Icon and Axe

2. THE ANTI-ENLIGHTENMENT

1. Soirées de St. Pétersbourg, in Oeuvres complètes, Lyon, 1884, IV, 170.

2. Oeuvres, I, xiv-xv.

3. Oeuvres, IV, 106.

4. See M. J. Rouët de Journel, Un Collège de Jesuites à Saint-Pétersbourg, 1800-1816, 1922; A. Boudou, Le Saint-Siège et la Russie, 1814-1847, 1922, I, 13-28. There were at least 400 Jesuits in Russia by 1812 (V. Nadler, Imperator Aleksandr I i ideia sviashchennago soiuza, Riga, 1886, I, 66). The Jesuits were valued not only as a bulwark against revolution but as a source of skilled personnel for everything from education (for which purpose Catherine had welcomed them) to the making of confections (for which Paul particularly valued the general of the order, ibid., I, 57 ff.).

5. Essai sur le principe générateur des constitutions politiques et des autres institutions humaines, P, 1814, 100 (written in May, 1809, as a memorandum to Alexander I and published in an English version as On God and Society, Chicago, 1959, p).

6. Oeuvres, IV, 282.

7. Oeuvres, XIII, 290-1.

8. Oeuvres, XIII, 204.

9. De Maistre, La Franc-maçonnerie. Mémoire inédit au Duc de Brunswick (1782), 1925, esp. 22-3. Cf. F. Vermale, “L’Activité maçonnique de J. de Maistre,” RHL, 1935, Jan, 72-6; G. Goyau, “La Pensée religieuse de J. de Maistre,” RDM, LXII, 1921, 137-63; 585-624.

10. Oeuvres, V, 190.

11. Oeuvres, IV, 271-2.

12. Oeuvres, V, 23 and ff. for the famous apotheosis of war; also V, 93, where he argues against Berkeley’s contention that symmetry in the rational world proves the existence of God. Would it have helped lead men to God, he asks, if Nero had burned human beings in a more orderly and symmetrical manner? See also his praise of sacrifices V, 283-360.

Soviet ideologists have cited De Maistre’s view that war is divinely ordained (rather than the product of specific social and economic forces, as they contend) as a model rationalization for the alleged subconscious assumption of the West that war with the USSR is inevitable. See V. Gantman et al., “Mirovye voiny XX veka i dialektika istorii,” Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 1964, no. 8, 3-4.

13. Oeuvres, V, 125-6.

14. Principe générateur, 6.

15. Cited in Goyau, “Pensée,” 598.

16. Oeuvres, IV, 107.

17. Oeuvres, I, xli.

18. Oeuvres, IV, 2-3; V, 281-2.

19. M. Stepanova, “Zhosef de Mestr v Rossii,” LN, XXIX-XXX, 1937, 587.

20. Ibid., 588.

21. Ibid., 584; and the entire section 577-726.

22. Goyau, “Pensée,” 611-12; Oeuvres, I, xxi-xxxvi.

23. Oeuvres, VIII, 163-232.

24. Oeuvres, VIII, 279-360.

25. Oeuvres, VIII, 265; and 233-65. He is commenting on Fesler’s plan of study.

26. Oeuvres, XIII, 290; V, 228-57; and for a more direct attack on Alexander see his later (1819) work, Sur l’Etat du christianisme en Europe, in Oeuvres, VIII, 485-519.

27. Oeuvres, V, 247, 242; XIII, 290-2, 282; LN, XXIX-XXX, 613-21. De Maistre originally saw this mysterious process of unification of humanity as le grand oeuvre which would reunify but transcend Christianity and fulfill the longing for the lost light of the ancient East, so central to higher order Masonry. See Mémoire inédit, 35-6, 100-20.

28. Oeuvres, III, 287-401; English edition, Letters to a Russian Gentleman on the Spanish Inquisition, London, 1851.

29. P. Pierling, L’Empereur Alexandre I^er, est-il mort catholique?, 1913, esp. 12-44; and commentary in Mel’gunov, Dela i liudi Aleksandrovskogo vremeni, I, Berlin, 1923, 105-9; A. Boudou, Le Saint-Siège, I, 126-39.

30. For full discussion and references on the pietist influx see E. Winter, Halle, esp. 227-54 on Todorsky. Perhaps out of necessary deference to his Communist publishers, Winter tends to underplay the religious and evangelical aspects of the pietistic influx, which are more fully brought out in studies not used in Winter’s work, such as E. Benz, “August Herman Francke und die deutschen evangelischen Gemeinden in Russland,” Ausland-deutschtum und evangelische Kirche, 1936, 143-92; and E. Seeberg, Gottfried Arnold, Die Wissenschaft und Mystik seiner Zeit, Meerane, 1923. The standard history of Pietism is still A. Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus, Bonn, 1880-6, 3v. The broader cultural impact of Pietism is measured in another context by K. Pinson, Pietism as a Factor in the Rise of German Nationalism, NY, 1934.

31. Winter, Halle, 290-338.

32. On the organization of the Herrnhut Community and its missionary activities in the East see E. Langton, History of the Moravian Church. The Story of the First International Protestant Church, London, 1956; E. Winter, Die tschechische und slowakische Emigration in Deutschland im 17 und 18 Jahrhundert, 1955; O. Uttendörfer, Wirtschaftsgeist und Wirtschaftsorganisation Herrnhuts und der Brüdergemeinde, Herrnhut, 1926 (an exhaustive study from 1743 to the end of the eighteenth century); H. Grönroos, Suomen yhteyksistä herrnhutilaisuuteen 1700-luvulla, SKST, XII, 1938, with bibliography, 268-72, for all Baltic languages; and the invaluable study by A. Klaus, “Sektatory-kolonisty v Rossii,” VE, 1868, Jan, 256-300; Mar, 277-326; Jun, 665-722; Jul, 713-66; also Klaus’ “Dukhovenstvo i shkoly v nashikh nemetskikh koloniiakh,” VE, 1869, Jan, 138-74; May, 235-74. For the hostility of their reception in Russia prior to Catherine see RA, 1868, Sep, 1391-5.

33. A. Khodnev, “Kratky obzor stoletnei deiatel’nosti Imperatorskago vol’nago ekonomicheskago obshchestva s 1765 do 1865,” Trudy vol’-nago ekonomicheskago obshchestva, 1865, Nov, 268-9. An important role in publicizing Sarepta was played by Ivan Boltin’s description, Khorografiiia sareptskikh tselitel’nykh vod, P, 1782.

34. O Istinnom Khristianstve, in Sochineniia, M, 1836, vols IV-IX. N. Gorodetzky (Tikhon, 95) and G. Florovsky (ASR, 1964, Sep, 577-8) doubt, however, that there was much influence of J. Arndt on Tikhon. On the transmission of Arndt’s work into Russian, see Chizhevsky, Aus zwei Welten, 220-30.

35. See Viatte, Sources, I, 32-7; V. černý, “Les ‘Frères moraves’ de Mme. de Stael,” RLC, 1960, Jan-Mar, 37-51; P. Kireevsky, Sochineniia, M, 1861, II, 303, note; and RA, 1868, Sep, 1352-8.

36. On this extraordinary witch hunt see R. Le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande, 1914; also J. Droz, “La Légende du complot illuministe en Allemagne,” RH, 1961, Oct-Dec, 313-38.

37. J. Bodemann, Johan Caspar Lavater, Gotha, 1856, 367, also 396 ff.

38. “Perepiska s Lafaterom,” 3, 5-6; see also Karamzin, Letters of a Russian Traveller, 1789-1790, NY, 1957.

39. Cited in Droz, “Légende,” 329.

40. De Maistre, Oeuvres, V, 258-60.

41. Quoted from the Russian edition, Oblako nad sviatilishchem, P, 1804, 149, 152, 154. The original, Die Wolke über dem Heiligtum, Munich, 1802. See also Viatte, Sources, II, 44-51.

42. P. Znamensky, Chteniia iz istorii russkoi tserkvi za vremia tsarstvovaniia imperatora Aleksandra I, Kazan, 1885, 157, counts twentyfive different works of Eckarts-hausen rendered into Russian during the decade 1813-23.

43. Lopukhin, Nekotoryia cherty o vnutrennei tserkvi, o edinom puti istiny i o razlichnykh putiakh zabluzhdeniia i gibeli, P, 1798. See Ya. Barskov’s detailed and fully annotated account of this neglected figure in RBS, X, 650-82; also Bulich, Ocherki, I, 316-59, who contends (329) that Lopukhin’s work was finished in 1791. See also V. Sadovnik, Masonskie trudy I. V. Lopukhina, M, 1913.

44. Cited in Bogoliubov, Novikov, 209.

45. Klaus, “Sektatory,” VE, 1868, Mar, 305; also BE, IX, 50-1.

46. N. Popov, “Ignaty-Aurely Fesler,” VE, 1879, Dec, 586-643; I. Chistovich, Istoriia St-Petersburgskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii, P, 1857, 182-266. Fesler’s ecumenical views are contained in his Ansichten von Religion und Kirchentum, 1805; and are discussed in V. Ternovsky, “Materialy dlia istorii mistitsizma v Rossii,” TKDA, Mar, 164-5. For his Masonic activities, Thory, Acta, I, 198, 313; for his previous contact with secret societies in Germany prior to his arrival in Russia, J. Droz, L’Allemagne et la révolution française, 1949, 96-7.

47. For a vivid account of Alexander’s movement away from rationalism to pietism during this period see “Rasskazy kniazia Golitsyna,” RA, 1886, kn. 2, 87, and entire account 65-108.

48. The classical interpretation of the stabilizing force of Methodism is put forward by E. Halevy (History of the English People, NY, 1961, I, part iii, p, 387-485). G. Clark (The Making of Victorian England, London, 1962, 36-7) doubts that the capacity for revolution in England was very great in any case—a doubt that might apply equally well (if for different reasons) to Russia.

English non-conformism was perhaps the most important of the many spiritual influences on the formation of Alexander’s vague religious views. His original religious instruction was by Andrew Samborsky, a Pole who had married an Englishwoman and spent most of his life in England (Nadler, Imperator, I, 9-12); and his entire concept of renovation through popular moral and religious education was decisively influenced not only by the Methodist Bible Society, but also by Quaker ideals of free public education through daily readings propounded by Joseph Lancaster (see Pypin, Dvizheniia, 1-293, on the former; and 397-418 on the latter). He had important subsequent contacts with English Quakers, particularly Stephen Grillet, with whom Alexander worshipped in London in 1815, and had further close contacts in St. Petersburg in 1818-9. See R. S. “Aus dem Restaurationszeitalter, der Quäker Grillet in St. Petersburg,” DR, XLVII, 1886, 49-69, unfortunately without documentation.

49. In addition to Pypin see N. Stelletsky, Kniaz’ A. N. Golitsyn i ego tserkovno-gosudarstvennaia deiatel’nost, Kiev, 1901; S. Sol’sky, “Uchastie Aleksandra I v izdanii Biblii,” TKDA, 1879, Jan, 172-96.

50. Cited from 1818 communication with Bishop Eiler in Znamensky, Rukovodstvo, 433. G. Florovsky (Puti, 130) shows that Alexander’s religious turn preceded the fire.

51. A. von Tobien “Herrnhut i Livland,” in Die livlandische Ritterschaft, 1930, 116-39, esp. 128-9; and H. Plitt, Die Brüdergemeinde und die lutherische Kirche in Livland, Gotha, 1861, 168-81; Nadler, Imperator, I, 298-309; E. Knapton, The Lady of the Holy Alliance, NY, 1939, esp. 125-91; C. de Grunwald, “Les Russes à Paris en 1814,” RSMP, 1954, 1st semester, 1-14.

52. Arkhiv brat’ev Turgenevykh, P, 1913, III, 251.

53. RBS, X, 674; “Lettres de Mme. de Stael à Alexandre I, 1814-7,” La Revue de Paris, 1897, Jan-Feb, 16-7; Grunwald, “Les Russes,” 5-6.

54. W. Baur, Religious Life in Germany, London, 1872, 317-38; Autobiography of Heinrich Jung-Stilling, NY, 1848; E. Benz, Sendung, 15-32, for some of the prophetic utterances and compilations of the time.

55. The valuable study of E. Knapton, Lady, 125-66, tends on the whole to play down the role of this “lady of the Holy Alliance.”

56. F. Baader, Über das durch die französische Revolution herbeigeführte Bedürfniss einer neuern und innigern Verbindung der Religion mit der Politik, completed early in the summer of 1814 and dedicated to Prince Golitsyn; first published Nurnberg, 1815. Baader first sent copies of his proposal (which was influenced by the theocratic ideas of Novalis and Saint-Martin (F. Büchler, Die geistigen Wurzeln der Heiligen Allianz, Freiburg, 1929, 53-60) in apparently rough form to the monarchs of Austria, Prussia, and Russia in the spring of 1814. For the varied West European influences on the idea of a Holy Alliance see Büchler and H. Schaeder, Die dritte Koalition, 1934.

57. Text in W. Phillips, The Confederation of Europe, London, 1920, 301-2. See also Knapton, Lady, 165-6; Sukhomlinov, Izsledovaniia, I, 174-5. Nadler’s six-volume investigation of the problem concludes that Alexander was the author of the text and the originator of the idea of a “Holy Alliance,” (see esp. vol. V); but his analysis suggests the importance of German émigrés in St. Petersburg—particularly the conservative Baltic German nationalist Ernst Arndt and the later Prussian reform leader Baron Stein— in conditioning elite opinion in the Russian capital for the idea of some such alliance.

58. Klaus, “Dukhovenstvo,” 147; also 138 ff.; Benz, Sendung; E. Susini, Lettres inédites de Franz von Baader, 1942, esp. 293-4.

