|
HISTORY, SOPHIA AND THE RUSSIAN NATION |
|
I. The Tsaricide of March 1st, 1881
On March 1st, 1881, Tsar Alexander II was assassinated in St. Petersburg by members of the revolutionary movement Narodnaja Volja [the Will of the People], sending a profound shockwave throughout Russia. Solov'ev publicly expressed his views on the event on two occasions. He rejected the acts of the revolutionary movement but all the same appealed to the tsar to forgive his father's murderers. The latter message provoked a stir among the public and fierce disapprobation from the authorities. Solov'ev was accused of taking the side of the revolutionaries. This case tells the story of a courageous intervention and a painful misunderstanding between Solov'ev and his contemporaries. March 1st 1881 is generally considered a turning point in the tsarist regime towards the period of counter-reforms until the Revolution of 1917. [2] The role of Narodnaja Volja in undermining autocracy in particular has been the object of numerous studies. [3] Significantly, most historical works that deal with March 1st mention Solov'ev as the most prominent voice on the issue of the murder, and have documented his intervention through the publication of various related archive material. [4] All biographical works on Solov'ev deal with this dramatic episode in his life, although no proper historical study has yet been performed of Solov'ev's intervention. [5] With respect to this case I would like to defend the following points. Firstly, this unique occasion when Solov'ev publicly admonished the tsar had a religious rather than political tenor. Secondly, there was a tension, which partly explains the misunderstanding of his message, between his highly speculative interpretation of the events and his acute sense of crisis in Russian society. Thirdly, his opinion was mostly in line with ongoing debates, especially with the conservative camp. Fourthly, his three-fold conception of history proved decisive to the extent that he found there the theoretical framework, the practical motivation to intervene and the justification of his own position as prophetic leader of society and of the people, and advisor of the tsar. In order to make this assessment, his lectures are set against the background of political developments in 1880-1881 (1b) and of the debates in the press after the murder (1c). After a short account of this two-fold context, I present in (2a) Solov'ev's texts and reaction of the authorities, in (2b) confront his views with the political context and (2c) the debates, and in (2d) bring to the fore the decisive role of his conception of history as a practical and theoretical source of inspiration to intervene (2d). b) The historical context: Policies and terrorism 1878-1881 The second half of the reign of Alexander II was in many respects a return to the era preceding the reforms of the 1850-1860s. As part of this reactionary mood, the government attempted to crush the radicalising populist movement with widespread trials. After unsuccessfully trying to provoke an uprising among the peasants to overthrow the government, the populists turned to terrorism. From 1878 onwards several conspiracies, terrorist acts and attempts at murder aimed to destroy key figures of the centralised power, namely the police, high officials, and even the tsar. The radical wing Narodnaja Volja was created in 1879. Its executive committee, although only about thirty-strong, devoted its full energy to a terrorist offensive against the government and resolutely voted for the death of Alexander 11. [6] When they finally succeeded, instead of the chaos and anarchy that they had expected, repression swept over the capital. After a short trial on March 30th, the four main organisers of the murder were condemned and hanged. The populist movement was crushed. Facing strikes, growing protest among students, a lack of support from the educated class and a severe explosion at the Winter Palace, the tsar decided to adopt a more moderate policy that would partly meet the demands of public opinion. [7] He appointed Mikhail Loris-Melikov as head of an administrative commission that would examine participation of representatives of the population in the government. In 1880-1881, Loris-Melikov, meanwhile appointed Minister of the Interior, initiated a 'dictatorship of the heart.' Under his leadership the commission discussed the project of reforms that would be a first step towards cooperation between representatives of the nation and the government. On March 1st, Alexander II officially approved of this project, but was killed that very day. Alexander II's sudden death raised the question of the direction the new regime should take. Aware of the highly uncertain climate since the murder, and for fear of revolutionary uprisings, Alexander III, son and successor of the assassinated tsar, did not hesitate long. [8] It took him and his right hand Pobedonoscev only two months after his accession to the throne to officially announce a definitive turn towards a reactionary regime with his 'Manifesto of the inviolability of autocracy.' In doing so, the idea of reforms towards a constitution was eliminated from the political agenda. All ministers, Loris-Melikov included, were replaced by conservative politicians who were devoted to reinforcing absolute monarchy. In the capital, the terrorist act was met with a mixture of stupor, anguish and dumb waiting. [9] The first reaction was a unanimous consensus to condemn the murder of the tsar- liberator