
drooling enemy of life, who was neither red nor black and who was to be subjected to
weekly satirical “floggings” on the pages of Bugbear. As Gorky alleged, the Grey Person
was prepared to serve slavishly any power that protected his satiety and peace. His soul
was the throne of a slippery toad called triteness (poshlost’), his heart - the depository of
cowardly caution. If, in the struggle for power, the Black One was victorious - the Grey
Person cautiously incited the Red One - Look, the Reaction is growing! If the Red Knight
of liberty and truth was getting the upper hand – the Grey Person reported to the Black
One: Be careful, anarchy is taking shape! Moreover, this shifty Grey Person was a tiny,
“double-souled” vile thing, which never took a firm stand. “Diluting” himself by
vacillating in the middle, he “mixed two primary colors of life into one murky, dirty and
dull color.”
110
Though “On the Grey Person” never appeared in Bugbear, the organic
connection between this piece and “The Dog” of Bugbear was preserved by virtue of
Gorky’s concluding touches to the definition of the Grey Person. The writer contended
109
M. Gor’kii, “To A. A. Divil’kovskii,” 11 Nov. 1905, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Pis’ma. 1905-1906,
106.
110
M. Gor’kii, “O Serom,” Sobranie sochinenii v vosemnadsati tomakh, vol. 4 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe
izd-vo khudozhesvennoi literatury, 1960) 16-17.
57
that being the eternal enemy of everything that was bright and courageous, the Grey
person retarded the dying out of the old (e.g. tsarist regime) and made it harder for
everything living (e.g. the revolution) to grow.
111
Programmatic criticism of the vacillating Russian philistines and the tsarist regime
seen in the allegories “On the Grey Person” and “The Dog” was further continued in
Bugbear by Gorky-the writer in a rubric called “Aphorisms and Maxims” and by Gorky-
the literary editor by his inclusion in the journal of works by Knowledge writers.
Featured in the third issue of the journal and signed with one of Gorky’s early journalistic
pen names “Iegudiil Khlamida,”
112
the mildly satirical and somewhat humorous
“Aphorisms and Maxims” operated within the critical framework already established, for
instance, in “The Dog.” Put in a linear sequence, these aphorisms would appear to a
discerning reader to be yet another allegorical indictment to the “dying” establishment.
The first aphorism read that “Speeches of the rulers regarding the wishes of the people
are similar to a deaf man’s stories about music.” The maxim that followed stated: “May
all that is good come upon thee, but how much longer are you going to be around – who
is able to tell?” The text of the next two sayings posited: “If music is heard playing at a
funeral, do not think that the deceased was an extremely jolly person and that he died
with pleasure; you may be wrong. Being dishonest – do not imagine that it is original.”
113
111
Gor’kii, “O Serom” 17.
112
The pen name “Iegudiil Khlamida” originated when Gorky worked in The Samara Newspaper
(Samarskaia gazeta), where he had been responsible for running a daily rubric titled “little feuilleton”
(malen’kii fel’eton) between 1895 and 1896.
113
Zhupel 3 (1906): 7. Italics are mine.
58
Verbal Satires of the Tsar
The heightened oppositional orientation of Gorky’s writings published in Bugbear
reflected a change in the writer’s perception of the function of legal literature in the
revolutionary process. Viewing literature as a mobilizing force for the ensuing uprising,
Gorky had used this rationale to compose the Knowledge volumes published prior to
1905.
114
Marking the opening up of the public sphere, the new liberties granted by the October
Manifesto encouraged Gorky to treat literature as an instrument for the unequivocal
denunciation of the defunct regime and the Tsar as its chief personification.
115
This shift
was manifest not only in Gorky’s own writing for Bugbear, but also in his editorial
decisions to select for the journal those literary works which were most subversive in
message and damaging to the public image of the Tsar. To a reader today, these satires
may perhaps seem to be something that was given. In the post-October Manifesto Russia
of 1905, however, their appearance in the legal press signaled the advent of a new critical
spirit despite the fact that many of the journals (including Bugbear and Hellish Post) that
114
According to A. Serafimovich, prior to 1905, Gorky defined the function of literature as follows:
“Revolution is ripening, while the working class is getting more and more revolutionized. In this
environment even legal … but honest literature, will play a significant mobilizing role.” Serafimovich
further explained Gorky’s approach by stating that the Knowledge volumes “started to come out when a
revolutionary mood was on the rise. Knowledge miscellanies helped to foster this mood. Artistic works
found in these collections were not revolutionary in the exact sense of this word. Besides, it was rather
impossible [to publish truly revolutionary works] in the existing censorship climate. However, a wonderful
effect of the inwardly sincere, truthful artistic word is such that, without calling for revolutionary action, it
paves the way for the revolution in the hearts and feelings of the people.” See A. Serafimovich, Sobranie
sochinenii, vol. 10 (Moscow, 1948) 423-424.
115
For more on the change in Gorky’s attitude and patterns of conduct during the revolutionary period of
1905-1906 and its effects on his role as the Knowledge editor, see Lydia Kesich, “Gorky and the Znanie
volumes 1904-1913,” diss., Columbia U, 1967, 29-43.
59
featured cartoons and texts, which in one way or another were critical of Nicholas, were
promptly censored and banned.
Even at the height of the days of press liberty, verbal and graphic satire directed at the
holy person of the Russian Emperor would invariably incur harsher punishment in
comparison to, for instance, satirical treatment of the government or its ministers. That is
why the literary and visual satirists of Bugbear and other left-wing satirical journals were
obliged to engage a set of referential devices which enabled them to laugh at Nicholas by
implication. In their texts which were aimed at ridiculing the Tsar the writer-contributors
to Bugbear Sergei Gusev-Orenburgsky and Alexander Lukianov,
116
both of whom were
mentored by Gorky through their Knowledge publications, resorted to the use of legends
and myths of mythological and Russian folkloric rulers. As we shall see in the following
chapter, this method was employed equally productively by the graphic artists of the
journal. Regardless of the device, both images and texts invariably strove to debunk and
belittle the Tsar by mocking his traits of character and modes of political conduct,
presenting him as a ruthless ruler and comparing his fate to that of the French monarchs
victimized by that nation’s revolution.
The first issue of Bugbear, for instance, featured Gusev-Orenburgsky’s parable
“Midas,” in which the writer ridiculed the Tsar by using episodes from the Greek myth.
In the text, Midas, who is being booed from his palace by a crowd of unhappy subjects,
116
“Gusev-Orenburgsky” was the pen name of Sergei Ivanovich Gusev (1867-1963), who began his
writing career in 1890. Some of his best stories were published by Gorky in the Knowledge volumes. See
“Gusev-Orenburgskii,” Kratkaia literaturnaia entsiklopediia, 1962 ed. Alexander Lukianov (b. 1871)
joined Gorky’s Knowledge shortly before the 1905 revolution. Prior to that, his poems were published in
such progressive periodicals as Russian Wealth (Russkoe bogatstvo), God’s World (Mir bozhii) and Russian
Thought (Russkaia mysl’). Like Gusev-Orenburgsky, during his short collaboration with Knowledge,
Lukianov was mentored and supported by Gorky. For more on Lukianov, see Kastorskii 183-184.
60
sports long ears of an ass that the mythological Midas acquired as punishment from
Apollo after a singing contest. Painting a satirically potent picture of an autocratic ruler,
Gusev-Orenburgsky invites the reading audience to associate this image with Nicholas II.
In the third issue of Bugbear, Gusev-Orenburgsky’s comparison of the Russian monarch
to an ass grew into a full-blown graphic substitution of Nicholas II with an ass in Ivan
Bilibin’s celebrated plate An Ass 1/20 Natural Size (Osel (Equus asinus) v 1/20 nast.
vel.). Gusev-Orenburgsky’s verbal allegory and Bilibin’s visual juxtaposition were
among the first to use this reference as a metaphor for the stupidity and stubbornness of
the last Romanov Tsar.
117
Also featured in the first issue of Bugbear, Arkadii Alekseevsky’s anecdotal segments
“About the Good Tsar Berendei” (Pro dobrogo tsaria Berendeia) continued Gusev-
Orenburgsky’s allegorical anti-Tsarist diatribes.
118
Together with Grzhebin’s drawing
Werewolf- Eagle (Orel oboroten’), this three-part story served as one of the reasons for
censoring the journal. This was due to the fact that presenting several brief episodes from
the life of a mythological Tsar Berendei, they were easily understood by both readers and
censors to be mockeries of Russia’s ruling Tsar. Like Gusev-Orenburgsky, Alekseevsky
117
The ass metaphor subsequently informed the popular anecdote culture of the period. As Margaret Betz
points out, a popular joke recorded in print in 1907 similarly depicted Nicholas II as an ass. See Betz 93.
118
Arkadii Pavlovich Alekseevsky published in Bugbear under the pen name of “Altus.” References to
specifically Russian mythological and folkloric rulers, such as Tsar Dadon, Tsar Gorokh and Tsar Berendei
were popular with the turn-of-the century Russian satirists allowing them to ridicule, also by way of
analogy, the current ruler without actually naming him. For instance, the November 22, 1905 issue of
Artsybushev’s Spectator featured a three-piece illustration titled A Story of Tsar Gorokh (Istoriia Tsaria
Gorokha). The oppositional tone of this sequence and its reference to the fairy tale Tsar Gorokh might have
also served as an inspiration to Tsar Berendei satires in Bugbear. See Zritel’ 22 (Nov. 22, 1905): 4-5.
Alekseevsky’s texts were accompanied by several of Valerian Karrik’s black and white drawings which
depict the good but dim-witted Tsar in various mental and physiological states described in the anecdotes.
61
aimed at belittling the grandeur of Nicholas’s majestic status by poking fun at his
intelligence and questioning his capacity as the supreme ruler.
Alluding to contemporary political realities, the narrative is prefaced by a question to
a deacon (dumnyi d’iak), who is asked whether the Tsar is intelligent or not. The
deacon’s roundabout response, that Tsar Berendei is a very good person, set the stage for
the parodic segments that followed. The first part of the sequence informed the reader
that once the good Tsar Berendei expressed a desire to do something pleasant and
constructive for his people. Accordingly, he proceeded to compose a manifesto (e.g. the
October Manifesto), opening it with a highly emphatic phrase “Tirelessly caring for the
well-being of my faithful subjects …” Not capable of saying anything further, Tsar
Berendei dozed off. His drowsiness, as the ruler himself confessed in the second part of
the story, was apparently caused by the thought process. The third part of the sketch
stated that once, upon learning about the immense suffering his subjects underwent due to
starvation, Tsar Berendei grew very upset. He was so distressed that he even refused to
eat his soup. After sending the soup to the famished regions, his ministers roasted him a
pheasant.
119
To advance an allegorical indictment of Nicholas II in his poem “Xerxes and the Sea”
(Kserks i more) (also featured in the first issue of Bugbear), Iurii Svetogor
120
utilized a
story about Xerxes - the ruthless king of ancient Persia. Xerxes was known for his
suppression of popular revolts in Egypt and Babylon and for waging a war against the
119
Zhupel 1 (1905): 9.
120
“Iurii Svetogor” was the pen name of Iurii Vladimirovich Kannabikh. See Grzhebina and Kovalevskaia
192.
62
Greeks. In particular, Svetogor’s rhymed narrative invokes the account of Xerxes’s
invasion of the Greek mainland in 480 BCE as well as his unsuccessful attack on the
Greek fleet during the Battle of Salamis in September of the same year. The latter detail
drew a vivid parallel with the catastrophic defeats of the Russian navy in the recent sea
battles (e.g. Tsushima) against Japan. In Svetogor’s poem, Xerxes, angry at the sea for
his defeat, orders it to be put in chains and flogged. The sea, standing as a metaphorical
representation of liberty, laughs at the king, contemptibly addressing him as a “petty
barbarian” and a “pale despot.”
121
The same (first) issue of Bugbear also contained the publisher Sergei Iuritsyn’s short
but didactic prose segment called “The Poor King (A Fairy-tale for Children)” (Bednyi
korol’ [Skazochka dlia detei]). Perhaps inspired by the equally anti-tsarist mock-fairy tale
“for children” authored earlier by Nikolai Shebuev and called “Slightly Stupid Little
Boy” (Glupen’kii mal’chik)
122
or by the popular underground postcard of the period
called A Gallery of Beheaded Kings (Gallereia obezglavlennykh korolei),
123
(Fig. 1)
Iuritsyn’s tale made an unequivocal reference to the beheaded French King Louis XVI.
Telling of a foreign ruler whose number was sixteen and who lost his head by swaying it
too much as a sign of refusal to improve the difficult lot of his subjects, Iuritsyn’s
narrative was intended to represent an ominous admonition to the Russian Tsar.
124
121
Zhupel 1 (1905): 9.
122
See Pulemet 2 (1905) 11.
123
See S. I. Mitskevich, ed., Al’bom revoliutsionnoi satiry 1905-1906 gg. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izd-
vo, 1925) 127.
124
Opening the inaugural issue of the journal, Iuritsyn’s other literary contribution to Bugbear was yet
another allegorical jab at the Tsar, which told about a crowned, but poisonous little snake called Basilisk.
63
Fig. 1. Anon., “A Gallery of Beheaded Kings,” (Gallereia obezglavlennykh korolei),
Al’bom revoliutsionnoi satiry 1905-1906 g.g. Ed. S. I. Mitskevich (Moscow:
Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925) 127.
64
Disguised allegorical satires of the Russian monarch continued to proliferate in
subsequent issues of Bugbear. Among other texts, the journal featured Iuritsyn’s
absurdist story “Legend of the East” (Vostochnaia legenda), an anonymous yarn titled “A
Kind King or a Sharp Wit under the Gallows (From an Ancient French Legend)” (Dobryi
korol’ ili ostroumets pod visilitsei [Iz starinnoi frantsuzskoi legendy]) as well as
additional installments of the anecdote about Tsar Berendei. Each in its own way
invoking scorn or laughter, their camouflaged ridicule upheld Gorky’s editorial intention
of denouncing the Tsar and debunking his public image, weakening and subverting his
authority.
Verbal Satires of the Tsarist Government
a. Bugbear against Witte.
Interspersed with sardonic commentaries on the violence perpetrated by loyalist
troops and verbal indictments of the Tsar, Bugbear also featured verbal satires that
ridiculed the Russian government as a whole as well as select ministers. Among many of
the most prominent functionaries in Nicholas’s government, Sergei Witte was the one
minister that was consistently attacked and criticized in the left-wing and, as we shall see
in chapter four, right-wing satirical periodicals as well. Indeed, as Botsianovsky
observed, at the time of his Premiership, Witte’s every step and word found an immediate
response in satirical literature.
125
125
Botsianovskii 87.
65
Verbal and pictorial satires of the reformist minister were inaugurated by
Artsybushev’s Spectator and appeared as early as November 1905.
126
These were
followed by similar mockery in many other central and provincial left-wing satirical
periodicals, all of which were at liberty to designate the Premier by his last name and to
invoke in their cartoons his physiognomic likeness.
127
Satirical jabs at Witte reflected the
reception by right and left-wing elements of the minister’s ambiguous political position
during his short tenure as Premier. On the one hand, the right wingers condemned him as
a “liberal” and as a main conduit of constitutional reforms that threatened Russia’s
traditional, autocratic form of government. On the other hand, the liberals (e.g. the leftist
zemstvo leaders or, after October 1905, the Kadets) believed that Witte, despite his
outward intentions to seek support from the popular representatives (e.g. the Kadets), was
just another puppet functionary who did not have enough power to carry out
constitutional reform and who was put in place simply “to quell sedition.”
128
Subsequently, the minister’s reforms, which were alternated with repression (as the
Kadets had suspected they would), were deemed unacceptable by both the left and the
126
See, for instance, Chekhonin’s caricatures of Witte as a magician (mag) and as a mother of “an untidy
boy” (e.g. Nicholas II) in Zritel’ 20/21 (Nov. 13, 17, 1905): 3; 4-5.
127
Examples of ridiculing Premier Witte in provincial satirical journals may be seen, for instance, in the
Saratov-published, left-wing journal Rope (Zhgut) (1, 1906) - caricature Witte is Still Asleep (Vitte eshche
speet) or in the Tiflis-published Rope (Zhgut) (Probnyi nomer, 1906), which featured an ironic address
titled “A Citizen’s Gratitude to Count Witte” (Blagodarnost’ grazhdanina Grafu Vitte). For additional
examples of visual and verbal satires of Witte in liberal and revolutionary satirical journals, see
Botsianovskii 87-92; S. Isakov, 1905 v satire i karikature (Leningrad, 1928) 114-122.
128
The explanation of the Kadets’ reception of Witte was provided by their leader, Pavel Miliukov, in his
recollections. See, especially, the section titled “Vitte i Kadety” in P. N. Miliukov, Vospominaniia. (1859-
1917), ed. M. M. Karpovich, and B. I. Elkin, vol. 1 (New York: Izd-vo imeni Chekhova, 1955) 314-335.
Miliukov’s conjectures are of course correct but they are also partisan in that he speaks as a representative
of the Kadet party, whose political program was unacceptable to Witte and the Tsar due to its intrinsic
radicalism.
66
right. Witte’s precarious position was aptly epitomized by Boris Kustodiev in his
Bugbear cartoon Resignation. From the Left and from the Right.. (Otstavka. I s levoi i s
pravoi ..), which shows the rejected Premier in a state of perplexed reflection holding in
his hands both the revolutionary and Imperial flags.
129
(Fig. 2)
The left-wing satirical press often presented Witte as a sly politician
– the reputation
he acquired, ironically, for his skilled and frequently successful resolutions of Russia’s
many external and domestic crises.
130
Boris Timofeev’s mock folk narrative titled “A
Fairy-tale about Cunning Sergei” (Skazka o khitrom Sergee), which appeared in the first
issue of Bugbear, satirized Witte by identifying cunning as one of the Premier’s most
prominent political traits. In the poem, Sergei is called upon by the Tsar to deal with
discontent or smuta. He is deemed fit for the job because he is already known for his
good deeds of “selling vodka” and “outsmarting the Japanese” (on i vodkoi torgoval i
iapontsa naduval)
– the two references that would be later exploited in equal measure by
right-wing satirists.
131
The narrative ends with a conclusion that in these two capacities,
Witte is the best and most “unique jack-of-all-trades” (shtukar’ nezamenimyi).
132
At the
bottom of the page, Timofeev’s poem was framed by M. Chekhovich’s black and white
129
Zhupel 2 (1905): 10.
130
The second issue of the journal Blaze (Plamia) for 1905, for instance, featured a text titled “A Story
about a Fox’s Tail” (Skazanie o lis’em khvoste), which built its satirical effect around the comparison of
Witte’s to a fox – an animal identified in Russian folkloric epos as the quintessence of cunning. See Plamia
2 (1905): 9.
131
The satirists were referring to two of Witte’s most successful political accomplishments – the
negotiation of the Russo-Japanese Peace Treaty and the establishment of the State Vodka Monopoly. The
latter was created by Witte in 1894 during his tenure as Russia’s Minister of Finance in the government of
Nicholas II. For more on this, see Patricia Herlihy, The Alcoholic Empire: Vodka and Politics in Late
Imperial Russia (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002) 6.
132
Zhupel 1 (1905): 6.
67
Fig. 2. Boris Kustodiev, “Resignation. From the Left and from the Right.”
(Otstavka. I s levoi i s pravoi) Zhupel 2 24 Dec. 1905: 10.
68
drawing of a crowned lobster, which can be interpreted as yet another visual jab at the
Premier. Depictions of Witte wearing a crown were references to the Portsmouth Peace
Treaty with Japan signed by the minister in August of 1905. For his efforts, Witte was
granted by the Tsar the title of “count,” which the witty satirists visualized as Witte
wearing a crown. Henceforth, in the satirical press Count Witte was often identified
verbally as “Count Half-Sakhalin” (graf Polusakhalinskii) – the term, which referred to
one of the provisions of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty, according to which Russia ceded
the southern half of the Sakhalin Island to Japan. This gave the Social-Democratic journal
Blaze (Plamia) license to comment ironically in its third issue for 1905 that the title
“Count Half-Sakhalin” belonged to S. I. Witte in accordance with article six of the
Portsmouth treaty.
133
As we shall see in chapter four, similar visual and verbal references
to Witte’s noble title, as well as to the loss of the Russian territory to Japan, were
frequently invoked in satires of Witte in the right-wing satirical journals The Kazan
Barker (Kazanskii raeshnik), Knout (Knut) and Rope (Zhgut).
b. Bugbear against Durnovo.
The second powerful functionary, who, along with Witte, was mocked most often in
Bugbear was Witte-appointed, conservative Minister of the Interior, Petr Durnovo. Witte
valued Durnovo for his extensive professional experience and defended his candidacy for
the post in front of the Tsar and the liberals whom he invited to join the new Cabinet of
Ministers in October-November 1905. The latter flatly refused the Premier’s invitation
mainly because Witte was not willing to discharge Durnovo. Undoubtedly a tactical
133
See Plamia 3 (Dec. 23, 1905): 2.
69
mistake which the Russian liberals would come to regret, this refusal was one of the first
indications of their movement toward what Louise McReynolds called occupying a
position of “moral high ground” vis-à-vis the obscurantist regime. Resembling the
unbending and largely counter-productive oppositional stance of the Russian radical
intelligentsia of the 1860s, the liberals refused to compromise with the Imperial
government – something that ultimately handicapped the development in Russia of
constitutional rule.
134
The left-wing satires of Witte – a gifted statesman who, after all,
had advocated a parliament and was one of the authors and principal promoters of the
October Manifesto – reflected a similar counter-productive stance on the part of the
Russian liberals in 1905-1906.
This, however, was not the case as regarded Durnovo. The new Minister of Interior
was rightfully recognized by the left-wing satirists and politicians alike as a fierce enemy
of democracy and a staunch foe of constitutionalism. To construct their satires of
Durnovo, the left-wing satirical journals (such satire was completely absent from the
right-wing periodicals) referred to the minister’s flawed past public record as well as to
his reputation as a ruthless and, therefore, hated, combatant of liberalism and revolution.
The satires of Bugbear represented a part of a larger campaign waged by the left-wing
journals against this highly unpopular functionary. As was the case with the parodies that
targeted Witte, the first examples of satirical treatment of Durnovo are also found in
Artsybushev’s Spectator. In its liberated, post-Manifesto issues, the journal audaciously
inaugurated a series of visual symbols to ridicule the minister. One of the original
134
Louise McReynolds, “The Russian Intelligentsia in the Public Sphere: The Mass-Circulation Press and
Political Culture, 1860-1917,” The Communication Review 1.1 (1995): 83-100.
70
symbolic pictorial references to Durnovo was the Chekhonin-invented depiction of the
new minister in the guise of a pig. (Fig. 3) This image, which appeared in the eighteenth
issue of Spectator for 1905 “to commemorate” Konstantin Pobedonostsev’s retirement
from government service,
135
harkened back to a well-known statement by Alexander III
in which the often straightforward Russian Tsar referred to Durnovo as a “swine” and
ordered him to be “removed” within twenty four hours. Alexander III made this remark
upon learning that Durnovo, then the Director of the Police Department in the Ministry of
the Interior, had used his position to spy on a Spanish diplomat, who, he believed, was
courting one of Durnovo’s mistresses. As a result, Durnovo had to resign from his post,
subsequently reinventing himself as a Senator.
136
Following Spectator, the satirists of Bugbear also referred to the remark by
Alexander III and the incident upon which it was based.
137
Appearing in the first issue of
the journal alongside the seditious story “At Evening Tea” (Za vechernim chaem), a
succinct prose segment titled “Remove That Swine within Twenty-four Hours (From the
Archive of the Last Century)” (Ubrat’ etu svin’u v 24 chasa [Iz arkhiva proshlogo
135
K. P. Pobedonostsev, the arch-conservative Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod, depicted by the witty
artist in the guise of a frog, was the second protagonist of Chekhonin’s caricature, the text to which read:
“Pobedonostsev [speaking to Durnovo]: Your Highness! And you decided to live to witness the shame
[dozhit’ do pozora] that Russia is currently going through?! I really did not expect this from you … .
Durnovo [responding]: True! Your decision to step down was timely.” See Zritel’ 18 (Oct. 30, 1905): 3.
Petr Durnovo was appointed the new Minister of the Interior in Witte’s government on October 30, 1905 –
the day Spectator renewed its victorious activity by putting out its eighteenth issue, which contained the
Durnovo caricature.
136
For a detailed account of the Durnovo affair, see Botsianovskii 93; S. I. Vitte, Vospominaniia, vol. 3.
(Moscow: Skif Aleks, 1994) 71; V. I. Gurko, Features and Figures of the Past: Government and Opinion
in the Reign of Nicholas II, ed. J. E. Wallace Sterling, Xenia Joukoff Eudin, and H. H. Fisher, trans. Laura
Matveev (Stanford: Stanford UP; London: H. Milford, Oxford UP, 1939) 180.
137
Other left-wing satirists and caricature artists also made extensive use of this reference. See, for
instance, Nikolai Remizov’s expressive illustration for Knorozovsky’s Arrows (Strely) titled Remove that
Swine Immediately (Nemedlenno ubrat’ etu svin’iu). (Fig. 4) See Strely 5 (Nov. 27, 1905): 5.
71
Fig. 3. Sergei Chekhonin, “Your Excellency." (Vashe prevoskhoditel’stvo)
Zritel’ 18 30 Oct. 1905: 3.
72
Fig. 4. Nikolai Remizov, “Remove that Swine Immediately.” (Nemedlenno ubrat’
etu svin’iu) Strely 5 27 Nov. 1905: 5.
73
stoletiia]) informed the readers of an ironic incident: based on the brief, but eloquent
observation of Alexander III, “one of the authoritative agents of this government (about
whom, however, the journal had nothing bad [durnogo] to say), was relegated in the
XIXth century to the Senate for an essentially innocent transgression of a playful kind.
Nonetheless, in the bygone days of serfdom, a peasant slave could have been punished
for a similar wrongdoing by being sent to the military.” The journal concluded its
mockery by surmising that “the truthfulness of this piquant historical reference could be
confirmed at the Spanish Embassy.”
138
Another brief anonymous anecdote featured
alongside this spoof and titled “Conversation” (Razgovor), drove the message home
again when it read: “What is your opinion of the Minister of the Interior – Durnovo? In
this regard, I am in complete agreement with Alexander III.”
139
The mockeries of Durnovo that appeared in the first issue of Bugbear evidently did
not produce as strong a reaction from the powerful minister as did a segment that was
published in the second issue of the journal. The latter featured a fictional account titled
“Oats” (Oves), which referred to a real-life controversy over one of Durnovo’s recent
business transactions – the sale of a large supply of oats to the Russian army. The fact of
this transaction, in which Durnovo was implicated as a dishonest dealer, became public
knowledge
140
and fertile material for caricature artists and writers of many other satirical
138
Zhupel 1 (1905): 7.
139
Zhupel 1 (1905): 7.
140
On December 5, 1905, the newspaper Hearsay (Molva) published a letter by A. A. Stakhovich, a
functionary with the war department in which he accused the Minister of the Interior Durnovo of not
delivering 244,000 kilograms of oats to the Russian armies stationed in the Far East of the country. It was
alleged that Durnovo sold a supply of oats from his estate to Stakhovich, for which he received an 80 %
down payment. However, as soon as Durnovo learned that the going price for oats had gone up, he declined
74
journals.
141
In its third issue, Bugbear returned to this subject in a brief, riddle-like
“charade,” which depicted Durnovo as a bloodthirsty despot. Authored by the Knowledge
writer Evgenii Chirikov and titled “Who is He?” (Kto on?) it read: “Although he is not
herbivorous, he consumes oats. He barks (so loud) that all of Russia can hear him, but he
is not a dog … He drinks people’s blood, but he is not a vampire. He celebrates victory,
but he is not (King) Pyrrhus.”
142
Not all of the literary contributions to Bugbear by the affiliated Knowledge and Son
of the Fatherland writers and poets were so person-specific or straightforward in their
denunciatory tone and heroic revolutionary rhetoric. Resembling in its symbolism
Balmont’s “A Fable about the Devil,” Bunin’s poem “Ormuzd,” for instance, relied on
the image of the god of ancient Persians Ahura Mazda or Ormuzd to convey concealed
praise of the fighters who sacrificed their lives on the altar of liberty. Alexander Kuprin
attempted to incorporate an oppositional statement in his ostensibly friendly parodies
(druzheskaia parodiia) of his fellow Knowledge associates, the writer Bunin and poet
Skitalets. Featured alongside Gorky’s aphorisms and maxims, Kuprin’s parody of
Skitalets, for instance, portrayed the poet admonishing the tyrannical rulers that he would
“drown them all in his poems, like a bunch of despised cockroaches in a puddle.”
143
to deliver the supply and demanded that his losses be compensated. Stakhovich, on the other hand, argued
that Durnovo did not incur any losses.
141
See, for instance, a four-part caricature sequence titled From the Trough to the Gallows (Ot koryta do
eshafota) in Strely 7 (Dec. 22, 1905): 5-7. (Fig. 5)
142
Zhupel 3 (1906): 7.
143
Zhupel 3 (1906): 7.
75
Fig. 5. Anon., “From the Trough to the Gallows.” (Ot koryta do eshafota)
Strely 7 22 Dec. 1905: 5-7.
76
The literary section of Bugbear was comprised of works spanning a variety of genres,
which included parables, charades, aphorisms, anecdotes, poems, didactic short stories as
well as allegorical mock fairy tales and even literary parodies. In keeping with the liberal-
satirical orientation of the journal, many works, like Timofeev’s mock folk narrative “A
Fairy-tale about Cunning Sergei,” contained some form of satirical invective or ironic
commentary about the government, the Tsar and Russia’s political and military leaders.
Others, like Gorky’s “The Dog” or Gusev-Orenburgsky and Lukianov’s poems
“Requiem” (Rekviem), “January 9” (9 ianvaria) and “From the Cycle of Songs about
Freedom” (Iz pesen o svobode) were more somber in tone. Satire and humor in such
segments was rather subdued if not altogether absent. Regardless of the nature of the
genre, the manner of expression and satirical prowess, all of the literary pieces included
by editors Gorky and Grzhebin in Bugbear were unified thematically to convey popular
protest against the regime. In that, the literary works of Bugbear were in unison with its
equally oppositional visual content.
77
CHAPTER 2: THE GRAPHIC ART OF BUGBEAR AND THE RESPONSE TO THE
JOURNAL BY THE REGIME
The cartoons of Bugbear represented first and foremost artistic expressions of the
oppositional sentiments harbored by the participating artists of the World of Art as
expressed, for instance, in the testimonies of Anna Ostroumova-Lebedeva and Evgenii
Lancéray.
144
Although in his recollections Lancéray states that in 1905 the more
proactive artists of the World of Art were prepared to support any opposition to the
government, evidence suggests that at the time of the publication of Bugbear, their
political sympathies rested in particular with the liberal zemstvo constitutionalists united
organizationally under the banner of the Constitutional Democratic Party.
145
144
Anna Ostroumova-Lebedeva, Avtobiograficheskie zapiski (Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2003) 330-331; E.
Lansere, “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii 1905 goda,” Iskusstvo 6 (1936): 41.
145
Lansere 41. This is not to say that the artists were members of the Kadet party. Their connection with
the Kadets was one of emotional and ideational support rather than actual participation. In his private
correspondence with Alexander Benois, which Lancéray conducted concurrently with the publication of
Bugbear and Hellish Post, the artist reveals his constitutional-democratic sympathies on more than one
occasion. For instance, in his letter of spring 1906 Lancéray contrasts favorably the Kadets with Guchkov’s
centrist Union of October 17. In particular, Lancéray writes: “Of course, the parties of the radical left, the
socialists, consider [the Kadets] to be bourgeois, ‘soft-hearted’ [miagkotelye] and not ever capable of
taking any revolutionary steps; they are full of compromise, of course. However, out of all the bourgeois
parties which did not boycott the [Duma] elections, they represent the left wing; having succeeded in
uniting people of culture, [their party] is the most congenial [naibolee simpatichnaia] and fair. … I believe
that at this point the Kadets ought to be supported and that it is necessary to participate in the Duma.
Boycotting the Duma was one of the most unintelligent and impractical outcomes of the socialists’
‘theorizing,’ of their immaturity. … Perhaps, the Kadets are the opportunists of the future, but those
Octobrists [e.g. member of the Union of October 17 OM] cannot even be called opportunists of the present
day. Ideationally, this [Octobrist] party is nothing… Essentially, I do not know who may capture your
sympathy from their ranks, but judging by our acquaintances (except for the uncles), all good people are
with the Kadets and with the leftists.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, c. spring 1906, Manuscript
Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 320, l. 19-20. As a group, the artists of the World of Art
expressed their sympathies with the political positions maintained by the zemstvo constitutionalists even
prior to 1905. At a friendly dinner that commemorated the opening on December 30, 1904 of the exhibition
of the Union of Russian Painters, many of them signed a resolution the final paragraph of which stated that
the artists supported the growing liberation movement and endorsed the proposals passed by the zemstvo
constitutionalists. The list of the World of Art artists who signed this public address included, among
others, Bakst, Benois, Bilibin, Grabar, Dobuzhinsky, Lancéray, Serov and Somov. See Russkie vedomosti 7
(Jan. 7, 1905): 2.
78
Inadvertently, therefore, the graphic art of Bugbear was also representative of the anti-
government position maintained by the liberal-bourgeois political and professional
intelligentsia which constituted the membership of the Kadet party and which was the
principal force pushing for the reform and expansion of the public sphere in 1905.
146
Sympathizing with the liberal-bourgeois political agenda did not necessarily signify
that the miriskusniki intended to use Bugbear (and, later, Hellish Post) to promote
constitutionalism or any other political construct. Providing a catharsis for the artists’
own frustration with the Tsar and the Imperial administration, they employed their
cartoons and drawings to act as a catalyst to influence and alter public opinion toward
autocracy. The point worth emphasizing is that the artists’ objective here was primarily to
criticize the follies of the regime and not to offer any substantive practical solutions to the
existing political problems.
Of course, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that
correcting social and political inadequacies through such criticism was also an underlying
objective as this is also one of the functions political satire is traditionally called to
fulfill.
147
This objective, however, was never expressed explicitly either in the journal
itself or in the artists’ public statements and private correspondence.
148
Encapsulated in a
146
Relevant specifically to the visual art of Bugbear, the Constitutional Democratic sentiment may be seen
as one of three political currents permeating the overall discourse of the journal. As we have seen in the
preceding chapter, by virtue of Maksim Gorky and Sergei Iuritsyn’s participation, the textual content of
Bugbear was also informed by the Social Democratic and Socialist Revolutionary respective agendas.
Differing significantly with regard to their overall objectives, at this juncture in time, all three shared a
determination to vilify the tsarist regime.
147
See Todd M. Schaefer, and Thomas A. Birkland, eds., “Political Satire,” Encyclopedia of Media and
Politics (Washington: SQ Press, 2007) 215-216.
148
The Bugbear artists’ public statements during the year that preceded the publication of the journal
provide better insights into issues of immediate, professional, concern to them, which, however, had little
to do with politics. Titled “The Voice of the Artists” (Golos khudozhnikov) and endorsed by Benois,
Dobuzhinsky, Lancéray and Somov, one of such statements spoke of “merging beauty and art with life,”
79
rather ornate opening statement of its inaugural issue, the program of Bugbear was
indicative of the ambiguity as well as caution with which the artists were embarking on
this anti-establishment journey. It read that the journal was created to act as arbiter of
justice and to subject sinners to a trial of satirical ink and paint in order to absolve (dlia
ochishcheniia) their earthly transgressions.
149
This vague statement of purpose told little
to the readers and it was not until they had a chance to peruse the textual and the visual
contents of the journal that its sustained oppositional orientation and targets of satire
could be construed.
In art works contributed to Bugbear, the artists of the World of Art pursued several
lines of anti-establishment criticism which were similar to those addressed by the writers
in the journal’s texts. The most subversive, and, arguably, the most effective in terms of
their satirical and oppositional prowess were those cartoons which targeted Tsar Nicholas
- an undertaking both bold and risky as even during the height of the post-October
Manifesto days of press liberty any unauthorized mention of the sovereign in print, much
less mockery of his Imperial Majesty, would inevitably evoke a punitive response.
Exploring the graphic art of Bugbear, this chapter will also address the negative reception
of the journal by the tsarist establishment, demonstrating the limitations of the latter in
regard to safeguarding basic civil liberties and the problem of the emerging public sphere.
developing “an all-pervasive need for beauty and connection between the artist and the people” and of
“educating the masses in the spirit of Beauty.” Improving the management of artistic affairs and reforming
the Academy of Arts were also two of the objectives. In their opinion, the Academy should be responsible
for expanding the network of museums as well as for improving artistic and technical education while also
taking the lead to initiate a program for the protection and preservation of historical monuments. Yet again,
none of these concerns were addressed or even hinted at in either Bugbear or Hellish Post.
149
Zhupel 1 (1905): 2.
80
Visual Satires of the Tsar in Bugbear
As opposed to the more radical writer-contributors to Bugbear, the resolve of the
participating miriskusniki to subject the Tsar to public criticism through satirical ridicule
seems rather extraordinary given the fact that since the turn of the century, the Russian
Emperor had been one of the major patrons of the World of Art society, bankrolling,
among other things, the production of their luxurious journal.
150
Yet the royal generosity
was evidently not enough to absolve Nicholas of the various allegations for which he and
his government were held responsible by those artists of the World of Art who chose to
contribute to Bugbear. Although the most striking images which appeared in the journal
and which targeted the Tsar directly were authored only by Grzhebin and Bilibin, the
sentiment and the message they conveyed were no doubt shared by the entire artistic
collective of the journal.
In order to be able to laugh at Nicholas with impunity, the artists of Bugbear, like the
journal’s literary satirists and the graphic artists working for other left-wing satirical
periodicals, were obliged to resort to rather inventive allegories and metaphors, although
their ingenuity often failed to ward off the wrath of the authorities. Unlike the caricatures
of the Tsar appearing in foreign publications or the uncensored home-grown postcards
and drawings featured in the illegal illustrated press (e.g. the supplement to the Bolshevik
150
Subsidizing the journal since 1900 through an annual grant of 10,000 rubles, the Tsar also patronized the
society and its cultural endeavors by, for instance, commissioning art works from some of its affiliated
members (e.g. Serov) and opening the exhibition of historical portraits organized by Diaghilev at the
Tauride Palace at the height of the 1905 revolution. See John E. Bowlt, The Silver Age: Russian Art of the
Early Twentieth Century and the “World of Art” Group (Newtonville, Mass.: Oriental Research Partners,
1982) 62.
81
newspaper Spark [Iskra]), which strove to capture the emperor’s likeness,
151
the pictures
in Bugbear were not caricatures of the Tsar per se. To identify Nicholas as the subject of
their attacks, the artists did not rely on the exaggeration or even suggestion of the Tsar’s
physical features instead utilizing references to symbols of imperial power (e.g. crown,
ermine gown, royal coat of arms) as well as to foreign kings and familiar names of rulers
from Russian folkloric epos. Some of these drawings attained the desired satirical effect
through the invocation of a popular belief in the stubbornness of the Tsar and his lack of
sophistication in matters pertinent to the affairs of the state. Semantically, the artists
sought to implicate the Tsar in the tragedies of 1905, expose the limited nature of his
commitment to the advancement of constitutionalism and generally point out the
precarious position of the autocratic regime.
In his drawings, Grzhebin, for instance, strove to connect the violence perpetrated by
the regime and the resulting civilian casualties with the person of the Tsar while at the
same time attempting to expose the autocracy’s claim to constitutional reform as
pretentious. The former is the leitmotif of a colorful cartoon titled Be strong! One Last
151
See, for instance, Gaido and Golia’s caricatures of Nicholas II in the Turin-published journal Pasquino
(e.g. Tsar’s Rescript (Le Rescrit du Tsar) (Fig. 6) and Nicholas’ Appreciation (Le Remerciements de
Nicolas) (Fig. 7) and popular Russian postcards The Blessed Stamp (Miropomazannyi shtempel’) (Fig. 8),
Juggling Life Recklessly (Zhongler otchaiannoi zhizni) (Fig. 9), a diptych Today it is You, Tomorrow it will
be Me (Segodnia ty, a zavtra ia) (Fig. 10), The Breaking up of the Ice on the Neva River (Ledokhod na
Neve) (Fig. 11) and Tsar and People (Tsar’ i narod). (Fig. 12) Reproduced illegally in Russia, the
caricature of the Tsar under the title Juggling Life Recklessly was in fact a reprint of Rata Langa’s picture
Nicholas le Jongleur, Dit Brave-la-Mort, en Représentation devant un Parterre de Rois, which was
originally published in the November 14, 1905 issue of the Stuttgart-based satirical Der Wahre Jacob. See
John Grand-Carteret, Nicolas ange de la Paix, l’empereur du knout (Paris, 1908) 15. In Spark (c. 1902-
1903), see V. V. Riznichenko’s (a.k.a. “Gaid”) caricatures of the Tsar titled Tsar Nicholas II and
Gendarmes (Tsar’ Nikolai II i zhandarmy), (Fig. 13) Tsar Nicholas II and Prince Obolensky (Tsar’ Nikolai
II i kniaz’ Obolenskii), (Fig. 14) Caring Sincerely about Students (Serdechnoe popechenie ob
uchashcheisia molodezhi), (Fig. 15) and Bowing to the Knout (Poklonenie knutu). (Fig. 16) For more on
Spark and Riznichenko, see V. V. Shleev, Revoliutsiia i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo (Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe
iskusstvo, 1987) 152-171.
82
Fig. 6. Gaido, “Tsar’s Rescript.” (Le Rescrit du Tsar) Pasquino 12 March,
1905.
83
Fig. 7. Golia, “Nicholas’ Appreciation.” (Le Remerciements de Nicolas)
Pasquino 17 Dec. 1905.
84
Fig. 8. Anon., “The Blessed Stamp.” (Miropomazannyi shtempel’)
c. 1905-1906.
85
Fig. 9. Anon., “Juggling Life Recklessly.” (Zhongler otchaiannoi zhizni)
c. 1905-1906.
86
Fig. 10. Anon., “Today it is You, Tomorrow it will be Me.” (Segodnia ty,
a zavtra ia) c. 1905-1906.
87
Fig. 11. Anon., “The Breaking Up of the Ice on the Neva River.”
(Ledokhod na Neve) c. 1905-1906.
88
Fig. 12. Anon., “Tsar and People.” (Tsar’ i narod) c. 1905-1906.
89
Fig. 13. V. V. Riznichenko, (a. k. a. “Gaid”), “Tsar Nicholas II and
Gendarmes.” (Tsar’ Nikolai II i zhandarmy) Iskra c. 1902-1903.
Fig. 14. V. V. Riznichenko, “Tsar Nicholas and Prince Obolensky.” (Tsar’
Nikolai II i kniaz’ Obolenskii) Iskra c. 1902-1903.
90
Fig. 15. V. V. Riznichenko, “Caring Sincerely about Students.” (Serdechnoe
popechenie ob uchashcheisia molodezhi) Iskra c. 1902-1903.
Fig. 16. V. V. Riznichenko, “Bowing to the Knout.” (Poklonenie knutu)
Iskra c. 1902-1903.
91
Step is Left to be Taken! (Krepis’! Eshche odin poslednii shag!).
152
(Fig. 17) Appearing
in the second issue of the journal, it depicts a scene in which a large, green, dragon-like
and horned female creature, identified as such by a droopy breast on the left side of its
chest, encourages her scrawny, terrified companion to take another step over a sinister,
Käthe Kollwitz-like mass grave under their feet. The spiked crown and black and white
imperial ermine gown of the indecisive creature reveal Grzhebin’s intent to satirize the
Russian Imperial couple.
Ridiculing the Tsar and the Tsarina by depicting them as otherworldly monsters,
Grzhebin at the same time places the grotesque pair into a desolate landscape that
suggests a connection between the royal house and the many civilian deaths incurred
during the popular uprisings of 1905. In its basic conjecture, Grzhebin’s picture is similar
to, for instance, Olaf Gulbransson’s Simplicissimus cartoon The Blind Tsar (Der Blinde
Tsar).
153
(Fig. 18) Working under much stricter censorship conditions, Grzhebin,
however, was not able to invoke the Tsar’s physical features, resorting instead to
imaginative allegory to deliver a similar message.
152
In the history of the turn of the century Russian journalism, Zinovii Grzhebin is better known as an
editor and a publishing entrepreneur, and not an artist. This is despite the fact that visual art was the focus
of his early career, when he attended the Art College at the Imperial Academy (briefly) and S. Hollosy’s art
school in Munich. Dobuzhinsky remembered Grzhebin as a true bohemian, who was one of Hollosy’s
favorite students. Upon his return to Russia in 1905, Grzhebin abandoned art in favor of journalism. His
drawings for Bugbear (and Hellish Post), which are, perhaps, the only extant samples of his work, reveal
his proclivity for illustration, symbolic expression, use of strong colors and definitive modernist, as
opposed to realist, stylistics. Some of his World of Art Bugbear colleagues (e.g. Lancéray), however,
considered him artistically “weak.” See M. V. Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia (Moscow: Nauka, 1987) 161;
Lansere 51; I. B. Demidenko, “Khudozhniki na Bashne,” Bashnia Viacheslava Ivanova i kul’tura
Serebriannogo veka, ed. A. B. Shishkin, et al. (St. Petersburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet S.-Peterb. gos. un-
ta, 2006) 212.
153
Simplicissimus 48 (Feb. 21, 1905): 1.
92
Fig. 17. Zinovii Grzhebin, “Be Strong! One Last Step is Left to be Taken!”
(Krepis’! Eshche odin poslednii shag!) Zhupel 3 Jan. 1906: 4.
93
Fig. 18. Olaf Gulbransson, “The Blind Tsar.” (Der Blinde Tsar) Simplicissimus 48
21 Feb. 1905: 1.
94
Except for a very brief and rather broadly phrased caption, Grzhebin’s Be Strong was
devoid of other verbal elucidation. However, the drawing was preceded on the previous
page by Gusev-Orenburgsky’s more articulate and subversive poem “The Year 1905”
(1905 god). If read in conjunction with the poem, which spoke of the government’s
persistent use of military force against the people throughout the eventful year,
Grzhebin’s image revealed its intended meaning more clearly.
The first issue of Bugbear came out containing a picture which earned Grzhebin both
a place in the pantheon of Russian political cartoonists as well as a significant amount of
legal trouble, and, ultimately, time in jail. Titled Werewolf-Eagle or Domestic and
Foreign Policy (Orel oboroten’ Ili politika vneshniaia i vnutrenniaia), this was one of the
most cleverly devised anti-tsarist cartoons of the period. (Fig. 19) Identified by the title
caption on top of the image and the artist’s name at the bottom, in its upright position this
page-size reversible drawing depicts a double-headed eagle – the heraldic symbol of the
Tsars since its introduction to Russia in the fifteenth century. In Grzhebin’s picture,
however, the double-headed eagle is portrayed with parody and contempt, seen in the
artist’s choice of its graphic representations and juxtapositions: resembling snake-like
bodies, two thin, black necks and crowned heads of the eagle are drawn in a distorted
manner and against an ambiguous white background. When the page is reversed,
Grzhebin’s drawing reveals a figure sporting a crown of gold, epaulettes and an ermine
gown that suggest the tsar. The ambiguous white background, against which the artist
positioned the two black necks of the double-headed eagle, now amounts to the ruler’s
95
Fig. 19. Zinovii Grzhebin, “Werewolf-Eagle or Domestic and
Foreign Policy.” (Orel oboroten’ Ili politika vneshniaia i
vnutrenniaia) Zhupel 1 2 Dec. 1905: 8.
96
exposed buttocks, effectively highlighting the two protuberances of his hind end.
154
The
clever pastiche of Grzhebin’s drawing would likely not have caused a strong negative
reaction from censoring authorities had it not been for the fact that it was interpreted as a
parodic representation of the person of the Russian Tsar.
The semantics of Grzhebin’s satire is multifaceted and connected to the juxtaposition
of the word “constitution,” seen featured prominently in the midst of the ruler’s regal
gown (or, depending on how it is viewed, of the eagle’s wide spread wings), with the idea
of absolutism symbolized by the figure of the ruler and the double-headed eagle. The key
to understanding it lies both in the title and in subtitle of the picture. The former makes
use of the noun “werewolf” or “changeling” (oboroten’), which derives from the
reflexive verb “to transform oneself” (oborotit’sia). It is meant not only to urge the
viewer to turn the image over, as, for instance, was suggested by Margaret Betz,
155
but
also to hint at the deceitful nature of the tsarist regime and its false ability to present itself
to the rest of the world in the semblance of constitutional monarchy. It is in the latter
sense that Grzhebin’s comment on Russian foreign policy, referred to in the subtitle to
the drawing, was interpreted by foreign critics.
156
Moreover, the very juxtaposition of the
word “constitution” (read “the October Manifesto”) and the mocking depiction of the
Imperial heraldic insignia, allows for its reading as a commentary on the complete
incompatibility of the autocratic rule with any form of democracy or, as Botsianovsky
154
Interestingly, in his assessment of Grzhebin’s drawing, Petr Dulsky interpreted the two necks of the
double-headed eagle as excrements that symbolized the birth of the Russian constitution. See P. Dul’skii,
Grafika satiricheskikh zhurnalov 1905-1906 gg. (Kazan, 1922) 38.
155
See Margaret Betz, “The Caricatures and Cartoons of the 1905 Russian Revolution: Images of the
Opposition,” diss., City U of New York, 1984, 89.
156
See Grand Carteret 19.
97
had it, on the Russian Tsar’s lack of concern with the basic liberties the October
Manifesto alleged to provide.
157
Grzhebin’s anti-tsarist cartoons may be contrasted with three of Ivan Bilibin’s
pictures, which, each in its own unique way presented equally metaphorical, but
satirically far more potent ridicules of Nicholas II. The first among these, are the
celebrated drawing Sic transit.. and An Ass 1/20 Natural Size, in which Bilibin resorted to
the device of animal allegory (also known as the “animal convention”), which, in turn,
allowed the artist to generate parodic laughter that was often absent in other art works in
Bugbear. Tracing its literary origins to Aesop’s fables, seventeenth century Russian
satirical novellas and Krylov’s fables, the animal allegory in caricature art endowed
people with features typically associated with animals or completely substituted the
image of an animal with that of a person. Such substitution, as V. I. Propp argued, is
comical, especially when it is related to certain types of animals of humorous appearance
and when the purpose of such substitution is to reveal shortcomings and questionable
traits of character.
158
In both of these satires, Bilibin employs the substitution of humans by animals also
indirectly referring to the well-known Russian verbal tropes of “vazhnyi kak petukh”
157
In this connection, Botsianovsky suggested that the exposition of the ruler’s hind end, a low gesture
semantically close to that of the popular kukish (a finger configuration signifying a refusal to grant), was
indicative of the Tsar’s indifferent attitude toward the constitution and its provisions as well as irreverence
toward the viewing audience. See V. Botsianovskii, and E. Gollerbakh, Russkaia satira pervoi revoliutsii
1905-1906 (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925) 81.
158
V. I. Propp, Problemy komizma i smekha (Sankt-Peterburg: Izd-vo “Aleteia,” 1997) 76-84.
98
(self-important as a rooster, e.g. vain) and “tupoi kak osel” (as stupid as an ass).
159
The
use of the latter metaphor is especially apparent in the full page, black and white picture
An Ass. In accordance with its title, Bilibin’s drawing features an ass – an animal that is
understood in the Russian language to be the very quintessence of stupidity and
stubbornness - placed within an ornate heraldic frame that would normally be reserved
for an image of the Tsar. (Fig. 20) Accompanied by other visual markers used by the
artist to emphasize its connection to the Emperor (e.g. decorative elements borrowed
from the Romanov coat of arms), and in keeping with the animal convention, Bilibin’s
ass is clearly meant to represent Nicholas II. At any rate, this was how the drawing was
read by the ever-vigilant censoring authorities. As we shall see, Bilibin’s audacious satire
of the Tsar’s inanity and obstinacy served as a pretext for the artist’s temporary detention
and interrogation, arrest of the editor responsible for its publication (Grzhebin) and the
harsh censorship measures ultimately taken against the journal.
To generate a satirical reference to the Tsar in Sic transit.. Bilibin likewise resorted to
the animal allegory depicting in this case a rooster clad in a white ermine gown and
sporting a crown. The puzzled pullet is shown gaping at a dish with a headless roast
chicken. (Fig. 21) Thematically, this image evoked the motif of the beheaded King Louis
XVI, which had already been seen in the first issue of Bugbear in the text of Iuritsyn’s
mock fairy tale “Poor King (A Fairy-tale for Children).” The prophetic juxtaposition of
Nicholas II with the beheaded French Monarch was common in Western caricatures as
159
For further discussion of these tropes and their comic potential, see G. Kiazimov, Teoriia komicheskogo.
Problemy iazykovykh sredstv i priemov (Baku: Takhsil, 2004).
99
Fig. 20. Ivan Bilibin, “Ass [Equus Asinus] 1/20th Natural Size.” (Osel (Equus
Asinus) v 1/20 natural’noi velichiny) Zhupel 3 Jan. 1906: 9.
100
Fig. 21. Ivan Bilibin, “Sic Transit.. .” Zhupel 2 24 Dec. 1905: 438.
101
well as in anonymous Russian postcards of the period.
160
In satirical journals such as
Bugbear, which, after all, were susceptible to post-publication censorship, any satirical
invective against the Tsar, and especially one which hinted at his potentially unfortunate
fate, had to be thoroughly concealed not to become a liability.
Referring to the Latin phrase “Sic transit gloria mundi” (Thus passes the glory of the
world), the abbreviated caption beneath Bilibin’s picture seemed to comment on matters
of a general, existential nature. Yet in combination with the image of a crowned rooster,
the message of the caption could hardly be interpreted in any other way than as
suggesting that the Tsar’s worldly power was not eternal and that the regime was fraught
with instability.
161
Opening the second issue of Bugbear, a colorful picture depicting the fairy tale Tsar
Dadon, accompanied by his heir and retinue, was Bilibin’s last, but most intricate and
satirically potent contribution to the journal. (Fig. 25) Artistically as well as thematically,
this drawing related to Bilibin’s most recent work illustrating Russian bylina “Volga”
(Vol’ga, 1902-1904) as well as Pushkin’s “Fairy Tale about Tsar Saltan” (Skazka o Tsare
Saltane). Both of these cycles reveal the artist’s great interest in Russian folk art and, in
particular, in the artistic technique of the popular lubki prints – something that informed
the stylistics of the drawing in Bugbear.
160
See, for instance, Jules Grandjouan’s From Louis XVI to Nicholas II (De Louis XVI à Nicolas II) (Fig.