59. ZhChO, 1817, Jul, 18. This was the lead article in the first number of the society’s official periodical.

60. T. Sokolovskaia, “Masonstvo kak polozhitel’noe dvizhenie,” 20-36.

61. Between 1817 and 1821 over-all Masonic membership appears to have increased by more than half, while the increase in St. Petersburg was only 10 per cent: RS, 1908, Oct, 87-8; and, for the general history of this last period of Masonry, Pypin, Istoricheskie ocherki: Obshchestvennoe dvizhenie v Rossii pri Aleksandre I, P, 1900, 296-333; also B. Telepnev, “Some Aspects of Russian Freemasonry during the Reign of Emperor Alexander I,” AQC, XXXVIII, 1925, 15-31.

62. Put’ ko Khristu, P, 1815, xxiii-xxiv, cited in BZ, 1858, no. 5, 131; see also 136. Bulich, Ocherki, I, 340-3.

63. I. Katetov, Graf M. M. Speransky kak religiozny myslitel’, Kazan, 1889, 39-40 notes, 42 ff.; Znamensky, Chteniia, 149-63.

64. Listed in Toska po otchizne, M, 1818, V, 307-8. “Homesickness” does not fully convey the overtones of metaphysical longing in the German Heimweh or the Russian toska po otchizne.

65. Katetov, Speransky, 65-77. Saint-Martin, Oeuvres posthumes, Tours, 1807, II, 245-68.

66. P. Shelley, “Adonais,” LII, lines 1-4.

67. Znamensky, Rukovodstvo, 433.

68. Znamensky, Chteniia, 156-7, and entire discussion 111-63.

69. This can only be inferred. See F. Hoffmann, Franz von Baaders Biographie und Briefwechsel, Leipzig, 1857, 79.

70. N. Popov, “Fesler,” 639-40; Pypin, Dvizheniia, 132-5, 200-4.

71. RS, 1907, Apr, 213; RA, 1868, no. 9, 1358-90; Pypin, Dvizheniia, 197-200; and Bulich, Ocherki, II, 289-320, for the fall of Golitsyn.

72. Pypin, Dvizheniia, 200.

73. RS, 1896, Aug, 426.

74. “Raskolnicisme,” Susini, Lettres, 364; also to Golitsyn, 368-9. Benz, Sendung, discusses later contacts with Russia, but deals mainly with questions of church unification and should be supplemented by Benz’s Franz von Baader und Kotzebue. Das Russlandbild der Restaurationszeit, Mainz, 1957.

75. De Maistre, Oeuvres, VIII, 328; on De Maistre’s friend Paulucci, see Semevsky, “Dekabristy,” 27-33.

76. V. Zhmakin, “Eres’ Esaula Kotel’-nikova,” Kh Cht, 1882, no. 11-12, 739-95; Pypin, Dvizheniia, 419-58.

77. E. Bakhtalovsky, “Opisanie dukhovnykh podvigov i vsekh sluchaev zhizni sviashchennika Feodosiia Levitskago,” RS, 1880, Sep, 129-68. For Levitsky’s writings, see L. Brodsky, ed., Sviashchennik Feodosy Levitsky i ego sochinenie, P, 1911.

78. F. von Baader, Les Enseignements secrets de Martinès de Pasqualis, 1900, 4.

79. See, for instance, “Iz istorii masonstva,” RS, 1907, no. 3, 539-49; T. Sokolovskaia, Katalog masonskoi kollektsii D. G. Burynina, P, 1912, 22-3.

80. On the history of this sect, which is even more shrouded in mystery than most, see A. Scheikevitch, “Alexandre I^er et l’hérésie sabbatiste,” RHM, III, 1956, 223-35.

The Jewish equivalent of mystical pietism, Hassidism, may also have played some obscure role in developing the idea of a supra-confessional “inner church.” At any rate, the parallelism between Hassidism and Pietism is as striking as that between Old Believer chiliasm and that of the Sabbataians a century earlier.

On Hassidism in Eastern Europe during this period see G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, NY, 1954, 3d ed., esp. 301-50; and for the general impact of Jewish Kabbalistic mysticism on Christian thought in the West during the early modern period see E. Benz, Die Christliche Kabbala, Zurich, 1958.

81. Zhmakin, “Kotel’nikov,” 753-4, note 2; also 745-64.

82. Cited in S. Sol’sky, “Uchastie,” 195; see also 172-96.

83. Matter, Saint-Martin, 315-28, 354-410; Pypin, Dvizheniia, 318-21; Jung-Stilling, Theorie der Geisterkunde, 1808; Eckartshausen, Bog vo ploti ili Khristos mezhdu chelovekami, P, 1818, I; also his Oblako nad sviatilishchem, P, 1804, 7, 149-54; and Lopukhin’s inscription to Dukh Ekkartsgauzena ili sushchnost’ ucheniia sego znamenitago pisatelia, M, 1810. For the influence of Jung-Stilling on the later “Tidings of Zion” sect, see E. Molostova, Iegovisty, P, 1914, esp. 17-34.

84. R. Labry, Alexandre Ivanovič Herzen 1812-1870, 1928, 177-8 note 2; Popov, “Fesler,” 640-1. G. Florovsky pointedly entitles the excellent chapter on this period in his Puti “The Struggle for Theology.”

85. I. Pokrovsky, “O sposobakh soderzhaniia dukhovnykh uchilishch v Rossii ot osnovaniia ikh, v 1721 g, do preobrazovaniia v nachale nastoiashchago stoletiia,” Strannik, 1860, Aug, 111-13; also 109-38; and Jul, 24-55 for further discussion of this often neglected element in the Russian educational picture.

86. Letter of Jul 31/Aug 12, 1815, to Mme Svechin (later one of De Maistre’s converts to Catholicism and an émigré patron of Russian Catholics in Paris) in De Maistre, Oeuvres, XIII, 125. The basic works of the French-speaking Platon are listed in BE, 46, 851-2; his ideas and activities discussed in A. Barsov, Ocherk zhizni Mitropolita Platona, M, 1891.

87. Considerations sur la doctrine et l’esprit de l’église orthodoxe, Stuttgart, 1816; and reviews in ZhChO, 1817, Aug, 181-98, and Sep, 239-51. Mémoire sur l’état actuel de l’Allemagne, 1818. On Sturdza, see RBS, XIII, 602-6; Sukhomlinov, Izsledovaniia, I, 219; Benz, “Baader und Kotzebue,” 88-99. Carl Brinckmann suggests that Sturdza may actually have been the principal author of the Holy Alliance, and shows the close tie-in between the German and Russian reaction in “Die Entstehung von Sturdza’s ‘Etat actuel de l’Allemagne’,” HZ, CXX, 1919, 80-102.

Sturdza’s sister, Roxanne, the Countess Edling, was also an important influence in the turn toward reaction and mysticism (see A. Shidlovsky, “Grafinia R. S. Edling v pis’makh k V. G. Tepliakovu,” RS, Aug, 404-43). Indeed, her beauty and magnetism considered together with that of Baroness Krüdener, Mme Tatarinova, Zinaida Volkonsky, and Countess Orlova-Chesmenskaia (the real power behind Photius and the key foe of Golitsyn, see “Arkhimandrit Foty i Grafinia A. A. Orlova-Chesmenskaia,” IL, 1914, Feb, 195-204) tempts one to suggest that the influence of attractive women in mobilizing men against Westernizing innovation was as great on the reactionaries around Alexander I as it had been among the conservative boyars around Alexis Mikhailovich. At another level the heroic role of women came to be stressed in the legends that developed about resistance to Napoleon. See A. Svobodin, “Vasilissa Kozhina,” Soviet Woman, 1961, no. 3, 24-5.

88. The lodge under attack was that of Prince Barataev, son of a former governor of Simbirsk and a leading theorist of syncretic and cosmopolitan Masonry. See T. Sokolovskaia, “K masonskoi deiatel’nosti Kn. Barataeva,” RS, 1908, Feb, 424-35.

89. Sukhomlinov, Izsledovaniia, I, 224, and 511, note 277.

90. E. Feoktistov, “Magnitsky. Materialy dlia istorii prosveshcheniia v Rossii,” RV, 1864, Jun, 484; and, for basic materials on Magnitsky, Jun, 464-98; Jul, 5-55; and Aug, 407-49.

91. Ibid., Jun, 484-5.

92. Ibid., Jul, 11, (the term used is blagochestie), and 5-22.

93. Bulich, Ocherki, II, 269-71, corrects Feoktistov’s account in some respects.

94. Feoktistov, “Magnitsky,” Jul, 23-6.

95. Ibid., Aug, 409, also 408; and for the general purge of universities, Jun, 467-73, Jul, 11-18.

96. From texts of his memoranda in RA, 1864, no. 3, 324-5.

97. Cited from the Zhurnal uchenoi kommissii, 1820, in Sukhomlinov, Izsledovaniia, I, 185.

98. Argument of Kruzenshtern in ibid., 186.

99. Feoktistov, Aug, 426-7.

100. Ibid., 426, citing A. Perovsky (Pogorel’sky), an educational overseer of the Kharkov district.

101. From the famous memorandum to Shishkov, “Zapiski o kramolakh vragov Rossii,” probably the work of Prince Peter Meshcherskin, published with introduction and analysis by N. Moroshkin in RA, 1868, no. 9, 1384.

102. Feoktistov, Jun, 473, and text of memorandum 469-73.

103. Feoktistov, Jul, 47.

104. J. Laurens, Vocabulaire, 66-7.

105. RBS, X, 670.

106. Feoktistov, Jul, 42-3. For discussion of Uvarov’s ideas, their roots in German romantic ideas about the East, and their contrast with the harsher imperialist views that Pogodin developed a few years later see N. Riasanovsky, “Russia and Asia—Two Nineteenth-Century Russian Views,” CSS, I, 1960, 170-81; of correspondence of De Maistre and Uvarov, LN, XXIX/ XXX, 1937, 682-712. On Senkovsky, N. Riasanovsky, Nicholas I and Official Nationality in Russia, 1825-1855, Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1959, 65-72; and P. Pletnev, “O narodnosti v literature,” ZhMNP, 1834, no. 1, ch. 2, 1-30.

107. N. Shil’der, “Dva donosa v 1831 godu,” RS, 1898, 517-38; 1899, Jan, 67-87; and particularly Feb, 289-314; and Mar, 607-31; also Feoktistov, Aug, 437-49.

108. Sakulin, Russkaia literatura i sotsializm, I, 400-1, note 2.

109. For her earlier and later careers respectively see LN, IV-VI, 1932, 477-86; and N. Gorodetzky, “Zinaida Volkonsky as Catholic,” SEER, 1960, Dec, 31-43.

110. M. J. Rouët de Journel, Madame Swetchine, 1929.

111. Augustin Golitsyn, Un Missionaire russe en Amérique, 1856; P. Lemcke, Life and Work of Prince Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin, London-NY, 1940; Bolshakoff, Nonconformity, 144-7; Boudou, Le Saint-Siège, 328-556.

112. Zhmakin, “Kotel’nikov,” 772-95; and “Materialy dlia istorii mistitsizma v Rossii. Zapiski Iakova Zolotareva,” Strannik, 1879, May; Margaritov, Istoriia, 109-12.

113. For the influence of De Maistre on Solov’ev see Radlov, Ocherk, 14, note 1. On Solov’ev’s vision of reunited Christendom, which explicitly included Jews, see S. Frank, ed., A Solovyov Anthology, London, 1950, 75-126; for his Catholic sympathies see ibid., 249-52, and the first part of his La Russie et l’église universelle, Paris, 1889. His last apocalyptical vision of a reunited Christendom (Anthology, 229-48) was influenced by Jung-Stilling’s prophetic writings of the Alexandrian age; and the leader of the Orthodox component in the new reunited church is a mysterious elder who is rumored to be Fedor Kuzmich (Anthology, 237).

114. E. Simmons, Leo Tolstoy, Boston, 1946, 20-2; T. Sokolovskaia, “Obriadnost’ prezhniago russkago masonstva,” RS, 1907, Dec, 709-10.

115. Noted and deplored by Turgenev, Simmons, Tolstoy, 342.

116. J. Bienstock, Tolstoy et les Doukhobors, 1902.

117. Tolstoy was the model for the superhuman Antichrist of Solov’-ev’s last work, “Three Conversations,” in Anthology, 229-48.

118. See I. Berlin, The Hedgehog and the Fox, NY, 1957, p, 75-124.

119. The general assumption that Alexander I died in 1825, that Kuzmich had no connection whatsoever with the Tsar, and that the legend is pure fantasy (see, for instance, S. Mel’gunov, Dela i liudi, 109-111) still needs critical re-examination in line with the questions posed by L. Liubimov’s balanced study, Taina Imperatora Aleksandra I, Paris, 1938.

120. Cited in Liubimov, Taina, 78.

121. Pushkinsky Dom, L, Arkhiv “Russkoi Stariny,” XVI, 1875-8, to Russkaia Starina, 1878, no. 1, esp. 122-6. Accounts differ about his last movements, but this one also mentions his visiting “a village inhabitant to see a religious ceremony,” which may suggest sectarian contacts as well.

122. The words of Michael Viel’gorsky, leader of the last important “higher order” lodge to be founded in Russia prior to the prohibition by Alexander. “Iz aforizmov masona grafa M. Yu. Viel’gorskago o masonstve,” RS, 1908, Nov, 391.

123. For the difficulties that faced the sculpting even of religious subjects as late as the 1750’s, see “Iz istorii russkoi skulptury,” IL, 1914, Jul, 874-7.

124. Bulich, Ocherki, I, 343; Veselovsky, Vliianie, 93.

125. Florovsky, Puti, 538.

126. “Nikolai Bestuzhev i ego zhivopisnoe nasledie,” LN, LX, 1956, 20, 37-8, and picture 39. See also the discussion of his cultural activities during his long Siberian exile in Studies in Romanticism, 1965, summer, 185-205.

