Icon and Axe

2. THE AGONY OF POPULIST ART

1. Garshin, Sochineniia, 209.

2. Ibid., 71-88. See also his essays on painting, 305-54, and discussion thereof in Gorlin, “Interrelation.” Garshin was popularly likened to John the Baptist in another Dresden painting. See P. Zabolotsky, “V. M. Garshin i ego literaturnaia deiatel’nost’,” TKDA, 1908, Jul, 491-2. For the best critical study see G. Bialy, V. M. Garshin i literaturnaia bor’ba vos’midesiatykh godov, M-L, 1937. Also L. Stenborg, “V. M. Garšin och den historisk-politiska bakgrunden till hans för-fattarskap,” in Studia Slavica Gunnaro Gunnarsson Sexagenario Dedicata, Uppsala, 1960, 107-18.

For the English edition of Tarsis’ work, see Ward 7; an autobiographical novel, NY, 1965.

3. Garshin, Sochineniia, 357-8.

4. O. von Riesemann, Moussorgsky, 99. See also M. Calvocoressi, Modest Mussorgsky, His Life and Works, London, 1956 (also his much shorter Mussorgsky, London, 1946, repr. NY, 1962 p); Leyda and Bertensson, Musorgsky Reader; and the valuable collection of articles edited by Yu. Keldysh and V. Yakovlev, M. P. Musorgsky: k piatidesiatiletiiu so dnia smerti, M, 1932. New material is promised for the forthcoming study by G. Khubova, M. P. Musorgsky, zhizn’ i tvorchestvo. E. Evtushenko has hailed “Musorgsky, who held the whole stage in his embrace.” “Prologue,” Saturday Evening Post, Aug 10-17, 1963, 62.

For excellent introductions to each of the “handful” see Calvocoressi and Abraham, Masters; for the technical importance of the somewhat older composer, Dargomyzhsky (particularly his aria-free, anti-melodic opera, The Stone Guest, first performed posthumously in 1872), in preparing the way for a new, realistic opera growing out of the natural cadences of the spoken word, see Cheshikhin, Istoriia, 219-20. For an unusual analysis of Russian national music that includes fresh insights on Musorgsky and stresses a general Russian preoccupation with minor chords, see I. Lapshin, Khudozhestvennoe tvorchestvo, P, 1922, esp. 86, 191, 218, and computations 207-8.

5. Cited in von Riesemann, 105, 9.

6. Calvocoressi, Mussorgsky, 1946, 147.

7. Cited in von Riesemann, 9.

8. Ostrovsky did, however, extend the bounds of theatrical realism by becoming the first to make suitable dramatic material out of the Moscow merchant classes and the provincial glush’ generally—just as Pisemsky, a lesser playwright, simultaneously helped mold suitable material out of peasant life. See S. Timofeev, Vliianie Shekspira, 98 ff. Ostrovsky also created a new literary type, the stubborn, capricious tyrant—coining and popularizing the term samodur.

9. A. Benois, The Russian School of Painting, NY, 1916, 131.

10. Cited in Calvocoressi and Abraham, Masters, 183.

11. Cited in Calvocoressi, Mussorgsky, 1956, 160. In the original version of the opera this lament is placed at the end of the scene before St. Basil’s prior to Boris’ death. Of all the components of the Kromy scene, only that of the fool is lifted from the St. Basil’s scene, which was left out of the second version, but is usually partly or totally reinserted in modern productions. The addition of everything else in the Kromy forest scene and the decision to end the opera with it places a different context on the opera, and gives the fool the quality of returning prophet. See Victor Beliaev, Musorgsky’s “Boris Godunov” and Its New Version, Oxford, 1928, 49-59. For the comparison with the original by Pushkin see G. Abraham, “Mussorgsky’s ‘Boris’ and Pushkin’s,” ML, 1945, Jan, 31-8.

12. “… slezy gor’kie,/ Plach’, plach’, dusha pravoslavnaia!/ Skoro vrag pridet i nastanet t’ma,/ Temen’ temnaia, neprogliadnaia./ Gore, gore Rusi!/ Plach’, plach’, russky liud,/ Golodny liud!” M. Musorgsky, Boris Godunov, M, 1958, 102.

13. von Riesemann, 9.

14. Venturi, Roots, 350-1.

15. V. Pereverzev as cited in V. Alexandrova, “Dostoevsky Returns,” NL, 1956, Feb 27, 19-20.

16. Cited from Ehrenburg’s Out of Chaos (also The Second Day) by Alexandrova, 19-20. See also discussion of this novel in R. Jackson, Dostoevsky’s Underground Man in Russian Literature, ’s Gravenhage, 1958, 192-200; and for the fluctuations in critical judgment see V. Seduro, Dostoyevski in Russian Literary Criticism 1846-1956, NY, 1957. Also V. Shklovsky, Za i protiv: Zametki o Dostoevskom, M, 1957.

17. Letter of Dec 11/23, 1868 to Apollon Maikov in Letters of Fyodor Michailovitch Dostoevsky to his Family and Friends (trans. E. Mayne), NY, 1915, 158.

18. Phrase of Viacheslav Ivanov in his stimulating Freedom and the Tragic Life: A Study in Dostoevsky, NY, 1952 (also p), 49-50.

The number of books on Dostoevsky is enormous and somewhat repetitive. Good basic studies are E. Simmons, Dostoevsky, the Making of a Novelist, NY, 1940; E. H. Carr, Dostoevsky, 1821-1881, NY, 1931; and R. Payne, Dostoevsky: A Human Portrait, NY, 1961. See also N. Berdiaev, Dostoevsky, NY, 1957, and the valuable collection of essays edited by R. Wellek, Dostoevsky, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962, p. D. Merezhkovsky, Tolstoy as Man and A rtist with an Essay on Dostoievsky, NY, 1902, and G. Steiner, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, NY, 1959 (also p), are stimulating comparisons of the two great figures, the former emphasizing their contrasting religious views, the latter their relations to the divergent European literary traditions of the epic and the drama respectively. See also L. Grossman, Poetika Dostoevskogo, M. 1925, which emphasizes the influence of Balzac and the Gothic novels on Dostoevsky; and D. Fanger, Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism: A Study of Dostoevsky in Relation to Balzac, Dickens, and Gogol, Cambridge, Mass., 1965.

An introduction to the large memoir material and a valuable discussion and bibliography is contained in K. Mochulsky, Dostoevsky: zhizn’ i tvorchestvo, Paris, 1947 (also in French, 1963). An invaluable collection by A. Dolinin of memoir material on Dostoevsky is F. M. Dostoevsky v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, M, 1964, 2v; a systematic catalogue of his ideas is contained in Slovar’ k tvoreniiam Dostoevskago, edited by Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev and Galich, Sofia, 1921. A dictionary of names in Dostoevsky is contained in O Dostoevskom: sbornik pod redaktsiei A. L. Bema, Prague, 1933, II. An analysis of Dostoevsky’s views on the “cursed questions,” concentrating on his early years with a good discussion of recent critical writings, is R. Przybylski, Dostojewski i “Przeklete Problemy,” Warsaw, 1964.

19. Cited in Zenkovsky, History, I, 402. See the valuable discussion of the pochvenniki 400-32. The citation is not precisely referenced even in the more richly documented original Russian version of Zenkovsky’s work.

The imagery of shared roots in a common soil was juxtaposed to the European idea of separate classes and interests based on artificial divisions and abstract considerations by Dostoevsky in his writings of 1861. Criticism of this position by both contemporary radicals and Soviet writers is set forth in U. Gural’nik, “‘Sovremennik’ v bor’be s zhurnalami Dostoevskogo,” IAN (L), IX, 1950, 265-85. See also G. Gibian, “Dostoevsky’s Use of Russian Folklore,” in A. Lord, ed., Slavic Folklore, a Symposium, Philadelphia, 1956, 41-55.

An eloquent defender of the pochvennik position was the critic and poet Apollon Grigor’ev, who was close to Dostoevsky in the early sixties and who viewed the plays of Ostrovsky as the best example of a new living art rooted in Russian reality. For the recollections of his unhappy life see R. Matlaw, ed., My Literary and Moral Wanderings, NY, 1962, p.

20. Carr, Dostoevsky, 43-4, from an unreferenced letter to his brother. The claim is excessive, because the type is at least as old as Hoffmann.

21. “Zapiski iz podpol’ia,” in SS, M, 1956, IV, 136.

22. Letters, 158, and 157-71.

23. Ibid., 158.

24. Ibid., 214. This characterization (by Strakhov) particularly pleased Dostoevsky.

25. E. Konshina, Zapisnye tetradi Dostoevskogo, M, 1935, 61, also 244. For the real-life equivalents of the characters in the novel see, in addition to this work, the notes to the new Soviet edition of Dostoevsky’s works: SS, M, 1957, VII, 707-57.

On The Possessed see R. Blackmur, “In the Birdcage,” HR, 1948, spring, 7-28; P. Rahv, “Dostoevsky and Politics,” PR, 1938, Jul, 25-36; and the translation of Stavrogin’s Confession by Virginia Woolf and S. Koteliansky, with particularly valuable articles by Freud and Komarovich, NY, 1947.

Subsequent citations from The Possessed and other of Dostoevsky’s works are taken from the Constance Garnett translations, with occasional minor modifications.

26. The prophetic quality of this scene is missed in the otherwise useful discussion of Dostoevsky’s depiction of the strike in the Stieglitz paper factory in St. Petersburg, SS, VII, 750-1.

27. Cited in Carr, Dostoevsky, 281-2.

28. De Maistre, Considérations sur la France, in Oeuvres, I, 157.

29. The influence of Schiller on the young Dostoevsky is traced in M. Alekseev, “O dramaticheskikh opytakh Dostoevskogo,” in L. Grossman, ed., Tvorchestvo Dostoevskogo, Odessa, 1921, 41-62, esp. 43-6; and R. Przybylski, “F. M. Dostojewskiego Mlodzieńcze Opowiadania o Marzeniu,” SO, VIII, 1959, esp 3-17. (A school friend introduced Dostoevsky to the playwright, reading Don Carlos and other plays to him). The influence of Schiller on The Brothers Karamazov is traced in textual detail by D. Chizhevsky, “Schiller und die Brüder Karamazov,” ZSPh, VI, 1929, 1-42.

On The Brothers see also V. Komarovich, Die Urgestalt der Brüder Karamasoff, Munich, 1928; R. Matlaw, The Brothers Karamazov: Novelistic Technique, ’s Gravenhage, 1957. For an interesting Catholic critique of the image of Christ presented in the “Legend” see R. Guardini, Religiöse Gestalten in Dostojewskijs Werk, Munich, 1947, 113-62. For another critical perspective, see K. Onasch, Dostojewski als Verführer, Zurich, 1961.

30. The Aesthetic Letters, Essays and the Philosophical Letters of Schiller, Boston, 1845, 366.

31. Dostoevsky, SS, IV, 160-1. See also his novella The Gambler (Igrok), in ibid., 283-432, and commentary 603-7.

32. à Kempis, Of the Imitation of Christ, NY, 1957, 78. Dostoevsky had a copy of this work in his library and may have been influenced directly by it. See M. Al’tman, “Gogolevskie traditsii v tvorchestve Dostoevskogo,” Slavia, XXX, 1961, 459.

33. Carr, Dostoevsky, 157.

34. “Ode to Joy,” in The Poems and Ballads of Schiller, London-Edinburgh, 1844, I, 169.

3. NEW PERSPECTIVES OF THE WANING CENTURY

1. N. Mashkovtsev, Vasily Surikov, His Life and Work, M [1960?], 33. Note also the extraordinary impact of Ivanov’s religio-artistic quest on Surikov and the entire effort to produce a distinctively Russian art (ibid., 15-18).

Detailed references for this section will not generally be repeated for material already used in my Mikhailovsky. For an invaluable new history of revolutionary movements and events, which begins where Venturi’s Roots ended in 1881 and ends on the eve of the Revolution of 1905, see V. Zilli, La rivoluzione russa del 1905. I la formazione dei partiti politici, Naples, 1963 (a projected second volume will deal with the revolution itself). Also valuable is the new translation of T. Dan’s The Origins of Bolshevism, NY, 1964.

2. From Igor’s monologue in Act II, see particularly the lines “Ty odna golubka, lada …/ V teremu tvoem vysokom,/ V teremu tvoem vysokom,/ v dal’ glaza ty progliadela,” and “O, daite, daite mne svobodu.”

For brief introductions to the musical and the chemical-medical sides respectively of Borodin’s career see Calvocoressi and Abraham, Masters, 155-77, and F. Sunderman, “Alexander Porfirovich Borodin,” AMH, 1938, Sep, 445-53.

3. See the excellent short study by the writer C. Paustovsky, Isaak Levitan, M-L, 1961.

4. Cited in E. Simmons, Leo Tolstoy, Boston, 1946, 337; and N. Gusev, Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva L’va Nikolaevicha Tolstogo, 1828-90, M, 1958, 537.

5. “‘Moia literaturnaia sud’ba: avto-biografiia Konstantina Leont’eva,” LN, XXII-XXIV, 1935, 465-6.

6. Cited by N. Berdiaev, The Bourgeois Mind, NY, 1934, 12; see also Berdiaev, Constantin Leontieff (undated French translation by H. Iswolsky of one of Berdiaev’s better studies, with bibliography 343-50); also brief studies by R. Hare, Pioneers of Russian Social Thought, NY, 1964, p, 323-57; and G. Ivask, “Konstantin Leont’ev’s Fiction,” ASR, 1961, Dec, 622-9.

7. Avtobiografiia, 436.

8. C. Pobedonostsev, Reflections of a Russian Statesman, London, 1898, 5.

9. Ibid., 29. For interpretation see R. Byrnes, “Pobedonostsev’s Conception of the Good Society: An Analysis of his Thought after 1880,” RP, 1951, Apr, 169-90; “Dostoevsky and Pobedonostsev,” in Curtiss, ed., Essays, 85-102; and J. de Proyart, “Le Haut-procureur du Saint-Synode Constantin Pobedonoscev et ‘le coup d’état’ du 29 avril 1881,” CMR 1962, Jul-Sep, 408-58.

10. Merezhkovsky, Tolstoy; G. Steiner, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. A more vulgar Soviet version of this classic juxtaposition contrasts Tolstoy’s world of “deeds” with Dostoevsky’s world of “words.” B. Bursov, “Tolstoy i Dostoevsky,” VL, 1964, Jul, 66-92.

11. V. Dokuchaev, K ucheniiu o zonakh prirody. Gorizontal’nye i vertikal’nye pochvennye zony, P, 1899, 5.

12. Ibid. For valuable material on Dokuchaev and his intellectual influence see the proceedings of a memorial session on Mar 30, 1924, in Trudy pochvennogo institute imeni V. V. Dokuchaeva, II, L, 1927, 289-347, esp. 318-20 for indications of his links with Natur-philosophie. There is a Soviet edition of his works, Izbrannye sochineniia. Russky chernozem, M, 1948, 3v. There is a brief discussion of Dokuchaev’s influence in J. Joffe, “Russian Contributions to Soil Science,” in R. Christman, ed., Soviet Science, Washington, D.C., 1952.

13. Trudy … Dokuchaeva, 318 ff. “Phyto-sociology” is best expounded in G. Morozov, Uchenie o lese, P, 1912; and was influential in the journal of forestry of late Imperial Russia, Lesnoi zhurnal.

14. For Tolstoy’s links with Russian sectarians see J. Bienstock, Tolstoy et les Doukhobors, 1902; N. Reinhardt, Neobyknovennaia lichnost’, Kazan, 1889; L. Nikiforov, “Siutaev i Tolstoy,” GM, 1914, no. 1, 142-58; and O. Lourié, La Philosophie de Tolstoï, 1899, esp. 56-61. For Tolstoy’s substantial interest in Western Protestants see F. Philipp, Tolstoj und der Protestantismus, Giessen, 1960. Tolstoy’s ideas enjoyed more of a vogue in Protestant Finland than in perhaps any other section of the Russian Empire. (See A. Nokkala, “Tolstoilaisuus Suomessa,” SKST, LIX, 1958, 78-176.) For the development of his philosophy see N. Weisbein, L’Evolution religieuse de Tolstoi, 1960. Among the many general studies, see the lengthy recent work of V. Shklovsky, Lev Tolstoy, M, 1963.