22), Linse’s Message of the Tsar (Le Message du Tsar) (Fig. 23), Rata Langa’s Tsar’s Vision (La Vision du
Tsar) (Fig. 24) as well as the aforementioned anonymous Russian postcard A Gallery of Beheaded Kings
(Gallereia obezglavlennykh korolei). (Fig. 1)
161
G. V. Golynets, and S. V. Golynets, Ivan Iakovlevich Bilibin (Moscow: Izd-vo “Izobrazitel’noe
iskusstvo,” 1972) 77.
102
Fig. 22. Jules Grandjouan, “From Louis XVI to Nicholas II.” (De Louis XVI à
Nicolas II) Le Cri de Paris 29 Jan. 1905.
103
Fig. 23. J. Linse, “Message of the Tsar.” (Le Message du Tsar) Nederlandische
Spectator Nov. 1905.
104
Fig. 24. Rata Langa, “Tsar’s Vision.” (La Vision du Tsar)
Der Wahre Jacob 22 Aug. 1905.
105
Fig. 25. Ivan Bilibin, “Tsar Dadon.” Zhupel 2 24 Dec. 1905: 1.
106
The main character of Bilibin’s cover, Tsar Dadon, was borrowed from yet another
one of Pushkin’s texts, “Fairy Tale about the Golden Cockerel” (Skazka o zolotom
petushke), which Bilibin was illustrating concurrently with his drawings for Bugbear.
162
Satirically, Bilibin’s picture relied on the juxtaposition of the scrawny-looking, nose-
picking Grand Duke Dadon Dadonovich, who is described in the caption to the image as
a “valiant and mighty epic hero (bogatyr’)” and the imposing figure of his father, Tsar
Dadon, as well as on the visual representation of the Grand Duke as a little boy. The
former device hinted at the popular perception of Nicholas as a docile ruler when
compared with his resolute parent – Tsar Alexander III. The latter trope was borrowed
from the artists and writers of Artsybushev’s Spectator and Chukovsky’s Signal, who had
invented it only a short time before. Already in an August 1905 issue of Spectator, in a
popular caricature drawing of the Black Hundred 25 silhouettes. 4 (25 siluetov. 4),
Chekhonin inaugurated his visual representation of Tsar Nicholas as an underdeveloped
child seen gaping at the disproportionately enormous figure of Grand Duke Aleksei
162
In fact, as G. Golynets had correctly observed, Bilibin’s work on the cover for Bugbear informed not
only his subsequent illustrations for Pushkin’s “Fairy Tale about the Golden Cockerel,” but equally so his
later work on set designs for N. Rimsky-Korsakov’s operatic adaptation of Pushkin’s fairy tale. See
Golynets 76. Although the texts of Pushkin’s fairy tale undoubtedly contributed to Bilibin’s artistic
visualization of Tsar Dadon, another source, which could inform this drawing and help to establish the
connection between Tsar Dadon, Dadon Dadonovich and Nicholas II in readers’ minds, was the famous
Imperial costume ball at the Winter Palace in February of 1903. During the two days of the festivities, the
Emperor and the Empress, as well as members of the Imperial family and personalities close to the court,
wore stylized Russian costumes of both noble and peasant origin. Nicholas II, for instance, was clad in the
costume of his 17
th
century predecessor Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich, while Empress Aleksandra Fedorovna
wore the dress of Tsarina Mariia Ilinichna Miloslavskaia – the first wife of Aleksei Mikhailovich. (Fig. 26)
See R. Gafifullin, and L. Goriacheva, eds., Kostiumirovannyi bal v Zimnem dvortse. Issledovaniia,
dokumenty, materialy, 2 vols. (Moscow: Russkii antikvariat, 2003). This highly publicized event provided
ripe material for caricatures of the Tsar produced in the West, such as the one published by Camara in the
French satirical review L’Assiette au Beurre in September 1903, possibly also contributing to Bilibin’s
depictions of Tsar Dadon and his son in his cartoon for Bugbear. (Fig. 27)
107
Fig. 26. Photograph of Nicholas II and the Empress Aleksandra, 1903.
108
Fig. 27. Camara, “Nicholas and His Wife.” (Nicolas et Sa Femme) L’Assiette
au Beurre 26 Sep. 1903.
109
Aleksandrovich.
163
(Fig. 28) This parody was followed several months later by another,
no less successful Chekhonin-masterminded depiction of the Tsar as a boy in a drawing
titled The Tale about a Mother and an Untidy Boy (Skazka ob odnoi mamashe i
nechistoplotnom mal’chike).
164
(Fig. 29)
At the same time, verbal satires of both Spectator and Signal implied a reference to
the Tsar by using familiar nicknames, such as “Kolia” and “Kolen’ka,” usually reserved
for children. A November 1905 issue of Spectator, for instance, featured a poem titled
“Exemplary Army” (Obraztsovoe voisko), which told of a little boy named Kolen’ka and
his commendable army of cheap tin soldiers.
165
Similarly, a December 1905 issue of
Signal published a mock telegram from one of its fictional readers, Kolia R. (e.g. Nikolai
Romanov), who was informing the editors that his desire to receive their journal was
hopelessly thwarted by his mother.
166
The little boy metaphor of Spectator and Signal
served to not only camouflage satirical treatment of the Tsar, but to also emphasize,
especially after the failures in the Russo-Japanese war, the emperor’s childish naiveté and
gross incompetence in running the country. It is in this connection that the trope was used
by Bilibin in his satirical treatment of Nicholas II as idiotic child, Grand Duke Dadon
Dadonovich.
163
See Zritel’ 10 (Aug. 14, 1905): 8.
164
See Zritel’ 21 (Nov. 17, 1905): 4-5. The tale told about a mother who had a boy no taller than a finger.
The boy would suck on his thumb and bite people, while his mother cleaned his head, protected him from
the people, spoiled him, but nonetheless understood him. Chekhonin’s drawing was also supplied with a
mock appendix, which explained that ironically, the physiognomy of the boy’s mother resembled that of
Count Witte. Moreover, it was difficult to ascertain the messy boy’s sex and age, because he was depicted
from the back with only the back of his head and a bump (shishka) visible.
165
See Zritel’ 21 (Nov. 17, 1905): 3.
166
See Signal 4 (Dec. 4, 1905): 4.
110
Fig. 28. Sergei Chekhonin, “25 silhouettes. 4.” (25 siluetov. 4) Zritel’ 10 14 Aug.
1905: 8.
Fig. 29. Sergei Chekhonin, “The Tale about a Mother and an Untidy Boy.” (Skazka
ob odnoi mamashe i nechistoplotnom mal’chike) Zritel’ 21 17 Nov. 1905: 4-5.
111
In the original drawing, Bilibin’s fairy tale Tsar was called “Gorokh” and not
“Dadon.”
167
The picture published in Bugbear was completely identical to the original,
save a different name for the Tsar. This was perhaps due to the fact that since the
November 22, 1905 issue of Artsybushev’s Spectator had already featured an illustration
titled Story of Tsar Gorokh (Istoriia Tsaria Gorokha), Bilibin chose to avoid using that
name again. Moreover, as the artist was already preparing to illustrate Pushkin’s “Fairy
Tale about the Golden Cockerel,” which had Tsar Dadon as its principal protagonist,
Bilibin’s likely intention was to have his image of Dadon, and, therefore, of Nicholas II,
to be interpreted by the readers with Pushkin’s familiar text in mind – a juxtaposition that
imbued Bilibin’s satire with an additional subliminal moral. In the celebrated fairy tale,
Tsar Dadon is portrayed as a deceitful ruler who did not stand by the promise he had
given to a sage. The resultant untimely demise of the Tsar at the hands of the rebellious
Golden Cockerel, as well as Pushkin’s mysterious admonition that “a fairy tale is a lie,
but it contains a clue which should serve as a lesson to young lads,” may thus be seen to
represent Bilibin’s warning to Russia’s current ruler. In that, it is akin in its message to
his own Sic Transit.., Iuritsyn’s “Poor King” as well as the popular Russian drawings and
Western caricatures, which, as we have seen, contained similarly expressed concealed
admonitions to the Russian Monarch.
In addition to his major anti-tsarist cartoons, Bilibin contributed to Bugbear its logo
and the emblematic image of a grinning demon - two of the smaller graphic works,
which, however, also aimed at criticizing (if not necessarily satirizing) the Tsar and the
regime. Initially appearing in the second issue of the journal, these two drawings were
167
See Golynets 76.
112
also featured in Hellish Post, thus underscoring the organic connection between the two
publications. The semantics of these works is unequivocally connected to the history of
the journal, its reception by the tsarist establishment and the daring attempt by its creators
to counter the regime. Despite its simplicity, Bilibin’s Bugbear badge represents a clever
commentary on the rampant post-publication censorship to which the journal fell victim.
Evoking the devises of animal convention, Bilibin’s drawing depicted a spider crawling
over the first, confiscated issue of the journal. (Fig. 30) A police hat with a plume covers
the spider, making visible only his large protruding eyes and hairy claws. Within this
allegorical framework, the ominous spider symbolizes the censorship authorities, which
acted under the protection of the police department identified by the police hat. This
traditional interpretation offered, for instance, by Golynets,
168
fails to emphasize the fact
that Bilibin’s drawing also contains an indirect, allegorical jab at the Tsar. In Russian, the
tuft of feathers decorating the police hat was habitually identified as “sultan,” the word
that in its primary meaning also denoted a sovereign of an Islamic country. In this
instance, the word “sultan” stands for an indirect reference to the Russian sovereign.
Read from the top down, Bilibin’s drawing may thus be perceived as a symbolic
depiction of a vertical tripartite alliance of the Tsar, the police and censorship authorities
encroaching on the Russian press, represented here by Bugbear, and its newly acquired
freedom of expression.
169
At the same time, Bilibin’s black and white drawing of the
168
Golynets 73-74.
169
Thematically, Bilibin’s drawing was connected with the Simplicissimus artist Bruno Paul’s cartoon titled
in Russian Insulted Pride (Oskorblennaia gordost’), also reproduced in this issue of Bugbear. (Fig. 31)
Both images spoke of the government repressions against editors of periodical publications, who were
subjects to frequent arrests and imprisonment even during the days of the press liberty. The speech tag to
Paul’s drawing is a conversation between two arrested lowlifes seen on the picture. One of them was
113
Fig. 30. Ivan Bilibin, “Bugbear ‘Spider’ Badge.” Zhupel 2 24 Dec. 1905: 8.
complaining to the other: “It is so pathetic that they tied us up. Now everyone thinks that we are editors.”
See Zhupel 2 (1906): 11.
114
Fig. 31. Bruno Paul, “Insulted Pride.” (Oskorblennaia gordost’) Zhupel 2 24
Dec. 1905: 11.
115
demon also alludes to a relationship between the Tsar and the satirical press. In his right
hand, the grinning imp brandishes an issue of Bugbear,
170
which, on its front cover,
shows a fairy tale Tsar being challenged by another demon to a game of chess. (Fig. 32)
Thus, in this minute detail, Bilibin was able to convey a metaphor for the challenge
which Bugbear was presenting to the regime. On the other hand, the image of the demon
is organically connected with the title and the program of the journal reinforcing its
intention to subject “sinners” to satirical treatment with Bugbear akin to the one offered
to them in the subterranean world.
Responding to the Revolution: Artists of Bugbear and the Events of 1905
Integrated with the cartoons which targeted the Tsar were art works which
encapsulated the artists’ often intensely personal responses to the events of the revolution
and tragic confrontations with the regime that shook the country throughout 1905-1906.
These images also assumed distinct anti-establishment dimensions as many of them
sought to remind the readers of, for instance, the government’s use of military force as its
principal method of dealing with often-spontaneous popular uprisings. Indeed, the
autocracy’s failure to resolve many urban and rural disorders by peaceful means resulted
in its frequent recourse to the use of the army
171
making the government troops and the
military commanders the recurrent targets of cartoons in Bugbear and other left-wing
satirical journals of the period. The texts that preceded or followed these drawings also
170
This drawing was also reproduced in Hellish Post, where the imp is holding an issue of that journal.
171
Some statistics on the use of the military for the purposes of policing in 1906 may be found in Abraham
Ascher’s informative P. A. Stolypin: The Search for Stability in Late Imperial Russia (Stanford: Stanford
UP, 2001) 178.
116
Fig. 32. Ivan Bilibin, “Bugbear ‘Imp’ Logo.” Zhupel 2 24 Dec. 1905: 9.
117
reiterated messages of the journal’s art works, most of which were not only highly
symbolic and allegorical, but in many cases supplied with only very brief verbal captions
of their own.
Among the most compelling visual narratives published throughout the short run of
the journal were Valentin Serov’s Soldiers, Brave Lads! Where is Your Glory?
(Soldatushki, bravy riabiatushki! Gde-zhe vasha slava?), Dobuzhinsky’s How Our
Valiant General Conquered Our Fortress (Kak nash slavnyi general nashu krepost’
pokorial) and a Kustodiev – Lancéray – Dobuzhinsky trilogy on the subject of the armed
uprising in Moscow in December 1905. Inspired by the artist’s eye witnessing the events
of Bloody Sunday from a workshop window in the St. Petersburg Academy of Fine Arts,
Serov’s dynamic pastel Soldiers, Brave Lads! Where is Your Glory? (Fig. 33) depicts a
squadron of Cossacks charging at a crowd of unarmed demonstrators.
172
Serov borrowed
the caption to his composition from the last stanza of an inspirational military marching
song normally designed to celebrate the strength and past valiant efforts of the Russian
army: “Soldiers, brave lads, where is your glory? Our glory is the Russian State; that is
where our glory is.” Placing it underneath his expressive composition, Serov imbues this
172
Serov witnessed this episode while staying with Vasilii Mate, a professor of art, who resided at the
Academy. Recalling the episode two decades later, Ilia Ginzburg, who was also present, wrote that “Serov,
pale and upset, was silently looking at all of that. Outwardly, he appeared to be in total control of himself as
his hand did not fail to be of service to him when right there, on the spot, he would jot down in his sketch
pad impressions of what was happening on the street.” Quoted from: E. P. Gomberg-Verzhbinskaia,
Russkoe iskusstvo i revoliutsiia 1905. Grafika. Zhivopis’ (Leningrad: Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta,
1960) 78. Soldiers, Brave Lads! was Serov’s only oppositional artwork that appeared in print. Other
thematically related pieces, some of which were perhaps also meant for the journal, remained unpublished.
These included a watercolor Cossacks Dispersing a Demonstration in 1905 (Razgon demonstratsii
kazakami v 1905), (Fig. 34) a watercolor December 14, 1905 in Moscow (14 dekabria 1905 g. v Moskve) as
well as the celebrated pencil caricature of the Tsar titled Year1905. After the Suppression (1905 god. Posle
usmireniia) (Fig. 35) A pencil sketch of Cossacks Dispersing a Demonstration as well as December 14,
1905 in Moscow are reproduced in N. Sokolova, “Tematika revoliutsii v stankovoi zhivopisi 1905-1907
gg,” Iskusstvo 6 (1935): 20-21.
118
Fig. 33. Valentin Serov, “Soldiers, Brave Lads! Where is Your Glory?”
(Soldatushki, bravy riabiatushki! Gde-zhe vasha slava?) Zhupel 1 2 Dec. 1905: 5.
119
Fig. 34. Valentin Serov, “Cossacks Dispersing a Demonstration in 1905.” (Razgon
demonstratsii kazakami v 1905 godu) 1905.
120
Fig. 35. Valentin Serov, “Year 1905. After the Suppression.” (1905 god. Posle
usmireniia) 1905.
121
caption with irony insinuating that the glory of the Russian army, due to its ignominious
engagements such as the attack against a peaceful demonstration of civilians shown in the
picture, was long gone.
Arguably, Soldiers, Brave Lads! represented Serov’s response not only to the tragedy
of Bloody Sunday itself, but also to the artist’s unsuccessful attempt to voice his protest
against it within the walls of the Academy. Shortly after the events of January 9, Serov,
in a letter to the vice-president of the Academy, Ivan Tolstoy, had expressed his regret at
the fact that the President of so esteemed an institution, the Tsar’s uncle Grand Duke
Vladimir Aleksandrovich, was also the person in charge of the troops responsible for the
massacre of the peaceful civilians. Serov’s letter, endorsed and supported only by his
colleague Vasilii Polenov, remained unacknowledged by the establishment – a fact which
prompted the artist’s rapid resignation from the Academy and subsequent collaboration
with Bugbear.
173
Pictorial commentaries on the violent clashes between the revolutionaries and the
army and the use of military force by the Imperial government as a favored method of
conflict resolution were particularly dominant in the visual discourse of the second issue
of Bugbear. This is hardly a surprise since it was prepared for publication during the
height of the Moscow uprising. Opening with Ivan Bilibin’s colorful and mockingly
humorous satire Tsar Dadon, the pictorial narrative of the journal rapidly shifted to more
173
See O. V. Serova, Vospominaniia o moem otse Valentine Aleksandroviche Serove (Leningrad: Iskusstvo,
1986) 139-142. For more information on the resonance of Serov’s letter within the artistic and literary
community of the capital, see Gomberg-Verzhbinskaia 78-79. For the insightful correspondence between
Serov, Polenov and Repin regarding this affair, see M. Kopshitser, Valentin Serov (Moscow: Iskusstvo,
1972) 237-258.
122
somber matters, such as the November mutiny in the Russian navy in Sebastopol and the
recent revolutionary action in Moscow in December.
Instigated by the Social Democratic revolutionaries, the Moscow revolt, which
reached its pinnacle between December 9 and 16, was by far the most violent and bloody
conflict of the 1905 revolution. Prior to it, the opposition to the regime in Russian urban
centers was expressed mostly through industrial strikes with limited use of military
hardware on the part of the striking workers. In this regard, the Moscow uprising was a
different affair. As poorly as it was organized and carried out, from the very beginning it
was envisioned as an armed confrontation with the regime.
The Moscow uprising has received adequate evaluations by historians and there is
little need to delve into its workings in minute detail.
174
However, in order to fully
appreciate the commentaries of the artists and writers of Bugbear, it is important to take
cognizance of some of its outstanding features that were reflected on the pages of
Bugbear. Certainly, the erection of the barricades by the revolutionary resistance brigades
(druzhinniki), the exchanges of gunfire and, most importantly, the heavy casualties
among the insurgents and the civilian population, were some of such elements. From the
newspaper reports, the readers of Bugbear could also learn that the insurrection was
suppressed by the government troops through an unprecedented use of the artillery fire by
the elite Semenovsky Regiment led by the loyalist Colonel, Georgii Min.
175
The readers
174
Comprehensive accounts of the Moscow revolt may be found, for instance, in Laura Engelstein,
Moscow, 1905. Working-Class Organization and Political Conflict (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1982) 202-225;
Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905: Russia in Disarray (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1988) 304-336.
175
A veteran of the Russo-Turkish war (1877-1878), Colonel Georgii Aleksandrovich Min (1855-1906)
was commissioned by the Tsar with the task of restoring order in Moscow during the height of the
insurrection. For his decisive actions in defense of the regime, Min was both promoted by the Tsar and
123
would also know about the Governor-General of Moscow, Fedor Dubasov’s
authorization for the use of the “most severe measures to put down the uprising.”
176
In Bugbear, the Moscow insurrection received its most compelling visual treatment in
three color images authored respectively by Kustodiev, Lancéray and Dobuzhinsky.
Positioned sequentially, they depicted the progression of the confrontation. Its beginning
is symbolized by Kustodiev’s Moscow I. Entry (Moskva I. Vstuplenie), which showed a
scene of street fighting between the defending and armed revolutionary druzhinniki and
the advancing government troops. The foreground of Kustodiev’s drawing is dominated
by the ominous image of an enormous skeleton, which, with its hands and feet soaked in
bright red blood, is shown taking giant steps from behind the barricades and toward the
troops.
177
(Fig. 36) The meaning of this picture is ambiguous in that it is more existential
than oppositional and, as suggested by Gomberg-Verzhbinskaia, allegorical and even
mystical.
178
Indeed, it may be argued that Kustodiev’s intention was to comment not only
on the violence emanating, for instance, from the loyalist troops, but also on the common
tragic and deadly fate of both of the warring parties, symbolized by the skeleton.
Kustodiev’s intent is confirmed by an extant preliminary sketch the artist did for the more
condemned to death by the revolutionary radicals. He was subsequently assassinated in August of 1906 by
the Socialist-Revolutionary Zinaida Konopliannikova.
176
Admiral F. V. Dubasov was appointed the Governor-General of Moscow shortly prior to the revolt, on
November 24, 1905. As the insurrection progressed, the use of the army and heavy weaponry increased,
culminating in colonel Min’s firing at the Presnia insurgents. In the left-wing periodical satirical press, the
names of admiral Dubasov and colonel Min thus came to be associated with the blood spilt during the
suppression of the Moscow revolt. This was perhaps despite the fact that the orders to use such Draconian
measures against the insurgents in actuality came from their St. Petersburg superiors Durnovo, Witte and,
ultimately, the Tsar. See Engelstein 197; Ascher 304-336; G. Vetlugin, “S. I. Vitte i dekabr’skoe vosstanie
v Moskve. (Iz vospominanii chinovnika),” Byloe 6 (34) (1925): 225-226.
177
Zhupel 2 (1906): 3.
178
Gomberg-Verzhbinskaia 91-92.
124
Fig. 36. Boris Kustodiev, “Moscow I. Entry.” (Moskva I. Vstuplenie) Zhupel 2 24
Dec. 1905: 3.
125
refined plate that was published in the second issue of Bugbear. (Fig. 37) Identical to
Moscow I. Entry in its depiction of the confrontation, this sketch differs in the positioning
of the skeleton, which is shown here as sitting on top of the building on the left and
observing the fight. Significantly, the skeleton’s bloodstained left leg is placed amidst the
freedom fighters behind the barricade, while his equally bloody right leg is on the side of
the advancing government troops on top of a dead loyalist soldier, just shot by a rebel
from the second floor of the building that served as the skeleton’s vista point.
179
Continuing the narrative, Lancéray’s picture Moscow II. The Battle (Moskva II. Boi)
depicts a panorama of street fighting in different locations of the city. It is seen through a
gaping hole in the shattered wall of a building that is not that dissimilar to the one
featured in Kustodiev’s cartoon. (Fig. 38) In effect, Lancéray’s drawing consists of two
different sequences. The top, larger picture shows the confrontation, while the bottom
one is another veiled caricature of the Tsar and his panic-stricken retinue. Depicting a
chaotic scene at the Imperial Palace, it captures the state of total confusion that often
characterized the reaction of the Russian government during the initial period of the
uprising. Count Witte, once again identified by his crown, is presenting the Tsar with the
scroll of a manifesto or a recent report on the progress of the insurrection. The
sovereign’s throne is engulfed in a cloud of smoke so thick that the Emperor is not visible
at all. The device of concealment of the Tsar’s figure, which was sometimes used in
179
Gomberg-Verzhbinskaia 90.
126
Fig. 37. Boris Kustodiev, “Moscow I. Entry.” (Moskva I. Vstuplenie) Variant, 1906.
127
Fig. 38. Evgenii Lancéray, “Moscow II. The Battle.” (Moskva II. Boi) Zhupel 2 24 Dec.
1906: 6.
128
veiled depictions of Nicholas II,
180
creates a comic impression that the reform-minded
Premier is presenting the document to the burning chair. To the left of the throne is a
portly priest; waving his censer, he is making the smoke cloud doubly impenetrable. Next
to the priest is a general who bears striking resemblance to Chekhonin’s caricature of the
Black Hundred general Kutepov in Spectator; he is shown frantically waving his whip.
181
To Witte’s right is a military officer who is defending the government and the church by
incessantly firing rounds of cannonballs from a hand-held mortar. Lancéray’s subtle
reference to cannon fire recalled the Governor-General of Moscow Dubasov’s
authorization to deploy heavy artillery against the revolutionary insurgents.
The narrative of the Moscow trilogy is brought to a logical conclusion in
Dobuzhinsky’s drawing Moscow III. Pacification (Moskva III. Umirotvorenie). (Fig. 40)
The artist presents a stark symbolic depiction of the aftermath of revolutionary action in
the ancient Russian capital in which heavy shelling caused the death of close to eight
hundred people during the month of December.
182
In Dobuzhinsky’s picture the city is
seen submerged in a sea of blood with only the white-walled Kremlin floating lonesome
under a bloodstained rainbow.
180
Cf. A. Ivanov’s drawing Before Leaving Abroad. The Second Bell. (Pered ot”ezdom za granitsu. Vtoroi
zvonok) in Chukovsky’s journal of satire Signal 1 (Nov. 13, 1905): 4. (Fig. 39) In his study, Botsianovsky
asserts that in Ivanov’s drawing, the cloud of steam from a train conceals the figures of the Imperial couple.
See Botsianovskii 71.
181
See Chekhonin’s famous parody of the Black Hundreds in his 25 silhouettes. 4 published in Zritel’ 10
(Aug. 14, 1905): 8-9.
182
See Engelstein 202-225, 228. Dobuzhinsky’s graphite on paper sketch for the version of Moscow III.
Pacification published in Bugbear, is preserved as a part of the collection of the Department of Drawing
and Watercolor of the Russian Museum, St. Petersburg. (Fig. 41)
129
Fig. 39. A. Ivanov, “Before Leaving Abroad. The Second Bell.” (Pered ot”ezdom za
granitsu. Vtoroi zvonok) Signal 1 13 Nov. 1905: 4.
130
Fig. 40. Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, “Moscow III. Pacification.” (Moskva III.
Umirotvorenie) Zhupel 2 24 Dec. 1905: 7.
131
Fig. 41. Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, Graphite sketch for “Moscow III. Pacification.”
(Moskva III. Umirotvorenie).
132
Depicting various stages of the Moscow uprising, the Kustodiev-Lancéray-
Dobuzhinsky narrative relied almost exclusively on the visual means. Textual
components in all three of these compositions were limited only to their brief titles. Yet,
as always, the editors of Bugbear provided other verbal commentaries to complement the
imagery of this sequence thus reiterating its veiled intent to criticize the use of force. For
instance, the issue featured several texts which also commented on the uprising. The new
anti-heroes, such as admiral Dubasov, only implied in the drawings, were openly named
and brought to the attention of the reading public in satirical stories and anecdotes.
Izumrud’s short story “Socrates” (Sokrat), for instance, poked fun at Dubasov’s mental
capacities, and, on a more serious note, hinted at his unscrupulous behavior in quelling
the revolt. The story mockingly pointed out that beside the necessity of having “to strain
his little brain” while speaking with the ancient Greek philosopher, the Governor-General
of Moscow was also a “murderer” (muzheubiitsa) with a conscience the size of “a tiny
little worm with enormous jaws,” whose words “hit the target like a twelve inch
cannon.”
183
Dubasov’s penchant for destruction and use of explosives was satirized in an
anonymous anecdotal story titled “Birdhouse for Starlings” (Skvoreshnitsa). It told of the
oxymoronic “infantry-navy admiral” Dubasov, who, on his tour of the conquered city of
Moscow upon seeing one edifice that was not damaged by artillery fire, asked if it served
as a hideout for insurgents. Pointing out that the edifice was just a birdhouse, the
admiral’s aide-de-camp received a reprimand that what really mattered was not what the
183
Zhupel 3 (1906): 6.
133
.
structure was called, but rather if it was loyal to the Tsar and the Fatherland. Having said
that, Dubasov ordered the birdhouse be showered with grenades.
184
N. Skvortsov’s “A Soldiers’ Song” (Pesnia soldatskaia)
185
although not mentioning
Dubasov by name, nevertheless targeted him as much as it did the army (e.g. Min’s
Semenovksy Regiment). This rhymed antiphrastic cheer read: “One step back, another
forward; He who shoots all of the free people will be praised and honored! Hurray! Shoot
for the glory of the double-headed eagle! Get your bullets ready. All of Moscow will
remember the red epaulets. Platoon halt, platoon fire. We shot piles of women, old men
and children. We are a regiment of epic strong men. We are a mighty regiment! Shoot for
the glory of the double-headed eagle!”
186
Such a bold indictment of the military proved
to be costly to Bugbear as its editor was ultimately jailed and the journal banned
The second issue of Bugbear closed with Dobuzhinsky’s second contribution to this
volume – a colorful cartoon titled How Our Valiant General Conquered Our Fortress
(Kak nash slavnyi general nashu krepost’ pokorial). (Fig. 43) Drawing on the technique
of popular lubok prints and continuing the thematic thread of both the Moscow trilogy
and Serov’s Soldiers, Brave Lads!, Dobuzhinsky’s picture presented a playful
interpretation of the way the tsarist government handled the mutiny of sailors on board
the cruiser Ochakov. The tragic outcome of this uprising was still fresh in the collective
184
Zhupel 3 (1906): 7.
185
N. Skvortsov was writing for Bugbear under the pen name “Shpak.” Bugbear was not the only journal
that satirized Dubasov. No less biting and visually engaging caricatures of the admiral appeared in many
such journals throughout January of 1906. Especially potent among these was N. Remizov’s cartoon
entitled Admiral Dubasov is Taking a Bath (Admiral Dubasov prinimaet vannu). Printed on the cover of the
January 7, 1906 issue of the “sarcastic and merciless” satirical journal Arrows (Strely), it depicted Dubasov
sitting in a bathtub filled with blood. (Fig. 42)
186
Zhupel 3 (1906): 6.
134
Fig. 42. Nikolai Remizov, “Admiral Dubasov is Taking a Bath.” (Admiral Dubasov
prinimaet vannu) Strely 9 7 Jan. 1906: 1.
135
Fig. 43. Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, “How Our Valiant General Conquered Our Fortress.”
(Kak nash slavnyi general nashu krepost’ pokorial) Zhupel 2 24 Dec. 1905: 12.
136
memory. Combined with the commentaries on the Moscow revolt, Dobuzhinsky’s
cartoon not only acquired a new sense of relevance but also supplied the Kustodiev-
Lancéray-Dobuzhinsky sequence with additional subversive subtext.
The main protagonist of the events and the anti-hero of Dobuzhinsky’s satire is Baron
A. N. Meller-Zakomelsky. In the past Flügeladjutant of Alexander II and general of
infantry, Meller-Zakomelsky had distinguished himself as a faithful servant of the
Russian throne and a fighter against social and political discontent. It was in this capacity
that the decorated and experienced sixty-one year old martinet had been called upon to
quell the mutiny that broke out in November 1905 in the Russian Black Sea fleet
stationed in Sebastopol. Dobuzhinsky’s colorful drawing symbolically sums up the
confrontation between the mutinous crew of the cruiser Ochakov, led by Lieutenant Petr
Schmidt, and the government forces under the command of Meller-Zakomelsky. Echoing
in its intensity and irony Serov’s Soldiers, Brave Lads!, Dobuzhinsky captures the instant
when the general, riding his well-groomed Knabstrupper-spotted colt, sounds an order to
fire at the rebel ship after his ultimatum for an immediate surrender was left by Schmidt
without a response.
187
Printed in thick red letters below the image, the rhymed mock-
song caption to the drawing is designed to come across as a final warning, an ominous
threat, voiced by Meller-Zakomelsky upon receiving a silent snub from the defiant
Ochakov crew: “Hey, you, sailors, you will get the worst of it. I will smash your old boat
187
Historical accounts state that in fact, it was Admiral G. P. Chukhnin, Commander of the Black Sea Fleet
in Sebastopol, who served Petr Schmidt and the rebellious crew of Ochakov with the ultimatum to
surrender, also ordering his ship and shore artillery to fire at the rebels after they did not acquiesce. General
Meller-Zakomelsky arrived in Sebastopol when the mutiny was already over. Yet, as Sidney Harcave
points out, it was Meller-Zakomelsky, who helped to restore ultimate order and who reported to the Tsar on
the success of the operation earning himself special respect from the sovereign. It was thus General Meller-
Zakomelsky, who became the anti-hero of Dobuzhinsky’s satire. See Sidney Harcave, First Blood. The
Russian Revolution of 1905 (London: The Bodley Head, 1964) 221-222; Ascher 270-272.
137
ular revolts.
to pieces! (Repeat twice). I will drown you and make you and your cruiser Ochakov catch
lobsters (Repeat twice).
188
Befitting the genre of lubok, a rudimentary image of firing
cannon in the background of Dobuzhinsky’s picture provides a distinct pictorial reference
to the use of heavy artillery as the authorities’ response of choice to this and other
spontaneous pop
Censoring Bugbear
Owing to its aggressive stance, Bugbear was persecuted without mercy.
189
The
government, the censors, the police and the courts of law employed a variety of methods
to fight the journal throughout its short tenure. For instance, in Minsk, the local governor
Kurlov ordered the confiscation of its issues from newspaper vendors, while in Odessa,
Bugbear was included in a register of periodicals, the sale of which was not permitted in
the city.
190
In St. Petersburg, the measures taken against Bugbear were also immediate
and unforgiving. Ranging from confiscations of already printed issues (from street
vendors and private libraries) to the detention, questioning and imprisoning of persons
responsible for its production, they also included the ultimate punishment of banning the
journal from further publication.
Despite the fact that the producers and contributors of Bugbear were not completely
satisfied with the polygraphic and artistic quality of the first issue of the journal, its visual
188
See Zhupel 2 (1906): 12.
189
Sergei Mintslov, “14 mesiatsev “svobody pechati,” Byloe 3 (1907): 126.
190
Botsianovskii 38; E. A. Valle-De-Barr,“Svoboda” russkoi pechati. (Posle 17 oktiabria 1905 g.)
(Samara, 1906) 52.
138
and literary content had an immediate impact on the critics as well as the censors.
191
The
reaction from the latter was swift and harsh just as it had been several months earlier
against Atrsybushev’s Spectator, Shebuev’s Machine Gun and Chukovsky’s Signal.
192
Meeting on December 3, 1905, the day after the maiden issue of Bugbear was
published and distributed, the St. Petersburg Censorship Committee concluded that two
of its texts and one drawing contained elements prescribed by the penal code. A. Katenin,
the head of the Committee, alleged that Arkadii Alekseevsky’s short anecdotal story
“About the Good Tsar Berendei,” an anonymous piece titled “At Evening Tea” and
191
Serov, for instance, thought that Bugbear compared favorably with a great number of other satirical
journals, but that its humor was rough and only “satisfactory,” while the drawings were simply very bad.
Somov considered the first issue to be a huge disappointment, while Bakst also thought that it was not very
successful and that, like so many other new journals, it was more or less “accidental” (sluchaen). Bakst,
however, was absolutely convinced that within a period of four to five months, Bugbear would artistically
surpass such giants as Simplicissimus. Grzhebin’s criticism of the first issue was mostly concerned with the
poor quality of the reproduced artworks. The editor was particularly distressed about the distortions caused
by the reproduction process to Anisfeld and Serov’s contributions. See V. A. Serov, Perepiska, 1884-1911
(Leningrad-Moscow, 1937) 286; К. А. Somov, “To A. Benua,” Dec. 1905,” in Mir Khudozhnika. Pis’ma.
Dnevniki. Suzhdeniia sovremennikov (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1979) 91; L. Bakst, letter to A. Benois, 5 Dec.
1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, Ed. khr. 671, l. 13-14; Z. Grzhebin, letter to I.
Grabar, 22 Dec. 1905, Quoted from: N. L. Priimak, “Novye dannye o satiricheskikh zhurnalakh 1905 goda
‘Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta.’” Ocherki po russkomu i sovetskomu iskusstvu. Sbornik statei. (Moscow:
Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1965) 118-119. Contemporary liberal critics, however, responded favorably to the
journal, in some cases praising its artistic sections in particular. A. Chebotarevskaia, for instance, noted in
her 1906 review that Bugbear stood out precisely because of its artistically potent drawings. The critic also
appreciated the subtle, symbolic approach of the satire of the journal when she wrote that artistic satire
should not be ridiculing particular faces or personalities, but rather those synthetic, basic features
comprising the character and soul of a given type or image. Chebotarevskaia argued that this principal
requirement of any type of art was wonderfully satisfied by the artistic section of Bugbear, which operated
on an imaginative and symbolic level rather than on that of portraits and allegories. See Anna
Chebotarevskaia, “Russkaia satira nashikh dnei,” Obrazovanie 5 (1906): 44-45. In his review, critic M.
Ivinsky also noted the superior artistic quality of Bugbear and its drawings finding them to be more tragic
than humorous. See M. I. Ivinskii, “Russkaia revoliutsionnaia satira,” Vestnik znaniia 1 (1906): 41.
192
A strong negative reaction from the state toward the first issue of Bugbear was likely informed by the
particularly low tolerance of Witte’s government toward seditious materials in the press caused by the
publication on December 2, 1905, by several left-wing newspapers of the infamous “Financial Manifesto.”
See footnote 41. Sanctioned by the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, the printing of the
manifesto resulted in the immediate closure of eight newspapers (until a pending trial) and the arrest of
their editors. For further assessment of the censorship environment during the time of the release of
Bugbear, see Charles Ruud, Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804-1906
(Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1982) 223.
139
Mstislav Dobuzhinsky’s drawing The October Idyll (Oktiabr’skaia idilliia),
193
(Fig. 44)
violated article 128 of the Russian criminal code.
194
Furthermore, having resolved “to
arrest” the first issue of the journal in accordance with article 9 of the Temporary Press
Rules, the Committee also decided to prosecute the editor of the journal, Grzhebin, as
well as other parties that might be found guilty of violating that law.
195
The same day,
193
Evocative of the artist’s preoccupation with the urban theme seen in his work prior to 1905,
Dobuzhinsky’s The October Idyll presented an ironic commentary on the violent clashes that characterized
the city life immediately following the declaration of the October Manifesto. Indeed, the proclamation of
this seminal act set off celebratory demonstrations in all major centers of the Russian Empire as the society
rejoiced at the attainment of what perceived to be a constitution. However, the festive mood was marred by
the violence unleashed by the right-wing elements; regarding the manifesto to have been extracted from the
Tsar under duress, they sought to chastise those whom they held responsible for forcing the Tsar to concede
a constitution. Especially targeted by the patriotic mobs were the members of the intelligentsia, the students
and the Jews, who were identified by the Russian Right with reform and revolution. As we shall see in
chapter four, these groups would also constitute some of the principal targets in the cartoons and texts of
the right-wing satirical journals. See Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1990) 44-47. Dobuzhinsky’s image quite dramatically captures a moment in the aftermath of a
confrontation, possibly between rampant anti-reformist, patriotic Black Hundred mobs or government
troops and civilians celebrating the new law. The irony of the situation depicted by Dobuzhinsky was in the
fact that the tragedy, identified by the enormous bloody stain on the wall, a bullet hole in the window
immediately above and personal possessions left behind by fleeing civilians, occurred in front of the
manifesto (posted on the wall) – the very act designed to appease the revolution, pacify the country and
bring a degree of order into civic existence. Like Shebuev before him, Dobuzhinsky stains the Tsar’s
decree with blotches of blood to emphasize the terrible disparity between the idyllic utopia of the
sovereign’s pledge and the tragic reality of life in the danger-prone streets of the Russian capital. The
theme of the post-October Manifesto Black Hundred violence re-emerged quite dramatically in several of
Evgenii Lancéray’s later drawings published in Hellish Post.
194
According to article 128, the crime of disrespect of supreme authority (neuvazhenie k verkhovnoi
vlasti), expressed through public appeals, speeches or images, was punishable by exile (ssylka na
poselenie). See G. G. Lisitsyna, “Istoriia izdaniia Z. I. Grzhebinym satiricheskogo zhurnala ‘Zhupel.’ Po
dokumentam Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo arkhiva,” Russian Studies. Ezhekvartal’nik
russkoi filologii i kul’tury (St. Petersburg) 1.3 (1995): 136.
195
Article 9 of Section VII (paragraph “a”) of the Temporary Press Rules stated that certain issues of a
periodical might be subjected to arrest if they were found to contain elements of crime specified by the
criminal code. Article 15 of the Temporary Press Rules defined “arrest” in terms of confiscation of the
published issues of a periodical. See “Imennoi Vysochaishii Ukaz Pravitel’stvuiushchemu Senatu,”
Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik 255 (Nov. 26, 1905): 1-2. See also Sobranie uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii
pravitel’stva. (Section 1, 2d half of the year) (St. Petersburg) 226 (Nov. 26, 1905). The March 18
Amendments to the Temporary Press Rules included, among other changes, an extended definition of
“arrest.” Article 8, now characterized arrest in terms of confiscation of those issues of a published
periodical which were intended for distribution. Exception was made for the issues that became private
property of third parties by way of purchase. Moreover, to curb the printing of further issues of seized but
popular periodicals, the amendments provided for the confiscation of equipment necessary for their
140
Fig. 44. Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, “The October Idyll.” (Oktiabr’skaia idilliia)
Zhupel 1 2 Dec. 1905: 4.
printing. See “Deistviia pravitel’stva. Imennoi vysochaishii ukaz Pravitel’stvuiushchemu Senatu,”
Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik 67 (March 23, 1906): 1-2. This new process was put into action at the time of the
confiscation of the fourth issue of Hellish Post.
141
this decision was communicated to the head of the Chief Administration for Press
Affairs, A. Belgard. Religiously following the protocol prescribed by the Circular Order,
Belgard, in turn, forwarded his report to prosecutor P. Kamyshansky, informing the latter
of the decision of the Censorship Committee and adding that the sanction to seize the
journal had already been granted.
196
However, the order to seize the inaugural issue of Bugbear did not immediately curb
its additional printing and distribution. The reason for this was that police mistakenly
raided the printing facilities of Iuritsyn’s newspaper Son of the Fatherland (Syn
otechestva) and not the ones of Golike and Vilborg, where Bugbear was published. This
confusion allowed the printing of the first issue to continue for several more days if not
weeks.
197
Thus, according to Grzhebin, by the end of the month of December 1905, close
to 95,000 copies of the first issue were printed, 70,000 distributed and only 500
confiscated by the police.
198
Condemnation of Bugbear by the Censorship Committee produced two contradictory
effects. On the one hand, it elevated the popularity of the journal and improved its
circulation – something that its founding artists had hoped to achieve by allying
themselves with Gorky, Iuritsyn and Son of the Fatherland. On the other hand, it
triggered further negative reaction from the state, which, in accordance with the new
196
A. V. Bel’gard, “Soobshchenie P. K. Kamyshanskomu. 3 dekabria 1905 g.” Quoted from: Lisitsyna 107-
108. See also Priimak 118.
197
Olga Lancéray writes in this regard to N. E. Lancéray: “When the arrest was sanctioned, it was also
forbidden to continue the printing. That is why the police, thinking that the journal was being printed at the
print shop of Son of the Fatherland, stationed police officers there. Whereas in actuality, this issue was
printed at the shop of Golike, who, to this day, is putting it out.” See O. E. Lancéray, letter to N. E.
Lancéray, 5 Dec. 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 38, ed. khr. 11, l. 3-4.
198
See Z. Grzhebin, letter to I. Grabar, 22 Dec. 1905.” Quoted in Priimak 118-119.
142
stipulations of the Circular Order and the Temporary Press Rules, employed the court
system to curb the journal.
Based on the recommendations of the Censorship Committee prosecutor
Kamyshansky presented the case of the delinquent journal in court on December 5, 1905
invoking further repressive measures against Bugbear and its editor. The court paid
specific attention not only to the two texts and Dobuzhinsky’s drawing already
condemned by the Censorship Committee, but also, as was suggested by the deputy
prosecutor A. Gesse, to Grzhebin’s drawing Werewolf-Eagle, which had not been
previously included in the list of seditious items compiled by the Censorship Committee.
Grzhebin’s drawing as well as Alekseevsky’s “About the Good Tsar Berendei” were
found to contain elements of the crime of lèse-majesté (insults to the person of the
monarch) and were accused of defaming Russia’s ruling Emperor.
199
Discussing the nature of visual caricature from the period of the First Russian
Revolution, art critics have noted that its better examples, while adopting typical
structures of political caricature and its equivocal language of signs, consciously aimed
199
In early February 1906, while in prison and awaiting trial, Grzhebin emphatically protested the
allegation that the journal contained seditious materials arguing that it was primarily an artistic publication,
which published nothing more than what had already appeared in the periodical press. See Grzhebin’s letter
to Dobuzhinsky, 2 Feb. 1906, reprinted in Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia 448-449. Measures taken against
Bugbear and its editor may be compared with the reaction of the German government toward T. T. Heine’s
parodic cartoon of Kaiser William II. Featured on the cover of Simplicissimus issue 31 for 1898, Heine’s
drawing satirized the occasion of the German Emperor’s visit to Palestine and his militant Damascus
address. Implicated in insulting the Monarch, Heine was tried and sentenced to six months of fortress
detention. The editor of the journal, Albert Langen, was forced to flee first to Switzerland and then to
France returning to Munich only several years later after paying a considerable fine. At the same time,
these punitive measures elevated the prestige of the journal and circulation figures soared. See Gerhard
Benecke, “The Politics of Outrage: Social Satire in the Cartoons of “Simplicissimus,” 1896-1914,” 20
th
century studies 13/14 (1975): 96.
143
for ambiguity to avoid the omnipresent censorship impediments.
200
Due to their
suggestive and even symbolic nature, the four literary and visual pieces which decided
the fate of the first issue of Bugbear actually contained little that was overtly hostile or
insulting toward Russia’s ruling Monarch. Rather, as we have seen, in these works the
Tsar was attacked and ridiculed through allegory, allusion and insinuation. However, the
malicious intent of Bugbear, its “harmful tendency,”
201
could escape neither the vigilant
censors and state prosecutors nor the readers as the writers and the artists left enough
clues to draw the conclusion that the Tsar was indeed the intended target of their satire
and invectives.
The anonymous anecdote “At Evening Tea,” for instance, told about a twelve-year-
old gimnaziia student reading the news to his elderly grandmother, who interrupted him
with a sad tirade: “Merciful Lord! So many people were stabbed, so many families were
destroyed, and countless houses ruined … All of this was done to rescue just one single
house.” To the student’s query as to who may the proprietor of this house be, the
grandmother advises him to do his homework while resolving herself to stop reading
newspapers. “What about novels, grandma?” (A romanov, babusia?) – the unrelenting
200
See, for instance, Betz 6.
201
The term “harmful tendency” was used during the deliberations of the Kabeko Commission (Jan. – Nov.
1905), which, in the months leading to the October Manifesto, was charged by the Tsar with the
development of a new press law. The conservative member of the Commission, V. M. Iuzefovich, argued
that the existence of a tendency in a periodical could not be doubted by anyone and that tendencies “might
be communicated by satire, allegory or fables or by a tendentious selection of facts, or a one-sided
treatment of social and state questions. A tendency became harmful when it contained an animus against
the state or a class.” See Daniel Balmuth, Censorship in Russia, 1865-1905 (Washington: UP of America,
1979) 133.
144
grandson asks her in return.
202
Allusion to the “one single house” (dom) and the pun (the
genitive plural of “novels” (romanov) was also the Tsar’s last name [Romanov]), would
be immediately perceived by the reader leaving no doubt in his mind that the Tsar was
the real subject of this joke. Moreover, the irony that the well-being of the Romanov
House was secured through pogrom violence, succinctly hinted upon in the
grandmother’s harangue, would also be recognized.
Like “At Evening Tea,” Alekseevsky’s parable “About the Good Tsar Berendei” also
did not make any direct references to Russia’s ruling monarch and its allusion to the
mythological Tsar Berendei could be only indirectly linked to Nicholas II. However, the
overall orientation of the journal allowed readers and censors to make this connection and
interpret the portrayal of Tsar Berendei’s paradoxical traits of character (e.g. kind but
stupid) and his pseudo-concern for the well-being of his subjects as parodic taunting of
Russia’s current Emperor. Similarly, despite the ambiguity, the insinuations of
Grzhebin’s Werewolf-Eagle were linked by the court to the person of the Russian
Monarch – an allegation which was disputed at the Senate hearing when the editor’s
sentence was appealed by his lawyers.
The censoring authorities interpreted Grzhebin’s drawing to be offensive to the
supreme authority of the state precisely because of its allusion to an imperial ruler and the
bold treatment of Russia’s traditional imperial insignia – the double-headed eagle.
Grzhebin found himself under criminal investigation as the author of Werewolf-Eagle as
well as the editor responsible for publishing the equally seditious “At Evening Tea,”
“About the Good Tsar Berendei” and The October Idyll. In early January of 1906,
202
Zhupel 1 (1905): 7.
145
Grzhebin was arrested and imprisoned first in the Vyborgskaia transitional jail and then
in St. Petersburg’s infamous Kresty, where he remained under investigation for several
more months. Through the efforts of his attorneys and colleagues, he was temporarily
released on 5000-rubles bail until his trial in February of the same year.
Several weeks before Grzhebin’s arrest, the second issue of Bugbear was released on
December 24, 1905; it also was immediately confiscated. Despite the advent of the
Christmas holidays, the content of the journal was not at all festive, but dedicated entirely
to politics and, as we have seen, specifically to the armed insurrection in Moscow,
brutally suppressed by the army only five days prior to the publication of the issue.
Ironically, however, neither its powerful visual commentary nor the fresh installment of
anecdotal tales about the kind Tsar Berendei proved to be the real cause for suppression
of the second issue of Bugbear. Rather, the members of the Censorship Committee
gathered on Christmas Day of December 25th to ascertain that a brief, and seemingly
innocent, anonymous column featured in the mock rubric of current events (khronika)
made a mockery of the armed forces of the country as well as of its supreme authority
(glumlenie nad armiei i verkhovnoi vlast’u) – the Tsar.
203
The segment that was singled
out read that “Colonel Min, who, on October 17 fired at the Technological Institute with
students inside, was granted the rank of Flügeladjutant. The rogue Mikhailov, who
203
See A. Bel’gard, “Dokladnaia zapiska prokuroru SPb sudebnoi palaty. 25 dekabria 1905 g.” Quoted
from: Lisitsyna 110. See also Priimak 119.
146
recently murdered a student of technological sciences, was not granted the rank of
Flügeladjutant.”
204
The reference to Colonel Min was not accidental – it tied in with the overall intent of
this issue of Bugbear to comment on the December insurrection in Moscow. Although
the article made no direct mention of the fact that Colonel Min was the person
responsible for suppressing the final niches of revolutionary resistance in Moscow’s
Presnia district on December 19, 1905, the allusion to the colonel’s similar engagement
in St. Petersburg earlier that year drew a vivid parallel.
Nevertheless, mockery of the army and of the supreme authority of the country, as the
Censorship Committee alleged the Min article contained, was not detected in the subtle
parallel between the events at the Technological Institute in St. Petersburg in October
1905 and those at the Presnia district in Moscow in December of the same year. The
point of contention, rather, was the sarcastic mention of Colonel Min receiving the rank
of Flügeladjutant. Grzhebin’s case was discussed in the Senate, where it was clarified
that the Min article represented mockery of the Russian Tsar precisely because the rank
of Flügeladjutant could be granted only by the sovereign and only at his personal
204
Zhupel 2 (1905): 8. The incident at the St. Petersburg Technological Institute that the article refers to
took place on October 18, 1905 – the day the October Manifesto was made public. A large gathering of
people in front of the institute was construed by the sensitive authorities as seditious, upon which a military
detachment of the Semenovsky regiment, led by Colonel Min, was called for assistance. As Gerald Suhr
pointed out, the troops under Min’s command fired into the Technological Institute allegedly claiming that
a bomb had been thrown at them from within. See Gerald Surh, 1905 in St. Peteresburg. Labor, Society,
and Revolution (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1989) 337. A very different description of this incident may be
found in Sergei Witte’s recollections, where the former Prime Minister presented his version of the events
also recreating a conversation he had with Colonel Min shortly before the incident. See S. I. Vitte,
Vospominaniia, vol. 3 (Moscow: Skif Aleks, 1994) 96-98.
147
discretion.
205
Accordingly, since it was indeed the Tsar who awarded this rank to Colonel
Min for his successful handling of the incident at the Technological Institute,
206
the
article in Bugbear was found to be equally disrespectful of the Sovereign.
207
On the same day of December 25th, the decision of the Censorship Committee was
conveyed to the Head of the Chief Administration for Press Affairs, Belgard, who reacted
by dispatching a secret report to the office of the prosecutor. In his report, Belgard
advocated the conclusions reached by the Committee, concurring with its opinion
regarding the article about Colonel Min and pointing out that Bilibin’s drawing Sic
Transit.. also contained elements of crime defined in article 128 of the criminal code.
Belgard also indicated that the Censorship Committee once again resolved to put the
editor of the journal, Grzhebin, as well as other persons who might be found guilty of
205
See Priimak 120.
206
Other satirical journals did not pass on the chance to mock Colonel Min’s promotion either.
Knorozovsky’s journal Arrows (Strely), for instance, opened its December 3, 1905 issue, with Nikolai
Remizov’s front page illustration entitled A Sure Way to Become a Flügeladjutant (Vernoe sredstvo
sdelat’sia fligel’-ad”iutantom). Dominated by the color red, this expressive drawing portrayed a caricature
likeness of Colonel Min standing in front of the gallows and giving orders for the execution of civilians.
See Strely 6 (Dec. 3, 1905): 1. (Fig. 45)
207
The logic of this conclusion was identical to that of prosecutor Kamyshansky, who several months
earlier argued that Shebuev’s illustration of the October Manifesto depicted as stained by Trepov’s bloody
hand, contained a “biting taunt” (iazvitel’nuiu nasmeshku) and “impudent disrespect” toward supreme
authority (derzostnoe neuvazhenie k verkhovnoi vlasti). Kamyshansky concluded that the October
Manifesto was the sole expression of the Tsar’s “imperial will” (vyrazhenie derzhavnoi voli) and that
Shebuev’s depiction was criminal, because the Manifesto could not have been touched by anyone else but
his Majesty. Shebuev’s “Fairy Tale about Spring” (Skazochka o vesne), which also appeared in the first
issue of Machine Gun, was interpreted in a similar manner. Subsequently, for the crimes of disrespect
toward supreme authority, Shebuev was sentenced by the court to one year of imprisonment in the fortress.
See “Prigovor. 1905 goda. Dekabria 7-go dnia,” the complete text of which is reprinted in Botsianovskii
205-208. For Shebuev’s version of the events, see N. Shebuev, “Istoriia moego ‘Pulemeta,’” Zhurnalist
(Moscow) 12 (28) (1925): 21-25.
148
Fig. 45. Nikolai Remizov, “A Sure Way to Receive the Rank of
Flügeladjutant.” (Vernoe sredstvo sdelat’sia fligel’-ad”iutantom) Strely 6 3
Dec. 1905: 1. (cover)
149
committing this crime, on trial.
208
At the same time, as was the case with the first issue of
Bugbear, the condemned second issue of the journal was sanctioned for confiscation in
accordance with article 9 of the Temporary Press Rules.
Although the legal justification for censoring the second issue of Bugbear was similar
to that applied to the first one, there were several significant differences, both in the
extent of the official response as well as the punitive measures taken against the journal
and its staff. The crime committed by the journal was now classified as “particularly
significant.” Such taxonomy warranted the application of another, hitherto unused, article
14 of the Temporary Press Rules, which superseded the previous ruling based on article 9
(e.g. arrest and criminal prosecution of a periodical), stating that it was within the
authority of the court to suspend the publication of a delinquent periodical prior to its
final verdict.
