Political characteristics of the student movement in the Russian revolution of 1905
p. 63-78
Texte intégral
1Despite the considerable expansion in educational facilities in Russia in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the student body in the ten universities of the Empire still numbered only 22 082 on 1 January 1905, and 24 454 on 1 January 1906. The majority, nearly 13 000, was concentrated in the largest two universities, Moscow and St Petersburg1. Even if one adds the 8 326 students at Higher Technical and Veterinary Institutes on 1 January 1905, one is still dealing with only a very small percentage of the total population in discussing the role of the student movement in the 1905 Revolution2. The universities were no longer the exclusive preserve of the children of the gentry. On 1 January 1905, there were 1 336 students of peasant origin, and 5 937 who were the sons of the petty bourgeoisie (meshchane) and craftsmen (tsekhovye). 2 003 were of clérical origin, and 2 734 the children of merchants or honorary citizens. Nevertheless, nearly half still came from the ranks of the gentry and civil service, although the hereditary gentry numbered only 2 889 out of the 11 843 in this category3. The universities tended not to attract the offspring of the whealthiest families. The aristocratie elite preferred the spécial closed institutions, and the wealthier merchantry found the commercial and technical institutes to be of more practical value.
2The great attraction of the university to a large majority of aspiring students was the assured status and consequent upward social and economie mobility guaranteed to graduates Personal honorary citizenship and a place in State service formed a substantial reward for successful completion of their course to students from all but the richest families4.
3The economie position of the mass of the student body at the turn of the century was déplorable. Official figures from the inspectorate showed that 53.2 percent of the students at Saint-Petersburg University in the 1899-1900 academie year were in économie need5. In January 1905, only 4 549 students out of a total of 22 082 were in receipt of aid from public funds, and of these only 871 received both free tuition and a stipend6. The rest had to rely on contributions from parents, private charities and outside eamings. The govemment’s attempt to restrict the access of poorer students to higher education by imposing tuition fees of 100 roubles per annum created particular hardship for many, and not infrequently caused the prématuré termination of individuals’ courses of study. An analyst of the position of students in Moscow wrote in 1903 that the ideal student budget which would ensure satisfactory conditions for study was fifty roubles a month. In fact, twenty-five roubles a month, or the bare minimum on which it was considered possible to survive in Moscow, was the norm7. Finding somewhere to live was a major problem for the large numbers of students from the provinces. A survey carried out in Moscow in 1907 amongst the 20 000 students in twenty higher educational institutions showed that the price of accommodation was becoming dearer as student numbers grew. 64.8 percent had to pay between ten and twenty roubles a month in rent, and only 11.4 percent managed to find somewhere for less than ten roubles8. The average inclusive rent for a university student was eighteen roubles and thirty-eight kopecks a month. Nearly two-thirds had to share two or three to a room. A quarter of the rooms had no proper sanitation, over a third were cold, one-fifth were damp, and 16 percent were dark9. As a resuit, ilnesses were frequent10. Conditions for study tended to be extremely poor, with frequent complaints about the noise from neighbours coming through the walls It was not unknown for prostitutes to be quartered in the same house, or for brothels to be located in the same Street, with noisy fights and commotion from drunken clients making concentration on books very difficult to achieve11. The second major expenditure in the student budget was on food. The average Moscow student was said to be always a bit hungry. In the morning and evening he could afford only tea and bread, only those with thirty-five roubles a month or more being able to afford milk to add to their tea. His only real meal of the day was at midday. The fortunate minority of 11 percent received free dinners. The « Society for Aid to Needy Students » maintained two cafétérias in Moscow which handed out 94 149 free dinners in 1902, and there was a similar organisation in Saint-Petersburg. It was quite impossible for such student cafétérias to meet the demand for their services, and they were grossly overcrowded12. The rest had to rely on cheap public restaurants which were prepared to contract to provide a daily meal of a sort for a minimum of 7 roubles 50 kopecks a month, or on their landladies who usually charged between 9 and 12 roubles13. A survey of 655 students at the Saint-Petersburg Technological Institute in 1909 showed that 52 could not even afford a daily meal, and that the average student had to spend at least 75 percent of his total budget on rent and food14. Books were a major problem. There were insufflcient copies of text books and of hectographed lecture notes to go round. Almost all of the editions of the lecture notes needed to pass examinations were sold out at any one time. Students were thus at the mercy of exploitative small booksellers, who charged up to five times the nominal value of text books in demand. Some enterprising students followed their example and exploited their fellows15. Loneliness seemed to be a major problem for many. Perhaps as a resuit, the streets of central Moscow were crowded with wandering students of an evening. Many satisfïed their lust for entertainment in the flourishing brothels on Sretenka and other streets, and the incidence of venereal diseases was alarmingly high16.