15. A. Kaplan, Gandhi et Tolstoi (Les sources d’une filiation spirituelle), 1948; K. Nag, Tolstoy and Gandhi, Patna, 1950. See also D. Bodde, Tolstoy and China, Princeton, 1950; P. Biryukov, Tolstoi und der Orient, Zurich, 1925.

Tolstoy also had Japanese admirers and visitors, though the most important early literary influence in Japan was Goncharov’s Oblomov (particularly on Futabatei Shimei’s The Drifting Cloud of 1887-9). The tone of gloom in Russian literature permitted it to become probably the most influential of all European literatures in modern Japan. See S. Shigeki, “The Influence of Russian Literature in Japan,” Japan Quarterly, 1960, Jul-Sep, 343-9.

16. N. Gusev, Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva L’va Nikolaevicha Tolstogo, 1891-1910, M, 1960, 836.

17. Ibid., 255-6.

18. When asked “Is there not a difference between the killing that a revolutionist does and that which a policeman does?” Tolstoy answered: “There is as much difference between cat-shit and dog-shit. But I don’t like the smell of either one or the other.” Simmons, Tolstoy, 651.

19. Last letter to his wife of Oct 31, 1910, in Gusev, Letopis’, 826.

20. Zummer, “Sistema,” 408.

21. More sophisticated recent Soviet analyses have begun to fill in some of the gaps created by excessive deference to traditional Marxist class analysis. L. Erman, “Sostav intelligentsii v Rossii v kontse XIX i nachale XX v,” ISR, 1963, no. 1, 161-77, shows that the extent of education was uneven but surprisingly high among some sections of the working class at the turn of the century, leading to the widespread use of the category “semi-intelligent.” This term (which is used by Lenin, and has been reintroduced—apparently independently of the original usage—by modern Western scholars, such as Hugh Seton-Watson) may derive from Yiddish usage.

22. Berdiaev in particular derived his picture of bourgeois individualism as a kind of moral cannibalism from Ibsen. See J. Sheldon, “Berdyaev and Ibsen,” SEER, 1959, Dec, 32-58; also N. Nilsson, Ibsen in Russland, Stockholm, 1958.

23. On Witte’s reign as a decisive stage in Russian modernization see T. von Laue, Sergei Witte and the Industrialization of Russia, NY, 1963. The Russian economic spurt of the nineties—in many ways the most spectacular in Russian history—is discussed in A. Gerschenkron, “Problems and Patterns of Russian Economic Development,” in C. Black, Transformation, 47-55. Gerschenkron goes on to point out, however, that “the Westernization of Russian industrialization” (credit banks, end of the tyranny of commerce, decline in dependence on the government, and so on) occurred only later, between 1906 and 1914 (55-7). In addition to this essay, an interesting treatment of “Economic Development in Russian Intellectual History of the Nineteenth Century” is reprinted in Gerschenkron, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, Cambridge, Mass., 1962, 152-87.

The importance of the 1890’s as a turning point in the development of a broadly based constitutional liberal movement in Russia is stressed by George Fischer, Russian Liberalism, Cambridge, Mass., 1958, in whose text and references can be found greater detail on the various components of the liberal movement here discussed.

24. V. Bezobrazov, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvo: upravlenie, samoupravlenie i sudebnaia vlast’, P, 1882, xxii, 231 and ff.; 487 and ff., esp. 496, 543-5. Also RA, 1889, no. 12, 502.

25. On Granovsky, his Sochineniia, M, 1866, 2v, should be supplemented by the discussion and materials referenced in I. Ivashin, “Rukopis’ publichnykh lektsii T. N. Granovskogo,” IZh, 1945, no. 1-2, 81-4. Granovsky’s importance in developing critical, comparative thinking about history is stressed in the valuable article by V. Buzeskul, “Vseobshchaia istoriia i ee predstaviteli v Rossii v XIX i nachale XX veka,” TKIZ, L, 1928, no. 7, esp. 43-58. For his impact on moderate reformers of the late imperial period see Miliukov’s Iz istorii russkoi intelligentsii, P, 1902/1903, 2d ed., (repr. 1963 Ann Arbor), 325-6; K. Kavelin’s excellent long article “Istoricheskoe mirosozertsanie Granovskogo,” SS, P, 1912, II, 1-66; also P. Vinogradoff, “T. N. Granovsky,” RM, 1893, no. 4. Granovsky (like Kavelin and Vinogradoff, liberal professors who can properly be considered his ideological heirs) is not mentioned in Fischer’s book; nor are any of their works included in his otherwise very full bibliography.

26. For a comprehensive history of this tradition in Russia, which includes a large number of moderate constitutional reformers who are not normally considered liberals, see Leontovich, Geschichte. For the ideas of Kavelin and Chicherin at the beginning of the reform period see V. Rozental, “Pervoe otkrytoe vystuplenie russkikh liberalov v 1855-6,” ISR, 1958, no. 2, 113-30; these and other lesser known figures including many in the government are discussed in N. Sladkevich, Ocherki istorii obshchestvennoi mysli Rossii v kontse 50-kh i nachale 60-kh godov XIX veka, L, 1962, 87 ff. A perceptive critique by Kavelin of his radical opponents in 1866 is reprinted in IA, V, 1950, 326-41.

27. T. Riha, “Miliukov and the Progressive Bloc in 1915. A Study in Last-Chance Politics,” JMH, 1960, Jan, 16-24. Miliukov wrote valuable characterizations of Russian liberalism in English just before and just after the Revolution of 1905. “Present tendencies of Russian Liberalism,” Atlantic Monthly, 1905, Mar, 404-14; and “The Case of the Second Duma,” The Contemporary Review, 1907, Oct, 457-67. His “The influence of English Political Thought in Russia,” SEER, 1926, Dec, 258-70, deals in good measure with the impact of Mill.

For an excellent characterization of the perennial conflict between radical and moderate liberalism see M. Karpovich, “Two Concepts of Liberalism: Miliukov and Maklakov,” in Simmons, Continuity, 129-43. See also J. Walkin, The Rise of Democracy in Pre-Revolutionary Russia: Political and Social Institutions under the Last Three Tsars, NY, 1962.

See also M. Kovalevsky’s introduction to Woodrow Wilson, Gosudarstvo: proshloe i nastoiashchee konstitutsionnykh uchrezhdenii, M, 1905.

28. “Vzgliad na iuridichesky byt drevnei Rossii,” Sochineniia, M, 1859, I, 378.

29. E. Markov, “Talmudizm v zhurnalistike,” RRe, 1879, Jan, 259. See also the analysis of Russian socialism as a “symptom of distress” within the intelligentsia rather than a genuine social or political movement, by A. Gradovsky, “Sotsializm na zapade Evropy i v Rossii,” RRe, 1879, Feb, 140-59; and esp. Mar, 76-116.

30. Markov, “Talmudizm,” 261.

31. Markov, “Knizhka i zhizn’,” RRe, 1879, Mar, 216. “Moskovskaia shkola v literature,” RRe, 1880, Apr, esp. 326-30.

32. Markov, “Knizhka,” 225.

33. Markov, “Literaturnaia khandra,” RRe, 1879, Feb, 247; also 235, 246, 247-9.

34. Ibid., 257.

35. Ibid., 260.

36. Markov, “U Golgofy,” RRe, 1881, Apr, 191.

37. On Kropotkin, see the enthusiastic biography by George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovich, The Anarchist Prince, London-NY, 1950, with bibliography 445-8; also for the use of scientific concepts in his ideology see the unpublished Doctoral dissertation of James Rogers, Harvard, 1956.

Anarchism was Russia’s most —perhaps its only—original contribution to nineteenth-century European political thought. For the derivation of Kropotkin’s ideas from Proudhon and the general early development of anarchism during this period see Max Nettlau, Der Anarchismus von Proudhon zu Kropotkin: Seine historische Entwicklung in den Jahren 1859-1880, Berlin, 1927. See also his Bibliographie de l’anarchie, Brussels, 1897; M. Nomad, Aspects of Revolt, NY, 1961, p; and J. Joll, The Anarchists, Boston, 1965.

On Bakunin’s more militant anarchism see (besides the biographical treatments already cited) Alexander Brorovoy, ed., Mikhailu Bakuninu 1876-1926, Ocherki istorii anarkhicheskogo dvizheniia v Rossii, M, 1926; G. Maximoff, ed., The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism, Glencoe, Ill., 1953; E. Pyziur, The Doctrine of Anarchism of Michael A. Bakunin, Milwaukee, Wisc., 1955. The integrity of Tolstoy’s religious anarchism is gaining a measure of acknowledgment even among necessarily hostile Soviet critics. See V. Asmus, “Mirovozzrenie Tolstogo,” LN, LXIX, 1961, 58-76.

38. On Sokolov and the influence of Proudhon on populism see my Mikhailovsky, esp. 129-32, 188, note 3; also Venturi, Roots, 328-9. R. Labry, Herzen et Proudhon, 1928. The influence of Christian ideas on Proudhon is stressed in the perceptive study of his controversy with Marx by the French Jesuit H. de Lubac, The Un-Marxian Socialist, NY, 1948.

39. Marx’s letter to V. Zasulich of Mar 8, 1881, in Narodnaia Volia v dokumentakh i vospominaniiakh, M, 1935, 240-1.

40. Engels’ letter to V. Zasulich of Apr 3, 1890, in Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, 1929, no. 2, 53.

41. All the phrases are italicized in the preface to his “Socialism and the Political Struggle,” in G. Plekhanov, Selected Philosophical Works, M, 1960, I, 57-8.

42. Ibid., 65.

43. Plekhanov, Sochineniia, M-P, 1923, 2d ed., IV, 248. There is a French tr., Ghent, 1917; and an English one, Minneapolis, nd. This work (like his important Role of the Individual in History, NY, 1940, p) is not discussed in S. Baron’s biography, Plekhanov the Father of Russian Marxism, Stanford, Cal., 1963, which is generally focused on the development of his political-economic views and Revolutionary controversies, and pays only passing notice to his numerous writings on more purely ideological and cultural matters.

44. In Defense of Materialism, London, 1947, 73.

45. Ibid., 220.

46. Works, 396-8, mt.

47. “Programme of the Social-Democratic Emancipation of Labour Group,” (1884) in Works, I, 400-1. Note also the emphasis—characteristic of German Social Democracy of the era—on the immediate need to work for “a completely democratic state” in order to lift the cultural level and political consciousness of the workers to a point where it can properly assume full authority.

48. The impact of List and German economic thought in late-nineteenth-century Russia is discussed in Normano, Spirit, 64-81, and bibliography 158-60.

49. See O. Pisarzhevsky, D. I. Mendeleev, M, 1954, p. The many-sided economic and pedagogic activities of this practical-minded and generally conservative nationalist are treated in the forthcoming Doctoral dissertation at Brown University by Mrs. Beverley Almgren.

50. For an analysis and bibliography on the debates in the radical camp over economic development in the 1880’s and 1890’s see A. Mendel, Dilemmas of Progress in Tsarist Russia. Legal Marxism and Legal Populism, Cambridge, Mass., 1961. On the “legal Marxists” see R. Kindersley, The First Russian Revisionists: A Study of “Legal Marxism” in Russia, Oxford 1962; and on the Social Democratic movement see R. Pipes, Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885-1897, Cambridge, Mass., 1963; and J. Keep, The Rise of Social Democracy in Russia 1898-1907, Oxford, 1963; as well as L. Haimson, The Russian Marxists and the Origins of Bolshevism, Cambridge, Mass., 1955.

51. For a French translation of the original German text together with a critical introduction by Pipes (who is preparing an extended biography of Struve) see Cahiers de l’institut de science économique appliquée, 1962, Sep, 105-56. Kindersley’s Revisionists also deals extensively with Struve.

52. Struve, “Intelligentsiia i revoliutsiia,” Vekhi, M, 1910, 5th ed., 156-74. Some idea of the range of Struve’s interests can be gained from two general collections of his writings: Na raznye temy, P, 1902 (from 1893) and Patriotica, P, 1911 (from 1905). He continued to write on a variety of themes in the emigration; and set forth a retrospective view of his contacts with the liberal Rodichev in SEER, 1934, Jan, 347-67; and with Lenin, in SEER, 1934, Apr, 373-95, and Jul, 66-84.

53. See account in Baron, Plekhanov, 341-54; and, in addition to materials referenced therein, the useful short study of Plekhanov in E. H. Carr, Studies in Revolution, London, 1950, 105-19.

54. A Solovyov Anthology, arranged and introduced by S. Frank, London, 1950, 10. This excellent anthology has a bibliography of English editions of Solov’ev’s works. Biographies of Solov’ev with expositions of his religious thought include K. Mochulsky, Vladimir Solov’ev: zhizn’ i uchenie, Paris, 1936; and D. Stremooukhouf, Vladimir Soloviev et son oeuvre messianique, Strasbourg, 1935. His social ideas are brought out more fully and related to his philosophic conceptions in two unpublished Doctoral dissertations by W. Chrzanowski (Fribourg, 1911) and Z. David (Harvard, 1960). His influence on early-twentieth-century thought and culture is discussed by Berdiaev, Dream and Reality, London, 1950, and N. Lossky, “The Successors of Vladimir Solovyev,” SEER, 1924, Jun, 92-105.

55. Anthology, 10.

56. Ibid., 35.

57. Ibid., 38.

58. Ibid., 14.

59. For the influence of Comte on Solov’ev see works referred in my “Intelligentsia,” 814, note 22; also his speech of 1898 on the centenary of Comte’s birth in Anthology, 51-9.

60. Anthology, 104.

61. Ibid., 122-3. A variety of attitudes toward the Jews within the intelligentsia are perceptively discussed by P. Berline, “Russian Religious Philosophers and the Jews,” Jewish Social Studies 1947, Oct, 271-318. Faced with pogroms in the 1880’s and new restrictions against settling in rural areas even within the pale of settlement, the Jewish community was drawn increasingly into the main arena of a more complex urban culture. On the one hand there was considerable interest in Zionism (indeed the kibbutzim of present-day Israel are largely the product of Russian Jews imbued with populist notions about the obshchina); and in the development of vernacular Yiddish culture, which flourished as never before in the period between the founding in 1878 of the first Yiddish theater in Moscow and the almost simultaneous deaths just prior to the Bolshevik takeover of the three recognized giants of Yiddish literature: Mendele, Peretts, and Sholom Aleichem.

On the other hand, many Jews tended to assimilate their energies into the general creative life and reformatorial agitation of the Russian Empire. There were twelve Jewish members of the first Duma, and wealthly Jews were important backers of the liberal movement. A Jewish railroad financier, Ivan Bliokh, painted a grim picture of the horrors of any future war in his Budushchaia Voina of 1898 (English edition: The Future of War, in Its Technical, Economic and Political Relations, Boston, 1914), and helped persuade Nicholas II to play a leading role in establishing the Court of International Justice at the Hague. Another attempt at internationalism launched by Russian Jews was Esperanto, the most successful of all attempts at a synthetic universal language, perfected by Lazarus Zamenhof between 1878 and 1887, after a prior effort to adopt a form of Yiddish as the base for such a language. See J. Raisin, “Jewish Contribution,” esp. May, 939-51.

The Jewish Workers’ Bund, organized in 1897, was one of the leading organizing forces in the formation of the Russian Social Democratic Party Its leaders opposed both Zionism and the centralizing Social Democrats who denied autonomy to parties of the various nationalities (see K. Pinson, “Arkady Kremer, Vladimir Medem, and the Ideology of the Jewish ‘Bund,”’ Jewish Social Studies, 1945, Jul, 233-64; also the forthcoming Princeton Doctoral dissertation of A. Pollack). For a survey and references on the extensive Jewish participation in the Bolshevik—and even more the Menshevik—wing of subsequent Social Democratic activity (and to a lesser extent in the populist-Socialist Revolutionary tradition) see L. Shapiro, “The Role of the Jews.”

62. On the growth of Pan-Asianism at the turn of the century see E. Sarkisyanz, “Russian Attitudes toward Asia,” RR, 1954, Oct, 245-54; also N. Setnitsky, Russkie Mysliteli o Kitae, Harbin, 1926.

63. Anthology, 236.

64. Ibid., 247-8. E. Benz has shown that much of Solov’ev’s apocalyptical thinking was influenced by Jung-Stilling; G. Florovsky suggests that Dante had a considerable influence on the formation of Solov’ev’s more positive ecumenical vision. See his “Vladimir Soloviev and Dante: The Problem of Christian Empire,” in For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, The Hague, 1956, 152-60.