and to advocate the necessity of eradicating terrorism. After the initial shock, divergent views crystallised. However, the press was soon restricted in its freedom. Three days after the murder, the organ of censorship instructed by Loris-Melikov threatened to close those press organs that published anything about the future plans of the government, especially on the project of a so-called 'constitution'. [10] In this very tense climate, the two main camps that had struggled over the past years, the liberals and the conservatives, still held opposite views. Each referring to the need for a 'unification of the tsar with the people', both camps substantiated this claim with different content. This is examined below, as is the official reaction of the populist Narodnaja Volja with respect to the two main issues that divided public opinion, namely the origin of the sedition [kramola], and the orientation of the new regime. [11] Through their newspapers and journals, the liberals interpreted the sedition as the outcome of the reactionary turn in Alexander II's reign. [12] The reforms initiated in the 1860s had aimed at raising national consciousness and inviting social forces to participate and collaborate with political forces in new institutions. These had not been created however, and instead public opinion was repressed. What was to be done now? The liberals answered unanimously by indicating the necessity of pursuing the reforms initiated by Loris-Melikov. Without using the prohibited term 'constitution' they made clear that restricting autocracy was the only solution, and alluded to the project of restoring the representative institution of the zemskij sobor. [13] In this way they promoted a unification of the tsar and the people through representative organs. The conservatives, including the Slavophiles who had inspired Alexander II's reactionary policy, held the opposite opinion. [14] Sedition had appeared in Russia because of the liberalism that was guilty of corrupting Russian society. The revolutionary movement was alien to Russian life. The Slavophile Ivan Aksakov went further back to Peter the Great as having first introduced Western principles in Russian life, and provoking the subsequent gap between the tsar and the people. [15] The only way to suppress this gap was to defend the inviolability of autocracy, which was 'the symbol of the unity of the state and the people.' [16] Aksakov enthusiastically welcomed Alexander Ill's 'Manifesto' as a return of order. [17] However, he defended at the same time the idea of representation of the people in government and tried to influence the government to restore the zemskij sobor. [18] On this point, the liberals and the Slavophiles agreed. But within the conservative camp, the authoritarian Pobedonoscev swept away his proposal, and any discussion on representative power was eliminated. Shortly after the assassination, Narodnaja Volja made its claims clear in a public document distributed widely throughout the capital, the 'Letter of the "executive committee" to the tsar', written by Lev Tikhomirov and Nikolaj Mikhajlovskij. [19] In this document they ascribed the origin of the movement to the growing 'discontent of the people and Russia's strife to new social forms.' [20] They uncompromisingly demanded the abolition of absolute monarchy and the 'voluntary transmission of the supreme power to the people' through a national assembly of elected representatives. If not, the revolutionary organisation would spread across the entire empire and in a bloodbath destroy the old order. [21] Their claims were of course dismissed and the police actively repressed the whole movement, including the moderate wing known as Cernyj Peredel [Black Repartition], which promoted a gradual transition towards an equal repartition of all land among the peasants. [22] a) Solov'ev's speeches and the reaction of the authorities i) Speeches Solov'ev did not express himself in the press, but gave his interpretation of the events orally. This can hardly be considered a tactical move as he did not try to avoid provocation. He expressed himself in two lectures. [23] The first was part of his programme of academic courses on the history of Ancient philosophy at the Higher Women Courses program, and can be considered Solov'ev's immediate reaction to the tsar's murder in a semi-public sphere. [24] Given less than a fortnight after the murder on March 13th, it was eloquently entitled 'The meaning of the present events'. Instead of the planned lecture on Ancient philosophy, the philosopher chose to present his interpretation of the murder, which he saw as the result of the universal historical process. In his talk, he drew a line that had started from the appearance of Christianity and had been diverted in the Middle Ages by the growing role of rationality in Catholic theology. From there on, pure rationality combined with fanaticism such as in the Inquisition, through the French Revolution, had led to the contemporary revolutionary movement in Russia. Through this genealogy, Solov'ev yielded a moral condemnation of the revolutionary movement. His second lecture, held two weeks later, contained a far more subversive message. It was held in public by the young philosopher in front of about eight hundred people at the Society of Credit on March 28th, the very day that the judgement had to be passed on the regicides. [25] Although part of a series of three lectures on the history of enlightenment in Russia, Solov'ev obviously again gave a spontaneous