Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T13:21:18.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideological Conflicts in Russian Populism: The Revolutionary Manifestoes of the Chaikovsky Circle, 1869-1874

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Martin A. Miller
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

During the first half of the 1870s the character of the revolutionary movement in Russia changed considerably. At this time the movement spread its base of operation and its organizational effectiveness beyond the confines of St. Petersburg. The idea of a widespread revolutionary movement led by radical circles operating in several large cities was not a new conception in the 1870s. The efforts of Zemlia i Volia, Velikoruss, Ishutin, Karakozov, and Nechaev are all testimony to the emergence of a permanent underground opposition aimed against the ruling tsarist regime. Between 1869 and 1874, however, this process reached a new level with the activities of the Chaikovsky Circle, which managed to survive for five years under various names and in spite of even more various ideological approaches to the problem of revolution. This circle succeeded in building a truly nationwide network of affiliated groups which provided the initial revolutionary experience and loyalty to radicalism for many later members of the second Zemlia i Volia, Narodnaia Volia's executive committee, and the growing ranks of young Russian Marxists in the 1880s.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1970

References

1. The best treatment available in English is Franco, Venturi, Roots of Revolution (New York, 1960), chap. 18, pp. 469–506.Google Scholar

2. See especially Troitsky, N. A., Bol'shoe obshchestvo propagandy (1871-74) (Saratov, 1963)Google Scholar, and Itenberg, B. S., Dvishenie revoliutsionnogo narodnichestva (Moscow, 1965).Google Scholar

3. Richard Pipes has written that populism was not “a concrete body of political or social doctrine” as much as it was “a broad spectrum of ideas and attitudes” from which specific movements later emerged. “Russian Marxism and Its Populist Background : The Late Nineteenth Century,” Russian Reviezv, 19, no. 4 (October 1960) : 318-19. In another article he states that populism was “devoid of specific programmatic content.“ “Narodnichestvo : A Semantic Inquiry,” Slavic Review, 23, no. 3 (September 1964) : 452. J. M. Meijer states that the Chaikovsky Circle “had no dictated social program because of their veneration of the people” and “what cemented the group was not so much ideology as moral unity.” Knowledge and Revolution (Assen, 1955), pp. 82, 166.

4. The most important studies are critically reviewed in V. F., Zakharina, “Problemy istorii revoliutsionnogo narodnichestva, 1870-80 gg.,” Istorii SSSR, 1967, no. 1, pp. 160–77.Google Scholar See also B. P. Kozmin, “ ‘Narodniki’ i ‘Narodnichestvo, '” Voprosy literatury, 1957, no. 9, pp. 116-35, and M. G. Sedov, “Sovetskaia literatura o teoretikakh narodnichestva,” in Nechkina, M. V., ed., Istoriia i istoriki (Moscow, 1965), p. 246–69.Google Scholar For recent bibliographies, see Vilenskaia, E. S. et al., Obshchestvennoe dvizhenie v poreformennoi Rossii (Moscow, 1965), pp. 372–73 Google Scholar, and S. S., Volk and S. B., Mikhailova, “Sovetskaia istoriografiia revoliutsionnogo narodnichestva 70-kh - nachala 80-kh godov XIX veka,” in Sovetskaia istoriografiia klassovoi bor'by i revoliutsionnogo dvisheniia v Rossii (Leningrad, 1967), pt. 1, pp. 133–60.Google Scholar

5. N. I., Drago, “Zapiski starogo narodnika,” Katorga i ssylka, 1923, no. 6, p. 11.Google Scholar

6. N. V., Chaikovsky, “Cherez polstoletiia,” Golos minuvshago na chushoi storone, 1926, no. 3(16), pp. 183–84.Google Scholar

7. [N. A. Morozov], “Ocherk istorii kruzhka ‘Chaikovtsev’ (1869-72),” in Itenberg, B. S., ed., Revoliutsionnoe narodnichestvo 70-kh godov XIX veka (Moscow, 1964), 1 : 202–40.Google Scholar The authorship of this anonymous manuscript is established in K. G., Liashenko, “Ob avtorstve i istorii sozdaniia rukopisi ‘Ocherk po istorii kruzhka “Chaikovtsev,” Istoriia SSSR, 1965, no. 4, pp. 145–50.Google Scholar For further debate over the authorship of this manuscript between the Soviet historians Liashenko, K. G. and Troitsky, N. A., see “Versiia trebuet utochnenii,” Istoriia SSSR, 1968, no. 5, pp. 129–35.Google Scholar

8. Figner, V. N., Polnoe sobranie sochineniia (Moscow, 1929), 5 : 187–88.Google Scholar

9. Meijer, Knowledge and Revolution, p. 79.

10. Itenberg, Dvishenie, p. 131. Nechaev and Tkachev are the presumed authors of this program.

11. “Vospominaniia L. B. Gol'denberga,” Katorga i ssylka, 1924, no. 3(10), p. 102.