VI. THE UNCERTAIN COLOSSUS

1. CRESCENDO

1. N. Evreinov, Theatre, 14. The complaint of the S.R. leader V. Chernov about “electric charges” is contained in his The Great Russian Revolution, New Haven, 1936, 445, in his generally stimulating final chapter, “The Spirit of the Russian Revolution.” The first use of “Soviet power plus electrification” appears to have been made by Lenin in his report to the Council of People’s Commissars on Dec 22, 1920. See Sochineniia, L, 1950, 4th ed., XXXI, 484. The definition is repeated in the official Soviet ideological handbook, O. Kuusinen, ed., Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, M, 1961, 799.

2. A. Blok, The Spirit of Music, London, 1946, 5.

3. W. Grohmann, Wassily Kandinsky Life and Work, London, 1959, 87. N. Vorob’ev, M. K. čiurlionis: der Litauische Maler und Musiker, Kaunas-Leipzig, 1938, 32 ff. The influence within Russia of Chiurlionis (ibid., 65 ff.) and of another Lithuanian, the symbolist poet and translator Jurgis Baltrushaitis, testifies to the increasing cosmopolitanism of Russian culture, now able to bring into its orbit leading figures from this most westerly and German-oriented of its Baltic provinces.

4. Cited by R. Poggioli, The Poets of Russia 1890-1930, Cambridge, Mass., 1960, 262. On Khlebnikov and the originality of Russian futurism see V. Markov, The Longer Poems of Velimir Khlebnikov, Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1962.

5. On Bely’s musical style and the four “symphonies” written between 1902 and 1909 see O. Maslenikov, The Frenzied Poets: Andrey Biely and the Russian Symbolists, Berkeley, 1952, 70 ff. On Burliuk, C. Gray, Experiment, 94-107, 195.

6. Meierhold, “The Booth,” The Drama, 1917, Aug, 447. Rimsky-Korsakov’s Coq d’Or, the last opera to come from the pen of the original “Big Five,” or “mighty handful” (written in 1906-7, and produced only after his death in 1908), was staged with the singers immobile on the side and the acting done solely by dancers. See A. Bakshy, The Path of the Modern Russian Stage, London, 1916, 85-8. The chromatic nature of the music also represents a distinct departure from the relatively conventional harmonies of his earlier work.

For some interesting ideas on Diaghilev as the “John the Baptist of the classico-mathematical Renaissance,” who helped prepare the way for Einstein by projecting into European culture the insight of the modern dance that “motion not language is truthful,” see F. Kermode, “Poet and Dancer before Diaghilev,” PR, 1961, Jan-Feb, 48-65.

7. A. Bogdanov, O proletarskoi kul’ture, M, 1921. For the tortured and humorless criticism of these ideas of Bogdanov advanced during the High Stalin era see A. Shcheglov, Bor’ba Lenina protiv Bogdanovskoi revizii Marksizma, M, 1937, 203-6.

8. M. Gorky, Days with Lenin, NY, 1932, 52.

9. Cited in E. Friedell, Cultural History, II, 381.

10. Phrases used by Friedell, ibid., 380, 382.

11. I. Stravinsky, The Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons, NY, 1956, p, 109.

12. D. Mirsky, “The Eurasian Movement,” SEER, 1927, Dec, 312; and citations from L. Karsavin, 316-17. There is a similarity of Karsavin’s position to the early idealistic conception of fascist corporatism—involving both a fascination with Bolshevism and an aesthetic-physiological fondness for organic images of society—the Eurasian movement being influenced by Dokuchaevan ideas about the inner continuities between human and natural phenomena on the Eurasian plain and also by much of the same philological mysticism that possessed Nazism in its early “runic” stage.

A more elevated use of the symphonic metaphor by “Eurasian” sympathizers is in E. Trubetskoy’s insistence that “our present world contains numberless indications of the symphony of light and sound in the world to come.” Cited by N. Lossky in SEER, 1924, Jun, 95. See also B. Ishboldin, “The Eurasian Movement,” RR, 1946, Spring, 64-73.

13. See Gray, Experiment, 308.

14. Cited and discussed in Makovsky, “Gumilev,” 190 ff.

15. Cited in Stravinsky, Poetics, 121.

16. Title of an analysis of the accomplishments and possibilities of Soviet culture by I. Berlin in FA, 1957, Oct, 1-24.

17. Stravinsky, Poetics, 111. See also J. Sullivan, Beethoven, NY, 1949, 77. On the importance of the Prometheus myth, see M. Gorky, Literary Portraits, M, nd [1959?], 217; also LE, IX, 314-20. The most recent popular life of Marx in the USSR is a romanticized trilogy entitled Prometheus: G. Serebriakova, Prometei, 1963, M, 3v (described in NK, 1963, no. 25, entry 239). Note also the ideological importance attached to Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound when issued in a tirage of 150,000: Prometei prikovanny, M, 1956.

18. Article of 1906, reprinted in Sub Specie Aeternitatis, P, 1907, 397.

19. Smysl’ tvorchestva, M, 1916, 220, also 7. Berdiaev considered this his “most inspired” work (Samopoznanie, Paris, 1949, 229-37), and subtitled it “an attempt at the justification of man.” These two works have been translated respectively as The Meaning of the Crea-ative Act, London, 1955, p; and Dream and Reality, London, 1950—the latter autobiographical work being of particular value for the period under discussion, though the English version often distorts the meaning of the original Russian.

20. Gray, Experiment, 93-4; R. Clough, Futurism: The Story of a Modern Art Movement, NY, 1961; G. Lehrmann, De Marinetti à Maiakovski, Zurich, 1942; and N. Khardzhiev, “Maiakovsky i zhivopis’,” in Maiakovsky: Materialy i issledovaniia, M, 1940.

21. Cited in Gorlin, “Interrelation,” 146-7.

22. Cited in ibid.

23. “Ne slyshno shumu gorodskogo, /Za Nevskoi bashnei tishina,/ I na shtyke u chasovogo/ Gorit polnochnaia luna.” Russkie pesni (coll. Rozanov), 347. The song is based on a poem by F. Glinka; for another, slightly variant version, see the notes to Blok, Sochineniia, M, 1955, I, 774.

24. “I bol’she net gorodovogo-/ Guliai, rebiata, bez vina!” Blok, Sochineniia, I, 531. Blok also changes the preposition to nad in the previous sentence.

25. Cited in M. Cooper, “Scriabin’s Mystical Beliefs,” ML, XVI, 1935, 111. For the extraordinary vogue of seances and spiritism beginning in the 1880’s and affecting even scientists like the chemist Butlerov and the biologist Wagner, the basic account in BE, LXI, 224-6, should be supplemented by M. Petrovo-Solovovo-Perovsky, Ocherki iz istorii spiriticheskago dvizheniia v Rossii, P, 1905 (first printed as an appendix to the Russian translation of the works of the English spiritist Frank Podmore).

26. Cited in Cooper, “Beliefs,” 110.

27. Cited in ibid., 112.

28. Stravinsky, Poetics, 107.

29. Calvocoressi, Masters, 472-3.

30. B. Asaf’ev, Skriabin, Petersburg-Berlin, 1923, 44-8. For the influence of Wagner on Scriabin, L. Sabaneev, Skriabin, P, 1923, 189 ff.

On the popularity of Wagner during the silver age see F. Reeve, Aleksandr Blok, NY, 1962, 33; Blok, Spirit of Music, 58-70; V. Ivanov, “Vagner i Dionisovo deistvo,” Vesy, 1905, no. 2, 13-6; and N. Findeizen, “Vagner v Rossii,” RMG, 1903, no. 35, 755-69. The music of Lohengrin helped impress on Kandinsky the possibility of color in music (Grohmann, Kandinsky, 31); The magic fire music of Walküre helped inspire Eisenstein to work out methods of integrating the music and colors of his movies (E. Nazaikinsky and Yury Rap, “Music in Color,” USSR, 1963, Feb, 47).

31. Cited in M. Bill, Wassily Kandinsky, Boston, 1951, 163-4.

32. Kandinsky, On the Spiritual in Art, NY, 1946, 43.

33. Ibid., 39-78; see also W. Grohmann, Kandinsky, 78, 87.

34. For general description A. Swan, Scriabin, London, 1923, 97-1 n; also A. N. Skriabin: Sbornik k 25-letiiu so dnia smerti, M-L, 1940; B. Schlözer, Aleksandr Skriabin, Berlin, 1923; Gerald Abraham, “Alexander Scriabin,” in Abraham and Calvocoressi, Masters, 450-98; and, for a negative reading of Scriabin as a “consistent paranoiac,” who was the first “to reduce musical insanity to a peculiar sort of scheme, even to a theory,” see Sabaneev, Skriabin, 46.

Scales equilibrating color and sound as well as sound and taste were discussed in the eighteenth century (see D. Schier, Louis Bertrand Castel, Anti-Newtonian Scientist, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1941, 133-96). An octave of smells was later devised by a Parisian perfume manufacturer in 1865 (S. Piesse, Des Odeurs, 1865); and some other pioneering works of modern music had a color accompaniment scored throughout (Arnold Schönberg, Die glückliche Hand of 1913). Nevertheless, Scriabin’s system stands as the most fully developed, ideologically pretentious effort. His system has never been fully studied, but important investigations of more recent times include P. Dickenmann, Die Entwicklung der Harmonik bei A. Skrjabin, Bern, 1935; V. Berkov, “Nekotorye voprosy garmonii Skriabina,” SM, 1959, Jun, 90-6. For the interest of Eisenstein and signs of recent Soviet interest in the problem see Nazaikinsky and Rap, “Music in Color,” 46-7.

35. Cited in Grohmann, Kandinsky, 86, 98.

36. S. G. Lazutin’s Russkaia chastushka: voprosy proiskhozhdeniia i formirovaniia zhanra, Voronezh, 1960, demonstrates convincingly that the chastushka form developed only in the final third of the nineteenth century. See especially 249-52.

37. For the leadership of the Mamontov circle in establishing a distinctive new tradition of Russian art in the late imperial period see Gray, Experiment, 9-34. For Mamontov’s links with the musical world see A. Solovtsov, Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo N. A. Rimskogo-Korsakova, M-L, 1963.

38. Cited in the introduction by C. Gray to the program of the London exhibition of Malevich paintings, held in Oct-Nov 1959, Kasimir Malevich, London, 1959, 7.

39. Manifestoes using these terms cited in ibid., 12, 14-15. On Malevich see also, Gray, Experiment, 128 ff.; and in addition to works referenced therein see David Sylvester, “Kasimir Malevich,” Encounter, 1960, May, 48-52; and, for further illustrations of his work, E. Penkala, “Malewitsch’s Oeuvre geborgen,” Das Kunstwerk, 1958, Apr, 3-16; P. Bucarelli, intr., Casimir Malevic, Rome, 1959; and Malevich, The Non-objective World, Chicago, 1959.

40. Gray, Malevich, 12.

41. N. Punin, cited in Gray, Malevich, 7.

42. Cited from Bog ne skinut. Iskusstvo, Tserkov’, Fabrika, Vitebsk, 1920-2, in Gray, Malevich, 15.

43. A. Kosmodemiansky, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, M, 1956, 95; and for the earlier history of rocketry (dating back to the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-8) ibid., 49 ff.; also see Z. Kopal, “Soviet Astronomy,” Su, 1961, Jan-Mar, 65-9. For the direct influence of Nicholas Fedorov on Tsiolkovsky’s youthful development, see V. Shklovsky, “Zhili-byli,” Znamia, 1963, Feb, 177-8.

44. On Tatlin see Gray, Experiment, 40-8, 250; on planity see plates T, V, and × in Gray, Malevich.

45. Shestov, All Things Are Possible, NY, 1920, 241. The translated title Apofeoz bezpochvennosti, P, 1905, which was published under his original name, L. I. Schwarzmann. On the early years of this generally neglected figure see B. Schlozer, “Un Penseur russe: Léon Chestov,” MF (159), 1922, 82-115; and D. Strotmann, “Le Credo de Léon Chestov,” Irénikon, XVI, 1937, 22-37.

46. Illustrated Gray, Experiment, plates 223-4.

47. There is considerable ambiguity about whether the long, pseudo-scientific asides in the work are serious attempts at elaboration of the problem (they were widely discussed as such at the time) or subtle satirical jabs at the scientism of the age. For Mechnikov’s ideas on the subject see his Essais optimistes, 1907.

A sect called the “deathless ones” (Bessmertniki) attracted a number of intellectuals, including Berdiaev, during this period; (Berdiaev, Dream and Reality, 196 ff.), and this interest in prolonging life has remained a major subject of inquiry in the USSR. See for the Stalin era Olga Lepeshinskaia, “On the Road to Longevity” (Izvestiia, Dec 2, 1953, 3; in CDSP, Jan 10, 1953, 24-5), with her objections to the “statistical, metaphysical approach” of the West to the problem of old age. She argued well for her own approach by living to ninety two on her soda and bath prescriptions. (See her obituary, NYT, Oct 4, 1963.) See also, more recently, L. Leont’ev, Starost’ otstupaet, Alma Ata, 1963.

For other materials and a general discussion of this theme in pre-and post-Revolutionary Russia (and in the emigration) see P. Wiles, “On Physical Immortality,” Su, 1965, Jul, 125-43; Oct, 142-61. The meeting between Mechnikov and Tolstoy in May, 1909, just before the latter’s death, to discuss the question of death and immortality was widely regarded as a kind of cosmic council of war against the power of death between “the two monarchs of universal literature and science, Leo I and Elie I … Yasnaya Polyana, and not the Standart, the imperial yacht on which the Kaiser and the Tsar [were meeting simultaneously] held the center of the stage in Russia.” H. Bernstein, cited in Wiles, 145.

48. P. Uspensky’s ideas were propagated after his exile in London through a community known as the Gurdjieff Institute, and from the time of the bombing of London until his death in 1947, in New York. See his Tertium Organum, A Key to the Enigmas of the World, NY, 1934; A New Model of the Universe, NY, 1943; and his posthumously published The Fourth Way, NY, 1957, which contains some of his most important talks and answers to questions during the period 1921-47.

49. The Fourth Way, 97-104.

50. See especially the attack on the “neo-Christianity” of the “God-seekers” by V. Bazarov (pseud, of V. Rudnev), “Lichnost’ i liubov’ v svete novago religioznago soznaniia,” Literaturny Raspad, P, 1908, Kn. 1, 213-30; “Khristiane tret’iego zaveta i stroiteli bashni vavilonskoi,” Literaturny Raspad, P, 1909, Kn. 2, 5-38.

51. Gorky, Ispoved’, Berlin, 1908, 196. There is an English translation from the German by W. Harvey, A Confession, London, 1910. See also V. Botsianovsky, Bogoiskateli, P, 1911, and the valuable article “Bogoiskatel’stvo i Bogostroitel’stvo,” in LE, I, 538; N. Minsky (pseud, of N. Vilenkin), Religiia budushchego: filosofskie razgovory, P, 1905; Lunacharsky, Religiia i sotsializm, P, 1908-11, 2v; and his Three Plays, London, 1923; Gorky, “Razrushenie lichnosti,” in the important collection Ocherki filosofii kollektivizma, P, 1909, and published in an abridged translation in his Literature and Life, London, 1946, 112-25. The term “God-seeker” was taken from the work of the popular Austrian novelist Peter Rosegger, Der Gottsucher (originally published 1883), which portrayed an ascetic Promethean hero excommunicated by the Church for murdering a tyrannical pastor, seeking in the solitude of the mountains and eventually finding an altogether new religion for a “godless” community there. See H. Sorg, Rosegger’s Religion, Washington, D. C., 1938, 53 ff.

52. Baronov cited in Blok, Spirit, 34.

53. Ispoved’, 196.

54. O proletarskoi etike, M, 1918, 38 (first published 1906 and republished again Kharkov, 1923.) This and the following reference taken from material used in a seminar by George Kline at the Harvard Russian Research Center on Nov 18, 1958, with his translations.

55. “Pered litsom roka: k filosofii tragedii,” in Obrazovanie, P, XII, 1903, 58.