speech. [26] In the same vein as in his first lecture, Solov'ev first rejected the populist worldview, this time by opposing to it the faith of the simple people [narod]. This faith included faith in the government as a means of realising the ideal Christian society on earth. Solov'ev then examined the Christian tenor of the function of tsar. He urged Alexander III to forgive the murderers of his father, Alexander II, or else people would 'detach' themselves from the state power. [27] His message was two-fold: he condemned the terrorist acts and he recommended the abolition of the death penalty. Asked about his opinion on the trial, he answered that according to Christian principles the death penalty was unforgivable and should be abolished. [28] That was enough for a part of the audience to interpret these words and the lecture as a defence of the murderers. The audience enthusiastically applauded and gave him a loud ovation. [29] Facing this huge misunderstanding and the threat of consequent official measures, Solov'ev wrote a letter to tsar Alexander III to present his views and correct the rumours. [30] He assured him that his speech had been motivated only by his faith in the spiritual force of Jesus Christ, in the Russian people, and in the tsar as the 'representative' of the spirit of the people. His admonishment was only intended to urge the tsar to achieve a great moral deed. Solov'ev's public intervention and the stir it provoked did not remain unnoticed by the authorities, which called him to order. Three official documents describe Solov'ev's interaction with the authorities. [31] Firstly, a report was written to Loris-Melikov by city governor Baranov. Baranov had been appointed after the tsaricide to fight sedition and was known for being 'unintelligent' and a 'bully', good at 'heightening fear and confusion in governmental circles about newly-uncovered plots.' [32] He reported that Solov'ev had 'jutted out into [vdalsja] very inappropriate arguments concerning the significance and meaning of the death penalty', and found Solov'ev's act 'sad, since by his tactlessness he [Solov'ev] had provoked demonstrations, though unimportant ones, on the part of some attendees.' [33] Secondly, Solov'ev, summoned by Baranov, wrote an official document in which he assured that the public included 'many famous and estimated figures who, as I know, rightly understood the meaning of my speech and can confirm my testimony.' [34] This document, as well as his letter to the tsar, demonstrated Solov'ev's sincerity. In addition, a number of high-ranked figures appear to have interceded in his favour so that Solov'ev avoided harsh punishment. [35] In the third official document, a report advising the tsar concerning his decision about Solov'ev, Loris-Melikov pointed out that Solov'ev actually deserved 'not only to be deprived of his title of professor and forbidden to give public lectures, but also to be expulsed from St. Petersburg. [36] He did however add that there were extenuating circumstances. Given the fact that he was the son of the famous and recently deceased historian, and given his ascetic way of life and convictions, a 'strict reprimand [vnusenie]' would suffice. [37] The tsar eventually decided to communicate this reprimand through the intermediary of the Minister of Education and forbade Solov'ev to give public lectures. [38] This ban lasted for a couple of months. Solov'ev was in a nervous state of mind throughout spring. In the course of the year, he retired from university lecturing, and later from the scientific committee of the Ministry of Education, with which he was associated. [39]
b) Confrontation with historical context of government policies and Solov'ev's intervention took place between the tsaricide and Alexander III's 'Manifesto', that is, precisely in the period of transient uncertainty about the future regime. He sensed that this was a critical moment when Russia stood at a crossway. In his public lecture, he mentioned the danger of the population rejecting the tsar, hereby alluding to the threat of an uprising or even a revolution. Still, his formulation was unclear: he threatened 'we will detach ourselves from it [the state power)'; this 'we' most probably referred to educated society, of which he was a member and which was his audience, rather than to the simple folk. [40] Anyway, by asking the tsar not to condemn the murderers, and by making the duty of the tsar depend on the ideals of the people, he was, consciously or not, taking the risk of being associated with the revolutionaries. This was for the tsar 'a great moment of self-condemnation -- or self-justification', he claimed. [41] In those agitated days, this may have sounded particularly provocative to those officials who were on the lookout for any statement that placed absolute monarchy in doubt. Solov'ev, however, did not view the contribution of the people from a political or institutional perspective. No allusion was made to Loris-Melikov's attempts at creating institutions that represented the people in government. Similarly, Solov'ev discussed neither the potential reduction of the tsar's power nor a liberal vs. reactionary orientation of the future regime. Instead, he focused exclusively on that single moment: the tsar's power to modify the verdict on the murderers. In his eyes this was the critical choice that would orient the future of Russia. Whether he intended it or not, he conveyed the idea that the attitude of the population -- either respect for and thus the maintenance