209
Moreover, the second issue of Bugbear ran the gauntlet of Russia’s Minister of the
Interior, Petr Durnovo. The minister’s rationale for persecuting the journal was not
dissimilar to that of his nineteenth century French counterpart, who believed that the
satirical image was far more dangerous than that of the printed word because it acted
directly upon the people and was capable of leading them to revolt, or at least to scorn for
208
A. V. Bel’gard, “Dokladnaia zapiska prokuroru SPb. sudebnoi palaty. December 25, 1905.” See also
“Obvinitel’nyi akt. Proizvodstvo palaty, tom I, list dela 2.” Quoted from: Lisitsyna 110, 132-134. Belgard’s
unequivocally negative response to Bugbear was determined not only by his official duties and
responsibilities as the head of the Chief Administration for Press Affairs. His personal sensibilities should
also be taken into consideration, as he had been the target of ridicule already in the first issue of the journal.
See Zhupel 1 (1905): 10.
209
See Article 14, Section VII of the Temporary Press Rules. In “Imennoi Vysochaishii Ukaz
Pravitel’stvuiushchemu Senatu.” Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik 255 (Nov. 26, 1905): 1-2.
150
the most respectable things.
210
Expressively concurring with the decision of the
Censorship Committee to take legal action against the second issue of Bugbear, Durnovo
similarly argued that the drawings in the journal incited insurrection, while the article
about colonel Min, not to mention what was said about Durnovo personally, directly
affected his Imperial Majesty.
211
Durnovo’s response was neither novel nor surprising; in the past, high-ranking
government ministers, especially those in the service of the Ministry of the Interior and
the police department, did not hesitate to condemn left-wing satirical journals.
Allegations by Trepov and the former Minister of the Interior, Bulygin, against
Artsybushev’s Spectator are particularly instructive in this connection.
212
However,
Durnovo’s adamant reaction against satire published in Bugbear was undoubtedly also
210
Robert Justin Goldstein, Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France (Kent, Ohio:
The Kent State UP, 1989) 6.
211
P. N. Durnovo, “Pamiatnaia zapiska,” 25 Dec. 1905. Quoted from the text reprinted in Lisitsyna 110-
111, and, more comprehensively, in Botsianovskii 36, and Priimak 119.
212
It may be recalled that in his June 30, 1905 letter to the St. Petersburg Censorship Committee, Trepov
charged Spectator with inciting revolutionary fervor and the spirit of opposition in the Russian people.
Trepov alleged that the journal, intended for distribution among the lower strata of the populace, was
indubitably serving revolutionary purposes. Based on this, and due to the clearly harmful orientation of the
journal, Trepov recommended it be closed forever. Responding to Trepov’s recommendation, Minister of
the Interior Bulygin presented his report to the Senate, in which he concluded that the only way to
safeguard Russian society from the detrimental influence of the journal was to terminate its publication. On
December 12, 1906, Artsybushev was found guilty by the St. Petersburg court and sentenced to two and a
half years of imprisonment in the fortress. This sentence was appealed by the editor’s attorney Golshtein,
and, in the final Senate ruling of May 21, 1907, Artsybushev was cleared of all charges. Despite this final
verdict, the journal was in fact temporarily stopped by an executive order from Bulygin on October 2,
1905; that is, before the Minister’s report to the Senate. Artsybushev described these proceedings in detail
in the eighteenth issue of the journal for October 30, 1905, which heralded its post-October Manifesto
revival. Trepov’s letter, Bulygin’s report, as well as the final ruling of the Senate clearing Artsybushev of
all charges are reprinted in their entirety in Botsianovskii 176-177; 197-203.
151
conditioned as much by the minister’s fear of reprimand by the Tsar
213
as by the
frequency of appearance in the journal of invectives directed at him personally (described
above). Thus, the verdict of the Censorship Committee regarding the verbal and visual
material of the second issue of Bugbear, supported by the recommendation from the
Minister of the Interior Durnovo, were reasons powerful enough to warrant the “arrest” of
the journal and its audacious editor. The decision was carried out and Grzhebin as well as
the publisher Iuritsyn were arrested and incarcerated in Kresty.
214
They were charged
once again with disrespecting the supreme authority by means of the materials published
in the journal.
In his book, Botsianovsky, a one-time editor of a satirical supplement himself, argued
that the censorship and police “scorpions” (e.g. officials) could not frighten editors of
satirical journals all that much, since they regarded repressions and imprisonments as
promotional campaigns for their publications as well as a means of propagating the views
213
In his “Istoriia moego ‘Pulemeta,’” Shebuev narrated a story (allegedly told to him in private by
prosecutor Kamyshansky), about the Tsar’s livid reception of the first issue of Machine Gun and the
repercussions it had on Durnovo. Shebuev writes: “The Tsar got acquainted with Machine Gun …at dinner,
when one of the Grand Dukes … passing the first issue of the journal, advised him to pay immediate
attention to it. Having perused Machine Gun, the Tsar went ballistic (obaldel), turned green, grabbed … a
red pencil from the table and angrily started underlining ‘La Marseillaise,’ putting exclamation marks on
the margins. … Furious, the Tsar handed this copy to Durnovo, who had been immediately summoned to
the palace, for perusal. … The Tsar met Durnovo with a harsh question: ‘Whom do they want to do away
with?’ (Kogo doloi?). Durnovo did not understand the question right away. However, having glanced at the
cover of the first issue of Machine Gun and upon seeing that it depicted a red orator with an angry face and
the caption ‘Away with!’ (Doloi!), he was taken aback and became speechless. ‘Whom do they want to do
away with?’ – the Tsar repeated his question more forcefully. ‘Co-co-constitution’ – muttered the minister.
‘No… I know whom …! And you know, whom! …’ Nicholas dropped his fist on the table and grabbed the
journal from Durnovo’s hands.” See Shebuev 22.
214
Iuritsyn, who, as the evidence shows, was “a hereditary honorary citizen of Nikolaev,” was released the
next day, while Grzhebin remained in jail for several weeks until his release on bail leading to the
commencement of his trial on February 8, 1906. While in jail, both Iuritsyn and Grzhebin were found
politically unreliable and prohibited by Durnovo’s order from residing in either one of the capitals or
neighboring provinces (gubernias). See Fond 222 (Kantseliariia Nikolaevskogo gradonachal’nika), Op. 1,
d. 82, l. 54. State Archive, Nikolaev region, Ukraine; “Delo tsenzurnogo komiteta, 1886, No. 39, l. 253,”
Russian State Historical Archive, St. Petersburg. Quoted from: Botsianovskii 36.
152
that these journals stove to express. The editors, the critic surmised, went to prison with a
smile, cheerfully mocking their prison guards.
215
This nonchalant attitude, however, could hardly be applied to Grzhebin, who, despite
being an editor of brave disposition,
216
was not inclined to look at his incarceration in the
same jocular way, as did, for instance, Chukovsky or Shebuev.
217
During his first arrest
and while still in jail, Grzhebin managed to transmit several uncensored letters, in one of
which, written in early February of 1906 to Dobuzhinsky, he vented his pessimism about
his future and his almost sure conviction and imprisonment. Grzhebin writes:
… the third week is coming to an end since my detention, but I have no
hope of being released any time soon. I even think that I might not be able
to get out of jail for a long time. … one cannot rely on the decision of the
court either. There is no doubt that everything is done only to follow
formal procedure, whereas their actual decision is formed prior to the
court appearance. The trial for the first issue [of Bugbear] is on February
8. I am almost sure that they will simply convict me, with no rationale
given, and that they will sentence me to one year. … I have already
dispatched four petitions to the Head of the Police Department – all to no
avail. I starved myself for forty-eight hours, but could not last longer. And
all of this is for nothing. I still think that if all of you, the artists,
collectively petitioned the head of the police department I would be
released sooner. Write to him to tell him that he is out of his mind; that our
journal is above all an artistic publication and that whenever we discussed
current affairs, we did not print anything that did not already appear in the
daily press.
218
215
Botsianovskii 38.
216
Grzhebin was aware of the dangers of publishing a periodical which was intended to criticize the
government and ridicule the Tsar. Being evidently prepared for possible negative repercussions, he
encouraged the contributing artists not to spare him as the editor responsible for the publication and to draw
whatever they wanted. See Z. Grzhebin, letter to I. Grabar, Nov. 1905.” Quoted from: Priimak 118.
217
For a satirical account of Chukovsky’s interactions with prosecutor Kamyshansky recorded by Osip
Dymov see Signaly 1 (Jan. 8, 1906): 2.
218
See Z. Grzhebin, letter to M. Dobuzhinsky, 2 Feb. 1906. Quoted from: Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia
448-449.
153
Grzhebin’s artistic colleagues indeed attempted to ease his condition when he was in
Kresty. Unexpectedly, Sergei Diaghilev, who had hitherto stayed detached from anything
to do with political satire, stepped forward to help. Engaging his extensive network of
connections, Diaghilev met with Ivan Tolstoy, the chairman of the Russian Printing
Society, to discus Grzhebin’s affair. Upon learning that Grzhebin was in Kresty, Tolstoy
concluded that it was likely that Durnovo had something to do with it and that there really
was no chance of changing anything, for the Minister of the Interior was beyond his
reach.
219
Thus, Diaghilev’s efforts to help Grzhebin were not successful.
While Grzhebin was still in Kresty, the third and last issue of Bugbear made its
appearance on January 15, 1905. Like its predecessors, it also caused the indignation of
the Censorship Committee, which instantly launched a process of censoring the journal
and penalizing the people responsible for its issuance. Finding the texts of Gusev-
Orenburgsky’s “January 9” and Skvortsov’s “A Soldiers’ Song” particularly offensive,
the Censorship Committee, in its January 25 ruling, decreed the arrest of the third issue
and demanded Grzhebin’s accountability before a court of law.
220
With two ongoing
investigations already in progress, a new one ensued after this session of the Committee
and Grzhebin was charged with two more crimes committed by means of the second and
the third issues of the journal.
221
219
See M. Dobuzhinsky, letter to I. Grabar, 26 Jan. 1906. Quoted from: Priimak 120; M. Dobuzhinsky,
letter to I. Bilibin, 28 Jan. 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 115, ed. khr. 16, l. 3-4;
M. Dobuzhinskii, Pis’ma, ed. G. I. Chugunov (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2001) 73.
220
See Karasik 375.
221
See prosecutor Kamyshansky’s secret reports to the director of the First Department of the Ministry of
Justice of February 22 and April 6, 1906. In Lisitsyna 113. See also, Priimak 120.
154
In its first session of February 8, 1906, the court found Grzhebin guilty of “insult, by
default, in any form, of the persons of supreme authority.”
222
Consequently, the editor
was sentenced to six months in prison, while, in accordance with Article 8 (section VIII)
of the Temporary Press Rules, the publication of the journal was terminated “forever.”
223
Moreover, Grzhebin was precluded from editing or publishing other periodicals for a
period of five years, which, however, did not stop him from managing and contributing to
Hellish Post as well as founding his own publishing house, “Shipovnik,” in 1906, along
with S. Kopelman.
224
The ruling on the charges of insult to persons of supreme authority, nevertheless, was
appealed to the Senate by Grzhebin’s attorneys L. Bazunov and F. Zeiliger. The editor’s
defense concentrated not so much on trying to reinstate the publication of the journal, as
on attempting to clear Grzhebin of the criminal charges and the ensuing jail time. While
Grzhebin’s appeal was built, for the most part, on arguments of a technical nature, his
attorneys also attempted to prove, for instance, that the use of Article 103, paragraph “a”
of the criminal code, as it was applied to Grzhebin and his drawing Werewolf-Eagle, was
incorrect. They argued convincingly that the court did not determine with any degree of
certainty that the “crowned person” depicted on Grzhebin’s drawing was in fact a
caricature of the Russian ruling monarch. Furthermore, they brought it to the attention of
the Senate that the court only determined that the crowned person “was not that of a
222
Russian Criminal Code (Version c. 1905), Article 103, Part 2. Quoted from: Lisitsyna 137.
223
Article 8 of Section VIII (paragraph “a”) of the Temporary Press Rules stated that in the event a
published periodical included criminal content, the courts were authorized to either temporarily stop the
publication of such a periodical or to terminate its publication forever. See “Imennoi Vysochaishii Ukaz
Pravitel’stvuiushchemu Senatu,” Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik 255 (Nov. 26, 1905): 1-2.
224
See Kamyshanskii, “Izveshchenie Bel’gardu,” 8 Feb. 1906. Quoted from: Lisitsyna 141.
155
monarch of a constitutional state,” e.g. that it was a depiction of some abstract, absolute
monarch.
Grzhebin’s attorneys then questioned the validity of the conclusion reached by the
court, which stated that the drawing Werewolf-Eagle contained an “audacious mockery”
(derzkaia usmeshka) of the ruling monarch. Proceeding to seek an explanation of the
definition of “audacious mockery,” Bazunov and Zeiliger argued that answers to these
questions were not provided in the verdict of the court, which, therefore, effectively
precluded the court from applying Article 103 to classify Grzhebin’s crime.
225
Despite the fact that the Senate did find certain inconsistencies in the original ruling
of the court, the verdict was not altered because during the period of additional
investigation two more issues of Bugbear were published, distributed and censored.
Consequently, in light of these new offences, on December 5, 1906, the court sentenced
Grzhebin to one year in prison - a decision that the editor once again appealed to the
Senate. In March 1907, Senator Shidlovsky presented Grzhebin’s case to the Ruling
Senate, which, in its ultimate decision upheld the previous resolution to sentence
Grzhebin to one year in prison.
226
The Senate also concurred with the verdict of the court
225
Bazunov and Zeiliger had important reasons for repealing the application of Article 103 of the criminal
code. This was because the article was a part of a chapter of the penal code that dealt with revolt (bunt)
against supreme authority and with crimes against the holy person of his Majesty. Conversely, Article 128,
was a part of a chapter on civic disturbance (smuta) and called for punishment significantly less severe than
that for the crime committed under the article 130. See L. A. Bazunov, and F. N. Zeilger, “Kassatsionnaia
zhaloba v Pravitel’stvuiushchii Senat,” Feb. 1906. Quoted from the text reprinted in Lisitsyna 114-121.
226
Having the option of determining Grzhebin’s punishment in accordance with Article 17 of the criminal
code (e.g. exile with subsequent settlement [ssylka na poselenie]) the Senate, nevertheless, based its
sentence on Article 19 of the code, which provided for punishment by imprisonment in the fortress for the
period of two weeks to six years. The Senate further indicated that Grzhebin’s crimes were numerous and
that the ultimate one-year long prison term was the most severe penalty of those which corresponded to his
other crimes. See “Prigovor Sankt-Peterburgskoi Sudebnoi Palaty. Doklad 20 marta 1907 g.” The text of
this report is reprinted in its entirety in Lisitsyna 122-125.
156
to terminate the publication of Bugbear forever and to destroy the second and third issues
of the journal.
After two months of incarceration in Kresty, Grzhebin informed Gornfeld that the
reason for his imprisonment was Kuprin’s “A Soldiers’ Song.”
227
Grzhebin writes:
“Perhaps you already know that I am in jail. I will remain here for another eleven months
and it has been almost two [months] since I was imprisoned. Do you know why I was
locked up? The third issue of Bugbear carried Kuprin’s ‘A Soldiers’ Song.’ This is the
sort of trifle that I have to serve the time for, and, on top of that, I lost 1000 rubles of the
bail money. This whole thing is so ridiculous.”
228
Contrary to Grzhebin’s statement, in its ruling the court of St. Petersburg indicated
that the sentence was based not only on “A Soldiers’ Song,” but also on the poem
“January 9” and the article about Colonel Min. Yet it did specifically quote select lines
from “A Soldiers’ Song” (e.g. “he, who shoots all of the free people will be praised and
honored,” “all of Moscow will remember the red epaulettes,” and “we shot piles of
women, old men and children”) as well as lines from the poem “January 9” (“the wild
motley crew of murderers and assassins”), and found these pieces containing material
that was insulting to the honor of the Russian Army.
229
As a result, Grzhebin, who was
227
A certain inconsistency exists in the authorship of “A Soldiers’ Song.” In the journal, it is attributed to
Skvortsov, who wrote under the pen name “Shpak.” In his letter to Gornfeld, however, Grzhebin indicates
Kuprin as its author.
228
See Z. Grzhebin, letter to A. Gornfeld, 1 Aug. 1907, Manuscript Section, Russian National Library,
Fond 211, ed. khr. 488, l. 5.
229
See “Prigovor Sankt-Peterburgskoi Sudebnoi Palaty. Doklad 20 marta 1907 g.” In Lisitsyna 123. The
legal foundation for this crime was also Article 6, Section VIII of the Temporary Press Rules, which stated
that “the party guilty of insulting in the press the army or military detachments is penalized by
157
ne 1907.
230
on bail until the March 1907 Senate hearing, spent nine months in jail after his
subsequent conviction and arrest in May of the same year, with his prison term
commencing sometime in late May or the beginning of Ju
Prompt censorship measures taken against Bugbear affected not only the editor of the
journal, but all of those involved in its production. Some members of the staff as well as
several contributing artists were questioned and temporarily detained. This was, for
instance, the case with Bilibin – the artist who contributed some of the most daring and
wittiest mockeries of the Tsar (e.g. Sic transit.., Tsar Dadon and An Ass). Bilibin was
arrested, questioned and detained for twenty-four hours after his apartment was
thoroughly searched.
231
At the end of January, Lancéray was writing to Benois: “You
imprisonment for a period of two months to one year and four months.” See “Imennoi Vysochaishii Ukaz
Pravitel’stvuiushchemu Senatu,” Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik 255 (Nov. 26, 1905): 1-2.
230
In her testimony, Grzhebin’s daughter Elena Grzhebina also recalled that at the time of his
imprisonment, her father already had a family although he was not officially married. This was because
Jews were precluded from marrying Russian Orthodox women. As a result, Grzhebin’s common-law wife
(e.g. Elena’s mother), was not allowed to visit him in jail. In order to be able to marry him and secure her
visitation rights, Grzhebin’s wife converted to the Lutheran faith – the only religion that did not condemn
matrimony between Jews and Christians. Allegedly, the Grzhebins were married in prison. See E.
Grzhebina, and G. N. Kovalevskaia, “’Zhupel.’ Istoriia sozdaniia zhurnala,” (St. Petersburg, Paris) Opyty 1
(1994): 181.
231
The method of house search was often employed to insure the definitive seizure and destruction of the
banned periodicals. The second issue of Shebuev’s Machine Gun, for instance, featured its editor’s ironic,
laughter-through-tears account of his arrest and the search of his apartment, which was no doubt not unlike
that used in Bilibin’s case. Entitled “They” (Oni) it read: “I was not at home. My wife and I had returned
home around two. The row (debosh) was in full swing. Part of my apartment was already de-machine-
gunned (obezpulemechena). Only the study remained [unsearched]. Four men dressed as police officers
were very respectful. They were turning somebody else’s apartment upside down respectfully, in
accordance with scientific requirements, apologizing for the trouble. ‘They dispatched us. We carry out the
orders of those who sent us.’ I was equally respectful: ‘I am very glad… It is very nice of you to pay
attention to my apartment in particular.’ ‘Would it be too much trouble for you to take your clothes off?’
‘With pleasure. Did they also order you to do this?’ ‘Of course… be so kind and take your pants off as
well.’ They stripped me naked …” See Pulemet 2 (1905): 2. Antonina Peshekhonova, the wife of the
progressive Russian Wealth (Russkoe bogatstvo) critic Aleksei Peshekhonov, left a curious recollection of
police searching for the freshly banned volumes of her husband’s progressive journal in their apartment.
Peshekhonova writes that the articles that Peshekhonov published in Russian Wealth were often banned by
the court, as were the volumes that contained them. “Soon after it was announced that the current volume
158
certainly know about the destruction (o razgrome) of Bugbear – about Grzhebin and
Iuritsyn, who were imprisoned, about Bilibin’s twenty-four hour arrest, about the
interrogations of Anisfeld and Kardovsky, about the closing of Golike’s [print shop] … -
and all of this was because of the ass!!”
232
Although Dobuzhinsky managed to avoid an
encounter with authorities this time, police questioned Bilibin about his friend’s drawing
1905-1906 that was featured on the cover of the third issue of Bugbear. The particular
suspicion of the investigators was aroused by Dobuzhinsky’s metaphor of the Old and the
New Year as well as by the direction in which the flame of the candle was pointing.
233
Although there were other factors likely to have impeded the regular publication of
Bugbear,
234
the February 1906 ban was the principal reason for its ultimate demise.
was in circulation, we would have our apartment searched. There would always be five to six volumes
prepared on the shelf and those would be taken away … The person responsible for the search would
always ask for one volume for himself. I would never turn him down. Usually, they would arrive to search
in the evening. … They were interested only in the bookshelves … We had twenty-one such searches.” See
A. F. Peshekhonova, Byloe. Vospominaniia, 1905-1919, Unpublished manuscript, Notebook I, Manuscript
Section, Russian National Library. Fond 581, ed. khr. 70, l. 42.
232
E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 28 Jan. 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137,
ed. khr. 322, l. 8.
233
See M. Dobuzhinsky, letter to I. Grabar, 26 Jan. 1906. Quoted from: Priimak 120. The candlelight was
pointing to the right. However, since the reproduction of Dobuzhinsky’s drawing was done
lithographically, the composition of the original drawing was the reverse of what was printed in the journal.
The candlelight, therefore, was pointing to the left, thus serving as metaphor (it was suspected) for the
ideational orientation of the journal.
234
Prior to Grzhebin’s arrest and the closure of the publication on the court’s ban order of February 1906,
other factors impeding the timely issuance of Bugbear were connected primarily with Grzhebin’s alleged
inefficiency in conducting his editorial duties and the relative inactivity of the once enthusiastic literary
contributors to the journal. Writing to Benois in the winter of 1905, Lancéray predicted that Bugbear would
not last long due not only to tight censorship, but also to the apparent and “rather sad way of conducting
business by the entire company and Grzhebin in particular.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois,
[December] 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 321, l. 32-34. It is fitting
to recall in this connection Dobuzhinsky’s evaluation of Grzhebin at the time of the foundation of the
journal. Dobuzhinsky wrote: “Grzhebin … is fanatically overtaken by the idea of the journal and he is the
only person who cares, but he is not Diaghilev. A manager such as Diaghilev, practical and with will-power
would be very valuable.” See M. Dobuzhinsky, letter to A. Benois, 1 Sept. 1905, Manuscript Section, State
Russian Museum, Fond 137, Ed. khr. 930. Apparently, the difficulties were with Grzhebin’s inability to
159
Despite the fact that the ruling was issued by the court, a process that appeared to be
more democratic and transparent than the system of administrative punishments typically
used in such cases prior to 1905, in reality it could hardly be qualified as such. This was
principally because the Russian courts of the period were far from being independent
judicial institutions in the Western, liberal-democratic sense of the word. In fact, as it was
persuasively argued by George Kennan in one of his articles written in 1910, Russian
courts and the system of justice of the post-October Manifesto period, due to their great
dependence on Imperial and ministerial approbation, represented another effective tool in
the hands of the regime to deal with undesirable public opinion and dissent.
235
Thus, even though crimes committed by means of the press were transferred by the
November 1905 Temporary Press Rules to the courts, it did not necessarily mean that the
oppositional satirical journals were guaranteed to win their legal battles against the
regime. The case of Bugbear presented a vivid testimony to that and to Kennan’s
conclusion that “under almost irresistible pressure from the Tsar, the Council of Ministers
and commanding officers of military districts, the courts have shown their readiness to
please the administration by sparing its friends and mercilessly punishing its enemies.”
236
Channeled through the censoring and court authorities, repressions against public opinion
rally the artists and writers and to secure enough literary material to sustain a consistent weekly issuance of
the journal. Expressing the need for a more pro-active cooperation between the editor, the artists and the
writers, Lancéray further commented that there was plenty of artistic material necessary for the production
of the next issue, but absolutely no literature -“literally, nothing suitable.” Lancéray, letter to A. Benois,
[Dec.] 1905, l. 32-34. See also I. I. Vydrina, ed., Aleksandr Nikolaevich Benua i Mstislav Valerianovich
Dobuzhinskii. Perepiska (1903-1957) (St. Petersburg, 2003) 11.
235
George Kennan, “The Reaction in Russia. A Review of Events since the “Bloody Sunday” of January
1905. Third Paper: the Laws, the Courts, and the Prisons,” The Century LXXX (May-Oct., 1910): 925-934.
236
Kennan 928.
160
critical of the regime, as seen expressed in the left-wing satirical press in general and
Bugbear in particular, signified that in the winter of 1906 the autocracy was not inclined
to advance the new constitutional order despite what it had promised in October-
November of 1905. If it was prepared to expand the public sphere at all, then it was only
on terms acceptable to the regime – an arrangement which evidently was not designed to
include even liberal-bourgeois anti-establishment criticism expressed in satirical form.
Steps taken by the regime in the spring of 1906 to further tighten the censorship
regulations regarding the illustrated press support this conclusion.
161
CHAPTER 3: FROM BAD TO WORSE: HELLISH POST AND THE
TRANSFORMATION OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE.
In the months following the October Manifesto, the swift and effective measures
taken by the regime to silence the oppositional satirical press represented a breach of one
of the fundamental principles of the liberal-bourgeois public order the Manifesto itself
had ostensibly promised - the public’s prerogative to express its critical opinion in print.
Yet, in the absence of such preventative mechanisms as pre-publication approval, in the
winter of 1906 the tsarist state seemed to be losing ground in its attempts to delimit the
emerging public sphere. A vivid testimony to this was the appearance of new left-wing
satirical journals as well as the re-issuance, albeit under a different title, of those
periodicals, which, like Bugbear or Chukovsky’s Signal,
237
had recently been banned.
238
A contemporary critic noted in this connection that changing only the titles of the
condemned journals, but hardly altering the overall appearance, their editors “kept on
laughing no matter what!”
239
In the spring of 1906, however, the left-wing satirical press and the relative strength
of the public sphere it symbolized came under renewed attack from the tsarist state
seeking to re-acquire the necessary legal mechanisms to quell dissent in the illustrated
237
Edited and published by Kornei Chukovsky, Signal was banned in December of 1905 only to reappear
in the following month under the title Signals (Signaly) and a new publisher-editor V. E. Turok. On
censoring Signal and sanctions taken against Chukovsky, see V. Botsianovskii, and E. Gollerbakh,
Russkaia satira pervoi revoliutsii 1905-1906 (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925) 35-36.
238
Apart from the temporary absence of preliminary censorship, the reappearance of banned periodicals
was also possible due to other legal loopholes. In particular, the press laws did not preclude the publishers
of such satirical journals or newspapers from transferring their publishing rights and printing facilities to
new publishers. Instructive in this instance is an account presented by A. A. Suvorin, the publisher of a
banned liberal newspaper Hearsay (Molva). See N. Kirilov, “Razgovor s A. A. Suvorinym,” Dvadstatyi vek
2 (March 26, 1906): 2.
239
See A. A. Avel’-Avok, “Satira v zhurnalakh i gazetakh,” Vestnik znaniia 2 (1906): 384.
162
press. Focusing on Hellish Post as another notable paradigm of satirical expression of
critical public opinion, this chapter traces the publication and censorship history of the
journal in order to gauge the efforts of its producers to maintain their oppositional stance
and the decisive steps taken by the state to curb it and, ultimately, to delimit the nascent
public sphere.
Hellish Post: Bugbear Reincarnated
The dramatic closure of Bugbear and the criminal charges advanced against Grzhebin
did not entirely discourage the artistic founders of the journal. Perhaps even somewhat
energized by the arrests and confiscations, and certainly demonstrating perseverance in
their oppositional convictions and resilience of popular critical spirit, in the weeks
following the ban, the miriskusniki sought to produce a satirical periodical that would
continue the legacy of Bugbear.
240
However, another four months would elapse before
the new journal, which received the title of Hellish Post, saw the light of day, in early
May of 1906.
241
During this period, several important changes were made in the
240
Lancéray recalled in this regard that the ban on Bugbear and the arrests of Grzhebin and Bilibin
provoked the producers of the journal not to give up (podzadorili nas ne sdavat’sia) and to carry on with the
publication. E. Lansere, “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii 1905 goda,” (Moscow) Iskusstvo 6 (1936): 42.
241
On May 5, 1906, Minsky’s newspaper New Life (Novaia zhizn’) announced that the first issue of Hellish
Post was ready to be released the next day (e.g. May 6). The title of the new journal reflected the World of
Art artists’ retrospective tendency as it hearkened back to the Hellish Post published by Fedor Emin in St.
Petersburg from July to December of 1769 – a brief period of relative freedom of expression that was not
unlike that of the post-October Manifesto months in 1905. The inaugural issue of the new Hellish Post
acknowledged the genealogical link to Emin’s journal in its manifesto-like forward that read: “Hellish Post
was published in the XVIII century. Its publication was renewed in the 1820’s. And Hellish Post will be
resurrected at the beginning of the XX century. The anger and contempt of generations … are on the rise.
We welcome this crescendo of their contempt.” Adskaia pochta 1 (1906): 2; See also Lansere 42; Z. M.
Karasik, “M. Gor’kii i satiricheskie zhurnaly ‘Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta,’” M. Gor’kii v epokhu revoliutsii
1905-1907 godov. Materialy, vospominaniia, issledovaniia (Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1957)
377.
163
contingent of collaborators in the journal. Consideration was also given to making
Hellish Post more socially as opposed to politically oriented. Despite this, the journal
maintained its oppositional stance, which, however, was now expressed through means
that were ever more veiled. In no small measure, this was due to the fact that shortly prior
to the coming out of the inaugural issue of Hellish Post in early May of 1906, the
Temporary Press Rules underwent drastic revisions resulting in several amendments,
whose stringent provisions undoubtedly affected the anti-establishment candor of this
journal. These revisions thus also placed severe limitations on the expression of critical
public opinion.
The Literary-Artistic Alliances of Hellish Post
a. Hellish Post and Gorky’s “Knowledge” Cooperative.
Progressively finding themselves to be in control of the new project and considering
Hellish Post a publication “of their own,”
242
the artists of the World of Art heeded
Gorky’s advice to distance the journal from the publisher of Bugbear, Iuritsyn, and the
Socialist-Revolutionary Son of the Fatherland.
243
At the same time, they solidified their
242
In a letter from the spring of 1906, Lancéray writes the following to Benois: “I was asked several times
to write you an emphatic (plamennoe) letter and request your cooperation with our [underlined by Lancéray
OM] journal. Nurok and Lebedeva perhaps had told you something about it. This journal should be created
no matter what – it is very pleasing to have a media outlet of our own (svoi ‘organ’), is it not?!” See E.
Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, Spring 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr.
320, l. 20.
243
The break with Iuritsyn was conditioned by several reasons. As we have seen in the previous chapter, in
the first instance, the miriskusniki were suspicious of him trying to take financial advantage of them. A
weightier factor, however, was their unwillingness to play a role subordinate to that of the journalists of
Iuritsyn’s newspaper. Shortly after the meeting with Gorky in Kuokkala in the summer of 1905, Grabar
wrote to his brother: “Son of the Fatherland imagines that its publicists will be giving us themes, and that
we will be making our pencils available for their purposes. We would not be worth much if we were good
only for that.” Moreover, Gorky’s negative opinion as well as Grzhebin’s territorial concerns regarding
164
alliance with Gorky by forming a new publishing partnership (tovarishchestvo) with the
Knowledge cooperative. As stated in the letter of intent endorsed by its group of
founders, the purpose of this enterprise was to produce Hellish Post as well as to broaden
the social, artistic and publishing activities of the members of the partnership.
244
Formed within this new enterprise was a literary-artistic committee which assumed
editorial control and the “moral” responsibility for the orientation and day-to-day
operation of Hellish Post. Consisting predominantly of World of Art artists and their
associates (Bakst, Bilibin, Dobuzhinsky, Grzhebin, Lancéray, Nurok and Somov), it also
included the Knowledge writers Gorky and Kuprin. However, Gorky’s forced departure
from Russia in January-February of 1906 removed him from the affairs of Hellish Post
for the entire period of its publication and censure.
245
Lancéray assumed the role of
publisher of the new journal,
246
while Grzhebin, who was nominated to be the officer in
some of Son of the Fatherland journalists must also be taken into consideration. In a summer of 1905 letter
to Dobuzhinsky, Grzhebin writes that Gorky wanted to let Iuritsyn and his cohort know that Ganeizer and
other such “red hundred” journalists should not be involved with the journal. “If worst comes to worst,” –
Grzhebin continues, “all of these mediocrities (vse eti bezdarnosti) must only be contributors and not the
owners of the business in which you and I will work!” See E. Grzhebina, and G. N. Kovalevskaia,
“’Zhupel.’ Istoriia sozdaniia zhurnala,” (St. Petersburg, Paris) Opyty 1 (1994): 191.
244
See “Kollektivnoe pis’mo I. I. Bilibina, E. E. Lansere, A. A. Serova i dr. Somovu K. A. ob organizatsii
tovarishchestva dlia izdaniia zhurnala ‘Adskaia pochta.’” 1900-e gg.,” State Russian Archive of Art and
Literature, Fond 869, Op. 1, ed. khr. 86, l. 1-2. This letter of intent was signed by Anisfeld, Bilibin,
Dobuzhinsky, Gaush, Grzhebin, Iuon, Kardovsky, Lancéray, Latri, Milioti, Serov and Troiansky. It is
worth noting that the writers of the Knowledge collective (e.g. Gorky and Kuprin), as well as the
unaffiliated Osip Dymov, who were included in the literary-artistic committee, were not the signatories of
this document. Karasik also notes concerning the Hellish Post-Knowledge partnership that apart from
producing the journal, the new enterprise published a series of satirical postcards. See Karasik 376.
245
See P. Troiansky, letter to I. Bunin, 14 March 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Archive of Art
and Literature, Fond 44, Op. 1, ed. khr. 278, l. 1; Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva A. M. Gor’kogo. Vypusk 1,
1868-1907 (Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1958) 576-650.
246
See “Kollektivnoe pis’mo.” Lancéray experienced considerable difficulties in his capacity of publisher
of Hellish Post. The rift with Iuritsyn had an immediate negative impact on the financial organization of the
journal, which, like that of Bugbear, was based on the principle of share or pai purchases by the key
165
charge of carrying out the decisions of the literary-artistic committee, once again found
himself vested with what amounted to the immediate editorial duties.
247
Following his appointment, Grzhebin applied himself to promoting Hellish Post as a
new venue for the creative collaboration between artists and writers. In a letter to
Konstantin Siunnerberg, an insider to the World of Art group and a regular contributor to
the rubric of artistic reviews in The Golden Fleece,
248
Grzhebin stated that Hellish Post
was intended as a forum for the artists’ and the writers’ “intuitive expression.” Grzhebin
members of the tovarishchestvo. The basic stipulations of this arrangement were that each member could
have no more than two shares; the nominal price of the first share was to be 300 rubles, while the price of
the second share varied from 300 to 500 rubles, depending on the time of its purchase. The basic profit
sharing schema was based on the ownership of shares and personal artistic contributions. Thus, 50% of the
profit was to be divided equally between the shareholders, while the remaining 50% was to be paid
according to the artistic (labor) contributions made. See “Kollektivnoe pis’mo.” Iuritsyn’s absence
significantly hampered the accumulation of the capital necessary to jumpstart the publication. In mid-
March 1906, Troiansky informed Bunin that the printing of the first issue of Hellish Post was delayed due
to several factors, but primarily a lack of money. It was becoming increasingly apparent that the 300-ruble
shares were too expensive for most of the key participants, some of whom hoped to pay for them over a
period of time (v rassrochku), while others wished to pay with their labor. Troiansky writes that Kuprin, for
instance, declined to purchase a share altogether; Gorky, who agreed to purchase two shares, could only
pay for them in one month. See Troiansky l. 1.
247
Despite being sentenced to imprisonment, Grzhebin was free until his pending appeal hearing. See E.
Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, n/d, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 321, l.
35. Although the artist Troiansky assumed the title of gérant responsable (otvetstvennyi redaktor) of the
journal, his editorial duties were only nominal and appear to be occasioned by his clean criminal record.
Unlike Grzhebin, Troiansky had no right to cast a vote in the making of the committee decisions. Apart
from being the responsible editor, he was also the secretary of the artistic and literary committee. See
Troiansky l. 1.
248
Konstantin Aleksandrovich Siunnerberg (a.k.a. Konstantin Erberg, 1871-1942), was close during this
period to both the artists of the World of Art and the Symbolist writers, often acting as a liaison between
the two groups. In particular, Siunnerberg was friendly with Dobuzhinsky as both men worked in the
Ministry of Transportation and had many chances to interact during their regular working hours. In fact,
Siunnerberg even posed for Dobuzhinsky’s painting - Man with Glasses (1905-1906). Siunnerberg’s
recollections of this episode in their friendship may be found in S. Grechishkin, and A. Lavrov, Simvolisty
vblizi. Stat’i i publikatsii (St. Petersburg: Skifia, 2004) 176. Siunnerberg also supplied Dobuzhinsky with
referential materials for his Moscow drawing published in Bugbear. See M. Dobuzhinsky, letter to K.
Siunnerberg, c. 1905, Manuscript Section, Institute of Russian Language and Literature, Fond 474, No.
128, l. 13.
166
also asserted that complete freedom of form as well as thought would become the guiding
principle of the journal.
249
To delineate the “symbiotic” nature of the new project to an audience larger than the
group of his immediate St. Petersburg associates, Grzhebin appealed to Siunnerberg,
requesting that the critic address this issue in one of his The Golden Fleece articles.
250
Responding promptly to Grzhebin’s appeal with a segment in a column titled “Artistic
Life of St. Petersburg” (Khudozhestvennaia zhizn’ Peterburga), Siunnerberg lent his full
support to the idea of a unification (edinenie) of those artists, writers, composers and
actors who felt “passionate about the new cultural trends.” In particular, the critic
indicated that apart from the popular Wednesday gatherings at the home of the poet
Viacheslav Ivanov and his wife Lidiia Zinovieva-Annibal, the new Petersburg journal of
249
Despite this, the literary-artistic committee of Hellish Post issued a statement in which it admonished
the prospective contributors to the journal that the committee would assume accountability only for the
“artistic value” (khudozhestvennuiu tsennost’) of the content, leaving the rest to be the sole responsibility
of their authors. See Z. Grzhebin, letter to K. Erberg (Siunnerberg), 27 March 1906, Manuscript Section,
Institute of Russian Language and Literature, Fond 474, No. 117. Similar letters were sent by the editors to
the other prospective contributors. Troiansky, for instance, wrote the following to Grabar: “The editorial
committee of Hellish Post deemed it necessary to amend the original program of Bugbear. Hellish Post will
be different not only in appearance, but also in content. The editorial office pays equal attention to our
social and political life as well as to the artistic needs and aspirations of it contributors, while leaving
complete freedom for everyone to express his credo in whatever form he chooses to do so. Knowing and
believing in the progressive way of thinking of our comrades, the editorial office assumes accountability
only for the artistic value of the content of the journal. Everything else is the moral responsibility of each
and everyone. By doing this, the editors grant every participant in the venture an opportunity to express
himself as fully and as diversely as possible.” See P. Troiansky, letter to I. Grabar, 30 March 1906. Quoted
from: N. L. Priimak, “Novye dannye o satiricheskikh zhurnalakh 1905 goda ‘Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta,’”
Ocherki po russkomu i sovetskomu iskusstvu. Sbornik statei, ed. B. Iashchina (Moscow: Sovetskii
khudozhnik, 1965) 122.
250
Z. Grzhebin, letter to K. Erberg (Siunnerberg), 27 March 1906, Manuscript Section, Institute of Russian
Language and Literature, Fond 474, No. 117.
167
artistic satire, Hellish Post, could also become a suitable venue for cooperation between
artists and writers.
251
Moving beyond the scope of Grzhebin’s request and with Hellish Post in mind,
Siunnerberg went on to discuss the problem of how to assure the highest artistic
excellence of the new satirical journal. A dedicated aesthete and a budding poet of the
Symbolist persuasion he argued in a highly esoteric language that a satirical journal
which aspired to be an artistically superior publication ought to engage a critical
mechanism which he called the “poison of free mockery” (iad svobodnoi nasmeshki).
The truly devastating impact of liberated laughter is felt only when it operates in “the free
and impeccable language of liberated beauty,” in that same language which had become
such a powerful tool in the service of Juvenal, Petronius, Swift and other classical
satirists. Identifying philistinism as the primary target of satire, Siunnerberg insisted that
it could be criticized effectively only by the power of “mocking beauty” and not by the
truth or justice of reality, because human triteness is best mocked not simply through the
content of a joke, but through its appropriately chosen artistic form; the poison of every
witticism (iad liuboi ostroty) is concealed not in an obvious thought, but in the mocking
tone of a timely uttered phrase.
252
Expressing no doubt that the graphic quality of Hellish Post would be assured by the
talented caricaturists of the “untimely-departed” Bugbear, he feared, however, that like
its forerunner, Hellish Post would make regrettable mistake of featuring aesthetically and
251
See K. Siunnerberg, “Khudozhestvennaia zhizn’ Peterburga,” Zolotoe runo 4 (April 1906): 80-82. The
Golden Fleece also promoted Hellish Post by placing announcements in the section of the journal reserved
for commercial advertisement.
252
Siunnerberg 80-82.
168
artistically flawed denunciatory works by some of the neo-Realist authors.
253
In
Siunnerberg’s opinion, the literary section of a truly artistic satirical publication should
be based on works of creative fiction and not on those of journalistic reporting. A true
artist of the word would not necessarily shy away from police protocols and newspaper
reports of everyday occurrences. However, he would borrow from such sources only the
content and not the form. Siunnerberg concluded that one way to prevent Hellish Post
from repeating the mistake made by Bugbear (e.g. of featuring neo-Realist works that
were, in his opinion, more “publicistic” [publitsisticheskii] as opposed to being truly
“artistic” or fictional) and, therefore, to assure its superior artistic quality, was to entrust
the management of the literary department of the nascent satirical journal to the writers of
the new direction (e.g. the Symbolists) – “the artists of the word par excellence.”
254
b. Hellish Post and the Symbolists.
In essence, in his review Siunnerberg expressed publicly what had privately been the
intention of the World of Art artists in regard to the Symbolist writers at least since the
summer of 1905, when they extended their invitation to Fedor Sologub to become one of
the literary contributors to Bugbear.
255
Initially, embracing Grzhebin’s original proposal
253
Although Siunnerberg does not mention anybody in particular, the references he used indicate quite
clearly that his attack was directed at Gusev-Orenburgsky, who, according to the critic, dared to rhyme the
adjectives koshmarnyi and neravnyi in his Bugbear poem “January 9.”
254
Siunnerberg 80-82.
255
The relationship between the World of Art artists and Sologub went back several years, as in 1899-1900
Sologub was a contributor to their journal, The World of Art. See William E. Harkins, “The Literary
Content of “The World of Art,” Literary Journalism in Imperial Russia, ed. Deborah A. Martinsen
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997) 197-206. It may be noted in this connection that Siunnerberg was also
the person, who, on behalf of the editorial board of Bugbear (which, at that time, was called Monday
169
to collaborate with Gorky and the Knowledge writers in Bugbear, the miriskusniki sought
to continue this cross-disciplinary experiment in Hellish Post. Upon formalizing their
alliance with Gorky and, arguably, with his blessing, the miriskusniki proceeded to enlist
several Symbolist authors – the habitués of Viacheslav Ivanov’s Tower (Bashnia) and
contributors to the Symbolist Questions of Life (Voprosy zhizni), Scales (Vesy) and soon-
to-be created Torches (Fakely) - to collaborate with their new journal.
256
In a January 27,
1906 letter, Dobuzhinsky informed Grabar about the latest developments:
However, Bugbear did not die… it was decided at the meetings not to
keep company with Iuritsyn any longer – a long awaited divorce! Gorky is
all for this (remember, in the summer he advised us to be independent)
and, presumably, with his assistance it may be possible to arrange [the
publication] by using the means of the Knowledge cooperative, while at
the same time remaining independent. Make your drawings, and forward
them to Bilibin. We decided, and Gorky has agreed - as Troiansky went to
see him in Helsingfors, to invite some members of the Torches group to be
our close associates: of course, Sologub, and, first and foremost,
Remizov.
257
(Ponedel’nik) wrote to Sologub to extend an invitation to join the journal and to attend the meeting with
Gorky in Kuokkala. See K. Siunnerberg, letter to F. Sologub, 7 July 1905, Manuscript Section, State
Russian Archive of Literature and Art, Fond 482, Op. 1, ed. khr. 428.
256
Grzhebin, letter to K. Erberg (Siunnerberg), 27 March 1906.
257
See M. Dobuzhinsky, letter to I. Grabar, 27 Jan. 1906. Quoted in Priimak 121. In her article, Karasik
argues that had Gorky known that the literary department of Hellish Post would be dominated by the
Symbolists, he would never have participated in the journal. Karasik’s overall argument implies that
Gorky’s position toward these literary modernists was consistently negative. Arguably, the matter was
surely more complex than that. Evidence suggests that Gorky’s opinion of the Symbolists was not as
uniform and negative as it has been described by Soviet critics. This is especially true for the period of
1905-1906. For instance, if Gorky were so hostile toward the new trends in literature, he most likely would
never have attended Tower meetings such as the one that took place in January 1906, at which a joint
Bugbear – Torches theatre of satire project was discussed. A detailed account of this meeting is found in
Lancéray’s letter to Benois of January 5, 1906. From Dobuzhinsky’s letter to Grabar (quoted above), it is
also clear that Gorky did not object to the initiative on the part of the World of Art artists to invite the
Symbolists to contribute to Hellish Post. See Karasik 371; Torches was a literary-artistic almanac edited by
Georgii Chulkov.
170
The initiative to invite the Symbolists was prompted by the artists’ increasing
interaction with them during the winter months of 1906 at Ivanov’s Tower salon.
258
The
nascent dialogue between the artistic and literary modernists, which in some cases
developed into their close personal acquaintanceship,
259
heralded the beginning of a new
creative alliance, resulting in several instances of fruitful collaboration in the years to
come.
260
It also had a direct effect on Hellish Post.
The dialogue with the Symbolists affected Hellish Post in two principal ways. Firstly,
short of being granted full reign of the literary section of the journal, as Siunnerberg had
hoped they would be, Symbolists became the principal contributors to the journal.
Although the neo-Realist writers were still very much a part of the literary-artistic
alliance, the Symbolist writings quantitatively dominated the textual content of Hellish
Post.
261
Along with Kuprin and Dymov, the Symbolists (e.g. Ivanov and Chulkov) also
258
See M. Dobuzhinskii, “Vstrechi s pisateliami i poetami. Viacheslav Ivanov i “Bashnia,” Vospominaniia
by M. Dobuzhinskii (Moscow: Nauka, 1987) 271-275. Some of the World of Art artists and associates (e.g.
Somov, Bakst, Nouvel) became members of Ivanov’s intimate literary and musical society called The
Society of Friends of Gafiz (Druz’ia Gafiza).
259
In April of 1905, Lancéray writes to Benois that the artist and his wife “struck up an especially
congenial relationship with the Chulkovs.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 22 April 1905, Manuscript
Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, Ed. khr. 320, l. 30-32.
260
Some of these instances are considered in I. B. Demidenko’s article “Khudozhniki na Bashne.” In
Bashnia Viacheslava Ivanova i kul’tura Serebriannogo veka (St. Petersburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet S.-
Peterb. gos. un-ta, 2006) 212-219; See also Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia 274.
261
Gorky and Bunin, the only Knowledge writers to appear in Hellish Post, published four pieces in total
and only in the first issue of Hellish Post. This may be compared to and contrasted with five Symbolist
texts published in the first issue of the journal and two in the second. Such an uneven representation may be
explained in part by the anti-Realist aesthetic sensibilities of some of the World of Art associates (e.g.
Siunnerberg, as expressed in his The Golden Fleece review), which may also have rubbed off on the artistic
editors of the journal. More than likely, however, it is explained by the decreasing role Maksim Gorky
played in editorial decision-making. Ultimately, his physical absence from Russia during the crucial time of
the production of Hellish Post resulted in the passing of editorial control into the hands of Grzhebin and the
artists of the World of Art, who, at that point in time, were actively cultivating their relationships with the
Tower Symbolists.
171
became frequent participants in the editorial conferences and their opinions were taken
into consideration as much as those of the miriskusniki and Grzhebin. Thus, even more so
than Bugbear, Hellish Post was truly a product of the collective effort on the part of the
artists of the World of Art (e.g. Lancéray, Dobuzhinsky, Somov) as well as neo-Realist
and Symbolist authors (e.g. Kuprin, Ivanov, Remizov, Chulkov et al.).
262
Secondly, the dialog with the Symbolists, and especially with Chulkov and Ivanov,
imbued Hellish Post with the rhetoric of protest, which emanated directly from the
ideational construct enigmatically called “mystical anarchism.” Actively promoted by
Chulkov and supported by Ivanov during the period that coincided with the creation of
Hellish Post, the principal tenets of this doctrine merit a brief examination in order to
gauge the nature of the mystical anarchist protest and the extent to which it informed the
oppositional stance of the satirical journal in question.
262
In an April 1906 letter to M. M. Zamiatina, Lidiia Zinovieva-Annibal, who, through her husband, was
also well informed about the goings on around Hellish Post, provided a valuable recreation of one of the
editorial conferences of the journal. Her account helps to understand the dynamic and collective nature of
the decision-making process. Zinovieva-Annibal writes: “There was a Hellish Post meeting on Tuesday at
the Somov séance: Dymov, Kuprin, Grzhebin, Chulkov (did not come), Somov and Viacheslav. Read were
the manuscripts submitted for the first issue. They have accepted my ‘A Passage from a Letter about the
Sad State of the World’ (Otryvok iz pis’ma o neblagopoluchii mirozdaniia), which Kuprin was especially
fond of, and even touched (!) by. Somov said (Viacheslav was gossiping, since I was not present at the
meeting. They only asked me to read it to them. Somehow, it was not very pleasant to personally give
myself up to the judges. I was spoilt by Scorpion [which I quarreled with] because they have been
accepting my every line). Somov said laconically and affirmatively: ‘I like it because of its form and
because of its content.’ (By the way, Hellish Post is ready to be released any day now. It has not come out
yet). They rejected Artsybashev, Remizov, even Kuprin (the latter did not read his piece and said that he
himself did not find it to be well written) and one of Gorky’s works. They have accepted another one of
Gorky’s pieces. Thus, the fundamental stories in the first issue will be Gorky’s and mine. I was rather
horrified.” See L. Zinovieva-Annibal, letter to M. M. Zamiatina, 24-26 April 1906, Manuscript Section,
Russian National Library, Fond 109, Kart. 23, ed, khr. 18, l. 19. A frequent and welcome visitor to the
headquarters of Hellish Post, Viacheslav Ivanov also took part in making the decision to suspend the
publication of the journal after its fourth issue was confiscated in July of 1906.” See V. Ivanov,
unpublished letter to L. Zinovieva-Annibal, 13 July 1906. At the time of writing this chapter, these letters
were being prepared for publication by N. A. Bogomolov, who kindly provided them to the author of this
dissertation.
172
c. Hellish Post and Mystical Anarchism.
The original theoretical elucidations of mystical anarchism are traced back to the
summer of 1905 polemical exchange between Georgii Chulkov and Sergei Bulgakov.
263
Throughout the remaining part of the year, the doctrine was promoted and debated within
the Symbolist milieu, in particular becoming the subject of discussion at the Tower
colloquia.
264
It was here that the miriskusniki were likely to have been exposed to it as
Chulkov was honing his mystical anarchist ideas in open forum also preparing to launch a
new publication, Torches, which would promote and institutionalize the doctrine. Fully
aware of Chulkov’s publishing aspirations, the artists of the World of Art even
participated in the Torches project artistically as the creation of the almanac went
essentially parallel to that of Hellish Post throughout the winter and spring months of
1905-1906.
265
263
See G. Chulkov, “Iz chastnoi perepiski, o misticheskom anarkhizme,” Voprosy zhizni 7 (1905): 199-204.
For more on the Chulkov - Bulgakov polemic, which occasioned Chulkov’s article, the temporal
development of mystical anarchism and a thorough analysis of its principal tenets see Bernice G.
Rosenthal, “The Transmutation of the Symbolist Ethos: Mystical Anarchism and the Revolution of 1905,”
Slavic Review 36.4 (Dec. 1977): 608-627.
264
See Siunnerberg 80.
265
It is also important to bear in mind that the plans to publish Hellish Post were discussed at the Tower
gatherings. It was here, in early January 1906, that the original intent to proceed with the publication of a
Bugbear sequel originated. In his diary, Dobuzhinsky noted those present at the meeting, at which the
subject of Hellish Post was addressed. Apart from Ivanov and Dobuzhinsky, the list included other
Symbolist and World of Art representatives as well as those belonging to the neo-Realist camp. Particularly
mentioned were Andreeva, Bilibin, Blok, Chulkov, Gabrilovich, Gorky, Grzhebin, Lancéray, Meyerkhold,
Rafalovich, Remizov, Sologub and Zinovieva-Annibal. Also present were several actors whose names,
however, were not specified. See Dobuzhinsky’s diary. Entry for Jan. 3, 1906. Quoted from: G. Chugunov,
Mstislav Valerianovich Dobuzhinskii (Leningrad: Khudozhnik RSFSR, 1984) 45. The publication of the
first book of Torches appears to have preceded the first issue of Hellish Post by several weeks. There are
many noteworthy parallels between the two publications, which, arguably, were the result of the
discussions and cross-fertilization of ideas between the artistic producers of Hellish Post and the main
proponents of the mystical-anarchist doctrine – the Symbolists G. Chulkov (the editor of Torches), V.
Ivanov and S. Gorodetsky. Like Grzhebin and the miriskusniki, for instance, Chulkov intended Torches to
be a literary-artistic almanac that would combine on its pages works by modernist artists as well as authors
173
Mystical anarchism received its most definitive textual embodiment in Chulkov’s
miscellany titled On Mystical Anarchism (O misticheskom anarkhizme).