4Many found it difficult to pass their examinations and to finish their courses because of the long hours which they had to spend on outside work in their struggle for existence. Traditionally, the favourite occupation had been giving private lessons, but the expansion of student numbers meant that supply was exceeding demand by the turn of the century, with a resulting réduction in the average rate of pay. Other jobs included singing in church choirs, working as amateur zemstvo statisticians, playing in orchestras, casual clerical work, and inspecting tickets on the railways. Attempts to organise student labour bureaux had only limited success in improving the situation. The number of hours a week spent on casual jobs could be anywhere between six and over forty17.
5The revival of political life in Russia in the 1890s was paralleled by a revitalisation of the student movement. These two developments, although closely related, were not synonymous. Student demands concentrated on the attainment of autonomy for the universities and of the right to form self-governing student organisations. Some of the more politically conscious of students associated the demand for the repeal of the 1884 University Charter with a general onslaught on the autocracy. For the mass of students, though, the political implications of university autonomy mattered far less than the remedying of spécifie grievances, associated with their position as students rather than their general status as citizens. They wanted an end to the arbitrary interférence in their lives by the inspectors. Even the abolition of the compulsory wearing of uniform was seen more in terms of économie than political émancipation, since its purchase imposed a strain on the budget of many students. Of especial importance to the students was the attainment of the right to control their own affairs. A particular grievance was the manner in which the inspectors controlled the organisation of aid to poor students. They gave help only to those who had reached the second year, and then solely to those with excellent marks in their mid-term examinations. This was seen as a « profanation of justice » by students since aid, as a resuit, not infrequently went to those with sufficient support from home whilst the genuinely poverty-stricken were left without18.
6The assertion that most students were not overly interested in political questions on the eve of 1905 is supported by the results of a survey of the reading habits of students of the Saint-Petersburg Technological Institute carried out in 1904. Of the 364 titles mentioned, 172 were classified as belles-lettres, with Tolstoi, Chekhov and Dostoevsky achieving considérable popularity, along with some foreign authors such as Ibsen, Goethe, Shakespeare and Heine. The next most popular section was philosophy, with Nietzsche in first place19. Student enthusiasm for Nietzsche was manifested in the proliferation of articles about him which appeared in the short-lived student newspapers which appeared in the autumn of 1906. Also sprach Zarathustra appeared in several translations, one the most popular of which, by Antonovskii, being issued seven times between 1898 and 1913. Only 27 titles in political economy were mentioned, but here the predominance of Marx and his followers attested to the presence of a politically sophisticated minority. A similar survey among secondary school students achieved similar results, although Gorky was much more popular at the junior level, a tribute to the aesthetically bénéficiai effects of higher éducation. Marxism seems to hâve been an interest acquired at the tertiary level only, if this survey is to be believed20. These studies reveal a youth concerned in an idealistic way with truth and justice, the meaning of life and the purpose of man. In other words, it was open to persuasion by moral arguments from revolutionaries, rather than being politically committed en masse.
7The genuine economie and social needs of the students, and the inadéquate and unfair response of the authorities to them, drove the students into opposition to the university administrations in the period of intense student activity between 1899 and 1902. Crude over-reaction by police and troops then transformed what could have been a series of local and limited incidents into a movement of more general significance. Government ineptitude gave the initiative to the revolutionary minority of students, who would otherwise hâve been unable to persuade the passive majority to take décisive action.