of autocracy, or rejection of and thus revolution -- would depend on the tsar's attitude towards the murderers. In contrast, Solov'ev's valuation of the revolutionary movement was less speculative, as is shown by two statements. Firstly, he explicitly condemned the use of terrorism for realising a better society. Secondly, he effectively pointed out the affiliation of the Russian revolutionary movement with the French Revolution. The Jacobine approach was after all the core of Petr Tkaeev and Sergej Necaev's ideology. [42] To summarise, Solov'ev's interpretation did not address the current political preoccupations of the government. By discussing the idea of the tsar and the intellectual affiliation of the populists, he rather reflected from the standpoint of ideas. As to the contribution of the people, he only emphasised its moral role and relationship with the tsar. Nevertheless, the tension between a speculative interpretation of the events and the feeling that Russia stood at a critical point in time, ensured that his call to the tsar suggested a questioning of absolute monarchy. This therefore entailed a subversive political message, which was actually a reaction to a deep political crisis. Solov'ev was not the only one to react to these events, but his second lecture was considered exceptionally bold and caused a stir in St. Petersburg's intellectual and governmental circles. [43] The intensity of the reaction was proportional to the misunderstanding of the reception of the lecture. Both the audience and the authorities understood his call to the tsar as a justification of the murder of Alexander II, which led to adulation by some, and the severest condemnation by others. [44] Solov'ev followed the general tendency set in the debates in two main respects. Firstly, he wanted to address the root of the revolutionary movement. Secondly, the motive advocated by both the liberals and the conservatives of unification between the tsar and the people was also central in his own speeches. i) The liberals Compared with the interpretations given in liberal circles, his treatment of the issue differs by showing absolutely no interest in discussing the concrete modalities of the future political regime and the continuation or not of the reforms initiated by Loris-Melikov towards popular representation in the government. A comment by a liberal who had attended the lecture is revealing: 'He pictured such a highly idealised [takoj ideal 'no- vysoklj] image of the tsar that could not exist in reality.' [45] Whether this judgement also applies to Solov'ev call to abolish death penalty remains unclear. In any case, his tone was not that of a scholar appealing for a rational approach to the phenomenon and envisaging practical solutions to a political crisis. ii) The conservatives With some conservatives he shared not only a preaching tone, but also a number of principles. Faith in absolute monarchy appears in his message quite clearly. The fact that he ascribed the source of the revolutionary movement to French revolutionaries, and further back, to the Inquisition, perfectly matched the conservative Slavophile thesis that the revolutionary movement was alien to Russia. However, the conservatives reacted to his lecture with great disapproval. The authorities considered it highly provocative and that it exposed 'highly displaced opinions' on the verdict of the tsar's murderers. [46] Slavophile Ivan Aksakov also reacted furiously to the fact that Solov'ev had mentioned his lecture and that Solov'ev had associated himself with him in public. [47] iii) The populists The actual main targets of Solov'ev's two lectures were the populists. He pinned down the foremost intellectual weakness of populism as a whole by attacking 'the present-day revolutionary movement' and 'personal enlightenment.' [48] He was most probably aware of the demands of Narodnaja Volja's made public in their 'Letter of the "executive committee" to the tsar'. By condemning this particular terrorist act and associating it with the French Revolution, he made it clear that he totally disapproved of their projects, as well as any revolution. However, it is in some respect revealing that Solov'ev was associated by part of the audience and the authorities with the movement that he condemned with all his might. This misunderstanding suggests that he shared more with them than he himself was ready to admit. Firstly, he operated in a similar manner, by speaking publicly and directly to the tsar. Secondly, the vehemence with which he took it upon himself to speak in the name of the narod conveys a sense of competition between himself and the populists as to who would have the last word on the true 'will of the people'. This point is related to his views on history and is therefore examined in the next paragraph. To summarise, his intervention was to a large extent typical of the debates held after March 1st. He broached the same issues, namely the origin of the terrorist act and the future of the country. More specifically, his attachment to autocracy and his condemnation of the revolutionary movement as the product of an alien influence placed him alongside the conservatives. However, his stance was unique in two respects. The appeal to the tsar not to apply death penalty was a first. [49] Lev Tolstoj had approached the tsar with the same request, but did not do so publicly. [50] Moreover, through his threatening tone Solov'ev's appeal surpassed Tolstoj's supplication in boldness. Secondly, the threat that the