266
In the opening
essay of the collection titled “On the Paths to Liberation,” Chulkov defines mystical
belonging to differing schools of writing (revnitelei raznykh shkol). Thus, apart from espousal of mystical-
anarchist rhetoric, both Torches and Hellish Post featured the works by the World of Art artists, neo-Realist
writers of Knowledge as well as the Tower Symbolist authors. For instance, the first, spring 1906 book of
Chulkov’s almanac included the writings of Belyi, Blok, Briusov, Gorodetsky, Ivanov, Sologub and
Zinovieva-Annibal, which were printed side by side with those of the Knowledge writers Andreev and
Bunin. Graphic illustrations were supplied by Lancéray and Dobuzhinsky. An awareness on the part of the
artists of the World of Art of Chulkov’s plans regarding Torches is evidenced by their correspondence. As
early as November 12, 1905, Lancéray was informing Benois that Chulkov was in the process of
establishing a “mystical-anarchical-democratic” journal, in which artists of the World of Art would also
participate. See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 12 Nov. 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian
Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 32, l. 25. A week later, in a letter of November 17, 1905, Lancéray once again
writes: “in light of the possible disintegration of Questions of Life, Chulkov is establishing a new artistic
and literary bi-monthly journal of a mystical-anarchist orientation and is hoping for your participation. The
character of the artistic section is not yet quite clear to me. In part, it will be similar to Simplicissimus (but
devoid of narrowness of contemporaneous politics), with plenty of text.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A.
Benois, 17 Nov. 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 32, l. 26-27. Acting
upon Chukov’s request, in early December of 1905, Lancéray was conveying to Benois the program of
Chulkov’s almanac: “Torches will unite three groups – the realists: Andreev, Bunin, Kuprin and many
others, - the decadents: Balmont, Blok, Remizov, V. Ivanov and many others, as well as the World of Art
artists. Chulkov is looking for publishers. It is his business. The honorariums are expected to be paid in half
in the beginning. The content of these bi-weekly, medium-sized books is predominantly literary. It includes
two reproductions … as well as many vignettes and decorative elements. Chulkov thought that I could be
the artistic editor, but I turned him down and we, the artists, chose Suinnerberg to be our representative,
while the artists would retain the privilege of being consulted. The intention is to feature (apart from
reproductions of contemporary and old art works) artistic pieces pertinent to contemporaneous events, but
with content that is less political than that of Bugbear. Overall, the artistic section of the journal is fairly
autonomous and we could easily use it. Somov is highly sympathetic with the project and takes an active
part in it. Dima [Filosofov], however, is rather skeptical. Dima and the Merezhkovskys are participating
because they are not ‘orthodox.’ Dima thinks that there will be a shortage of submissions. They are
counting on you in every sense of the word. In the meantime, will you give your permission to place your
name [on the list]? We miss you so much and you would be useful in so many areas! New ideas and
projects spring up continuously.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 3 Dec. 1905, Manuscript Section,
State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 32, l. 28-31. See also Chulkov’s own assessment of his
relationship and collaboration with select miriskusniki in G. Chulkov, Valtasarovo tsarstvo (Moscow: Izd-
vo “Respublika,” 1998) 516-521.
266
Although published only in the summer of 1906 when Hellish Post was already in production and the
first book of Torches published a few weeks earlier, it was probably available to the receptive audiences in
general and the miriskusniki in particular in manuscript form at an earlier date. In our inquiry, we will
resort to this collection, as it appears to provide the most comprehensive account of the doctrine and its
principal tenets. Originally published with Ivanov’s introductory article titled “The Idea of Non-acceptance
of the World” (Ideia nepriniatiia mira), On Mystical Anarchism contained four essays, all of which were
designed as theoretical expositions of the doctrine (hence, the overall title of the collection). The most
relevant for the purposes of this study are the first and the fourth essays from the collection, titled
respectively “On the Paths to Liberation” (Na putiakh svobody) and “On the Affirmation of the Individual”
(Ob utverzhdenii lichnosti).
174
anarchism as a doctrine “about the paths of ultimate liberation” (o putiakh poslednego
osvobozhdeniia), asserting that the latter may be attained through the “ultimate
affirmation of the personality in the absolute principle” (poslednee utverzhdenie lichnosti
v nachale absoliutnom).”
267
Chulkov goes on to delineate the “paths” which would lead
the individual to the attainment of that goal. These “paths” are permeated with the radical
spirit of anarchy, for anarchism - a teaching that rejects any form of state authority – was
chosen as the most suitable means for reaching the desired objective. On the empirical
level, and very much in keeping with the principal premise of anarchism, Chulkov
perceived the paths to ultimate liberation in terms of political and social struggle against
state authority. The latter, in turn, epitomized everything that was socially as well as
economically binding and oppressive to the individual person and, therefore, interfering
with his quest for ultimate freedom. That is why the fall of the state, as Chulkov posited
in the key mystical anarchist tract “On the Affirmation of the Individual,” was the
mystical anarchists’ “first objective” in order to clear the way for the attainment of the
ultimate goal.
However, a certain social context, within which the ultimate liberation could be
attained, was required. Such a social context was envisioned as an emancipated and
regenerated socialist society, which would be based on the principle of love (na nachale
vliublennosti)
268
and people’s voluntary unification into mystic communities
267
Chulkov, Valtasarovo tsarstvo 343.
268
Chulkov, Valtasarovo tsarstvo 359.
175
(obshchiny).
269
In this society, where the individual would be free of all authoritative
constraints, “the rebellious spirit of the great Man-Messiah” would then rise “to lead
humanity away from a mechanical social order and onward to that of a miraculous
incarnation of Eternal Wisdom.”
270
That is why, in order to achieve these objectives,
Chulkov called for the mystical anarchists’ participation in the political life of the country
because “it is dynamic and revolutionary” and because it “destroys state norms.” For the
same reason, he asserted that the mystical anarchists “must also take part in the social
struggle,” for this heralds “the destruction of that order which enslaves a person
economically.”
271
Thus, as it transpires from these statements and from Chulkov’s
contention that the mystical anarchists must turn their lives into a tireless struggle against
state authority, the mystical anarchist protest promoted a revolt against the state, which
was seen as a necessary step toward the attainment of a bigger, numinous ideal.
To express the mystical anarchist beliefs publicly and artistically, Chulkov conceived
the publication of the literary almanac, Torches. The inaugural, spring 1906 issue of the
almanac opened with a statement that presented a succinct and emphatic summary of the
principal slogans of his teaching. Although rather vaguely phrased and presumably
voicing the opinion of some of the participating writers and artists, the statement sounded
familiar notes of anti-establishment protest emanating in this case precisely from the
269
See V. Ivanov, “Ideia nepriniatiia mira.” In Viacheslav Ivanov, Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 3 (Brussels,
1979) 80-90. The idea of mystic communities emanated from Ivanov’s notion of “sobornost’”, the
discussion of which follows below in connection to one of the poet’s textual contributions to Hellish Post.
270
Chulkov, Valtasarovo tsarstvo 359.
271
Chulkov, Valtasarovo tsarstvo 359-360.
176
anarchist bent of the doctrine, which, in turn, echoed the prevalent oppositional sentiment
of the period:
The hundred-strong yell – one cannot live like that! – echoes in the hearts
of poets. This revolt is also peculiarly manifested in an individual’s soul.
… Torches must reveal the heavy inner concern that is so typical of
contemporary life. We do not strive for unanimity: only one thing unites
us – an irreconcilable hostility to the power of external social norms over
man. We believe that the meaning of life is in humanity’s search for
ultimate liberation. We raise our torch in the name of the affirmation of
individuality and in the name of the free unity of people, based on love for
the future regenerated world.
272
In Hellish Post, traces of mystical anarchist rhetoric are visible first and foremost in
its preface.
273
Echoing the mystical anarchist revolt against “external social norms,” the
artists of Hellish Post declared in the opening line of the preface that their freedom-
loving and defiant spirit finds “the liberty-seeking objectives of the contemporary
historical moment” to be too limiting. Rebellious to the end and expressing their
“brotherly unity with the fighters for liberty and for men,” they desire “ultimate
liberation” and wish to make the “crimson banners” of their “first rebellion” shine against
the backdrop of their “ultimate loathing.”
274
272
Fakely 1 (Spring 1906).
273
Certain Symbolist texts published in Hellish Post also embodied the anarchist spirit of the doctrine, for
instance, Ivanov’s two poems, “Sybil” (Sivilla) and “Cain’s Walls” (Steny Kainovy), and, perhaps, Lidiia
Zinovieva-Annibal’s short story “A Passage from a Letter about the Sad State of the World.” However, it is
hardly the case regarding Briusov or Sologub’s contributions. Neither one of these writers endorsed the
mystical anarchist doctrine and the texts they contributed to the journal were neither mystical nor in any
way anarchist. By contrast, Aleksei Remizov’s story titled “Fortress” (Krepost’) did contain notes of anti-
establishment protest that were not dissimilar (if not more pronounced) to what can be found in Ivanov’s
poems. Yet, like Briusov and Sologub, Remizov was not among the advocates of mystical anarchist
teachings. Chulkov, who was listed among the contributors to Hellish Post, never published anything in the
journal. The textual expression of the mystical anarchist doctrine may be better gauged through Chulkov’s
miscellany Torches, which, from the very beginning, was designed to express them.
274
See foreword (predislovie), Adskaia pochta 1 (1906): 2.
177
Appearing in the opening statement of the journal, the program of Hellish Post also
absorbed some anarchist currents. If Chulkov, for instance, defined the mystical anarchist
affirmation of the individual person in terms of “struggle” and “overcoming” the state,
275
then so did the editors of Hellish Post define the mission of their journal in relation to a
struggle. In this case, it was the struggle against “the violence and the purveyors of
violence” (protiv nasiliia i nasil’nikov), “slavery and the oppressors” (rabstva i
porabotitelei) as well as bondage, cruelty and triteness (nevoli, zhestokosti i poshlosti).
This struggle, they contended, emanated “from love not for relative and limited freedom,
but from love for freedom that is complete and unconditional.”
276
Despite the outward verbal similarity of the mystical anarchist rhetoric of Chulkov’s
texts and the program of Hellish Post, it would be incorrect to conclude that the artistic
editors of the journal embraced Chulkov’s doctrine in the entirety of its intricate, radical,
275
Chulkov, Valtasarovo tsarstvo 358.
276
See foreword (predislovie), Adskaia pochta 1 (1906): 2. The complete text of the foreword of the journal
read: “Hellish Post is a journal of artists: the boundaries and objectives of the aspirations of liberty of the
contemporary historical moment are too narrow for their freedom-loving and rebellious spirit (for they are
truly freedom-loving and rebellious, openly or secretively, if they are true artists). They seek ultimate
liberation and are rebellious to the end. Struggle against violence and the purveyors of violence, against
slavery and oppressors must stem not from love for relative and limited liberty, but from love for
unconditional and complete freedom. Temporary, everyday masks of oppression and servility may be
bombarded with lumps of street mud; but from underneath these ever-changing masks, visible are the
stationary elements of bondage, cruelty and triteness. Thus, the arrows of satire must fly off the tight bow
of ultimate defiance so that they do not just touch the surface of the mask. Under the guises of victorious,
but hated and dethroned philistinism (meshchanstvo), we see the countenance of resilient, perhaps
immortal, philistinism. Any kind of philistinism begins the moment a person is settled and content with
himself, when he does not hear the call for freedom, having said to himself: “Is this not abundance? What
else do I need?” Hellish Post wishes to make the dark background of our ultimate loathing more tangible
for our readers – the background against which, like the signals of brotherly unity with the fighters for
liberty and for man, shine the crimson banners of our first rebellion. Our farcical masks will shine
colorfully against this dark background. The ringing of the clownish bells and the screeching of the whip
will be bursting out more resoundingly from the dark silence of our irreconcilable ‘no.’ And we adore the
bright shining of the dagger’s steel under the scarlet splendor of delicate roses. Hellish Post was published
in the XVIII century. Its publication was renewed in the 1820’s. And Hellish Post will be resurrected at the
beginning of the XX century. The anger and contempt of generations, which head toward the light, are on
the rise. We welcome this crescendo of their contempt.” Adskaia pochta 1 (1906): 2.
178
yet often vague, argumentation. Indeed, even most of the Symbolist authors, including
some that contributed to Hellish Post (e.g. Briusov and Sologub), questioned the validity
of the doctrine.
277
As to the miriskusniki, Lancéray’s opinion regarding mystical
anarchism, which the artist succinctly expressed in one of his correspondences to Benois,
may gauge rather well the reception of the overall doctrine by the group. In his letter,
Lancéray stated that although the mystical anarchist currents grew within close proximity
to them, he could not really say that these were their views.
278
Still, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that certain aspects of the mystical
anarchist rhetoric, especially those stemming from its anarchist, anti-establishment slant
and liberty-seeking objectives, resonated with the artistic producers of Hellish Post. This
was despite the fact that mystical anarchists and the miriskusniki were ultimately working
toward very different ends, which either originated within Chulkov and Ivanov’s utopian
visions of a socialist-mystic-communal society based on the principle of love and
governed by the great Man-Messiah or, as regarded the artists of the World of Art, lacked
clearly defined practical objectives. Inasmuch as the mystical anarchist rhetoric embodied
277
Several unfavorable reviews authored by anti-mystical anarchist Symbolists were published in Scales.
See, for instance, Avrelii (V. Briusov), “O misticheskom anarkhizme,” 5 (1906); Z. Gippius, “Ivan
Aleksandrovich Neudachnik,” 8 (1906); A. Belyi, “Na perevale. VII. Shtempelevaia kalosha,” 5 (1907); Z.
Gippius, “Trikhina,” 5 (1907). For more on the polemic over mystical anarchism within the Symbolist
milieu, see the section titled “Fakely” in Chulkov, Valtasarovo tsarstvo 476 and James West, Russian
Symbolism. A Study of Vyacheslav Ivanov and the Russian Symbolist Aesthetic (London: Methuen & Co.,
1970) 132-134. On the early, unfavorable reception of mystical anarchism in The Golden Fleece as well as
on the transformation of The Golden Fleece into a publication sympathetic to the doctrine (in 1908-1909),
see William Richardson, Zolotoe runo and Russian Modernism: 1905-1910 (Ardis: Ann Arbor, 1986) 117-
129. On Sologub’s reception of the mystical anarchist doctrine, see Chulkov, Valtasarovo tsarstvo 496-503.
278
The artist also felt that he was “very remote from and not very well versed in literary matters,” whereas
Torches was designed as an exclusively literary publication. “However,” Lancéray concludes, “we are
closely participating in this venture [e.g. Torches], as opposed to The Golden Fleece, where there was
nothing more than just buying and selling.” See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, spring 1906, Manuscript
Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 320, l. 19-23.
179
the spirit of anti-state protest, it, therefore, corresponded to the artists’ own oppositional
sentiments, the expression of which was perhaps the most immediate and tangible
objective informing their interest in political satire and the publication of Bugbear and
Hellish Post. At the same time, in their capacity as the voices of critical public opinion,
these liberal-bourgeois oppositional media organs helped to expand the emerging public
sphere. Being a part of the rhetoric of protest of Hellish Post, mystical anarchism,
paradoxically, also appeared to be working toward the same end although if considered
outside of this framework, the postulates of the doctrine seemed to deny the liberal-
bourgeois state (or any state) and, therefore, the public sphere, their legitimacy in favor of
a utopian societal construct.
Thus, within the context of Hellish Post, the artists of the World of Art and the
mystical anarchists were united for the time being to wage a war against the common
enemy – the tsarist state. Arguably, this was the point at which their ideational interests
converged bringing the two groups closer and facilitating their mutual appreciation of
each other’s common oppositional stance. A brief perusal of the political and censorship
conditions that developed in Russia leading to the publication of both Hellish Post and
Torches may provide the necessary historical context which helps one put into
perspective this relationship and understand as much the graphic and literary content of
the satirical journal as the reasons that prompted the infusion of mystical anarchist
rhetoric into its discourse.
Much had changed in Russia during the months following the aborted uprising in
Moscow in December of 1905. After crushing this major revolt and dispatching several
180
successful punitive expeditions to the most volatile regions of the Empire, the tsarist
government succeeded in restoring order in its main urban centers if only through the
unrestrained application of brutal and often excessive military force. Although gaining
new momentum in the summer of 1906, throughout the winter of that year, agrarian
unrest was on the decline. In no small measure, this was likely also due to the expedient
retaliatory measures taken by the regime to quell the rural disturbances throughout
November, December and January of 1905 and 1906.
279
Historians of the First Russian Revolution are in accord in their conclusion that the
reinstatement of government authority in the cities and the countryside by February 1906,
if not completely quashed the revolution, then at least significantly hampered its progress.
During these relatively calm winter months of 1906 and leading to the release of Hellish
Post in early May, the government proceeded to implement further reforms in fulfillment
of the October Manifesto, which would presumably work toward the expansion of the
public domain. The major result of this reform drive was the passing at the end of April
of the so-called “Fundamental Laws” (Osnovnye zakony). Short of being called a
“constitution,” the new charter, in effect, was a constitution, albeit one that was
intrinsically contradictory and designed to cater to the interests of the autocratic regime
and not necessarily to those of the public. The biggest incongruity of the situation was
that the new constitution granted Russia a two-tier parliament; the lower chamber was the
279
A comprehensive treatment of this subject, with many vivid and relevant examples, may be found in
Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905: Russia in Disarray (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1988) 327-336. An
instructive analysis of Witte’s agrarian policies of this period, which combined intermittent application of
liberal reform and coercion (something that undoubtedly contributed to his criticism by the liberals and
oppositional satirical journals) may be found in B. V. Anan’ich, and R. S. Ganelin, Sergei Iul’evich Vitte i
ego Vremia (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1999) 250-253.
181
State Duma, which was to be composed of popularly elected representatives. At the same
time, the Fundamental Laws reasserted “the Emperor of All the Russias” as the “Supreme
Autocratic” authority in the country. Still, notwithstanding the fact that the Tsar’s
autocratic power was hardly compromised by the new Fundamental Laws, Russia, at least
on paper, did acquire a charter of rights, a parliament and a form of government that
approximated that of a constitutional monarchy. The symbolic manifestation of the
advent of the new political order, which promised to accommodate public participation in
national politics on a hitherto unprecedented scale and bring Russia ever closer to a
liberal-bourgeois form of democracy, was the convocation of the first Duma opened by
Nicholas at the Winter Palace on April 27, 1906.
However, these ostensibly progressive, but in reality very conflicting moves on the
part of the Tsar and the government, went hand in hand with major violations of some of
the other stipulations of the October Manifesto, which worked toward thwarting rather
than expanding the emerging public sphere. Significantly, the drafting of the
Fundamental Laws, for instance, went parallel to the working out of the new, tighter
press regulations designed to impinge chiefly on the satirical press, which since October
of 1905 had grown into one of the most formidable vehicles for the expression of critical
public opinion. A month prior to the release of the Fundamental Laws, on March 18,
1906, the government introduced new amendments to the November 24 Temporary Press
Rules, which brought back the preliminary censorship of periodicals containing graphic
matter. Publications such as Hellish Post were now required to be submitted to the
Department for Press Affairs for approval no later than twenty-four hours prior to their
182
release.
280
Signifying a major infringement on the public domain, the reinstatement of
pre-publication censorship signaled the end of a period of relative press liberty, which
had existed in Russia up to this point, and the onset of the overall official reaction. These
negative tendencies were manifest in pre-release confiscations of left-wing satirical
periodicals and, more forcefully, in the new Premier Petr Stolypin’s resolute counter-
revolutionary actions throughout the remaining half of 1906 and the beginning of 1907.
The newly convened first Duma now acquired the special significance of being the
principal public forum still operating unabatedly and compensating for the delimitation of
the public sphere outside of its walls.
The violence associated with the security measures taken by the government to
reassert its authority outraged the Russian public. Citing an eyewitness account by the
British ambassador to Russia in 1906, Abraham Ascher reports in this connection that
“many sectors of the population were seized with a ‘permanent feeling of resentment’
toward the government,” virtually nullifying the chances of reconciliation between
society and the state.
281
Thus, although the country was being temporarily pacified after
the defeat of the Moscow uprising, the regime remained as detested as ever, keeping alive
the motivation of the liberal public to continue to vilify it in the press. It is in these terms
that Lancéray explained to Benois the artists’ desire to carry on with the publication of a
sequel to Bugbear. Lancéray writes in his January 1906 letter: “Precisely now, when the
‘revolution’ is temporarily quelled, it is necessary to begin creative work with greater
280
See Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik 67 (March 23, 1906). For a more detailed discussion of the press laws of
this period, see Appendix.
281
Ascher 335; Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905: Authority Restored (Stanford: Stanford UP,
1992) 11.
183
zeal on all fronts so as not to let lethargy and gloom once again take over and so as to win
something away from the reaction [ary regime].”
282
At the same time, tightened censorship made it difficult for publications such as
Hellish Post to criticize the regime in a straightforward manner. More than ever, satirical
periodicals had to rely on Aesopian language, metaphor, allusion, suggestion and
generalization in order to convey their criticism of the tsarist establishment. To say what
could no longer be said even in the terms used in Bugbear, Hellish Post, for instance,
resorted to the use of mystical anarchist rhetoric of anti-establishment protest (e.g.
declaring its unity with the fighters for liberty and a longing for ultimate liberation) and a
highly suggestive language of the Symbolist texts. In this context, the references in the
opening statement of the journal to the “purveyors of violence and cruelty,” likely stood
for none other than the tsarist regime, its staunch supporters, the military and other
security mechanisms so fiercely set in motion to protect it. These were already the
principal targets of satire in Bugbear and a myriad of other left-wing satirical periodicals
throughout the end of 1905 and beginning of 1906. By the spring of 1906, these targets,
with certain adjustments made to include the personnel shifts within the government,
283
282
E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 5 Jan. 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed.
khr. 22, l. 1.
283
The Russian government went through several important changes during the spring of 1906. For
example, on April 20, 1906, Sergei Witte resigned from the post of Prime Minister taking with him his
Minster of the Interior, Petr Durnovo. Ironically, (or, perhaps, as an indication of the power of public
opinion) with his decision to dismiss Durnovo, the Tsar effectively satisfied the demand for this minister’s
resignation the oppositional satirical press had voiced ever since his initial appointment to the post at the
end of October 1905. As has been described in the previous chapter, both functionaries were popular
targets of satirical ridicule. Moreover, replacing Witte was the Tsar’s new appointee for the position – Ivan
Goremykin. Occupying the Premier’s chair throughout the entire period of the production of Hellish Post,
he temporarily became the new target of the satirical invectives. Spring of 1906 was also the moment when
Petr Stolypin, the hard-liner governor of Saratov province, entered the public domain assuming originally
184
remained relevant for Hellish Post as the journal vowed to strike them with “the arrows
of satire” flying off “the taut bow” of its “ultimate defiance.”
The Art and Literature of Hellish Post
a. Themes and Subjects of Visual Satire.
The oppositional stance of Hellish Post was manifested most distinctly in the cartoons
and caricatures prepared for the journal by the participating artists of the World of Art.
Toning down their attacks on the “supreme authority,” (e.g. the Tsar), the artists of the
journal continued to implicate top tsarist functionaries and the military, voicing their
criticism in a manner that ultimately brought Hellish Post into conflict with the censoring
authorities.
Among the first to be caricatured were the prominent members of the new State
Council and the Cabinet of Ministers. In their cartoons, the artists sought to debunk these
functionaries’ status by subtly identifying them as the principal “purveyors of violence”
and “oppressors” evoked in the opening statement. With this purpose in mind, the third,
June 1906 issue of Hellish Post was designed to feature only caricature portraits of the
key state dignitaries in a series of images ironically designated as Olympus (Olimp).
The idea of the so-called Olympus originated during the period when the miriskusniki
were preparing to launch Bugbear in the fall-winter months of 1905. In mid-November of
that year, Lancéray informed Benois about the new suggestions being considered by the
group for the journal: “For example,” – the artist writes, “there is this theme – Olympus
the post of Russia’s new Minister of the Interior (April 21, 1906) and then that of the Premier (July 9,
1906).
185
which would consist of the Grand Dukes; for instance, Vladimir [could be] Mars, Mariia
Petrovna - Venus; Bakst and you know them all (at any rate, what we need is only a
‘symbolic’ likeness, whereas the audience is so well trained (a publika tak
vydressirovana), that it will be pleased with whatever little that is given to it. Kostia
[Somov] loved the idea and he was going to write to you about it as well.”
284
Although neither Bakst nor Benois, the two artists who, indeed, established extensive
professional connections with the Russian aristocracy had a chance to develop this theme
in Bugbear, it was not completely forgotten as it re-emerged in the summer of 1906 in
Hellish Post. Now, however, Kustodiev and Grzhebin were entrusted with its artistic
implementation, while the emphasis was placed not on the depiction of the Tsar’s
relations (after the March amendments to the press rules that would be too obvious an
infraction), but on tsarist officials. Kustodiev was perfectly suitable for the work at hand
since the artist had abundant opportunities to sketch most of these government dignitaries
while assisting Ilia Repin in the preparation of his monumental canvas The Grand
Opening of the Session of the State Council on May 7, 1901. (Torzhestvennoe zasedanie
Gosudarstvennogo Soveta 7 maia, 1901 goda). (Fig. 46) Grzhebin also lived up to the
task, demonstrating, as one critic put it, “a real mastery” of producing these functionaries’
caricatures.
285
284
See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 17 Nov. 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond
137, ed. khr. 321, l. 26.
285
G. Sternin, “Grafika russkikh satiricheskikh zhurnalov 1905-1906 gg.” Iskusstvo 3 (May-June, 1955):
35.
186
Fig. 46. Ilia Repin, “The Grand Opening of the Session of the State Council on May 7,
1901.” (Torzhestvennoe zasedanie Gosudarstvennogo Soveta 7 maia, 1901 goda) 1903.
187
ubasov and Ignatiev,
The Olympus sequence opened with a cover caricature portrait of Count Aleksei
Ignatiev, its comic effect built on the exaggeration of Ignatiev’s corpulence.
286
(Fig. 47)
A prominent functionary and long-standing member of the State Council (since 1896),
Ignatiev was a staunch monarchist and an ardent adversary of liberal reforms in Russia.
Equally opposing, for instance, the October Manifesto and the creation of the State
Duma, he was also implicated in the left-wing media as a Black Hundred sympathizer
287
- something that undoubtedly informed Kustodiev’s decision to subject Ignatiev to
satirical ridicule in Hellish Post. Also caricatured were: the departing Minister of the
Interior Durnovo; (Fig. 49) his replacement and Russia’s soon-to-be new Premier,
Stolypin (Fig. 50); the Governor-General of Moscow, Dubasov (Fig. 51); the new
Minister of Finance, Kokovtsov (Fig. 52); the virtual “dictator” of St. Petersburg, Trepov
(Fig. 53), and even the retired Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod, the arch-conservative
Pobedonostsev.
288
(Fig. 54) Like Ignatiev, these tsarist officials had all distinguished
themselves in one way or another as staunch supporters of the regime. Some of them, like
D
286
Cf. his real-life photographic image. (Fig. 48)
287
In November 1905, the Constitutional Democratic newspaper Russia (Rus’) reported in this regard that a
persistent rumor was circulating around the region where the anti-Jewish pogroms took place that Count
Ignatiev at a particular moment dispatched a circular telegram to the governors instructing them “not to
interfere with the expression of national feelings by the Russian population.” See Vladimir Zh, “Nabroski
bez zaglaviia,” Rus’ 6 (Nov. 11, 1905): 3.
288
The second issue of Hellish Post also contained Kustodiev’s caricature portrait of the new head of the
Russian government, Goremykin. Poking fun at his bushy whiskers, Kustodiev compared him with
Nozdrev - the shifty character of Gogol’s “Dead Souls.” (Fig. 55) The caption to the caricature of
Goremykin was a line borrowed from Gogol’s comic description of Nozdrev in part one of “Dead Souls”:
“However, his full, healthy cheeks were so full of vegetative force that his whiskers soon grew afresh, and
even stronger than before.” Although perhaps purely accidental, Goremykin’s exclusion from Olympus –
the buffoonish pantheon of detested statesmen – is indicative of the reception of this colorless functionary
by the artists of Hellish Post and by the liberal public at large.
188
Fig. 47. Boris Kustodiev, “Count Ignatiev.” (Graf Ignat’ev) Adskaia pochta 3
1906: 1. (cover)
189
Fig. 48. Photograph of Count Ignatiev, 1906.
190
Fig. 49. Zinovii Grzhebin, “Durnovo.” Adskaia pochta 3 1906: 3.
191
Fig. 50. Zinovii Grzhebin, “Stolypin.” Adskaia pochta 3 1906: 3.
192
Fig. 51. Boris Kustodiev, “Dubasov.” Adskaia pochta 3 1906: 4.
193
Fig. 52. Boris Kustodiev, “Kokovtsov.” Adskaia pochta 3 1906: 5.
194
Fig. 53. Zinovii Grzhebin, “Trepov.” Adskaia pochta 3 1906: 6.
195
Fig. 54. Boris Kustodiev, “Pobedonostsev.”
Adskaia pochta 3 1906: 8.
196
Fig. 55. Boris Kustodiev, “Goremykin.” Adskaia pochta 2 1906: 8.
197
were placed in charge of the counter-revolutionary punitive campaigns.
289
Often resulting
in loss of life, these exploits earned them the odium of the liberal public and made them
ripe targets for satire.
In several of the Olympus portraits, the artists attempted to convey the connection
between a dignitary’s caricature and his sinister legacy through a particular rendering of
facial expression and the choice of colors used. Imbuing Stolypin with a diabolical and
vacant appearance Grzhebin, for instance, hinted at his reputation as a fearless combatant
of political dissent, also prophetically foreshadowing the future Premier’s recourse to
extraordinarily repressive measures throughout 1907. In Kustodiev’s rendering of
Dubasov, the blood red color of the background against which the general is portrayed
forcefully alludes to his role in the suppression of the December 1905 uprising in
Moscow and to his commission to quell the agrarian discontent in the Chernigov, Kursk
and Poltava regions several months earlier. In this context, the use of the Olympus
analogy was as clever as it was appropriate. It drew a parallel between the trigger-happy
generals (e.g. Dubasov and Trepov) and belligerent Olympian gods such as Ares, who
delighted “in the slaughter of men and the sacking of towns” and loved a “battle for its
own sake.”
290
The mockery of the tsarist officials was organically connected in Hellish Post with
the attack on the military, which was also orchestrated in the journal through the visual
289
In the summer of 1905, Ignatiev, for instance, was called by the Tsar to restore the authority of the
government in the volatile Kherson region, where the Count was put in charge of the so-called “Special
Commissions” (Osobye soveshchaniia), which were vested with the express task of securing state order.
This factor may have also played a role in Kustodiev’s decision to ridicule Ignatiev, since in this capacity
he fit the profile of the “purveyor of violence” rather well.
290
See Robert Graves, The Greek Myths (New York: Penguin Books, 1992) 73.
198
ridicule of the pro-monarchist Black Hundred mobs. It was unequivocally implied, for
instance, in Lancéray’s cartoon Glad to Serve, Your Excellency (Rady starat’sia vashe
prevoskhoditel’stvo) (Fig. 56) that the pogrom violence that engulfed the Russian Empire
immediately after the proclamation of the October Manifesto, was abetted by military
leaders and high-ranking government officials who condoned it by failing to prevent or
stop it. That is why in his drawing, Lancéray shows the raging pogrom mobs as well as a
police officer saluting a military or a government dignitary, who, passing through the
scene of the debacle under heavy protection, raises his right (!) hand to signal his
approval. In his study, “Politiko-satiricheskaia grafika 1905 goda,” Erikh Gollerbakh
suggests that this drawing refers in particular to the infamous Governor of Odessa,
Dmitrii Neidhart, who failed to stop the horrific Odessa pogrom of October 18, 1905.
291
Although this observation is no doubt correct, it may also be argued that in this drawing
the artist succeeded in defining a broader issue, presenting a collective, or “synthetic,”
292
picture of government complicity in the pogroms. The extensive body of historical
accounts on this subject demonstrates that post-October Manifesto Black Hundred
violence spread beyond just Odessa. Correspondingly, the number of local military
commanders and civic leaders implicated in the pogroms was also very large. Because it
was not face-specific, Lancéray’s drawing may, therefore, be applicable as much to
291
See V. Botsianovskii, and E. Gollerbakh, Russkaia satira pervoi revoliutsii 1905-1906 (Leningrad:
Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925) 162. For more on Neidhart and his role in the Odessa pogrom see Robert
Weinberg, “The Pogrom of 1905 in Odessa: A Case Study,” Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern
Russian History, eds. John D. Klier, and Shlomo Lambroza (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992) 248-291.
292
As noted, the contemporary critic Anna Chebotarevskaia praised the artists of Bugbear for their ability
to capture in their caricatures not particular faces or personalities, but rather those synthetic, basic features,
which comprise the character and soul of a given type or image. See Anna Chebotarevskaia, “Russkaia
satira nashikh dnei,” Obrazovanie 5 (1906): 44-45. This assessment certainly applies to Lancéray’s picture
Glad to Serve, Your Excellency.
199
Fig. 56. Evgenii Lancéray, “Glad to Serve, Your Excellency.”
(Rady starat’sia vashe prevoskhoditel’stvo) Adskaia pochta 2 1906: 5.
200
Neidhart as to, for instance, the no less infamous Commander of the Odessa Military
Garrison, Baron A. V. Kaulbars,
293
or L. M. Kniazev – the Governor of Kostroma.
294
Satirical condemnation of the Black Hundreds as well as of the military received its
most articulate treatment in two of Lancéray’s other Hellish Post cartoons. These are
Happiness on Earth Thanks to the Fundamental Laws (Radost’ na zemle osnovnykh
zakonov radi), (Fig. 58) which appeared in the first issue of the journal, and The Funeral
Feast (Trizna) (Fig. 59) – a color drawing that accompanied Glad to Serve, Your
Excellency in the second issue of Hellish Post. Prepared in October-November of 1905
for Bugbear
295
and depicting a patriotic march, Happiness on Earth Thanks to the
Fundamental Laws was originally intended to be a satirical commentary on the way the
October Manifesto was received by the pro-monarchist segments of the Russian society.
During the period immediately following the October Manifesto, patriotic marches of this
kind originated to counteract the celebrations in support of the manifesto, such as the one
depicted by Ilia Repin in his painting Manifestation in Honor of October 17, 1905
(Manifestatsiia v chest’ 17 oktiabria 1905 g.) (1906-1911). (Fig. 60) Differing
significantly from Repin’s realist canvas in its genre and artistic technique, Lancéray’s
cartoon-like picture is, nevertheless, rather rich in realistic detail and was likely to have
293
Cf. the face-specific caricature of Kaulbars by Chekhonin in Masks (Maski). (Fig. 57) See Maski 3
(1906): 5.
294
See a useful discussion on the subject of the post-October Manifesto violence in Ascher, The Revolution
of 1905: Russia in Disarray 253-262.
295
In an April 1906 letter to Benois, Lancéray indicates that he has not done any new drawings for Hellish
Post yet, and that the ones that he submitted were old ones. Based on the sketches of Chembers, they were
done in October-November of 1905 for Bugbear. See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 17 April, 1906,
Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 322, l. 25.
201
Fig. 57. Sergei Chekhonin, (attributed) “New Kind of Predators from the
Panther Family – Kaul-bars.” (Novaia paroda khishchnikov iz parody
barsov-Kaul-bars) Maski 3 1906: 5.
202
Fig. 58. Evgenii Lancéray, “Happiness on Earth Thanks to the Fundamental
Laws.” (Radost’ na zemle osnovnykh zakonov radi) Adskaia pochta 1 1906: 8.
203
Fig. 59. Evgenii Lancéray, “Funeral Feast.” (Trizna) Adskaia pochta 2 1906: 4.
204
Fig. 60. Ilia Repin, “Manifestation in Honor of October 17, 1905.” (Manifestatsiia v
chest’ 17 oktiabria 1905 g.), 1906-1911.
205
been informed by the artist eye-witnessing the events.
296
It shows the participants of this
monarchist procession equipped with portraits of the Tsar, tri-color Russian flags and
banners with patriotic slogans such as “For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland” (Za Veru, Tsaria i
Otechestvo). Thus, Lancéray’s drawing depicted the patriotic marchers possessing
everything that reaffirmed their allegiance to the Tsar,
297
also reminding one that despite
the all-pervasive atmosphere of liberalism, the pro-monarchist currents ran strongly
within Russian society.
298
296
In his 1905-1906 correspondences with Benois, Lancéray often writes about the political situation in St.
Petersburg around that time. In one of the letters, written a day after the publication of the October
Manifesto (e.g. on the 19
th
of October), Lancéray specifically describes the atmosphere, which undoubtedly
informed his Hellish Post drawings Happiness on Earth Thanks to the Fundamental Laws and Glad to
Serve, Your Excellency. Following a lengthy description of a Social-Democratic rally at the Institute of
Transportation, there follows a curious passage in which the artist gauges his personal perception of the
immediate post-October Manifesto situation. He writes: “This rally was one of the last ones. Educational
institutions were soon occupied by the troops. The excitement was superseded by [a feeling of] heavy
burden, sadness and horror [in the expectation] of what appeared to be an inevitable massacre: ‘do not
spare the bullets.’ [‘No blank volleys; do not spare the bullets’ was the infamous phrase from Trepov’s
order to the troops of October 14, 1905, OM]. And all of a sudden, on the evening of the 17
th
[of October]
Iura [Artsybushev] stops by: ‘Constitution, real constitution’ – and on he went. The entire morning we were
in extremely good spirits. At one in the afternoon, we went to the university. On top of it, tied to the cross,
is a red flag; in front of it, are crowds, peaceful and happy faces, red flags. The sun came out and
everything around was filled with joy, full of hopes and festivity. But, already at four o’clock – once again,
there is horror and shooting. Once again, there is burning hatred toward the government. Then, the days of
despondency followed – the Black Hundred reaction, beatings of students and Jews. Once again, there is
terrible heaviness inside. Today there is a bit of happiness again – first newspapers, censorship is
boycotted, new hopes. Tomorrow, there will be a funeral procession along Nevsky, but I am afraid to go
with Olia: all the same, there will be beatings and shooting …” See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 19
Oct. 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr. 321, l. 21.
297
Cf. Robert Weinberg’s account of the Odessa pogrom of October 18, 1905. The critic writes that it
began with a general gathering of the marchers at a town square. During the course of this assembly, the
organizers of the ensuing patriotic procession distributed flags, icons and portraits of the Tsar, while the
marchers passed around bottles of vodka and plainclothes policemen handed out money and guns. See
Weinberg 262.
298
Lancéray’s Happiness on Earth Thanks to the Fundamental Laws is organically connected not only with
the scene of a pogrom in his Glad to Serve, Your Excellency, but equally so with a plethora of anti-Black
Hundred cartoons that appeared throughout 1905-1906 in other oppositional satirical journals. In fact,
Hellish Post was not the first or the last to address this issue, which received its initial treatment as early as
November 13, 1905 in Artsybushev’s Spectator. Appearing in this issue of the journal, a cartoon titled
Patriotic March of October 22, 1905 in Moscow on the Kamennyi Bridge (Patrioticheskaia manifestatsiia v
Moskve na Kamennom Mostu 22 oktiabria 1905 g.), may be cited as a direct antecedent to Lancéray’s
206
Although Happiness on Earth Thanks to the Fundamental Laws was originally
created in response to the urban disturbances that followed the promulgation of the
October Manifesto in the fall of 1905, a careful consideration of the reference in the title
of the drawing to the “Fundamental Laws,” coupled with the timing of its actual
appearance in Hellish Post (beginning of May, 1906), provides a clue towards its more
accurate historical contextualization. As we have seen, at the end of April 1906, in
fulfillment of the promises of the October Manifesto, the government and the Tsar issued
a constitutional charter or the Fundamental Laws (Osnovnye zakony). Conservative in
nature, the constitution fell short of the high hopes that were bestowed upon the October
Manifesto and, therefore, could hardly be a cause for celebration by the Russian liberal
public. Assigning the old drawing a new title, Lancéray provides a commentary on the
events of the spring of 1906, sardonically suggesting that only reactionary elements could
celebrate such a paradoxical law.
Satirical criticism of the army as the chief purveyor of violence was continued by
Lancéray in his celebrated picture The Funeral Feast, in which the artist depicted a group
of military officers festively commemorating a special occasion with laughter, liquor and
a choir of soldiers. (Fig. 59) However, the joyful mood of the scene is cancelled by the
caption to the cartoon, which contains a single word, “trizna,” for “trizna” signifies an
ancient Slavic ritual of honoring the departed with a feast. Since the ironic implication
here is that the officers are celebrating the dead, the natural question for the reader to
Happiness on Earth. (Fig. 61) This theme proved to be of lasting interest to the artist as well, as Lancéray
returned to it in 1908 in one of his contributions to none other than Spectator. As the artist recalled years
later, in this instance, he caricaturized a university educated Black Hundredist of noble origin (dvorianin-
chernosotenets). (Fig. 62) See Zritel’ 3 (1908): 4; E. Lansere, “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii 1905 goda,”
Iskusstvo 6 (1935): 42.
207
Fig. 61. Anon., “Patriotic March of October 22, 1905 in Moscow on the
Kamennyi Bridge.” (Patrioticheskaia manifestatsiia v Moskve na Kamennom
Mostu 22 oktiabria 1905 g.) Zritel’ 20 13 Nov. 1905: 7.
208
Fig. 62. Evgenii Lancéray, “Black Hundredist-Nobleman.” (Dvorianin-
chernosotenets) Zritel’ 3 1908: 4.
209
pose would be “Which dead are being celebrated?” The drawing does not necessarily
provide any definitive answer. The ambiguity of allusion, which, as we shall see, is also
pronounced in the Symbolists’ texts in Hellish Post, in a sense, characterizes the overall
approach of the journal that, for censorship reasons, chose to operate through suggestion
and insinuation rather than direct and unambiguous charge. This is not to say that the
readers of Hellish Post, perusing this issue in the spring of 1906, when the revolution was
temporarily on the decline, could not juxtapose this image with the violent clashes
involving the military during the previous year.
Such tragic incidents as the January 9 massacre and the armed insurrection in
Moscow, only to name two of the major ones, left a lasting impression in public
consciousness. Thus, as suggested by Erik Gollerbakh, The Funeal Feast could be read as
a condemnation of Colonel Min’s elite Semenovsky Regiment, whose officers allegedly
went on a drinking-binge after ruthlessly rooting out the last pockets of resistance from
the Presnia druzhinniki at the end of December 1905. Yet, as is the case with Lancéray’s
other pictures published in Hellish Post, the general nature of the commentary in this
drawing, coupled with the lack of evidence that the artist was responding specifically to
the Moscow uprising, warrant a broader interpretation. At the same time, the strategic
placement of this cartoon within the second issue of Hellish Post suggests that it was also
intended to illustrate Aleksei Remizov’s short story “Fortress.” Along with a well thought
out layout of images and texts on a given page of Hellish Post, the graphic illustration of
the text appears to be another mechanism employed by the editors of the journal to fuse
images and texts in order to strengthen the impact of their message on the viewer-
210
reader.
299
In this instance, The Funeral Feast provided the reader with a visualization of a
scene in Remizov’s narrative, which describes the commanding officer of an old fortress
entertaining his guests at a game of cards. Such use of Lancéray’s drawing accentuated
the thrust of the intended message, in both cases devised to impart a criticism of the
army.
b. The Symbolist Texts in Hellish Post.
Remizov’s “Fortress” was one of seven Symbolist fictional texts published in Hellish
Post. Perhaps with the exception of Fedor Sologub’s mock fairy tale “Fritza from
Abroad” (Fritsa iz-za granitsy),
300
most of them were likely to have been selected for
publication because they, in one way or another, alluded to violence – the theme, the
coverage of which was pursued by the editors of the journal in order to construct its
critical message. Combined with similarly themed images by, for instance, Lancéray or
Heine, the Symbolist works, too, contributed to the oppositional stance of Hellish Post by
suggesting that the regime was the chief purveyor of violence.
Appearing in the first issue of the journal, Viacheslav Ivanov’s poem “Sybil”
(Sivilla), for instance, summoned in its closing stanzas the imagery of galloping horses
and piles of corpses: “A Sivilla: “Chu, kak tupo / Udariaet med’ o plity / To o trupy,
299
In one of his letters to Briusov, Troiansky highlights the illustration approach when he urges the writer
to submit his materials as soon as possible so that the editors could supply them with graphic works and in
that way utilize them in a more productive way. See P. Troiansky, letter to V. Briusov, circa spring 1906,
Manuscript Section, Russian National Library, Fond 386, Kart. 85, ed. khr. 63, l. 1-2. This letter is courtesy
of N. A. Bogomolov.
300
The subject of Sologub’s “little fairy tale” (skazochka) “Fritza from Abroad” is banality (poshlost’).
Despite being identified as one of the satirical targets of Hellish Post, this theme was not actively pursued
in the first three issues of the journal.
211
trupy, trupy / Spotykaiutsia kopyta.”
301
Intuitively close to, and reminiscent of, the
squadrons of horse-mounted Cossacks of Serov’s Soldiers, Brave Lads in Bugbear,
302
this poem hinted at the murderous conduct of the government troops in much the same
way as did Anisfeld’s disturbing scene of an execution in his Bugbear watercolor 1905.
In fulfillment of the intended “symbiotic” nature of the journal and in order to provide a
better understanding of Ivanov’s Symbolist poem, the latter was combined on the same
page with the Knowledge writer Ivan Bunin’s two-stanza verse “To the Wise Ones”
(Mudrym). Juxtaposing bravery and cowardice, Bunin’s poem imbued the anonymous
and faceless fallen of “Sybil” with an aura of heroism and courage that equated them with
revolutionary fighters for liberty that the artists of Hellish Post saluted in their opening
statement: heroes fall in unequal battle with the enemy, but they put up a fight worthy of
praise.
Filtered through the prism of Symbolist poetics with its reliance on suggestion and
allusion, anti-establishment protest was also expressed in some of the texts through the
metaphorical identification of the repressive state with the institution of prison. This is
the case with Ivanov’s second contribution to Hellish Post, the poem “Cain’s Walls”
(Steny Kainovy), in which prison is de-familiarized through its symbolic rendering as the
“public walls, the foundation of which was laid by Cain” (vas Kain osnoval
301
Adskaia pochta 1 (1906): 6.
302
Apart from Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman,” the imagery of galloping horses in “Sybil” may have
been inspired, for instance, by the clicking of the hooves of the horses ridden by the night patrol officers in
St. Petersburg throughout the volatile period of the 1905 revolution. The poet had a chance to hear this
sound from his apartment on the night of June 4, 1906. See “Dnevnik V. Ivanova, 1906,” in Viacheslav
Ivanov, Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2 (Brussels, 1979) 746.
212
obshchestvennye steny). Drawing a connection between this institution
303
and the
authority of the state (vlast’), the poet also symbolizes the latter as a blood-spilling, Cain
like “murderous judge,” who made a pact with Death to secure its own immortality: “So
Smertiiu v soiuz vstupila vasha Vlast’, Chtob stat’ bessmertnoiu.” In the last two lines of
the poem Ivanov, however, provides an emphatic admonition that he who rises up against
the murderous Cain must fall – “Gliadite zh, liudi – brat’ia! Vot na eia chele pechat’ ee
prokliat’ia: Kto vstal na Kaina-ubiitsu, dolzhen past’.”
Did the poet then intend to suggest that the people who rise up against the
government must inevitably be defeated? The dichotomy of sentiment expressed in
“Cain’s Walls” significantly complicates a clear-cut interpretation also serving as an
indication that there is no simple way of gauging the degree of the poet’s oppositional
stance.
304
Clearly discernable even through Ivanov’s allegory, the message of the poem
303
Looked at through the prism of the mystical-anarchist, freedom-seeking perspective, prison may be also
perceived as a liberty-restricting agent, albeit a rather literal one.
304
Ivanov was no doubt affected by the 1905 revolution and perhaps even inclined to view it (for instance,
vis-à-vis the mystical anarchist maxims) as a possible path for ultimate spiritual liberation and unification
of people into mystic communities under the umbrella of sobornost’, the idea of which was the poet’s most
prominent contribution to the mystical anarchist teaching. Yet a categorical statement such as Minsky’s that
Ivanov and other Symbolist poets turned out to be among “the singers in the revolutionary camp,” is too
sweeping to be taken at face value. (See N. Minskii, Na obshchestvennye temy (St. Petersburg, 1909) 194-
195.) After all, it was Ivanov, who, much like Benois and Diaghilev, declared (albeit privately) in 1906 that
social activism should not be the concern of a true artist. In a July 1906 letter to Lidiia Zinovieva-Annibal,
Ivanov writes: “I do not have enough time to visit [the offices of] Hellish Post, which I was strongly
requested to do in order to help somebody with something. I am repulsed by the Grzhebin-Chulkov spirit to
the point of hatred. I am contemplating spitting on all of these compromises between art and somebody’s
opinion and some sort of movement. I am arriving at a clear vision of how stupid it is to interfere in any
way with that real-historic nonsense – even in the form of purely literary responses, the only option within
my reach. Spread the good will around yourself, influence the environment as if you are a doctor or an
artist, mending the paths of Beauty, which passes through the thickets and hollows of life, striving to
multiply and discover the beauty in those who approach you. But be ashamed to be a citizen. It is faint-
heartedness and betrayal of Beauty - Beauty that will save the world. Do not permit the demons of history
te faire dupe instilling it into you to make some sacrifice. All of life’s lies and blood come from sacrifices
that are either offered voluntarily or imposed through violence. Let the sacrifice be made only to God, if
someone sees Him in the sky, - and it has to be a selfless sacrifice and not the one conditioned by an earthly
213
appears to be at odds with the oppositional orientation of the journal. Indeed, some
editors of Hellish Post noted this inconsistency and the poem caused a controversy within
the literary-artistic committee precisely because of its contradictory message. Alluding to
“Cain’s Walls,” Grzhebin wrote to Dobuzhinsky in a letter of April 1906: “We granted
‘political freedom’ to everyone only in the ‘manifesto’ and at our conferences, whereas in
real life we failed Sologub, when he is being sacrilegious, and Dymov, when he
goodheartedly laughs at the opportunism of the Duma. But [we] gladly accept and
illustrate V. Ivanov [’s poem], in which he states that whoever rises up against the
murderous Cain (the government) – must be defeated.”
305
The issue of ambiguity of message in Ivanov’s poem is also exacerbated by the
complete absence in “Cain’s Walls,” and for that matter, in “Sybil,” as well as most other
Symbolist texts (again, with the exception of Sologub), of the satirical element, of that
“poisonous taunt” Siunnerberg spoke about in his The Golden Fleece review. The
absence of satire seems to render these poems even less suitable for an oppositional
journal attempting to style itself as a satirical publication.
objective, no matter how noble.” See V. Ivanov, letter to L. Zinovieva-Annibal, 23 July, 1906. At the time
of the writing of this chapter, this letter was being prepared for publication by N. A. Bogomolov, who
kindly provided it to the author of this dissertation. For an argument in favor of Ivanov’s pronounced
oppositional stance, as well as for an insightful analysis of the cycle “Time of Wrath” (Godina gneva),
which included “Cain’s Walls” and Ivanov’s other politically-informed poems of the 1905-1906 period, see
I. V. Koretskaia, “Tsikl stikhotvorenii Viacheslava Ivanova “Godina gneva,” in Revoliutsiia 1905-1907
godov i literatura (Moscow: Izd-vo “Nauka,” 1978) 115-138. For an informative account (and a useful
summary of existing criticism) on the general subject of “Symbolists and the 1905 Revolution,” including a
discussion on Ivanov’s reception of the 1905 revolution, see Z. G. Mintz, “Russkii simvolizm i revoliutsiia
1905-1907 godov,” in Poetika russkogo simvolizma (St. Petersburg: Iskusstvo-SPB, 2004) 190-206.
305
See Z. Grzhebin, letter to M. Dobuzhinsky, c. April 1906. Quoted from: Priimak 122. More than likely,
this letter was written after one of the editorial conferences, during the course of which Ivanov’s poem,
clearly considered by Grzhebin to be too problematic, was chosen over the perhaps more engaging pieces
written by Sologub and Dymov. Be that as it may, Grzhebin’s letter also supports the argument that
censorship was one of the major concerns of the editors of Hellish Post – hence their preference for texts
which conveyed the oppositional stance of their authors (and the journal) less forcefully.
214
Perhaps partially in pursuit of the artistic quality of their journal, partially in an
attempt to adhere to moderate stance, the editors of Hellish Post seemed prepared to
overlook both inadequacies of Ivanov’s poem. Undeterred by the ambiguity of its
message, they supplied it with two graphic images, which, framing it from the top and
from the bottom, provided visual illustrations to the imagery conjured up by the poem.
The top drawing, Bilibin’s black and white vignette, was intended to help the reader
visualize the image of the prison created in the poem verbally as it depicted the fortified
walls and rotund towers of a medieval Russian fortress. (Fig. 63) Belonging to Bilibin’s
series of book cover illustrations,
306
and informed by the views of the infamous
Shlusselburg fortress,
307
the vignette conveys the ominous mood of Ivanov’s poem
through its dramatic juxtapositions of the black and white spaces in the landscape as well
as in the walls and the towers of the citadel. At the bottom, the text of Ivanov’s poem is
framed by one of Daniel Chodowiecki’s eighteenth-century engravings.
308
(Fig. 64)
Depicting an execution by beheading, it supplied a visualization of the biblical episode of
Cain slaying Abel, which Ivanov adopted as the key metaphor for his poem.
By combining Ivanov’s poem with Chodowiecki and Bilibin’s pictures, the editors of
Hellish Post created a sequence which encouraged the reader to not only equate it with
306
Bilibin’s other works of this period include the covers for George Kennan’s Siberia and the Exile
System (in Bilibin’s rendering Sibir’ i ssylka) and a miscellany of Shlusselburg prisoner prose, poetry and
memoirs called Under the Vault (Pod svodami). Both of these covers have images of prison as the key
element in their compositions.
307
Founded in 1323 by the Moscow Grand Duke Iurii Danilovich, the grandson of Alexander Nevsky, the
fortress Oreshek, or the Shlusselburg fortress, served throughout the nineteenth and the beginning of the
twentieth century as one of the primary detention facilities for political prisoners. That is why, in many of
the left-wing satirical journals, the image of the prison was used as a symbol of political oppression.
308
Daniel Nikolaus Chodowiecki (1726-1801) - a prolific, Polish-born, German graphic artist and print-
maker, is best known for his engravings and miniature paintings.
215
Fig. 63. Ivan Bilibin, “Shlusselburg Fortress.” Adskaia pochta 2 1906: 2.
Fig. 64. Daniel Chodowiecki, Engraving, c. 1750-1790. Adskaia pochta 2 1906: 2.
216
the violence of real life, but also to understand that the violence was brought about
through government repressions. In this equation, Ivanov’s rendering of the state as
“murderous Cain” is matched with Chodowiecki’s insinuation that the government
forces, represented by the two cavalry officers in the foreground of the composition, are
responsible for the executions. Even Bilibin’s fortress hints at the fact that just like its
real-life prototype, the Shlusselburg fortress, it too is an institution of repression in the
hands of the state.