12. For the outline draft of Natanson's autobiography and a full discussion of this problem, see B. Kozmin, “S. G. Nechaev i ego protivniki v 1868-69 gg.,” in Gorev, B. I. and Kozmin, B. P., eds., Revoliutsionnoe dvishenie 1860-kh godov (Moscow, 1932), p. 176–90.Google Scholar On Natanson, see also O. V., Aptekman, “Dve dorogi teni,” Byloe, 1921, no. 16, pp. 7–10.Google Scholar

13. “Vospominaniia I. E. Denikera,” Kotorga i ssylka, 1924, no. 4(11), pp. 24-25.

14. Ibid., p. 25. The identity of the authdf(s) of this document remains uncertain. Deniker suspected that V. F. Troshchansky (1846-98) had a part in composing it

15. [Mdrozov], “Ocherk istorii kruzhka ‘Chaikovtsev, '” pp. 215-16.

16. Ibid., p. 216. Knizhnoe delo broadly concerned the operation of distribution of socialist works to both students and the narod.

17. On the Kharkov Circle and Kovalsky, see Baum, la. D., “K istorii kharkovskikh revoliutsionnykh kruzhkoy nachala 70-kh gg.,” Katorga i ssylka, 1931, no. 4(77), pp. 125–34Google Scholar, and E. Kovalskaia, “Po povodu pis'ma V. Maliutina,” ibid., pp. 135-42.

18. The history of the recovery of this document is interesting in itself. The first known mention of this program is in O. V. Aptekman's article on the Moscow circles published in 1923 (“Moskovskie revoliutsionnye kruzhki,” Russkoe proshloe, 1923, no, 1, p. 44). According to him the program was seized by the police during a search of the apartment of a member of the Petersburg circle, E. A. Trgfimova. She in turn had received it from A. S. Prugavin, the leader of a Moscow circle and a personal friend of Natanson's. No further mention of the document can be found until 1930 when it was published in full by la. D. Baum. In an introductory article, Baum states that the program had been seized from Trofimova in April 1871 (“Programma dlia kruzhkov samoobrazovaniia,” Katorga i ssylka, 1930, no. 6[67], p. 95). Again it was ignored until N. A. Troitsky's recent article, which points out that it was discussed at the 1871 congress arranged by Natanson and was discovered by the police in the papers of Chaikovsky in the spring of that year. “O pervoi programme revoliutsionnogo narodnichestva 1870-kh godov,” Voprosy istorii, 1961, no. 6, pp. 208-10. For his evidence, see [Morozov], “Ocherk istorii kruzhka ‘Chaikovtsev, ''’ pp. 221-22.

19. “Programma dlia kruzhkov samoobrazovaniia,” p. 97.

20. Ibid., pp. 98-100. For a discussion of this document by a Soviet scholar, see Filippov, R. V., Ideologiia “Bol'shogo obshchestva propagandy,” 1869-74 (Petrozavodsk, 1963), p. 31–44.Google Scholar See also “Avtobiograficheskoe zaiavlenie A. A. Kviatkovskogo,” Krasnyi arkhiv, 1926, no. 1 (14), pp. 159-75.

21. N. A., Charushin, “Chto bylo na sobranii u professora Tagantseva,” Katorga i ssylka, 1925, no. 2 (15), p. 100.Google Scholar

22. Charushin, N. A., O dalekom proshlom (Moscow, 1926), p. 102.Google Scholar

23. Kropotkin, P. A., Zapiski revoliutsionera (Moscow and Leningrad, 1932), p. Leningrad.Google Scholar

24. For her letters from this period, see “Neizdannye pis'ma S. L. Perovskoi,” Krasnyi arkhiv, 1923, vol. 3, pp. 243-50.

25. See Kornilova-Moroz, A., “Perovskaia i osnovanie kruzhka Chaikovtsev,” Katorga i ssylka, 1926, no. 1(22), pp. 7–30.Google Scholar

26. [Morozov], “Ocherk istorii kruzhka ‘Chaikovtsev, '” p. 224.