population, whether educated society or the people, would divert from the tsar was highly subversive. How could he have the courage, temerity or naivety to express himself so provokingly? His conception of history played a significant role in shaping his theoretical stance as well as his position with respect to the protagonists, namely the tsar, educated society and the people. d) Theology of history, philosophy of history and sophiology of history Solov'ev's argumentation rests for a good part on historical considerations, which can be analysed with the help of the three registers that I have discerned. The theological perspective on history is predominant and provides the framework for Solov'ev's moral interpretation of March 1st. He identified two reference points, namely the first manifestation of absolute truth in the person of Jesus Christ, characteristically labelled as the decisive 'fact' of history, and the absolute truth as ideal to be realised in next future. However, next to this positive line, he also drew a negative one. Within the Christian world, a process had developed that was based on the same strife for realising truth, but by means of pure rationality and violence. [51] At some point, men lost the meaning of truth and the divine principle, and renounced God. What was left was only reason and instinct, that is, human and animal principles. History is read from the point of view of the axiological opposition between (positively charged) Christian ethics and (negatively charged) rationality and violence. In a somewhat Slavophile stance, Solov'ev interpreted March 1st as the exponent of a depravation of Christianity that had its roots in the Catholic institution of the Inquisition: 'These fanatical zealots of the letter of the law, who wanted to establish truth by violence and murder, should be considered the ancestors of contemporary revolutionaries.' [52] The positive line was not lost, however. Solov'ev advocated that it be picked up and demonstrated that Christian values were preserved in the faith of the Russian people. [53] In this way, he defined the essence of the people within a theological framework of history, with a blend of sophiological motives, as we shall see. His appeal to the tsar not to apply the death penalty is the direct result of his theological perspective on history. If the tsar wanted to act as a truly Christian tsar, he had to apply Jesus Christ's law of general pardon [vseproscenie]. Only in this way would he ground his reign on the Christian tradition. In contrast, the philosophical perspective on history is underdeveloped. Only Solov'ev's acknowledgment of the state as a means for realising the good belongs to this register. [54] His statement that the simple people accepted the state was probably aimed at the populists, who also spoke in the name of the people and promoted the overthrowing of the present state. However, he qualified this statement. He insisted that the state did not have an independent status, but was merely 'a means subordinated to the realization of the ideal', the last being dictated by the faith of the people. [55] This strongly suggests a rejection of the Hegelian and liberal conception of the state as the supreme vehicle of progress. Another classic category of philosophy of history, namely that of 'narod', seems here to be defined by uncommon factors. In the philosophical register of history, narod commonly means nation or the people. In his speeches, Solov'ev referred to it rather as 'the simple folk' and filled this category with theological motives, as we have seen, defining narod as the bearer of Jesus Christ's absolute truth. More fundamentally, however, he invested the notion of simple folk with sophiological motives. He argued that in opposition to the revolutionary movement, the simple people believes that the human world and nature have 'one soul, and that this soul strives to incarnate the divine principle, to generate the Divinity within itself [... ]. It is the world soul, primal matter, the mother of all what exists.' [56] His main point was that it was the simple folk, not the populists, who really understood the underlying process going on in history with their spiritual sense of nature and the world. This process was not limited to the realisation of a material or un-religious ideal, such as that of the populists, but implied a spiritual evolution involving nature and the human being. By putting his own sophianic convictions in the mouth of the people, Solov'ev made himself their spokesman. [57] His prophetic stance extended to educated society, which was the main addressee of his speeches and the group to which he belonged: 'We (educated society), have to say [... ]', he wrote in his declaration to the city governor. [58] But more explicit perhaps are the concluding words of his provocative speech: 'Let the people recognise their soul in our thought and their voice in our advice; and then they will hear us, understand us, and follow us.' [59] The sense of emergency resounds clearly from his speech and points to the role that he took upon himself. [60] He acted as a moral leader of educated society and of the simple people, and as an advisor to the tsar, whom Solov'ev was not afraid to address as an equal. This prefigured the role that he later ascribed to the prophet within his theocratic ideal. Solov'ev's courageous intervention after March 1st shows a unique moment when he publicly addressed the tsar. He expressed himself without tactically taking into account the tension in