Despite the metaphorical and suggestive nature of Ivanov’s poem as well as Bilibin
and Chodowiecki’s images, the synthesis of the triptych intensifies rather than lessens the
oppositional message of the page. The Ivanov-Bilibin-Chodowiecki sequence is one of
the examples illustrating Grzhebin’s penchant for combining the visual and the verbal in
order to make a stronger impression on the viewer-reader and to channel his
interpretation of a sequence in a particular way. A similar editorial approach is taken to
compose the first page of the first issue of the journal, where the text of the preface is
framed by two graphic images depicting scenes of death and execution. At the top of the
page, there is a drawing by Boris Anisfeld. (Fig. 65) Stylistically similar to his suggestive
black and white vignettes of otherworldly creatures, seen on many a Bugbear page, this
illustration also shows an ethereal monster, the symbol of death, sitting on top of a young
maiden’s corpse. The nameless departed is grieved over by a group of four female
mourners. Reminiscent of Viktor Vasnetsov’s underworld tsarinas, they also remind one
of, for instance, more realistic depictions of similar scenes prepared for other left-wing
satirical journals by N. Feshin and I. Brodsky. At the bottom of the page is an anonymous
217
Fig. 65. Boris Anisfeld, Vignette. Adskaia pochta 1 1906: 2.
218
”
sixteenth-century engraving that portrays a scene of multiple executions by hanging and
beheading, which, in its basic thematic conjecture, is akin to Chodowiecki’s print. (Fig.
66) Grouped around the text of the preface, both images were clearly intended to
symbolize the crusade the journal was pledging to wage against the violence perpetrated
by the regime.
The themes and imagery of these two sequences reemerged in other texts and
drawings of Hellish Post making the statement of the journal stronger and more apparent.
Printed in the second issue of Hellish Post, Remizov’s “Fortress”
309
and Dymov’s “At
the Gallows” (U viselitsy) were two short stories that logically continued the narrative of
the Ivanov-Chodowiecki-Bilibin sequence. Echoing the imagery of Chodowiecki’s print
in its description of the devices of torture (e.g. gallows and “wind-mills” for “grinding
people) and, like Bilibin, adopting the Shlusselburg fortress as the real-life prototype of
the citadel portrayed in the story,
310
in his “Fortress” Remizov weaves an emphatic tale
of human suffering, strife and sadness that permeates the very essence of the prison. This
309
“Fortress” was the only story by Remizov published in the journal, although it was not his only
submission. Also considered were his novella “In Captivity” (V plenu) and a story called “Howling”
(Zavyvaet). See Z. Grzhebin, letter to A. Remizov, c. spring 1906, Manuscript Section, Russian National
Library, Fond 634, ed. khr. 97, l. 4; “Dnevnik Viacheslava Ivanova 1906,” in V. Ivanov, Sobranie
sochinenii, vol. 2, 745.
310
In the opening lines of the story, the fortress is described as having a tower that featured a gilded key
propped on a metal spear. The reference is to one of the corner towers of the Shlusselburg fortress. Called
Sovereign’s Tower (Gosudareva bashnia), it, indeed, featured a key - the symbol of Shlusselburg or “Key-
town” – on the tip of its spear. This reference is supported by Dobuzhinsky’s picture of a fortress, which,
together with Lancéray’s The Funeral Feast, served as a graphic illustration to Remizov’s story. (Fig. 67)
Even in its highly stylized rendering, the tower of Dobuzhinsky’s fortress preserves the unique angular
shape of Sovereign’s Tower. Although in Dobuzhinsky’s picture the spear and the key are cut off by the
frame of the vignette, the key is featured prominently in the image placed at the end of Remizov’s
narrative. Here, the fairy-tale witch Baba-Iaga, with a black cat for a hat, is seen holding an enormous key
with her dagger-like teeth. (Fig. 68) Dobuzhinsky’s rendering of the Shlusselburg fortress may be
compared with a more elaborate, but otherwise similar, image that opened the third, February 1906 issue of
the satirical weekly The Glow (Zarevo). (Fig. 69)
219
Fig. 66. Anon., 16
th
century engraving. Adskaia pochta 1 1906: 2.
Fig. 67. Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, “Sovereign’s Tower.”
(Gosudareva bashnia) Adskaia pochta 2 1906: 3.
220
Fig. 68. Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, “Baba Iaga.”
Adskaia pochta 2 1906: 7.
Fig. 69. Mikhail Mikhailov, “Shlusselburg Fortress.” Zarevo 3 Feb. 1906: 1. (cover)
221
psychological insight is counterbalanced in the story by what comes across as a powerful
admonition, indeed, a threat to those who caused the suffering and who ordered the
tortures and executions of the nameless, but unrelenting and brave inmate-heroes locked
in the fortress. Remizov’s authorial solidarity and sympathy with the prisoners
approximates the heroic phraseology of Gusev-Orenburgsky and Lukianov’s verses in
Bugbear and Kuprin’s camaraderie with the “heroes” seen in his “To the Wise Ones.”
Although there is not a single indication in “Fortress” that Remizov, himself a
political exile for several years, is referring to political prisoners, subtle details in his
description of the image of the revolutionary avenger suggest that this is indeed the case.
In his Bugbear poem “From the Cycle of Songs about Freedom,” Lukianov speaks of the
collective entity of the people as the thunderous avenger of the oppressed slaves (narod
… kak groznyi mstitel’). Vividly highlighting the differences between the Realist and the
Symbolist narrative modes, Remizov’s avenger differs significantly from that of
Lukianov: although in one instant it is “a man, made of stone, like a wall, who is as
strong as a fortress tower,” in another instant, it is a “someone” (kto-to) who walks back
and forth across the prison yard from the church to the stables. It is a “someone wearing
red, like an executioner, with a rope for his belt, with a red hat on, like an assassin,
brandishing his whip.” Adopting the motto “blood for blood, vengeance for vengeance,
eternally,” this “someone” will avenge “the coffins and the gallows” and will devise the
most brutal kinds of execution for the purveyors of violence, who, as in Chodowiecki’s
print, are identified in Remizov’s story with the soldier-prison guards and the military
222
administration of the fortress.
311
Remizov’s admonitions to the powers that be resounded
perhaps more powerfully than even those found in the works of his neo-Realist
counterparts. Moreover, combining Remizov’s text with Lancéray’s two plates, Glad to
Serve and The Funeral Feast, which were positioned within the journal in such a way that
it was impossible for the reader to divorce them from the text of the story, the editors of
Hellish Post once again made it clear that the intended targets of the author’s (and the
journal’s) wrath were the tyrannical tsarist state and the army.
The Social Orientation of Hellish Post Considered
Invoked through ridicule of key state officials and suggestions of government
complicity in much of the violence of the revolutionary period, political overtones came
to dominate the texts and, especially, the artworks of Hellish Post. As we shall see,
particularly politicized was the graphic content of the forth, censored issue of the journal.
Thus, in the final analysis, Hellish Post espoused a discourse no less oppositional than
that of its predecessor although now it was also expressed in part through such unlikely
means as Symbolist fiction and mystical anarchist rhetoric. This was despite the fact that
after the closure of Bugbear, and, no doubt, due to the strict measures taken against it, the
founders of Hellish Post considered reorienting the new journal along social rather than
political lines.
312
The German weekly Jugend, rather than Simplicissimus, was now
311
A. Remizov, “Krepost’,” Adskaia pochta 2 (1906): 3-7.
312
See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, n/d, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137, ed. khr.
321, l. 35.
223
chosen as the foreign paradigm to emulate.
313
At the end of March 1906, Grzhebin
informed Siunnerberg that in its upcoming issues, the journal would address themes as
diverse as those of “God,” “family,” “city,” “militarism” and “ the court,” all of which
would be treated critically as representing “social evil” (kak sotsial’noe zlo).
314
Writing
to Briusov around the same time and essentially reiterating the text of Grzhebin’s letter to
Siunnerberg, Troiansky added that the theme of “city” would include such subtopics as
“factories,” “bordellos,” “city house-graves” (gorodskie doma-mogily) and “night and
day.” The theme of “God” was identified by Troiansky in Latin as “ad majorem Dei
gloriam” (for the greater glory of God), confirming that religion was projected to become
one of the central subjects of ridicule in the journal.
315
Apart from the religious theme,
313
See E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 17 April 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond
137, Ed. khr. 322, l. 20-21. The illustrated journal Jugend was launched in 1896 in Munich by Georg Hirth.
It was promoted as a weekly journal “of art and life” (wochenschrift fur kunst & leben). The magazine
became very popular with German readers as well as with the artists of the World of Art, who were
exposed to it during their stay in Munich in the late 1890s. See M. Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia (Moscow:
Nauka, 1987) 157, 398. Some of them even occasionally contributed to it; in particular, the front cover of
the 1903 issue of the journal (No. 43) featured Leon Bakst’s The Supper. Like Simplicissimus, Jugend was
first and foremost appreciated by the miriskusniki for the high quality of its graphic content. However, as is
suggested in Lancéray’s correspondence, in comparison with Simplicissimus, Jugend was apparently
considered less engaging politically. Nevertheless, as we shall see, despite these provisions, the editors of
Hellish Post continued to borrow from Simplicissimus, reprinting in the Russian journal some of T. T.
Heine and B. Paul’s most biting political cartoons. It is also true that among a great variety of Russian-
themed drawings published in Simplicissimus throughout 1904-1905 and available to the editors of Hellish
Post, it seems that preference was given to the ones that avoided direct attacks against the Tsar.
314
See Z. Grzhebin, letter to K. Erberg (Siunnerberg), 27 March 1906, Manuscript Section, Institute of
Russian Language and Literature, Fond 474, No. 117.
315
See P. Troiansky, letter to I. Bunin, 14 March 1906, Manuscript Section, Russian State Archive of
Literature and Art, Fond 44, Op. 1, ed. khr. 278, l. 1-2. Grzhebin proposed that each issue of Hellish Post
be devoted entirely to the coverage of one of these “social” topics. He argued in this connection that such
thematically centered content would produce a stronger editorial statement. Grzhebin also proposed that the
new journal would feature articles about writers and artists, something that indicated that perhaps
originally, the format of Hellish Post was envisioned to approximate that of the World of Art journal. See
Grzhebin, letter to K. Erberg (Siunnerberg), 27 March 1906. The artistic members of the editorial
committee strongly objected to Grzhebin’s proposal to produce issues focused on the treatment of a single
social theme arguing that such an approach would likely turn the journal into too tendentious a publication.
Writing to Grabar in early April 1906, Dobuzhinsky informs him that at one of the conferences Grzhebin
224
the literary-artistic committee of Hellish Post appeared to give preference to the
traditionally problematic issue of urban living in turn-of-the-century Russia, not of
strictly political distinction. Focusing, for instance, on the city “bordellos,” the journal
would presumably address the problems of prostitution and moral decline, while rubrics
such as “factories” and “city house-graves” could expose the squalid employment and
living conditions of the Russian industrial working class.
However, certain pressing problems, which at another, more tranquil moment of
Russian history would be classified as social, in revolutionary Russia of 1905 often
acquired political coloration. For instance, protest against Russia’s oppressive capitalist
order emerged as one of the most distinct features of the 1905 Revolution. As the
liberation movement gained momentum, the economic demands
316
of the working class
were progressively blended with agendas of a political nature. In a sense reflecting this,
the theme of economic subjugation invoked in Hellish Post also had a clear political
underpinning despite the fact that the original intention of the editors of the journal might
have been to treat it as a “social evil.” Identifying the industrial capitalists as the chief
oppressors of the working class, the texts and images of Hellish Post focused more on the
was criticized for being too slow and that his desire to publish monographs was seen as tendentious. The
artist surmised that although everything went well, the meeting was stormy, as “Grzhebin and Bilibin (soda
and acid) wanted to resign.” See M. Dobuzhinsky, letter to I. Grabar, 8 April 1906. Quoted from: Priimak
122-123. Similarly, in his letter of March 14, 1906 to Bunin, editor Troiansky also writes that “presently,
there is a revolution against Grzhebin’s intent to make the journal tendentious. In all likelihood, the journal
will not be tendentious … [as] there isn’t anyone who supports Grzhebin’s suggestion to publish issues
dedicated to a particular social problem.” See Troiansky l. 1.
316
In his analysis of the strike at the Putilov Works in St. Petersburg, Gerald Surh points out that these
demands included, for instance, a higher rate of compensation for overtime work, a pay raise for unskilled
workers and others. See Gerald D. Surh, 1905 in St. Petersburg. Labor, Society, and Revolution (Stanford:
Stanford UP, 1989) 179-199. A petition issued by the Tiflis Committee of the Russian Social Democratic
Workers’ Party in January 1905, contained a very detailed list of economic demands, which, among others,
included pay increases for different categories of workers. See N. S. Trusova, ed. Nachalo pervoi russkoi
revoliutsii. Ianvar’-Mart 1905 goda (Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1955) 594.
225
causes of that oppression rather than the resultant social problems, thus making its
commentary inevitably more political.
In this vein, the theme of capitalist oppression was addressed in Hellish Post in
several cartoons borrowed by the journal from the artists of Simplicissimus as well as in a
story authored by Maksim Gorky, featured in the first issue of the journal. Engaged in an
open battle with autocracy since early 1905 and determined to use literature as an
instrument of subversion, Gorky treated this issue in a strictly political and even radical
way. Indeed, in his rather tendentious short story “The Sage” (Mudrets), Gorky not only
points to the real reasons for the economic misery of the working class, but also suggests
the idea of an uprising through which the workers, under the guidance of gifted socialist
agitators, would be able to overcome their capitalist enslavers.
317
The theme of the economic subjugation of the working class was further addressed in
the journal visually through several of T. T. Heine and B. Paul’s cartoons, some of which
appeared earlier on in Simplicissimus. Originally designed to comment on the rampant
capitalist exploitation and the dire conditions of the working class in Germany, the
drawings chosen for reproduction in Hellish Post were adapted to the similar Russian
context and given an unequivocally political twist through a subtle manipulation of the
original German caption. For instance, Heine’s drawing titled The Horror Show
317
See M. Gorky, “Mudrets,”Adskaia pochta 1 (May, 1906): 3. Gorky’s narrative was not limited to the
discussion of the economic enslavement of the working class. The story also addressed a number of other
interrelated issues, which, at the same time, were organically connected with the principal objective of the
story: to emphasize the virtues of the working class and to ridicule the aspects of the bourgeois society that
did not correspond to Gorky’s positivist Weltanschauung. Harkening back to the writer’s earlier satirical
tales, and in particular, closely resembling his 1893 parodic allegory “Wise Turnip” (Mudraia red’ka), “The
Sage” was devoted in equal measure to a critique of the “bourgeois” philosophy of pessimism expressed in
the tracts of thinkers as diverse as those of Schopenhauer and Caro. For more on Gorky’s early satirical
tales, including that of “Wise Turnip,” see V. A. Kuznetsov, “Satira v rannem tvorchestve Gor’kogo,” O
tvorchestve Gor’kogo, ed. I. K. Kuzmichev (Gor’kovskoe knizhnoe izd-vo, 1956) 159-172.
226
(Grimmitschau) was featured in the third issue of Hellish Post under the heading Strike
(Stachka). (Fig. 70) Depicting starved and undernourished elderly men, women and
children being literally pressed to death by the capitalist industrialists (e.g. the
“oppressors,” seen standing on top of a wooden platform under heavy police protection),
in Simplicissimus, the drawing was supplied with a caption which read: “Es müssen noch
mehr Schutzleute herauf. Die Luder sind noch nicht weich gedrückt. (More police are
needed on top. The scum still do not find themselves to be pressed hard enough).”
318
The word “strike” (stachka) in the Russian title, which did not exist in the original
German version, implied that the cartoon depicted a scene of suppression of an industrial
strike. This subtle adjustment made Heine’s drawing relevant to the widespread industrial
discontent in Russia, while at the same time relating it to the theme of Gorky’s story. As
in “The Sage,” in its Russian variant Heine’s commentary on the theme of the economic
subjugation of the working class was now imbued with political rather than social
overtones.
Censoring Hellish Post
By comparison with Bugbear, political commentaries which dominated the visual and
verbal contents of Hellish Post, nonetheless, contained even less material that was
candidly offensive and would require drastic action on the part of the censoring
authorities. By and large, the editors of the journal avoided the chief topic of contention -
the Tsar – something that allowed them to satisfy the new legal requirements and pass the
318
See Simplicissimus 43 (Jan. 19, 1904): 337. The Russian text that accompanied the Hellish Post re-print
read as follows: “Nado by siuda pobol’she politsii. Etot sbrod eshche nedostatochno prizhat. (More police
are needed here. This scum is not pressed enough yet).”
227
Fig. 70. T. T. Heine, “Strike.” (Stachka) Adskaia pochta 3 1906: 9.
228
censors unscathed even despite such seemingly subversive content as Gorky’s story and
Heine’s drawing.
Indeed, the initial official response toward the first three issues of Hellish Post was
not as punitive as it was toward those of Bugbear. This, however, was not the case with
the fourth issue of the journal, which, on the verge of going into production, was seized
in its entirety straight off the press at the printing facilities of Golike and Vilborg on July
7, 1906.
319
As it transpired from the final court verdict of October 26, 1906, Hellish Post
was confiscated principally for its graphic content. Dedicated to the subject of “land and
liberty” and slated to be featured in the forth issue of the journal, the drawings titled Land
(Zemlia), Liberty (Volia) and Introduction (Introduktsiia) were found insulting to the
Cossacks and to the officers of the army (oskorblenie kazakov i ofitserov). The court
resolutely stated that these cartoons suggested that the government troops were used as a
punitive force to pacify the countryside. Particularly implicated was the drawing Land,
which depicted Cossacks subjecting peasants to deadly floggings. After the execution, the
dead peasants were shown being carried away to a freshly dug grave prepared for them in
advance. The court concluded that this narrative, which displayed a premeditated
attribution of extreme cruelty to the military regiment, was insulting to the Cossacks, and,
therefore, unlawful.
320
The court also indicated that the drawings Introduction and
Liberty were equally discourteous to the officers of the army and military detachments.
319
See Dvadtsatyi vek (St. Petersburg) 100 (July 8, 1906): 5. The newspaper also reported that a battalion
of soldiers and four machine guns were stationed in front of Golike and Vilborg to presumably prevent
street violence and clashes between the police, the Cossacks and workers, which had taken place earlier in
front of the printing facilities of the newspaper Thought (Mysl’).
320
“Prigovor Sankt-Peterburgskoi sudebnoi palaty,” 26 Oct. 1906, Russian State Historical Archive, St.
Petersburg, Fond 777, Op. 7, d. 1002, l. 5. The text of the verdict is partially reproduced in Priimak 123.
229
Introduction intended to convey the idea that the military officers were prepared to
protect a pogrom allegedly organized by the police and Liberty was censored for its
insinuation that the peasants were deprived of their land through the interference of the
government troops.
321
Such close coverage of this issue in the cartoons of Hellish Post as well as other left-
wing satirical journals of the period
322
was informed by the ongoing debates in the first
Duma, centered on Russia’s perpetual “agrarian” question or shortage of arable land that
could be allocated for additional cultivation by the Russian peasantry. A cause for much
of the rural unrest of 1905-1906, the agrarian challenge became one of the principal
subjects of contention between the government of Premier Goremykin and the first Duma
dominated by left-wing deputies – the Kadets, the Laborites (Trudoviki) and the
Socialist-Revolutionaries. The demands of the left-wing opposition in this regard ran the
gamut from the compulsory expropriations of certain land properties in favor of the
321
Priimak 123.There is no sure way of ascertaining who the exact authors of these cartoons were, as the
artists’ names were not mentioned in the court verdict. Some of them could have been prepared by Dmitrii
Kardovsky who addressed similar subject matter in his Bugbear realistic and mockingly satirical drawing
Well, Keep on Going, You Nag (Nu, tashchisia, sivka!..). (Fig. 71) Published in the third issue of Bugbear
and depicting hard working peasants toiling the land under the watchful eye of two fully armed, large-fisted
Cossacks equipped with knouts, Kardovsky’s picture presented a sardonic commentary on the recourse to
the use of military force the government took in quelling the agrarian disorders that plagued the Russian
countryside throughout 1905-1907. See Zhupel 3 (1906): 9. In general, however, this subject was not
treated extensively in the first three issues of Hellish Post. A distant allusion to it may be found only in a
brief text called “In a New Way” (Na novyi lad). See Adskaia pochta 2 (1906): 7.
322
See, for instance, the inaugural 1906 issue of the satirical weekly House-Painter (Maliar), featuring a
cartoon and a poem dedicated to the subject of “land and liberty.” The black and white drawing depicts a
maiden with a shield and a flag with the words “land and liberty” inscribed on both. (Fig. 72) Placed below
the image and intended as its verbal legend, is Vera Zaikina’s poem, which speaks about the repressive
nature of the tsarist regime and the onset of famine in the countryside. At the same time, the emphatic
outcry of the title of the poem, “More Land and Liberty!” (Zemli i voli!), suggests that the dismal rural
conditions result from the failure of the government to find a viable solution to the land problem. A
comparison of the “land and liberty” sequence of House-Painter with the extant descriptions of the
confiscated artworks of Hellish Post reveals certain thematic parallels between the two, although it appears
that the latter journal concentrated its fire more on the use of military force by the government in the
troubled rural areas of the Russian empire rather than on its failure to resolve the agrarian problem as such.
230
Fig. 71. Dmitrii Kardovsky, “Well, Keep on Going, You Nag.” (Nu, tashchisia, sivka)
Zhupel 3 Jan. 1906: 9.
231
Fig. 72. “Liudi-Zemlia.” (pseudonym) “Land and Liberty.”
(Zemlia i Volia) Maliar 1 1906: 6.
232
landless peasants to the complete abolition of the institution of private ownership of land.
The radical stance adopted in relation to the agrarian issue by, for instance, the Kadets, as
well as their failure to compromise with the government on other contested issues (e.g.
amnesty for political prisoners, power to appoint and dismiss ministers) resulted in the
dissolution of the first Duma in the beginning of July of 1906 - a development that
greatly hampered further advancement of the liberal-bourgeois public sphere in the post-
October Manifesto Russia.
323
Just as the radical stance of the left-wing parliamentary opposition in the first Duma
could not be tolerated by the regime which opted to disband the parliament rather than to
yield to its demands, so an equally radical line of criticism found in the cartoons of
Hellish Post was not going to be tolerated either. The reinstatement of pre-publication
censorship in March of 1906 provided the government with an effective tool for
preventing it from reaching the reading public. At the same time, the official reaction
indicated that the journal ostensibly overstepped the new legal boundaries established for
critical public opinion by the March amendments.
Following the police raid, the editors and associates of Hellish Post made the
decision to halt its publication so as not to incur any greater financial loss. Several days
after the confiscation of the journal, Viacheslav Ivanov was writing in this regard to
Lidiia Zinovieva-Annibal: “At four I had to go, because there was going to be a meeting
of ‘the utmost importance’ at the offices of Hellish Post. For the time being, we decided
to temporarily stop the publication ‘in light of the uncertainty of the general situation and
323
Informative discussions of this issue may be found in S. I. Vitte, Vospominaniia, vol. 3 (Moscow: Skif
Aleks, 1994) 339-351, as well as in Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1990) 48-49; 164-165.
233
the financial risk.’ Presently, as you know, the terrifying beating of the literary babies is
rampant, many newspapers are closed.”
324
The swift and harsh preventative strike
exemplified by the police raid meant not only the physical destruction of the fourth issue,
but also the complete cessation of Hellish Post. Seeing no further possibility of sustaining
the publication of the journal under such restrictive conditions, the editors of Hellish Post
chose to fold its production prior to the final official ruling by the court that outlawed the
journal.
324
See V. Ivanov, unpublished letter to L. Zinovieva-Annibal, 13 July, 1906. Courtesy of N. A.
Bogomolov.
234
CHAPTER 4: SATIRICAL JOURNALS OF THE RUSSIAN RIGHT
The closure of Hellish Post was indicative of a larger development – that Russia was
entering a new, negative, phase in the evolution of its nascent public sphere. Inasmuch as
it concerned one of its constituent parts - the satirical press - the most visible marker of
this was the reinstatement of the pre-publication censorship of the illustrated journals by
the March 1906 Amendments to the Temporary Press Rules, whose provisions impeded
the issuance of Hellish Post.
The direct negative effect of the March Amendments on the unhampered critical
public opinion expressed through the left-wing satirical press in general and Hellish Post
in particular was a clear indication of the regime reneging on its commitment to
liberalization and the expansion of the public sphere. This could hardly have been
otherwise under the hostile and doctrinaire oppositional stance of the country’s left-wing
parliamentary majority and press – overall conditions which were unfavorable for the
regime and largely unproductive in terms of any constructive legislative work. After the
dissolution of the first Duma, this process was further exacerbated by the similar fate
befalling the second Duma. This was, once again, precipitated by a failure on the part of
the left-wing parliamentary opposition to seek practical solutions to Russia’s pressing
social and political problems, through compromise.
Exemplified by the dissolution of the first and second Dumas and by the tightening of
censorship laws, the “external” hampering actions taken by the regime coalesced with the
235
equally destructive impulses that emanated from within the public sphere itself. As
Louise McReynolds has demonstrated, one of the unlikely forums to obstruct the
development of incipient bourgeois liberalism in post-1907 Russia was the mass-
circulation press, which began to take a counter-productive stance vis-à-vis the budding
political public institutions such as the Duma.
325
Leading to that, another such destructive
media forum was the right-wing satirical press of 1906-1907.
Paradoxically, originating within the nascent public sphere and, itself, representing
one of its integral components, the right-wing satirical press at the same time became an
effective media tool for stripping this public domain of its legitimacy. Its particular way
of achieving this was through satirical ridicule of constitutionalism, Russia’s incipient
democratic institutions, liberal-bourgeois opposition (and cultural values) and even the
ministers of the royal government who displayed discernible liberal sentiments. This was
conducted parallel to the fierce, and, perhaps, justified, combat of the radical forces of the
revolution. Adopting the anti-constitutional stance of the monarchist dogma, the right-
wing satirical journals also upheld its anti-capitalist and anti-modern, conservative slant -
something that equally substantiated their anti-liberal bourgeois public sphere orientation.
One of the specific ways of constructing this type of counter-productive discourse was
through the close adherence of these journals to the anti-Semitic rhetoric of the
monarchist ideology and propagandistic literature, in which issues of racial distinction
were blended with those pertinent to their anti-capitalist stance.
325
Louise McReynolds, “The Russian Intelligentsia in the Public Sphere: The Mass-Circulation Press and
Political Culture, 1860-1917,” The Communication Review 1.1 (1995): 83-100.
236
Although it is difficult to gauge the exact detrimental effect of the right-wing satirical
press on the emerging public sphere, it is possible to delineate its formal counter-
productive workings by exploring the ideational foundation as well as the visual and
textual content of its extant paradigms. With this objective in mind, in this concluding
chapter I examine the ways and mechanisms employed by the right-wing journals of
political satire to debunk all things representative of liberalism, constitutionalism,
revolution, capitalism and modernity, and to orchestrate a defense of the autocracy and its
values. The right-wing satirical press has not been previously dealt with in critical
literature and only scant primary data on the subject exists. Consequently, a logical point
of departure is to provide a brief introduction of its genesis during the post-October
Manifesto period.
Emergence of the Right-Wing Satirical Press
Writing to Alexander Benois at the time the first issue of Bugbear was rolling off the
press in early December of 1905, Evgenii Lancéray remarked that among the great
number of satirical journals available at newspaper stands along Nevsky Prospekt, there
were none that represented the right-wing point of view. Lancéray wrote: “The number of
journals of humor that are sold on Nevsky is unbelievable; I cannot even list them.
Drawings are awful everywhere (in this regard, the last issue of Spectator is better than
all of them), but in their texts one can find something angry, audacious and funny. All of
237
the journals are extremely leftist, to the point that it is a pity that there is not a single one
representing the opposing monarchist party.”
326
Lancéray’s keen observation was correct in that, indeed, right-wing satirical journals
per se were hardly available at that time even in the main centers of the country. Sparked
by the October Manifesto and the subsequent reforms, “the days of liberty” of the press
had first and foremost a tremendous effect on the growth of the left-wing satirical
journals. Privately funded right-wing periodicals of satire emerged chiefly as a counter-
measure against their popular and omnipresent oppositional counterparts.
327
Among the first to appear was the weekly political, artistic, literary and “hilariously
humorous” journal Knout (Knut).
328
Founded in Moscow in early 1906 by a Black
Hundred activist and a member of the local chapter of the Union of the Russian People,
Vladimir Olovenikov, Knout was edited and published by Olovenikov’s wife - A.
Olovenikova, who was also in charge of the financially troubled Moscow monarchist
newspaper Popular Assembly (Veche). Despite the producers’ design to publish the
326
E. Lancéray, letter to A. Benois, 3 Dec. 1905, Manuscript Section, State Russian Museum, Fond 137,
ed. khr. 321, l. 28-31.
327
Referring to two early right-wing newspapers Witte’s Dance (Vittova Pliaska) and the illustrated
Pliuvium, the Assistant Minister of the Interior and member of the State Council Vladimir Gurko recalled
in his memoirs that a group of young right-wing activists decided to publish humorous journals of their
own in order “to counterbalance numerous similar magazines of an openly revolutionary character.” See V.
I. Gurko, Features and Figures of the Past. Government and Opinion in the Reign of Nicholas II, ed. J. E.
Wallace Sterling, Xenia Joukoff Eudin, and H. H. Fisher. Trans. Laura Matveev (Stanford: Stanford UP,
1939) 434.
328
Like the producers of Bugbear, Hellish Post and other left-wing satirical periodicals, the editors and
publishers of the right-wing journals strove to imbue the titles of their publications with a meaning that
would convey, in a metaphorical manner, the way they intended to impart satirical invectives. As we have
seen, the founders of Bugbear equated its satires with diabolical brimstone, with which they vowed to
“punish the sinners” on Earth “without waiting for the subterranean ‘zhupel’ to burn them in Hell.”
Similarly, the publishers of Knout resorted to the trope of a “whip,” with which they vowed “to strike” very
specific targets. Not all titles were as perceptible as that of Knout. Brief explanations of the titles of the
right-wing satirical journals will be provided as they enter the narrative of this chapter.
238
journal on a weekly basis, Knout never reached this objective. Due to financial reasons,
publication of the journal remained sporadic and came to a halt in 1908.
329
An equally right-wing satirical journal called Rope (Zhgut)
330
was billed as “the most
venomous” and, misleadingly, non-affiliated publication. Like Knout, it originated in
Moscow, albeit a year later, in 1907.
331
Rope was edited and financed by Ivan Klang, an
artist who in the 1890s had worked for two of the Moscow-based literary-artistic journals,
Moscow (Moskva) and Wave (Volna).
332
Six issues of Rope were published in 1907 and
another eight in 1908.
333
329
The editorial statement in the maiden issue of Knout announced that only two more issues of the journal
would be published in 1906. The intent was to test prospective readership. Due to financial considerations,
Knout appeared in 1906 only once. The following year twelve issues were published, and Knout never
reached its projected target of fifty issues per annum. At the end of 1907, the journal announced its closure
due to the passing of its founder, Olovenikov, in February of that year. Yet, it came out once again in early
1908, with a total of five issues appearing. Retaining its original format, rubrics and overtly right-wing
orientation, Knout was now edited by N. Dobrovolsky (also the editor of Olovenikov’s Popular Assembly
[Dec. 1908 – Nov. 1909]) and published by the so-called “successors of V. V. Olovenikov.” (The latter was
a pseudonym adopted by Olovenikov’s mother, who, after her son’s death in February 1907, also
temporarily took over the publication of Popular Assembly). The fifth issue of the journal for 1908
advertised subscriptions for the following year, projecting the publication of another thirty-four issues – an
objective that was never realized.
330
The trope of “rope” is not as clear as that of “whip.” Unlike Knout, this journal never alluded to the
metaphorical significance of its title. Its literal interpretation as, for instance, twisted or braided strands of
hemp, does not yield a tangible metaphorical identification in terms of the satirical mechanism of the
journal.
331
Although it is not immediately apparent as to when exactly the first issue of the journal came out, it may
be deduced from its content that it originated several months prior to the opening of the third,
“conservative,” Duma on November 1, 1907.
332
See V. A. Giliarovskii, Sobranie sochinenii v chetyrekh tomakh, vol. 2 (Moscow: Poligrafresursy, 1999)
86. Giliarovsky identifies Ivan Klang as the publisher of both Moscow and Wave despite the fact that other
sources indicate that he was one of their artistic contributors. Apart from editing and publishing Knout,
Klang also appears to have written for it as many of the literary segments in the journal are identified in
abbreviated forms such as “Iv. K-g.” Although most of the artwork in the journal remained anonymous, it
would not be unreasonable to suggest that Klang, himself an artist, was their principal, if not only, author.
333
Apart from Klang’s journal, three other satirical magazines with the same title were published during
1906 and 1907. The St. Petersburg-based weekly “journal of political satire, literature and contemporary
life” Rope (publ. E. N. Gulikova, ed. A. V. Zaikin) had only one issue published in 1906. Edited by K. K.
Sarakhanov, the second Rope was published by V. K. Sampsonov in Saratov from the end of 1906 to the
239
The journal of humor and satire, Starling (Skvorets)
334
was one of several provincial
right-wing satirical periodicals. Edited and published in Orenburg by N. Tolmachev in
1906, the inaugural issue of the journal appeared in the spring of that year. In total,
nineteen issues of this artistically unsophisticated periodical were produced. Like the
Moscow-based Rope, Starling was billed as a non-affiliated publication, which, in
comparison to Rope, was perhaps closer to the actual truth since despite the overt right-
wing orientation of its content, the rightists themselves were often the butt of the ridicule
of the journal.
335
The Kazan Barker (Kazanskii raeshnik), a literary almanac of humor that featured
rudimentary drawings and caricatures, was published and edited in Kazan by the local
private tutor (home teacher) N. O. Prokofiev.
336
It was one of several right-wing
beginning of 1907. Only two issues of this journal appeared. The Tiflis-based Rope had only one (pilot)
issue appearing in 1906. This journal was published and edited by B. S. Eritsian. All of these three journals,
however, had a left-wing orientation. See V. Botsianovskii, and E. Gollerbakh, Russkaia satira pervoi
revoliutsii, 1905-1906 (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925) 214.
334
The metaphorical significance of the title of this journal is conveyed throughout its run. Starling is
called to battle (e.g. eat) the traditional enemies of the Right (e.g. revolutionaries and liberals), who are
identified in the journal as various types of bugs and locusts. Similarly, Starling wages polemical wars
against some of the local, Orenburg-based left-wing periodicals such as Sarancha and Kobylka (both
meaning locust). For more on the latter two journals, see Botsianovskii 215, 219.
335
See, for instance, a satirical piece titled “Chimney Sweep’s Rebuttal” (Oproverzhenie trubochista)
featured in the second (May 4) issue of the journal for 1906. In this short fictional letter to the editor, a
chimney sweep objects to the fact that the journal equated his profession with the Black Hundreds. He
argues that although chimney sweeps are indeed “black” (e.g. covered in dust and ashes), it is not reason
enough to call them Black Hundreds since there are hardly a hundred of them in the entire city. At the same
time, he surmises that if someone were to curse the Tsar or rip Russian flags in their presence, every one of
his colleagues would gladly smash that person’s nose. It may also be noted that the “chimney
sweep/member of the Black Hundred” parallel unwittingly anticipated an ominous real-life incident that
would occur eight months later, when the Union of the Russian People attempted to assassinate Count
Witte at his home. This unsuccessful attempt was made by lowering two explosive devices (adskie
mashiny) through the chimneys of the uninhabited rooms in Witte’s mansion.
336
The word “raeshnik” in the title of this journal is derived from the word “raek,” which denotes a small-
size show box – a popular turn of the century visual entertainment device, a rudimentary slide projector, the
front part of which was often equipped with optic lenses for the continued viewing of lubok pictures. The
240
publications available in the city at that time.
337
The first issue of the journal came out in
January 1907 and was followed, several weeks later, by the second and last issue for that
year. Yet another, final, issue of The Kazan Barker was published in January of 1908.
Institutionalization of the Right-Wing Politics and the Satirical Press
Although prior to 1905, centuries-old tsarist Russia almost completely lacked
monarchist political organizations,
338
the revolutionary crisis of 1905 triggered the
showing would be normally performed by a raek host or “raeshnik,” who accompanied such
demonstrations with humorous and often cynical commentaries that resembled the speech captions of the
lubok pictures. Alluding in its title to “raek,” one of the narrative strategies of the journal was to present a
series of successive verbal “pictures” (e.g. commentaries) on a variety of topical subjects, just as would be
done during a raek show. This is especially evident in the opening rubric of The Kazan Barker, which
featured brief and humorous verbal raek-like narrative segments by one “cross-eyed grandfather Roman”
(a.k.a. P. R. Andreevsky). For more on raek and for a reproduction of a mid-nineteenth century lubok
variant of a raek booth called “Universal Cosmorama,” see James Von Geldern, and Louise McReynolds,
eds., Entertaining Tsarist Russia. Tales, Songs, Plays, Movies, Jokes, Ads and Images from Russian Urban
Life 1779-1917 (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1998) 181.
337
Other monarchist periodicals published in Kazan were predominantly newspapers, such as The Black
Hundredist (Chernosotenets), Coulters (Soshniki), Orthodox and Autocratic Russia (Rus’ pravoslavnaia i
samoderzhavnaia), The Newspaper of the Rightists (Gazeta pravykh), Functionary (Deiatel’) as well as The
Kazan Telegraph (Kazanskii telegraph). With the notable exception of the well-established The Kazan
Telegraph (1893-1917), these newspapers hardly enjoyed any popularity and their runs were very meager.
Less profitable financially, they were subsidized by the local branches of the central monarchist
organizations or by the contributions of private members. As we shall see, financial difficulties were also
the likely reason for the inconsistent appearance and ephemeral existence of the right-wing satirical
journals. For more information on the dynamics and cost of publishing a right-wing periodical, see the
testimony of E. A. Poluboiarinova. A wealthy heir to a publishing business, at the end of 1907
Poluboiarinova became a member and the treasurer of the Union of the Russian People, subsequently
contributing large sums of money to finance the publication of Dubrovin’s Russian Banner (Russkoe
znamia). See “Protokol pokazanii E. A. Poluboiarinovoi ot 28 Iiunia 1917 g.” as well as “Protokol doprosa
redaktora gazety ‘Veche’ V. V. Olovennikova 20 Iiulia 1906 g.” Both are in A. Chernovskii, ed., Soiuz
Russkogo Naroda. Po materialam chrezvychainoi sledstvennoi komissii vremennogo pravitel’stva 1917 g.
(Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1929) 38-40; 146.
338
With the notable exception of the short lived, aristocratic and subversive Holy Brotherhood
(Sviashchennaia druzhina, 1881-1883), there was, prior to March and April of 1905, only one monarchist
organization of notable standing – the St. Petersburg-based Russian Assembly (Russkoe sobranie).
However, in accordance with its statute, this group acted solely as a kind of aristocratic literary-artistic
club, whose prime objective was to “assist in clarifying and strengthening … as well as implementing in
real life of the true creative beginnings and peculiar characteristics of the everyday life of the Russian
people.” See V. V. Shelokhaev, ed., Programmy politicheskikh partii Rossii. Konets XIX-Nachalo XX vv.
241
creation of several political parties and unions dedicated solely to the defense of the
autocratic regime and promotion of monarchist values. In particular, the watershed spring
months of 1905 witnessed the emergence of Count Pavel Sheremetev’s Union of Russian
Men (Soiuz Russkikh Liudei, Moscow, March, 1905) and Vladimir Gringmut’s Russian
Monarchist Party (Russkaia Monarkhicheskaia Partiia, Moscow, April 24, 1905). In
November of 1905, these were followed by the foundation of what was to become one of
the most prominent, mass oriented and ultra-conservative monarchist-orthodox
organizations – Alexander Dubrovin’s St. Petersburg-based Union of the Russian People
(Soiuz Russkogo Naroda). Within two years leading to the opening of the third,
conservative, Duma in November, 1907, monarchist parties, largely through the
unification efforts of the Russian Assembly, came to represent a substantially powerful
and visibly united front of right-wing politics.
The rapid political mobilization of monarchist forces went hand in hand with the
development and codification of the right-wing ideology, which, in retrospect, may be
perceived as a collective doctrine composed by the ideologues belonging to several right-
wing political organizations and even generations.
339
Despite some arguments to the
(Moscow: Rosspen, 1995) 419. The Russian Assembly did not transform itself into a full-fledged political
party with a stated program until November 1905. It is in this capacity that this organization is important in
the present context as another source of the right-wing dogma, which was manifested in Rope, Knout, The
Kazan Barker and Starling. For more on Holy Brotherhood (and, interestingly, Sergei Witte’s role in its
foundation), see B. V. Anan’ich, and R. S. Ganelin, Sergei Iul’evich Vitte i Ego Vremia (St. Petersburg:
Dmitrii Bulanin, 1999) 17-37.
339
Devising the political programs and platforms of their respective organizations, the turn-of-the-twentieth
century ideologues of monarchism had at their disposal an extensive corpus of apologetic literature on the
subject of Russian absolutism. Especially prolific in this regard was a group of nineteenth-century writers
and thinkers, who included, among others, N. Karamzin (see his “Notes on Ancient and Modern Russia”
[Zapiski o drevnei i novoi Rossii], Mitropolitan Filaret [Vasilii Drozdov] as well as the Minister of
Education in the government of Nicholas I and the author of the key monarchist formula “Orthodoxy,
Autocracy and Nationality” - S. S. Uvarov. For a good overview and analysis of the development of the
242
contrary,
340
this ideology displayed a number of common principles, slogans and beliefs
that permeated the rhetoric of the monarchist polemical, publicist and propagandistic
texts as well as that of the affiliated media organs and, in particular, the right-wing
satirical press.
Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality (Narodnost’) and the Right-Wing Satirical
Press
The key, all-embracing principle at the core of monarchist dogma was the revivified
theory of “official nationality.” Succinctly expressed in the 1830’s by the Russian
Minister of Education S. S. Uvarov in the ternary formula of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and
Nationality” it served, for instance, as the ideological foundation of the Russian
Assembly - the incipient monarchist organization – from the time of its foundation in
1901. In November 1905, in an effort to integrate itself into the political life of the
country, the Russian Assembly published its program prefacing it with the epigraph “For
the Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland.” Accordingly, the Assembly propagated the
nineteenth-century monarchist ideology, see S. L. Firsov, “‘Okhranitel’naia ideologiia’ i Pravoslavnaia
Tserkov’ v Rossii, 1825-1861,” Filosofiia i sotsial’no-politicheskie tsennosti konservatizma v
obshchestvennom soznanii Rossii (Ot istokov k sovremennosti). Sbornik statei. Vypusk 1, ed. I. N. Solonin
(St. Petersburg: Izd-vo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 2004) 142-172. See also D. I. Raskin,
“Ideologiia russkogo pravogo radikalizma v kontse XIX – nachale XX v,” in R. S. Ganelin, et al., eds.,
Natsional’naia pravaia prezhde i teper’. Istoriko-sotsiologicheskie ocherki. Chast’ 1. Rossiia i russkoe
zarubezh’e (St. Petersburg, 1992) 5-47.
340
In his recent study of the right-wing political organizations, Alexander Bokhanov, for instance, argued
that although the turn of the century Russian monarchists were numerous, organizationally they represented
“different forces, groups, and factions which never had a single organizational centre, a single platform for
action, or an ideological and political platform rooted in the needs of the moment.” See A. Bokhanov,
“Hopeless Symbiosis: Power and Right-Wing Radicalism at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century,”
Russia Under the Last Tsar. Opposition and Subversion, 1894-1917, ed., Anna Geifman (Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers, 1991) 201. However, a comparative analysis of the programs of the right-wing
organizations clearly indicates the presence of several common core principles. This point of view is shared
by I. V. Omelianchuk, who posits that despite the differences in the ideological beliefs of various
monarchist organizations, there were some common programmatic tenets that united them. See I. V.
Omel’anchuk, Chernosotennoe dvizhenie v Rossiiskoi imperii, 1901-1914 (Kiev: MAUP, 2006) 69.
243
343
supremacy of the Russian Orthodox Church and autocratic rule; the power of the Tsar
was to be absolute and based on his continuous unification (postoiannoe edinenie) with
the Russian people.
341
Similarly, the “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality” trinity was at
the basis of the programs and actions of the Russian Monarchist Party,
342
the Union of
the Russian People and a multitude of other monarchist organizations.
Taking their cues from the monarchist programmatic texts (e.g. political programs
and published election platforms), the right-wing satirical journals, as well as
newspapers, constructed their respective discourses in keeping with the key triad of
“Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality.”
344
A case in point is the satirical weekly Knout, the
magazine that displayed a particular closeness to the Moscow Chapter of the Union of the
Russian People.
345
The journal opened its first edition with an anonymous front-page
341
See “Programma “Russkogo sobraniia” (1905),” Sections I, II. In Programmy politicheskikh partii
Rossii. Konets XIX – nachalo XX vv. (Moscow: Rosspen, 1995) 420-421.
342
Section three of the program of the Russian Monarchist Party states that the party stands for the
indivisibility of the Great Russian Empire governed by the unlimited autocratic power of the Russian
Monarch, augmented by the free and dignified existence of the Russian Orthodox Church. It declares the
Russian language to be the single (edinyi) official language of the Russian Empire governed by the
common Russian law. See “Programma Russkoi Monarkhicheskoi Partii (1905),” In Programmy
politicheskikh partii Rossii 427.
343
For a more comprehensive analysis of the right-wing ideology beyond the triad of “Autocracy,
Orthodoxy, Nationality,” see, for instance, S. A. Stepanov, Chernaia sotnia v Rossii (1905-1914 gg.)
(Moscow: Izd-vo VZPI, A/O “Rosvuznauka,” 1992) 9-32. For a succinct summary of the main tenets of the
monarchist ideology, see also Raskin 8-9.
344
Many monarchist-patriotic newspapers, such as Popular Assembly and Russian Banner, perceived the
notion of nationality (narodnost’) in terms of the xenophobic slogan “Russia is for the Russians” (Rossiia
dlia russkikh). For instance, the Kharkov Union of the Russian People newspaper Popular Voice (Glas
naroda) opened its inaugural issue of November 26, 1906 by introducing its program with the emphatic
exclamation of “For the Orthodox Faith, for the Autocratic Tsar, for the Russian People.” In accordance
with this, the main goal of the newspaper was to unite all of Russia’s faithful sons into a strong union
gathered around the Throne in order to pacify and rebuild the Motherland. See Glas naroda (Kharkov) 1
(Nov. 26, 1906): 2.
345
Founded and published in Moscow, Knout wished to emphasize its (unofficial) affiliation with the
Union by incorporating the words “the Union of the Russian People” in some of its cartoons.
244
illustration titled Deft Coachman (Likhoi iamshchik) (Fig. 73) which visually codified the
“Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality” formula as the central guiding principle of its
discourse. The picture depicts the new Minister of the Interior, Petr Stolypin, steering a
troika with a lady clad in a traditional Russian folk dress richly trimmed with ermine fur.
The word “Russia” is written across the lady’s kokoshnik-styled headpiece, while the
slogan of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality” adorns the tricolor Russian flag propped
at the front of the coach. A brief caption to the image provides right-wing praise of
Stolypin as a competent and selfless statesman capable of restoring the crumbling internal
order: “Laboring hard to the point of forgetting about his leisure time, thunderous enemy
of those who are not right (nepravykh), and a friend to order, whether he is called upon to
reform or to handle trouble – always and everywhere, he is right here riding his troika.
He is the enemy of stagnation, but he does not rush… he rides while standing and sleeps
while being seated.
346
A contemporary critic argues that political cartoons and caricatures represent an
effective way of informing “the public of political figures and the meaning of events.”
347
It is also true that the continuous development of the political life of a country
unavoidably makes such images dated, while the historical context against which they
were originally created as well as the events and political figures which they were
commenting on, gradually become obscure. Arguably, this observation is relevant to all
graphic and textual material featured in the periodical press. The meaning of the caption
346
Knut 1 (1906): 1.
347
Lawrence H. Streicher, “David Low and the Sociology of Caricature,” Comparative Studies in Society
and History 8.1 (Oct. 1965): 1.
245
Fig. 73. Anon., “Deft Coachman.” (Likhoi iamshchik) Knut 1 1906: 1.
246
and some of the nuances of the anonymous cartoon in Knout remain unclear without
some historical contextualization.
As we have seen in the preceding chapters, the emergence of a parliamentary political
order during the post-October Manifesto period went hand in hand with continuing urban
and rural unrest. The instability of the situation was aggravated by waves of Socialist-
Revolutionary anti-government assassinations. Restoration of state authority and matters
pertinent to security were thus the burning issues of the day faced by Stolypin upon his
appointment first to the post of Russia’s new Minister of the Interior and then, upon the
dissolution of the first Duma in July 1906, to that of Premier. Likewise, these were the
issues that, to a significant degree, were informing his political legacy as he acquired a
reputation as both an able reformer and a harsh disciplinarian. Stolypin deemed the
restoration of order and state authority to be a necessary precondition for carrying out
further reforms. Unlike his penultimate predecessor, Sergei Witte, he succeeded in
pacifying the country if only through a series of extraordinary military measures taken
under the aegis of Article 87 of the new Fundamental Laws.
348
One of the most notorious
and, arguably, most effective actions taken by Stolypin was the introduction during this
period of special summary courts-martial for civilians; according to a contemporary
348
The broadly phrased provisions of Article 87 of the Fundamental Laws allowed the government (e.g. the
Premier and the Council of Ministers) to issue emergency laws (“if extraordinary circumstances necessitate
such measures”), for instance, for the purposes of restoring state authority in the volatile regions of the
country. Recourse to Article 87 was possible only when the Duma was in recess, in which case the Council
of Ministers would seek the ultimate approval of the measure by the Tsar. Such emergency laws and
decrees would become redundant within two months of the reconvening of parliament, unless “the minister
responsible submits a bill regarding the special measure” and it is approved by both houses of parliament.
See “Glava deviataia. O zakonakh,” Osnovnye Gosudarstvennye zakony. Tom Pervyi. 1906 Edition. See
also Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990) 160; Abraham Ascher,
The Revolution of 1905: Authority Restored (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1992) 70. Sergei Witte’s opinion of
Stolypin’s irresponsible use of Article 87 may be found in S. I. Vitte, Vospominaniia, vol. 3 (Moscow: Skif
Aleks, 1994) 277-278.
247
source, these “meted out up to 1,000 death sentences” to suspected revolutionary
terrorists.
349
This historical context (of course, with the omission of any direct reference
to summary courts-martial) is suggested by the caption of the Knout drawing, welcoming
Stolypin as a “thunderous enemy” of revolutionary seditious disorder and a “friend to
order,” something the Premier so vigorously worked to restore.
Objects of Right-Wing Satire
In his article “On a Theory of Political Caricature,” Lawrence H. Streicher suggests
that caricatures are “negative definitions, stereotypes, which are aimed at dramatizing
aggressive tendencies through the definition of targets, the collective integration of
‘private’ feelings into public sentiments of ‘self-defense’ and the training of hatred and
debunking techniques.”
350
Certainly, such a description gauges the caricature artist’s
most extreme intentions, which go beyond the realm of constructive humorous criticism
and which seek to vilify and denigrate opponents, for instance, within a framework o
presumed fierce ideological combat. Hardly extendable to the social or light-hearted and
witty varieties of caricature, which were at any rate absent from the 1905 satirical press,
Streicher’s postulate, nevertheless, may describe much visual caricature and verbal
parody of the Russian right-wing satirical journals.
f a
349
For this, Stolypin was taken to task by liberal politicians and satirists alike. For some examples of the
latter, see V. Botsianovskii, and E. Gollerbakh, Russkaia satira pervoi revoliutsii 1905-1906 (Leningrad:
Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925) 121. This may be contrasted with the rightists’ reception of Sergei Witte,
who, as we shall see in this chapter, was criticized, among many other things, for his inability to restore
state order. With time, the rightists’ reception of Stolypin would also change for the worse. However, at the
time of the publication of this cartoon, the new Premier was largely favored by the Right.
350
Lawrence H. Streicher, “On a Theory of Political Caricature,” Comparative Studies in Society and
History 9.4 (July, 1967): 438.
248
By the time of their emergence during the period of intense post-October Manifesto
political dialogue, the right-wing satirical periodicals were operating against well-defined
and articulated targets. The taxonomy of the enemies of orthodox and tsarist Russia, like
the right-wing dogma itself, was provided for by the leading ideologues of monarchism.
In his Manual of a Black Hundredist-Monarchist (Rukovodstvo chernosotentsa-
monarkhista), Gringmut, for instance, classified as the internal enemies of Russia those
whose intention it was to limit the autocratic power of the Tsar. This category included
the “constitutionalists,” “democrats,” “socialists,” “revolutionaries,” “anarchists” and
“Jews.”
351
With minor variations in terminology and further additions to these major
groups,
352
this taxonomy was adopted by the right-wing satirical periodicals as a guide to
the definition of their targets: the Moscow-based Knout, for instance, promoted itself as a
journal, whose objective, “like that of any other whip, is to strike to the right, to the left
and in the middle, but primarily at the Jews, their sympathizers (prikhvostnei), the leftists
(levshei), the Constitutional Democrats, the anarchists, the bomb throwers (bombisty)
and such other trash.”
353
Without explicitly stating so, other right-wing satirical journals
maintained objectives and attacked targets similar to that of Knout.
351
See V. A. Gringmut, Rukovodstvo chernosotentsa-monarkhista (Kremenchug: Izd. SRN, 1906) 4.
352
For instance, one of the most popular targets of the right-wing satire, which can be included into any one
of the major groups, was the category of radicalized university students.
353
See Knut 5 (1908): 4.
249
a. Right-Wing Satire of the Revolutionaries.
The classification of monarchist opponents, as outlined by Gringmut, was based on
the degree of liberalism and revolutionary extremism displayed by the oppositional forces
of the left. The liberals and the revolutionaries who challenged the absolute power of the
Tsar and the supremacy of the Orthodox Church, along with the alleged exploiters of the
Russian people (primarily and stereotypically, wealthy Jewish businessmen and
capitalists) as well as the state bureaucracy, which monarchists believed hampered the
constant unification of the Tsar and his subjects, were identified as the principal enemies
of autocratic Russia.
Within this framework, Social-Democratic and Socialist-Revolutionary political
parties, due to their unwavering commitment to fighting the monarchy and the relentless
radicalism of their political objectives, were unsurprisingly allotted by The Kazan Barker,
Knout, Rope and Starling the top position in the hierarchy of the targets of their satire.