56. Three Plays, 132.

57. Ibid., 134.

58. Ibid., 399. See also the revealing short introduction by Lunacharsky, xi-xiii.

59. On Bogdanov see articles in LE, I, 526-30; and BSE (I), VI 574-82; and his own major works, Osnovnye elementy istoricheskago vzgliada na prirodu, 1899; Poznanie s istoricheskoi tochki zreniia, 1901; Iz psikhologii obshchestva: sbornik, 1904; Vseobshchaia organizatsionnaia nauka (tektologiia), three parts, 1913, 1917, 1922 (the last part was published in Berlin and included all three parts); and Filosofiia zhivago opyta, 1928. For a critical discussion of Bogdanov’s views see N. Karev, “Tektologiia ili dialektika,” PZM, 1926, nos. 1, 2, 3. For the philosophy of Proletkult see A. Lunacharsky, Self-education of the Workers: The Cultural Task of the Struggling Proletariat, London, 1919.

60. Krasnaia zvezda, P, 1908; and Inzhener Menni, M, 1923.

61. Discussed in Max Nomad, Aspects of Revolt, NY, 1961, p. 116-17. See also S. Utechin, “Philosophy and Society: Alexander Bogdanov,” in L. Labedz, ed., Revisionism, NY, 1962, p, 117-25.

62. A. Kraisky, Ulybki solntsa, P, 1919; and article on him in LE, V, 538.

63. Citations from the Blacksmith poets V. Kirillov and M. Gerasimov respectively in the article on Cosmism in LE, V, 501-2.

64. See the valuable discussion of Machajski’s views and relation of them to other European thinkers in Nomad, Aspects, 96-117, also the introduction by Edmund Wilson, the selection from his Intellectual Worker in V. Calverton, ed., The Making of Society, NY, 1931, 427-36, and the early Soviet characterization (BSE (1) XIII, 64-6) of his views as a kind of Siberian theory that never penetrated the center of Russia. For the other thinkers see in addition to Nomad, H. Stuart Hughes, Consciousness and Society, NY, 1958 (and p); Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence, NY, 1961, p, with valuable introduction by E. A. Shil.

65. Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, NY, 1957, 256. For Trotsky’s views on culture during this period see the excellent section “Not by Politics Alone …” in I. Deutscher, The Prophet Unarmed, London, 1959, 164-200.

66. “Sinie okovy,” in Khlebnikov, Sobranie proizvedenii, L, 1930, I, 286-7, discussed by V. Markov, Poems, 194-8.

67. On Kubin see Grohmann, Kandinsky, 62-7, 87.

68. Dostoevsky, SS, IV, 165.

69. M. Kuzmin, Kryl’ia: povest’, M, 1907. His popularity was augmented by official efforts to confiscate his work; V. Ivanov, “Veneris Figurae, stikhi,” Vesy, 1907, Jan, 16.

70. Sanine, NY, 1931 (tr. P. Pinkerton). The Petty Demon, NY, 1962, (tr. A. Field, intr. E. Simmons).

71. For citations from Schopenhauer and indications of his influence on Turgenev see A. Walicki, “Turgenev and Schopenhauer,” OSP, X, 1962, 12. T. Seltzer, “Michael Artzybashev,” The Drama, 1916, Feb, 1-12, points (12) to the influence of Max Stirner on Artsybashev.

72. The influence of Quixote on Sologub is stressed in Zamiatin’s excellent essay in Litsa, NY, 1955, 31-37; and is even more evident in Sologub’s play, The Triumph of Death, translated by John Cournos in The Drama, 1916, Aug, 346-84, and preceded by a valuable essay by Cournos, “Feodor Sologub as Dramatist,” ibid., 329-45. For an excellent review of the Demon by Sidney Hyman, see NL, 1962, Sep 3, 19-20.

73. Sologub, SS, P, 1913, XVIII, 3. See the synopsis and discussion of the Legend by A. Field in SEEJ, 1961, winter, 341-9; and the more detailed textual analysis by J. Holthusen, Fedor Sologubs Roman-Trilogie, ’s Gravenhage, 1960.

74. F. Sologub, The Sweet-Scented Name and Other Fairy Tales, Fables and Stories, London, 1915, 155.

75. Ibid., 156.

76. Ibid., 134.

77. Cited in Poggioli, The Phoenix, 173. Poggioli’s essay, which contains a good basic bibliography on Rozanov, is also reprinted separately as Rozanov, NY, 1962.

78. V. Rozanov, Legenda o velikom inkvizitore F. M. Dostoevskago, P, 1906, (3d ed.), 81-3.

79. Term used by Poggioli, The Phoenix, 162.

80. Cited in Maslenikov, Poets, 202.

81. Vesy, 1904, no. 5, 17-30; Novy Put’, 1904, nos. 1-3, 5, 8, 9; Voprosy zhizni, 1905, nos. 6-7; and Dionis i pradionisiistvo, Baku, 1923. See also L. Shestov, “Viacheslav Velikolepny,” RM, 1916, no. 10, 80-111.

82. Rozanov, Izbrannoe, 95-108.

83. L. Shestov, Dostoevsky i Nittsshe: Filosofiia tragedii, P, 1903 (also German edition, Cologne, 1924). There were a number of other works published in 1903 comparing these two figures. See, for instance, M. Kheisin, “Dostoevsky i Nittsshe,” MB, 1903, Jun, 119-41; and the antagonistic study by the priest A. N. Smirnov, Dostoevsky i Nittsshe, Kazan, 1903. The influence of Nietzsche was critical on A. Blok, who took over particularly from Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy the idea that culture was essentially musical and the world little more than “music made concrete.” See R. Labry, “Alexandre Blok et Nietzsche,” RES, XXVII, 1951, esp. 204-5. Also LE, VIII, 105-8; and a series of articles by Bely on Nietzsche: Vesy, 1908, nos. 7, 8, 10.

84. Dobro v uchenii gr. Tolstogo i F. Nittsshe, Berlin, 1923. Shestov later became, during his exile in Paris, the major Russian popularizer and translator of Kierkegaard. See his Kirgegard i ekzistentsial’naia filosofiia (glas vopiiushchago v pustyne), Paris, 1939.

85. A. Z. Shteinberg, Sistema svobody F. M. Dostoevskogo, Berlin, 1923.

86. Gray, Experiment, 90 ff. and plates 73-4.

87. Ibid., 121 ff.

88. Stravinsky, An Autobiography, NY, 1936, 47.

89. Gray, Experiment, 308, for hitherto unpublished description of this production; also ibid., 99 and plate 75 on “Drama in Cabaret, No. 13”; Poggioli, Poets, 238-49. Also A. Ripellino, Majakovskij e il teatro russo d’avanguardia, Turin, 1959. Sologub proposes in his “Liturgy of Me” a kind of ego-sensualism at the same time as the “ego-futurists” were flourishing. See Sipovsky, Etapy, 109.

90. See, for instance, N. Evreinov, The Theatre of the Soul: a Monodrama in One Act, London, 1915, tr. M. Potapenko and C. St. John.

91. Cited in Gray, Experiment, 193,

92. I. Babel’, “Mama, Rimma i Alia. Ilya Isaakovich i Margarita Prokof’evna,” Letopis’, 1916, Nov, 32-44.

93. René Fülöp-Miller, Rasputin: The Holy Devil, NY, 1928, 345 and the entire section 321-68.

94. Blok, Dnevnik, L, 1928, II, 72; Maslenikov, Poets, 164-5; Revelation, xii, 1-6.

95. M. Dudkin, as cited in J. Catteau, “A Propos de la littérature fantastique: André Belyj, héritier de Gogol et de Dostoïevski,” CMR, 1962, Jul-Sep, 372. Lilac was the “Promethean” color in Scriabin’s scheme, and generally a favorite for aesthetes of the Silver Age.

96. Pil’niak, Ivan-da-mar’ia, 1921, cited in Mirsky, Contemporary Russian Literature, 309.

97. Zamiatin, “Iks,” in Nechestivye rasskazy, 1926, cited in A. M. van der Eng-Liedmeir, Soviet Literary Characters, ’s Gravenhage, 1959, 76.

98. 2 × 2 = 5, M, 1920; Razvratnichaiu s vdokhnoveniem, M, 1921. The movement apparently viewed itself as developing out of the English Imagism of Ezra Pound and Wyndham Lewis. See LE, IV, 461-4.

99. Cited from Estradnaia arkhitektonika, M, 1920, in V. Zavalishin, Early Soviet Writers, NY, 1958, 135.

100. For a brief discussion of Kollontai’s views, including selections from and a listing of some of her numerous works published in English and other Western languages, see T. Anderson, Masters, 163-89. The articles alluded to in the present discussion are Novaia moral’ i rabochy klass, M, 1918; “Liubov’ pchel trudovykh” from Revoliutsiia chuvstv i revoliutsiia nravov, M-L, 1923 (and also in Svobodnaia liubov’, Riga, 1925); and “Doroga krylatomu Erosu,” in Molodaia gvardiia, 1923, no. 3. See also the critical literature referenced in LE, V, 384-5, esp. Budnev Finogen, “Polovaia revoliutsiia,” Na postu, 1924, no. 1.

101. This famous theory is expanded by the daughter in the short story “The Love of Three Generations,” in Liubov’ pchel trudovykh referenced above, also in her A Great Love, NY, 1929. For the controversy generated by the story see L. Luke, “Marxian Woman: Soviet Variants,” in E. Simmons, ed., Through the Glass of Soviet Literature, NY, 1961, p, 34 ff.

102. Max Jakobson, The Diplomacy of the Winter War, Cambridge, Mass., 1961, 203-17, 272.

103. Cited in O. Sayler, Inside the Moscow Art Theatre, NY, 1925, 112. See the discussion and illustration of this production in the section “Spanish Passion—and Russian,” 106-24.

104. Mochulsky, Solov’ev, 247 ff.

105. LE, III, 321-2; Maslenikov, Poets, 25 ff.

106. Remizov, Ognennaia Rossiia, Reval/Tallinn, 1921, esp. 71. There is a concise discussion of Remizov in Harkins, Dictionary, 332-4; fuller discussion and references in LE, IX, 606-9. Vorob’ev, čiurlionis, 82 ff. L. Andreev, Satan’s Dairy, NY, 1920, with a useful preface by H. Bernstein. The work was completed just a few days prior to Andreev’s death in Finland in 1919. Just as the early Bolsheviks looked for inspiration to America as the model for a modern industrial society, so conservatives like Andreev tended to view America as the principal bearer of the virus of materialism. In the same vein see I. Bunin (the Nobel Prize-winning émigré writer —like Andreev essentially a craftsman of realistic prose) The Gentleman from San Francisco, and perhaps also Nabokov’s Lolita. See also recent discussions of Andreev’s ideas by J. Woodward (CSP, VI, 1964, 59-79) and H. Peltier-Zamoyska (CMR, 1963, Jul-Sep, 205-29).

107. S. Yaremich, Vrubel’, Mikhail Aleksandrovich: Ego zhizn’ i tvorchestvo, M, 1911; Vrubel’, L-M, 1963 (a collection including correspondence, memoirs, etc.); and C. Gray, Experiment, 18-21.

108. Critical opinion of Ivanov’s painting had also changed dramatically. Contrast the worshipful attitude of the wanderers toward Ivanov’s work (N. Mashkovtsev, Surikov, 15-18) with the critical anti-populist attitude of Rozanov (“Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Ivanov,” Zolotoe Runo, 1906, Nov-Dec, 3-6), who suggests (among other things) that the painter’s “Appearance of Christ to the People,” be re-entitled “The Eclipse of Christ by the People.”

109. Cited in A. Haskell, Diaghileff: His Artistic and Private Life, NY, 1935, 137. See also S. Lifar, Serge Diaghilev, NY, 1940, 111-17.

110. For citations and discussions see V. Erlich, “The Dead Hand of the Future: The Predicament of Vladimir Mayakovsky,” ASR, 1962, Sep, 433-40. Note also the title of F. Sologub’s collection, Soborny blagovest, P, 1921.

111. See paintings in Grohmann, Kandinsky, 404-5. Judaic influences also contributed to the apocalypticism of late imperial culture: the emotionally disturbing effect of breaking loose from the pale of settlement, the classical Jewish opposition to portraiture, etc. See E. Szittya, Soutine et son temps, 1955, 13-22.

112. Within the trilogy (all available in English translation) see particularly the epilogue to Peter and Alexis; see also C. H. Bedford, “Dmitry Merezhkovsky, the Intelligentsia, and the Revolution of 1905,” CSP, III, 1959.

The crisis of the revolutionary camp was also represented as a kind of apocalypse in the work of the S.R. Boris Savinkov. The Pale Horse, of 1905, published under the pseudonym of Vsevolod Ropshin (English ed., Dublin, 1917), is 444-61. Savinkov’s other celebrated tale of revolution The Tale of What Was Not (English ed. What Never Happened, NY, 1917) prompted a fresh discussion of the “Hamlet question.” See E. Koltonovskaia, “Byt’ ili ne byt’?,” RM, 1913, no. 6, 24-40.

113. On Bely see in addition to Maslenikov, Poets; K. Mochulsky, Andrei Bely, Paris, 1955; and LE, I, 422-9.

114. “Griadushchie gunny,” in Briusov, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy, L, 1961, 278-9. Also in an apocalyptical vein is his play of 1904, Zemlia (analyzed by R. Poggioli “Qualis Artifex Pereo! or Barbarism and Decadence,” in Harvard Library Bulletin, XIII, 1959, winter, 135-59), which depicts the total destruction of humanity; and his Republic of the Southern Cross, London, 1918, which tells of the end that eventually came to the Utopian city of the future.

115. See Bely, Petersburg, NY, 1959. See also his early work, “Apokalipsis v russkoi poezii,” Vesy, 1905, no. 4, 11-28.

116. Bely, “Khristos voskres,” Stikhotvoreniia, Berlin, 1923, 347-71.

117. “Pevuchy zov,” in the collection Sergei Esenin, M, 1958, 107-9. See the discussion by P. Pascal, “Esenine, poète de la campagne russe,” OSP, II, 1951, 55-71.

118. All works included in N. Kliuev, PSS, NY, 1954, 2v; “Pesn’ solntsenostsa,” I, 381-3; “Chetverty Rim,” II, 85-90; and “Lenin,” I, 414-23.

119. See, for instance, the last two books published by Berdiaev in Russia before his emigration abroad: Konets renesansa, P, 1922; and Osvald Shpengler i zakat Evropy, M, 1922.

120. Reeve, Blok, 102-4; Blok, Sochineniia, I, 102-3.

121. L. Andreev, “Prokliatie Zveria,” PSS, P, 1913, VIII, 144, 114.

122. Esenin, “Sorokoust,” of 1920 in Esenin, 154-6.

123. Subtitle of Kliuev’s Pesn’ solntse-nostsa, Berlin, 1920.

124. S. Klychkov, Posledny Lei’, Kharkov, 1927, as cited in LE, V, 323; V. Khlebnikov, “Zhuravl’,” as cited in Markov, Khlebnikov, 63.

125. “Gorod, gorod, pod toboi i zemlia ne pokhozha na zemliu … Ubil, utramboval ee satana chugunnym kopytom, ukatal zheleznoi spinoi, kataias’ po nei, kak kataetsia loshad’ po lugu v myle …” Klychkov, Lel’ as cited in LE, V, 323.

126. “Videli li vy,/ Kak bezhit po stepiam,/ V tumanakh ozernykh kroias’,/ Zheleznoi nozdrei khrapia,/ Na lapakh chugunnykh poezd?/ A za nim/ Po bol’shoi trave,/ Kak na prazdnike otchaiannykh gonok,/ Tonkie nogi zakidyvaia k golove,/ Skachet krasnogrivy zherebenok?” “Sorokoust,” of 1920, in Esenin, 155.

127. V. Ivanov, Bronepoezd No. 14-69, M, 1922 (Armoured Train 14-69, London, 1933); B. Pil’niak, Goly god, M-P, 1923 (2d rev. ed., first in 1920); The Naked Year, NY, 1928, esp. chapter five “Deaths,” 233 and ff.; and N. Nikitin, “Noch” in the almanac Krug, M-P, 1923.

128. Cited from Poggioli, Phoenix, 173.

129. V. Rozanov, Okolo tserkovnykh sten, P, 1906, 2v.

130. Cited from the slightly abridged version of Rozanov’s apocalypse, translated by V. Pozner and B. Schlözer, with a valuable introduction by the latter, L’Apocalypse de notre temps précédé de Esseulement, 1930, 277; 173-281.