the capital in the weeks following the murder of Alexander II. Feeling that Russia faced a critical choice, he argued that this choice depended on the tsar's decision to apply or not apply the death penalty, hereby elevating the debate to a highly speculative and religious level, in which Realpolitik was irrelevant. Accordingly, it was his faith in the monarchic principle that prompted him to express his expectations with powerful threatening words, which in their turn provoked the misunderstanding of his message. Apart from his admonishing the tsar, his views were quite in line with the monarchist and Slavophile stance of the conservatives. This discrepancy shows that despite ideological affinities, Solov'ev acted as an independent intellectual. His three-fold conception of history provided the framework that allowed him to condemn the revolutionary movement, to speak in the name of the simple folk, to stand as the leader of educated society, and to address the tsar as an equal. In this first significant and perhaps most resounding intervention in Solov'ev's entire life, all the ingredients are already present for his future social commitment, namely firstly history as an essential component of the discourse; secondly the public position he occupied as a prophet; thirdly his addressee, educated society; and fourthly a skirmish with the authorities. From that moment onwards, Solov'ev suffered relentless hindrance and control from the organs of censorship, particularly from the high procurator of the Holy Synod Pobedonoscev, for the rest of his life. Alexander III did not counter the court's verdict regarding the criminals. This may be Solov'ev's first disillusionment as regards Russia's ability to move on along the path of moral improvement. Not accidentally, in the following years, Solov'ev devoted his energy to mobilising the very group that he felt could sustain the monarch to rule according to Christian principles, namely educated society. The institutional embedding of the action of educated society remained beyond his concern, as his speeches after March 1st already showed. _______________ Notes: 1. 'Publicnaja lekcija' (S. 1989 I, p. 42). This chapter is an extended and revised version of an earlier publication: Manon de Courten, 'The Prophet Intervenes: Solov'ev's Lectures after the Murder of Tsar Alexander II', in: van den Bercken et al. 2000, pp. 297-312. 2. See for instance Peter A. Zaionchkovsky, The Russian Autocracy in Crisis, 1878-1882 (1st publ. in Russian 1964; Gulf Breeze: Academic International Press, 1979). 3. A highly valuable contribution remains the classic work of Franco Venturi, Les intellectuels, le peuple et la revolution: histoire du populisme russe au XIXe siecle (1st publ. in Italian 1952; Paris: Gallimard, 1972) and in particular the chapter devoted to the murder of Alexander II 'Le ler mars 1881'. pp. 1119-1133. 4. Two early collections of materials on March 1st 1881 were published in Byloe, 1906. 3. and Byloe 1918. 4-5. On Solov'ev. see: P. Scegolev. 'Sobytie I-go marta i Vlad. Solov'ev, Byloe, 1906, 3. pp. 48-55: Ibidem. 'Sobytie I marta i Vladimir Solov'ev: novye dokumenty', Byloe, 1918, 4-5, pp. 330-336. The subsequent publications reproduced these sources with minor additions: 'I marta i V.S. Solov'ev', in: coll., I marta 1881 goda: podgotovleno k pecati literaturnoj komissiej kruzka narodovol'cev (Moskva: Izd. Politkatorzanl, 1933), pp. 146-153: 'Sobytie I marta i Vladimir Solov'ev: in: coll., 1 marta 1881 goda: kazn imperatora Aleksandra II: dokumenty i vospominanija (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1991). pp. 322- 327: Ju.N. Sukharev, 'K issledovaniju zizni i tvorcestva VI. Solov'eva: dokumenty i materialy', Voprosy filosofii 1991, 2. pp. 136-150: I.K. Jancenko. 'Delo o vosprescenii professoru Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta VI. Solov'evu ctenija publicnykh lekcij', M. Smirnov (ed.), Logos 50 (1995), pp. 299-325. To my knowledge there are no Western studies on this specific issue. 5. Mocul'skij 1995, pp. 129-135: Losev 2000, pp. 60-62: Stremooukhoff 1974, pp. 122- 24: S. Solovyov 2000, p. 227. Gaut 1992 devotes a few pages to this crucial event in Solov'ev's life (pp. 51-55). 6. Venturi 1972 2. p. 1048. 7. Nicholas Riasanovsky, A History of Russia (1st publ. 1963: New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 384. 8. It was of crucial importance to silence wide variety or rumours in the province. The murderers were perhaps members of the gentry. in which case this could mean the restoration of serfdom. Another version was that the tsar would proceed to a redistribution of the land among the peasants (S. Val'k. 'Iz zapisnoj knizki arkhivista: posle pervogo marta 1881 g.', Krasnyj arkhiv 45 (1931), 2. pp. 146- 164: pp. 154-156). 9. Venturi 1972 2, p. 1124. 10. This term referred to Loris-Melikov's project although it was in no sense connected to a constitution, but rather only to a very limited form of popular representation. 11. The analysis is drawn from I marta 1881 (1933), p. 22. Except when other sources are mentioned, this work. which quotes numerous journals and newspapers excerpts on the debates (pp. 22-52), forms the basis of the following survey. 12. The most important organs were Porjadok (ed. Stasjulevic), Golos (eds. Kraevskij and Vil'basov), Molva (ed. Poletika), Russkie Vedomosti (ed. unknown), Zemstvo (ed. unknown), Russkaja Mysl' (ed. Jurev), Juridiceskij Vestnik (eds. Gol'cev and Muromcev). 