This was reflected in the frequency with which these groups were parodied in the
journals. The language and imagery employed to designate them also acted as one of the
mechanisms used for their satirical ridicule. The Marxist-oriented Russian Social-
Democratic Workers’ Party and the closely associated Jewish Bund,
354
were habitually
referred to in these satirical journals as esdeki (Social Democrats) and bundisty (members
of the Bund). The revolutionary terrorists, or the members of the fighting brigades of the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party, were differentiated into bombisty (the bomb throwers) and
354
The Bund or All Jewish Union of Workers in Lithuania, Poland and Russia (Vseobshchii Evreiskii
Rabochii Soiuz v Litve, Pol’she i Rossii), originated in the late 1890’s comprising under its umbrella
various existing Marxist groups of Jewish workers. In 1898, the Bund became a part of the Russian Social-
Democratic Workers’ Party. For more on the Bund, its history and program (c. 1905), see Programmy
politicheskikh partii Rossii 23-40.
250
ekspropriatory (expropriators), while the revolutionaries in general were labeled
krasnoflazhniki (redflaggers).
Mocking terminology used to designate the revolutionaries was accompanied by
visual caricatures, in which they were often portrayed either as otherworldly beings or,
through the use of the animal convention, as low earthly creatures (e.g. crows, vultures,
bats, frogs, donkeys, dogs and serpents). For instance, in the aforementioned Knout
cartoon, Deft Coachman, anarchists and members of the Bund are depicted as black
crows – an evocation of the negative connotation associated with the Russian phrase
“staia vorón” or “flock of crows.” The Socialist-Revolutionaries and bomb-throwing
revolutionary terrorists are portrayed in this cartoon as bulldogs - something that calls to
mind the Russian phrase “zlye sobaki” or “vicious dogs.”
355
(Fig. 73) Similar imagery is
seen in a Rope cartoon called Savior is Near (Izbavitel’ blizko), which shows a young
maiden (Russia) besieged by a flock of vulture-like crows, who are identified as “S. R.”
(Socialist-Revolutionaries), bureaucracy, expropriators, anarchy and “K. D.”
(Konstitutsionnye Demokraty - Constitutional Democrats or the Kadets).
356
(Fig. 74)
The revolutionary adversaries of the tsarist regime were often anathemized
collectively, under an all-embracing term kramola or sedition. Codifying kramola
visually, the journal Rope, for instance, opened its inaugural 1907 issue with a cartoon
diatribe that presented in a single composition the various antithetical seditious entities,
which, the monarchists argued, were ready to thrust the country into the hands of anarchy
and constitutional government. The cartoon depicts a peasant carrying a monstrous,
355
See Knut 1 (1906): 1.
356
See Zhgut 1 (1907): 6-7.
251
Fig. 74. Anon., “The Savior is Near.” (Izbavitel’ blizko) Zhgut 1 1907: 6-7.
252
witch-like creature on his back. The words “constitution” and “anarchy” are imprinted on
the side of the creature’s frock cloak. Despised by the Right for being the instigator of the
liberal reforms, the former Premier, Sergei Witte, is easily identifiable by his crown of
gold serving as a reference to his recently acquired title of Count. Witte is portrayed as a
befuddled large-breasted swamp mermaid, while the Kadet leaders are depicted as frogs.
The speech tag to the cartoon reads that a poor peasant (muzhik), hunched under the
weight of anarchy, is running he knows not where; all around the grimy swamp creatures
are croaking with various voices. Astonished and exhausted, he says, “I see, it is the
Jewish witch.”
357
(Fig. 75)
Identifying Jews with the accursed and subversive notions of “constitution” and
“anarchy,” Rope, and other right-wing journals, adhered to one of the principal tenets of
Russian turn-of-the-century monarchist dogma – blatant anti-Semitism – as there was
hardly a right-wing political program that did not contain a set of limiting anti-Jewish
clauses.
358
Informing much of the Black Hundred propagandistic literature, these
provisions barred Jews from membership in monarchist organizations because Jews were
consistently identified by the right-wing ideologues with revolution, rebellion, anarchy
357
See Zhgut 1 (1907): 1. (cover)
358
A full analysis of the anti-Semitic nature of the monarchist ideology goes beyond the scope of the
present study. Several specialized historical accounts, which I relied on in my writing, treat this subject at
length. These include: Walter Laqueur, Black Hundred: The Rise of the Extreme Right in Russia (New
York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993); Heinz-Dietirch Löwe, The Tsars and the Jews. Reform, Reaction
and Anti-Semitism in Imperial Russia, 1772-1917 (Harwood academic publishers, 1993); Steven Marks,
How Russia Shaped the Modern World. From Anti-Semitism, Ballet to Bolshevism (Princeton: Princeton
UP, 2003) 140-175; Hans Rogger, Jewish Policies and Right-wing Politics in Imperial Russia (Berkeley: U
of California P, 1986).
253
Fig. 75. Ivan Klang, (attributed) “Anarchy, Constitution.” (Anarkhiia, konstitutsiia)
Zhgut 1 1907: 1. (cover)
254
and modern forms of capitalism.
359
Time and again, right-wing and Black Hundred
propaganda alleged that the Jews were desirous of overthrowing the existing regime and
subdividing the country, while at the same time striving toward world domination.
360
In
his exposition of the rise of the extreme right in Russia, Walter Laqueur succinctly
surmises this Black Hundred logic when he states that the monarchists’ fire was
concentrated against the Jews in particular, because they were considered “the source of
all evil in holy Russia. All Jews were revolutionaries and all revolutionaries were Jews.
At the same time, all Jews were capitalists and all capitalists were either Jews or tools in
the hands of Jews. The Jewish revolutionaries wanted to undermine and overthrow the
existing order so as to facilitate the installation of the rule of the Jewish capitalists.”
361
The content of the right-wing satirical journals was very much reflective of this logic.
Relying on a host of centuries-old hyperbolized Jewish stereotypes that were now
admixed with freshly concocted political, economic and social accusations, cartoons and
verbal satires of The Kazan Barker, Knout, Rope and Starling strove to vilify the Jews not
only for their revolutionary activism, but also for many other unwarranted reasons. For
instance, the Jews were habitually satirized as purveyors of hard liquor, catalysts of the
evil drinking habit as well as conduits of treason (for instance, through the alleged
359
The origins of these beliefs are discussed by Hans Rogger in his Russia in the Age of Modernization and
Revolution, 1881-1917 (London: Longman, 1983) 199-207.
360
The so-called “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was one of the Black Hundred propagandistic texts of
the period, which advanced, among other preposterous notions, the conspiracy theory. A useful discussion
of the Protocols may be found in Marks 140-175.
361
Laqueur 26.
255
cooperation of Jewish bankers with the Japanese during the recent war
362
). Furthermore,
they were often portrayed as capitalist exploiters and profiteers.
The brand of turn-of-the-century Russian anti-Semitism which informed satirical
portrayals of the Jews as despised capitalists trying to subjugate the Russian nation,
represented, as Steven Marks points out, a function of the conservative anti-capitalist and
anti-modern strain of the overall right-wing ideology. As we shall see, this was also a
weighty factor in the right-wing satirical criticism of, for instance, modernist Russian and
European literature, which came to be perceived as a factor contributing to the moral
degradation of the Russian nation. In the eyes of some of the more conservative right -
wing “capitalist rejectionists,” to use Marks’s terminology, the Jews were believed to
pose a threat to the traditional system of values as they were becoming closely identified
with capitalism and the culture of the modern city.
363
According to Habermas, the
capitalist mode of production and the “town” represented two important pre-conditions
for the emergence of a liberal-bourgeois public sphere.
364
Rejection of these elements by
the right-wing satirical journals, for instance, through anti-Jewish rhetoric, essentially
expressed their denial of legitimacy of the nascent public sphere. On several levels, the
anti-Semitic rhetoric of the right-wing satirical journals threatened a public sphere that, in
362
The treason motif was advanced by the large-format arch-monarchist satirical newspaper Pliuvium. See,
for instance, the front cover drawing Allies (Soiuzniki) (Pliuvium 8 (Nov. 25, 1906): 1) authored by the
Black Hundred artist and activist Luka Zlotnikov.
363
Marks 140-141. See also Raskin 5-47.
364
Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of
Bourgeois Society, trans., Thomas Burger, and Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000) 30,
74.
256
Habermas’s terms, was supposed to be based on the principles of rational debate and
public consensus.
b. Right-Wing Satire of the Liberal-Bourgeois Opposition.
Satirical debunking of Jews as revolutionaries and oppressive capitalists, as well as of
revolutionaries as a collective antagonistic body (e.g. kramola), went hand in hand with
similar treatment of the liberal-bourgeois parties, their leaders and policies. Believing
they represented a formidable threat to the stability of the autocratic regime, monarchists
fought the one political force whose very objective was the promotion of bourgeois
liberalism and creation of conditions necessary for the existence of a viable public sphere.
Like the cartoon Deft Coachman in Knout, which portrayed Stolypin as a tireless
combatant against sedition, anti-liberal bourgeois visual and verbal satire in the right-
wing journals was rooted in the contemporary politics of the period between 1906 and
1908. As we have seen, this was an era of the painful emergence in Russia of a new
constitutional order characterized by several tsarist manifestoes and decrees establishing
the Russian parliament (the Duma), the actual parliamentary elections (March 1906,
February 1907, and October 1907) and the convocation of the first through the third
Dumas between the spring of 1906 and the fall of 1907.
365
For the Russian liberals, who
were most strongly represented by the Kadets (led by one of the party’s founding fathers,
Pavel Miliukov), these developments resulted in a series of successive victories over the
365
The first Duma opened on April 27, 1906. Lasting only 72 days, it was prorogued by the Tsar in early
July 1906. The second, “radical” Duma, which opened on February 20, 1907, was likewise prorogued after
only three months, in June 1907. Opening in early November 1907 and composed of mostly loyalist, upper
class delegates (due to restrictions of the election law), the third, “conservative,” Duma operated for the
entire five-year period of its legal tenure.
257
regime. The most striking achievement, on par with the October Manifesto and the
establishment of the national parliament, was the Kadets’ spectacular victory in the first
Duma elections and their prominent position, along with those of the socialist deputies, in
the second Duma.
366
By contrast, the right-wing parties did very poorly in the first two elections gaining
only 1% of the votes in the first Duma and 10% in the second. Despite significantly
stepping up election activities and some sizable gains in various parts of the country after
the second elections, the parties of the Right could account for only a meager 10% of the
votes (57 deputies). This appeared rather minuscule in comparison with over 60% of the
votes (322 deputies) shared between the Kadets, the Laborites (Trudoviki), the Social
Democrats and the Socialists Revolutionaries.
367
It is not surprising then, that against such a background, the Kadets and their close
political allies (e.g. the Union of October 17 [Soiuz 17-go Oktiabria], the Party of
Peaceful Renewal [Partiia mirnogo obnovleniia] and the Party of Democratic Reforms
[Partiia demokraticheskikh reform])
368
should become, next to the revolutionaries, the
most prominent targets of right-wing satire. Monarchists were vexed with essentially
everything that these liberal-bourgeois parties stood for. Apart from the general
indignation at the success of the oppositional parties in the first two elections, the
366
For more on the composition of the second Duma, see Pipes 179; Abraham Ascher, P. A. Stolypin: The
Search for Stability in Late Imperial Russia (Stanford: Stanford UP, 2001) 174-175.
367
For a comprehensive analysis of the rightists’ performance in the first three Dumas, see the section
“Rightist and the Duma” in Don C. Rawson, Russian Rightists and the Revolution of 1905 (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1995) 152-225.
368
For some of the most recent sources on these parties’ histories, programs and alliances, see Anna
Geifman, ed., Russia under the Last Tsar. Opposition and Subversion, 1894-1917 (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers, 1991) as well as Programmy politicheskikh partii Rossii.
258
rightists contested the Kadets’ radical political proposals in the Duma. Among others,
these included, for instance, the abolition of the estate system, granting of equal rights to
Poles, Jews and other minority groups, granting political autonomy to the Polish
Kingdom and the restoration of the Finnish constitution. The Kadets’ motion for the
expropriation of private lands in favor of the landless peasantry (the latter, being the
liberals’ axiomatic solution to the ubiquitous “land” problem) was also met with vigorous
resistance from the Right. Through their satire, the right-wing journals emphasized these
points of contention and reiterated the monarchists’ overall opposition to the liberal camp
and the seditious ideas it promulgated in the Duma.
As was the government, the right-wingers were particularly annoyed by the obstinacy
of the liberal bourgeois opposition in the first two Dumas, its persistent unwillingness to
cooperate with the regime and its often ambiguous and changing position vis-à-vis the
government, the socialist deputies and the rightists themselves.
369
That is why references
to the untrustworthy and shifty nature of the liberal bourgeois opposition became some of
the most popular themes of its satirical debunking. The liberal bourgeois Duma deputies
were habitually parodied and mocked as useless demagogues, idle talkers, traitors and
clowns. Illustrative of this line of right-wing satirical criticism is a Knout cartoon called
Days of Laughter and Fun (Dni smekha i zabavy). (Fig. 76) Designed to ridicule as much
the very notion of the Russian parliament as the prominence of the left-wing coalition in
the second Duma, the cartoon depicts the key personalities in the opposition as clowns
and acrobats performing various juggling and balancing acts as part of the entertainment
369
For more on the latter issue, see Ascher, P. A. Stolypin: The Search for Stability in Late Imperial Russia
185, 200-201.
259
Fig. 76. Anon., “Days of Laughter and Fun.” (Dni smekha i zabavy) Knut 6 1907: 8.
260
program at the “Tavrichinelly” Circus.
370
The caption to the drawing explains that the
performance will feature the director of the circus, Fedor Golovin (in real life, a Kadet
chairman of the second Duma), balancing a rotating plate and leaning it to the left. Also
featured will be the audiences’ favorite entertainer “Fedia” Rodichev (in reality, a Duma
deputy and a member of the Central Committee of the Kadet party),
371
who will juggle
balls, while the athlete Dolgorukov and the clown Aleksinsky demonstrate comic jumps
and summersaults.
372
Mockeries of the liberal-bourgeois opposition were often conveyed by way of parodic
interpretations of these parties’ official names, acronyms and popular nicknames. In
common parlance, the Party of Peaceful Renewal, for instance, was known as
“obnovlentsy” (regenerators) or “mirnoobnovlentsy” (peaceful regenerators), while the
370
See Knut 6 (1907): 8. This drawing was designed as a poster ad, the full text of which read as follows:
“Sanctioned by authorities. St. Petersburg. Circus Tavrichinelly! Only for several more days! Days of
Laughter and Fun. Gala performance. Comic appearances of all of the clowns.” The word “Tavrichinelly,”
and its intended comic effect, are created through a confluence of two words “Tavricheskii” and
“Chinizelli.” The first word refers to “Tavricheskii dvorets” or the Tauride Palace – the official seat of the
Duma. The second word is the last name of Gaetano Chinizelli – the Italian actor, horseman and the
inspiration behind the construction of the famous St. Petersburg circus (built in 1877), which bore his name
until the 1917 Revolution.
371
Fedor Rodichev was a favorite satirical target in the right-wing journals, which, in no small measure,
was due to his popularity and oratorical skills. He would also gain notoriety (and be lampooned by the
right-wing satirists) for the remark he made in the third Duma after Stolypin’s report in which the Premier
expressed his resolute intent to continue to fight the revolution in Russia. In the ensuing debate, Rodichev
referred to the gallows used by Stolypin-instituted field courts as “Stolypin’s neckties.” Subsequently, for
this “unconstitutional expression” Rodichev was banned from the Duma for fifteen sessions and challenged
by Stolypin to a duel. This incident was satirized in an anonymous cartoon in Klang’s Rope. (Fig. 77) See
Zhgut 4 (1907): 8.
372
Pavel Dolgorukov was one of the original founders of the Constitutional Democratic Party as well as, at
the time of the issuance of the Knout cartoon, a deputy in the second Duma. Grigorii Aleksinsky was also a
deputy in the second Duma, where he represented the radical Social-Democratic Party.
261
Fig. 77. Ivan Klang, (attributed) “The Third Duma Delegates.
Fedia Rodichev.” (Chleny tret’ei Dumy. Fedia Rodichev) Zhgut 4 1907: 8.
262
Kadets were referred to as “kadety.”
373
Perhaps for lack of a better impertinent nickname,
the right-wing satirical periodicals sometimes referred to the “peaceful regenerators” as
“peaceful pigs” (mirno-svin’i) while the term “kadety” was transformed into “kadiuki” –
a neologism based on its phonetic similarity with the Russian words for “gad” (reptile,
skunk) and “gadiuki” (vipers). Once generated, this phonetic distortion was used to
accommodate right-wing satirical jabs that employed rhyming patterns, for the words
“kadiuki” and “gadiuki” rhymed exceptionally well. This mechanism is seen operating,
for instance, in the anti-Kadet and anti-Party of Peaceful Renewal, rhymed conversation
titled “Dialogue of Two Russian People” (Dialog dvukh russkikh liudei) which was
featured in the first 1907 issue of Knout. In this exchange, the first conversationalist, the
Melancholy One (skuchaiushchii), lamenting the dangers of the current political climate,
exclaims: “I am alarmed, I am saddened (ia v unyn’i). The situation is dangerous: the
Kadets (kadiuki) and the Peaceful Pigs (mirno-svin’i) have started to bark rather loudly!”
His interlocutor, the Happy One (veselyi), advises him not to despair because happiness
will befall them once the forces of evil are driven out of Russia. The Happy One also
declares that he is not afraid of the Kadets because they, like worthless vipers, will soon
drown in a swamp: “Polno! Schast’e ulybnetsia! Ne boius’ ia ‘kadiuka!’ On v bolote
zakhlebnetsia, kak negodnaia gadiuka.”
374
373
In January of 1906, the Kadets added to the original name of their party a new title of Party of Popular
Liberty (Partiia narodnoi svobody). In the right-wing satirical periodicals, it was thus often referred to by
this new name.
374
Knut 1 (1907) 6. This mechanism of generating anti-liberal satire harkens back to the arch-monarchist
newspaper Pliuvium, which often served as a source of puns and jokes for other right-wing satirical
periodicals. It may be compared with a piece entitled “Data for a Dictionary of Contemporary Politics. Our
Parties” (Materialy dlia sovremennogo politicheskogo slovaria. Nashi partii), in which several party
acronyms were deciphered in a satirical, albeit rather droll, manner; the Party of Peaceful Renewal, or the
263
The provincial Kazan Barker displayed an especially irreverent attitude toward the
Kadets – something that undoubtedly reflected the intensity of political dialogue in the
provinces and anger of the right-wing element across the country at the Kadets’
prominence in the Duma. The journal is replete with satirical jabs of various types
directed at kadety. Often depicting them as reptiles (as in a drawing called Peaceful
Regeneration (Mirnoe obnovlenie), in which the Kadets and the Party of Peaceful
Regeneration are depicted in the guise of a venomous snake rapped around a pole with
the word “constitution” written” on it),
375
(Fig. 78) the journal presents deceitfulness and
wiliness as being their principal political attributes. For instance, these traits are invoked
in a short piece, which appeared in the first issue of The Kazan Barker for 1907. Titled
“Ten Rules of Cadet Cunning” (Desiat’ pravil “ka-detskoi” khitrosti), it provides such
quasi-proverbial quips exposing the treacherous nature of that party as “say one thing, but
think something completely different” (govori odno, a dumai drugoe), “do not forget
P. M. O. in Russian, is rendered as Party of Almond Bran (Partiia Mindal’nykh Otrubei), while the Kadets,
with its Russian acronym of P. K. D. becomes Party of the Wily Souls (Partiia Krivo-Dushnykh). See
Pliuvium 17 (Jan. 27, 1907): 4. A closer examination of select left-wing satirical journals attests to their
similar use of humorous interpretations of political parties’ acronyms to generate satirical critique of these
entities. The acronyms of monarchist organizations, naturally absent from the right-wing journals, are
prominently featured in the journals of the left. For instance, the journal of “satirical contemplation” Wood
Goblin (Leshii), published in its first issue for 1906 a segment similar to the one found in Pliuvium. Titled
“Our Parties” (Nashi partii), it also provides a list of satirically interpreted acronyms, which opens with the
acronym S. R. L. Standing for the monarchist Union of the Russian Men or Soiuz Russkikh Liudei, the
acronym is not spelled out, for, as the succinct commentary of the journal explains, the Union’s actual
name is too obscene to be deciphered. In a similar satirical vein, P. P. P. or the right-wing Party of Legal
Order (Partiia Pravovogo Poriadka), was interpreted as the Party of Complete Failure (Partiia Polnogo
Provala). See Leshii 1 (1906): 6.
375
See Kazanskii raeshnik 1 (Jan. 1907): 16.
264
Fig. 78. Anon., “Peaceful Regeneration.” (Mirnoe obnovlenie) Kazanskii raeshnik
1 Jan. 1907: 16.
265
about your own kind” (svoikh ne zabyvai) and “prevaricate without limit” (vri bez
mery).
376
c. Right-Wing Satire of Count Witte.
Satirical castigation of the liberal bourgeois opposition was extended to include some
of the liberal ministers of the Imperial Government. The State Councilor Vladimir Gurko
reminisced that the right-wing satirical periodicals criticized and caricatured the
government, but in a manner that “was quite different from that of the scurrilous
revolutionary organs: they criticized it for its spinelessness and lack of courage.”
377
The
case of Sergei Witte is illustrative in this regard, for, perhaps like no other government
official, this minister was subjected to a constant barrage of both left and right-wing
satirical ridicule and not necessarily for the reasons of spinelessness and lack of courage.
Gurko notes in his recollections that suffering patiently the insults of the revolutionary
critics, Witte “could not reconcile himself to the criticism of the Right. He often
requested Durnovo to take steps to silence the satirists of the Right; but Durnovo
invariably turned a deaf ear, although he himself was often the butt of the caricatures and
knew who their authors were.”
378
376
Kazanskii raeshnik 1 (Jan. 1907): 3.
377
Gurko 435.
378
Gurko 435.
266
The left-wing political opposition was not satisfied with the limited and contradictory
character of political reforms introduced by Witte.
379
This dissatisfaction invariably
found its satirical expression in verbal and pictorial mockeries of the Premier in the
oppositional satirical press.
380
Monarchists, also nurturing a particularly potent dislike of
Witte (so much so that they incorporated a variant of the Premier’s last name into the title
of one of their humorous newspapers, e.g. Witte’s Dance (Vittova pliaska)
381
), had their
own reasons to take him to task. The mockeries of the minister found in the texts and
cartoons of the right-wing satirical periodicals, especially those published in Moscow,
were informed by the charges brought against Witte politically.
A fuller insight into the rightists’ motives for disliking and satirizing Witte may be
gathered from his own account presented in a letter the former Premier wrote to his
successor Stolypin in May of 1910. In this lengthy correspondence, Witte indignantly
379
This may be gathered, for instance, from Witte’s public statements concerning the nature of the reforms.
A case in point is the Prime Minister’s report published in the very same issue of the newspaper The
Government Herald (Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik), which carried the October Manifesto. In that report, Witte
announces that the principal objective of the government should be the immediate implementation of basic
elements of state structure based on law, which would, first and foremost, include granting basic civil
liberties. Witte further argues (and not necessarily without valid reason) that such reform must be
accompanied by certain lawful limitations of these liberties in order to protect the rights of third parties and
to provide for the security of the state. See Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik (St. Petersburg) 222 (Oct. 18, 1905): 1.
380
Apart from the satirical cartoons and texts discussed in previous chapters, a condensed compendium of
left-wing visual and verbal jokes about Witte and other government ministers may be found in S. Isakov,
1905 v satire i karikature (Leningrad, 1928) 114-130.
381
Witte’s Dance or Vittova Pliaska is a paraphrase of “Pliaska sviatogo Vita” – a Russian language
equivalent of the Latin name for the disorder “St. Vitus’ Dance” (Chorea sancti viti). The Russian name for
the disorder displays an almost exact phonetic equivalent to Sergei Witte’s last name. Drawing on this
similarity, the title of the newspaper was, therefore, designed to be a subtle pun insinuating that Russia had
been struck with Witte-inspired constitutional reforms, which arrested its development just like the disorder
of “St. Vitus’ Dance” would impede the movement of an afflicted person. After its closure, the newspaper
Witte’s Dance was revived under the new title of Pliuvium. A Legitimate Child of Witte’s Dance (Pliuvium.
Zakonnoe Ditia Vittovoi Pliaski), which, in turn, served as a satirical prototype for Knout and Rope. This
ultra-anti-Semitic publication was edited and published by V. Liobel and V. Brevern (No. 1-13, 1906; 14-
52, 1907). Although it had the outward appearance of a newspaper, Pliuvium was billed as a literary journal
with cartoons and caricatures.
267
describes the monarchists’ attempt to assassinate him.
382
Implicating the head of the
Union of the Russian People, Dubrovin, his shady agents as well as some high ranking
civil servants, Witte suggests that it is sufficient to peruse any “truly right-wing
newspaper” in order to understand the motives that fuelled their desire to eliminate him.
Summing up what he gathered from the right-wing press, Witte surmises that he is
charged with being the chief conspirator betraying the Tsar and the Fatherland as well as
the architect of the constitution hated by all true Russian people and patriots. The latter
charge, as noted by H-D. Löwe, was based on the conservatives’ suspicion that the
constitution was yet “one more indication that Witte actually was the great ‘usurpator,’
hankering after the position of a Russian republic’s first President.”
383
Be that as it may,
the monarchist press also alleged that Witte was a minister who achieved his high rank
through the assistance of the Jews as well as the one to blame for unleashing the entire
liberal movement.
384
Moreover, the monarchists were not happy with Witte’s insistence
on pushing forward the reforms at the expense of restoring order and pacifying the
country first. His philo-Semitic tendencies as well as the irretrievable loss of half of
Sakhalin Island to Japan in the negotiated end to the Russo-Japanese War also presented
very particular grounds for criticism.
Indeed, a brief perusal of, for instance, the St. Petersburg-published Black Hundred
satirical newspaper Pliuvium or the Kharkov-based Popular Voice (Glas naroda),
382
In his recollections, (Chapter sixty-seven titled “Attempt on My Life”) Witte provides minute details of
this incident, which took place on January 29, 1907.
383
Löwe 199.
384
See Sergei Witte, letter to P. A. Stolypin, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, 3 May 1910, in A.
Chernovskii, ed., Soiuz russkogo naroda. Po materialam Chrezvychainoi sledstvennoi komissii
Vremennogo Pravitel’stva 1917, 111, 128.
268
potently confirms Witte’s assessment. Popular Voice, for instance, published in one of its
issues a telegram appeal to the Tsar. Composed collectively by the council of the
Kharkov Chapter of the Union of the Russian People, the appeal opens with a pathos-
laden observation that the feelings of the Russian people are hurt by the Count’s return to
Russia [from Portsmouth where he negotiated the treaty]. The popular voice, the telegram
continues, points to Witte as the principal perpetrator of all the horrid troubles that have
befallen the Russian nation. The members of the council of the Union urge the Tsar to
safeguard his faithful subjects from new troubles and unrest. They beseech the Sovereign
to stop the tormenter of the Motherland and the servant of the Jews from delivering new
insults to the Russian people by his very presence in Russia and from his future attempts
at granting civil rights to Russian Jews.
385
Following an analogous pattern in their treatment of Witte, the right-wing satirical
journals ridiculed the Premier for much the same reasons, as did the Black Hundred
newspapers. Especially prolific in its mockery of the reform minister was Olovenikova’s
Knout. An anti-Witte diatribe not dissimilar to the one featured in Popular Voice, albeit
reworked in a satirical vein and infused with a thick layer of irony, was featured in the
first issue of the journal for 1906. Composed by an anonymous writer hiding behind the
pen name “Lord-Khi,” a piece titled “Amusing St. Petersburg Feuilleton” (Veselyi
peterburgskii fel’eton) reports that the Kiev branch of the Union of the Russian People is
385
Glas naroda (Kharkov) 1 (Nov. 26, 1906): 1.
269
putting together a deputation to present Count V. Itte
386
with an honorary gift for the
special services he rendered to the Motherland. Consisting of an artistically woven, red
silk noose, this “token of gratitude” is placed in a beautiful casket decorated with
precious stones from Sakhalin Island.
387
Witte’s resignation from the post of Prime Minister in April of 1906 had little effect
on the steady flow of Knout satires directed at him. As rich in the satirical treatment of
Witte as were its past issues from the previous year, the first issue of the journal for 1908
featured several caricatures of the former Premier including a large centerfold, story
board-style cartoon titled Magic Transformations (Chudesnye prevrashcheniia).
Masterminded by another anonymous artist called “Feather” (Pero)
388
and reminiscent of
the allegorical reference to Witte’s conjuring skills coined by Sergei Chekhonin for the
liberal Spectator, it depicts a series of magical tricks that Witte performs using his bowler
hat. (Fig. 79)
386
Hypothetically, this manner of spelling Witte’s name was done to evoke its phonetic similarity with a
Japanese-sounding name, in which case the pun acquired a political coloration suggestive of Witte favoring
the Japanese during the Portsmouth Peace Treaty negotiations.
387
Knut 1 (1906): 4.
388
The great majority of the visual and verbal segments of the right-wing satirical journals were
anonymous. They were either not signed at all or identified merely by obscure pseudonyms such as, for
instance, the ones found in Knout and Rope (e.g. “Ivan,” “Stepan Chernyi,” "Lord Khi,” “Chernyi Voron,”
“Liutik,” “Diadiushka Vlas,” “Maksim Sladkii” and “Emil’ Zheltyi”). Apart from Ivan Klang, the publisher
of Rope, hitherto, it was possible to identify only one more artist, who worked under the pen-name “Evil”
(Zlo). This was Luka Timofeevich Zlotnikov, an artist and a Black Hundred activist, who at one point was
nominated to the Main Chamber of Vladimir Purishkevich’s Russian People’s Union of Archangel
Michael. In his artistic capacity, Zlotnikov collaborated with and contributed to a variety of monarchist
periodicals including Russian Banner, Local Self-Government (Zemshchina) and Pliuvium as well as to the
satirical Knout (see his illustration for the back cover of Knout 12 [1907]). In March 1917, Zlotnikov
surrendered to the revolutionary authorities, but was released several days later. According to A. S.
Stepanov, Zlotnikov, as well as a group of other staff members of Russian Banner, were executed by the
Bolshevik government in Petrograd in June of 1919. See P. S. Chkhartishvili, “Chernosotentsy v 1917
godu,” Voprosy istorii 8 (1997): 134; A. D. Stepanov, Chernaia sotnia. Vzgliad cherez stoletie (St.
Petersburg: Tsarskoe delo, 2000) 94.
270
Fig. 79. “Pero,” (pseudonym) “Magic Transformations.” (Chudesnye prevrashcheniia)
Knut 1 1908: 4-5.
271
Thematically, this sequence relied almost exclusively on the usual right-wing
castigations of Witte for ceding half of Sakhalin Island and for unleashing unrest and
revolution in the country through the constitutional reforms. Harkening back to Witte’s
tenure as Russia’s Minister of Finance, the bottom sequence, however, broadened the
critical framework hitherto used to satirize the minister by blending the issue of the blame
for the loss of the Russian territory with that of Witte’s economic innovations. Not unlike
Boris Timofeev’s “A Fairy-tale about Cunning Sergei,” published in the first issue of
Bugbear, the Knout cartoon refers to the schema of generating state revenues through a
government monopoly on the distribution of liquor, of which Witte was the chief
architect. Accordingly, the sequence shows Witte conjuring up from under his bowler hat
a set of liquor bottles positioned next to the remaining half of Sakhalin Island. The
rhymed caption to this segment of the cartoon reads “Of all the good things of bygone
days, only the state monopoly on vodka still remains. Sakhalin Island turned into a tiny
piece. But I received the crown of count for my smooth tricks in doing this.”
389
Furthermore, satirical castigations of Witte as the hated reformer, the treacherous
diplomat and, especially, the mastermind of Russia’s vodka monopoly, also acquired a
strong anti-Semitic coloration as Russian monarchist dogma embraced the long-standing
stereotype, to use Ben-Sasson’s way of putting it, “of Jewish guilt for the drunkenness of
the peasants.”
390
This is evident in the cartoons and texts of Rope and The Kazan Barker.
For instance, the first issue of Rope for 1907 featured a centerfold drawing titled Epic
389
Knut (Moscow) 1 (1908): 4-5.
390
H. H. Ben-Sasson, “Wine and Liquor,” Economic History of the Jews, ed. Nachum Gross (New York:
Schocken Books, 1975) 137.
272
Hero (Bogatyr’). It portrayed Witte, as always sporting his buffoonish crown, traversing
the vast expanses of the Russian empire atop an old and raggedy nag and distributing
shots of vodka to the already excessively intoxicated populace. (Fig. 80) Sustaining as
well as perpetuating the right-wing anti-Witte agenda, a similar caricature appeared a
year later in the first 1908 issue of the provincial The Kazan Barker. Echoing the Magic
Transformations sequence of Knout and unequivocally similar to the Epic Hero picture in
Rope, this cartoon shows Witte riding a horse and conjuring up from under his hat, as if
by magic, a crown made of liquor bottles that was not so dissimilar to the one he himself
is seen wearing. (Fig. 81)
The title Epic Hero as well as the similarities in these cartoons’ core ideas (e.g. Witte
either offering drinks or magically producing bottled liquor), the detail pertinent to the
minister’s attire (shabby and worn out clothes) and Witte’s designated mode of
transportation (old nag), reveal that the two drawings were in fact illustrations to the texts
they accompanied. In both cases, these were variously adapted versions of Count Aleksei
Tolstoy’s ballad “Epic Hero” (Bogatyr’), which opens with a description of a strongman
who rides an overworked mare “back and forth and all around” the Russian Tsardom.
Clad in torn garb and with a bottle of cheap vodka in his coat, he summons the young and
the old to come and try his wares thus addicting them to the evil habit of drinking.
At the time of its original publication in 1867, Tolstoy’s ballad was concerned with
the perennial nineteenth century Russian social problems of drunkenness and hunger in
the countryside. In the ballad, as well as in his correspondence, Tolstoy insinuated that
these shortcomings resulted from the ill-balanced government policies of emancipation.
273
Fig. 80. Ivan Klang, (attributed) “The Epic Hero.” (Bogatyr’) Zhgut 1 1907: 4-5.
274
Fig. 81. Anon., “Celebrated Aces Abroad When They Were in Russia.”
(Slavny bubny za granitsei v bytnost’ ikh v Rossii) Kazanskii raeshnik
1908: 9.
275
In particular, Tolstoy’s indignation was directed at the government for generating
revenues through the sale of alcohol and at the Russian people for their proclivity for
drink rather than work.
391
Moreover, Tolstoy appeared to have disagreed with the otkup
system put into effect and refined through the numerous mid-nineteenth-century reforms
of the government monopoly on the distribution of liquor.
392
In Rope, however, Tolstoy’s ballad was reproduced in a much-abridged version: from
the thirty-five stanzas of the original text, it was downsized to a meager eight.
393
Retaining enough of the original text to equate Tolstoy’s strongman with the caricatured
depictions of Witte, the editors of Rope reproduced only those passages of the ballad
which contained racial slurs against the Jews as the purveyors of hard liquor. Similarly,
the editor of The Kazan Barker, Prokofiev, chose to borrow selectively from Tolstoy’s
ballad so that in its final and much distorted version it would come across as a charge
leveled against the Jews, who appeared to the reader to be the sole conduits of the evil
drinking habit that besieged Russia. In both cases, the center of critical gravity moved
from Tolstoy’s focus on the drinking problem and his criticism of the government, to
391
A. K. Tolstoi, “B. M. Markevichu,” Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 4 (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura,
1964) 257-260.
392
The system of otkup, or “buying out” by private entrepreneurs of the rights to sell liquor was common in
Russia during that period. This revenue-generating system was taken to a new level of efficiency by Sergei
Witte during his tenure as Russia’s Minister of Finance (1893-1903).
393
It featured, respectively, stanzas three, eight, twenty-nine, thirsty, thirty-three, thirty-four and thirty-five.
Stanzas one, two, four, five, six, seven, nine through twenty-eight and stanza thirty-one, were omitted. See
Zhgut 1 (1907): 5-6.
276
Klang and Prokofiev’s focus on the stereotypical blaming of the Jews for intoxicating the
Russians.
394
The Iconography of Patriotic Rhetoric
The negative image of the monarchist foe in its various guises, be it a bomb-throwing,
Socialist Revolutionary anarchist, a Constitutional Democrat or a liberal government
minister, was counterbalanced in the right-wing satirical journals by the presence of a
pathos-laden figure of the positive patriotic hero.
395
The means of graphic representation
for the positive hero differed noticeably from that of the monarchist foe. Rich in
distortions and exaggerations, caricature drawings and the animal allegories were
reserved to depict the opposition, while a less satirically-oriented style of illustration-like
renderings was employed to depict the positive personages.
The primary function of the patriotic hero was to combat kramola and defend
autocratic and Orthodox Russia from the omnipresent forces of subversion. One of the
recurring means of verbal and pictorial portrayal of the patriotic defender, characteristic
of the discourses of both central and peripheral right-wing satirical journals, was through
the invocation of historical and folk heroes of the past. Echoing, in this instance,
394
For an overview of other examples of this racial phenomena, see Ben-Sasson 136-137. Anti-Semitic
prejudice appears to be another line of convergence between Tolstoy’s work and the right-wing dogma – a
factor that likely played a role in the choice of Aleksei Tolstoy in particular by the editors and contributors
of the right-wing satirical journals. Although they significantly compromised the artistic integrity of
Tolstoy’s texts, the racial strain that was accentuated by such selective “editing” was still inherently present
in them.
395
This is also visible in some of the left-wing journals (but not Bugbear and Hellish Post), as, for instance,
both Machine Gun and Spectator provided a visual iconography of revolutionary heroes. See Ivan
Grabovsky’s His Working Majesty All-Russian Proletarian (Ego Rabochee Velichestvo Proletarii
Vserossiiskii) (Pulemet 2 (1905) (Fig. 82) and Nikolai Shestopalov’s Brothers in Arms (Soratniki), which
opened the Dec. 4, 1905 issue of Spectator. (Fig. 83)
277
Fig. 82. Ivan Grabovsky, “His Worker Majesty All-Russian Proletarian.” (Ego
Rabochee Velichestvo Proletarii Vserossiiskii) Pulemet 2 1905: 1. (cover)
278
Fig. 83. Nikolai Shestopalov, “Brothers in Arms.” (Soratniki) Zritel’ 24 4 Dec.
1905: 1. (cover)
279
nationalistic overtones in Viktor Vasnetsov and Mikhail Vrubel’s painterly depictions of
the mythological epic heroes (bogatyri)
396
and nationalism of the turn-of-the-century
sporting societies with the telling names “Russian Epic Hero” (Russkii bogatyr’) and
“Russian Falcon” (Russkii sokol),
397
the right-wing satirical journals resorted in
particular to the heroic imagery of the bogatyri Ilia of Murom and Potok. They also made
frequent use of the legend of the celebrated Kievan Grand Prince Vladimir – the original
conduit of Byznatine Orthodox Christianity to Kievan Russia.
Although the roots of the national hero rhetoric are traced to the Primary Chronicle
and the Russian byliny epos, one of the most immediate sources available to the
contributors and editors of the turn of the century right-wing satirical journals was once
again the stylized narratives of Count Aleksei Tolstoy. Especially popular were Tolstoy’s
ballads, written during the late 1860s and early 1870s, which featured Prince Vladimir,
396
See, for instance, Vasnetsov’s canvas Epic Heroes (Bogatyri, 1898) and Vrubel’s enigmatic Epic Hero
(Bogatyr’, 1898).
397
Publication of the right-wing satirical journals between 1906 and 1908 coincided with the establishment
across the Russian Empire of the so-called “falcon” (sokol’skie) sporting societies. During and after the
1905 revolution, many such societies leaned to the right, also adopting the motto “Orthodoxy, Autocracy,
Nationality” as their guiding principle. Founded in the fall of 1905, a St. Petersburg “falcon” sporting
society “Gyrfalcon” (Krechet) indicated in its policy that it could be joined only by Russian citizens of
orthodox belief, of all estates and incomes, who recognized “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality” to be
the political foundation of the Russian state. At the same time, persons of Jewish faith or origin were
precluded from becoming members of this society. In Moscow, the “First Russian Gymnastic Society,”
(renamed into “Falcon I” [Sokol I] in 1907) was chaired by a well-known Russian nationalist I. I. Kasatkin.
Under the direction of Kasatkin, the society was rapidly transformed into a powerful Black Hundred
organization of “truly Russian people.” See T. Andreeva, and M. Guseva, Sport nashikh dedov. Stranitsy
istorii rossiiskogo sporta v fotografiiakh kontsa XIX-nachala XX veka (St. Petersburg: Liki Rossii, 2002)
40. Among the main prerogatives of the patriotic-gymnastic society “Russian Epic Hero” (Russkii
bogatyr’), which was founded in Kiev in June of 1911 by a group of local nationalists, was the fostering of
physical and moral development of its members as well as the development and strengthening of their
patriotic feelings. For more on “Russian Epic Hero,” see I. V. Omel’ianchuk, Chernosotennoe dvizhenie na
territorii Ukrainy (1904-1914 gg.) (Kiev: Natsioal’nyi institut ukrainsko-rossiiskikh otnoshenii, 2000) 50.
280
Ilia of Murom, Dobrynia Nikitich and Potok as their main protagonists.
398
Knout, for
instance, made use of the 1867 nationalistic ballad “The Serpent Tugarin” (Zmei
Tugarin), also adopting the short 1871 poem “Ilia of Murom” (Il’ia Muromets). To
construct a heroic image of the monarchist defender, Rope also used Tolstoy’s 1871
ballad “The Epic Hero Potok” (Potok Bogatyr’), presenting what amounted to a peculiar
continuation to the original narrative.
Tolstoy’s ballads and poems provided the editors of the right-wing satirical journals
with a convenient critical framework which, on the one hand, allowed them to
accommodate mockery of the ideological opponents of autocracy and provide
commentary on the incongruities of life from the point of view of monarchist
Weltanschauung. On the other hand, through the imagery of the heroic defender, the
journals were able to affirm the moral superiority of monarchism over the destabilizing
workings of the revolution. A mechanism to attain the latter objective was to, firstly,
appropriate Tolstoy’s noble and predominantly victorious protagonists and equate them,
through graphic or verbal means (or through the confluence of both) with either the
monarchist movement in general or with a specific right-wing organization. Secondly, a
simple editorial adjustment to the definition of the positive heroes’ evil opponents (e.g.
through the substitution of a serpent in Tolstoy’s narrative for that of a contemporary
398
Relying heavily in his work on folklore and ancient Russian history, and in particular on the legend of
Prince Vladimir, Tolstoy was also the writer responsible for expanding the popular pantheon of the byliny
and epic heroes of the past by placing a relatively little known epic hero (bogatyr’) Potok along with the
household names of Ilia of Murom and Dobrynia Nikitich. In the Russian byliny epos, Tolstoy’s Potok is
known as Mikhailo Potyk. See I. M. Sokolov, and V. Chicherova, eds., Onezhskie byliny (Moscow: Izdanie
gosudarstvennogo literaturnogo muzeia, 1948) 134-147.
281
adversary – the revolutionary) would result in the representation of the monarchists as
victors over the forces of subversion.
This mechanism is seen operating, for instance, in a full-page color illustration
featured in the seventh issue of Knout for 1907, which showed the legendary Prince
Vladimir confronting an enormous green dragon of many heads. (Fig. 84) The elderly yet
agile Prince is depicted clad in metal armor and holding an Excalibur-like sword with the
words “the Union of the Russian People” inscribed on its blade.
399
Identified with the
word kramola and symbolizing sedition, the creature’s largest head, adorned with
massive spiky ears, is that of Count Witte. Its numerous other heads, attached to Medusa
Gorgon-like snaking locks, represent a concatenation of the traditional left-wing
adversaries.
400
Suggestive of the Greek myth of Perseus and the decapitation of the Gorgon, the
pictorial rendering of the confrontation between the positive monarchist hero, Prince
Vladimir, and the liberal-revolutionary opposition represented by the evil dragon, is
accompanied in Knout by the nineteenth stanza from Tolstoy’s ballad “The Serpent
Tugarin.” In his original narrative, Tolstoy depicted the legendary prince, surrounded by
the boyars and the byliny heroes Ilia of Murom and Dobrynia Nikitich, feasting on the
bank of the Dnieper River in the vicinity of Kiev. During the festivities, the entire party
witnesses an old singer come foreword to entertain the prince and his retinue. Instead of
399
Interestingly, in this picture, the image of the historical Prince Vladimir is transposed onto another
Vladimir – Vladimir Vladimirovich Olovenikov – the founder of the journal and a staunch supporter of the
monarchist cause. Making the ideological affiliation of the journal more transparent, this transposition is
attested to by a footnote reference found at the bottom of the page, which features the cartoon.
400
Knut 7 (1907): 4-5.
282
Fig. 84. Anon., “What a Vile Creature, Vladimir Said.” (T’fu, gadina! molvil
Vladimir) Knut 7 1907: 4-5.
283
amusing the host and his guests, the singer delivers a threatening message concerning the
troubled future of Russia, at which point he is confronted by the valiant Ilia and
Dobrynia. Moreover, Dobrynia recognizes the old and ugly serpent Tugarin disguised as
the singer and threatens to pierce the latter with his arrow. Magically transformed into a
serpent, the singer flees the scene by way of Dnieper.
The stanza that follows the description of the serpent’s hasty retreat in the concluding
part of the original text of the ballad was reproduced as a verbal commentary to
Vladimir’s encounter with the dragon in the Knout illustration. Repulsed at the sight and
smell of the wicked reptile, the prince rejoices at Dobrynia’s heroic efforts to drive it
away: “What a vile creature! – says Vladimir and plugs his nose so as not to smell the
awful stench; He spoke of all sorts of despicable things in his song, but fortuitously, the
dog ran away from Dobrynia.”
401
Thus, the juxtaposition of the positive hero with the
caricatured image of all that represented political threat to the Russian throne, suggested
the Union’s moral victory over the collective forces of subversion.
402
A similar confrontation of the positive monarchist hero with kramola, which
culminated in the hero’s ultimate triumph, was depicted in a large centerfold verbal and
visual narrative published in the ninth 1907 issue of Knout. Alluding again to Tolstoy’s
poem “Ilia of Murom,” the eponymous illustration presents Ilia risen from the dead and
transplanted to turn-of-the-century Russia. Still under the impression that he is in Kievan
401
Knut 7 (1907): 5.
402
A reverse adaptation of Tolstoy’s ballad “The Serpent Tugarin” by N. I. Faleev may be found in the first
1907 issue of the St. Petersburg left-wing satirical journal Harlequin (Skomorokh). Disgusted with the
leaders of the right-wing parties (e.g. Vostorgov, Dubrovin), Faleev’s serpent Tugarin laments the absence
of the imprisoned and exiled fighters for liberty - Ilia, Dobrynia and Aliosha. See Skomorokh 1 (1907): 4.
284
Rus, the hero sets off to report to Vladimir in Kiev.
403
Along the way, the aged epic hero
sees vessels decorated with red flags and people, who, “like some fools,” are dressed also
in red. “Are they some foreign diplomats, who wish to present their gifts to the prince or
are they enemies?” - Ilia ponders in amazement. Upon his inquiry as to who these people
may be, he is told that they are from abroad, and that their mission is to save Russia, to
initiate it into the culture of the West, to teach its people how to build barricades, how to
sing revolutionary songs instead of Russian ones, how to topple down the tsarist regime
and how to give power to the people and to permit the poor to rob the rich. Moreover, Ilia
is informed that there is no God in the heavens above.
Amazed, startled and utterly unconvinced, Ilia responds forcefully and emphatically
to the seditious speeches of his interlocutor, who undauntedly retorts that a conversation
with a bomb-throwing gimnaziia student may be more convincing for the epic hero. After
a short exchange between the old and wise Ilia and a fanatical young revolutionary, a
bomb goes off, a piece of which strikes Ilia in the chest. However, the valiant knight is
unharmed but the toxic gases emitted by the bomb induce Ilia to sneeze incessantly.
Leaving no stone unturned, like the bomb itself, the power of Ilia’s sneezing crushes all
of the revolutionaries along with their banners and boats.
404
(Fig. 85)
To construct its image of a positive monarchist hero, Klang’s Rope used a mechanism
distinctly different from that of Knout. The journal brought into play elements of
traditional patriotic rhetoric normally invoked, for instance, to drum up popular support
403
In the original text of Tolstoy’s poem, Ilia, feeling hurt for being mistreated by Vladimir, is seen fleeing
Kiev. Beyond this point, the narrative of Knout develops independently from Tolstoy’s text.
404
See Knut 9 (1907): 4-5
285
Fig. 85. Anon., “Ilia of Murom.” (Il’ia Muromets) Knut 9 1907: 4-5.
286
for the country’s war efforts. In the forth issue for 1907, Rope featured a large, centerfold
plate called The Savior is Near (Izbavitel’ blizko), which depicted an epic hero identified
as Potok by the caption titled “Awakening of the Epic Hero Potok” (Probuzhdenie
Bogatyria Potoka). Alluding in its title to Tolstoy’s acclaimed ballad “The Epic Hero
Potok,” visually, this rendition of the epic hero employed the devises of the patriotic
lubok posters produced during the Russo-Japanese war. On such posters, Russia itself
was often portrayed as a combatant ready to confront her enemies. For instance, a lubok
poster titled On the Occasion of Russia’s War against Japan (K voine Rossii s Iaponiei),
presents Russia as a medieval warrior maiden clad in an ermine gown and decorated with
holy icons. Composed and self-confident, with a double-headed eagle at her side, she is
ready to defend herself from the belligerent fiery dragon denoting Japan.
405
(Fig. 86)
The epic hero Potok of Rope is strikingly similar to the allegorical figure of Russia in
this inspirational war placard. Adorned with holy icons and sporting, like Prince Vladimir
in the Knout cartoon, an enormous sword with the words “power” and “law” inscribed on
its blade, the warrior is accompanied by a double-headed eagle resting on his outstretched
right hand. Fearless and self-confident, both are ready to defend autocratic Russia from
its Constitutional Democratic, anarchist, Socialist-Revolutionary and bureaucratic
adversaries represented by a flock of black crows. Encircled by the forces of sedition,
Russia itself is depicted as a defenseless young maiden having fallen pray to her
enemies.
406
(Fig. 74)
405
Cf. E. Samokish-Sudkovskaia’s postcard picture The Great War (Velikaia voina). (Fig. 87) See Anne
Goulzadian, L’Empire du dernier Tsar. 410 cartes postales 1896-1917 (Editions ASTRID, 1982) 232.
406
Zhgut 4 (1907): 4-5.
287
Fig. 86. Anon., “On the Occasion of Russia’s War against Japan.” (K voine Rossii s
Iaponiei) Popular War Lubok Poster, c. 1904.
288
Fig. 87. E. Samokish-Sudkovskaia, “The Great War.” (Velikaia voina)
Postcard, c. 1914.
289
As this illustration demonstrates, in comparison with the war lubki, the national
defender rhetoric of Rope (as well as that of Knout), placed a particularly strong emphasis
on the masculinity of the positive hero thus connecting it even more with the heroic male
personages of Tolstoy’s ballads. At the same time, the image of the national adversary
was once again reinvented to correspond to the contemporaneous realities of the day; the
external enemies, like the Japanese, although not disappearing completely, are, by and
large, replaced or combined with the internal political and ideological opponents of the
Russian Right. The feminine imagery does not completely vanish either and such
concepts as “Russia,” “Duma” and “Constitution,” perhaps due to the femininity of the
grammatical gender of these words, continue to be allegorically portrayed as women in
Rope, Knout and other right-wing satirical journals.
To strengthen the impact of the visual image with a verbal caption and to construct a
specific ideological message, the editor of Rope (Klang), used Tolstoy’s ballad “The Epic
Hero Potok.” However, instead of borrowing lines from the original text, he supplied a
continuation to Tolstoy’s narrative, transplanting the mid-nineteenth century action and
hero to Russia of the early twentieth century. Tolstoy’s ballad thus becomes Klang’s
framework to comment on political issues of his day.
It may be recalled that in the original text of the ballad, the narrative ends when
Potok, after traveling through time and witnessing diverse incongruities of life in Russia
(e.g. monarchical despotism, corruption in the courts of law, “native soil” [pochva],
commune and progress), decides to go back to sleep hoping to awake during a more
fortuitous period in Russian history. Instead of the two hundred years of peaceful slumber
290
projected for the hero by the author, Potok of Rope awakens only several decades later, in
1907. The epic hero can hardly believe that he is in Russia as he witnesses the country
surrounded by the predators (khishchniki). Appealing emphatically to God to spare his
homeland from the proliferation of “foolish” political parties – “ot duratskikh nas partii
Gospod’ upasi!” – Potok lets the “mighty bird” (e.g. double-headed eagle) fly off his
hand to disperse the “dark cloud” of adversaries. The narrative concludes with Potok’s
positive affirmation of the might of monarchist Russia and the moral strength of the
Russian people, who are prescribed by the scriptures to acknowledge and respect both the
Tsar and God.
407
407
Creative appropriations of Tolstoy’s “The Epic Hero Potok” were popular with the right-wing satirical
journals, although not in every case were they used to construct a positive image of a national defender. For
instance, a year prior to Rope featuring its cartoon Awakening of the Epic Hero Potok, the provincial
Starling also provided a similar reference to Tolstoy’s ballad. Composed by a regular contributor to the
journal, one N. Zhelezniak, and designed to comment on contemporary Russian political and social
problems, this topical feuilleton was equally critical of the government, the military and revolutionaries.
Awakening in Zhelezniak’s narrative from his magical reverie only thirty-five years later, in 1906, Potok
finds Russia a much different country and is startled by the changes: he hears that the press in censored,
that the Russian peasant is often sick and hungry, that Russia is overtaken by ignorance and that the regime
has outlived itself. Concurring with the truthful nature of these statements, Potok surmises that these are all
words and what is needed are deeds. Accordingly, the warrior takes out his sword and heads to the Far East
to partake in fighting the Japanese. Once there, he observes a succession of Russian voievodas losing
decisive land and sea battles and expresses hope that the Russian people will take these criminal generals to
task. When nothing of the sort happens, Potok flees to the Urals where he witnesses a revolution. The
Imperial Manifesto had granted the population various liberties and the Tsar-loving crowds of peasants
morphed into hordes of esdeki (Social Democrats), ka-de (Constitutional Democrats) and bundisty (the
Bund), singing the Marseillaise rather loudly, demanding equality for all and the abdication of the Tsar.
Potok sees people being blown to pieces by bombs, the estates of the wealthy pillaged, while evil and
rebellious kramola is everywhere. The warrior, however, is powerless to remedy the situation and after
expressing his hopes that the future will be better, falls back to sleep. Replicating Tolstoy’s conclusion to
his original “The Epic Hero Potok,” the Starling narrative concludes with an authorial coda that could have
been written by a revolutionary journalist: Potok does not have much time to rest for the decisive battle has
already begun and Russia’s bright new day is visible on the horizon. Potok will rise again when the “sun of
truth” comes out, when peace and goodwill take root everywhere and everyone finds happiness in life. See
Skvorets 15 (1906): 114-115.
