1. Lenin, V. I., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 5th ed., 55 vols. (Moscow, 1958-65)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as PSS).

2. Knishnaia letopis', 1977, no. 2, item 771.

3. The fourth edition, while larger than the second/third, reflected Stalin's rewriting of history in that numerous previously published items were excluded. “In accordance with the wishes of subscribers,” nine supplementary volumes were issued from 1955 to 1967 restoring much of the excised material and including newly found items (Lenin, PSS, 1: viii). For the purposes of the following analysis, this “Khrushchev supplement” will not be considered part of the fourth edition.

4. Publication statistics can be found in the prefaces to Lenin, PSS, vols. 1 and 46-55.

5. Ibid., 46: vii.

6. It is often said that researchers should use the second/third edition for its notes and the fifth edition for Lenin's actual writings. It is my own feeling that the earlier notes, while lengthy and refreshingly candid, are frequently inaccurate. The notes in the fifth edition are factually more reliable though repetitive in their analysis of the multivolume Istoriia kommunisticheskoi partii sovetskogo soiusa, 7 vols. (Moscow, 1964-70). The real bonus of the second/third edition, which will not be found in the fifth, is the inclusion in the appendixes or notes of documents which are not by Lenin or even of Bolshevik origin. See, for example, the resolutions of the November 1905 Menshevik Conference, not to be found elsewhere, in Lenin, V. I., Sochineniia, 2nd ed., 30 vols. (Moscow, 1925-32), 8: 466–67.Google Scholar

7. Western editors of multivolume sets can learn a lesson from Alfavitnyi ukazateV proisvedenii, voshedshikh v polnoe sobranie sochinenii V. I. Lenina (Moscow, 1966); and Spravochnyi torn k polnomu sobraniiu sochinenii V. I. Lenina, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1969-70).

8. The outbreak of the First World War forced Lenin to leave all of his papers, books, and files dealing with the period June 1912-July 1914 with friends in Poronin and Cracow. In 1918, the Polish police seized over a ton of this material and shipped it to Warsaw. Despite considerable prodding by the new Soviet government, only a small portion was returned in 1924 and 1933. After a change in the Polish regime, further installments were received in 1951 and especially in January 1954. This material has cast much new light on Lenin's relations with Pravda, on the workings of his Central Committee, on his contacts with the Second International, and on his plans for a Sixth Party Congress in 1914. For descriptions of Lenin's Galician archives, see M. V., Steshova, “Krakovsko-poroninskii arkhiv V. I. Lenina,” Voprosy istorii KPSS, 1957, no. 3, pp. 173–78Google Scholar; and Goncharova, S. M., “Iz istorii Krakovsko-poroninskogo arkhiva V. I. Lenina,” in Lenin i Pol'sha: Problemy, kontakty, otkliki (Moscow, 1970), p. 392–401.Google Scholar

9. These include a fragment of an article attacking Martov and Bulkin first published in Leninskii sbomik, vol. 38 (Moscow, 1975), pp. 138-39 (see also Lenin, PSS, 25: 456); “Otkrovennoe rassuzhdenie liberala,” published in Trudovaia pravda, no. 11 (June 10, 1914), and reprinted in “Novye dokumenty V. I. Lenina,” Voprosy istorii KPSS, 1970, no. 4, pp. 3-5; and “Pervoe maia i rabochee dvizhenie v Rossii” in Leninskii sbomik, vol. 38, pp. 139-41. The latter was first discovered by Leonhard Haas and printed in “Lenin an die Schweizer Arbeiter,” Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Geschichte, 16, no. 3 (1966): 412-14 (see also Leonhard, Haas, “Grimm und Lenins Mai-aufruf von 1914 an die Schweizer Arbeiter,” Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Geschichte, 24, no. 3 [1974]: 410–12).Google Scholar

10. Institut marksizma-leninizma pri TsK KPSS, Vladimir Il'ich Lenin: Biograficheskaia khronika, 8 vols. (Moscow, 1970-77), 3: 202, 240, 256Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Biograf. khronika).

11. Rabochii, no. 4 (May 25, 1914), p. 1. Although the article is unsigned, it is acknowledged by at least one Soviet compiler to have been authored by Lenin (see Pravda, 1912-1914, 1917 gg.: Bibliograficheskii ukasatel’ [Moscow, 1962], p. 56).

12. Fairly detailed descriptions of the contents of these two articles— “K voprosu o Peshekhonove, Malinovskom i dr.” and “Eshche k ukhodu Malinovskogo” —appear in the appendixes to the complete works (see Lenin, PSS, 25: 630 and 631), which would indicate that the manuscripts are presently in some Soviet archive. It seems likely that “Ot obshcherossiiskago rukovodiashchago uchrezhdeniia marksistov” (Trudovaia pravda, no. 3 [May 31, 1914], p. 2) and some of the other unsigned entries which appeared under Pravda's general heading “K ukhodu Malinovskago” between May 10 and June 28, 1914 were also written by Lenin.