127. See Labry, Herzen, 143. Palingenesis occurs frequently in the titles of Masonic books. See A. Lantoine, Histoire, 231-2.

128. Katetov, Speransky, 61-2. See also T. Sokolovskaia, “Obriadnost’ vol’-nykh kamenshchikov,” in Mel’-gunov, et al., Masonstvo, II, 80-112, for the most lucid general exposition of masonic symbols; also her “Obriadnost’,” RS, 1907, Nov, 349-59; and Dec, 707-17.

129. Telepnev, “Freemasonry,” 276.

130. Kurzer Katechismus für teutsche Soldaten was published in five editions under different titles between 1812-15, and was part of a joint Prussian-Russian ideological crusade against French ideas. The work was addressed to the people and soldiers rather than to the princes of Germany. See Nadler, Imperator, III, 91-139; esp. 106-7; 168, and 184-222.

131. M. Strange, La Révolution, 47 ff. Despite his own dedication to toleration, Voltaire feared that “dans l’Europe enfin l’heureux tolérantisme/ De tout esprit bien fait devient le catéchisme”—a conception which influenced Dostoevsky in his concept of the Grand Inquisitor. See Rammelmeyer, “Dostojevskij und Voltaire,” 267 ff., and citation from Voltaire (Oeuvres, X, 402), 278.

132. From text in A. Borozdin, Iz pisem i pokazanii dekabristov, P, 1906, 87; see also Ocherki … zhurnalistiki, 200; Haumant, La Culture, 330-1.

133. M. Shcherbatov, Puteshestvie v zemliu ofirskuiu G-na S. shvedskago dvorianina, is included in Sochineniia, P, 1896-8, 2v. Shcherbatov is often remembered primarily for his glorification of pre-Petrine Russia in O povrezhdenii nravov v Rossii (written 1786-9, first published in 1858 by Herzen) and for his fifteen-volume history, which reached Shuisky by the time of his death in 1790. But he was a vigorous political theorist, beginning with his first French-language work Reflexions sur le gouvernement (1759-60) and continuing through his activity on Catherine’s legislative commission. His political theory is not identical with that of the Puteshestvie, his only novel. See the discussion and analysis by V. Fursenko in RBS, XXIV, 104-24; also M. Raeff, “State and Nobility in the Ideology of M. M. Shcherbatov,” ASR, 1960, 363-79. Another neglected “utopian” romance of this period is the Noveishie puteshestviia of Vasily Levshin, which apparently portrays the “natural” harmony of dwellers on the moon, free from written laws, formal government, or ecclesiastical establishment. See Sipovsky, Etapy, 40-2.

134. Cited in Riasanovsky, Nicholas, 1.

135. Ibid., 13. Even here, the role of Alexander in preparing the way for Nicholas’ methods must be acknowledged. Alexander’s creation of centralized ministries freed of any effective restraints led immediately in the view of some authorities to a “ministerial despotism” in which a semi-militarized command structure was imposed on the conduct of all civil affairs, thus denying any sense of creative participation in the business of government even to the nominally privileged classes. See E. Shumigorsky, “Nachalo biurokratii v Rossii,” RS, 1908, Jan, 71-6.

136. M. Zagoskin, “‘Moskva i Moskvichi’ zapiski Bogdana Il’icha Bel’-skago,” SS, M, 1902, III, ch. ii, I. Alexander had revived the idea of Moscow as Jerusalem (Nadler, Imperator, II, 133; III, 39-40); and the national school of music led by Balakirev and Musorgsky regularly referred to Moscow as “Jericho.” J. Leyda and S. Bertensson, The Musorgsky Reader, NY, 1947, 7, 17.

137. The collection was edited in two parts by N. Nekrasov, the editor and poet, Fiziologiia Peterburga, sostavlennaia iz trudov russkikh literatorov, P, 1844-5. For the impact of phrenology see P. Sakulin, Iz istorii russkago idealizma: Kniaz’ V. F. Odoevsky, M, 1913, I, 488 ff.; for discussion of Nekrasov’s collection and other brooding considerations of St. Petersburg during this period see the chapter “Physiology of Petersburg” in Lo Gatto, Mito, 176-205. See also the criticism of this collection (and of the naturalism associated with St. Petersburg) by Moscow-based journalists, who tended to agree with Bulgarin that “nature is good only when washed and combed.” K. Harper, “Criticism of the Natural School in the 1840’s,” ASR, 1956, Oct, 403 note 3 and 400-14.

The controversy between the two cities in the 1840’s even extended to matters of musical style and taste. See, for instance, A. Grigor’ev, “Moskva i Peterburg,” Moskovsky gorodskoi listok, 1847, no. 43.

138. S. Shevyrev, Istoriia Imperatorskago moskovskago universiteta, M, 1855, 20. Moscow was chosen as the university site because of its greater population and central location (10). Shevyrev’s readable centennial volume is useful in reflecting at times the romantic imagination of its author as well as reciting the often prosaic facts of university history.

139. From A. Khomiakov, Dmitry Samozvanets (1832), cited in A. Gratieux, A. S. Khomiakov et le mouvement slavophile, 1939, I, 23.

140. His project predated that of Magnitsky and attracted the admiration of Goethe (G. Schmid, ed., Goethe und Uwarow und ihr Briefwechsel, P, 1888) and the scorn of De Maistre (LN, XXIX/XXX, 1937). The text of Uvarov’s project is in Etudes de philologie et de critique, 1845, 1-48; his political ideas are best sketched in Esquisses politiques et littéraires, 1848. See also the bibliography in RA, 1871, 2106-7; and biography in BE, LXVII, 419-20.

“Archeology of General Metaphysics” is cited from N. Riasanovsky, “Russia and Asia,” 174.

141. Esquisses, 187.

142. Cited in Sakulin, Iz istorii, I, 336.

143. Eniseisky Al’manakh, Krasnoiarsk, 1828, esp. 114-20. Fesler may have provided the model for these Mongolian novels with his Attila, König der Hunnen, Breslau, 1794. See Zotov’s Tsyn-Kiu-Tong, ili tri dobryia dela dukha t’my, M, 1844; and Posledny potomok Chingiskhana, published posthumously, P, 1881. Zotov wrote and translated some 117 plays and novels, almost all on historical themes. See BE, XXIV, 688; RBS, XXIII, 484-94. Yunost’ Ioanna III, ili nashestvie Tamerlana na Rossiiu, P, 1823.

There was already in eighteenth-century Russia an occasional tendency to see the Orient as the true source of wisdom and the secrets of happiness. See, for example, the work Kitaisky mudrets, ili nauka zhit’ blagopoluchno, referenced in V. Malyshev, Drevnerusskie rukopisi Pushkinskogo doma. Putevoditel’, M-L, 1965, 94.

144. Esquisses, 64.

145. Ibid., 42.

146. Ibid., 42.

147. Suggested in Riasanovsky, Nicholas, 70-2.

148. Esquisses, 13.

3. THE “CURSED QUESTIONS”

1. This famous incident occurred under Alexander I, and is recounted along with other similar illustrations by I. Golovin, La Russie sous Nicholas I^er, 1845, 131. For one of the best contemporary (or indeed subsequent) analyses of the links between the Russians and the Germans as they developed during the aristocratic century, climaxing under Nicholas, see S.-R. Taillandier, “Les Allemands en Russie et les Russes en Allemagne,” RDM, 1854, VII, 633-91. See also F. Weigel, La Russie envahie par les Allemands, Paris-Leipzig, 1844.

Even the Russian national anthem, which was written at the Tsar’s request by Alexis L’vov in 1833, was apparently plagiarized from a Prussian march of the early 1820’s. See “Kto kompozitor nashego nyneshniago narodnago gimna,” RMG, 1903, no. 52, 1313.

2. Golovin, Russie, 130.

3. This bon mot is cited in the Harvard Doctoral dissertation of S. Monas, the published version of which, The Third Section: Police and Society in Russia under Nicholas I, Cambridge, Mass., 1961, provides a valuable picture of police controls at work under Nicholas. The most celebrated of all the shocked accounts by foreign visitors is the deservedly famous one by Marquis de Custine, Russia, London, 1854. See also the parallel development in an even more famous French conservative, Balzac, from high initial hopes to disillusionment with Nicholaevan Russia, LN, XXIX-XXX, 1937, 149-372. A reconstruction of the official thinking of the age giving rational balance to the picture is in N. Riasanovsky, Nicholas I.

4. Riasanovsky, Nicholas, 105-15.

5. A. Vasil’ev, Lobachevsky, P, 1914; I. Kuznetsov, Liudi russkoi nauki, M, 1961, 76-93; and A. Vucinich, “Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevskii,” Isis, LIII, 1962, 465-81. Vasil’ev’s sketch in RBS, X, esp. 539-40, seems to indicate that Lobachevsky’s relations with Magnitsky were not as hostile as Soviet authorities insist.

6. Ibid., 94-103; BE, XL, 587-9; F. W. Struve, Etudes d’astronomie stellaire, P, 1847; and the almanac, Kometa Bely, P, 1833, esp. M. Pogodin, “Galeeva Kometa,” 1-23.

If Russian interests fled into outer space, they also burrowed deep into the earth. Russia acquired a sophisticated understanding of stratigraphy and conducted an important series of excavations in search of prehistoric animals (all through the St. Petersburg Mining Institute). See A. Borisiak, “Kratky ocherk istorii russkoi paleozoologii,” TIIE, I, 1947, esp. 6-8. For an excellent description of the Pulkovo observatory under Struve by a contemporary Scottish astronomer, see C. Smyth, Three Cities in Russia, London, 1862, I, 73-186.

7. “Pervy sbornik pamiati Karla Maksimovicha Bera,” TKIZ, 1927, no. 2, 56-7.

8. Krizhanich: “Russi inquam non verbis sed rebus sunt filosofi,” Dialogus de Calumnis, IA, 1958, no. 1, 162.

9. Liubopytny, cited in A. Sinaisky, Otnoshenie, 300.

10. For the early travails of formal philosophy in Russia see Koyré, La Philosophie, 46-87; Radlov, Ocherk, 1-17; Vvedensky, “Sud’ba.”

11. An important intermediate source of the doctrine of Sophia was the work of the German syncretic mystic and historian of heresy, Gottfried Arnold, Das Geheimnis der göttlichen Sophia (1700). See the new edition with intr. by W. Nigg, Stuttgart, 1963.

12. Quoted from his essay of 1798, “On the Pythagorean Quadrant in Nature,” by E. Susini, Franz von Baader et le romantisme mystique, 1942, I, 256-7; also 235-79.

13. Sofiia to est’ Blagopriiatnaia vechnaia deva Bozhestvennoi premudrosti, see P. Sakulin, Iz istorii, I, 424 note 2. Sakulin’s work is the best general study of the transmission of the Boehmist tradition through Saint-Martin into Russia.

14. See Labzin’s translation of Jung-Stilling, Oblako, title page and 7.

15. For the discussion of Izbrannoe chtenie dlia liubitelei istinnoi filosofii, O pokaianii. Kratkoe ukazanie na kliuch razumeniia tainstv bozhikh, kakim obrazom dusha mozhet dostignut’ sozertsaniia bozheskago v sebe, P, 1819-20, and other such works, see S. P-v, “Perevodchiki,” BZ, 1858, I, 134 ff.

16. Telepnev, “Some Aspects,” 23. This was, of course, the greeting “Remember death” (memento mori), of the Capuchin order.

17. Koyré, Philosophie, 37, note 3. The slogan, which is not traced in any Russian materials, is from Horaces Epistles (Liber I, Epistula II, line 40), though it had extensive intermediate usage in both German philosophy and Masonic literature.

18. V. Koshelev, Zapiski, 1883, 19; and the excellent account in Koyré, Philosophie, 33-45.

19. Particularly L. Oken, Lehrbuch der Naturphilosophie, Jena, 1809, 3v, which defines Naturphilosophie as “die Lehre von der ewigen Neuwandlung Gottes in die Welt.” Koyré, 139, note 4; and 137-52, for the influence of Schelling.

20. Professor M. Pavlov, as described in A. Herzen, Selected Philosophical Works, M, 1956, 515.

21. Koyré, La Philosophie, 91, note 1; and, for the thought of Kireevsky, 164-93; and his Etudes, 1-17, where the conjoint influence of Schleiermacher is also brought out.

22. Ionescu-Niskov, “Skovoroda,” 157.

23. Nikitenko on Nadezhdin in 1834, quoted in N. Koz’min, Nikolai Ivanovich Nadezhdin, P, 1912, 260-1.

24. B. Koz’min, “Dva slova o slove ‘Nigilist,”’ IAN(L), 1951, no. 4, 378-85. The method of transmission from early German uses in figures like Jacobi to Nadezhdin’s usage is a problem not seriously discussed in the materials on this subject (referenced in my “Intelligentsia,” 810-11, note 9). One possibility is Baader, who refers in 1824 to the disintegration of Protestantism into two parts: a “destructive, scientific nihilism” and an “unscientific separatistic Pietism.” Sämtliche Werke, Leipzig, 1851, I, 74.

25. Sakulin, Iz istorii, I, 462, 465, note 1, also 474-90.

26. V. Odoevsky, “Russkie nochi,” in Sochineniia, P, 1844, I, 15. Besides Koyré’s account of the influence of Schelling see M. Filippov, Sud’by, part I, and E. Bobrov, Filosofiia, esp. III and IV; and W. Setschkareff, Schellings Einfluss in der russischen Literatur der 20er und 30er Jahre des XIX Jahrhunderts, 1939. Note that the principal initial popularizer of Schelling’s world view was (as so often in the past with heretical cosmologies) a doctor: D. Vellansky, professor at the medical-surgical academy of St. Petersburg. The influence of Schelling paralleled and occasionally merged with that of Baader. See discussion and references on both figures in Riasanovsky, Nicholas, 173-7.