131. Khlebnikov’s play Mirskontsa, discussed in V. Markov, Poems, 27; the poem lgra v adu (successive editions 1912 and 1913, co-authored by Khlebnikov and A. Kruchonykh) is discussed at greater length in Markov, 83-6.

132. Zamiatin, My, NY, 1952, 197; also available as We (trans. G. Zilbourg), NY, 1959, p. See also M. Hayward, “Pilnyak and Zamyatin: Tragedies of the Twenties,” Su, 1961, Apr-Jun, 85-91; and D. Richards, Zamyatin—A Soviet Heretic, NY, 1962.

133. Zamiatin, “Peshchera,” in G. Struve, Russian Stories, NY, 1961, p, 292 (there is a facing English translation of the Russian text and useful explanatory notes).

Pil’niak, “Mashiny i volki,” (1923-4) SS, M-L, 1930, II; “Mat’ syra-zemlia,” (1927) SS, 1929, III, 17-75; P. Wilson, “Boris Pilnyak,” Su, 1963, Jan, 134-42. Leonov, “Konets melkogo cheloveka,” (written in 1922 and printed in an apparently revised version M, 1924) in SS, M, 1960, I, 197-273. Pil’niak’s interest in Old Russia dominated his early writings; and, judging from the discussion of Leonov’s early period in V. Kovalev, Tvorchestvo Leonida Leonova, M-L, 1962, 38-42, there are important unpublished works of Leonov from this period, including one with selections from Awakum, a figure in whom Leonov has had an abiding personal interest.

If Zamiatin’s We anticipates Huxley’s Brave New World, so also does his “Cave” anticipate in some respects Ape and Essence.

134. E. Zamiatin, Litsa, 249. The article is reprinted 247-56; and is now available in an English translation by W. Vickery, PR, 1961, no. 3-4, 372-8.

135. On Attila, a major part of which was completed in verse in 1928 but never published, see the obituary on Zamiatin by A. Remizov, “Stoiat’—negasimuiu svechu,” SZ, LXIV, 1937, esp 429; Navodnenie, L, 1930. See also W. Edgerton, “The Serapion Brothers: An Early Soviet Controversy,” ASR, 1949, Feb, 47-64; and Zamiatin’s letter to Stalin of June, 1931, in Litsa, 280.

Other literary works of the immediate post-Revolutionary period showing the apocalypticism that was prevalent even among those not at all interested in Marxism-Leninism (as Zamiatin was, to a considerable extent), see Pil’niak’s story of 1919 Tysiacha let (SS, 7-14) and S. Grigor’ev, Proroki i predtechi poslednego zaveta: imazhinisty Esenin, Kusikov, Mariengof, M, 1921.

136. Litsa, 8, cited from the famous article “Ia boius’,” in Dom iskusstv, 1920, no. 1.

137. Litsa, 251-2.

138. The Liebestod in Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde was designated by Wagner as a Verklärung (Transfiguration); and Tod und Verklärung became the title and theme of one of Richard Strauss’s most iridescent tone poems.

139. See, for instance, Blok’s “Kometa” discussed in Reeve, Blok, 162-3; D. Sviatsky, Strashny sud kak astral’naia allegoriia (istorikoastronomichesky ekskurs v oblast’ khristianskoi ikonografii), P, 1911, 47-8.

140. Reeve, Blok, 42-4. See also A. Kuprin “Hamlet” in A Slav Soul, London, 1916, 72-93.

141. For description and illustration of these productions see Sayler, Inside, 165-72. Laertes and the Queen were, apparently, portrayed as vacillating between the two camps. For Chekhov’s philosophy of acting, in which one was to immerse oneself emotionally in the entire personality of the part being played, see To the Actor: On the Technique of Acting, NY, 1953; and also, To the Director and Playwright (compiled and edited by C. Leonard), NY, 1963.

142. Gorky, Ispoved’, Berlin, 1908, 196. C. Balmont, Budem kak solntse, 1903; A. Remizov, Posolon’, 1907.

143. “Beri svoi cheln, plyvi na dal’ny polius/ V stenakh iz l’da …/ I k vzdragivan’iam medlennogo khlada/ ustaluiu ty dushu priuchi,/ Chtob’ bylo zdes’ ei nichego ne nado,/ Kogda ottuda rinutsia luchi.” Blok, SS, M-L, 1960, III, 189.

144. “… vspoem/ u mira v serom khlame./ Ia budu solntse lit’ svoe,/ A tysvoe stikhami/ … Svetit’ vsegda,/ svetit’ vezde,/ do dnei poslednikh dontsa, svetit’—/ i nikakikh gvozdei!” Maiakovsky, The Bedbug, and Selected Poetry, NY, 1960, 142-3 (on the basis of the facing Russian text).

145. “A nad nami solntse, solntse, i solntse./ … Solntse—nashe solntse!/ Dovol’no! …/ Igru novuiu igraite! V krug!/ Solntsem igraite. Solntse kataite. Igraite v solntse!” Maiakovsky, PSS, M, 1956, II, 240. This hymn is absent from the second, more blatantly propagandistic version of Mystery Bouffe, written in 1920-1 and presented before a meeting of the Third International. However, the Communist leadership is referred to therein as “worshippers of the sun in the temple of the world” (Solntsepoklonniki u mira v khrame, ibid., 354). For an English translation of the second version of the Bouffe see the translation of G. Noyes and A. Kaun in Noyes, ed., Masterpieces, 801-81. See also Khlebnikov’s determination to “wake up the sun,” in Sobranie proizvedenii, I, 285-6; and the ecstatic suggestion of nirvana-like annihilation in space at the end of “Chains of Blue”: “Zeleny plesk i pereplesk—/ I v siny blesk ves’ mir ischez.” Ibid., 303.

146. Meierhold, “The Booth,” The Drama, 1917, May, 205.

147. Cited in Markov, Poems, 16.

148. Roger Fry, “Russian Icon Painting from the Western-European Point of View,” in Farbman, ed., Masterpieces, 58, 38. See also the excellent section by G. Mathew, “The Harmony of Colors” (in Byzantine Aesthetics, London, 1963, 142-61), which often seems strikingly similar to Kandinsky’s concept of “the spiritual” in art.

149. Maiakovsky, The Bedbug, 142-3.

150. Characterization of the program for forced industrialization by the Menshevik Abramovich, as paraphrased by B. Souvarine, Stalin, NY, 1939, 259-60.

2. THE SOVIET ERA

1. For the profusion of literary schools in the early Soviet period see the relevant pages in G. Struve, Soviet Literature; Zavalishin, Early Soviet Writers; and H. Ermolaev, Soviet Literary Theories 1917-1934, Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1963; also two pre-Stalinist Soviet studies: P. Kogan, Literatura velikogo desiatiletiia, M-L, 1927; and V. Polonsky (pseud, of V. Gusin), Ocherki literaturnogo dvizheniia revoliutsionnoi epokhi, M-L, 1929 (2d ed.). See also the synoptic treatment by M. Hayward, “Soviet Literature 1917-1961,” PR, 1961, May-Jun, 333-62.

2. “Golubye goroda” (1925) in A. Tolstoy, PSS, M, 1947, V.

3. N. Gourfinkel, “Habima et le kamerny juif,” in the valuable collection Le Théâtre Juif dans le monde, 1931, 70-1. See also her Le Théâtre russe contemporain, 1931, for further discussion of the cultural milieu of the twenties; also her Naissance d’un monde, 1953, particularly the evocative description of Odessa, 9-25.

Among Ehrenburg’s early works, see his tale of a wandering Jew loose in a Europe in upheaval, The Stormy Life of Lasik Roitschwantz, NY, 1960 (written in Paris, 1927-8). For the last flowering of Yiddish culture in Eastern Europe and its legacy to Soviet literature as a whole, see E. Schulman, “Die Sovietishe-Yiddishe Literatur, 1918-48,” in The Jewish Book Annual, IX, 1950-1; also C. Szmeruk, “Soviet Jewish Literature: the last phase,” Su, 1961, Apr-Jun, 71-7; and (for a flurry of Yiddish cultural activity since that “last phase”), NL, 1963, Feb 4, 6-7.

4. Gourfinkel, “Habima,” 71. Founded in White Russia in 1909-10, the Habima was re-established in 1916 in Moscow, where it played steadily for a decade, leaving Russia in 1926, eventually to settle down permanently in Israel.

5. V. von Wiren, “Zoshchenko in Retrospect,” RR, 1962, Oct, 348-61, esp. 353. See also Zoshchenko, Stat’i i materialy, L, 1928 (an invaluable Academia collection of his early period); also H. McLean, ed. and intr., Nervous People, and Other Satires, NY, 1963. On Ilf and Petrov see their Twelve Chairs, NY, 1961, p, with intr. by M. Friedberg.

6. See W. Kolarz, Religion, 287-91; also Bonch-Bruevich, Iz mira sektantov, M, 1922. A full bibliography of this remarkable and neglected figure is supplied with an introduction by G. Petrovsky, Vladimir Dmitrievich Bonch-Bruevich, M, 1958.

7. E. Brown, “Voronsky and Pereval,” Su, 1961, Apr-Jun, 92-8; R. Ahlberg, “Forgotten Philosopher: The work of Abram Deborin,” Su, 1961, Jul-Sep, 79-89.

8. For some of the early radical plans for educational reform see Narodny kommissariat prosveshcheniia 1917-1920. Kratky otchet, M, 1920.

9. Figures from A. I. Nazarov, Ocherki istorii sovetskogo knigoizdatel’stva, M, 1962, cited in M. Hayward, “Potentialities for Freedom,” paper delivered at St. Anthony’s College, Oxford, in July, 1957, conference on “Changes in Soviet Society,” page 2, note 2. For the importance of the mid-twenties as an ideological turning point see the valuable analysis of the period and the critical loss of ground by Bukharin and the “right wing” Bolshevik faction (which also included such surprising bedfellows as Dzerzhinsky) N. Valentinov, CS, 1962. Nov-Dec, 1963, Jan-Feb, and Mar-Apr. See also Souvarine, Stalin; and R. Daniels, The Conscience of the Revolution: Communist Opposition in Soviet Russia, Cambridge, Mass., 1960.

10. The importance of the founding of this journal, and of the early debates over the role it should play is stressed in P. Sorlin, “La Crise du Parti communiste bolchevik et les débuts du ‘Bol’ševik’ (Avril 1924-Avril 1925),” RHM, 1962, Apr-Jun, 81-110.

11. Stalin’s report to the Sixteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the USSR, Jun 27, 1930, in Works, M, 1955, XII, 314. See also note 36 on 394. For a classic necrology on the passing of the poets of the twenties see R. Jakobson, “O pokolenii rastrativshem svoikh poetov,” in Smert’ Vladimira Maiakovskogo, Berlin, 1931.

12. Cited in Revoliutsiia prava, 1925, no. 3, in G. Kline, “‘Socialist Legality’ and Communist Ethics,” NLF, VIII, 1963, 24. See also works referenced 23, note 6; and selections from Soviet legal writers in J. Hazard, ed., Soviet Legal Philosophy, Cambridge, Mass., 1961. For the purges of statisticians and scientists that also began 1929-30 see L. Labedz, “How Free Is Soviet Science,” Commentary, 1958, Jun.

13. Stalin, Works, XII, 380-1, mt.

14. A. Zalkind, Ocherki kul’tury revoliutsionnogo vremeni, M, 1924, 59; as cited in R. Bauer, The New Man in Soviet Psychology, Cambridge, Mass., 1959, 73.

Zalkind was one of the leading Communist theorists of education active in the Agitation and Propaganda bureau of the Communist Party and in organizing the congresses and journals of the science of pedology, which flourished in the 1920’s in the USSR (Bauer, 85). The reaction against Freud in the 1930’s marked a return to vogue of the determinist school of I. Pavlov, who had won a Nobel Prize in 1904, and lived on to 1936. See, in addition to Bauer, J. Wortis, Soviet Psychiatry, Baltimore, 1950, 72-81; B. Simon, ed., Psychology in the Soviet Union, Stanford, 1957; and Kh. Koshtoiants, Ocherki po istorii fiziologii v Rossii, M-L, 1946; and Russkaia fiziologicheskaia shkola i ee rol’ v razvitii mirovoi nauki, M, 1948. For indications that Pavlov himself was, ironically, moving beyond his earlier physiological determinism at the very time it was becoming official Soviet doctrine, see N. Nizhal’sky, “Evoliutsiia Pavlova,” NZh, LXV, 1961, 248-54.

15. Citation also from Zalkind in Bauer, New Man, 99. Zalkind’s efforts to bend with the new line appear to have been unsuccessful, because he vanished in the mid-1930’s: an apparent victim of the purges.

16. Stalin, Works, XII, 197-205. Speech of Mar 2, 1930. For the dominance of Pokrovsky and L. Averbakh in their respective intellectual domains during this period see, respectively, P. Aron, “M. N. Pokrovskii and the Impact of the First Five-Year Plan on Soviet Historiography,” in Curtiss, ed., Essays, 283-302; and E. Brown, The Proletarian Episode in Russian Literature, 1928-32, NY, 1953.

17. Stalin, Works, XIII, 67-75. The actual phrase “new Soviet intelligentsia” came into use later, but the idea is clearly contained here. Contrast the attitude of selective deference toward all technologically trained intellectuals with the anti-intellectual attitude in a report to the Sixteenth Party Congress, Works, XII, 311.

18. Stalin, Leninism, London, 1940, 490. Speech of May 4, 1935.

19. For his tender relationship with the multi-lingual French radical feminist Inessa Armand, which somewhat mitigates the picture of total emotional discipline and puritanical preoccupation with mission that has dominated Soviet hagiography on Lenin, see L. Fischer, The Life of Lenin, NY, 1964; S. Possony, Lenin: The Compulsive Revolutionary, Chicago, 1964, 118 ff.; B. Wolfe, “Lenin and Inessa Armand,” ASR, 1963, Mar, 96-114. For the life of Inessa herself see the laudatory account by the French Communist, J. Fréville, Inessa Armand: une grande figure de la révolution russe, 1957. Some other indications of the emotional side of Lenin’s life may be found in N. Valentinov, Vstrechi s Leninym, NY, 1953.

20. The possibility that redirected sexual drives played an important role in Lenin’s inner development, with suppressed homosexuality contributing to the aggressive masculinity of Bolshevism, is suggested by N. Leites and succinctly discussed by D. Bell in his “Ten Theories in Search of Reality,” The End of Ideology, NY, 1962, 2d rev. ed., 326-37.

21. Lenin, “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight the Social Democrats,” (1894) SW, London, 1939, XI, 635.

22. Ibid., 606.

23. S. Utechin, “The ‘Preparatory Trend’ in the Russian Revolutionary Movement in the 1880’s,” SAP, 12, 1962, 7-22, for this “Volga Marxism” and Lenin’s early contact with it. On the extra-Marxist Jacobin ancestry of Leninism, S. Utechin, “Who Taught Lenin?” The Twentieth century, 1960, Jul, 8-16, points to, curious and neglected anticipations in Ogarev; M. Karpovich, “A Forerunner of Lenin: P. N. Tkachev,” RP, 6, 1944, 346-50, points to Tkachev; V. Varlamov, “Bakunin and the Russian Jacobins and Blanquists As Evaluated by Soviet Historiography,” RPSR, 79, 1955, shows how Soviet historians after much confusion eventually settled on their present line denying any links between Leninism and the earlier Jacobins.

24. Nakanune, 1901, Feb. See also Chernov’s masterful short political obituary of Lenin in Mosely, ed., Soviet Union, 26-32.

25. From the last section, entitled “Dictatorship over the Proletariat,” in L. Trotsky, Nashi politicheskie zadachi, Geneva, 1904, 54; cited in I. Deutscher, The Prophet Armed, NY, 1954, 90.

26. Principally in his State and Revolution, written on the eve of the coup in 1917 (the key passages dealing with “withering away” are in Lenin, SW, M, 1951, Part 1, 213-20, 284-92). For recent discussion of the concept see three articles under “The Withering Away of the State” in Su, 1961, Oct, 63-9; also the notes and discussion in Lenin, Sochineniia, M, 1962, 5th ed., XXXIII.

The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat was elaborated by Marx in his “Critique of the Gotha Program” in 1876 and redefined by Lenin in an article of 1905 entitled “The Revolutionary Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry” (Lenin, Sochineniia, M, 1962, 5th ed., X, 20-31). Lenin’s usage of the term prior to 1917 is overlooked in the otherwise useful discussion of the concept by R. Carew-Hunt, A Guide to Communist Jargon, NY, 1957, 62-5.

27. Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918), in SW, London, 1937, VII, 123. Lenin is referring here to “dictatorship” in general, but the characterization is clearly meant to apply even to the sanctified form that he is advocating.

28. Lenin’s resurrection of this term— widely used in the mid-nineteenth century, but out of fashion and virtually forgotten in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century—apparently dates from his publication in 1915, together with Bukharin of the short-lived journal Kommunist. The formal adoption of the new name in March, 1918, was a means of dramatizing the irrevocability of Lenin’s split with the “reformist” social democratic tradition; and all parties affiliating with the Comintern were required (by its second congress in 1920) formally to adopt the name “Communist” as a condition of membership—a visible demonstration of their repudiation of the traditions of the Second International.

29. Lenin, What Is To Be Done? (1902) NY, nd, p, 131. See also the fresh translation, with valuable intr. by S. Utechin, Oxford, 1963.

30. From a critique of Struve in Lenin, Sochineniia, M, 1935, 3d ed., I, 276.

31. What Is To Be Done? 105-6. The term used is stirat’sia: literally, “wiped out.” The importance of providing leadership from the intelligentsia for the workers was fully recognized by Lenin (see discussion in E. H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, London, I, 16-17), though the point is somewhat blunted by subsequent Soviet glosses and even by shadings in the official Soviet translation of What Is To Be Done? which refers to the revolutionary intellectuals’ ideas as developing “quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the worker’s movement” SW, II, 53—“quite” being a weak word for sovershenno, “completely.”

32. What Is To Be Done? 101.

33. Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (1905) in SW, III, 293-302, a work as violent in opposing “tailendism” as was What Is To Be Done? in opposing “spontaneity” in the development of social revolution.

What Is To Be Done? was the title not only of the famous works here discussed, but also of many less famous tracts. See, for instance, V. Bazanov, “Aleksandr Livanov i ego traktat ‘Chto Delat’?’,” RL, 1963, no. 3, 109-38.

34. The theory of the growing-over of one revolution into another seems to have originated in the pessimism of the Odessa-born German Social Democrat Alexander Helfand (Parvus) about the capacity of the bourgeoisie to provide genuine revolutionary leadership in Eastern Europe; acquired critical elaboration in Trotsky’s writings during the revolutionary crisis of 1904-5; and gained Lenin’s belated but enthusiastic approval during the early months of 1917.

Lenin’s analysis (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916, in SW, V, 3-122) of the development of imperialism through the growth of monopolistic finance capitalism was largely derived from Western economists (Hilferding, Hobson); his quasiapocalyptical conception of capitalist leaders as “ravening beasts” leading the masses to war by merely “clipping coupons” but unconsciously preparing the world for a revolutionary deliverance, in which the oppressed colonial peoples will play a revolutionary role along with the Western proletariat, was largely derived from Rosa Luxembourg, and was incorporated into the theses on the national and colonial question adopted by the second congress of the Comintern in 1920.

35. Title of Pravda article of April, 1917, in Lenin, Sochineniia, M, 1962, 5th ed., XXXI, 304.

36. P. Tkachev, Offener Brief an Herrn Fr. Engels, Zurich, 1874; as cited in G. Plekhanov, “Our Differences” (1884) in Works, 179 (mt—“intelligentnaia” being rendered as “intelligentsia-dominated” rather than “of the intelligentsia”). One of the sources of Lenin’s falling-out with Plekhanov was the posture of almost unmitigated opposition which Plekhanov assumed toward Tkachev in this and subsequent works.

37. Lenin, SW, VII, 3-112 (especially 43-54, and 78-94).

38. From the dream of Versilov in Dostoevsky, Raw Youth (repeated in variant form in Stavrogin’s confession in The Possessed, inspired in both cases by Claude Lorraine’s “Acis and Galatea,” in the Dresden art gallery).

39. See Billington “Intelligentsia,” 818-9; and “The Bolshevik Debt to Russian Populism,” Occidente, 1956, Jul-Aug, 319-28.

40. Just as official publications of the “People’s Will” had used the term “enemy of the people” nearly four decades before it came into general use in the USSR, so the official records of the second congress of the Social Democratic Party in 1903 contain the term “people’s democracy” more than forty years before it came into use in the Soviet empire. Bonch-Bruevich, later Lenin’s personal secretary, used the term in a remarkable and neglected speech, “The Schism and Sectarianism in Russia,” advocating common action with the persecuted religious dissenters of the Russian empire. The Bolsheviks no less than the populists fancied that these dissenters could be won over as allies, and empowered Bonch-Bruevich to set up a special Social Democratic journal, The Dawn, to aid in this campaign. Bonch-Bruevich characterized them as “popular democratic elements” interested in breaking with “bourgeois democracy,” and argued that Social Democrats could aid in “the growth of political consciousness of the millions who comprise the people’s democracy.” (From the text of his report to the Congress in Razsvet, Geneva, 1905, no. 6-7, 173.) Only a few numbers of the journal appeared, but there were some optimistic reports on the campaign (no. 3, 72-8).

Bonch-Bruevich lived in Finland for a long period (offering Lenin shelter there during 1917) and knew Otto Kuusinen, the Comintern ideologist and long-time emigre leader of Finnish communism, who introduced the term “people’s democracy” into general usage as an approved alternative to “dictatorship of the proletariat” in the Finnish Communist party program of 1944. This usage (like that of Bonch-Bruevich) is overlooked in otherwise valuable studies of the postwar concept of “people’s democracy,” such as M. H. Fabry, Théorie des democraties populaires, 1950, 11 (where he explicitly declares that the term “appeared only in 1945”); Z. Brzezinski, The Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict, NY, 1961, rev. ed., 25 (who traces it more tentatively to Yugoslavian usage in 1945); and G. Skilling, “People’s Democracy and the Socialist Revolution: A Case Study in Communist Scholarship,” SSt, 1951, Jul, Oct.

41. While Communist ideologists generally continue to deny that the intelligentsia is a separate class or a group above class interest, the intelligentsia has become in practice a third category of “progressive humanity” along with workers and peasants. This can be seen from posters showing a man with a book alongside one with a hammer and a second with a sickle. The definition of the Soviet Communist Party adopted at its Nineteenth Party Congress in 1952, was “a voluntary, militant union of like-minded Communists, consisting of people from the working class, the working peasants and the working intelligentsia.” (For a Lasting Peace! For a People’s Democracy! Aug 23, 1952, 3). During his reign, Khrushchev used the trilogy of “workers, peasants and intelligentsia” without the modifying adjective “working” (see, for instance, his speech at the Grivita Rosie plant in Rumania of Jun 19, 1962). The term “people’s intelligentsia” is also sometimes invoked (as by V. Platkovsky, Kommunist, 1962, no. 15, 28-9).

42. Note that Lenin’s favorite Russian novelist was Turgenev, who had provided a relatively realistic portrayal of revolutionary figures in the sixties and seventies, the golden age of Russian social thought, rather than Dostoevsky or Tolstoy, who filled their works of the same period with broader religious and philosophical concerns. See L. Fischer, Lenin, esp. 499-500. Lenin read Turgenev continuously as a student, and used a German translation of his work to learn that language (ibid., 19, 34).

43. See Lenin’s turgid broadside, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, first published in 1908 during a period of general disillusionment among revolutionaries and reprinted in SW, London, 1939, XI, 89-409.

44. “Partiinaia organizatsiia i partiinaia literatura,” in Sochineniia, 5th ed., XII, 100-1. There is considerable controversy over whether or not Lenin conceived of anything but “party literature” once the party seized power. M. Hayward (“Potentialities,” 2) and R. Hankin (in Simmons, ed., Continuity, 445-6) seem to think Lenin would not have been displeased to see this conception of “party literature” expanded to include all literature—as was generally done in the USSR under Stalin; while E. Simmons (“The Origins of Literary Control,” Su, 1961, Apr-Jun, 78-82) implies that Lenin never intended this doctrine to apply to belles lettres.

It is sometimes argued that the achievement of the revolutionary goal provides an external criteria by which the Leninist party’s actions can be judged. However, this goal was never clearly enough defined to be invulnerable to constant reinterpretation by the party itself, and thus could hardly provide any effective external check on party actions. A more substantial defense of Lenin lies in the contention that the person who sacrifices means for ends under Communism may be no more relativistic morally than the man who perennially sacrifices ends for means under some other system.

45. Text in B. Wolfe, Khrushchev and Stalin’s Ghost, NY, 1957, 261-3.

46. Works, M, 1953, VI, 47, 59, 58.

47. Cited by V. Bonch-Bruevich, Pereezd sovetskogo pravitel’stva iz Petrograda v Moskvu, M, 1926, 19. Bonch-Bruevich’s account of this transfer is filled with foreboding about the end of the “Petersburg period” and the beginning of the “Moscow period.” See also his V. I. Lenin v Petrograde i v Moskve, 1917-1920, M, 1956, 19-21, which tells of Lenin’s banning of the sword from the new hammer-and-sickle emblem early in 1918.

48. Ivan Gronsky, who was by this time editor of Izvestiia and a leading party organizer. See Herman Ermolaev, “The Emergence and the Early Evolution of Socialist Realism (1932-1934),” CSS, 2, 1963, 141 ff.

49. Title of the valuable study by a former German Communist, Wolfgang Leonhard, Die Revolution entläst ihre Kinder, Cologne, 1950 (translated by C. Woodhouse as Child of the Revolution, London, 1957).

50. Andrew Zhdanov, Lectures on Literature, Philosophy and Music, NY, 1950.

51. “Stil empir vo vremia chumy.” The phrase suggests “feast amidst famine” because of its resemblance to Pushkin’s “Pir vo vremia chumy,” “Feast in the time of the plague.” Sovnovrok is the label of G. Kline. The final adoption of full stylistic control over architecture occurred in October 1934, and brought to an end a tradition of experimentation that was more impressive (in plans, if not in actual accomplishment) than is often realized. See the richly illustrated discussion by V. De Feo, URSS Architettura 1917-1936, Rome, 1963, esp. 72 ff.

52. See V. G. Geiman, “Proekt Volgo-belomorskogo kanala v XVII v,” IS, 1934, no. 1, 253-68.

53. From the historical sketch of the monastery by A. Priklonskoy, in Solovetskie ostrova (III, no. 2-3), 1926, Feb-Mar, 121. See also Solovetskie ostrova, 1926, May-Jun, chronicle of April, 1926, for other activities; and Priklonskoy’s historical study in Solovetskoe obshchestvo kraevedeniia, Solovki, 1927, 44, for his description of the small prison cell in which political prisoners took part in holy services.

For the fascinating history of the learned societies and activities in Solovetsk in the early 1920’s, all of which were run by those “in one way or another linked with the camp,” see Otchet Solovetskogo otdeleniia Arkhangel’skogo obshchestva kraevedeniia za 1924-26 gody, Solovetsk, 1927 (a lithographed publication of the OGPU).

54. Istoriko-arkheologicheskie pamiatniki solovetskogo arkhipelaga (I, registratsionnoe obsledovanie), 1934, 2; and (II, opisanie zdanii), 1935, especially the portions in the back, which provide hints for the reasons that the work was abandoned, by referring to “pressing questions on the utilization of natural productive resources.” On Solovetsk and the development of the Stalinist prison empire see D. Dallin and B. Nikolaevsky, Forced Labor in Soviet Russia, New Haven, Conn., 1947.

55. See S. Afanasiev, “Cultural Movement of the Masses,” Soviet Culture Bulletin, 1931, Jul, 11-14, for an enthusiastic account of the kul’turnaia estafeta.

56. Stalin, Works, M, 1953, VI, 47, 48 mt; and the entire address delivered at Second All-Union Congress of Soviets, Jan 26, 1924; ibid., 47-53. He also invoked (51) the traditional ecclesiastical-conservative image of the rock of faith surrounded by an ocean of disbelief.

57. For this extraordinary episode, which involved the founding of a special institute to study Lenin’s brain and the taking of some 31,000 slices therefrom, see the section “… and Transfiguration” in Possony, Lenin, 362-75.

58. See the analysis of O. Utis (Isaiah Berlin), “Generalissimo Stalin and the Art of Government,” FA, 1952.

Z. Brzezinski, The Permanent Purge: Politics in Soviet Totalitarianism, Cambridge, Mass., 1956, sees recurrent purge as an inevitable support mechanism for totalitarian rule, which he has analyzed as a basically new type of rule together with C. Friedrich in Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, Cambridge, Mass., 1956: a systematic study which elaborates the inner identity suggested by H. Arendt (Origins of Totalitarianism, NY, 1951) between Nazi and Soviet rule in comparison with precedent autocratic forms.

For a study that suggests greater idiosyncrasy in the Stalinist era? and offers the more general and inclusive analytical model of “the revolutionary mass-movement regime under single-party auspices,” see R. Tucker, The Soviet Political Mind, NY, 1963, esp. 3-19. For a range of possible explanations of the purges (the majority of which tend to de-emphasize the element of totalitarian calculation) see F. Beck and W. Godin [both pseud.], Russian Purge and the Extraction of Confession, NY, 1951; also A. Orlov, The Secret History of Stalin’s Crimes, NY, 1953.

59. See the characterization of the Soviet intelligence officer in A. Dulles, The Craft of Intelligence, NY, 1963, 95. For some indication of the extent to which the Bolsheviks were at times building on secret police practices of the imperial government in its later years see the personal memoir of one of the leading police figures, General P. Kurlov: Das Ende des russischen Kaisertums, (posthumously published in Berlin), 1920, esp. 154 ff.

60. W. Leonhard, The Kremlin Since Stalin, NY, 1962, p, 43-53; also H. Salisbury, American in Moscow, NY, 1955, 154. Dec 24 was not, of course, Christmas eve by the Orthodox calendar.

Leeches were used at least twice. See texts of official medical bulletins in NYT, Mar 5, 1953, 2; and Mar 6, 1953, 10.

61. J. Monnerot, The Sociology of Communism, London, 1953, 254.

62. Cited from proceedings of the congress in L. Gruliow, ed., Current Soviet Policies, IV, NY, 1962, 215-6.

63. A. Tertz (pseudonym of an unidentified Soviet author), “Socialist Realism,” Su, 1959, Jul-Sep, 13.

64. V. Pudovkin, Film Technique and Film Acting, NY, 1960, p, 293.

65. Cited by H. Hoffmann, “Revival of the Cinema,” Su, 1963, Jan, 102. For an excellent account of the early, experimental days of the Russian cinema see V. Shklovsky, “Zhili-byli,” Znamia, 1962, no. 12, 171-86, and his more philosophical essay in P. Blake and M. Hayward, eds., Dissonant Voices in Soviet Literature, NY, 1962, 20-8. See also D. Macdonald, The Soviet Cinema, London, 1938; and R. Sobolev, Liudi i fil’my russkogo dorevoliuts-ionnogo kino, M, 1961.

66. S. Eisenstein, The Film Sense, NY, 1942, esp. the section “Synchronization of Senses,” 69-109; also “Color and Meaning,” 115-53, references 88, and his “One Path to Colour; An Autobiographical Fragment,” Sight and Sound, 1961, spring, 84-6, 102.

67. Z. ben Shlomo, “The Soviet Cinema,” Su, 1959, Jul-Sep, 70. See also Eisenstein’s recantation, reprinted in NL, Dec 7, 1946; and M. Seton, Sergei M. Eisenstein, A Biography, NY, 1952; S. Eisenstein, Film Form and the Film Scene, NY, 1957, p. The full scenario of Eisenstein’s Ivan has now been published, together with a host of photographs and drawings: S. Eisenstein, Ivan the Terrible, London, 1963.

The Battle of Stalingrad is a rare combination of photographic realism (the list of photographers killed filming it was run off at the beginning along with the list of actors) and a kind of iconographic glorification of Stalinist leadership. Parts of the script (which is the only reminder left after the film was withdrawn from circulation during the period of de-Stalinization) are written in the style of the chronicles. See N. Virta, Stalingradskaia bitva, M, 1947, particularly 5 ff.

The propagandistic art of the post-war Stalin era represented almost a pure throwback to early church art. See the perversion of the central triptych of the iconostasis (showing God enthroned with the Virgin on one side and John “the precursor” on the other) in a “triptych” “Enemies of Peace,” Iskusstvo, 1952, Mar-Apr, 31-3.