13. This organ of self-government was created in the Muscovite state and disappeared under Peter I. 14. They voiced their opinion mainly in Moskovskie Vedomosti (ed. Katkov), Sovremennye Izvestija (ed. Giljarov-Platonov), Novoe Vremja (ed. Suvorin), and Rus' (ed. I. Aksakov) mainly. 15. Ivan Aksakov (1823-1886) Sohranie socinenij 5 (Moskva: tip. M.G. Volcaninova, 1887), pp. 29, 32. 16. Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti, quoted in I marta 1881 (1933), p. 43. The formulation plays on the ambiguity of the adjective narodnyj, meaning 'popular' as well as 'national'. 17. Ivan Aksakov, 'Po povudu Vysocajsago Manifesta 29 aprelja 1881 g.', first published in Rus', 2 May 1881. Edition used: Sobranie socinenij 5, p. 44. 18. The Slavophile Koselev also defended the idea of local self-government (Stephen Lukashevich, Ivan Aksakov 1823-1886: A Study in Russian Thought and Politics (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 154). 19. At that time, Lev Tikhomirov (1852-1923) was considered the theoretician of Narodnaja Volja. The populist Nikolaj Mikhajlovskij (1842-1904) was not against terrorism, but strongly demanded that such acts be justified. 20. 'Pis'mo Isponitel 'nogo Komiteta k Aleksandru III'. Edition used: Byloe, 1906, 3, pp. 33-37: p. 34. 21. Venturi 1972 2, p. 1128-1129. 22. Andrzej Walicki, The Controversy over Capitalism: Studies in the Social Philosophy of the Russian Populists (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 103. This wing had been created by Plekhanov and disappeared in the aftermath of March 1st. Other authors who sympathised with socialist and populist views cautiously adopted more moderate views so as to avoid censorship or arrest. For an example, see Nikolaj Scelgunov's (1824-1891) words on the crushing of the mental revolution initiated in the 1860s, in the journal Delo (quoted in I marta 1881 (1933), p. 26). The journals Delo (ed. Scelgunov), Otecestvennye zapiski (ed. Saltykov-Scedrin), Slovo (ed. Zybin) formed a radical coalition of socialist writers and populists (N.R., 'Sobytie I-go marta i Nikolaj Vasil'evic Selgunov', in Byloe, 1906, 3, pp. 41-47). 23. The two lectures, entitled 'Smysl sovremennykh sobytij' and 'Publicnaja lekcija. citannaja professorom Solov'evym v kreditnom obscestve' [abbreviated 'Publicnaja lekcija'] are both published in S. 1989 1. pp. 34-38 and 39-42. The first lecture was first published in SS 3, pp. 417-421. 24. The text was not published on the basis of Solov'ev's manuscript. but on the basis of a lithographic edition. Nevertheless the latter contains the note: 'with approval of the professor' (S. 1989 1, p. 646) and can be thus quoted as being Solov'ev's words. 25. Solov'ev himself indicated the number of attendees in a later declaration to the city governor (published in Scegolev 1918, p. 333). The text of the lecture was edited on the basis of notes taken by an unknown student. As it does not come from the hand of Solov'ev himself. it should be regarded with care and not be attributed literally to Solov'ev. Nevertheless we have the opportunity to get as close as possible to Solovev's original words by taking into account another version of the lecture based on the notes of V.E. Cesikhin-Vetrinskij, published in the commentary of the lecture (S. 1989 1, pp. 649-650). This version distinguishes itself by its compactness and internal coherence. Although it is not as complete as the first version, it provides a more logical understanding of Solov'ev's words. 26. The contents only partly correspond to the programme set by Solov'ev himself for this lecture (see S. 1989 1, commentary pp. 646-647). For this second lecture, Solov'ev had planned to deal with social thought [obscestvennaja mysl') from Nicholas I to Alexander II, and would only in the third lecture broach the issue of the 'present tasks of social thought in Russia' (Ibid., p. 647). Under the pressure of the events of March 1st. the latter formed a core aspect of his lecture of March 28th. 27. 'Publicnaja lekcija', p. 42. 28. Solov'ev's declaration to Baranov (Scegolev 1918, p. 334). 29. Various testimonies were published about the end of the lecture in memoirs decades later (Beaudoin-de Courtenay in Scegolev 1906. pp. 53-54. Slonimskij, op. cit., p. 32. and N. Nikiforov, 'Peterburgskoe studencestvo i Vlad. Sergo Solov'ev', Vestnik Evropy, 1912, 1. pp. 157-186: p. 183). Some refer to threats from the audience and Solov'ev being carried by the crowd. Miljutin even recalled that during the lecture, while the youth or both sexes attracted by socialist teachings enthusiastically approved of it, others nearly killed the 'jurodivogo filosofa' (P.A. Zajonckovskij (ed.). Dnevnik D.A. Miljutina. vol. 4: 1881-1882 (Moskva: n.p., 1950), p. 50). Slonimskij's moderate interpretation seems most plausible. Slonimskij explicitly objected that these outbursts of rage and exuberance from the part of the audience did not occur. This divergence of views requires cautiousness but at least testifies to the huge resonance of Solov'ev's lecture in St. Petersburg public opinion. 30. This letter was first published in Scegolev 1996, pp. 54-55. 31. The three documents were first published in Scegolev 1918, pp. 330-336. 32. Zaionchkovsky 1964, pp. 192-193. 33. Scegolev 1918. p. 334. 34. Ibid., p. 333. 35. The historian and initiator of the Higher Women Courses Konstantin Bestuzev-Rjumin seemingly interceded in favour of Solov'ev (Scegolev 1906, p. 54). Also the grand-prince Vladimir Aleksandrovic and the Minister of Education Andrej Saburov were against harsh measures regarding Solov'ev (from Loris-Melikov's letter to the tsar). Whether Saburov attended Solov'ev's lecture and perhaps even instructed Solov'ev after the lecture to go and see Loris-Melikov is probably untrue (see the colourful story of Beaudoin-de Courtenay, quoted in Scegolev 1906, p. 324). 