27. Baron A. Haxthausen’s famous study of the Russian peasantry (Studien über die innern Zustände, das Volksleben und insbesondere die ländlichen Einrichtungen Russlands, Hanover-Berlin, 1847-52, 3v) profoundly influenced the Slavophiles; while Hilferding was in turn influenced by them to undertake extensive investigations during his forty-two-year life not only of the byliny of the Onega region, but of the interconnections of all Slavic popular literature and their connections with earlier languages and cultures. See his Sochineniia, P, 1868-74, 4v.

28. Riasanovsky, Nicholas, 102 ff.

29. See articles by E. Gavrilova, Iskusstvo, 1959, no. 7, 72-4; and E. Atsarkina, Iskusstvo, 1952, no. 3, 73-80.

30. See D. Mirsky’s review of V. Zhirmunsky, Bairon i Pushkin, L, 1924, in SEER, 1924, Jun, 209-11.

31. V. Koshelev, cited in Koyré, Philosophie, 148.

32. Schelling’s comment to P. Kireevsky, cited in Sakulin, Iz istorii, I, 349, note 2.

33. Herzen, PSS i pisem, P, XLII, 243 ff. See the basic discussions by C. Quénet (Tchaadaev et les lettres philosophiques, 1931) and A. Koyré (Études, 20-102). R. McNally is preparing a newer and fuller translation than has yet appeared; M. Malia, a new French edition.

34. Letter to A. Turgenev of 1837 in M. Gershenzon, ed., Sochineniia i pis’ma P. Ya. Chaadaeva, M, 1913, I, 214. Cf. his references between 1833-5 to Russia’s “universal mission” (I, 188) to solve “all the questions which Europe is debating” (I, 181) and “to pronounce one day the answer to the human enigma.” (I, 182).

35. In 1834, cited in Koyré, Études, 29, note 2.

36. Cited in Koz’min Nadezhdin, 231; also 82-5.

37. Cited in Sakulin, Iz istorii, I, 574.

38. H. Desmettre, A. Towianski et le messianisme polonais, Lille, 1947, 2v; Weintraub, Literature as Prophecy; and “Adam Mickiewicz the Mystic-Politician,” HSS, I, 1953, 137-78; and on the Society of Cyril and Methodius, P. Sakulin, Literatura, ch. 1, 288-312. See also, among many relevant studies by W. Lednicki, his ranging “Christ et révolution dans la poésie russe et polonaise,” in Mélanges Legras, 99-121.

39. Cited in Koyré, La Philosophie, 160, note 1. The expression was italicized in Pogodin’s text.

40. Cited in P. Struve, “S. P. Shevyrev i zapadnyia vnusheniia i istochniki teorii-aforizma o ‘gnilom’ ili ‘gniiushchem’ zapade,” ZNIB, XVII, 1940, 263, note 10. See also M. Kovalevsky, “Filosofskoe ponimanie sudeb russkago proshlago mysliteliami i pisateliami 30-kh i 40-kh godov,” VE, 1915, Dec, 163-201.

41. Cited from RDM, 1840, Nov, 363-4, in Struve, “Shevyrev,” 229-30.

42. RDM, 1840, Nov, 364, cited in Struve, “Shevyrev,” 230. Struve sees, as a key influence on both Chasles and Chaadaev, the Danish Catholic Baron d’Eckstein (233-6).

43. Odoevsky, Sochineniia, I, 309-12.

44. Cited in Sakulin, Iz istorii, I, 593.

45. Odoevsky, Sochineniia, I, 100-11.

46. Odoevsky, Povesti i rasskazy, M, 1959, 422; story reprinted 416-48. See the discussion of various drafts 490-3; and P. Sakulin, “Russkaia ikariia,” Sovremennik, 1912, kn. 12, 193-206; Iz istorii, I, ch. ii, esp. 178-84, for other utopias of the period; and the perceptive critical comments of Belinsky (one of the few to take it seriously) even before publication; OZ, 1839, Dec, 3-15.

47. “Umom Rossiiu ne poniat’,/ Arshinom obshchim ne izmerit’:/ U nei osobennaia stat’ — / V Rossiiu mozhno tol’ko verit’.” F. Tiutchev, PSS, P, 1913, 202. See also the introductory essay to this volume by V. Briusov, and D. Stremooukhoff, La Poésie, 1937, esp. 45-54.

48. Gratieux, Khomiakov, II, 50-78. Text and notes were published in his PSS, M, 1878, III; 1882, IV.

49. N. Riasanovsky makes this comparison in detail, Russia and the West, 215-18. Actually, Khomiakov’s two contending camps are considerably closer theologically to the eighteenth-century Dukhobors’ “Sons of Cain” (Slaves to the Flesh) and “Sons of Abel” (Fighters for the Spirit), BSE(1), XXIII, 651-3, though Khomiakov was temperamentally far closer to the tolerant and pietistic romantics than to the fanatical and authoritarian sectarians. Important new works on the Slavophiles are P. Christoff, An Introduction to Nineteenth-Century Russian Slavophilism: A Study in Ideas, Vol. 1: A. S. Xomjakov, The Hague, 1961; also A. Walicki, W Kregu konserwatywnej utopii, Warsaw, 1964; and “Personality and Society in the Ideology of Russian Slavophiles,” CSS, II, 1963, 1-20.

The discussion by E. H. Carr (“‘Russia and Europe’ as a Theme …”) suggests a somewhat more inclusive definition by pointing out (368 note 2) that the term “Slavophile” was actually first used in the beginning of the nineteenth century in derisive reference to Shishkov (a reactionary opponent of linguistic modernization who is solemnly excluded from the “Slavophile” ranks by all authorities); and by designating some of the chauvinistic expansionists of the post-Crimean War period (who were also often called Slavophiles in their time, but who are now generally set apart as Pan-Slavs) the “second wave of Slavophilism.”

50. Gratieux, Khomiakov, I, 19-24.

51. Letter of Jun 2, 1821, in De Maistre, Lettres et opuscules, 1851, I, 584-5.

52. Cited in Sakulin, Iz istorii, I, 348, note 2; and 343-7 for the influence of Lamennais; also Sakulin, Literatura, 14-9, for the influence of Lamennais and another less-known early Christian socialist, A. de Villeneuve-Bargement, esp. his Economie politique chrétienne, 1834. For Lamennais’ later influence on the Petrashevtsy, see V. Semevsky, Iz istorii obshchestvennykh idei v Rossii v kontse 1840-kh godov, Rostov/Don, 1905, 27-9.

Chaadaev was influenced by Lamennais as well as De Maistre in his search for a new spiritual answer for the human condition; but was repelled by Lamennais’ deification of the people and wrote a cutting critique of Christian socialism: “How can one search for reason in a mob? Where has a crowd ever been rational? Was hat das Volk mit der Vernunft zu schaffen? …” (Sochineniia, I, 300-1).

53. N. Rusanov, “Vliianie zapadnoevropeiskago sotsializma na russky,” MG, 1908, May-Jun, 14.

54. As related by Hippolyte-Nicolas-Just Auger, “Iz zapisok Ippolita Ozhe,” RA, 1877, kn. 2, 61; also, on Auger, RA, 1877, kn. 1, 519.

55. “Iz zapisok,” 65-6.

56. See my “Intelligentsia,” 807-8 and notes.

57. M. Saltykov, “Za rubezhom,” Izbrannye sochineniia, M-L, 1940, 30.

58. Cited in Sakulin, Iz istorii, I, 346-7.

59. A. Herzen, PSS i pisem, P, I, 71, 117, and esp. 126.

60. Billington, Mikhailovsky, 32-40; “Intelligentsia,” 812-5.

61. N. Polevoy, Istoriia russkago naroda, 1829-33, 6v; V. Belinsky, N. A. Polevoy, P, 1846, in PSS, IX, 671-96. In the same spirit, the Slavophile journalist and editor N. Giliarov-Platonov criticized Macarius’ massive history of the Russian Church for dealing with the institution and particularly the hierarchy of the church rather than the history of popular spirituality: “the life of the Russian people as a society of believing people.” Cited in V. Senatov, Filosofiia istorii staroobriadchestva, M, 1908, vyp. I, 22. (This review when it first appeared in the 1850’s was severely censored and delayed for several years in publication — as were many of the writings of Aksakov and the more radical Slavophiles.)

62. Cited in F. Nelidov, Zapadniki 40kh godov, M, 1910, xxxiv. For Stankevich’s translation of a French vulgarization of Hegel see N. Stankevich, Stikhotvoreniia, tragediia, proza, M, 1890, 183-238. For his thanks for having “the chains taken from my soul” by Hegel see Stankevich, Perepiska, M, 1914, 450. For succinct discussion and critical review of the literature on Hegel’s influence in Russia see Koyré, Études, 103-70; see also M. Kovalevsky, “Shellingianstvo i gegel’ianstvo v Rossii,” VE, 1915, Nov, 133-70; and D. Chizhevsky, Gegel’ v Rossii, Paris, 1939. For the role of Hegel in Poland and throughout the Slavic world see Chizhevsky, ed., Hegel bei den Slaven, Bad Homburg, 1961. Hegel (like Schelling, though not so emphatically or frequently) had predicted a great future for Russia. See B-P. Hepner, Bakounine et le panslavisme révolutionnaire, 1950, 93, note 21.

63. Letter to Bakunin of Sep 10, 1838, in Belinsky, PSS, M, 1956, XI, 296.

64. Ibid., 293-4.

65. Letter of Feb 4, 1837, in A. Kornilov, Molodye gody Mikhaila Bakunina, iz istorii russkago romantizma, M, 1915, I, 376.

66. I. Kireevsky, PSS, M, 1861, II, 296; also 318-25. The older generation of Russian romantics looked eagerly to Schelling to uproot the “fatalistic logic” of Hegel after the German government moved him into the chair in Berlin University that Hegel had once held. Chaadaev wrote to Schelling in 1842 that he was providing leadership in the “intellectual crisis which will probably decide the future of our civilization.” (Zven’ia, V, 1935, 219; also 225, and 219-32); and Russians also looked on Baader as providing an underpinning for Slavophile ideology, a means of restoring the Christian faith from alleged onslaughts of Hegel. See Baader’s Revision der Philosopheme der Hegel’schen Schule bezüglich auf das Christenthum, nebst zehn Thesen aus einer religiösen Philosophie, Stuttgart, 1835; Struve, “Shevyrev,” esp. 210 ff.

67. M. Bakunin, God and the State, NY, 1916; L’Empire Knouto-Germanique et la Révolution Sociale (1871), reprinted as La Révolution sociale ou la dictature militaire, 1946. On Herzen’s Hegelianism, see PSS i pisem, II, 242, and passage on the movement of humanity toward self-consciousness in III, 137.

68. Belinsky, PSS, XII, 22-3.

69. Ibid., 70-1.

70. P. Lavrov, Istoricheskie pis’ma, P, 1906, 358.

71. Koyré, Etudes, 161.

72. Hepner, Bakounine, esp. 236-84; Herzen, “The Russian People and Socialism,” (letter to Jules Michelet) in I. Berlin, intr., From the Other Shore, London, 1956, 165-208. Also comparison of two figures (partial to Herzen) by Berlin; and image of the commune by Herzen as compatible with (if not a guarantor of) individual liberties by M. Malia, “Herzen and the Peasant Commune,” in E. Simmons, Continuity, 197-217. For this entire period and these contesting figures see I. Berlin, “The Marvelous Decade,” Encounter, 1955, Jun, 27-39; Nov, 21-9; Dec, 22-43 (on Belinsky); 1956, May, 20-34 (on Herzen); and two excellent panoramic sets of memoirs: Herzen, My Past and Thoughts, NY, 1924-8, 6v, and P. Annenkov, Literaturnye vospominaniia, M, 1960 (the term “remarkable decade” having been coined by the latter). A. Walicki stresses the impact of Feuerbach on Belinsky and Herzen in his “Hegel, Feuerbach and the Russian ‘Philosophical Left,’ 1836-1848,” in Annali dell’Instituto Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Milan, 1963, 105-36.

The development of the tradition of salons and circles throughout the first half of the nineteenth century is admirably and vividly traced in the anthology introduced and edited by N. Brodsky, Literaturnye salony i kruzhki, M-L, 1930.

73. Letter to his son prefatory to From the Other Shore, 3.

74. Selected Philosophic Essays, 576-95.

75. Khomiakov, PSS, M, 1878, 2d ed., I, 695.

76. Matter, Saint-Martin, 354-68; Weintraub, Literature, 13-17.

77. “Uchit’ narod dobru—obiazannost’ poeta!/ On istinny gerol’d, uchitel’ grozny sveta,/ Ego udel porok razit’ i oblichat’,/ Liudei na pravy put’ nastavit’, nauchat’./ Poet khristianin est’ organ istin vechnykh.” Cited in Koz’min, Nadezhdin, 12. On Schelling’s impact on Russian literature and aesthetics see Setschkareff, Schellings Einfluss, esp. 6-29 on the Schellingian professors. For the influence of Swedenborg on occult romanticism see E. Benz, “Swedenborg und Lavater. Über die religiösen Grundlagen der Physiognomik,” in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LVII, 1938, 153-216; also F. Horn, Schelling und Swedenborg, Zurich, 1954.

Venevitinov echoed the definition in Schelling’s Bruno: “die Philosophic sei die höchste poesie,” in Setschkareff, Einfluss, 53; Bobrov, Filosofiia, II, 8. Cf. Nadezhdin “Poeziia i filosofiia—vot dusha sushchago/ eto zhizn’, liubov’; vne ikh vse mertvo.” Cited in Nelidov, Zapadniki, 49.