8Given the economie situation of the students, it is not surprising that the leadership in their organisation was taken in the 1890s not by groups of revolutionaries as such, but by the zemliachestva. These associations of students from the same town or district came to serve as more than welcoming committees for new arrivals, and sources of support for the destitute. Their moral influence was significant ; « in them, the world view of the students and their political ideals were worked out21 . » Despite the fact that they were illegal under the terms of the 1884 Charter, there were about fifty of them at Saint-Petersburg University in 1897, usually with a membership of twenty-five to thirty each, and about forty-three in Moscow University in 1894 with a total membership of some 1 70022. Some degree of coordination was provided by the United Council of Zemliachestva in Moscow. In the early 1890s, it had tried to act as a restraining influence on the students in the hope of avoiding a direct clash with the government. By the late 1890s, its direction has mostly passed into the hands of more active Marxists and Populists. Their debates reflected their political différences. Marxists saw students as merely reflecting the views of the class of their origins, and argued that separate student action was futile. Populists gave a more direct role to students as an integral part of the intelligentsia and, as such, a natural revolutionary vanguard working for the enlightenment of the masses. Both sides were, however, agreed that students should not regard themselves as a separate corporation, working selfishly for the attainment of purely student goals. Rather, they should prepare themselves for active political struggle in the outside world. In this, they parted company with a probable majority of the student body who saw the successful completion of their studies as their main objective and would respond only to spécifie issues which had a direct influence on their lives and careers as students, rather than as members of society in general23.
9Students felt especially strongly about any victimization of their comrades. The general student strike of 1899 arose out of purely academie demands involving the repeal of the 1884 University Charter. It spread as extensively as it did in protest against police brutality against student demonstrators, even though there was still significant opposition to it, especially from those in their final year24. The students had not been sufficiently politicised by their expériences of 1899 and after to join in the more general popular strikes and disturbances of 1902-1903. This was despite their disappointment at the govemment’s failure to implement Vannovskii’s proposed concessions to them. The students were remarkably passive between 1902 and 1904, even the Second All-Russian Student Congress in Odessa in November 1903 attracting only ten delegates. Even on the eve of 1905, the students as a whole do not seem to have been more than very partially politicised in their outlook. The strike at the Saint-Petersburg Mining Institute in March 1904 might ostensibly appear political in its origins, since it started with clashes between rival groups over an anti-war resolution approved by a majority and a telegram to the Japanese Mikado and was provoked by an order of the new Rector, Konovalov, to remove Bebel’s portrait and student notices from the buffet walls. However, this was essentially still the resuit of an over-reaction by an officious administration to a student attempt to take charge of their own affairs. Such incidents were, nevertheless, instrumental in developing political consciousness among the student masses. As the court of arbitration said about this affair, it flowed essentially from the lack of rights of Russian society as a whole, and student were coming to realize that their own corporate problems were dependent for a solution on a reform of the political structure of the Empire25. The present political structure could not be trusted to introduce the essential liberties which they demanded, notably the right to govern their own affairs inside autonomous universities. Thus, a general meeting of Saint-Petersburg University students on 1 November 1904 voted by 926 against 10 in favour of a resolution calling for a Constituent Assembly and an immediate end to the war. Nevertheless, Social Démocratie attempts to organise a demonstration involving both workers and students on 28 November failed miserably26. The students remained essentially passive in their political opposition ; activits were diverted into the ranks of the revolutionary parties and became separated from the student body as such. This departure of the politically conscious and passionate element effectively hindered the development of a student movement as an independent political force. Scattered round their lodgings and forbidden by the university statutes to congregate together except in lectures and a few other specifically approved activities, they were an extremely difficult group to organise. Moreover, by its very nature, it was difficult for the student body to attain collective experience and maturity. Each year, the fînalists left to be replaced by new recruits, only some of whom would hâve already been influenced by political ideas encountered in illegal kruzhki or circles in their gymnasia27.