The mosaics added to the Komsomolskaia subway station in Moscow represented Soviet victories in a stylized iconographic manner that posed numerous problems for the rewriting of history in the post-Stalin era. A Soviet official explained in 1958 that the figure of Stalin had not been removed from the center of the mosaic of Soviet leaders reviewing Russian troops before the Kremlin after the victory over Nazi Germany because no one was yet sure that anyone else deserved this virtually God-like central position; and because it would look absurd to have a picture seen by thousands every day showing no one reviewing the troops (Beria, Malenkov, and Molotov already having been removed from the center of the reviewing line). In Jan 1965 this mosaic was completely boarded up and was soon replaced by a large mosaic of Lenin.

68. On Stalin’s sense of identification with Ivan IV see Tucker, Mind, 37-8; 44-5; and, in addition to works referenced therein and in the earlier discussions of Ivan IV in this volume, the seminal article by S. Bakhrushin, “Ivan Grozny,” rehabilitating Ivan in the theoretical journal of the Party, Bol’shevik, 1943, no. 13, 48-61. The move back into history also resulted in an identification of Stalin’s elaborately rationalized policy of “active defense,” with the Scythian policy of luring the enemy into the interior of a land mass that is then scorched and used as a vast arena for harassment. See A. Mishulin, “O voennom iskusstve skifov,” IZh, 1943, no. 8-9, 64-9; also K. Mehnert, “Stalin the Historian,” TC, 1944, Oct, 173-88.

For more recent Soviet views of Ivan IV see E. Delimars, “Déstalinisation d’Ivan le terrible,” CS, 1965, Jan-Feb, 9-20. See also, more generally, S. Roberts, Soviet Historical Drama, Its Role in the Development of a National Mythology, Leiden, 1965.

69. For a discussion which illustrates the often-forgotten subtlety of his post-war foreign policy see M. Shulman, Stalin’s Foreign Policy Reappraised, Cambridge, Mass., 1963.

70. Sholokhov’s Tikhy Don (English: And Quiet Flows the Don, The Don Flows Home to the Sea) was published in four parts, 1928-40; Podniataia tselina (English: Seeds of Tomorrow, Harvest on the Don) was published in two volumes, 1932 and serially 1955-60. A useful Soviet study of his work is I. Lezhnev, Put’ Sholokhova, M, 1958; but the complex textual evolution of Sholokhov’s works and the pressures and changes involved in the long delay of the second volume of Podniataia tselina remain to be traced.

3. FRESH FERMENT

1. P. Viazemsky, PSS, P, 1878, I, xlv, on the “zagovor molchaniia.”

2. B. Jasieński, “Zagovor ravnodushnykh,” in his Izbrannye proizvedeniia, M, 1957, I (also NM, 1956, Nos. 5, 6, 7).

3. The story is reprinted in Olesha, Izbrannye sochineniia, M, 1956; also see the intr. by V. Pertsov.

4. I. Ehrenburg, Zagovor ravnykh, Berlin, 1928. The entire concept of an egalitarian social revolution beyond the original political revolution of 1789 dates to some extent from Babeuf’s “conspiracy of equals.” See J. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, NY, 1960, p.

5. A characterization taken from Pushkin and cited by M. Koriakov, “Termometr Rossii u Pasternaka,” NZh, LV, 1958, 141.

6. Texts and discussion of the two letters from LG, Nov 17, 1932, in Koriakov, “Termometr,” 139-41. For other information on Pasternak in the Stalin era see R. Payne, The Three Worlds of Boris Pasternak, NY, 1961, 146-67; also R. Conquest, Courage of Genius—The Pasternak Affair, London, 1961. The letter allegedly written in September, 1956, by the editors of NM explaining their refusal to publish Zhivago was published in LG, Oct 25, 1958, and translated in CDSP, Dec 3, 1958, 6-11, 32.

7. Znamia, 1954, Apr, 92.

8. See E. Wilson’s perceptive appreciation of the novel and linguistic lifesmanship about the translation in “Doctor Life and His Guardian Angel,” The New Yorker, Nov 15, 1958, 213-38; also his quarrying of symbols in “Legend and Symbol in Doctor Zhivago,” in Encounter, 1959, Jun, 5-16; and A. Gerschenkron’s sympathetic analysis and amusing rebuke to the “egg hunt” for symbols in “Notes on Doctor Zhivago,” in Backwardness, 341-52.

9. Cited from LG, Oct 26, 1958; Pravda, Oct 29, 1958; and V. Semichastny’s nationwide television speech of Oct 29, 1958 (given in his official capacity as secretary of the Communist Youth League on the occasion of its fortieth anniversary).

10. The co-translator of Zhivago, Max Hayward, relates the character of Zhivago to the tradition of passive “observers” (obyvately) in Russian literature that dates from the figure of the oppressed clerk in Gogol’s “Greatcoat”: Encounter, 1958, May, 38-48.

11. Text of his letter to Khrushchev in Pravda and Izvestiia, Nov 2, 1958; and second letter to the editor of Pravda in the issue of Nov 6, 1958.

12. Subtitle of a critical appreciation of the novel by S. Hampshire, in Encounter, 1958, Nov, 3-5.

13. Pasternak, Essay in Autobiography, London, 1959, 119. Citations taken (with occasional minor modifications) from Doctor Zhivago, NY, © 1958 by Pantheon Books, tr. by M. Hayward and M. Harari. The work is also available p and in the Russian original, Ann Arbor, 1959.

14. Pasternak, Povest’, L, 1934, 83.

15. Essay, 39-51.

16. Ibid., 50.

17. Ibid., 51.

18. Quoted by G. Ruge, “A Visit to Pasternak,” Encounter, 1958, Mar, 22-5. For details on his funeral see P. Johnson, “Death of a Writer,” Harper’s, 1961, May, 140-6.

19. Ideas contained in an unpublished letter from Pasternak in English early in 1959:

“The chief spirit of my experiences or tendencies (philosophy I have none) is the understanding of art, of creative embodiment and inspiration as an offer of concentrated abnegation in a far and humble likeness with the Lord’s Supper and the Eucharist, that the pictorial side of our culture, the figures and images of the European history have a certain relation or are in a certain sense a kind of Imitation de Jesus-Christ, that the Gospels are the foundation of what is called in the realm of writings, realism.…”

20. Luke 24:5.

21. Ruge, “Visit,” 24; cf. N. Nilsson, “We Are the Guests of Existence,” Reporter, Nov 27, 1958, for other valuable citations from Pasternak.

22. Pasternak, “Some Remarks by a Translator of Shakespeare,” Soviet Literature, 1946, Sep, 51-6.

23. Luke 22:42. The link between Christ in Gethsemane and Hamlet had previously been made by Pasternak in his “Some Remarks …,” 52.

24. This poem, “Slozha vesla,” is reprinted in the new Soviet edition of Pasternak’s works, Stikhotvoreniia i poemy, M, 1961, 55, and well analyzed (along with “Hamlet” of Zhivago) by N. Nilsson, in ScS, V, 1959, 180-98. For another analysis see D. Obolensky, “The Poems of Doctor Zhivago,” SEER, 1961, Dec, 123-35.

25. Cited in the commemorative article by A. Prosvirnin, “Sviat. Ioann, mitropolit tobol’sky i vseia Sibiri (k 250-letiiu so dnia konchiny),” Zhurnal Moskovskoi patriarkhii, 1965, no. 6, 74.

26. KP, Jul 21, 1961. The term “nihilist” was defended as a proud radical designation by A. Turkov at an apparently turbulent meeting of the Moscow branch of the Soviet Writers’ Union in March, 1957 (account in LG, Mar 19, 1957, 1, 3). Subsequent use of this and other terms is discussed with profuse illustration from the Soviet press in the symposium Youth in Ferment published by the Institute for the Study of the USSR in Munich, 1962, Jul. The term nibonicho, which has been most notably used by Lev Kassil, finds an anticipation though probably not its origin in V. Briusov’s poem of 1901 “Nekolebimoi istine/ Ne veriu ia davno/ … I Gospoda, i D’iavola/ Khochu proslavit’ ia.” Stikhotvoreniia i poemy, L, 1961, 229.

On the concept of generation, see the distinction between an historical and a genealogical generation in Ortega y Gasset, Man and Crisis, NY, 1962, 30-84. The belief that youth was already in ferment in the late wartime period was advanced by K. Mehnert in “Stalin’s Grandchildren,” TC, 1944, Jul, 1-18. Among the many articles dealing with the problem of generation in post-Stalinist Russia see particularly L. Haimson, “Three Generations of the Soviet Intelligentsia,” FA, 1959, Jan, 235-46; and M. Fainsod, “Soviet Youth and the Problem of the Generations,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 1964, Oct, 429-36, and works referenced therein.

Soviet leaders at the all-union conference on ideological work in late December, 1961, expressed alarm and indignation at “the efforts appearing now to prove the existence of a so-called ‘fourth generation,’ which is distinct from, and even opposed to, those which stormed the Winter Palace, built the Komsomol on the Amur, and routed Fascism.” S. Pavlov in XXII s’ezd KPSS i voprosy ideologicheskoi raboty, M, 1962, 145.

27. References to this, and the League decree itself, CDSP, Apr 17, 1957, 16-18. See also R. Fisher, Pattern for Soviet Youth: A Study of the Congresses of the Komsomol, 1918-1954, NY, 1959; A. Kassof, The Soviet Youth Program: Regimentation and Rebellion, Cambridge, Mass., 1965.

28. CDSP, May 16, 1962, 12-15. S. Pavlov, First Secretary of the League, referred on Aug 29, 1965, to the danger of kul’turnichestvo [apolitical cultural activity]. CDSP, Sep 22, 1965, 14.

29. CDSP, Nov 8, 1952, 44-5.

30. First published LG, Sep 19, 1961; translated by G. Reavey, Evergreen Review, 1962, Jan-Feb, 57-9.

31. See V. Erlich, “Post-Stalin Trends in Russian Literature,” and the accompanying pieces by G. Gibian, M. Hayward, together with Erlich’s reply in ASR, 1964, Sep, 405-40.

32. These stories appeared in the rich and bitterly criticized collection Literaturnaia Moskva, M, 1956, II, 502-13; 396-403; and are translated in the anthology edited and introduced by H. McLean and W. Vickery, The Year of Protest 1956, NY, 1961, p, 193-208; 224-33.

33. Ya. Akim’s “Careful People” is in Den’ poezii, 1956. Granin’s “Opinion” (NM, 1956, Aug) appears in McLean and Vickery, Year, 255-69; also P. Johnson, Khrushchev and the Arts: the Politics of Soviet Culture 1962-1964, Cambridge, Mass., 1965 (including both documents and analysis); and the vivid firsthand report of a perceptive Yugoslav, M. Mihajlov, “Moscow Summer 1964,” NL, 1965, Mar 29, June 7.

Other well-presented English-language collections of short and ideologically interesting literary works published in the USSR since the death of Stalin include T. Whitney, The New Writing in Russia, Ann Arbor, 1964; Odyssey, 1962, Dec, 9-182; Encounter, 1963, Apr, 27-90; and M. Hayward and P. Blake, eds., Dissonant Voices (a work largely dominated by earlier Soviet heretics, however). Also of great interest (partly because it is one of the rare examples of a provincial collection becoming both widely discussed and generally available) is Tarusskie stranitsy: literaturno-khudozhestvenny illiustrirovanny sbornik, Kaluga, 1961 (English: A. Field, ed., Pages from Tarussa, Boston, 1963). More recent Soviet writings are in P. Blake and M. Hayward, eds., Half-way to the Moon, NY, 1965, p.

Among many discussions and analyses of recent Soviet literature see those in Su, 1963, Jan; Harper’s, 1961, May; Atlantic Monthly, 1960, June; and Problems of Communism, 1961, May-Jun, 1-31. See also the fascinating if pessimistic appraisal by a well-known Soviet writer using the pseudonym of N. Gavrilov, “Letter from a Soviet Writer,” NL, Dec 9, 1963, 14-8; also the edition of Khrushchev’s speech on culture of Mar 8, 1963, with rich commentary and annotation Khrushchev on Culture, London, 1963 (Encounter Pamphlet No. 9). See both the translations and articles in the special issue “Creativity in the Soviet Union,” of the Northwestern University publication Tri-Quarterly, 1965, spring.

A lengthy firsthand report of the oscillations of Soviet policy in this field by R. Blum (“Freeze and Thaw: the Artists in Russia,” The New Yorker, 1965, Aug 28, Sep 4, and Sep 11) deals with the visual as well as the literary arts, and suggests a somewhat less hopeful prospect than many others.

34. “U kazhdoi vse osoboe, svoe,/ … U kazhdogo—svoi tainy lichny mir.” Evtushenko, Nezhnost’, M, 1962, 5.

35. Evtushenko, “Precocious Autobiography,” Saturday Evening Post, Aug 10-Aug 17, 1963, 62, 64. A translation of “To Humor” by G. Reavey is in Encounter, 1963, Apr, 89-90.

36. Su, 1963, Jan, 29.

37. In an interview with the present writer in Moscow in September, 1958, setting up a line of thought that has not been repudiated—though it has not been much developed during his subsequent travels and press conferences, or evident in his poetry.

38. Cited mt from lengthy excerpts in McLean and Vickery, Year, 131. Originally written 1953-6, printed in Oktiabr’, 1956, Oct.

39. As cited by P. Forgues in his analysis, “The Young Poets,” Su, 1963, Jan, 37. For a translation by W. H. Auden of the “Parabolic Ballad,” see Encounter, 1963, Apr, 52.

40. Voznesensky, “Evening on the Building Site,” in ibid., 70 (discussed by P. Blake, 31); “Fire in the Architectural Institute,” as cited by Forgues, “Poets,” 40 (full translation in Encounter, 1963, Apr, 54).

41. Cited by P. Blake in Encounter, 1963, Apr, 32.

42. A conclusion of decline emerges from the discussion by P. Forgues, “Russian Poetry 1963-1965,” Su, 1965, Jul, 54-70; and from a reading of Evtushenko’s “Bratskaia Ges,” Yunost’, 1965, Apr, 26-67, as well as personal attendance in Jan 1965 at a performance of a melodramatic revolutionary ballad “Kazn’ Stepana Razina,” in which Shostakovich set to music a selection from the lengthy Evtushenko work. A humorous example of oral folklore is the popular and widely circulated (in 1965) “Skazka o Tsare — tol’ko ne Saltane,” which provides an unofficial version of recent Soviet political history through satirical couplets easily remembered for oral transmission because it is a reworked Pushkin poem.

43. For the denunciation by the ministry of culture, see SK, Jun 5, 1954; for the text of the play, Teatr, 1954, Feb.

44. On Okhlopkov’s Hamlet see B. Malnick, “The Soviet Theatre,” SSt, 1958, Jan, 251-2; on Akimov’s Hamlet, J. Macleod, The New Soviet Theatre, London, 1943, 160-3. Akimov even had the temerity to label the Moscow Art Theater, the bastion of realism, a “kindergarten for mental defectives,” (ibid., 158).

45. N. Akimov, O teatre, M-L, 1962, 178.

46. “New Solutions for the Theatre,” SR, 1962, Mar, 47.

47. Akimov, O teatre, 242. This discussion of The Shadow by Akimov was written in 1940 at the time of the play’s first brief appearance. On the movie made of the play in 1953 see ibid., 271-2; for the text of The Shadow and nine other of his 25 major dramatic works see the edition published as E. Schwarz, L, 1960, with introduction by S. Tsimbal. For an English translation by F. Reeve see his Plays, II, 381-458. Observations about the Akimov production of The Shadow and about other contemporary Soviet productions are based on three weeks of theatergoing in the USSR early in 1961.

48. For a surprisingly favorable Soviet review of The Dragon see Literatura i zhizn’, Jul 1, 1962.

49. Mikhalkov, “Tri portreta,” Literaturnaia Moskva, II, 528-9; translated in McLean and Vickery, Year, 120-1.

Mikhalkov was co-author of the new Soviet national anthem and wrote several xenophobic plays of the High Stalin era; see François de Liencourt, “The Repertoire of the Fifties,” Su, 1963, Jan, 60.

For one of the most ingenious of children’s stories see Lev Kassil, “The Tale of the Three Master Craftsmen,” Hayward and Blake, Voices, 137-55. The legendary framework is sometimes so Aesopian as to be virtually incomprehensible. See, for instance, V. Dudintsev, “New Year’s Fable,” Encounter, 1960, Jul, 6-19.