27. For a discussion of the membership and operations of the circle at this time, see N. A., Troitsky, “Bol'shoe obshchestvo propaganda 1871-1874 gg.,” Istoriia SSSR, 1962, no. 5, pp. 74–91Google Scholar, and Venturi, Roots of Revolution, pp. 469-506.

28. “Proklamatsiia 1872,” Byloe, 1912, no. 14, p. 64. In his reminiscences, Chaikovsky Wrote that at the time of his arrest in the spring of 1872 the police found “a paper on students’ congresses written by some of my friends and left in my room in my absence, without my knowledge. They tried by all means to find proofs of my authorship of this paper, but failed.” “Nicholas Tchaykovsky's Narrative,” in Perris, G. H., Russia in Revolution (New York, 1905), p. 204.Google Scholar

29. “Proklamatsiia 1872,” Byloe, 1912, no. 14, p. 65.

30. Almost every memoir expresses this feeling. See, for example, Charushin, O dalekom proshlom, pp. 78-79, and Figner, Polnoe sobranie sochineniia, 1 : 91. There was an additional reason for the circle's hostility toward Nechaev in that Natanson and Aleksandrov had both been arrested and questioned in connection with the Ivanov murder. The circle came under police surveillance from then on. See Kozmin, B. P., ed., Nechaev i nechaevtsy (Moscow and Leningrad, 1931), pp. 135–37.Google Scholar

31. Cited in O. V., Aptekman, “Moskovskie revoliutsionnye kruzhki : Moskovskie. Chaikovtsy,” Russkoe proshloe, 1923, no. 2, p. 92.Google Scholar

32. Ibid., p. 99. On Sidoratsky, see A., Kunkl, Dolgnshintsy (Moscow, 1932).Google Scholar

33. See V. F., Zakharina, “Revoliutsionnaia propagandistskaia literatura 70-kh godov XIX v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski, 71 (1962) : 74–112.Google Scholar The best guide to the literature written by members of the Chaikovsky Circle and published by their press in Switzerland is Valk, S. N. and Kozmin, B. P., eds., Russkaia podpol'naia i zarubeshnaia pechaV (Moscow, 1935), vol. 1.Google Scholar

34. Chaikovsky, “Cherez polstoletiia,” Golos minnvshago, p. 182.

35. Testimony of A. V. Nizovkin, Apr. 14, 1874, in Itenberg, ed., Revoliutsionnoe narodnichestvo, 1 : 246. See also Levin, Sh. M., “Kruzhok Chaikovtsev i propaganda sredi peterburgskikh rabochikh v nachale 1870-kh gg.,” Katorga i ssylka, 1929, no. 12 (61), pp. 7–27Google Scholar, and Itenberg, Dvizhenie, pp. 186-93.

36. Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Oktiabr'skoi revoliutsii (TsGAOR), fond 1129, opis’ 3, ed. khr. 195, list 12.

37. Ibid., 1. 13. See also Kropotkin, Zapiski revoliutsionera, pp. 221-22.

38. S. M., Kravchinsky, “Pis'ma S. M. Kravchinskogo (Stepniaka) P. L. Lavrovu,” Byloe, 1912, no. 14, pp. 52–63.Google Scholar

39. Charushin, O dalekom proshlom, pp. 135-37.

40. TsGAOR, f. 112, op. 1, ed. khr. 390, 1. 11. It was completed around November 1873 and was first published, albeit in a shortened version, in Byloe, 1921, no. 17, pp. 3-38. This version was taken from a police copy adapted for the Committee of Ministers (TsGAOR, f. 109, op. III ekspeditsii, ed. khr. 144, ch. 15). The original is in TsGAOR, f. 112, op. 2, ed. khr. 683, and has recently been published in full in Itenberg, ed., Revoliutsionnoe narodnichestvo, 1 : 55-118. The only other published variant is in Karataev, N. K., ed., Narodnicheskaia ekonomicheskaia literatura (Moscow, 1958), pp. 236–56 Google Scholar, but it is incomplete.

41. TsGAOR, f. 109, op. III ekspeditsii, ed. khr. 146, 1. 78 ob. It should be noted that another document called “The Program of Revolutionary Propaganda,” which has been attributed incorrectly to P. A. Kropotkin, is actually the work of his brother Alexander. The original is in TsGAOR, f. 1762, op. 4, ed. khr. 244, 11. 74-77, and has been published in Karataev, Narodnicheskaia ekonomicheskaia literatura, pp. 233-35. See also Itenberg, Dvizhenie, pp. 243-46.