10It took Bloody Sunday to merge the student movement with the general wave of protest in society. The general assembly of students at Saint-Petersburg University on 7 February was of unprecedented size, attracting 5 000 students and some workers, intellectuals and joumalists. Some professors were allowed to speak first and to argue that the students would be acting suicidally in preferring politics to science, and that a strike would kill the university. This point of view was rejected decisively in fiery speeches by student orators. They declared that Bloody Sunday had opened up a yawning gulf between people and government, and that the students should act as the avant-garde of the great mass army which would overthrow the existing bureaucratie order and establish a new, free Russia. Opponents of a strike were in a small minority and, after voting to close their university until 1 September 1905, the students dispersed singing revolutionary songs28. The student strike became nationwide, and was seen as a conscious decision by the student body to join the ranks of those wishing to overthrow the autocracy. The resuit of the strike was that for several months the student body had no possibility of asserting its separate identity. The students mostly went home, and submerged themselves in the frequently insurrectionary activities of their particular localities. By late summer, the question of reopening the universities became a live issue. The Socialist Revolutionaries insisted that the task of the students was still to go out to the workers and to the peasants to spread enlightenment and to foment révolution. Although some listened to this message, the majority responded with alacrity to the Social Démocratie call to reopen the universities. The motive of Iskra was brazenly to tum them into centres for political meetings for the whole of society. It is somewhat surprising that the government decided to give the revolutionaries their opportunity by publishing the « Temporary Rules » on 27 August and allowing academie studies to résumé. Significantly, students were to be allowed to hold meetings, with the permission of the Council of Professors.
11Perhaps the government was assuming that the majority of students would be, as so often in the past, more interested in their studies than in politics. It certainly had some reasonable grounds for optimism. When Saint-Petersburg students voted overwhelmingly by a margin of seven to one at a general meeting to reopen the university, the motives of many were undoubtedly to gain the opportunity to résumé their studies. This was made abundantly clear in Kazan’, where 300 voted to allow revolutionary meetings only at hours when they would not interfere with lectures. A year’s studies had already been lost ; to forfeit a further year would be for most to ensure economie disaster and to lose their hopes of social betterment through academie attainment. However, what effectively happened after the reopening of the universities was that these institutions were taken over by revolutionary leaders and used for their own purposes as the only buildings in which it was possible to hold mass seditious meetings with impunity. Although some of these leaders were also students, it would be wrong to interpret what happened as being the resuit of the student body as a whole taking the lead in exporting révolution to the masses. In the words of the Moscow Central University Organ on 1 November, « Over the past month, what is now happening all over Russia has been repeated in miniature in the University29. » The revolutionary process dragged the student body in its wake, rather than vice versa. In order to secure support for their political objectives, the revolutionaries had also to include prominently in their demands exclusively academie ones so as to attract the rank-and-file student.
12The student disorders of 1905 were seen by many as qualitatively different from those of 1899. Thus, NJd. Lyubimov, the rector of Kazan’ University, said that the troubles of 1899 had had no political significance, whereas « the causes of the disorders of the présent year (1905) lie outside the University30. » The expériences of the students in the first half of the year outside the academie community had obviously led to a significant politicisation and radicalisation of the attitudes of many of them. Whereas in the meetings of February 1905 the student meetings had tended to react to events in an emotional and general fashion, by the autumn many observers note that a process of political differentiation had set in. Moreover, the left-wing socialist parties were more influential than ever before. In student meetings, debates were clearly conducted on party political lines, with représentatives of the various groupings expounding the policy of their parties on the issues of the moment. The relatively high level of éducation of the university student enabled him to comprehend political ideas more readily than the mass of the population. Hence he responded to the developments of 1905 in a political fashion. On 24 September, 4 300 out of 4 700 Moscow students at a mass meeting at the University voted in favour of the recognition of the political obligations of the student body at a time of political crisis31. The development of « student parliamentarianism » and of political différentiation can be seen clearly by a study of the records of the student assemblies at Saint-Petersburg University in September and October of 1905. About 2 000 students attended a consultative assembly at Saint-Petersburg University on 12 September, and even more its continuation the following day. These were the first of a series of mass meetings at which the political and academie issues of the moment were debated with considerable passion. Even at this opening meeting, sharp lines had been drawn between the leading parties whose representatives vied for the support of the student body. The Socialist Revolutionaries denounced the government’s concessions, and accused the gentry and bourgeoisie of betraying the prolétariat and peasantry. The students’ task was to shut the universities and to go out to the countryside to prepare the peasant for revolution and teach him socialism, whilst also joining the prolétariat in raising the red flag over the cities. In contrast, the Social Democrats argued that only romantics could propose that the whole student body could serve as an agitationa] nucleus, « barely hundreds of us are ready for this ». The students were not a strictly determined social group. It was necessary to keep the universities open in order to influence newly arrived students from the provinces, and to be ready to go to the aid of an armed uprising of the prolétariat. The academie legions would be only one of the sections of the revolutionary army, but the universities themselves could be of real signifïcance if opened for political propaganda and meetings in preparation for the décisive struggle. These meetings were dominated by revolutionary orators, but those of other political persuasions, including Kadets and even a few right-wingers, were able to put their case, albeit with difficulty.