50. De Liencourt, “Repertory,” 61 ff.

51. The programmatic demands of the new theater are well stated in LG, Oct 15, 1953; and A. Kron, “A Writer’s Notes” (from Literaturnaia Moskva, II), in McLean and Vickery, Year, 164-90, with notes. For general discussions of the new Soviet theater, see in addition to de Liencourt, “Repertory,” A. Campbell, “Plays and Playwrights,” and M. Frankland, “The Current Season,” all in Su, 1963, Jan.

52. SR, 1962, Mar, 47. For more recent ideas of Tovstonogov see E. de Mauny, “Current Trends in the Soviet Theatre,” Su, 1965, Oct, 73-80. This article and mine in University (Princeton, N.J.), 1965, Dec, discuss productions of the 1964-5 season.

53. A recent article on Soviet space achievements pointedly begins with this quotation: A. Chizhevsky, “Effekt Tsiolkovskogo,” NM, 1963, no. 3, 201-7. In the same spirit of inquiry stands the brief work of V. Mass and M. Chervinsky in Den’ poezii, 1956, 197, which juxtaposes to Bazarov’s 2 + 2 = 4 and Dostoevsky’s 2 + 2 = 5, its own title: “2 + 2 = ?”

Most of the films discussed have been widely seen and reviewed in the West. For a good synoptic discussion which also considers the cinema in other Eastern European nations see H. Hoffmann, “Revival,” 102-11. Chukhrai discusses his extraordinarily comprehensive philosophy of art in Izvestia, Jul 9, 1961. Kozintsev’s exalted conception of the character of Hamlet is set forth in A. Anikst and A. Shtein, eds., Shekspirovsky sbornik, M, 1961, 134-61. Most of this collection (which includes extremely short and often inaccurate English summaries of each article) is devoted to discussions of Hamlet. Particularly interesting is the discussion by a leading present-day Hamlet, M. Astangov, of the traditions of playing the role in the Russian theater (162-5), and D. Urnov’s psychological analysis of the monologues (173-84).

54. The author witnessed such a session after a performance of Everything Depends on People in Mar, 1961, in Leningrad, at which the first speaker, who attempted to criticize the play for its lack of respect to Soviet ideology, was literally shouted to his seat with derision.

55. Su, 1963, Jan, 28. For a balanced appraisal with illustrations see A. Besançon, “Soviet Painting: Tradition and Experiment,” Su, 1963, Jan, 83-93. For a spirited though far from optimistic review of the famous Moscow exhibition of abstract art in December, 1962, see R. Etiemble, “Pictures from an Exhibition,” Su, 1963, Jul, 5-18. For Khrushchev’s famous blast at such experimentalism during his visit to an exhibit of modern art at Moscow in December, 1962, see Encounter, 1963, Apr, 102-3.

56. This term derives from Khrushchev’s criticism in Jan, 1961, of the disproportionate emphasis on heavy industry by neo-Stalinists who have “developed an appetite for giving the country as much metal as possible.” Cited in S. Ploss, Conflict and Decision Making in Soviet Russia, Princeton, 1965, 212.

57. Discussed in Encounter, 1963, Apr, 31.

58. Su, 1959, Jul-Sep, 13.

59. Ibid.

60. Akimov, O teatre, 341. Chukhrai is even more lavish in his praise of Italian films (see his “Art and the Individual,” WMR, 1963, Jan, 38-44). The awarding of first prize in the Moscow Film Festival of 1963 to Fellini’s 8 1/2 further underscored this attachment.

Perhaps the most successful transposition of the Italian style (particularly the dialogue of Antonioni) into Soviet movies is the work of the veteran producer Michael Romm. His Nine Days of the Year (original title I Journey into the Unknown), which won the Grand Prix at Karlsbad in 1962, represented by his own testimony “a fresh start—from scratch” after a long career as an exponent of Stalinist realism. (See Hoffmann, “Revival,” 102-3). Romm also made an important plea for greater cultural freedom and an end to anti-Semitism at a public meeting of cinema and theater workers late in 1962 (widely circulated in typescript inside the USSR and printed in Commentary, 1963, Dec, 433-7; along with Evtushenko’s celebrated exchange with Khrushchev at the latter’s meeting with intellectuals on Dec 17, 1962).

61. S. Yutkevich, Kontrapunkt rezhissera, M, 1960, 29.

62. Yu. Kazakov, “Adam and Eve,” Encounter, 1963, Apr, 46, 49.

63. Pravda (also Izvestiia) Jan 8, 1957; cited in CDSP, Feb 13, 1957, 32.

64. The range of informed opinion on the condition and vitality of the Orthodox Church moves from very optimistic if somewhat long-range readings by a Dutch Catholic expert on Eastern Church history, P. Hendrix, “Ecclesia triumphans,” de Waagschaal, Amsterdam, Mar 4, 1961, and the Scandinavian Protestant, A. Gustafson, Die Katakombenkirche, Stuttgart, 1957; through more guardedly optimistic appraisals by two long-term American students of Russian religious life, D. Lowrie, “Every Child an Atheist,” ChC, Jun 12, 1963, 776-7, and P. Anderson, “The Orthodox Church in Soviet Russia,” FA, 1961, Jan, 299-311; to more pessimistic readings by J. Lawrence (“The USSR: The Weight of the Past,” ChC, Jun 6, 1962) and P. Blake, “Russian Orthodoxy: A Captive Splendor,” Life, Sep 14, 1959, 102-13, with accompanying photography by C. Capa and also his “Alliance with the Unholy,” ibid., 114, 121-6.

For the history of church-state relations in the USSR see J. Curtiss, The Russian Church and the Soviet State 1917-1950, Boston, 1953. On the overall problem of religious vitality see the valuable survey of all major religions, including schismatic and sectarian Christians, by W. Kolarz, Religion in the Soviet Union, London, 1961. Two sensitive and sympathetic appraisals are by M. Bach, God and the Soviets, NY, 1958; and H. Berman, “The Russian Orthodox Church,” Harvard Alumni Bulletin, Nov 26, 1962. For a survey of official attitudes toward religion which differs from that of Kolarz (71-2) see “Khrushchev on Religion in the USSR,” CA, 1962, Dec, 5-6. For the difficulties of the regime in dealing with the problem see K. Alexandrov, “The Struggle for the Minds of the Young,” in Youth in Ferment, 57-67. For invaluable testimonials from Soviet citizens and perceptive analysis see the proceedings of a meeting of protest organized in Paris in March, 1964, by the journal Esprit: Situation des chrétiens en Union Soviétique.

65. An official euphemism invoked in the Communist publication SR, 1961, Jul, 49-50. Comparing the figures of the church for 1959 with those given by the state in 1962, the number of functioning churches, priests, and monasteries appear to have been cut about in half during this brief period, Situation, 13, 16.

66. Cover of Krokodil, Feb 29, 1960 (reproduced Kolarz, Religion, facing 20). See also the cartoon showing grateful believers saying “The Lord God has sent us this lecturer and not the society for the propagation of knowledge,” Krokodil, May 20, 1963, and the unintentionally humorous account of how students in Voronezh confounded such a lecturer by citing the religious preoccupations of earlier Russian writers: KP, May 10, 1957. Mihajlov, who generally stresses the continuing importance of the Christian tradition for both the present ferment and the future development of the USSR, points out that the crude insertion of an atheist museum inside the monastery of St. Sergius “provokes not merely revulsion but the desire to cross oneself publicly in front of it, even if for the first time in one’s life.” NL, 1965, Jun 7, 5. See also Kolarz, Religion, 16; Esprit: Situation, II, 1965.

67. A. Solzhenitsyn, “Along the Oka,” Encounter, 1965, Mar, 8-9. This and the other short sketches printed in this issue had not been published in the USSR. A less traditional, but more earthy and prophetic testament to the continued inspiration of Christian tradition on Russian writers is evidenced in another series of short fragments unpublished in the USSR, A. Tertz’s “Thought Unaware,” NL, 1965, Jul 19, 16-26, with introductory discussion of the work of Tertz by A. Field, 9-15.

68. See the criticism of the play in SK, Mar 10, 1959. Written by S. Aleshin, it has not to my knowledge ever been published; and my observations are based on a performance I attended at Leningrad in March, 1961, and a revealing exchange of opinions which followed between the cast and a primarily student audience. Another of Aleshin’s controversial plays, The Ward, apparently tells of eleven days spent by four patients in a ward dominated by a Stalinist bully. See NYT, Nov 29, 1962; London Times, Apr 19, 1963.

69. See article under this title by S. Khudiakov in MK, 1957, Mar, 118-21.

70. Excellent treatment of this entire world of Protestant-cum-Sectarian Christianity in the USSR is provided in Kolarz, 245-371. For additional testimony to the vitality of the sects, particularly in outlying regions of the USSR, see numerous articles in the publication of the special commission set up by the Siberian Academy of Sciences, Voprosy teorii i praktiki nauchnogo ateizma (vyp. 2), Novosibirsk, 1961; and the front page editorial in RU, Apr 11, 1959. See also E. and S. Dunn, “Religion as an Instrument of Cultural Change: The Problem of the Sects in the Soviet Union,” ASR, 1964, Sep, 459-78.

71. See Khudiakov; Maurice Hindus, House Without a Roof, NY, 1961, 130; and entire section “Triumph of the Baptists,” 119-36.

72. UG, Mar 17, 1960, 2.

73. Kliuchevsky, “Vliianie,” 145.

74. A phrase coined—as far as I can tell—by the late R. Blackmur.

75. For the continuing cultural lag in changing architectural style, however, see Richard West, “Moscow Skyline,” NS, Jun 28, 1963.

76. See lead editorial in Pravda, Apr 5, 1956.

77. Cited in Encounter, 1963, Apr, 28.

78. “Rockets and Carts,” cited in Su, 1963, Jan, 42.

79. Evtushenko’s answer to the writers’ questionnaire in Su, 1963, Jan, 29.

80. A. Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, NY, 1963 (tr. Hayward and Hingley), p. 56.

81. V. Aksenov, “Bilet zvezdami,” Yunost’, 1961, Aug.

82. mt of lines from Evtushenko, “Talk,” translated and discussed by M. Kalb in NL, 1963, May 27, 21. Ehrenburg’s memoirs, written since the Stalin era, provide a rich cultural history set in a broad European context. See People and Life, 1891-1921, NY, 1962; Memoirs, 1921-1941, Cleveland, 1963; The War: 1941-1945, Cleveland, 1965; also his Chekhov, Stendhal, and Other Essays, NY, 1963.

83. From the editorial “Our People’s Intelligentsia,” Pravda, Sep 19, 1965, 31. See also A. Rumiantsev, “The Party Spirit of the Creative Labor of the Soviet Intelligentsia,” Pravda, Sep 9, 1965, in CDSP, Sep 29, 1965, 3-6. “Stalin’s Heirs” was published in Pravda, Oct 21, 1962; translation by G. Reavey in Saturday Evening Post, Aug 10-17, 1963, 60.

84. Izvestiia, Nov 11, 1960. V. Aksenov makes it clear that the struggle between the young generation and the Stalinist generation involves a sense of identification with the older “revolutionary” generation, in an interesting interview conducted in Poland together with A. Voznesensky, by A. Perlowski, “Pokolenie XX zjazdu,” Polityka, Mar 2, 1963.

85. Verse by E. Kuchinsky in Yunost’, 1960, no. 8.

86. Phrase from Herzen used by N. Gubko in his review of Solzhenitsyn’s One Day: “Chelovek pobezhdaet,” Zvezda, 1963, no. 3, 213-15.

87. From NM, 1956, Aug, as translated in McLean and Vickery, Year, 265.

88. The Collected Poems of W. B. Yeats, NY, 1940, 304.

89. Yutkevich, Kontrapunkt, 13.

90. Cited from the work of E. Vinokurov in Su, 1963, Jan, 45. It is at this level of spiritual depth that Evtushenko recedes from view as a figure of real significance. There is little honor done to either the idea or the sounds of music in verses like “Muzyka revoliutsii/kak muzyka okeana/ muzyka/ vse mozhet. Muzyka—/ eto muzhestvo,/ i vdokhnovenny kak Motsart./ Kastro/ na grebne muzyki.” Nezhnost’, 185.

91. B. Slutsky, “K diskussii ob Andree Rubleve,” Yunost’, 1962, no. 2, 41. Compare this with the praise of Rublev by B. Pil’niak, SS, I, 97-103.

A. Siniavsky, the distinguished critic and author of a long introduction to the 1964 Soviet edition of Pasternak’s collected poems, has cited approvingly the concept of the poet which Gorky set forth in 1894, praising vigorous satirical writing over coldly pure art or dreamy sentimental lyricism. Gorky’s call to action as repeated by Siniavsky seems both an echo of old Muscovy (with its talk of bells and “heroic deeds”) and a new bid for courageous voices in Siniavsky’s own time: “Nuzhny podvigi, podvigi! Nuzhny takie slova, kotorye by zvuchali, kak kolokol nabata, trevozhili vse i, sotriasaia, tolkali vpered.” A. Siniavsky, “Gor’ky-satirik,” in B. Mikhailovsky and E. Tager, eds., O khudozhestvennom masterstve M. Gor’kogo, sbornik statei, M, 1960, 133. (From Gorky, “Ob odnom poete,” SS, M, 1949, I, 335.) See also in this collection Mikhailovsky’s leading article “Iz etiudov o romantizme rannego Gor’kogo: iumor i ego sviaz’ s literaturnoi traditsiei”; and the article on Siniavsky by A. Field published, together with translated samples of his critical writings, in NL, Nov 8, 1965, 10-17 (after Siniavsky had been arrested in the USSR and accused of being the author of the works published in the West under the pseudonym A. Tertz).

92. The story was related orally to me in 1961 by a Soviet citizen, who indicated that it was derived from a printed story of T. Zhuravlev, which I have not been able to locate.

4. THE IRONY OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

1. R. Niebuhr, The Irony of American History, London, 1952, x, and ix-xi.

2. See, in addition to Niebuhr, C. V. Woodward on the need to “penetrate the legend without destroying the ideal,” in “The Irony of Southern History,” Journal of Southern History, 1953, Feb, 19. On irony as “true liberty” for Proudhon and the highest basis for an ethic of “love and simplicity” see V. Jankélévîtch, L’Ironie ou la bonne conscience, 1940, 2d corr. and exp. ed., esp. 167-8. On the “radical irony” of modern literature, see R. P. Warren, “The Veins of Irony,” Princeton Alumni Weekly, 1963, Sep 24, 18-20. Those who have made history often come more readily to the ironic perspective than those who write about it. See, for instance, the magnificent, ironic characterization that Napoleon made of his own career in his Journal secret, 202.

On the ironic view of the Bolshevik Revolution see my forthcoming historiographical article in WP, 1966, Apr.

3. This famous phrase of Hegel is from the end of the introduction to his Philosophy of Right, Sämtliche Werke, Stuttgart, 1928, VII, 37.

4. N. Sakharov, “Starorusskaia partiia,” Strannik, 1882, Jan, 33.

5. Count F. Rostopchin as cited by Tikhomirov, Russia, II, 15. There are other versions of this famous remark, such as “Hitherto revolutions have been made by peasants seeking to become gentlemen; now gentlemen have attempted a revolution to become cobblers.” Cited in A. Kizevetter, Istoricheskie otkliki, M, 1915, 100.

6. The likelihood of convergence has been forcefully challenged by two political scientists, Z. Brzezinski and S. Huntington (Political Power: USA/USSR, NY, 1964), who contend that evolutionary change will not necessarily bring the two systems together.

7. Tertz, “Realism,” Su, 1959, Sep, 2-13.

8. From “Introduction” to Voznesenky’s “Three-Cornered Pear,” Znamia, 1962, Apr, published in Russian, with facing translation by N. Bienstock, in Odyssey, 1962, Dec, 140-9.

9. Interview with Evtushenko in Le Monde, Feb 14, 1963. As is often the case with Evtushenko, the scene is a romanticized if not altogether imaginary one.

10. Gorky (characterizing the writer Korolenko), Literary Portraits, 188.

11. The title and prevailing metaphor of the personal account of twentieth-century Russia written by an economist who was hounded, in turn, by Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany: W. Woytinsky, Stormy Passage, NY, 1961.