291
Conservative Values Affirmed: Right-Wing Satire of Fin-de-Siècle Literature
The gamut of right-wing satirical rhetoric was not limited only to themes that were
strictly political. It also extended to cover cultural matters. Commenting on such issues,
these journals also closely observed the standards established by the monarchist dogma.
This was especially characteristic of the discourses of the centrally published Rope and
Knout.
408
The producers of Rope, for instance, took it upon themselves to ridicule the
writings of Russian and European modernist authors, while Knout concentrated its fire on
the prominent literary personalities of the day such as Maksim Gorky and Leo Tolstoy.
Inasmuch as literary artistic expression represents a variant of a rational critical debate on
matters of general significance – be it the moral degradation of a nation or a corrupt
autocratic government – right-wing satirical criticism of modernist, controversial authors
(also often of liberal persuasion) may be viewed as a rejection of the emerging liberal
bourgeois public sphere.
Satirical treatment of modernist literature and specific ideologically or morally
objectionable authors in Rope and Knout was informed by the conservative bent of right-
wing beliefs. In matters pertinent to the cultural (and, as we have seen, economic)
development of the Russian nation, and especially of its youth, the right-wing dogma was
unequivocally anti-modern and anti-modernist. Its conservative slant prescribed the
adherence to and propagation of the traditional values of Christian morality
(nravstvennost’), patriotism and loyalty to Autocracy (predannost’ Samoderzhaviiu).
408
Provincial publications such as The Kazan Barker and Starling seemed to be less concerned with
cultural matters: their attention was directed more toward satirizing social problems of local significance,
such as the proper functionality of public transportation, the bad manners of local citizenry or the untidy
condition of city streets.
292
Monarchists considered these values to be among the key components of stability in the
country they felt were being eradicated by the processes of modernization.
409
New
literature of the fin-de-siècle and works penned by progressive writers such as Gorky,
were met with resistance on the grounds of ideological incongruity and compromised
morality.
To safeguard the moral well-being of the Russian nation and traditional Christian
values, the monarchists made sustained efforts to decrease the proliferation and influence
of what were perceived to be sacrilegious (bogokhul’nye) and immoral
(beznravstvennye) literary works.
410
Russian classical and modernist authors were thus
within the range of their close scrutiny. Writers such as Aksakov, Chekhov, Dostoevsky,
Gogol, Goncharov, Fet, Lermontov, Pushkin, Tiutchev and Turgenev were held in high
esteem, and the conservative nature of their views was often emphasized.
411
At the same time, modernist authors of both the neo-Realist and Symbolist persuasion
were habitually treated with contempt. Consequently, works of creative fiction and poetry
by such writers as Artsybashev, Andreev, Kuprin, Gippius and Verbitskaia, which
dwelled on themes of homosexual and lesbian love, or addressed the issue of sexual
409
The expression of these sentiments may be seen, for instance, in a resolution titled “On the Orthodox
Church” (O Pravoslavnoi tserkvi), passed by the Union of the Russian People at the All-Russian Congress
of the Union of the Russian People and Affiliated Organization of November 21 – December 1, 1911 in
Moscow. In order to strengthen the moral upbringing (moral’noe vospitanie) of the Russian youth, section
12 of the resolution called for the revision of school libraries, purging them of morally and politically
harmful books and printing new catalogues of recommended useful literature as well as of morally
acceptable textbooks (uchebnikov nravstvennykh) that foster feelings of patriotism and devotion to
Autocracy. The complete text of the resolution is reprinted in V. V. Shelokhaev et al., eds., Politicheskie
partii Rossii. Konets XIX – pervaia tret’ XX veka. Dokumental’noe nasledie. Pravye partii. Dokumenty i
materialy, vol. 2 (1911-1917) (Moscow: Rosspen, 1998) 66-70.
410
See I. I. Kir’ianov, Pravye partii v Rossii 1911-1917 (Moscow: Rosspen, 2001) 320.
411
A right-wing newspaper Local Self-Government (Zemshchina), for instance, claimed that Gogol,
Tiutchev and Dostoevsky were no less Black Hundred than was Fet. See Kir’ianov 321.
293
pleasure, were labeled as harmful and seditious. Classified as pornographic, they were
denounced and condemned in the right-wing press and ridiculed in the satires of the right-
wing Rope and Knout.
412
In Rope, for instance, satirical invective entered the discourse of the journal through
the criticism of what was perceived to represent moral degradation as exemplified by the
contemporaneous modernist literary works that dealt (no matter how critically) with
themes of venereal disease, prostitution and fringe sexuality. The literary embodiments of
erotic and sexual themes, found in the prose and poetic works of the neo-Realist and
Symbolist authors as diverse as Andreev and Sologub, dominated the Russian literary
scene during the first decade of the twentieth century. As Laura Engelstein aptly
demonstrated, names and reputations were made based on the writers addressing these
subjects; formerly obscure authors acquired fame practically overnight while at the same
time inciting unmitigated critical response to their works in the press.
413
Satires, such as
the ones found in the cartoons and verbal parodies of Rope, thus constituted part of the
overall critical reception of modernist literature, albeit filtered through the prism of the
conservative bent of the right-wing dogma.
412
Illustrative of the right-wing rhetoric of concurrent praise of Russian classical authors and condemnation
of the modernist ones is, for instance, a speech by a representative of the Russian Assembly I. I.
Venozhinsky, at the May 20, 1912 session of the fifth All-Russian Congress of the Russian People in St.
Petersburg. Halfway through his racially charged diatribe, the delegate states the following: “Gentlemen,
the development (shestvie) of Russian literature, like that of the entire Russian statehood, was brilliant and
victorious: from the centuries of antiquity, the cumbersome Old Church Slavonic language, the Russian
folk epos of fairy tales, byliny, songs and rituals, from imitations and translations, we rose to the Sun of
Russian literature – to Pushkin, Gogol and Lermontov. We witnessed the sorrow of the world in the works
of Dostoevsky and heard the last swan song of nineteenth century literature in the psychological, exquisite
stories of Anton Chekhov. However, Russian literature could not live to see the disgrace (pozor). Kuprins
and Andreevs - ... this is a literature of salesmen (torgashei), who took over Olympus.” See the entire text
of the speech in Shelokhaev 189-191.
413
Laura Engelstein, “From Avant-garde to Boulevard: Literary Sex,” in her The Keys to Happiness: Sex
and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-siècle Russia (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1992) 359-420.
294
An example of the conservative reception of the controversial modernist fiction of the
day is a Rope cartoon with an emblematic title The Devil in Despair (D’iavol v
otchaian’i). (Fig. 88) Featured in the second issue of the journal for 1907, the drawing
depicts a rabbit-like, horned and hoofed demon sitting on a pile of books labeled
“Pornography Warehouse” (Sklad pornografii). The imp is in despair from reading one of
the items picked from the heap. Other such books and periodicals, identified by their
titles and the names of their authors, are also visible. Among these are the journals
Women’s Rights (Pravo zhenshchiny), Resurrection of Spring (Vozrozhdenie vesny), the
“pleasantly-piquant” satirical Little Jester (Shutenok), as well as other little known (or,
perhaps, fictional) titles such as Speeches of the Insane (Rechi bezumnykh) and
Pornography (Pornografiia). Among the books, there are Mikhail Kuzmin’s poetic
works and the writings of Lidiia Zinovieva-Annibal, Mikhail Artsybashev and Arthur
Schnitzler. The speech tag to this rather rudimentary cartoon provides a topical
commentary, which best reflects the conservative stand of the journal as regards the
modernist literary treatment of the issues of traditional sexuality and morals. The caption
informs the reader that every month, every day and every hour, the Russian book market
absorbs piles and piles of the most insolent and shamelessly obscene literature. There is
so much of it, in fact, that the petty demon, obliged to peruse that drivel, is on the verge
of committing suicide.
414
Familiar with the most recent literary developments, an initiated reader of the period
would undoubtedly perceive that the pictorial and verbal jibes by the journal were aimed
in particular at Zinovieva-Annibal’s recently published lesbian-love-themed novella
414
See Zhgut 2 (1907): 6.
295
Fig. 88. Anon., “The Devil in Despair.” (Diavol v otchaian’i) Zhgut 2 1907: 6.
296
Thirty-three Abominations (Tridtsat’ tri uroda, 1907), Artsybashev’s “pornographic”
novel Sanin (1907),
415
Schnitzler’s drama La Ronde (Khorovod),
416
Kuzmin’s erotic
poetry and, most certainly, his novella about homosexual love, Wings (Kryl’ia, 1906).
As the names of the authors identified by Rope in the Pornography Warehouse
cartoon suggest, the journal directed its particular venom against Russian Symbolists,
who, due to their preoccupation with erotic and sexual themes, were popularly labeled
“decadent.”
417
For the purpose of ridicule of the decadent Symbolist authors, and
especially the poets, the journal established a separate, recurring rubric entitled
“Decadent Foolishness” (Dekadentskaia durost’). The editor of the journal explained that
the rubric was set up as a service to readers fond of poetic decadence. He further declared
415
Mikhail Artsybashev, his novel Sanin, the writer’s shorter fiction as well as theatrical adaptations of his
work, were often publicly condemned by monarchist ideologues and publicists. For example, writing in
1912 for Russian Banner, critic Iarmonkin, in his article titled “Destroyers of the Family” (Razrushiteli
sem’i), dismissed Artsybashev’s play Jealousy (Revnost’) as “cheaply baked goods of a commercially-
minded writer” (deshevaia striapnia kommersanta-literatora) and as a product of “decline and speculation
on the base instincts” (bezvremen’ia i spekuliatsii na nizmennykh instinktakh). Quoted from Kir’ianov 322.
On another occasion, a theatrical adaptation of Artsybashev’s Sanin in Sebastopol in 1912 became the
subject of an adamant telegram to the Minister of the Interior, A. A. Makarov, and to the Chairman of the
Council of Ministers, V. N. Kokovtsov. Composed by the Chief Assembly of the monarchist Russian
Popular Union of Archangel Michael and signed by its chair, Purishkevich, the telegram indicated that the
staging of the despicable play based on Artsybashev’s Sanin, was nothing more than “a propagation of dirty
perversion, immorality and shaming of a person’s and citizen’s best feelings.” The full text of the telegram
is reprinted in Shelokhaev 148.
416
This reference is to the notorious play La Ronde written by the Austrian dramatist Arthur Schnitzler
around 1897-1898. First published in 1903, the text of the play was misconstrued by European as well as
Russian critics (and right-wing satirists) as pornographic and subsequently met with severe censorship
restrictions across Europe. See Carl R. Mueller, introduction, Four Major Plays, by Arthur Schnitzler
(Lyme: A Smith and Kraus Book, 1999) 12.
417
For a discussion of the concept of decadence within turn of the century Russian art and literature, see
John E. Bowlt, “Through the Glass Darkly: Images of Decadence in Early Twentieth-Century Russian Art,”
Journal of Contemporary History 17.1 (Jan. 1982): 93-110. For a discussion of specific Symbolist authors
within the framework of literary decadence, see, for instance, Edith E. Clowes, “Literary Decadence:
Sologub, Schopenhauer, and the Anxiety of Individuation,” American Contributions to the Tenth
International Congress of Slavists, ed. J. G. Harris (Columbus: Slavica, 1988): 111-121; Joan Delaney
Grossman, Valery Briusov and the Riddle of Russian Decadence (Berkeley: U of California P, 1985);
Evelyn Bristol, “Idealism and Decadence in Russian Symbolist Poetry,” Slavic Review 2 (1980): 269-280.
297
that the intention of the journal was to “fish out,” from the overall number of published
decadent poems, the ones that were most worthy of attention.
418
The whole thing was, of course, a charade and the rubric featured nothing more than
satirical takes on Russian Symbolist poetry; this is seen in a three-part segment that
parodied the poetry of Konstantin Balmont, Valerii Briusov and Zinaida Gippius. The
premise for this particular attack was purportedly the poets’ excessive preoccupation with
passion and matters generally pertinent to the affairs of the heart. The first stanza of the
parody, titled “Supra-Decadent Love” (Liubov’ sverkh-dekadentskaia) satirized
Balmont’s “Let Us be like the Sun” (Budem kak solntse). Building much of its humor
around the poet’s alleged penchant for amorous experimentation, this pastiche identified
a carnivorous tigress, young witches, mermaids, chimeras of Notre-Dame de Paris and
the deceased as subjects of Balmont’s desire. Employing the first person narrative mode,
the parody reads: “I wish to be brave and courageous and present paradigms of otherness
in love! I wish to caress women’s gills with my lips and share pleasure with a predatory
tigress” (Khochu byt’ smelym, khochu byt’ khrabrym, Liubvi primery inoi iavit’! /
Khochu lobzat’ ia u zhenshchin zhabry, S tigritsei khishchnoi blazhenstvo pit’).
The second stanza of the parody, titled “Sublime Love” (Liubov’ vozvyshennaia),
satirizes Briusov’s “Ia vzoidu pri pervom dne / khokhotat’ k zubtsam na vysi.” It
describes the poet’s literal desire to climb the Admiralty tower in St. Petersburg, along
with a large African baboon, for a sublimated and passionate encounter: “I will mount the
Admiralty Spire at the break of dawn, and I will take a mandrill alone for pleasurable
magic” (ia s rassvetom privskachu / Na iglu admiralteistva, ia mandrila zakhvachu / Dlia
418
See Zhgut 1 (1907): 7.
298
blazhenstva charodeistva!). Zinaida Gippius’s motto “I desire that which does not exist in
nature” (Ia khochu, chego ne byvaet),
419
was satirized in the third part of the parody
under the title “A Girl’s desire” (Zhelanie devushki). Quite predictably, the butt of this
parodic stanza is Gippius’s much-discussed creative (and real life) transgressions of the
established gender boundaries. The segment runs as follows: “I wish to love him and to
repulse him, so that he would be genderless and have an appearance that is neither
masculine nor feminine” (Ia khochu, chtob ego ia liubila / I sovsem, i sovsem
otvrashchala / Chtoby byl on kak by bezpolyi, / Vid imel ni muzhskoi, ni zhenskii).
The following issue of Rope continued its parodic attack on Symbolist authors.
Interlacing the page with a poetic invective against a Moscow brothel, “Bakhrushin
House” (Bakhrushinskii Dom), and a visual depiction of Witte as an androgynous
“Sakhalin Siren,” (Fig. 89) the “Decadent Foolishness” rubric of this issue satirized
Kuzmin’s novella Wings. Particularly ridiculed in this instance was the bathhouse episode
of the homosexual encounter. Mockingly, this stanza stated: “Where can I find the right
words to describe love toward a bathhouse attendant? I am on my way to embarrass
Barkov’s remains and to excite the blood of naughty boys” (Gde slog naidu i vse izvivy
slova, chtob pet’ dostoino k banshchiku liubov’? Idu smutit’ v mogile prakh Barkova / I
mal’chikov durnykh vstrevozhit’ krov’).
420
419
This was a paraphrase of the last line in Gippius’s poem “Song” (Pesnia), which read: “mne nuzhno
togo, chego net na svete / Chego net na svete.”
420
It is fitting to note in this connection the irony of the situation: although his works were ridiculed in the
right-wing satirical journals such as Rope, Mikhail Kuzmin was at one point a right-wing sympathizer,
who, in fact, joined (albeit temporarily) the St. Petersburg Chapter of the Union of the Russian People. For
more on this episode in the poet’s biography, see Kuzmin’s diary entries from mid-October 1905
throughout 1906, in Mikhail Kuzmin, Dnevnik 1905-1907, eds., N. A. Bogomolov, and S. V. Shumikhin
(St. Petersburg: Izd-vo Ivana Limbakha, 2000).
299
Fig. 89. Anon., “Sakhalin Siren Began to Sing Again.” (Sakhalinskaia sirena,
kazhetsia opiat’ zapela) Zhgut 4 1907: 7.
300
If modernist authors were condemned and ridiculed by the right-wing satirists
because of the subversive effect their works allegedly had on the moral well-being of the
Russian nation, then Leo Tolstoy was anathemized as a blasphemous spiritual heretic. In
this, the Russian Right, with its close ties to the Orthodox Church, supported the
vilification of Tolstoy by the Church, which had excommunicated the celebrated writer in
1901. Tolstoy’s views on religion were found to be at odds with the ultra-Christian
beliefs of the turn of the century Russian monarchists. The Union of the Russian People,
for instance, made an especially sustained effort to denounce Tolstoy’s writings as
immoral, sacrilegious and essentially anti-Christian.
421
For these reasons and on more
than one occasion, the Union demanded Tolstoy’s books be taken out of general
circulation and be prevented from entering collections of the so-called popular libraries
(narodnye biblioteki).
422
The negative attitude toward Tolstoy and his works by the principal arbiters of the
right-wing ideology informed the anti-Tolstoy satire found in such right-wing satirical
journals as Olovenikov’s Knout. Following a strategy not unlike that of the satirical
debunking of the monarchists’ political opponents, the cartoons of Knout aimed at
diminishing the validity of Tolstoy’s status as a celebrated novelist, satirizing certain
aspects of the writer’s system of beliefs. Tolstoy’s populist tendency was parodied by
emphasizing the writer’s penchant for walking barefoot as seen in the cartoon called The
421
See “Postanovleniia Monarkhicheskogo S”ezda Russkikh Liudei v Moskve v 1909 g. Otdel Pervyi
(Tserkovnye Voprosy). Veroispovednye Zakony,” in V. V. Shelokhaev et al., eds., Politicheskie partii
Rossii. Konets XIX – pervaia tret’ XX veka. Dokumental’noe nasledie. Pravye partii. Dokumenty i
materialy, vol. 1 (1905-1910) (Moscow: Rosspen, 1998) 477.
422
See, “Postanovleniia Vserosiiskogo S”ezda Soiuza Russkogo Naroda i Primykaiushchikh k Nemu
Monarkhicheskikh Organizatsii, 21 Noiabria – 1 Dekabria, 1911 g. Moskva.” in Shelokhaev, vol. 2, 81-82.
301
Zoo of Knout (Zverinets Knuta).
423
(Fig. 90) The notion of non-violent resistance to evil
also became the butt of right-wing satire; featured in the eleventh issue of Knout for
1907, a two-page cartoon called Non-resistance to Evil (Neprotivlenie zlu), (Fig. 91)
shows a white-haired Tolstoy on horseback, firing rounds of shots from his revolver at
rapidly dispersing peasants. A squadron of Cossacks stands motionlessly, gaping at the
unbelievable scene. The caption to the image reads that the peasants, who were politically
conscious and brilliantly educated by the textbooks of the famous Russian writer and
popular (narodnogo) teacher Count L. N. Tolstoy, decided that the Count no longer had
any need for his Iasnaia Poliana estate. Completely unarmed, they raided the estate. To
their sad surprise, however, they were met with ferocious armed resistance. Retreating
with great haste (udiraia vo vse lopatki) they thought of Tolstoy as a great fraud (nadul
prokliatyi).
Censoring and Financing the Right-Wing Press
During the period from 1906 to 1910 and leading to the February revolution of 1917,
the monarchist press, due to its natural ideological allegiance to the tsarist regime,
ostensibly enjoyed far greater freedom of expression than did its left-wing nemesis. At
the time, critics did not fail to notice the unhampered ease with which the right-wing
publicists propagated their views in the media. They also noted that the right-wing
periodicals were sold on the streets without restriction, often even acting as protective
decoys for subversive and illicit revolutionary and left-wing publications. S. Mintslov
observed in his survey that on every corner of Nevsky Prospekt there were dealers of
423
See Knut 5 (1908): 1.
302
Fig. 90. M. Taganrogsky, “The Zoo of Knout” (Zverinets Knuta) Knut 5 1908: 1.
303
Fig. 91. Anon., “Non-resistance to Evil.” (Neprotivlenie zlu) Knut 11 1907: 4-5.
304
oppositional newspapers, who, in order to detract attention from their illegal wares,
would present folders containing issues of Dubrovin’s Russian Banner to the watchful
eye of the police.
424
The liberal critic Lvov-Rogachevsky, writing in his 1906 study “Press and
Censorship” (Pechat’ i tsenzura) on the disparity between the treatment of left and right-
wing publications, commented that such noted pro-monarchist personalities as
Krushevan, Gringmut, Bulgarin, Grech, Iuzefovich, Pikhno, Tsitovich and others could,
for the most part, express themselves in the press freely. Their writings were often
encouraged, welcomed and supported through a system of government allowances and
grants, while the publications with which they were affiliated received generous private
donations and government support.
425
At the same time, right-wing propagandistic
literature of every kind, including blatantly anti-Semitic, Black Hundred appeals, were
approved for publication unabatedly by censorship offices.
426
Nonetheless, it would be erroneous to conclude that the periodical press, as well as
literature generated within the many publishing networks of right-wing political parties
and patriotic organizations, went unchecked by the government and the apparatus of state
censorship. This was despite the fact that the number of banned monarchist publications
424
S. R. Mintslov, “14 mesiatsev “svobody pechati.” 17 oktiabria 1905 g. – 1 ianvaria 1907 g. Zametki
bibliografa,” Byloe 3 (15) (1907): 129.
425
V. L’vov-Rogachevskii, Pechat’ i tsenzura (Moscow: Knigoizdatel’stvo “Trud i Volia,” 1906) 70, 92.
On the financial support given by the central and local governments to the right-wing press, see “Iz
vospominanii S. E. Kryzhanovskogo, tovarishcha ministra vnutrennikh del v 1906-1911 gg.,” in
Shelokhaev, vol. 1, 626-629; S. A. Stepanov, Chernaia sotnia v Rossii (1905-1914 gg.) (Moscow: Izd-vo
VZPI, A/O “Rosvuznauka,” 1992) 104.
426
See, for instance, such Black Hundred diatribes as “Appeal to the Russian People. The Cause for the
Misfortunes of Russia” (Vozzvanie k russkomu narodu. Prichina vsekh neschastii Rossii), which was
passed for printing by the St. Petersburg Censorship Committee in January 1906. See Shelokhaev, vol. 1
130-133.
305
paled in comparison with those of left-wing persuasion. Reporting on one occasion to the
Tsar on an article in Dubrovin’s Russian Banner, which touched unfavorably upon the
Imperial family, the Chief of the Chancellery of the Ministry of the Imperial Court A. A.
Mosolov commented on the irony of the fact that the Court censorship (tsenzura dvora)
experienced more problems with monarchist newspapers than it did with the liberal
ones.
427
Mosolov’s observation was not entirely incorrect; as we shall see, on many
occasions, the right-wing press would present a liability not only to the court but also to
the censoring authorities at large.
The right-wing press was persecuted quite often and, ironically, for reasons not unlike
those invoked against their liberal and radical counterparts. Moreover, government
methods of repression used against the right-wing press, within the legal framework of
existing press laws, were similar, if not identical, to those utilized to curb publications of
the left. Consisting of an assortment of administrative punishments as well as legal
procedures, they included fines, arrests of issues or of an entire run, cropping out
undesirable phrases and expressions, banning publications and putting them (and their
editors) on trial. Pretexts for these measures, like those used against Bugbear and Hellish
Post, included disrespect of the person of the Emperor,
428
anti-government propaganda
and insults directed at the government, its departments and high-ranking officials.
429
427
A. A. Mosolov, Pri dvore poslednego imperatora: Zapiski nachal’nika kantseliarii ministra dvora (St.
Petersburg: Nauka, 1992) 46.
428
Cf. the charges laid against Grzhebin’s drawing Werewolf-Eagle and Alekseevsky’s anecdote “About
the Good Tsar Berendei,” which, as we have seen, were found containing elements of crime of lèse-majesté
(insults to the person of the monarch).
429
For instance, a monarchist pamphlet published in Moscow in 1906 and titled “For Faith, Tsar and
Fatherland” (Za Veru, Tsaria i Otechestvo) was thoroughly scrutinized by the local censors, who argued
306
The monarchist press was also censored vigorously and often for its unsanctioned use
of the Sovereign’s words as well as for its pronounced anti-Semitic content and for
publishing open calls for ethnic violence. The latter was especially common, for instance,
in Kiev and Kharkov during the Beilis trial. Produced in Kiev by a monarchist youth
organization “Double-Headed Eagle” (Dvuglavyi orel), their eponymous newspaper
propagated on its pages hatred toward so-called “foreigners” (inorodtsy) and the
necessity to take physical action against the left-wing opposition. Both themes were laced
with encouragements of pogrom violence. The anti-Semitic articles featured in this
newspaper served as the reasons for the fining of its editor and for confiscation of select
issues.
430
Gringmut’s newspaper Moscow Herald (Moskovskie vedomosti) was taken to
task by authorities for publishing in one of its 1906 issues an open call to pogrom
violence titled “Russian People of Orthodox Faith!” (Pravoslavnye russkie liudi!), while
Gringmut himself was at one point sued for publishing a leaflet called “An Open Letter to
the Government” (Otkrytoe pis’mo pravitel’stvu).
431
that it contained an entire range of crimes including that of anti-government propaganda. The publication
was arrested and subsequently destroyed, while its publisher, an honorary citizen and a member of an Orel
monarchist group, K. S. Krasilnikov, was successfully prosecuted and jailed in accordance with paragraph
6 of article 129 of the penal code (incitement of hatred between parts or classes of the population, between
the estates or between proprietors and workers). Similarly, in January 1909, the Provisional Committee for
Press Affairs in Odessa found a leaflet titled “War” (Voina), authored by one M. I. Ivanov and printed in
the publishing house of the local monarchist newspaper For Tsar and Motherland (Za Tsaria i Rodinu),
guilty of containing a disrespectful and insulting expression about the person of the Emperor. See A. V.
Shevtsov, Izdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’ russkikh nesotsialisticheskikh partii nachala XX veka (St. Petersburg:
Rossiiskaia natsional’naia biblioteka, 1997) 190.
430
The November 24, 1912 issue of Double-Headed Eagle was confiscated for featuring an article dealing
with the death of A. Iushchinsky (the alleged victim in the Beilis case) and for a poem titled “A Club”
(Dubinushka), which was designed as a call to pogrom. On another occasion, the editor of Double-Headed
Eagle was fined a hundred rubles (a sum minuscule in comparison to the amounts paid by the editors of
left-wing periodicals) by the local governor for publishing an anti-Semitic article on March 12, 1913. See
Omel’ianchuk 92.
431
See Shevtsov 219.
307
As the case of Moscow Herald demonstrates, censorship of centrally published right-
wing periodicals was vigorous. Dubrovin’s St. Petersburg-based Russian Banner and
Olovenikov’s Moscow-published Popular Assembly were especially ripe targets due to
their ultra-right-wing position. Russian Banner was often fined and, on one occasion,
even suspected of featuring a caricature of the Tsar – something that naturally made it the
subject of scrutiny by the authorities.
432
In August of 1906, a racist reprint from one of
the issues of Russian Banner for the same month was banned, while the annual fines of
the newspaper for 1907 amounted to four thousand rubles.
433
The St. Petersburg
Committee for Press Affairs confiscated the August 28, 1908 issue (No. 194) of
Dubrovin’s Russian Banner for an anti-Lev Tolstoy article written by a Moscow
missionary I. G. Aivazov and titled “Who is Lev Tolstoy (On the Occasion of the
Decision of the Moscow State Duma to Celebrate Tolstoy’s Eightieth Anniversary)” (Kto
takoi Lev Tolstoi [Po povodu postanovleniia Moskovskoi Gorodskoi Dumy chestvovat’
80-letie Tolstogo]). Ironically, this drastic measure was taken against the newspaper for
reprinting Tolstoy’s own sacrilegious and anti-government words. At the end of March
1910, the St. Petersburg Committee for Press Affairs banned a part of the novel The Red
432
In mid-February 1910, V. F. Zalesky and a high-ranking bureaucrat A. E. Dubrovsky warned the
Russian Minister of the Interior that the disrespect Dubrovin’s newspaper hitherto demonstrated toward the
Orthodox Faith and the authority of the state would soon manifest itself in apparent and impudent contempt
toward the Emperor. They alleged that their suspicions came true because the November 29, 1909 issue of
Russian Banner featured a caricature of his Imperial Majesty. They wrote: “At first glance, we immediately
noticed that the upper part of the demon’s face … revealed a caricature likeness to the noble features of the
Tsar … (compare the nose line, the forehead line and the line of the eyebrows … as well as the positioning
of the eyes – with similar lines on the Tsar’s portrait … on a silver ruble) … The demon on the right, has a
scroll in his hands, which reads ‘the Hague.’ [This is] a clear hint at the Hague conference. And who was
the founder [of this conference]? The mockery of this caricature is exacerbated by the demon’s Masonic
collar.” See Shevtsov 194.
433
S. A. Stepanov also notes that although Russian Banner continued to be fined quite often, Dubrovin
managed to receive a 25,000 ruble subsidy to compensate for the losses the newspaper sustained because of
the administrative and criminal measures taken against it. See Stepanov 105.
308
and the Black (Krasnye i Chernye), which was written by one E. A. Shabelskaia – a
leader in a Black Hundred organization called Brotherhood of Liberty and Order
(Bratstvo svobody i poriadka). The arrested portion of Shabelskaia’s novel, offered as a
free supplement to one of the issues of Russian Banner, served as a pretext to initiate
criminal proceedings against the publisher of the newspaper, Dubrovin.
434
The ultra-right-wing newspaper Popular Assembly was founded by Vladimir
Olovenikov – a staunch monarchist and formerly a Moscow publisher of guide and
reference brochures – who, as we have seen, was also the inspiration behind the satirical
journal Knout. In December 1905, just as Bugbear was making its appearance in St.
Petersburg, Popular Assembly was published for the first time in Moscow. Like Bugbear,
the newspaper was allegedly in high demand in the city engulfed by the revolution. In
1907, the Moscow Committee for Press Affairs assessed Popular Assembly as a highly
patriotic publication, although one of the strongest of Black Hundred orientation, which
mocked the Jews in its caricatures, sketches and articles. The committee suggested that it
was not likely that the newspaper would reinvent itself to become “a decent publication”
and that this was not desirable anyway. Possessing its own readership, Popular Assembly
was deemed to have an altogether positive influence on its readers preventing them from
becoming fascinated with sedition (kramola), while at the same time instilling a sense of
respect toward the Russian nationality and hoisting up high the banner of Orthodoxy and
Autocracy.
Despite its questionable “positive” features and ambivalent reception by the censoring
authorities, the ultra-monarchist stance of Popular Assembly and its extreme right-wing
434
See Shevtsov 224, 192-193.
309
orientation prompted a series of punitive measures to be taken against the newspaper and
its staff. In 1906, for instance, Popular Assembly was banned from distribution in the
Volyn, Kiev and Podolsk provinces (guberniia), while the fines accumulated by the
newspaper between 1907 and 1908 amounted to 5, 000 rubles.
435
The harshest measures
taken against Popular Assembly were the arrest of five of its issues, the month-long arrest
of one of its editors, the temporary closure of the newspaper as well as the expulsion, in
the beginning of 1907, of its founder and editor Olovenikov from Moscow.
436
Censorship measures taken against Popular Assembly, although no doubt affecting its
steady operation, were, however, not the principal reasons for the ultimate demise of the
newspaper. Rather, these were matters of economic distinction, which, arguably, also
played a decisive role in the phasing out of the right-wing central and, especially,
provincial satirical journals. In spite of its initial success,
437
Popular Assembly was
published, with various degrees of difficulty, from December 1905 through January 1910.
In its five-year history, the newspaper was managed by a succession of editors, including
the Black Hundred Orthodox priest Ioann Vostorgov - one of the religious founders and
leaders of the Moscow branch of the Union of the Russian People, and, in 1907, of the
435
See Stepanov 104.
436
Olovenikov’s banishment as well as the stoppage of the newspaper had to do with its vehement criticism
of the St. Petersburg religious leadership and, in particular, of Mitropolitan Antonii (Vadkovsky).
Allegedly, Gringmut, who considered Olovenikov’s punishment unjust, sent the editor a letter of support on
behalf of the Monarchist Party and the Moscow Chapter of the Union of Russian People. Olovenikov’s
exile was cancelled shortly before he died on February 16, 1908. See Shevtsov 175; Stepanov 104.
437
Shevtsov 175.
310
Russian Monarchist Assembly (Russkoe Monarkhicheskoe Sobranie).
438
Due to financial
difficulties, in March of 1909, this hitherto independently published newspaper was taken
over by the Moscow Chapter of the Union of the Russian People. M. D. Pletnev became
its editor and the newspaper received the new title Popular Assembly. The Organ of the
Moscow Union of the Russian People. This, however, did not improve its fiscal
condition. Lacking close to twenty thousand rubles needed to carry on with the
immediate issuance of the newspaper, the Council of the Moscow Chapter of the Union
continued to experience urgent financial need. Ultimately, the publication of Popular
Assembly was terminated in January of 1910; its publisher, F. A. Sleptsov, cited the lack
of funds as the principal reason for the closure.
439
The right-wing satirical press was not likely to have been censored to the same extent
as were the monarchist newspapers and propagandistic literature. Hitherto, there are no
known cases to demonstrate that these journals were persecuted in any way or that their
issuance was impeded due to censorship restrictions. This is despite the fact that the overt
racially prejudicial content of The Kazan Barker, Knout, Rope and Starling alone should
have warranted the attention of censorship authorities in the same way Krasilnikov’s
pamphlet “For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland” was censored in Moscow in 1906. This was
perhaps partially because these satirical journals, unlike their newspaper counterparts, by
438
After Gringmut’s death, Vostorgov was appointed the chair of the Russian Monarchist Assembly. In his
October 30, 1908 report at the Assembly’s second annual general meeting, Vostorgov addressed the issue
of the difficulties experienced by this organization financing another monarchist newspaper called Old
Moscow (Staraia Moskva). Due to these difficulties (the newspaper was operating at a loss of 1300 rubles a
month), the publication of Old Moscow was terminated shortly afterward. See “Doklad I. I. Vostorgova
Godichnomu Obshchemu Skhodu Russkogo Monarkhicheskogo Sobraniia,” in Shelokhaev, vol. 1, 414-
418; Shevtsov 222.
439
Shevtsov 176.
311
and large avoided publishing open calls to violence and addressing the subjects for which
the more outspoken monarchist press was censored. Apart from criticism of Witte as well
as several minor functionaries and anathemized military leaders (for instance, V. Gurko
and General A. M. Stessel),
440
overly critical mockery of the Imperial Government, the
Tsar or the military was absent from these journals. Their primary objective was to
denounce the political opponents of the tsarist regime and to fight them by denigrating
their status, policies, leaders and political actions through parodies and mockeries. At the
same time, as we have seen, the right-wing journals were geared to defend tsarist
institutions compromised by the left-wing satirical press and affirm, for instance, vis-à-
vis the construction of a positive patriotic hero, the moral superiority of the monarchist
movement and its values.
It may thus also be argued that in contradistinction to Bugbear, Hellish Post, Machine
Gun, Signal, Spectator and other left-wing periodicals of political satire whose
production suffered directly at the hands of the regime, the right-wing satirical journals
were impeded not so much by censorship restrictions, but by financial insolvency. The
case of Olovenikov’s newspaper Popular Assembly draws a particularly close parallel.
440
Gurko became the subject of ridicule in the right-wing satirical journals after the so-called “Lidval
affair” of 1906 – an incident, which effectively ruined his political career. For instance, Knout, in its
inaugural 1906 issue, featured a caricature titled The Way Gurka-the-Figure Manages the Money for the
Hungry (Kak Gurka-figurka rasporiazhaetsia golodnymi den’gami) – a reference to Gurko’s large payment
to a contractor called Lidval, who failed to supply grain to Russia’s famine-stricken regions. (Fig. 92) For
the historical contextualization of this cartoon, which should be read as a part of the monarchist counter-
bureaucratic crusade, see Gurko’s own testament to this incident in Gurko 506-509. For a sample of a
liberal opinion regarding the Gurko-Lidval affair, see A. L. Avel’-Avok, “Oskolki satiricheskoi literatury”
Vestnik znaniia 12 (1906): 367. General Anatolii Mikhailovich Stessel (Stoessel) (b. 1848) was responsible
for the premature surrender of Port Arthur to the Japanese in January 1905, for which he was not only
court-marshaled, but also ridiculed in the right-wing satirical journals. In a rubric called “Russian Songs
Visualized” (Russkie pesni v litsakh), Rope published a caricature of Stessel with a mocking speech tag
“The Way Our General Stessel Fought at Port Arthur” (Kak nash Stessel’-general v Port-Arture voeval).
See Zhgut 1 (1907): 8. (Fig. 93)
312
Fig. 92. Anon., “The Way Gurka-the Figure Manages the Money for the Hungry.”
(Kak Gurka-figurka rasporiazhaetsia golodnymi den’gami) Knut 1 1906: 4.
313
Fig. 93. Anon., “The Way Our General Stessel Fought at Port Arthur.”
(Kak nash Stessel’-general v Port-Arture voeval) Zhgut 1 1907: 8.
314
Geared toward public consumption, for the most part these publications nonetheless
lacked the popular demand enjoyed by the oppositional satirical press. As privately
funded ventures, the right-wing satirical journals often operated at a considerable
financial loss. Hardly contributing to their popularity, the tendentious nature and narrow
ideological appeal of these journals ultimately affected their street sales and overall
sustainability.
441
Although the retail circulation was not likely to have been affected by
their competitive pricing,
442
the street and wholesale distribution of the right-wing
satirical periodicals could not compensate for the high cost of their production.
In an editorial article titled “Necessary Explanation” (Neobkhodimoe raz”iasnenie),
the producers of Knout, for instance, cited reasons of “a purely monetary nature” among
those impeding the weekly issuing of the journal. The editors explained that the journal
was incurring tremendous debts for the purchase of the paper stock, commissioning
drawings as well as printing color illustrations. Furthermore, in order to present an
adequate coverage of events across the vast Russian territory, it was necessary to
441
A comparison with the right-wing mass-circulation newspapers may once again present an instructive
parallel. I. Omelianchuk, for instance, notes that despite a relatively high number of monarchist newspapers
published in the Ukraine (e.g. twenty-five), only one of them, the well-established The Kievite (Kievlianin),
enjoyed a degree of popularity. See Omel’anchuk, Chernosotennoe dvizhenie na territorii Ukrainy, 1904-
1914 126. The Black Hundredists themselves often openly acknowledged the great difficulty they
experienced selling their periodicals. In one of its 1906 articles, Russian Banner complained that in
comparison to the many vendors of left-wing newspapers along Nevsky Prospect, there were very few
selling Russian Banner. See Stepanov 104.
442
Ranging from 10 to 15 kopeks per issue, they generally did not exceed retail prices of their left-wing
rivals. Individual issues of the Black Hundred satirical journals were priced as follows: Rope - 10 kopeks
(15 in the provinces); Knout – 10; Starling – 12; The Kazan Barker – 15. These prices may be compared to
those of the left-wing satirical journals: Bugbear and Hellish Post – 15; Machine Gun - 10; Blaze (Plamia)
– 5; Wood goblin – 15 (20 in the provinces) Spectator – 5.
315
maintain an extensive staff of correspondents – something that the journal clearly could
not afford.
443
At the same time, as the case of Knout demonstrates, the wholesale distribution of
some of the right-wing satirical journals also often put them in a precarious financial
situation. In 1907, the editors of Knout were forced to bring to the attention of the
individuals, patriotic unions and parties that purchased the journal in bulk at a discounted
half price rate of 52 rubles for 1000 issues (or 6 rubles for 100 issues), that, due to their
persistent non-payment for the copies they already received, the journal was facing a debt
of close to four thousand rubles. The editors pledged to terminate the further distribution
of Knout to their delinquent wholesale clients.
444
The financial insolvency of Knout and, most likely, of other right-wing satirical
journals, speaks of a lack of positive concern on behalf of the tsarist regime as regarded
the right-wing satirical press despite it being one of the monarchy’s apparent ideological
allies. There is, for instance, no evidence to suggest that the satirical journals in question
received any support or funding from the government, although other right-wing
periodicals often did. On the other hand, neither did the right-wing satirical press meet
any resistance from the regime – something that is attested to by the perceptible absence
of censorship cases brought by the state against it. Until its financial capabilities were
exhausted (or its rhetoric and function became redundant due to the reassertion of
political power by the regime following Stolypin’s ‘coup d’état’), the right-wing satirical
press continued to support the tsarist regime by extolling its virtues and combating,
443
See Knut 1 (1906): 2
444
See Knut 10 (1907): 1.
316
through satirical word and image, the destabilizing forces of the left. Utilizing the
advantages offered by the new public space in order to do that, the right-wing satirical
press at the same time inevitably worked to undermine the legitimacy of the liberal
bourgeois public space by attacking the very forces and institutions capable of advancing
the liberal bourgeois cause.
317
CONCLUSION
The composition of the periodical satirical press of the First Russian Revolution is
thus best characterized by the presence of two politically opposing types of satirical
periodicals and not in terms of the traditionally emphasized hegemony of oppositional
journals. The basic division between the two lay chiefly in the position they occupied vis-
à-vis the autocratic regime. Published in St. Petersburg in the wake of the October
Manifesto through the efforts of select members of the artistic and literary intelligentsia,
the journals Bugbear and Hellish Post were representative of the adversarial, left-wing
pool. The corpus of the regime-friendly, right-wing periodicals of political satire is
exemplified by The Kazan Barker, Knout, Rope and Starling.
The unprecedented proliferation and extraordinary anti-establishment position of the
left-wing satirical journals as well as the ability of their right-wing counterparts to
express independent views in defense of autocracy were the defining features of а unique
pluralistic media discourse originating within an equally unique socio-political
environment created in 1905-1907 through the confluence of societal pressure, the Tsar’s
edicts and government legislation. Threatening to evolve into a genuine revolution, the
bourgeoning liberation movement and resolute labor action of the fall of 1905 forced the
autocratic regime to make major concessions in several key areas of the political and
social life of the country, creating conditions for the emergence of a budding liberal-
bourgeois public sphere. The catalyst for this process was the seminal October Manifesto,
in which Tsar Nicholas, in effect, laid the foundation for the new public domain by
granting basic civil liberties, extending electoral privileges to the disenfranchised
318
segments of the population, and, most significantly, pledging to convene a popularly
elected national parliament, the State Duma. The latter provision was legislatively sealed
by the Fundamental Laws of April 1906, preceding the opening of the first Duma by only
a few days. In fulfillment of the provision of the October Manifesto for greater freedom
of expression, in November of 1905, the government issued new press laws effectively
abolishing the restrictive pre-release censorship of periodical publications. The legal
liberation of the Russian press made possible the opening up of the public domain. An
immediate effect of this was the emergence throughout the winter and spring months of
1905-1906 of a great number of left and right-wing periodicals, including those of
political satire.
The satirical press rapidly became one of the most vibrant media forums of the newly
opened public domain. Through images and texts, satirical journals transmitted the
opinions of the critically debating public, conveying points of view that in political terms
were diametrically opposite to one another. Pushing the boundaries of the public sphere
and testing the limitations of the freedom of speech granted by the Tsar in the October
Manifesto, oppositional satirical journals expressed the prevalent anti-establishment
sentiment by audaciously ridiculing the Sovereign, the government and the military as
well as commenting on the blunders committed by the regime domestically and
internationally. At long last, the Russian public acquired a platform from which it could
bring the regime into check by exposing its follies in an effective, popular and largely
accessible manner. Emerging in response to the omnipresent satirical periodicals of left-
wing persuasion, and conveying opinions in line with pro-monarchist segments of the
319
Russian public, the right-wing satirical journals sought to discredit the forces of the
opposition and reaffirm the strength of the autocratic order.
The presence of the politically stratified satirical press, like that of the similarly
polarized party press, revealed the healthy workings of the newly opened public sphere,
capable of accommodating these competing critical discourses. Yet, despite these
seemingly positive processes, the reforms of 1905-1906 did not succeed in transforming
tsarist Russia into a constitutional, liberal-bourgeois democracy capable of sustaining and
protecting its evolving public domain. The stability and, indeed, the legitimacy of the
Russian public sphere were, therefore, continuously challenged throughout 1905-1907.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the principal challenge emanated from the autocratic state.
Inasmuch as it concerned the oppositional satirical press - one of the integral elements of
the new public sphere – the progressive reforms of the winter and spring of 1905-1906
went parallel to the manifest intolerance on the part of the regime toward the critical
public opinion transmitted through its images and texts.
Finding the left-wing satirical journals to be essentially detrimental to the stability of
autocratic state order, the regime sought to thwart their influence and growth at every
step. Ironically, the provisions of the November 1905 Temporary Press Rules, which
were supposed to bring about greater freedom of the press, ultimately created more trying
conditions. For instance, permitting the satirical journals to be issued without prior
approval, the government at the same time established a much harsher (than the one in
effect prior to the reform) system of punishments for crimes committed by the periodical
press. Moreover, the transfer of jurisdiction over the press cases to the courts of law also
320
ultimately worked to the disadvantage of the satirical press. Remaining dependent on the
regime, the courts worked to support the interests of autocracy rather than those of the
critically debating oppositional public.
Rigorous legal action proved to be an effective but inadequate way of silencing the
satirical press of the left. In order to further re-assert control over the defiant journals, in
March of 1906 the government reinstated preliminary scrutiny of illustrated publications.
As the censorship history of Hellish Post demonstrates, this measure made it virtually
impossible for such journals to reach the reading audience as they could now be
condemned and destroyed prior to being printed. Overall, the restoration of pre-
publication censorship signified another major infringement on the public sphere, which
was supposed to be based on the principle of unimpeded expression of critical opinion.
The liberal-bourgeois public sphere was paradoxically threatened as much by the
currents emanating from the periodical satirical press itself as it was by the measures
taken by the regime. The right-wing satirical journals represented in this instance an
immediate threat. Their radical stance appeared in its basic conjecture to be counter-
productive in terms of fostering the advancement of the model of the liberal-bourgeois
public sphere offered by Habermas as it denied some of its key elements – bourgeois
parliamentarism, constitutionalism and, in certain respects, the capitalist market.
445
In
that, once again paradoxically, the position occupied by the right-wing satirical press was
445
Not necessarily anti-capitalist per say, the monarchist dogma was critical of Russia’s dependence on
foreign markets and stock exchanges supporting instead the development of indigenous forms of
capitalism. In the right-wing satirical journals, the notions of foreign capital and capitalist exploitation were
fused with the anti-Semitic agenda of the monarchist dogma. As we have seen in chapter four, Jews were
thus often satirized as either capitalist exploiters or foreign banker-capitalists.
321
akin to the stance of those left-wing satirical journals (e.g. S. M. Usas’s Liberty, I. I.
Vlasov’s Stinger (Zhalo), P. Solianyi’s Meeting (Miting) and others) which upheld a
revolutionary, anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist orientation. Traces of this radical
position are also found in select texts and images published in the otherwise moderately
oppositional and principally liberal-bourgeois Bugbear and Hellish Post. It may be fitting
to recall that, for instance, the former journal featured Balmont’s satirical “A Fable about
the Devil,” which targeted none other than the wavering liberal-bourgeois. By the same
token, to construct the oppositional discourse of Hellish Post, its editors relied on
mystical anarchism – a doctrine refuting the very idea of a state (and, in particular, the
economically oppressive capitalist state) as well as the institutions of the public sphere.
At the same time, the journal featured on its pages Maksim Gorky’s anti-capitalist and
anti-bourgeois tale “The Sage” and similarly themed cartoons borrowed from the
Simplicissimus artists.
Moreover, the original objective of the liberal-bourgeois creators of the two journals
to vilify the tsarist regime perhaps outweighed other, potentially more constructive forms
of satirical journalism in support of the liberal initiatives stemming from the government
and the Tsar. Characteristic of Bugbear and Hellish Post, as well as of other moderate
left-wing satirical periodicals, such a stance was, of course, reflective of the unreceptive
position occupied in relation to the government politically by the liberal-bourgeois
opposition and, in particular, by the Kadets. In a sense, this was an earlier example of
what Louise McReynolds gauged as the Russian intelligentsia and the post-1905
commercial mass-circulation press retreating to a position of “a moral high ground,”
322
which precluded both from finding compromises with the regime and, therefore, securing
and strengthening the achievements of the incipient bourgeois liberalism.
446
Yet, in the
winter and spring of 1905-1906, the liberal-bourgeois satirical press, exemplified by the
journals considered in this study, did not consciously try to thwart liberalism by failing to
adopt a more compromising or supportive stance vis-à-vis the regime. Rather, to invoke
Habermas, until the permanent legalization in Russia “of a politically functional public
sphere,” the very appearance and issuance of such journals as Bugbear and Hellish Post
“meant joining the struggle for freedom and public opinion and thus for the public sphere
as a principle.”
447
446
Louise McReynolds, “The Russian Intelligentsia in the Public Sphere: The Mass-Circulation Press and
Political Culture, 1860-1917” The Communication Review 1.1 (1995): 83-100.
447
Jürgen Habermas, “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964),” New German Critique 3
(Autumn, 1974) 53.
323
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SATIRICAL JOURNALS AND PERIODICALS
This list is comprised of the satirical journals and other periodicals researched for this
dissertation. Depositories for these journals were very diverse and included those in the
United States and the Russian Federation. A unique collection at the Institute of Modern
Russian Culture (IMRC, University of Southern California), was the original inspiration
and the principal source of the left-wing journals and several right-wing newspapers. The
collection at the main Library at the Institute of Russian Language and Literature (St.
Petersburg) yielded issues of certain left-wing journals missing from the IMRC
collection. The Journal and Newspaper Departments at the Russian National Library (St.
Petersburg) were the main sources of the right-wing journals and newspapers. Also
available to a researcher in the United States are the holdings at the Beinecke Rare Book
and Manuscript Library, Yale University, the Slavonic Division of the New York Public
Library and the collection of the Hoover Institution of War, Revolution and Peace.
Adskaia pochta. Publ. E. Lancéray. Ed. P. N. Troiansky (St. Petersburg, May-June,
1906).
Chernaia sotnia. (Kharkov, 1907).
Chernye milliony. Ed. and publ. A. Solovskoi (St. Petersburg, 1906).
Dvadsatyi vek. Ed. N. N. Dolgov. Publ. M. M. Koialovich (St. Petersburg, April-July,
1906)
Fakely. Ed. G. Chulkov (St. Petersburg, 1906-1908).
Glas naroda. (Kharkov, 1907).
Iuvenal. Ed. and publ. A. F. Domontovich (St. Petersburg, 1906).
Kazanskii raeshnik. Ed. and publ. N. O. Prokofiev (Kazan, 1907-1908).
Knut. Ed. and publ. A. Olovenikova; N. Dobrovolsky; publ. “Heirs of V. V. Olovenikov”
(Moscow, 1906 – 1908).
Leshii. Ed. M. Miklashevsky (Nevedomsky). Publ. E. Zarudnaia-Kavos (St. Petersburg,
1906)
Maski. Eds. S. Chekhonin (1-5), I. Plekhanov (6-9) (St. Petersburg, 1906).
Maliar. Ed. and publ. M. Mukalov (St. Petersburg, 1906).
324
Moi pulemet. Ed. and publ. P. I. Shoshin (St. Petersburg, 1906)
Molva. Ed. A. V. Zenger. Publ. F. I. Romanovskaia (St. Petersburg, 1905-1906).
Plamia. Eds. and publ. T. Agraev and A. Gessen (St. Petersburg, 1905-1906).
Pliuvium. Zakonnoe ditia Vittovoi Pliaski. Ed. and publ. V. Lebel’ and V. Brevern (St.
Petersburg, 1906-1907).
Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik. (St. Petersburg, 1905-1906).
Pulemet. Ed. N. Shebuev (St. Petersburg, 1905-1906).
Rech’. Publ. I. B. Bak, N. K. Miliukov, V. D. Nabokov, et al. (St. Petersburg, 1906-
1909).
Russkie vedomosti. Ed. A. S. Posnikov and V. M. Sobolevsky (St. Petersburg, 1905).
Russkoe znamia. Publ. A. I. Dubrovin (St. Petersburg, 1905-1917).
Skomorokh. Ed. and publ. T. Paskevich (St. Petersburg, 1906-1907).
Skvorets. Ed. and publ. N. Tolmachev (Orenburg, 1906-1907).
Signal. Ed. K. Chukovsky (St. Petersburg, 1905).
Signaly. Ed. V. Turok (St. Petersburg, 1905-1906).
Simplicissimus. (1904 - 1905).
Strela. Ed. and publ. V. Iazykova (St. Petersburg, 1907).
Strely. Ed. and publ. I. M. Knorozovsky (St. Petersburg, 1905)
Svoboda. Ed. S. Usas. Publ. S. Chepurnoi (St. Petersburg, 1906)
Syn otechestva. Ed. G. I. Shreider. Publ. S. P. Iuritsyn (St. Petersburg, 1905).
Vesy. Ed. V. Briusov; Publ. S. Poliakov (Moscow, 1904-1909)
Vedomosti Sankt-Peterburgskogo gradonachal’stva (St. Petersburg, 1905).
Voprosy zhizni. Ed. G. Chulkov (St. Petersburg, 1905)
325
Zhgut. Ed. A. Zaikin. Publ. E. Gulinova (St. Petersburg, 1906).
Zhgut. Ed. and publ. I. Klang (Moscow, 1907-1908).
Zhgut. Ed. and publ. B. Eritsian (Tiflis, 1906).
Zhgut. Ed. V. Samsonov. Publ. K. Sarakhanov (Saratov, 1906-1907).
Zolotoe runo. Ed. and publ. N. Riabushinsky (Moscow, 1906).
Zhupel. Ed. Z. I. Grzhebin. Publ. S. P. Iuritsyn (St. Petersburg, 1905-1906).
Zritel’. Ed. and publ. I. Artsybushev (St. Petersburg, 1905-1908).
326
ALPHABETIZED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ambler, Effie. The Career of Aleksei S. Suvorin. Russian Journalism and Politics.
Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1972.
Ambus, A. A. “M. Gor’kii i A. Gallen-Kallela.” Trudy po russkoi i slavianskoi filologii.
Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 65 (1958): 93-120.
Amfiteatrov, A. Letter to Zhores (Kopiia 1905 g.). Manuscript Section. Russian National
Library. St. Petersburg.
---. Skazka ob odnoi golove i ee obladatele. (Pamflet na Nikolaia II). Paris. Jan. 1907).
Manuscript Section. Russian National Library. St. Petersburg.
Anan’ich, B. V., and R. S. Ganelin. Sergei Iul’evich Vitte i ego vremia. St. Petersburg:
Dmitrii Bulanin, 1999.
Andreeva T., and M. Guseva. Sport nashikh dedov. Stranitsy istorii rossiiskogo sporta v
fotografiiakh kontsa XIX-nachala XX veka. St. Petersburg: Liki Rossii, 2002.
Argutinskii, V. N. Letter to A. Benua. 24 Nov. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian
Museum. St. Petersburg.
Artsybushev, I. “Satiricheskaia literatura i podgotovka k perevorotu.” Vechernee vremia
887 (1917): 4.