13It was noticeable that, even at these meetings called specifically to discuss the general political situation, purely student grievances were not forgotten. The abolition of the inspectera te and uniforms, and the right to form student associations, to hold meetings and to elect elders (starosty) were all popular demands Moreover, if the universities were to be open for political activity, it was clear that many were prepared to tolerate this only if they were able to résumé their studies without interruption32 .
14The student movement definitely tumed leftwards in 1905, with the Social Democrats, fighting on a united ticket, being especially successful. Thus, in the October 12 elections of student elders in Saint-Petersburg University, the Social Democrats obtained 728 votes and the Socialist Revolutionaries a further 121 out of a total of 1 203 cast33 . The socialists thus dominated the Council of Student Elders, and clearly emerged as the leaders of the student body. The fact that the student body veered leftwards in 1904-1905 was attributed by conservatives to the expansion of universities to include the lower orders, who were interested in obtaining a diploma rather than in their studies as such. Lacking a genuine interest in science, they could easily be diverted into political activity34. It is not possible to prove or disprove this thesis conclusively for want of fïrm evidence. However, a survey of the political allegiances of students of the Saint-Petersburg Technological Institute, carried out in 1909, showed that the Social Democrats and Socialist Revolutionaries were supported by students from ail classes, although those of lower social origin were disproportionately large as a percentage35.
15One resuit of the students’ move leftwards was a sharp break with the professors and a conséquent lack of unity in the academie community. So far as the student leaders were concemed the professors were at best Kadets, and thus classified as betrayers of the armed prolétariat. Students were later vociferously to demand the dismissal of a few of their teachers, such as Professer Nikol’skii of Saint-Petersburg, for right-wing political activities36. But even if the majority of professors were not threatened in this way, they could find little sympathy in 1905 for their belief that the universities should be havens of science, insulated from political concerns37. Only relatively few student « academists » now supported this point of view. For the large majority of students, it was unrealistic to talk of free universities in what remained an unfree society. True freedom and university autonomy could only be achieved as a resuit of fondamental political changes. Other social groups were thus encouraged to enter the university buildings and to use them for political and revolutionary meetings. Workers were welcomed to speak at student meetings. Before long, as revolutionary leaders realised that political éducation of the prolétariat could most safely be carried out in university lecture halls as a resuit of the « Temporary Rules » of 27 August, the students in a self-effacing way began to give precedence to those from other social groups. As the flow of workers into the universities increased, so the students showed themselves willing to vacate the main hall of Saint-Petersburg University in their favour. By October, the « autonomous » higher school had been turned into « a passionate, stormy political tribune », as tens of thousands of workers flocked into the lecture halls. The students had ceased to exist as an independent unit and had become fused with the prolétariat in a supportive role. The inévitable resuit was the closure of the universities in mid-October38.