36. Scegolev 1918, p. 335 37. Ibid. 38. Jancenko 1995, p. 300. 39. Mark Smirnov, 'Materialy k biografii Vladimira Solov'eva', in Logos 50 (1995), pp. 288- 298: p. 297. Whether Solov'ev was subsequently forced to leave the university and his academic career is doubtful, though. It is more likely that 'being a professor was for him simply boring' (Losev 2000, p. (2) and he likely chose to engage in the path of freelance journalism, instead or being absorbed by exams, scientific committees, and being tied regarding the content of his lectures by some university board. 40. 'Publicnaja lekcija', p. 42. The second version or the lecture contains another no less vague formulation: 'we will move apart [otstranimsja] from this circle of mutual murders!' (S. 1989 1. p. 650). 41. 'Publicnaja lekcija', p. 42. 42. Riasanovsky 1993, p. 383. See the classical work by Alain Besancon, Les origines intellectuelles du leninisme (Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1977). 43. 'The speech of the young philosopher in defence of the regicides was an important social event. It agitated the capital.' (Mocul'skij 1995, p. 132). 44. According to the newspaper Porjadok, Solov'ev's lecture generated sympathy for the criminals (Porjadok, 30.03.1881). Quoted in K.P. Pobedonoscev i ego korrespondenty. Pis'ma i zapiski (Moskva & Petrograd: Gos. izd., 1923), vol. 1. p. 174. 45. L.Z. Slonimskij, quoted in Scegolev 1918, p. 331. 46. Report of Baranov to Loris-Melikov (Scegolev 1918, pp. 332-334). The above-mentioned neo-Slavophile Bestuzev-Rjumin nevertheless worked at making the authorities' attitude towards Solov'ev milder. 47. In a letter to Aleksej Suvorin, Aksakov distanced himself from Solov'ev who contended that Aksakov had not drawn his point to its logical conclusion, that is, the duty of the tsar to forgive his father's murderers (quoted in S. 1989 1. pp. 650-651, in the editors' commentary to Solov'ev's second lecture). 48. This last expression becomes clear if we recall that the lecture was part of a series on the history or enlightenment in Russia, in which Solov'ev made a distinction between a 'personal', 'national' and 'universal' dimension. The content or the lecture shows that Solov'ev referred by the term 'personal enlightenment' to the revolutionary movement, and more generally the overwhelming tendency in his time towards individualism. at the cost of ethical demands. 49. The question whether his intervention provoked a debate on the relevance or necessity of abolishing the death penalty remains open. Given the tense climate, these discussions, if they took place, were held in the private sphere. The only piece of information which I have come across is that the liberal jurist S. Zarudnyj sent a letter to Alexander on the very day of the execution with the request to abolish the death penalty (N.A. Troickij, Carizm pod sudom progressivnoj obscestvennosti 1866-1895 gg (Moskva: Mysl', 1979), p. 137). The government did not meet Solov'ev's. Tolstoj's or Zarudnyj's wishes. hut suppressed public execution in May 1881. Rather than the influence of these three authors, it was probably the fear of popular revolt that motivated the government to take such a measure. 50. Troickij 1979, pp. 134-136. Because Tolstoj expressed his views in a private letter, he did not strictly speaking intervene in the public debates, and is not examined as such. Tolstoj held that two unsuccessful approaches had tried to control the revolutionary movement, namely violent repression and weak liberal tolerance. He saw a third path. that of applying God's law of forgiveness, as a result of which many revolutionaries and enemies would turn to him and their ideal would be crushed by the Christian ideal. Worth mentioning is that Tolstoj rejoiced at Solov'ev's intervention and congratulated him (see letter to Strakhov, in I marta 1881 goda (1991), p. 337). 51. 'Smysl sovremennykh sobytij", p. 37. 52. Ibid., p. 36. English translation in Wozniuk 2000, "Christianity and Revolution', pp. 1- : p. 3. 53. 'The people strive to transfer the ideals, which they acknowledged as being true, in which they believe as in existing by themselves. into life. into their untrue reality. to realize them in the non-ideal divine' ("Publicnaja lekcija', p. 41). 54. 'Until the ideal of divine and absolute truth is realised, [ ... ] the people acknowledges the exterior shapes of formation [formy obrazovanija], the exterior milieu, lives in the state' ('Publicnaja lekcija', p. 41). 55. Ibid. 56. Ibid., pp. 40-41. He concluded: 'the people believes in Bogorodica,' Bogorodica is the traditional term referring to the Virgin Mary mother of Jesus Christ. Solov'ev here used the etymological meaning of the term and instigated a shift of meaning to include sophiological elements. 57. These lines also echoed the content of his 10th Lecture on the Humanity of God, which had just been published (Pravaslavnoe Obozrenie, February 1881) and was devoted to the concepts of Sophia and World Soul. 58. I marta 1881 goda (1991), pp. 325-326. 59. 'Publicnaja lekcija', p. 42. 60. Solov'ev laid
the stress on the importance of the present in several expressions: 'the present minute represents a unprecedented case so
far 'today', 'that is a
great moment' ('Publicnaja lekcija', p. 42).
|