78. As cited in Koyré, Études, 155.

79. Ya. Polonsky as cited in Billington, Mikhailovsky, 93; Odoevsky, as cited in Sakulin, Iz istorii, I, 502.

80. V. Timofeeva, cited in Billington, Mikhailovsky, 63.

81. Quoted in Sakulin, Iz istorii, 413-14, note 3; Koyré, La Philosophie, 139-45. On Venevitinov and the poetry of the 1820’s see G. Wytrzens, Dmitrij Vladimirovič Venevitinov als Dichter der russischen Romantik, Cologne, 1962. Venevitinov’s “Sculpture, painting and music,” Severnaia Lira, 1827, 315-23; Sochineniia, 127-30. See also Gogol, “Skul’ptura, zhivopis’ i muzyka,” PSS, L, 1952, VIII, 9-13.

82. N. Stankevich, Stikhotvoreniia, 174-5. See also 176-82, “The Relationship of Philosophy to Literature.”

83. N. Beliavsky, “Lermontovkhudozhnik,” Iskusstvo, 1939, no. 5, 5-20.

84. Nadezhdin cited in M. Filippov, Sud’ba filosofii, 184.

85. D. Mirsky, Pushkin, London, 1926, 150.

For a perceptive critical discussion of some of the vast literature on Pushkin see M. Gorlin, Études littéraires et historiques, 1957, 2d ed., 119-37. Writing in 1937, Gorlin bemoans the lack of clear general presentations and philosophical analyses of Pushkin’s work. For a succinct, recent general characterization stressing the classical and aristocratic sides of Pushkin see M. Bowra, “Pushkin,” OSP, I, 1950, 1-15; also E. Wilson, The Triple Thinkers, NY, 1963, corr. ed., p, 31-59 (including a translation of The Bronze Horseman). The particularly valuable essay in Frank’s collection, “Pushkin kak politichesky myslitel’,” should be consulted in the separate edition, Belgrade, 1937, which also includes a good general introduction by P. Struve. For articles covering a wide variety of subjects in Pushkin’s thought see S. Cross and E. Simmons, eds., Centennial Essays for Pushkin, Cambridge, Mass., 1937.

86. V. Yakovlev, Pushkin i muzyka, M-L, 1949; M. Zagorsky, Pushkin i teatr, M, 1940.

87. Lifar, History of Ballet, 65-6.

88. Frank, Etiudy, 28.

89. “Zautra kazn’, privychny pir narodu;/ No lira iunogo pevtsa/ O chem poet? Poet ona svobodu:/ Ne izmenilas’ do kontsa!/ … No ty, sviashchennaia svoboda,/ Boginia chistaia, net,—ne vinovna ty.” A. Pushkin, Sochineniia, M, 1955, I, 199; and Mirsky, Pushkin, 57-60, for the influence of Chenier on Pushkin.

90. Frank, Etiudy, 56.

91. Cited together with other similar expressions of Pushkin’s underlying pessimism in Frank, Etiudy, 112.

92. “E. I. Guber,” Kosmopolis, 1898, Apr, 34-59; May, 162-9; see the vast study of Goethe’s influence in Russia in LN, IV-VI, 1932, esp. 961-993, on Russian translations, and bibliography 996-1007. There were forty-nine different Russian translations of all or part of Faust (989).

93. Stremooukhoff, La Poésie, esp. 90-101, stresses the influence of Goethe on Tiutchev.

94. M. Baring’s translation cited in Mirsky, Pushkin, 98, is used here despite the slight modulation in meaning from “Otverzlis’ veshchie zenitsy,/ kak u ispugannoi orlitsy.” Sochineniia, I, 223.

95. M. Gorlin, “The Interrelationship of Painting and Literature in Russia,” SEER, 1946, Nov, 134-48.

96. Stankevich, Stikhotvoreniia, 31-2.

97. Cited in G. Semin, Sevastopol: istorichesky ocherk, M, 1955, 24.

98. I. Murav’ev-Apostol, Puteshestvie po Tavride v 1820 gode, P, 1823; and the discussion of this book as well as Pushkin and Mickiewicz in S. Karlinsky, “The Amber Beads of Crimea,” CSS, II, 1963, 108-20. In addition to works there cited, the writings of the mystical patriot and poetic admirer of the Russian navy Semen Bobrov played a role in developing this romantic cult. See his Tavrida, Nikolaev, 1798, retitled Khersonida in the second edition, P, 1804. The increased nineteenth-century Russian interest in Dante is discussed in Italia che Scrive, 1921, Apr, 69-70; May, 94.

99. On Zinaida Volkonsky see Gorodetzky, “Zinaida”; and LN, IV-VI, 1932, 478 ff.; on Gogol’s love of Rome and occasional signs of sympathy for Catholicism see D. Borghese, Gogol a Roma, Florence, 1957.

100. V. Rozanov, cited in D. Magarshack, Gogol. A Life, London, 1957, 16.

101. On Narezhny, see LE, VII, 589-91 with bibliography; A. Fadeev, “Peredovaia russkaia intelligentssia i tsarsky kolonializm v doreformenny period,” in Problemy … Tikhomirova, 398-9. Parts 4-6 of Narezhny’s Rossiisky Zhil’ Blaz, ili pokhozhdeniia kniazia Gavrily Simonovicha Chistiakova were confiscated and destroyed because of various irreverent comments on Russian life and institutions in the first three parts (1814). Cherny god, ili gorskie kniaz’ia was written earlier, but not published until four years after Narezhny’s death. His works were published posthumously in ten parts, P, 1835-6, and widely discussed during the period in which Gogol was writing Dead Souls. The germinal idea for Dead Souls probably came, however, from Pushkin via Vladimir Dal, the great student of folklore and linguistics. See E. Bobrov, “Iz istorii russkoi literatury XVIII i XIX st,” IIaS, 1910, 67-74.

102. Cited in Magarshack, Gogol, 250-1. For Gogol’s ideas see D. Chizhevsky, “The Unknown Gogol,” SEER, XXX, 1952, Jun, 476-93; V. Zenkovsky, “Gogol als Denker,” ZSPh, IX, 1932, 104-30; and “Die ästhetische Utopie Gogols,” ZSPh, XII, 1936, 1-34. The latter is a particularly interesting analysis of Gogol’s frenzied and eventually despairing effort to believe that beauty alone can lead to the good. See also V. Gippius, Gogol, P, 1924.

103. Here as in the case of Pushkin’s Bronze Horseman, I have echoed in somewhat modified form a judgment of Prince Mirsky. See his History, 160.

104. Though Zhivago and other oppressed figures in Soviet literature are in part direct descendants of the hero of Gogol’s tale, the authoritarian overseers of culture in the USSR are still anxious to claim this story as their own. A. Gerasimov, president of the Soviet Academy of Arts and high priest of uncompromising “socialist realism,” has insisted that “Russian literature passed through its entire course in Gogol’s ‘Greatcoat’ … in that greatcoat it should still be clothed today.” Cited by S. Gerasimov in XXII s’ezd KPSS i voprosy ideologicheskoi raboty, M, 1962, 102.

105. Cited from an article of 1834 in N. Mashkovtsev, “N. V. Gogol’ i izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo,” Iskusstvo, 1959, no. 12, 46 (see 46-51 for other of Gogol’s theoretical pronouncements on the visual arts).

106. Cited in Gorlin, “Interrelation,” 137. For the relationship between Gogol and Ivanov (also between Gogol and other painters) see N. Mashkovtsev, Gogol’ v krugu khudozhnikov: ocherki, M, 1955.

There is a curious parallel between Gogol’s admiring attitude to Ivanov and that of John Keats’s somewhat earlier toward his “everlasting friend” Benjamin Haydon. The latter painted a great canvas (“Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem”) on a theme similar to Ivanov’s, and like Ivanov incorporated the faces of his literary friends into the work. See Hyder Rollins, The Keats Circle, Cambridge, Mass., 1948, I, xc-xciii.

107. Cited by L. Réau, “Un Peintre romantique russe: Alexandre Ivanov,” RES, XXVII, 1951, 229. See also his Art Russe, II, 141-54. A full recent study of the painter is provided by M. Alpatov, Aleksandr Andreevich Ivanov: zhizn’ i tvorchestvo, M, 1956, 2v; but older studies (particularly M. Botkin, Aleksandr Andreevich Ivanov: ego zhizn’ i perepiska 1806-58, P, 1880) often penetrate more deeply into the peculiar ideological anguish of Ivanov.

108. V. Zummer, “Eskhatologiia Aleksandra Ivanova,” NZK, vyp III, 1929, 387 (also the entire invaluable article with many citations from otherwise unpublished materials, 387-409). More materials on the “project of the golden age of Russian artists” are referenced by A. Askariants and N. Mashkovtsev in “Arkhiv A. A. i S. A. Ivanovykh,” ZOR, XX, 1958, 27-8.

109. Cited in Zummer, 388.

110. Botkin, Ivanov, 411-12; also 423. See also G. Pavlutsky, “Istochniki khudozhestvennago tvorchestva A. A. Ivanova,” Iskusstvo, 1914, 1-9.

111. Cited in A. Andreev, “Eskizy A.A. Ivanova iz bibleiskoi istorii,” Mir Iskusstva, 1901, no. 10, 239 note. Particularly important in instilling a sense of mission in Ivanov (and in stimulating popular interest in his work) was the work of the neglected Slavophile-industrialist Fedor Chizhov, Pis’mo o rabotakh russkikh khudozhnikov v Rime, M, 1845. He cited Ivanov as proof that Russian “narodnost’ had a content peculiar to itself” (14); that “we dwellers of the north” can recapture our essential “brotherhood with the artist” (6), who in turn can help re-create “the golden age” when paintings “often became the source of faith” (4).

112. Cited in Zummer, “Eskhatologiia,” 403; see also 409.

113. Ibid., 401, also 403, 405-6; and Zummer, “O vere i khrame Aleksandra Ivanova,” Khristianskaia Mysl’, 1917, nos. 9-10, 50, 57.

114. Zummer, “Eskhatologiia,” 395. The proposed over-all iconography represented a curious blend of the tradition of ecclesiastical fresco painting into the Masonic concept of a supra-confessional pantheon of heroes. Mythological gods and great men were to be depicted along with Christian saints and martyrs, and the temple was to be a consecrated building, though not a church. See Zummer, “Sistema bibleiskikh kompozitsii A. A. Ivanova,” Iskusstvo, 1914, i-xxi.

There are some curious similarities between Ivanov’s proposed frescoes and the great painting that Ingres was undertaking in the 1840’s in an attempt to redecorate a castle with symbols of “the golden age.” Like Ivanov, Ingres spent much of his life in Rome. Moreover, he later attracted the attention of Napoleon III in rather the way that Ivanov attracted that of Nicholas I. However, Ingres’ project was more secular in subject matter. See N. Schlenoff, Ingres: ses sources littéraires, 1956, 246-70.

115. Zummer, “O vere,” 60-1.

116. A. Ivanov, Izobrazheniia iz sviashchennoi istorii, Berlin-St. Petersburg, 1879-84, plates 21 and 60. See also, for illustration of other points, 81-2, 88-9, 111-15. This is a rare but invaluable collection of large reproductions.

117. Cited by D. Filosofov in his “Ivanov i Vaznetsov v otsenke Aleksandra Benua,” Mir Iskusstva, 1901, no. 10, 226. See also Botkin, Ivanov, 409-10. This quote alone should be enough to prove the inaccuracy of the comparison frequently made between the late work of Ivanov and that of the pre-Raphaelites.

118. Cited in Botkin, Ivanov, 287.

119. Koyré, Études, 38, note 1. Chaadaev revealed that he conceived of his self-assigned role of “precursor” not in traditional Christian but in occult Masonic terms—by changing the title of Kant’s book to “An Apologia for the Reason of Adam” (Apologie der adamitischen Vernunft). The importance of the festival on June 24 of John the Baptist was apparently related to the coincidence of the day of greatest sunlight with that of “the precursor”; and the ceremony was already the central one in eighteenth-century Russian Masonry. See, for instance, the correspondence of A. Petrov with Karamzin, RA, 1863, vyp. 5-6, 476 note.

120. G. Huard, L’Art royal.

121. LN, “Gersten i Ogarev I,” M, 1953, 167.

122. Cited in V. Semevsky, Iz istorii, 1904, 29, note 1.

123. Khomiakov, PSS, M, 1878, 2d ed., I, 695. M. Kovalevsky contends (in the guide to the pre-revolutionary Ivanov exhibit, Otdelenie iziashchnykh iskusstv, Imperatorsky Rumiantsovsky Muzei, M, 1915, 103-46, note 109) that because of repeated illnesses, Ivanov was able to work actively on the painting for only twelve years of his long exile.

124. Some of the ensembles of the early nineteenth century (such as the university buildings at Kazan) were constructed over a period of time even longer than that taken to build St. Isaac’s. See N. Evsina, “Zdaniia Kazanskogo universiteta,” Pamiatniki Kul’tury, IV, 1963, 107-27. For the cult of the Renaissance, see Veselovsky, Vliianie, 135.

125. V. Pecherin cited in M. Gershenzon, Zhizn’ V. S. Pecherina, M, 1910, 54.

126. “Akh, ne s nami obitaet/ Genii chistoi krasoty:/ Lish’ poroi on naveshchaet/ Nas s nebesnoi vysoty.” Cited with other Russian tributes to the painting by M. Alpatov, “Sistinskaia madonna Rafaelia,” Iskusstvo, 1959, no. 3, 66-8. See also Lermontov, PSS, M, 1947, I, 100-1. This fascination dates back at least to Novalis, who likened his own romantic philosophy to “a fragment of some ruined picture of Raphael” (Henry of Ofterdingen, Cambridge, Mass., 1842, 228), and Hegel, who placed Raphael at the zenith of his aesthetics. The fascination continues even among uncultured Russians of the Soviet period. See Marshal Konev’s description of his awe upon discovering the Sistine Madonna in its hiding place outside Dresden at the end of World War II: NYT, Aug 23, 1965, 33.