42. P. A., Kropotkin, “Dolzhny-li my zaniat'sia rassmotreniem budushchego stroia,” in Itenberg, ed., RevoUutsionnoe narodnichestvo, 1 : 59.Google Scholar

43. Ibid., 1 : 63, 67.

44. Ibid., 1 : 73.

45. Ibid., 1 : 85.

46. Ibid., 1 : 94.

47. Ibid., 1 : 115. The program drafted at this time by Alexander Livanov, the leader of a radical circle in Nizhny Novgorod, bears a close resemblance in many respects to Kropotkin's manifesto. No evidence exists, however, to prove that Livanov had ever read Kropotkin's program. Livanov had connections with the Petersburg Chaikovtsy but was not officially part of the provincial network of the circle. For the text of his program, see Bazanov, V, “Aleksandr Livanov i ego traktat ‘chto delat'?, '” Russkaia literahira, 1963, no. 3, pp. 109–38Google Scholar. See also Ginev, V. N., Narodnicheskoe dvishenie v srednem povolsh'e (Moscow and Leningrad, 1966), p. Leningrad Google Scholar, and P. S., Tkachenko, “O nekotorykh programmno-takticheskikh voprosakh revoliutsionnogo narodnichestva 70-kh godov,” Voprosy istorii, 1969, no. 1, pp. 196–201.Google Scholar

48. TsGAOR, f. 112, op. 1, ed. khr. 351, 11. 8, 43 ob., 129.

49. Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv Leningrada (TsGIAL), f. 1263, op. 1, ed. khr. 3722a, 11. 13-13 ob.

50. Ibid., 1. 26.

51. Ibid., 1. 34. This general thesis remained essentially unchanged and, together with additional evidence, was presented at the Trial of the 193 as the government's official interpretation of the revolutionary movement. Pahlen, one of the ministers on the council, later wrote his own memorandum of these meetings which reiterated the emphasis on Kropotkin as one of the most important figures in the movement. See Pahlen's memorandum, reprinted in L., Deich, Sotsialisticheskoe dvishenie nachala 70-kh godov v Rossii (Rostov-on-Don, 1925), p. 56.Google Scholar For the discussion of Kropotkin's manifesto at the Trial of the 193, see B. Basilevsky (V. la. lakovlev), ed., Gosudarstvennyta prestuplemia v Rossii v XIX veka (n.p., n.d.), 3 : 15-16.

52. N. A., Charushin, “Neskol'ko slov o P. A. Kropotkine,” Biulletin’ vserossiskogo obshchestvennogo komiteta po uvekovecheniiu pamiati P. A. Kropotkina, 1924, no. 1, p. 18.Google Scholar For a full discussion of the attitudes of the Chaikovtsy toward Kropotkin, see my unpublished dissertation, “The Formative Years of P. A. Kropotkin, 1842-1876 : A Study of the Origins and Development of Populist Attitudes in Russia” (University of Chicago, 1967), pp. 296-306.

53. “Pis'mo iz Peterburga,” Vpered! (London), 3 (1874) : 147-53. It should be added that Chaikovsky was not sympathetic to Bakunin either.

54. Nikolaevsky, B, “S. M. Kravchinskii i P. L. Lavrov v 1875 g.,” Na chushoi storone, 1925, no. 10, p. 200.Google Scholar See also note 38 above.

55. Charushin, O dalekom proshlom, pp. 136-37. According to Meijer, relations between the political émigrés of the Russian colony in Switzerland and Russian revolutionaries at home “had no more than a technical importance and remained outside the colony proper” ﹛Knowledge and Revolution, p. 83). Venturi states (Roots of Revolution, pp. 429, 438, 459) that “populism received far less direction from exile than is generally thought.” Neither Bakunin nor Lavrov was able to convert the Chaikovtsy to their respective positions.

56. G. M., Lifshits, “K istorii Moskovskogo sMezda narodnikov 1875 g.,” Istoriia SSSR, 1965, no. 4, p. 145.Google Scholar See also G. M., Lifshits and K. G., Liashenko, “Kak sozdavalas' programma vtoroi ‘Zemli i Voli, '” Voprosy istorii, 1965, no. 9, pp. 36–50.Google Scholar