Ascher, Abraham. The Revolution of 1905: Russia in Disarray. Stanford: Stanford UP,
1988.
---. The Revolution of 1905: Authority Restored. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1992.
---. P. A. Stolypin: The Search for Stability in Late Imperial Russia. Stanford: Stanford
UP, 2001.
Avel’ – Avok, A. L. “Satira v zhurnalakh i gazetakh.” Vestnik znaniia 2 (1906): 382-393.
---. “Obshchestvennye sobytiia pered sudom satiry.” Vestnik znaniia 3 (1906): 373-382.
---. “Ekho politicheskoi satiry.” Vestnik znaniia 4 (1906): 500-508.
---. “Otsy otechestva i Duma v sovremennoi satire.” Vestnik znaniia 5 (1906): 104-110.
327
---. “Na Shipke vse spokoino. Satiricheskie motivy v literature.” Vestnik znaniia 6
(1906): 251-255.
---. “Okhrana i ‘okhranniki’ v satiricheskoi literature.” Vestnik znaniia 7-8 (1906): 444-
450.
---. “Oskolki satiricheskoi literatury.” Vestnik znaniia 12 (1906): 366-371.
Azizian, I. A. Dialog iskusstv serebriannogo veka. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia, 2001.
Bakst, L. Letter to A. Benua. 5 Dec. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum.
St. Petersburg.
Balmuth, Daniel. Censorship in Russia, 1865-1905. Washington: UP of America, 1979.
Batiushkov, F. “Novoe pokushenie na svobodu pechati.” Mir bozhii 12 (1905): 133-138.
Beetham, Margaret. “Toward a Theory of the Periodicals as a Publishing Genre.”
Investigating Victorian Journalism. Ed. Laurel Brake, Aled Jones and Lionel
Madden. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990. 19-32.
Beliaeva, L. N., M. K. Zinov’eva, and M. M. Nikiforov. Bibliografiia periodicheskikh
izdanii Rossii, 1901-1916. 4 vols. Leningrad: Gosudarstvennaia publichnaia
biblioteka imeni Saltykova-Shchedrina, 1958-1961.
Ben-Sasson, H. H. “Wine and Liquor.” Economic History of the Jews. Ed. Nachum
Gross. New York: Schocken Books, 1975. 132-141.
Benecke, Gerhard. “The Politics of Outrage: Social Satire in the Cartoons of
“Simplicissimus.” 1896-1914.” 20
th
century studies 13/14 (1975): 92-108.
Benua, A. Letter to E. Lansere. 6 April 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian
Museum. St. Petersburg.
---. Letter to E. Lansere. 2 Sept. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to E. Lansere. Dec. 1905-Jan. 1906, Manuscript Section, State Russian
Museum, St. Petersburg.
---. Letter to E. Lansere. 10 Jan. 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
328
---. Letter to E. Lansere. 12 Feb. 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to E. Lansere. 24 March 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to E. Lansere. 18 May 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Iskusstvo Stelletskogo. Stat’ia s fotografiiami rabot D. S. Stelletskogo iz zh. Apollon s
pometami T. M. Devel’. Apollon, (No. 7 MCMXI). Manuscript Section. Russian
National Library. St. Petersburg.
---. “Dnevnik 1905 goda.” Nashe nasledie 57-58 (2001): 34-47
Berezhnoi, A. F. Tsarskaia tsenzura i bor’ba bol’shevikov za svobodu pechati 1895-
1914. Leningrad: Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1967.
Betz, Margaret. “The Caricatures and Cartoons of the 1905 Russian Revolution: Images
of the Opposition.” Diss. City U of New York, 1984.
Bilibin, I. Letter to P. E. Shcherbov. 6 July 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian
Archive of Art and Literature. Moscow.
Bodnarskii. Spravochnyi ukazatel’ knig i zhurnalov, arestovannykh s 17 oktiabria 1905 g.
po 1 maia 1907g. 1st ed. Moscow: B. o. g., n.d.
Bokhanov, A. N. Burzhuaznaia pressa Rossii i krupnyi kapital. Konets XIX v.-1914.
Moscow: Nauka, 1984.
---. “Hopeless Symbiosis: Power and Right-Wing Radicalism at the Beginning of the
Twentieth Century.” Russia Under the Last Tsar. Opposition and Subversion, 1894-
1917. Ed. Anna Geifman. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1991. 199-213.
Botsianovskii, V., and E. Gollerbakh. Russkaia satira pervoi revoliutsii 1905-1906.
Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925.
Botsianovskii, V. Nikolai II v karikature. Leningrad: Izd-vo “Byloe,” 1925.
---. “Karikatura i tsenzura v nachale XX veka. Iz vospominanii redaktora satiricheskogo
zhurnala.” Byloe 26 (1924): 177-207.
---. “Khudozhnik dvukh revoliutsii S. V. Chekhonin.” Byloe 1 (29) (1925): 237-259.
329
Bowlt, John E. The Silver Age: Russian Art of the Early Twentieth Century and the
"World of Art" Group. Newtonville, Mass.: Oriental Research Partners, 1982.
---. “Art and Violence: The Russian Caricature in the Early Nineteenth and Early
Twentieth Centuries.” Twentieth Century Studies 13/14 (1975): 56-76.
---. “Russian Caricature and the 1905 Revolution,” Print Collector’s Newsletter 1 (1978)
5-8.
---. “Through the Glass Darkly: Images of Decadence in Early Twentieth-Century
Russian Art.” Journal of Contemporary History 17.1 (1982): 93-110.
---. Khudozhniki russkogo teatra. 1880-1930. Sobranie Nikity i Niny Lobanovykh-
Rostovskikh. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1994.
---. “Early Writings of Serge Diaghilev.” The Ballets Russes and Its World. Ed. Lynn
Garafola and Nancy Van Norman Baer. New Haven: Yale UP, 1999. 43-70.
Brake, Laurel, and Anne Hampherys. “Critical theory and Periodical Research.”
Victorian Periodicals Review 22.3 (1989): 12-25.
Bristol, Evelyn. “Idealism and Decadence in Russian Symbolist Poetry.” Slavic Review 2
(1980): 269-280.
Briusov, Valerii. Dnevniki, 1891-1910. Moscow: Izdanie M. i S. Sabashnikovykh, 1927.
Brodskii, V. “Russkaia revoliutsiia 1905 goda i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo zapadnoi
Evropy.” Iskusstvo 11 (1958): 33 – 49.
Brooks, Jeffrey. When Russia Learned to Read. Literacy and Popular Literature, 1861-
1917. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1985.
Chebotarevskaia, A. “Russkaia satira nashikh dnei.” Obrazovanie 5 (1906): 37-46.
Chernovskii, A. ed., Soiuz Russkogo Naroda. Po materialam chrezvychainoi sledstvennoi
komissii vremennogo pravitel’stva 1917 g. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1929.
Chkhartishvili, P. S. “Chernosotentsy v 1917 godu.” Voprosy istorii 8 (1997): 133-143.
Chugunov, G. Mstislav Valerianovich Dobuzhinskii. Leningrad: Khudozhnik RSFSR,
1984.
Chulkov, Georgii. “Iz chastnoi perepiski, o misticheskom anarkhizme,” Voprosy zhizni 7
(1905): 199-204.
330
---. Valtasarovo tsarstvo. Moscow: Izd-vo “Respublika,” 1998.
Clowes, Edith E. “Literary Decadence: Sologub, Schopenhauer, and the Anxiety of
Individuation.” American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of
Slavists. Ed. J. G. Harris. Columbus: Slavica, 1988. 111-121.
Coupe, W. A. “Observations on a Theory of Political Caricature.” Comparative Studies in
Society and History 11.1 (1969): 79-95.
Demchenko, E. P. Politicheskaia grafika Kieva. Period revoliutsii 1905-1907 gg. Kiev:
Naukova Dumka, 1976.
---. Satiricheskie zhurnaly Rossii perioda revoliutsii 1905-1907 gg. Katalog kollektsii
TSNB AN USSR. Kiev, 1976.
Demidenko, I. B. “Khudozhniki na Bashne.” Bashnia Viacheslava Ivanova i kul’tura
Serebriannogo veka. Ed. A. B. Shishkin, et al. St. Petersburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet
S.-Peterb. gos. un-ta, 2006. 212-219.
Dobuzhinskii, M. Letter to K. Siunnerberg, c. 1905. Manuscript Section. Institute of
Russian Language and Literature. St. Petersburg.
---. M. Letter to A. Benua. 1 Sept. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to I. Bilibin. 28 Jan. 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letters (5) to A. Remizov. 17 Dec. 1905-3 Oct. 1911. Manuscript Section. Russian
National Library. St. Petersburg.
---. “Istoriia ostaetsia s nami.” Tvorchestvo 11 (1976): 12-15.
---. Vospominaniia. Ed. G. I. Chugunov. Moscow: Nauka, 1987.
---. Pis’ma. Ed. G. I. Chugunov. St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2001.
Douglas, Allen. War, Memory, and the Politics of Humor. The Canard Enchaîné and the
World War I. Berkeley: U of California P, 2002.
Dreiden, S., and K. Chukovskii. Russkaia revoliutsiia v satire i iumore. Moscow: Izd-vo
Izvestiia TSIK SSSR i VTSIK, 1925.
Dreiden, S. 1905-i god v satire i iumore. Leningrad: Kubuch, 1925.
331
Dul’skii, P. Grafika satiricheskikh zhurnalov 1905-1906 gg. Kazan, 1922.
Engelstein, Laura. Moscow, 1905. Working-Class Organization and Political Conflict.
Stanford: Stanford UP, 1982.
---. The Keys to Happiness: Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-siècle Russia.
Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1992.
Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’: Nikolaevtsy, 1789-1999 gg. Nikolaev: Vozmozhnosti
Kimmerii, 1999.
Evstigneeva, L. A. “Satiricheskie i iumoristicheskie zhurnaly.” Russkaia literatura i
zhurnalistika nachala XX veka. Ed. B. A. Bialik. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. 295-297.
---. Zhurnal “Satirikon” i poety-satirikontsy. Moscow: Nauka, 1968.
Evreinov, N. N. “Vospominaniia o Dobuzhinskom.” Vospominaniia o Dobuzhinskom. St.
Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt, 1997. 30-35; 242-246.
Fedorova, Z. V., and N. F. Chernysheva. Russkie satiricheskie zhurnaly 1905-1907 gg.
Katalog kollektsii. Moscow: Gosudarstvennaia publichnaia istoricheskaia biblioteka,
1980.
Ferenczi, Caspar. “Freedom of the Press under the Old Regime, 1905-1914.” Civil Rights
in Imperial Russia. Ed. Olga Crisp and Linda Edmondson. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1989. 191-214.
Firsov. S. L. “‘Okhranitel’naia ideologiia’ i pravoslavnaia tserkov’ v Rossii, 1825-1861.”
Filosofiia i sotsial’no-politicheskie tsennosti konservatizma v obshchestvennom
soznanii Rossii. Ot istokov k sovremennosti. Vypusk 1. Ed. I. N. Solonin. St.
Petersburg: Izd-vo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 2004. 142-172.
Gafifullin, R., and L. Goriacheva, eds. Kostiumirovannyi bal v Zimnem dvortse.
Issledovaniia, dokumenty, materialy. 2 vols. Moscow: Russkii antikvariat, 2003.
Galai, Shmuel. The Liberation Movement in Russia, 1900-1905. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 2002.
Ganfman, M. “Iavochnyi period svobody stolichnoi pechati.” Svoboda pechati pri
obnovlennom stroe. St. Petersburg: Tipografia t-va “Obshchestvennaia Pol’za,” 1912.
43-61.
Geifman, Anna, ed. Russia under the Last Tsar. Opposition and Subversion, 1894-1917.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1991.
332
Gerasimov, A. M. “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii 1905 goda.” Iskusstvo 6 (1935): 44-45.
Giliarovskii, V. A. Sobranie sochinenii v chetyrekh tomakh. Moscow : Poligrafresursy,
1999.
Goldobin, A.V. “‘Zabiiaka.’ Iz vospominanii zhurnalista o 1905 gode.” Zhurnalist 10
(26) (1925): 17-19.
Goldstein, Robert Justin. Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century
France. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State UP, 1989.
Golubeva, O. D. “Izdatel’skoe delo v Rossii v period pervoi russkoi revoliutsii (1905-
1907).” Kniga. Issledovaniia i materialy 24 (1972): 115-141.
Golynets, G. V., and S. V. Golynets. Ivan Iakovlevich Bilibin. Moscow: Izd-vo
“Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo,” 1972.
Gomberg, E. P. “Politicheskaia grafika epokhi pervoi russkoi revoliutsii.” Uchenye
zapiski LGU 220 (1956).
Gomberg-Verzhbinskaia E. P. Russkoe iskusstvo i revoliutsiia 1905. Grafika. Zhivopis’.
Leningrad: Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1960.
Goncharuk, M. L. Ukrainska satira periodu revoliutsii 1905-1907 rokiv. Kiiv: Naukova
Dumka, 1966.
Gor’kii, A. M. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Moscow: Nauka, 1968-1976.
---. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Pis’ma. 1905-1906. Moscow: Nauka, 1999
---. Sobranie sochinenii v vosemnadsati tomakh. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo
khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1960.
Gornfel’d, A. Letters (2) to Z. Grzhebin. 8 Aug.-14 Dec. 1907. Manuscript Section.
Russian National Library. St. Petersburg.
Gorodetskii, D. M. “Zarozhdenie karikatury v Rossii.” Literaturnyi vestnik 6.8 (1902).
Goulzadian, Anne. L’Empire du dernier Tsar. 410 cartes postales 1896-1917. Editions
ASTRID, 1982.
Grabar’, I. E. Moia zhizn’. Avtomonografiia. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1937.
---. Pis’ma. 1891-1917. Moscow, 1974.
333
Grand-Carteret, John. Nicolas ange de la Paix, l’empereur du knout. Paris, 1908.
Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths. New York: Penguin Books, 1992.
Grechishkin, S., and A. Lavrov, Simvolisty vblizi. Stat’i i publikatsii. St. Petersburg:
Skifia, 2004.
Gringmut, V. A. Rukovodstvo chernosotentsa-monarkhista. Kremenchug: Izd-vo SRN,
1906.
Grossman, Joan D. “Russian Symbolism and the Year 1905: The Case of Valery
Bryusov.” Slavic and East European Journal 61.3 (1983): 341-362.
---. Valery Briusov and the Riddle of Russian Decadence. Berkeley: U of California P,
1985.
Grzhebin, Z. Letter to A. P. Ostroumova-Lebedeva. 3 July 1905. Manuscript Section.
Russian National Library. St. Petersburg.
---. Letters (8) to A. Remizov. C. 1906. Manuscript Section. Russian National Library. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to K. Erberg (Siunnerberg). 27 March 1906. Manuscript Section. Institute of
Russian Language and Literature. St. Petersburg.
---. Letters to A. Gornfel’d (6). 1907. Manuscript Section. Russian National Library. St.
Petersburg.
Grzhebina, E., and G. N. Kovalevskaia. “‘Zhupel.’ Istoriia sozdaniia zhurnala.” Opyty 1
(1994): 177-206.
Gurko, V. I. Features and Figures of the Past: Government and Opinion in the Reign of
Nicholas II. Ed. J. E. Wallace Sterling, Xenia Joukoff Eudin and H. H. Fisher. Trans.
Laura Matveev. Stanford: Stanford UP; London: H. Milford, Oxford UP, 1939.
Gusarova, A. Mstislav Dobuzhinskii. Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, 1982.
Habermas, Jürgen. “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964)” New German
Critique 3 (Autumn, 1974): 49-55.
---. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of
Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge: The
MIT Press, 2000.
334
Harcave, Sidney. First Blood. The Russian Revolution of 1905. London: The Bodley
Head, 1964.
Harkins. William E. “The Literary Content of “The World of Art.” Literary Journalism in
Imperial Russia. Ed. Deborah A. Martinsen. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. 197-
206.
Herlihy, Patricia. The Alcoholic Empire: Vodka and Politics in Late Imperial Russia.
Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002.
Iakovlev, G. “Evrei v Rossii i anti-semitism.” Vestnik znaniia 12 (1906): 332-341.
Iampol’skii, I. G. “Valerii Briusov i pervaia russkaia revoliutsiia.” Literaturnoe
nasledstvo 15 (1934): 201-220.
---. Satiricheskaia zhurnalistika 1860-kh godov; zhurnal revoliutsionnoi satiry “Iskra,”
1859-1873. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1964.
---. Satiricheskie i iumoristicheskie zhurnaly 1860-kh godov. Leningrad: Izd-vo
Leningradskogo universiteta, 1973.
Isakov, S. 1905 v satire i karikature. Leningrad: Priboi, 1928.
---. “O revoliutsionnoi grafike 1905 g.” Iskusstvo 6 (1935): 33-38.
Iuon, K. F. “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii 1905 goda.” Iskusstvo 6 (1935): 43.
Iuritsyn, S. Letters to A. Gornfel’d (3) 19/6. 9. 1905. Manuscript Section. Russian
National Library. St. Petersburg.
Ivanov, Elisei. Neugasshie iskry. Al’bom karrikatur i pouchitel’nykh risunkov. St.
Petersburg, 1864.
Ivanov, Viacheslav. Letter to L. Zinovieva-Annibal. 13 July 1906. Manuscript Section.
Russian National Library. St. Petersburg.
---. Letter to L. Zinovieva-Annibal. 23 July 1906. Manuscript Section. Russian National
Library. St. Petersburg.
---. Sobranie sochinenii. Ed. D. V. Ivanova and O. Deshart. 3 vols. Brussels, 1979.
Ivinskii, M. I. “Russkaia revoliutsionnaia satira.” Vestnik znaniia 1 (1906): 33-48.
Izgoevich, S. “Iz proshlogo nashei tsenzury.” Nasha starina 10 (1915): 950-959.
335
Kantseliariia Nikolaevskogo gradonachal’nika. Fond 222 Op. 1, d. 82. State Archive.
Nikolaev region. Ukraine.
Karasik, Z. M. “M. Gor’kii i satiricheskie zhurnaly ‘Zhupel’ i ‘Adskaia pochta.’” M.
Gor’kii v epokhu revoliutsii 1905-1907 godov. Materialy, vospominaniia,
issledovaniia. Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1957. 357-387.
Kastorskii, S. V. “M. Gor’kii i poety – ‘znan’evtsy.’” M. Gor’kii i poety “Znaniia.”
Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1958. 5-58.
Kayser, Wolfgang. The Grotesque in Art and Literature. Trans. Urlich Weisstein. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
Kemnitz, Thomas Milton. ”The Cartoon as a Historical Source.” Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 4.1 (1973): 81-93.
Kennan, George. “The Reaction in Russia. A Review of Events Since the “Bloody
Sunday” of January 1905. Third Paper: the Laws, the Courts, and the Prisons,” The
Century LXXX (May-Oct., 1910): 925-934.
Kennedy, Janet. The “Mir iskusstva” Group and Russian Art, 1898-1912. New York:
Garland Pub., 1977.
Kesich, Lydia. “Gorky and the Znanie volumes 1904-1913.” Diss. Columbia U, 1967.
Kiazimov. G. Teoriia komicheskogo. Problemy iazykovykh sredstv i priemov. Baku:
Takhsil, 2004.
King, David, and Cathy Porter. Blood and Laughter. Caricatures from the 1905
Revolution. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1983.
---. Images of Revolution. Graphic Art from 1905 Russia. New York: Pantheon Books,
1983.
Kirilov, N. “Razgovor s A. A. Suvorinym,” Dvadstatyi vek 2 (March 26, 1906): 2.
Kir’ianov. I. I. Pravye partii v Rossii 1911-1917. Moscow: Rosspen, 2001.
Kollektivnoe pis’mo I. Bilibina, E. Lansere, V. Serova i dr. Somovu K. A. ob organizatsii
tovarishchestva dlia izdaniia zhurnala ‘Adskaia pochta.’ C. 1906. Manuscript
Section. State Russian Archive of Art and Literature. Moscow.
Kopshitser, M. Valentin Serov. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1972.
336
Koretskaia, I. V. “Tsikl stikhotvorenii Viacheslava Ivanova “Godina gneva.” Revoliutsiia
1905-1907 godov i literatura. Moscow: Izd-vo “Nauka,” 1978. 115-138.
Kranikhfel’d, V. “Zhurnal’nye otgoloski. O russkoi satiricheskoi zhurnalistike. P. S. Nash
otvet ‘Synu otechestva.’” Mir bozhii 12 (1905): 109-131.
Kuzmin, Mikhail. Dnevnik 1905-1907. Ed. N. A. Bogomolov and S. V. Shumikhin. St.
Petersburg: Izd-vo Ivana Limbakha, 2000.
Kuznetsov, V. A. “Satira v rannem tvorchestve Gor’kogo.” O tvorchestve Gor’kogo. Ed.
I. K. Kuzmichev. Gor’kovskoe knizhnoe izd-vo, 1956. 159-172.
L-skii, M. “Vo vlasti gluposti.” Istoricheskii vestnik 4-5 (1912): 116.
Lansere, E. Letter to A. Benua. March 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum.
St. Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 15 March 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 21 March 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 28 March 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 19 May 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 1 July 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 9 Sept. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 19 Oct. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 12 Nov. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 17 Nov. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
337
---. Letter to A. Benua. [Dec.] 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 3 Dec. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to N. Lansere. 26 Dec. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 5 Jan. 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 28 Jan. 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. Spring of 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 17 April 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 22 April 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. Letter to A. Benua. 11 May 1906. Manuscript Section. State Russian Museum. St.
Petersburg.
---. “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii 1905 goda.” Iskusstvo 6 (1935): 40-43.
---. “‘Zhupel’ and ‘Adskaia pochta.’” Sovetskoe iskusstvo 59 (1935): 4.
Lansere, O. E. Letter to N. E. Lansere. 5 Dec. 1905. Manuscript Section. State Russian
Museum. St. Petersburg.
Lapshina, N. “Mir Iskusstva.” Ocherki istorii i tvorcheskoi praktiki. Moscow: Iskusstvo,
1977.
Laqueur, Walter. Black Hundred. The Rise of the Extreme Right in Russia. New York:
HarperCollins, 1993.
Lavrov, A., ed. Letopis’ literaturnykh sobytii v Rossii kontsa XIX-nachala XX v. Vol. 1.
Moscow: IMLI RAN, 2002.
338
Lekhtblau, L. B. Russkie satiricheskie zhurnaly XVIII veka. Izbrannye stat’i i zametki.
Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe uchebno-pedagogicheskoe izd-vo Narkomprosa RSFSR,
1940.
Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva A. M. Gor’kogo. Vypusk 1, 1868-1907. Moscow: Izd-vo
Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1958.
Levintov, V. “Satiricheskie zhurnaly 1905-1907.” Voprosy sovetskoi literatury 5 (1953):
21-30.
Lifar, Serge. Serge Diaghilev. His Life, His Work, His Legend. An Intimate Biography.
London: Putnam, 1945.
Likhomanov, A. V. Bor’ba samoderzhaviia za obshchestvennoe mnenie v 1905-1907 gg.
St. Petersburg: Rossiiskaia natsional’naia biblioteka, 1997.
Lisitsyna, G. G. “Istoriia izdaniia Z. I. Grzhebinym satiricheskogo zhurnala ‘Zhupel.’ Po
dokumentam Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo arkhiva.” Russian
Studies. Ezhekvartal’nik russkoi filologii i kul’tury 1.3 (1995): 103-142.
Liubimov, A. “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii 1905 goda.” Iskusstvo 6 (1935): 46.
Lobanov, V. 1905 god v zhivopisi. Moscow, 1922.
Löwe, Heinz-Dietirch. The Tsars and the Jews. Reform, Reaction and Anti-Semitism in
Imperial Russia, 1772-1917. Langhorne: Harwood academic publishers, 1993.
Luker, Nicholas. An Anthology of Russian Neo-Realism: The “Znanie” School of Maxim
Gorky. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1982.
L’vov-Rogachevskii, V. Pechat’ i tsenzura. Moscow: Knigoizdatel’stvo “Trud i Volia,”
1906.
McReynolds, Louise. The News under Russia’s Old Regime. The Development of a Mass-
Circulation Press. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991.
---. “The Russian Intelligentsia in the Public Sphere: The Mass-Circulation Press and
Political Culture, 1860-1917.” The Communication Review 1.1 (1995): 83-100.
---. Russia at Play. Leisure Activities at the End of the Tsarist Era. Ithaca: Cornell UP,
2003.
Maliazh. “Nedavnee i nastoiashchee. Kharakteristika satiricheskikh zhurnalov.” Otkliki
khudozhestvennoi zhizni 1 (1910): 70-75.
339
Makhonina, S. I. Russkaia dorevoliutsionnaia pechat’. (1905-1914). Moscow: Izd-vo
Moskovskogo universiteta, 1991.
---. Istoriia russkoi zhurnalistiki nachala XX veka. Moscow: Nauka, 2002.
Marks, Steven. How Russia Shaped the Modern World. From Anti-Semitism, Ballet to
Bolshevism. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2003.
Masanov, I. F. Russkie satiro-iumoristicheskie zhurnaly. Bibliograficheskoe opisanie.
Vypusk pervyi. I. Vesel’chak. (1858-1859 gg.). II. Iskra. (1859-1873 gg.). Vladimir na
Kliaz’me: Tipografiia gubernskogo pravleniia, 1911.
---. Slovar’ psevdonimov russkikh pisatelei, uchenykh i obshchestvennykh deiatelei. 4
vols. Moscow: Izd-vo vsesoiuznoi knizhnoi palaty, 1956.
Meilakh, B. S. “Simvolisty v 1905 godu.” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 27-28 Moscow:
Zhurnal’no-gazetnoe ob”edinenie, 1937. 167-197.
Mikhailovskii, B. V. Izbrannye stat’i o literature i iskusstve. Moscow: 1969.
Miliukov, P. N. Vospominaniia. (1859-1917). Ed. M. M. Karpovich and B. I. El’kin. Vol.
1. New York: Izd-vo imeni Chekhova, 1955.
Milotvorskaia, M. “Grafika.” Puti razvitiia russkogo iskusstva kontsa XIX – nachala XX
veka. Ed. N. I. Sokolova and V. V. Vanslov. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1972. 195-218.
Minskii, N. Religiia budushchego. St. Petersburg, 1905.
---. Na obshchestvennye temy. St. Petersburg, 1909.
Mintslov, S. R. “14 mesiatsev “svobody pechati.” 17 oktiabria 1905 g. – 1 ianvaria 1907
g. Zametki bibliografa.” Byloe 3 (15) (1907): 123-148.
---. Satiricheskie zhurnaly. Knigokhranilishche S. R. Mintslova. St. Petersburg, 1913.
Mintz, Z. G. Poetika russkogo simvolizma. St. Petersburg: Iskusstvo-SPB, 2004.
Mitskevich, S. I., ed. Al’bom revoliutsionnoi satiry 1905-1906 gg. Moscow:
Gosudarstvennoe izd-vo, 1925.
Moor, D. S. “Khudozhniki o revoliutsii 1905 goda.” Iskusstvo 6 (1935): 39-40.
Mosolov. A. A. Pri dvore poslednego imperatora: Zapiski nachal’nika kantseliarii
ministra dvora. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1992.
340
Movchan, G. I. “Literaturnaia skazka v period podgotovki i sversheniia pervoi russkoi
revoliutsii.” Uchenye zapiski. Dushanbinskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut
im. T. G. Shevchenko. Russkaia i zarubezhnaia literatura. 68 Dushanbe, 1969. 59-76.
---. “Skazki Sologuba.” Uchenye zapiski. Dushanbinskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii
institut im. T. G. Shevchenko. Russkaia i zarubezhnaia literatura. 68 Dushanbe, 1969.
77-85.
Mueller, Carl R. Introduction. Arthur Schnitzler. Four Major Plays. Lyme: A Smith and
Kraus Book, 1999. v-ix.
Muratov, M. V. Knizhnoe delo v Rossii v XIX-XX vekakh. Ocherk istorii knigoizdatel’stva
i knigotorgovli. 1800-1917 gody. Moscow, Leningrad, 1931.
Nikolaev, D. D. “M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin i russkie satiriko-iumoristicheskie zhurnaly
1901-1917.” M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin i russkaia satira XVIII - XX vekov. Ed. D. P.
Nikolaev. Moscow: Nasledie, 1998. 239-268.
Obninskii, Viktor. Polgoda russkoi revoliutsii. Sbornik materialov k istorii russkoi
revoliutsii (oktiabr’ 1905 – aprel’ 1906 gg.). Vypusk 1. Moscow: Tipografiia I. N.
Kholchev i K, 1906.
Obozrevatel’. “Graf S. I. Vitte. Po dannym istoricheskikh zhurnalov.” Nasha starina 10
(1915): 968-980.
Omel’anchuk, I. V. Chernosotennoe dvizhenie na territorii Ukrainy, 1904-1914. Kiev:
Natsioal’nyi institut ukrainsko-rossiiskikh otnoshenii, 2000.
---. Chernosotennoe dvizhenie v Rossiiskoi imperii, 1901-1914. Kiev: MAUP, 2006.
Ostretsov, V. Chernaia sotnia i krasnaia sotnia. Moscow: Voennoe izd-vo. Voenno-
patrioticheskoe ob”edinenie “Otechestvo,” 1991.
Ostroumova-Lebedeva, A. P. Diary. Oct. 9, 1898-Dec. 15, 1909. St. Petersburg, Paris,
Annenki. Manuscript Section. Russian National Library. St. Petersburg.
---. Avtobiograficheskie zapiski. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2003.
Ovcharenko, A. I. “Publitsistika M. Gor’kogo (1905-1907).” M. Gor’kii v epokhu
revoliutsii 1905-1907 godov. Materialy, vospominaniia, issledovaniia. Moscow: Izd-
tvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1957. 275-335.
Patrusheva, N. G. Tsenzura v Rossii v kontse XIX - nachale XX veka. Ed. M. A. Benina.
St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2003.
341
Peshekhonova, Antonina. Byloe. Vospominaniia 1905-1919. Manuscript Section. Russian
National Library. St. Petersburg.
Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990.
Pis’mo redaktsii zhurnala ‘Adskaia pochta’ Buninu, I. A. 20 April 1906. Manuscript
Section. State Russian Archive of Art and Literature. Moscow.
Podkopaeva, I. N., and A. N. Sveshnikova, eds. Konstantin Andreevich Somov. Mir
khudozhnika. Pis’ma, dnevniki, suzhdeniia sovremennikov. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1979.
Pokrovskaia, Z. A., and D. I. Iuniverg. Satiricheskie zhurnaly pervoi russkoi revoliutsii
(1905-1907). Katalog vystavki. Moscow, 1975.
Popkova, N. A. Satiricheskie zhurnaly 1905-1907. Katalog. Saratov: Zonal’naia
nauchnaia biblioteka Saratovskogo universiteta, 1991.
Priimak, N. L. “Novye dannye o satiricheskikh zhurnalakh 1905 goda “‘Zhupel’ i
‘Adskaia pochta.’” Ocherki po russkomu i sovetskomu iskusstvu. Sbornik statei. Ed.
B. Iashchina. Moscow: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1965. 114-124.
Propp, V. I. Problemy komizma i smekha. Sankt-Peterburg: Izd-vo “Aleteia,” 1997.
Pykett, Lyn. “Reading the Periodical Press: Text and Context.” Investigating Victorian
Journalism. Ed. Laurel Brake, Aled Jones and Lionel Madden. New York: St.
Martin’s Press, 1990. 3-18.
Pyman, Avril. A History of Russian Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.
R-ii, S. “Pervaia russkaia gazetnaia karikatura na tsaria.” Zhurnalist 3 (1925): 33-34.
Radakov, A. Karikatura. Leningrad: Knigoizdatel’stvo “Blago,” 1926.
Raskin, D. I. “Ideologiia russkogo pravogo radikalizma v kontse XIX – nachale XX v.”
Natsional’naia pravaia prezhde i teper’. Istoriko-sotsiologicheskie ocherki. Chast’ 1.
Rossiia i russkoe zarubezh’e. Ed. R. S. Ganelin, et al. St. Petersburg, 1992. 5-47.
Rawson, Don C. Russian Rightists and the Revolution of 1905. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1995.
Richardson, William. Zolotoe Runo and Russian Modernism: 1905-1910. Ann Arbor:
Ardis, 1986.
342
Rogger, Hans. “The Formation of the Russian Right 1906-1909.” Californian Slavic
Studies 3 (1964): 23-34.
---. Jewish Policies and Right-wing Politics in Imperial Russia. Berkeley: U of California
P, 1986.
---. Russia in the Age of Modernization and Revolution. 1881-1917. London: Longman,
1983.
Rosenthal, Bernice G. Dmitry Sergeevich Merezhkovsky and the Silver Age: The
Development of a Revolutionary Mentality. The Hague, 1975.
---. “The Transmutation of the Symbolist Ethos: Mystical Anarchism and the Revolution
of 1905.” Slavic Review 36.4 (1977): 608-628.
Rudzinskii, P. T. Satiricheskie zhurnaly pervoi russkoi revoliutsii 1905-1907 gg.
Novosibirsk, 1990.
Rusakova, A. A. Simvolism v russkoi zhivopisi. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1995.
Russkaia satira pervoi revoliutsii 1905-1906 gg. Leningrad: GIZ, 1925.
Ruud, Charles. Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804-1906.
Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1982.
Savinov, A. N. “Aleksandr Benua v 1905 godu.” Problemy razvitiia russkogo iskusstva 4
(1972) 56-62.
Schaefer, Todd M., and Thomas A. Birkland, eds., Encyclopedia of Media and Politics.
Washington: SQ Press, 2007.
Semennikov, V. P. Russkie satiricheskie zhurnaly, 1769-1774. Razyskaniia ob izdateliakh
ikh i sotrudnikakh. St. Petersburg: Russkii bibliofil, 1914.
Semenova, Natalia. “Alkhimiia tsveta.” Nashe nasledie 61 (2002): 25-30.
Serafimovich, A. Sobranie sochinenii. Moscow, 1948.
Serov, V. A. Perepiska, 1884-1911. Leningrad-Moscow, 1937.
Serova, O. V. Vospominaniia o moem otse Valentine Aleksandroviche Serove. Leningrad:
Iskusstvo, 1986.
Shebuev, N. “Istoriia moego ‘Pulemeta.’” Zhurnalist 12 (28) (1925): 21-25.
343
Shelokhaev, V. V., et al., eds. Politicheskie partii Rossii. Konets XIX – pervaia tret’ XX
veka. Dokumental’noe nasledie. Pravye partii. Dokumenty i materialy. 2 vols.
Moscow: Rosspen, 1998.
---. ed. Programmy politicheskikh partii Rossii. Konets XIX-Nachalo XX vv. Moscow:
Rosspen, 1995.
---. Ideologiia i politicheskaia organizatsiia rossiiskoi liberal’noi burzhuazii 1907-1914.
Moscow: Nauka, 1991.
Sherbina, V. R., et al. “Valerii Briusov.” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 85 Moscow: Nauka,
1976.
Shevtsov, A. V. Izdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’ russkikh nesotsialisticheskikh partii nachala
XX veka. St. Petersburg: Rossiiskaia natsional’naia biblioteka, 1997.
Shishkin, A. B., et al., eds. Bashnia Viacheslava Ivanova i kul’tura Serebriannogo veka.
St. Petersburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet S.-Peterb. gos. un-ta, 2006.
Shleev, V. V. Revoliutsiia 1905-1907 godov i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo. Vypusk pervyi.
Peterburg. Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, 1977.
---. Revoliutsiia 1905-1907 godov i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo. Vypusk vtoroi. Moskva i
rossiiskaia provintsiia. Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, 1978.
---. Revoliutsiia 1905-1907 godov i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo.Vypusk tretii. Ukraina i
Moldaviia. Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, 1981.
---. Revoliutsiia i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo. Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, 1987.
---. Revoliutsiia 1905-1907 godov i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo. Vypusk chetvertyi. Latviia,
Estoniia. Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, 1989.
Sidorov, A. A. Russkaia grafika nachala XX veka. Moscow, 1969.
Siunnerberg, Konstantin. Letters to F. Sologub. 1905-1906. Manuscript Section. State
Russian Archive of Art and Literature. Moscow.
---. “Khudozhestvennaia zhizn’ Peterburga.” Zolotoe runo 4 (1906): 80-83.
---. “Khudozhestvennaia zhizn’ Peterburga.” Zolotoe runo 5 (1906): 64-65.
Sobolev, Iurii. “Revoliutsionnaia satira piatogo goda.” Vecherniaia Moskva 170 (1925):
4.
344
Sokolov, I. M., and V. Chicherova, eds. Onezhskie byliny. Moscow: Izdanie
gosudarstvennogo literaturnogo muzeia, 1948.
Sokolova, N. “Tematika revoliutsii v stankovoi zhivopisi 1905-1907 gg.” Iskusstvo 6
(1935): 3-32.
Sologub, F. Letters (11) to A. Remizov. 1905-1910. Manuscript Section. Russian
National Library. St. Petersburg.
Somov, K. A. Letters (31) to A. P. Ostroumova-Lebedeva, 1898-1907. Manuscript
Section. Russian National Library. St. Petersburg.
Spiridonova (Evstigneeva), L. A. Russkaia satiricheskaia literatura nachala XX veka.
Moscow: Nauka, 1977.
---. “M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin i russkaia satira nachala XX veka.” M. E. Saltykov-
Shchedrin i russkaia satira XVIII - XX vekov. Ed. D. P. Nikolaev. Moscow: Nasledie,
1998. 208-239.
Stein, Sarah Abrebaya. Making Jews Modern. The Yiddish and Ladino Press in the
Russian and Ottoman Empires. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2004.
Steinberg, Mark D. “Russia’s fin de siècle, 1900-1914,” The Cambridge History of
Russia. Ed. Maureen Perrie, D. C. B. Lieven and Ronald Grigor Suny. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2006. 67-93.
Stepanov, Iurii. Konstanty: Slovar’ russkoi kul’tury. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt,
2001.
Stepanov. S. A. Chernaia sotnia v Rossii. 1905-1914 gg. Moscow: Izd-vo VZPI, A/O
“Rosvuznauka,” 1992.
Stepanov. A. D. Chernaia sotnia. Vzgliad cherez stoletie. St. Petersburg: Tsarskoe delo,
2000.
Sternin, G. “Grafika russkikh satiricheskikh zhurnalov 1905-1906 gg.” Iskusstvo 3
(1955): 33-38.
Stikhotvornaia satira pervoi russkoi revoliutsii 1905-1907 gg. Leningrad: Sovetskii
pisatel’, 1969.
Streicher, Lawrence H. “David Low and the Sociology of Caricature.” Comparative
Studies in Society and History 8.1 (1965): 1-23.
345
---. “On a Theory of Political Caricature.” Comparative Studies in Society and History
9.4 (1967): 427-445.
Surh, Gerald D. 1905 in St. Peteresburg. Labor, Society, and Revolution. Stanford:
Stanford UP, 1989.
Suris, B. Listok iz chastnogo arkhiva. (K istorii zhurnala ‘Zhupel.’). Manuscript Section.
State Russian Museum. St. Petersburg.
Surkov, A. A., ed. Kratkaia literaturnaia entsiklopediia. Moscow: Izd-vo “Sovetskaia
entsiklopediia,” 1962.
Suvorin, A. Dnevnik. Moscow: Novosti, 1992.
Svoboda pechati pri obnovlennom stroe. St. Petersburg: Tipografia t-va
“Obshchestvennaia Pol’za,” 1912.
Thompson, Paul. Rabochee dvizhenie i karikatura. Moscow, 1926.
Timonich, A. Russkaia satiricheskaia zhurnalistika 1905-1907. Materialy po bibliografii.
Moscow, 1930.
Tolstaia, L. I., ed. Vospominaniia ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia grafa I. I.
Tolstogo. 31 oktiabria 1905 g. – 24 aprelia 1906 g. Memuary russkoi professury.
Moscow: Greko-latinskii kabinet I. A. Shachalina, 1997.
Tolstoi, A. K. Sobranie sochinenii. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1964.
Troianskii, P., and Z. Grzhebin. Letters to I. Bunin. March 1906. Manuscript Section.
State Russian Archive of Art and Literature. Moscow.
Troianskii, P. Letter to V. Briusov. Circa spring 1906. Manuscript Section. Russian
National Library. St. Petersburg.
Trotsky, Leon. 1905. New York: Random House, 1971.
Trubachev, S. S. Istoriia karikatury v Rossii. St. Petersburg, 1902.
---. “Kratkii ocherk istorii karikatury v Rossii.” Illiustrirovannaia istoriia karikatury. Ed.
A. Shvyriov. St. Petersburg, 1903.
Trusova, N. S., ed. Nachalo pervoi russkoi revoliutsii. Ianvar’-Mart 1905 goda. Moscow:
Izd-vo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1955.
346
Valle-De-Barr, E. A. Svoboda russkoi pechati: Posle 17 oktiabria 1905 g. Samara, 1906.
Vengerov, A. “Satiricheskie zhurnaly.” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ F. Brokgauza i I.
Efrona. Vol. 4. St. Petersburg, 1907.
Verner, Andrew M. The crisis of Russian Autocracy: Nicholas II and the 1905
Revolution. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1990.
Vetlugin, G. “S. I. Vitte i dekabr’skoe vosstanie v Moskve. Iz vospominanii chinovnika.”
Byloe 6 (34) (1925): 225-226.
Vinogradov, N. N. “Satira i iumor v 1905-1907 gg. Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’.”
Bibliograficheskie izvestiia 3-4 (1916): 126-135.
Vitte, S. I. Vospominaniia. 3 vols. Moscow: Skif Aleks, 1994.
Volkov, A. M. Gor’kii i literaturnoe dvizhenie kontsa XIX - nachala XX veka. Moscow:
Sovetskii pisatel’, 1951.
Von Geldern, James and Louise McReynolds, eds., Entertaining Tsarist Russia. Tales,
Songs, Plays, Movies, Jokes, Ads and Images from Russian Urban Life 1779-1917.
Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1998.
Vydrina. I. I., ed. Aleksandr Nikolaevich Benua i Mstislav Valerianovich Dobuzhinskii.
Perepiska (1903-1957). St. Petersburg: izd-vo “Sad iskusstv,” 2003.
Weil, Irwin. “Gorkij’s Relations with the Bolsheviks and Symbolits.” Slavic and East
European Journal 4.18 (1960): 201-219.
Weinberg, Robert. “The Pogrom of 1905 in Odessa: A Case Study,” Pogroms: Anti-
Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, eds. John D. Klier, and Shlomo
Lambroza. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. 248-291.
Wolff, Michael. “Charting the Golden Stream.” Victorian Periodicals Newsletter 13
(1971): 26-27.
Wright, Thomas. A History of Caricature and Grotesque in Literature and Art. New
York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1968.
Yershov, Peter, ed. Letters of Gorky and Andreev, 1899-1912. Trans. Lydia Weston. New
York: Columbia UP, 1958.
Zh, V. “Nabroski bez zaglaviia,” Rus’ 6 (Nov. 11, 1905): 3.
347
Zheverzheev, L. Opis’ moego sobraniia. Vol. 1. Petrograd, 1915. 285-451.
Zinovieva-Annibal, L. Letter to M. M. Zamiatina. 24-26 April 1906. Manuscript Section.
Russian National Library, St. Petersburg.
348
APPENDIX: PRESS LAWS OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, OCTOBER 1905-
MARCH 1906.
Throughout modern European history, periodical satirical journalism was frequently
subjected to state censorship. National governments dealt with it differently, often
distinguishing between the graphic image and the printed word. In nineteenth century
France, for example, government spokesmen differentiated between cartoons and texts,
finding that visual material had greater impact on the reader than the written word. In
keeping with this belief, during periods of political instability, pictures found to be
particularly threatening to the existing social order were censored more often than printed
matter.
448
The Russian government and lawmakers of the first decade of the twentieth century
did not seem to draw a principal distinction between visual and verbal modes of satirical
expression; to protect the institutions of the state during the tumultuous period of the
1905 Revolution, both drawings and texts served as pretexts for repressive measures
taken against journals, their editors and contributors. Prior to the October Manifesto, the
regime had a well oiled, albeit cumbersome, censorship machine in place to deal with
unreliable periodicals found in violation of press laws. The practice of censoring
periodicals entailed the application of a variety of traditional measures of a primarily
448
Robert Justin Goldstein, Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France (Kent, Ohio:
The Kent State UP, 1989) 1.
349
administrative nature, which included warnings, temporary halt to issuing, bans on retail
sales as well as the most severe measure, complete closure of the publication.
449
Societal pressure to reform the existing restrictive press laws grew in the months
leading to the October Manifesto.
450
Inasmuch as it concerned periodical publications in
general and satirical journals in particular, the October Manifesto served as a demarcation
line which divided this period into two distinct phases. The immediate post-October
Manifesto phase was one of legislative experimentation as the government tried to retain
control of the press while at the same time striving to meet the promises of the October
Manifesto. A brief overview of the principal press directives and rules passed between
October 19, 1905 and March 23, 1906 may provide a better understanding of the legal
order that regulated the periodical satirical journals under study during that period.
The first among these new rules was the so-called Circular Order from the Chief
Administration for Press Affairs (Tsirkuliarnoe rasporiazhenie glavnogo upravleniia po
delam pechati).
451
Passed on October 19, 1905, the Circular Order represented the initial
response by the government to the October Manifesto itself - the act that, as regarded the
liberation of the press, caught government officials largely unawares. The Circular Order
was something akin to an emergency measure geared to provide the governors,
censorship committees and individual censors overseeing periodical publications with a
set of immediate directives (ukazaniia) about conducting their duties in the new
449
V. L’vov-Rogachevskii, Pechat’ i tzenzura (Moscow: Trud i Volia, 1906) 89.
450
See Charles Ruud, Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804-1906 (Toronto: U
of Toronto P, 1982) 207-218.
451
Henceforth, the Circular Order.
350
liberalized environment.
452
At the same time, the Circular Order embodied a positive
response by the state to the aspirations of the reform-minded liberals (as voiced, for
instance, by the prominent jurist and Senator A. F. Koni), who argued that freedom of
speech was possible only when matters of the press were within the jurisdiction of the
court system.
453
Thus, the most significant feature of the Circular Order was its adoption
of the Russian criminal code as the fundamental basis for qualifying the crimes
committed by newspapers and journals. In accordance with this act, post-October
Manifesto censorship committees were advised to appeal directly to the offices of public
prosecution in cases when a published periodical was suspected of featuring material that
contained elements of crime prescribed by the penal code. Henceforth, prosecutors were
vested with making the decision as to whether or not to take legal action against suspect
publications and their producers.
454
The second legal act designed to regulate the press during the post-October Manifesto
period and the one that had a direct bearing on the inopportune fate of many satirical
journals, and Bugbear in particular, was the Temporary Rules for Periodical Publications
(Vremennye pravila o povremennykh izdaniiakh).
455
Passed by the Cabinet of Ministers
and the State Council on November 24, 1905, the rules were made public the following
452
The Circular Order was published in the first supplement to St. Petersburg City Administration Herald
(Vedomosti Sankt-Peterburgskogo gradonachal’stva) 224 (Oct. 22, 1905).
453
See A. F. Koni, “Vladimir Danilovich Spasovich (Rech’ v godovom sobranii S. Pet. iuridicheskogo
obshchestva, 23 fev., 1903)” Ocherki i vospominaniia (Publichnye chteniia, stat’i i zametki) (St.
Petersburg, 1906) 776. Quoted from: Ruud 211, 305.
454
See Vedomosti Sankt-Peterburgskogo gradonachal’stva 1.
455
Henceforth, the Temporary Press Rules.
351
day in the government newspaper The Government Herald (Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik).
456
Substantially more comprehensive in comparison with the Circular Order, the Temporary
Press Rules effectively legitimized what had already been stated in the Circular Order a
month earlier. Preliminary censorship, both general and religious, as well as many other
administrative measures were now abolished and the crimes committed by periodical
publications would now be dealt with in court.
457
Significantly, the Temporary Press
Rules also defined a wide range of punishment provisions, which, as the case of Bugbear
demonstrated, were put into immediate use.
The legislative act that followed the Temporary Press Rules, and that addressed the
illustrated journals in particular, thus directly affecting Hellish Post, was the March 18,
1906 Amendments to the Temporary Rules.
458
Inasmuch as they concerned the freedom
of the press, the March 18 Amendments marked the onset of counter-liberal reaction for
they effectively reinstated the preliminary (e.g. pre-publication) censorship of illustrated
periodicals. Article 3 of the act stated that “every issue of a periodical which contains
graphic images, drawings as well as other pictures with or without verbal captions is to be
submitted by the printer’s proprietor or manager … to the local authority or to the
functionary with the department for press affairs no later than twenty-four hours prior to
the release of the issue from the printer’s.” Moreover, Article 6 of The March 18
Amendments expanded the scope of punitive measures that could now be taken against
456
See Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik (St. Petersburg) 255 (Nov. 26, 1905) 1-2.
457
For an additional discussion of the Temporary Press Rules and the practical effect this act had on the
periodical press, see E. A. Valle-De-Barr, “Svobod а” russkoi pechati. (Posle 17 oktiabria 1905 g.)
(Samara, 1906) 14-23; Ruud 221-223.
458
Henceforth, the March 18 Amendments.
352
illustrated periodicals. It stated, for example, that the local committee or a functionary
with the department of press affairs was authorized to order the immediate arrest of all
issues of a periodical ready for distribution when said periodical contained elements of
crime delineated in the criminal code. It was also decreed that all the printing equipment
used in the production of the condemned issue was also to be confiscated until such time
as the final court verdict was reached.
459
Lastly, an additional set of amendments to the existing press regulations entered the
public domain on March 23, 1906.
460
It delineated further instances of punishable crimes
committed by the press and emphasized the dissemination of intentionally false
information regarding activities of government entities, officials or the army as well as
the incitement of hatred between sections or classes of the population, between estates or
between proprietors and workers. The latter provision, which was passed as an additional,
sixth paragraph to the existing article 129 of the penal code,
461
is particularly significant
in the context of the present inquiry as it was used to prosecute racially inflammatory
right-wing publications.
Along with the October Manifesto, these were the four principal legal provisions
which governed the affairs of the periodical press from the time of the publication of the
maiden issue of Bugbear in early December 1905 to the day the fourth (and last) issue of
Hellish Post was confiscated at the printing facilities on July 7, 1906. These were also the
459
Pravitel’stvennyi vestnik 67 (March 23, 1906) 1.
460
For a discussion of legislative acts that followed the March 18 and 23 Amendments and their effect on
the censorship climate prior to the outbreak of war in 1914, see Ruud 224-225.
461
Valle-De-Barr 30-31.
353
laws that provided the legal basis for the censorship measures taken against the right-
wing periodicals (both satirical and not) during the years leading to the outbreak of World
War I.
462
Each significant in its own way, these acts considerably affected the production and
publication of a great majority of both left and right-wing periodicals, including those of
political satire, during the turbulent revolutionary period. Put in place as an emergency
measure to bring press affairs to some degree of order, the Circular Order provided the
censors with immediate practical guidance as to how to handle the Russian press in a new
post-Manifesto political environment. It also represented a novel departure in Russian
press legislation by placing the crimes committed by means of newspapers and journals
within the jurisdiction of the court system. The Temporary Press Rules reflected the spirit
of liberal reforms by abolishing prior censorship, while at the same time elaborating and
legislatively confirming harsher post-publication penalty provisions of the Circular
Order. The immediate effect of these acts was that they unleashed the kind of repression
against periodicals in the capitals and in the provinces that, in the opinion of a
contemporary observer, they had not experienced during harder times in the past.
463
The
March 18 Amendments reinstated preliminary censorship, further refining penalty
provisions for delinquent periodicals and their editors. The additional March 23
Amendments, while perceived by the liberal critics as a further infringement on the
462
It may be also noted that on April 26, 1906, the Council of Ministers enacted another bill (ukaz) that
concerned the press. It included new rules, which, in addition to the November 24, 1905 Temporary Press
Rules (and their subsequent amendments) dealt with books, brochures and pamphlets. Although overall,
these new provisions provided greater freedom of the press, they did little to change the precarious status of
the illustrated press, which as per the March 23 Amendments remained subject to preliminary censorship.
For more on the ukaz of April 26, 1906, see Ruud 225.
463
Valle-De-Barr 20.
354
nascent freedom of speech, introduced certain measures that were taken against the right-
wing press. Inasmuch as the unabated expression of critical public opinion may be
considered to be a constituent part of the liberal-bourgeois public sphere, these
fluctuations in the press legislation vividly demonstrate the process of the sudden opening
up of the public domain as well as its incremental delimitation.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Asset Metadata
Creator
Minin, Oleg
(author)
Core Title
Art and politics in the Russian satirical press, 1905-1908
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Slavic Languages
Publication Date
10/27/2008
Defense Date
09/02/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Adskaia pochta,Aleksei Ignatiev,Aleksei Remizov,Alexander Benois,allegory,anti-semitism,autocracy,caricature,censorship,Evgenii Lanceray,First Russian Revolution,graphic art,Jews,Jürgen Habermas,Konstantin Pobedonostsev,Maksim Gorky,metaphor,monarchist dogma,Mstislav Dobuzhinsky,nationality,Neo-Realism,Nicholas II,Nikolai Remizov,OAI-PMH Harvest,October Manifesto,orthodoxy,periodical press,Petr Durnovo,Petr Stolypin,public sphere,ridicule,right-wing ideology,right-wing satire,Russian monarchy,satire,satirical journals,Sergei Diaghilev,Sergei Iuritsyn,Sergei Witte,Simplicissimus,symbolism,Temporary Press Rules,theory of official nationality,Vladimir Kokovtsev,World of Art,Zhupel,Zinovii Grzhebin,Zritel
Place Name
Russia
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Bowlt, John E. (
committee chair
), Levitt, Marcus (
committee member
), Rorlich, Azade-Ayse (
committee member
)
Creator Email
minine@usc.edu,olegminine@live.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1690
Unique identifier
UC1215431
Identifier
etd-Minin-2431 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-125147 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1690 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Minin-2431.pdf
Dmrecord
125147
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Minin, Oleg
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Aleksei Ignatiev
Aleksei Remizov
Alexander Benois
allegory
anti-semitism
autocracy
caricature
Evgenii Lanceray
First Russian Revolution
graphic art
Jürgen Habermas
Konstantin Pobedonostsev
Maksim Gorky
metaphor
monarchist dogma
Mstislav Dobuzhinsky
Nicholas II
Nikolai Remizov
orthodoxy
periodical press
Petr Durnovo
Petr Stolypin
public sphere
ridicule
right-wing ideology
right-wing satire
Russian monarchy
satire
satirical journals
Sergei Diaghilev
Sergei Iuritsyn
Sergei Witte
Simplicissimus
symbolism
Temporary Press Rules
theory of official nationality
Vladimir Kokovtsev
Zinovii Grzhebin