127. A. Nikitenko, “Rafaeleva sistinskaia madonna,” RV, 1857, Oct, kn. I, 586.

128. Lunin, Sochineniia, 15.

129. Belinsky, letter to Botkin from Dresden on July 7/19, 1847, in PSS, XII, 384.

130. Alpatov, “Madonna”; Uvarov, Esquisses, 180-1.

131. Gogol, PSS, L, 1952, VIII, 146, and 143-7. Magarshack, Gogol, 78-80. For the feminine models used for both Christ and John the Baptist in Ivanov’s “Appearance,” see A. Novitsky, Al’bom etiudov kartin i risunkov k opytu polnoi biografii A. A. Ivanova, M, 1895, xl.

The important if elusive interrelationship of sexual and ideological attachments in the Nicholaevan period has been examined in L. Leger’s study of Zhukovsky (La Russie intellectuelle, 130-48; H. McLean, “Gogol’s Retreat from Love: Toward an Interpretation of Mirgorod,” American Contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavicists, ’s Gravenhage, 1958, 225-43; and A. Malinin, Kompleks Edipa i sud’ba Bakunina, k voprosu o psikhologii bunta, Belgrade, 1943. Prince Viazemsky said of the poet Yazykov’s mystical patriotism of this period that he was simply and literally “in love with Russia.” V. Smirnov, Zhizn’ i poeziia A.M. Yazykova, Perm, 1900, 212. Some idea of the dimensions of this problem can be gained by reading, successively, I. Zamotin, Romantizm dvadtsatykh godov XIX stoletiia v russkoi literature, P-M, 1911, 2v; P. Miliukov, “Liubov’ idealistov tridtsatykh godov,” in Iz istorii russkoi intelligentsii, P, 1903; and E. H. Carr, The Romantic Exiles, NY, 1933.

Still awaiting biographical study is the remarkable figure of Elena Gan (Hahn), a kind of Russian George Sand, whose active career as a novelistic advocate of women’s rights and dignity was brought to a premature end with her death in 1842 at the age of twenty-eight. See material in IIaS, 1914, XIX, kn. 2, 211-63; and RM, 1911, no. 12, 54-73. She was the sister of the future Pan-Slav Rostislav Fadeev and mother of the future founder of the Theosophical Society, Helena Blavatsky.

For psychologically oriented studies of key radical figures that do not emphasize distinctively sexual problems so much as the general problems of personal alienation and search for identity, see P. Sakulin, “Psikhologiia Belinskago,” GM, 1914, no. 3, 85-121; and M. Malia’s detailed study of the young Herzen, Alexander Herzen and the Birth of Russian Socialism, 1812-1855, Cambridge, Mass., 1961.

132. See M. Malia, “Schiller and the Early Russian Left,” HSS, IV, 1959, 169-200; and, in addition to materials cited therein, Yu. Veselovsky’s study in RM, 1906, no. 2; and the anthology of Russian commentary on Schiller edited by W. Düwel, Tribun der Menschheit, 1957. See also E. Kostka, Schiller in Russian Literature, Philadelphia, 1965.

133. Ivanov, Izobrazheniia, plate 28.

134. S. Bulgakov, cited in V. Riabushinsky, “Icons,” 47. For the powerful initial impact of Raphael’s painting on Bulgakov, see his “Dve vstrechi,” in Avtobiograficheskiia zametki, Paris, 1946, 103-13.

135. Belinsky, Izbrannye filosofskie sochineniia, M, 1941, 143.

136. For Sand’s influence, see Veselovsky, Vliianie, 224-31, 246-7. M. Gorlin deals almost entirely with this period in his “Hoffmann en Russie,” Études littéraires et historiques, 1957, 189-205.

137. N. Nilsson, Gogol et Pétersbourg, Stockholm, 1954, deals largely with Jouy’s influence on Gogol’s portrayal of St. Petersburg.

138. Ibid., 156-7; also W. Schamschula, Der russische historische Roman vom Klassizismus bis zur Romantik, Meisenheim/Glan, 1961, 152 and 85-7. Note also the self-confessed influence of Scott on one of the assassins of Alexander II. P. Shchegolev, “K biografii N. I. Kibalchicha,” KiS, 1930, no. 11, 47. The importance of Scott is stressed in G. Lukacs, The Historical Novel, Boston, 1963, p, 30 ff. See also P. Struve, “Walter Scott and Russia,” SEER, 1933, Jan, 397-410.

139. McEachran, Herder, 5.

140. On his version of Hamlet see G. Makogonenko, ed., Russkie dramaturgi XVIII-XIX vv, M-L, 1959, esp. 9, 17, 104-6; for the date, however, see A. Sumarokov, Izbrannye sochineniia, L, 1957, 35, note 1. The play was first performed in Russia in 1750—nineteen years before its first French production. See the generally complimentary study by D. Lang, “Sumarokov’s “Hamlet,”’ Modern Languages Review, 1948, Jan, 67-72.

141. Zetlin, Decembrists, 25; Evreinov, Histoire, 133-4.

142. Veselovsky, Vliianie, 80, note 3. For the tradition of treating the monologues as “loud tirades” to be rewritten by the actor and interrupted with applause by the audience see Timofeev, Vliianie, 90. For the suggestion that the reading of the “To be” monologue may have been derived from Voltaire’s contention that it is an anti-Christian speech see I. Aksenov, Gamlet i drugie opyty, M, 1930, 134-5.

143. “Perepiska Karamzina s Lafaterom,” 26; see also 44-51.

144. Karamzin, Briefe eines russischen Reisenden, 1959, 193-207, 528-9.

145. Sukhomlinov, Izsledovaniia, I, 424-5; M. Strange, La Révolution, 144-6; and N. Kotliarevsky, Mirovaia skorb’ v kontse XVIII i v nachale XIX veka, P, 1914, 3d ed. For the general European background of the concern see L. Crocker, “The Discussion of Suicide in the Eighteenth Century,” JHI, 1952, Jan, 47-72.

146. Belinsky, PSS, IX, 674. For Ivanov, the “final question” of all his anguished reflection on art was “Is painting to be or not to be?,” Zummer, “O vere,” 47.

147. Hegel, Sämtliche Werke, Stuttgart, 1928, XIII, 195-207. “ohne kräftiges Lebensgefühl … Bildungslosigkeit.” 204-5.

148. Belinsky, “‘Gamlet’ Drama Shekspira. Mochalov v roli Gamleta,” PSS, M, 1953, II, 253-345. For Hegel’s many uses of individuum see Sämtliche Werke, XXIX, 1112-16.

149. R. Jakobson, “Marginalia to Vasmer’s Russian Etymological Dictionary (R-Ya),” International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 1959, I-II, 274.

150. Nelidov, Zapadniki, 29, and note I. For a summary of the impact of Mochalov and controversy about him see D. Tal’nikov, “Mochalovskaia ‘zagadka’,” Teatr, 1948, Mar, 26-33. See also Stankevich, Perepiska, 509-10.

The romantic tendency to see in the performances of a brilliant, enigmatic actor hidden sources of inspired prophecy was intensified by the extraordinary impact of the French actor Talma during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic era. Napoleon referred to Alexander I as “the Talma of the North,” just as later generations were to refer to him as “Hamlet on the Russian throne.” A. Predtechensky, Ocherki obshchestvenno-politicheskoi istorii Rossii v pervoi chetverti XIX veka, M-L, 1957, 5.

151. Gershenzon, Zhizn’, 102, and selections from the text in 93-104.

152. Gershenzon, Zhizn’, 134-5. For discussions of Pecherin, relating him to the Revolutionary tradition see P. Scheibert, Von Bakunin zu Lenin: Geschichte der russischen revolutionären Ideologien, 1840-1895, Leiden, 1956, I, 21-35; and Sakulin, Literatura, 92-106.

One is tempted to say of Pecherin’s unfinished work what Karl Barth has said of one of the first of these great unfinished romantic fantasies, Novalis’ Henry of Ofterdingen: “The conclusion to this manuscript is missing. It is missing in every respect. And in so far as we all, as children of the age which began with Novalis, have something of … the pure Romantic, in our blood, the same might well be said of us too.” Protestant Thought from Rousseau to Ritschl, London, 1959, 267. Pecherin provided a kind of epitaph for both himself and the intelligentsia of his age in a verse of the seventies: “Za nebesnye mechtan’ia/ Ia zemnuiu zhizn’ otdal/ I tiazhely krest izgnan’ia/ Dobrovol’no ia pod’ial.” Cited in Sakulin, Literatura, 106.

153. PSS, XII, 383.

154. For a description of this production of 1932 (apparently the last major production of the play during the Stalin era, and the work of N. Akimov, who was to do far better things in the post-Stalin era) see J. Macleod, The New Soviet Theatre, London, 1943, 158-63.

155. I. Aksenov, Gamlet, 118-21. See the partial anticipation of this view in Herzen, Other Shore, 79.

V. ON TO NEW SHORES

1. D. Sokolov, Kratkoe uchenie, 7. The term “nave” is, of course, derived from the same root as “naval”; and Russian churches are explicitly said to be built “in an elongated fashion like a boat” (Sokolov, 7). According to J. Strzygowski (Early Art, esp. 154-60), the keel of a boat was the model for the pointed horse-shoe arch of early Scandinavian architecture; and, if one accepts a strong degree of Scandinavian influence at least through Novgorod, this may well account for the introduction of this shape and perhaps even the onion dome into Russian wooden architecture.

The rich early history of the symbols of sea and ship in both Eastern and Western Christendom is admirably outlined in H. Rahner, Symbole der Kirche, Salzburg, 1964, esp. 239 ff. The development of these symbols in Kievan times is well covered in V. Adrianova-Peretts, Ocherk poeticheskogo stilia drevnei Rusi, M-L, 1947, 45-50.

2. See the discussion and account of a pilgrimage by V. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Solovki, P, 1904, 11-20, 72-5. This is the work of Vasily, brother of the famed director and co-founder of the Moscow Art Theater, Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko.

3. N. Arsen’ev, “Studies in Russian Religious Life,” Irénikon, 1959, winter, 21-2.

4. Avvakum, Life, 44-5; Sévérac, La Secte, 236.

5. “Voda-devitsa/ Reka-kormilitsa!/ … Vot tebe podarok:/ Beloparusny korablik!” Cited in the section on “the Birth of a Ship” in B. Shergin, Pomorshchina-Korabel’shchina, M, 1947, 106. See also 6 and the epic poem Bratanna, 32-3.

6. Lo Gatto, Storia, I, 21-3; P. Berkov, in RF, IV, 1959, 332-3 and references therein.

7. Magnitsky as cited in Sukhomlinov, Izsledovaniia, I, 219. In the late seventeenth century, the Likhudy brothers saw Latin influences cutting the Russian church adrift on the high seas. See V. Vinogradov, Ocherki, 10. For concurrent use of the same metaphor in early Old Believer writings see Ya. Barskov, Pamiatniki pervykh let russkago staroobriadchestva, P, 1912, 265.

8. Cited in Semevsky, “Dekabristy,” MG, 1908, May-June, 425.

9. Quoted in Lang, Radical, 250-1.

10. Lunin, Sochineniia i pis’ma, 17. He proposed “the ship of the catholic church” as the only salvation from the sea of doubt which man unaided “can never calm.”

11. From the beginning of Turgenev’s “Literary and Artistic Reminiscences,” quoted in R. Freeborn, Turgenev, Oxford, 1960, 5. Compare also Belinsky, PSS, XI, 293, for his longing to sink into the “ocean” of simplicity.

12. Georges Florovsky, “The Historical Premonitions of Tiutchev,” SEER, 1924, Dec, esp. 340. For other prophetic reflections by Tiutchev on the revolution of 1848, see Kohn, Mind, 94-103; and his correspondence in SN, XXII, 1917, 278-83.

13. A. Herzen, From the Other Shore, London, 1956 (tr. Budberg), 3. The sense of being in transit on ship between different worlds—so central to this work of Herzen—is also present in the similarly titled work of another gifted and literate Russian émigré a century later: Vladimir Nabokov’s Drugie berega, NY, 1954 (memoirs, the English title of which is Conclusive Evidence).

14. “… à l’Église militante doit succéder au dernier jour une Église triomphante, et le système des contradictions sociales m’apparaît comme un pont magique jeté sur le fleuve de l’oubli.” The last lines of Proudhon’s Système des contradictions économiques, ou philosophie de la misère in Oeuvres complètes, 1923, II, 413.

15. From letters to Stasov of 1872 and 1875, cited in O. von Rieseman, Moussorgsky, New York, 1929, 105, 248.

16. “Oi, rebiata, plokho delo!/ Nasha barka na mel’ sela./ Tsar nash bely kormshchik p’iany!/ On zavel nas na mel’ priamo …/ Podbavim barke khodu,/ pokidaem gospod v vodu.” Verse by the populistagitator Ivanchin-Pisarev, reproduced by B. Itenberg in “Nachalo massovogo ‘khozhdeniia v narod’,” IZ, LXIX, 1961, 160 and note 88.

17. Purgatorio, Canto I, 1-3. “Per correr miglior acqua alza le vele/ omai la navicella del mio ingegno,/ che lascia retro a sè mar sì crudele.”

18. Paradiso, Canto II, 1, 4-7. “O, voi che siete in piccioletta barca,/ … tornate a riveder li vostri liti:/ Non vi mettete in pelago; chè forse,/ perdendo me, rimarreste smarriti./ L’acqua ch’ io prendo, giammai non si corse.”

19. On V. Vonliarliarsky, a typical popularizer of this genre, see A. Skabichevsky, Istoriia noveishei russkoi literatury 1848-1908, P, 1909, 7th corr. ed., 15-16. On the exploration and opening of the seas in the early nineteenth century see A. Berg, “Ocherk istorii russkoi geograficheskoi nauki,” TKIZ, 1929, no. 4, 44-7.