13. Neither of these articles is signed. That the first (in Sotsial-demokrat, no. 33 [October 19/November 1, 1914], p. 2) was authored by Lenin is quite clear from his letter to V. A. Karpinskii (Lenin, PSS, 49: 18). The second article is similar in tone and content (see Sotsial-demokrat, no. 58 [January 18/31, 1917], p. 2).

14. “Likvidatory i biografiia Malinovskogo,” in Lenin, PSS, 25: 159-62.

15. All eight letters were restored in the first of the post-Stalin supplementary volumes, volume 36. These included two letters to G. L. Shklovskii, two to A. A. Troianovskii, and one each to G. E. Zinoviev, V. A. Karpinskii, V. B. Stankevich, and I. A. Gurvich—all of whom were either of the wrong political persuasion or in Stalin's disfavor. A letter to the editors of Zaria povohh'ia, which was also in the second/third edition, has subsequently been judged not to have been written by Lenin (Lenin, Sochineniia, 2nd ed., 17: 117; Alfavitnyi ukazatel', p. 482).

16. “Soratniki Il'icha: Inessa Armand,” Agitator, 1974, no. 9, pp. 47-49.

17. Lenin, V. I., Sochineniia, 4th ed., 35 vols. (Moscow, 1941, 1946-50), 35: 100–103, 107-10.Google Scholar An incomplete enumeration of the letters recovered from the Galician archives in 1954 includes mention of only one letter to Inessa (Goncharova, Lenin i Pol'sha, p. 272 n.).

18. With the exception of two letters written in the last half of December 1913 (Lenin, PSS, 48: 238, 242-43), 1914 marks the beginning of a very extensive correspondence with Inessa that was to last until she and Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917. Many of the characteristics of the letters discussed in this article pertain to the later correspondence as well.

19. Ibid., pp. 248, 251, 252, 256, 272, 280, 285. The first pages of a letter to the editors of Za pravdu are also “missing” (ibid., p. 236).

20. Institut marksizma-leninizma pri TsK KPSS, Khronologicheskii ukazatel’ proizvedenii V. I. Lenina, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1959), vol. 1 Google Scholar, item 3630; cf. Lenin, Sochineniia, 4th ed., 35: 110; and Lenin, PSS, 48: 312 (quoted words in English in the original). The editors of the fourth edition were obviously bothered by the implications of Lenin's use of the familiar tvoi in closing his letters to Inessa. In two instances, they eliminated his ending altogether; in the other two they simply dropped the word tvoi.

21. Lenin, PSS, 48: 296-97. Ellipses are also found in a number of Lenin's letters to Inessa Armand (see, for example, ibid., pp. 300, 315, 323). It is unclear whether these are Lenin's or his editors'; photographic reproduction of one of the letters (ibid., p. 309) would indica'te that they were occasionally part of Lenin's writing style.

22. Cf. ibid., pp. 297 and 299.

23. In this letter, which the editors have dated June 29/July 12, 1914, Lenin wrote in English to Inessa that “Today (Sunday) two working men are arrived [sic], very good people from our capital” for a meeting of the Central Committee ( Lenin, V. I., Collected Works, 45 vols. [Moscow, 1960-70], 43: 416).Google Scholar One of these new arrivals, however, mentions in his memoirs that he was in Poronin for “over two weeks” and that he returned to St. Petersburg on July 5/18 ( A. S., Kiselev, “V iiule 1914 goda,” Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, 1924, no. 7, pp. 40 and 43).Google Scholar Thus, if he arrived on a Sunday, it must have been June 15/28, or perhaps June 22/July 5, and not the date suggested by the editors.

24. Lenin, PSS, 24: 403; ibid., 25: 624.

25. Compare “Letter to the Editor” of Put’ pravdy in Lenin, Sochineniia, 2nd ed., 17: 197-98, and Lenin, PSS, 24: 307-8.

26. Lenin, Collected Works, 43: 377, 408, 416-17, 420-21, 424-26. A comparison of the last of these letters with a photostat of the original in the V. I. Lenin Museum in Cracow indicates that the editors of the English edition have taken several minor liberties in deciphering Lenin's handwriting.

27. Georges, Haupt, ed., Correspondence entre Lénine et Camille Huysmans, 1905-1914 (Paris, 1963), p. 135–44.Google Scholar

28. Compare letter of July 19, 1914 in Lenin, Collected Works, 43: 424 with that found in Lenin, PSS, 48: 323.

29. Biograf. khronika, 3: 177-266; Lenin, PSS, 48: 347-53. The five persons mentioned received a total of eighteen unrecovered letters between January and July 1914.

30. “O rozyske dokumentov V. I. Lenina,” Istoricheskii arkhiv, 19SS, no. 2, p. 183.