20. Lines used by Lermontov as the English heading for a poem (PSS, M-L, 1947, II, 401); Pushkin’s “I hail thee, free ocean” is used as the heading for a valuable study by N. Barsamov, More v russkoi zhivopisi, Simferopol, 1959, which discusses in full with many illustrations the vogue of seascapes in nineteenth-century Russia.

Both of these symbolic meanings of the sea can also be found in Old Russian literature: the “blue sea” carrying overtones of romance in the early epics; the sea as “sister to the sun” being a source of purification in popular tales. The latter meaning is particularly dramatic in the early cosmological dialogues between the land and the sea, in which the holy church issues forth from the sea. See M. Alekseev, “‘Prenie zemli i moria’ v drevnerusskoi pis’mennosti,” in Problemy … Tikhomirova, 31-43; esp. 42, “Posredi moria okeanskogo/ Vykhodila tserkov’ sobornaia,/ … Iztoi tserkvi iz sobornoi,/ … Vykhodila tsaritsa nebesnaia,…”

21. From Herzen’s preface of 1858 to Memoirs of the Empress Catherine II, NY, 1859, 14.

22. V. Stasov, Izbrannye sochineniia, M, 1937, I, 193.

23. Mikhailovsky, Sochineniia, P, 1896, III, 707. Note, however, Mikhailovsky’s atypical determination to “preserve that spark of truth and ideal which I succeeded in acquiring for the sake of that same people.” See my characterization of “critical populism” in Mikhailovsky, 94-8.

24. “… Erinnrung schmilzt in kühler Schattenflut.” Novalis, Schriften, Stuttgart, 1960, 2d corr. ed., by Kluckhohn and Samuel, I, 142.

The importance of water images for depicting death in Novalis is stressed by Bruce Haywood, Novalis: The Veil of Imagery, Cambridge, Mass., 1959, 62-4, and is equally noticeable in Tieck, Brentano, Heine, and so on. Their influence in Russia has never been fully assessed, but is most evident in the poetic work of Tiutchev, with his hymns to the night and his occult cosmology, and of Yazykov. See D. Stremooukhoff, La Poésie, 47-60; D. Chizhevsky, “Tjutčev und die deutsche Romantik,” ZSPh, 1927, IV, 299-322; and, best of all, S. Frank, “Das kosmische Gefühl in Tjutčev’s Dichtung,” ZSPh, III, 1926, 20-58.

25. For the permeating influence of Schopenhauer on Turgenev see A. Walicki, Osobowość a Historia, Warsaw, 1959, 278-354.

26. I. Turgenev, On the Eve, London, 1950, p (tr. G. Gardner), 223-4. The dream occurs in Venice following a splendid description of the city in spring and a symbolic performance of Traviata.

Wagner claims to have been partly inspired for Tristan by the sounds of this city, in which he was working during the very months of 1859 when Turgenev was writing On the Eve (Wagner, My Life, NY, 1911, II, esp. 697-9). Venice, of course, subsequently became a kind of symbol of beauty fading into decay and death for the literary imagination, not only in Mann’s Death in Venice, but in Proust, James, Eliot, and others.

Another curious parallel between these seemingly different figures lies in the traumatic effect of virtually simultaneous stormy voyages west from the eastern Baltic in the late 1830’s. Turgenev first contemplated suicide during a fire aboard a ship (Literary Reminiscences, 304), just as Wagner was deeply moved during a storm to write The Flying Dutchman and to begin his descent into brooding Schopenhauerian pessimism (My Life, I, 198-202).

27. “Vull morir en pèlag d’amor.” Cited by M. Schmidt, “Thomas Aquinas and Raymundus Lullus,” CH, 1960, Jun, 126.

28. “è la sua volontate è nostra pace;/ ella è quel mare, al qual tutto si move,” Paradiso, Canto III, 85-6. See also Novalis’ Henry of Ofter-dingen, 220-1, for a typical romantic echo of this theme. Among the land-locked Mongols the word for “supreme” and “universal” (dalai) also meant “ocean.” Russian occultists of the late eighteenth century advocated channeling all human thought into “the divine ocean of Christ,” O Chetyrekh rekakh raia, Manuscript section of Saltykov-Shchedrin Library in Leningrad, Q III, 175, 7.

29. Chekhov, Love and Other Stories, London, 1922 (tr. Garnett), 67, 46-7.

30. John Frazer’s lengthy discussion of the appearance of this belief throughout the world covers almost every area except Russia. See “The Great Flood” in his Folklore in The Old Testament, London, 1918, I, 104-361. See also Mel’gunov, Dvizhenie, 119.

31. See George Posener, “La Légende egyptienne de la mer insatiable,” AIOS, XIII, 1955, 461-78; and A. Pallady, Obozrenie permskago raskola, P, 1863, 128-9, 132-3.

32. Cited by Barsamov, More v russkoi zhivopisi, 70. See also the discussion on Aivazovsky (52-73) and the illustrations of his most famous paintings (frontispiece and the sixth and seventh of the unnumbered reproductions at the back of the book). For more detailed treatment and additional reproductions see Barsamov, Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky, M, 1963. For discussion and illustration of the morbid romantic fascination with catastrophe at sea, see T. Boase, “Shipwrecks in English Romantic Painting,” JWI, XXI, 1958, 332-46.

33. Particularly by means of the cinema. Eisenstein devoted one of his finest feature films to the romanticized exploits of the Potemkin; and the heroic portrayals of the Revolution by both him and Pudovkin allot a prominent place to the activities of the Aurora, which is now permanently moored in Leningrad as a kind of Revolutionary landmark. For valuable background information on the early history of Russian warships and their impact on Russian thinking see E. Kvashin-Samarin, Morskaia ideia v russkoi zemle, P, 1912. There is, unfortunately, no comparable work for the more important post-Petrine period. B. Zverev, Stranitsy russkoi morskoi letopisi, M, 1960, is a competent recent summary of naval history up till the Crimean War.

For an interesting account of early Russian naval activity on the sea prior to the thirteenth century see V. Mavrodin, Nachalo morekhodstva na Rusi, L, 1949, who suggests (130 ff.) that the Greek word for “ship,” karabos, derives from the Russian korabl’. A. Meillet considers this “one of the oldest borrowings from Slavonic into Greek,” “De quelques mots relatifs à la navigation,” RES, VII, 1927, 7.

For a stimulating general interpretation of Russian history that represents landlocked Moscow as in effect a “port of five seas,” and the overland expansion across Siberia as only another aspect of Russia’s expansive impulse across and down rivers toward the sea, see R. Kerner, Urge to the Sea. Stanisăw Rozniecki seems to err in the opposite direction, making the Russian epic tradition a virtual adaptation of the Scandinavian sagas with their fixations on the sea. See his Var⊘giske minder, and the restatement and partial refutation of his position by A. Stender-Petersen, Varangica, 233 and 217-40.

34. O. Mandel’shtam, “O sobesednike,” SS, NY, 1955, 322. On this important figure see C. Brown, ed. and intr., The Prose of Osip Mandelstam, Princeton, N.J., 1965.

1. THE TURN TO SOCIAL THOUGHT

1. Letter to Stankevich of Oct 2, 1839, PSS, XI, 387.

2. A. Pypin, a cousin of Chernyshevsky and one of the first to attempt to chronicle the history of Russian social thought, saw Bentham’s influence as a major symbol of an earlier, more practical form of reformist thought, and his “fall” with the advent of the Holy Alliance and Alexander’s more mystical cast of mind as a fateful turning point toward a new and more visionary type of social thinking, with which Pypin was less sympathetic. See Ocherki, 1-109, 418.

The invaluable basic study of the period from the 1840’s to the 1880’s by F. Venturi (Roots of Revolution, NY, 1960) provides ample information and rich documentation on the social and economic ideas and revolutionary organizations of the period; and on radical figures like Chernyshevsky who are not treated in detail here. See also the valuable introduction by Isaiah Berlin, and my review of the work in RR, 1961, Jul, 254-8.

Recent works (not included in the references to my Mikhailovsky or Venturi, Roots) providing new details on the pervasive effect of the populist movement include R. Filipov, Pervy etap “Khozhdeniia v narod,” Petrozavodsk, 1960; B. Itenberg, “Khozhdenie”; on literary echoes, see J. Lothe, Gleb Ivanovič Uspenskij et le populisme russe, Leiden, 1963; K. Sanine, Les Annales de la patrie et la diffusion de la pensée française en Russie, 1868-1884, 1955; the same author’s Saltykov-Chtchédrine: sa vie et ses oeuvres, 1955; and M. Teplinsky, “O Narodnichestve ‘Otechestvennykh Zapisok’ (1868-1884),” RL, 1964, no. 2, 55-70. See also, on revolutionary populism, the posthumously published collection of essays by B. Koz’min, Iz istorii revoliutsionnoi mysli v Rossii, M, 1961; the historiographical review thereof by A. Gleason, Kritika, 1964-5, winter, 25-40; the somewhat glorified picture presented in the kandidat thesis of V. Tvardovskaia (daughter of the Soviet poet A. Tvardovsky), Vozniknovenie revoliutsionnoi organizatsii “Narodnaia Volia” (1879-1881 gg.), M, 1960; and the more exhaustive and critical doctoral thesis presented by S. Volk on the same subject in 1965 (consulted in manuscripts, Leningrad, Jan 1965).

There is little agreement among scholars on the nature of the populist movement. Some writers, like Venturi, include virtually every radical movement from the late forties to the early eighties. Others have attempted to define the term far more narrowly. For recent studies of the complex usages of the terms narodnik and narodnichestvo see B. Koz’min, “‘Narodnik’ i ‘narodnichestvo,”’ VL, 1957, no. 9, 116-35; and R. Pipes, “Narodnichestvo: A Semantic Inquiry,” ASR, 1964, Sep, 441-58. These terms were first given fixed usage in the second half of the seventies by the activists who formed the second zemlia i volia organization to characterize a new attitude of confidence in the strength and ideals of the oppressed masses themselves. However, faith in the transforming power of the people and in the sanctifying nature of all manner of narodny labels had already been present for some time. The slogans zemlia i volia, v narod—even the terms narodniki and narodnichestvo according to a leading Soviet student of the movement, Sh. Levin (Obshchestvennoe dvizhenie v Rossii v 60-70e gody XIX veka, M, 1958, 386-7, note 4)—were in use in the sixties. The term used for the mass movement of the early seventies, khozhdenie v narod, literally means “procession” or “pilgrimage” to the people; and when the later revolutionaries speak of “going over to the narodniks” they have in mind the adoption for their own ends of an attitude that was already in being.

A reading of the legal press along with the pamphlets of revolutionaries has led me to conclude that, by the late sixties, a reasonably coherent tradition of radical protest had come into being inside Russia, which can legitimately (though it need not necessarily) be called populist. It was an anti-authoritarian movement dedicated to a radical transformation of Russian society. It was led principally by students fanning out from St. Petersburg, and was animated by a common moral idealism and sense of solidarity in the face of official repression. The introduction in the late sixties of the term “intelligentsia” and the rapid simultaneous spread of an optimistic new (essentially Comtean) philosophy of history and a more activistic (essentially Proudhonist) desire for direct identification with the demands and the hidden power of “the people”— all converged to create a movement which—for all its inner, Proudhon-like contradictions and lack of organization—maintained at least to the end of the nineteenth century an ideological identity on the left that was distinct both from revolutionary Jacobinism and democratic reformism (whether liberal or social democratic). The fact that the meaning of the term narodnichestvo was subject to intense debate in the 1880’s and was narrowed and distorted by the Marxists in the 1890’s into an anti-Westernizing economic creed indicates that there was a very real —if somewhat confused—tradition that had to be either annexed through definition or discredited through caricature by any serious aspirant to radical leadership in late Imperial Russia.

3. “… mezhdu nami dolzhna byt’ priamota, bez vsiakoi politiki.” A visiting Serb to Chizhov while in the garden of P. J. Šafařík, the Slovak philologist who was in many ways the spiritual father of Pan-Slavism, cited in I. Koz’menko, “Dnevnik F. V. Chizhova ‘puteshestvie po slavianskim zemliam’ kak istochnik,” in Slaviansky arkhiv, M, 1958, 211.

4. N. Turgenev, La Russie et les russes, 1847, II, 376; and 368-77; I, 174, 520-38; III, 49-50, 115-24. I. Golovin’s “Catechism of the Russian People,” which appeared in 1849 in Paris in 1,000 copies, is also more a voice from the past, with its catechistic format and idealization of Novgorod. However, it is also a document in the development of populist thinking, with its attempt to distinguish between Tsarsky and Narodny Russia. See “Pervaia revoliutsionnaia broshiura russkoi emigratsii,” Zven’ia, 1932, I, 195-217; Venturi, Roots, 727-8, note 120. On the Sekta obshchykh, see Margaritov, Istoriia, 138.

5. “toska o normal’nosti”: letter to Stankevich of Oct 2, 1839, PSS, XI, 387.

6. See I. Franko, “Taras Shevchenko,” SEER, 1924, Jun, 110-16.

7. K. Pazhitnov, Razvitie sotsialisti-cheskikh idei v Rossii ot Pestelia do gruppy “Osvobozhdenie Truda”, P, 1924, I, 71-6.

8. Cited by Vengerov, BE, XXXV, 374. See also Maikov, SS, Kiev, 1903, 2v, and biographical studies by his brother Leonid Maikov (as the introduction to Valerian’s revealing Kriticheskie Opyty, P, 1901, 2v). An apparant attempt to “promote” Maikov to the level of Belinsky and Herzen by A. Levitov (“Peredovaia ekonomicheskaia mysl’ Rossii 40-kh godov XIX veka i ee znachenie v ekonomicheskoi nauke,” Uchenye Zapiski Rostovskogo n/D finansovo-ekonomicheskogo instituta, II, Rostov/Don, 1948, 25) is beaten down in Istoriia russkoi ekonomicheskoi mysli, I, ch. 2, 263.

9. Semevsky, Iz istorii, 27-35; Scheibert, Von Bakunin, 281-314; Sakulin, Literatura, 288-312.

10. Semevsky, Iz istorii, 59-67.

11. A. Dolinin, “Dostoevsky sredi Petrashevtsev,” Zven’ia, VI, 512 ff. V. Semevsky, “Petrashevtsy Durov, Pal’m, Dostoevsky i Pleshcheev,” GM, 1915, nos. 11, 12.

12. Under the entry orakul in the pocket dictionary, cited and discussed by Pazhitnov, Razvitie, 57; also 55-70. The outlook of the Cyril and Methodius society, one of the few subjects not covered by Venturi, is characterized as Christian federalism by J. Sydoruk, “Ideology of Cyrillo-Methodius and Its Origin,” Slavistica, 1954, no. 19, 168-83.

13. Cited in Pazhitnov, 66. The assumed difference between “liberal” constitutions and “democratic” assemblies is underscored in the jingle of the Petrashevtsy: “konstitutsiiu mogut dat’,/ no zemskuiu dumu nado vziat”’ Zven’ia, II, 449.

14. Belinsky, PSS, XII, 66.

15. “A socialism which tried to dispense with political liberty, with equality of rights, would quickly degenerate into authoritarian communism.” Herzen (1868), PSS i pisem P, 1923, XX, 132. “Communism is … primarily negative, a storm-cloud charged with thunderbolts, which, like the judgment of God, will destroy our absurd social system unless men repent.” PSS i pisem, III, 319 (mt of citation amidst useful discussion in Venturi, Roots, 17).

16. N. Kirillov, ed. Karmanny slovar’ inostrannykh slov voshedshikh v sostave russkago iazyka, P, 1846, 52; see also 133-4. This second volume of the never-completed dictionary was largely the work of Petrashevsky; the first (P, 1845), of V. Maikov and R. Shtrandman.

17. Cited in Pazhitnov, Razvitie, 107, note 1.

18. A. Nifontov, 1848 god v Rossii, M-L, 1931, 64-8, 76. For a less statistical but more penetrating study see I. Berlin, “Russia and 1848,” SEER, 1948, Apr.

19. Belinsky, PSS, XI, 216. On the term “Europeanism” see Sakulin, Literatura, 222, note 1; and the use by Kireevsky in 1837 discussed in Kovalevsky, “Ponimanie,” 168.

20. Nifontov, 1848, 68.

21. On the author Ivan Turchaninov, who later emigrated to America, fought in the Civil War under the name of Turchin, and acquired a reputation for cruelty in Alabama, see “Gertsen i Ogarev I,” LN, 1953, II, 591-2; also I, 704-5, for the influence of J. Fenimore Cooper. On Bakunin’s various schemes for federation see Hepner, Bakounine, 201 ff. For the general impact of American thought on Russian radicalism see Hecht, Russian Radicals.

22. Herzen, “Amerika i Rossiia,” Kolokol, no. 228, Oct 1, 1866, 1861-2. This idea was also developed by Bakunin; see Yu. Semyonov, Siberia, Baltimore, 1954, 281-2.

N. Yadrintsev, a veteran of revolutionary agitation in St. Petersburg in the sixties, moved to Siberia, where he became the champion of a radical regional federation, which led him to propose— among other things—the separation of Siberia from Russia and the development of it as a federal republic similar to the United States. See his article “Istoriia odnogo stranstviia,” OZ, 1871, no. 12, esp. 215-6. For other aspects of his largely journallistic activites see Venturi, Roots, 318 ff.; M. Lemke, Nikolai Mikhailovich Yadrintsev, P, 1904, esp. 96 ff. Novikov apparently entertained the idea much earlier of setting up a small republic in or near Siberia as a political base for the renovation of Russia, See RS, 1877, Apr, 658.

23. Saltykov, “Brusin,” as cited in Venturi, Roots, 79-80.

24. Cited by G. Florovsky, “Premonitions,” 340 and ff.

25. M. Pogodin, cited in Riasanovsky, Nicholas, 166.

26. See F. Chizhov, Parovyia mashiny, istoriia, opisanie i prilozhenie ikh, P, 1838; BE, LXXVI, 821-2; RBS, XXII, 376-81; and especially A. Liberman’s biographical sketch in Sbornik v pamiat’ stoletiia so dnia rozhdeniia Fedora Vasil’evicha Chizhova, Kostroma, 1911, 49 ff.

In his later years, Chizhov became a close friend of another railroad-builder, S. Mamontov, who also became a patron of the arts and perpetuated into the twentieth century the ideal of a distinctively Russian national art. Chizhov entrusted to Mamontov an enormous nineteen-volume diary apparently containing a prophetic testament to his native land with the specific instruction that it “not be printed or read until forty years after the day of the author’s death.” Otchet moskovskago publichnago i rumiantsevskago muzeev za 1876-1878 g, M, 1879, 98. Much interest was sustained in this work up until the fateful anniversary in the revolutionary year 1917. Plans for publication announced in Knizhny ugol, P, 1918, no. 2, 33, were, however, frustrated by the forced closing of that remarkable journal by Soviet authorities, and I was unable to find any trace of the document or information about it in Leningrad or Moscow in 1961 or 1965.

27. M. Dreksler, rector of the Riga Theological Seminary, in Strannik, 1872, Dec, 98-9. Similar misgivings were expressed by an anonymous peasant writer in 1835 even before the building of the first railroad. See M. Kovalensky, Khrestomatiia po russkoi istorii, M-P, 1923, IV, 77-8.

28. P. Viazemsky, PSS, P, 1879, II, 353. Belinsky, PSS, XI, 325. For similar literary fears elsewhere see M. Brightfield, “The Coming of the Railroad to Early Victorian England as Viewed by the Novels of the Period,” Technology and Culture, 1962, winter, 45-72; O. Handlin, “Man and Magic: Encounters with the Machine,” The American Scholar, 1964, summer, 408-19; and L. Marx, The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America, Oxford, 1964.

Some discussion of the railroad as both a literary symbol and a revolutionary force in Russian society is contained in M. Al’tman, “Zheleznaia doroga v tvorchestve L. N. Tol’stogo,” Slavia, XXXIV, 2, 1962, 251-9.

29. E. Barrault, “La Russie et ses chemins de fer,” RDM, 1857, May 1, 179, 176, 208. See also G. Weill, L’École Saint-Simonienne, 1896, 245; and Keller, East, 162-4.

30. Cited in P. Shchegolev, “K biografii,” 57. For an account of the plight of the peasant passenger, see the widely read “Chronicle of Progress” in the satirical journal Iskra, May 26, 1861, 281-2.

31. Cited in Venturi, Roots, 157, mt.

32. Pisarev, Izbrannye sochineniia, M, 1934, I, 228. The generally hostile critic N. Strakhov also recognized the importance of what he called the “aerial revolution” (vozdushnaia revoliutsiia) of the years 1858-63: Bor’ba s zapadom v nashei literature, P, 1882, I, 48.

To the general picture of unrest provided in Venturi and other studies of individual agitators, there remains a need to stress the depth and passion of the reaction to youthful iconoclasm (see C. Moser, Antinihilism in the Russian novel of the 1860’s, The Hague, 1964) and the extent to which the activities of the young radicals were in fact anticipated by the Petrashevtsy. Their insufficiently appreciated interest in Feuerbach anticipates the turn by the “men of the sixties” to a cruder later generation of German materialists. Pisarev’s ideal of a radical renovation of society through scientific education is in many ways merely an extension of Petrashevsky’s program for public enlightenment. The two-plus-two image of Bazarov was used in an equally dogmatic and axiomatic sense by the Petrashevtsy (Delo Petrashevtsev, M-L, 1951, III, 441-2); the distinctive “censorship of the left” introduced by Chernyshevsky and his associates was clearly envisaged in the plans of the earlier group (Delo Petrashevtsev, M-L, 1941, II, 185-6). The Petrashevtsy will be analyzed in detail in a forthcoming Princeton Doctoral dissertation of F. Bartholomew.

33. Cited in Venturi, Roots, 159, mt. Chernyshevsky’s authorship of this pseudonymous “Letter from the Provinces” to Herzen’s Kolokol is far from certain; and it may have been the work of Dobroliubov or another associate. See ibid., 744-5, notes 94, 95; also I. Novich, Zhizn’ Chernyshevskogo, M, 1939, 207-8.

34. The development of this school from Sechenov to Nobel laureate Ivan Pavlov (as well as its vulgarized integration into Soviet ideology) is briefly outlined by W. Gantt, “Russian Physiology and Pathology,” in R. Christman, ed., Soviet Science, Washington, D.C., 1952, 11 ff. See also B. Babkin, “Sechenov and Pavlov,” RR, 1946, spring, 24-35.

The debate between Sechenov and the positivist historian Kavelin in the 1870’s was both the culmination of a long series of exchanges between materialists and idealists (that had begun with that of Chernyshevsky and P. Yurkevich in the early sixties), and, at the same time, an anticipation of the aggressive Leninist opposition to critical positivism as well as traditional idealism. The Soviet accounts of these debates are partial even to the point of suppressing minor concessions on the part of the materialists, and may be balanced by reading the vigorously anti-materialist accounts presented in Florovsky, Puti; V. Zenkovsky, History; and particularly A. Volynsky (Fleksner), Russkie kritiki, P, 1896.

35. Cited in BSE (I), XXVIII, 609: I was unable to locate this unreferenced citation in Pisarev’s works (“Intelligentsia,” 812, note 12); nor was A. Pollard consulting another edition. In his “The Russian Intelligentsia,” Pollard has traced the later use of the word and cast grave doubt on the contention that the term was first used in Boborykin’s novels—a derivation that is repeated uncritically in almost every Soviet reference work. I have found the apparent basis for the attribution to Boborykin in his explicit claim (in a lecture November 5, 1904) of having introduced not only the term intelligentsia, but also intelligent and intelligentny “about 40 years ago, in 1866, in one of my critical studies.” RM, 1904, no. 12, second set of pages, 80-1. I have been unable to find any such original usage; but even if it should exist, the date he suggests is five years later than that of Aksakov’s usage of the term intelligentsia at least. On intellektual’ny, see Karmanny slovar’, 83.

36. Kolokol, no. 187, Jul 15, 1864, 1534.

37. N. Shelgunov, Sochineniia, P, 1904, I, 19. Shelgunov explains in his memoirs (written in 1883) that his “Proclamation to the Young Generation,” was written during the winter of 1861-2 under the direct inspiration of Saint-Simon’s famous passage in his Parabola of 1809) saying how little the world would suffer if all its princes and land-owners and generals were taken away, but how disastrous it would be if someone were suddenly to take away “littérateurs, scientists … the intelligentsia of the country” (Vospominaniia, M-P, 1923, 33). Shelgunov conceived of his proclamation (repr. ibid., 287-302) as a bid to the young generation to renounce wealth and privilege in order to provide that consecrated elite leadership characteristic of the followers of Saint-Simon and of his disciple Comte.

For the influence of Comte, see, in addition to works cited in my “Intelligentsia,” 813-15 and notes, M. Kovalevsky, “Stranitsa iz istorii nashego obshcheniia s zapadnoi filosofiei,” VE, 1915, no. 6, 157-68.

38. Shelgunov, 1868, Aug, in Sochineniia, I, 279-80.

39. Kolokol, no. 110, Nov 1, 1861; cited in Pazhitnov, Razvitie, 116.

40. Ya. Abramov, Nashi voskresnyia shkoly: ikh proshloe i nastoiashchee, P, 1900, esp. 6-24; also JMH, 1965, Jun.

41. Shelgunov, Vospominaniia, 292.

42. T. Polner, “N. V. Chaikovsky i bogochelovechestvo,” in Nikolai Vasilevich Chaikovsky: religioznyia i obshchestvennyia iskaniia, Paris, 1929, 97-166.

43. A. Yarmolinsky, Road to Revolution, NY, 1959, 247-9.

44. Cited in Engel’gardt, Ocherk, 279. Chizhov had long ago declared to Mickiewicz in a similar vein: “Je n’ai qu’un titre des titres—Je suis russe.” Sbornik Chizhova, 24. The messianic nationalism which the Polish poet developed (partly in reaction to such chauvinism among his erstwhile Russian friends) is curiously similar to that developed by Chizhov’s friend, the nationalistic poet A. Yazykov. See V. Smirnov, Zhizn’ i poeziia A. M. Yazykova, Perm, 1900.

45. L’udovít Štúr, Das Slawenthum und die Welt der Zukunft, discussed in M. Petrovich, “L’udovít Štúr and Russian Panslavism,” Journal of Central European Affairs, 1952, Apr, 1-19; also Petrovich, The Emergence of Russian Panslavism, 1856-1870, NY, 1956, 241-54, esp. 248.

The importance of the dream of Constantinople is stressed by F. Fadner, Seventy Years of Pan-Slavism in Russia: Karazin to Danilevsky, 1800-1870, Washington, D.C., 1962; and (with particular reference to Leont’ev and Dostoevsky) by L. Kozlovsky, “Mechty o Tsar’grade,” GM, 1915, no. 2, 88-116; no. 11, 44-74.

46. For increased recent attention to Ogarev see Scheibert, Von Bakunin, 222-31; and S. Utechin, “Who Taught Lenin?” Twentieth Century, 1960, Jul, 8-16. M. Karpovich also portrays Lavrov as more of a revolutionary in the 1870’s than is generally thought, stressing the impact of the Paris Commune. “P. L. Lavrov and Russian Socialism,” CSS, II, 1963, 21-38.

47. The principal passages of the Catechism are printed in Venturi, Roots, 365-7; see 733, note 24 for further references.

48. Cited in B. Koz’min, Tkachev i revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie 1860kh godov, M, 1922, 156.

49. Delo pervogo marta 1881, P, 1906 (intr. L. Deutsch), 6-7.