31. Nikiforova, A. N., “Dvadtsat’ odin’ den’ v sem'e V. I. Lenina,” in O Vladimire Il'iche Lenine (Moscow, 1963), p. 168.Google Scholar

32. Haas found twenty-four previously unpublished letters to G. L. Shklovskii or through him to F. N. Samoilov ( Leonhard, Haas, V. I. Lenin: Unbekannte Briefe, 1912-14 [Zurich, 1967]), Google Scholar while Haupt uncovered sixty-four unpublished letters to Huysmans (Haupt, Correspondance entre Lénine et Huysmans).

33. “Novye dokumenty V. I. Lenina,” Kommunist, 1956, no. 5, pp. 31-34. This reluctance to turn in Leniniana has been confirmed by recent Soviet scholars. See, for example, V. A., Liubisheva, “Vossozdanie arkhiva Predsedatelia SNK V. I. Lenina,” Voprosy istorii, 1969, no. 4, p. 41.Google Scholar

34. Khronologicheskii ukazatel', vol. 1, entries 3520 and 3561; Biograf. khronika, 3: 189, 261, 258-59, 244; Lenin, PSS, 24: 403 and 556. For scholars, Soviet or otherwise, who are more fortunate than I in having access to these archives, the known archival references are Tsentral'nyi partiinyi arkhiv pri Institute marksizma-leninizma (TsPA IML), fond 2, opis’ 1, dela 3214, 3221, 3238, 3297, 3335, 3341.

35. S. S., Shaumian, “V. I. Lenin i Briussel'skoe ‘ob” edinitel'noe’ soveshchanie,” Istoriia SSSR, 1966, no. 2, pp. 41–42Google Scholar; ” K istorii izdaniia zhurnala Rabotnitsa,” Istoricheskii arkhiv, 1955, no. 4, pp. 26-27; Biograf. khronika, 3: 189 and 244; Lenin, PSS, 25: 624.

36. Biograf. khronika, 3: 261. 37. Lenin, PSS, 48: 126-27.

38. Is cpokhi “Zvesdy” i “Pravdy,” 1911-1914 gg., 3 vols. (Moscow, 1921-24), 3: 199- 201, 217. The only excuse for excluding these letters, which are dated December 7/20, 1912 and February 23/March 8, 1913, is that they, like so much of Lenin's correspondence, were written in Krupskaia's hand.

39. Pis'ma P. B. Aksel'roda i I. 0. Martova, 1901-1916 (Berlin, 1924), p. 292.

40. Copies are found in the Hoover Institution, Nicolaevsky Collection, file 132, box 4, no. 27.

41. Put’ pravdy, no. 90 (May 18, 1914), p. 2; Rabochii, no. 4 (May 25, 1914), p. 1.

42. Biograf. khronika, 3: 227 (in TsPA IML, f. 2, op. 1, d. 3273); Lenin, PSS, 25: 630.

43. That Lenin wrote to Chernomazov is evident from his letter of October 8, 1913, which appeared in “Lenin i Pravda, 1912-1913 gg.: Perepiska,” Krasnaia letopis1, 1924, no. 1, pp. 78-79. The supplementary portion of the PSS (54: 374) contains Lenin's postscript to a letter to the editor of Za pravdu (that is, Chernomazov) by Kamenev.

44. See, for example, Biograf. khronika, 3: 185 and 226, citing TsPA IML, f. 2, op. S, d. 337; and f. 2, op. 1, d. 24905.

45. Cf. Haas, Unbekannte Briefe, p. 60, and Leninskii sbornik, vol. 38, p. 146.

46. Leninskii sbornik, vol. 38, pp. 133-38.

47. Shklovskii, G, “Iz moikh vospominanii,” Zapiski Instituta Lenina, 1927, no. 1, pp. 119–20.Google Scholar

48. Biograf. khronika, 3: 234-38.

49. Leninskii sbornik, vol. 37 (Moscow, 1970), p. 23; ibid., vol. 38, p. 132.

50. Biograf. khronika, 3: 223 and 264, citing TsPA IML, f. 2, op. 1, d. 23820 and 3343.

51. See, for example, Puf pravdy, no. 67 (April 22, 1914), p. 5, and no. 68 (April 23, 1914), p. 2.

52. John Keep comes to the same conclusion when examining Lenin's correspondence for the 1918 to 1920 period. Comparing the Polnoe sobranie sochinenii with The Trotsky Papers published abroad, he found the former to be 29 percent incomplete but concluded that Trotsky might have been an atypical problem for Lenin's editors (John L. H. Keep, “Lenin's Letters as an Historical Source,” in B. W. Eissenstat, ed., Lenin and Leninism: State, Law and Society [Lexington, Mass., 1971], pp. 249-52). If one eliminates letters “not found” for the 1914 period, the shortfall for the seven months under examination is about the same— 27.2 percent—which would indicate that Trotsky may have been the rule rather than the exception.