16It would be unwise to take at its face value the seeming politicisation of the student body en masse in the late summer and autumn of 1905. As has already been noted, even revolutionary student leaders had to give considérable emphasis to academic issues in order to win support, and whole meetings were given over to these questions. The degree of political sophistication amongst most students seems to have been low. In a famous passage in his memoirs, Woytinsky describes how he was elected to represent the Bolsheviks at student meetings notwithstanding his lack of familiarity with the party’s views39. Young students recently arrived from the provinces could not be expected to display much political maturity. One observer noted that « they applaud with equal enthusiasm orators uttering almost completely contradictory views40. » One contemporary observer stated in a student newspaper that barely one in ten of ail students attached themselves to a political party41. This non-party mass could easily be manipulated by skilled student political leaders, and in particular the Social Democrats. An Okhrana report of 4 February 1905 records a private meeting of the Social Démocratie group of Saint-Petersburg University at which the programme of the fortheoming meeting was worked out, lists of orators prepared and the text of resolutions worked out42 By securing the election oi a chairman of their own persuasion, the political element could ensure that their resolutions were chosen for the vote, and others rejected. Thus, on 12 September 1905, in Saint-Petersburg, only two resolutions, representing the views of the two main socialist parties, were selected and a mass of others excluded. Complaints were frequently heard that the resolution chosen did not represent the will of the majority43. Important matters were often introduced on to the agenda without prior notice. Voting could be postponed until only a favourable minority was left in the hall to approve carefolly prepared resolutions44. The whole atmosphère at these enormous gatherings, often of several thousand students, was frequently chaotic with whistling and loud shouting interrupting discussion. It was frequently alleged that the political activists organised such scenes in order to silence dissident voices45. Activists, on the other hand, defended the general meeting passionately, seeing it as the best means for the social and political training of the fresh student masses which descended on the universities annually46. This defence in itself betrays their concern to direct the student movement rather than to act merely as its mouthpiece.
17Social Democrat dominance on the Council of Student Elders in Saint-Petersburg University, on the Central Administrative Organ of Moscow University and on other bodies elsewhere gave them an effective weapon in using the student movement for their own ends. These bodies could and did act as the student representatives in negotiations with other bodies, took control when the student assembly was not in session, and were inevitably able to influence the latter body decisively by preparing its agenda and business. The fact that the Social Democrats won overwhelming victories in the elections to the former bodies in 1905 may be taken as an indication of a high degree of political consciousness amongst the student body as a whole. On the other hand, it has to be noted that attempts to elect the Saint-Petersburg Council at meetings of the faculties on Monday 10 October had proved abortive, for lack of a quorum. Only 340 lawyers out of a possible 1 050 and 112 of the 420 philologists were présent, far short of the required fïfty per cent. It was only after a majority had agreed that élections should be held no matter how many came that the Social Democrats were able to win their majority on 12 October. One is entitled to assume that ail activists would hâve attended these électoral meetings ; the level of support for the Social Democrats amongst the student body as a whole was therefore probably significantly lower than a study simply of the votes cast would indicate47. Moreover, the Social-Democratic candidates were well-known activists ; many of the votes may have been cast for the person rather than for the political views which he held.
18When the universities reopened in the autumn of 1906, observers reported that political indifférence had set in amongst the student rank-and-file48. There was strong pressure to keep the universities open and free from protracted strikes, in order that studies could be resumed and no further delays experienced in obtaining the coveted diploma49. The économie difficulties of the students had not abated, and the zemliachestva resumed their importance. By 1907, there were one hundred thirty of them in Saint-Petersburg University and they were playing an important role in the organization and distribution of aid. Their Council of Représentatives was exerting a definite leadership rôle. They were soon joined by other organisations such as cooperatives50. The left wing parties remained relatively popular, receiving 70 percent of the total votes cast in Moscow for the Central University Organ. However, Kadets were gaining in popularity, and 40 percent of the electorate did not bother to vote. Attendance at student assemblies declined, and the degree of indifference to political issues was considerable51. By 1907, the student movement was too dispirited to resist the restrictive Rules of 11 July effectively. An Odessa student news-paper lamented that the students had passed from idealism into disillusionment, bourgeois attitudes, careerism, apathy, indifférence to any non-academic issues and a préoccupation with the minutiae of daily life52. This dévotion to academie concerns also seized many of the politically active. With the defeat of révolution, the only means of self-defence by the students as a self-governing body would hâve been to close the universities, but only a socialist-revolutionary minority was prepared to opt for that way out of their dilemma. The Social Democrats agreed that the universities should stay open, ready to act when a revolutionary opportunity recurred53.
19By 1907, the Student movement had relapsed into its usual form, that of a transient and impoverished corporation prepared to take action in defence of its own academie and economie interests and quick to respond to victimization of its members, but not willing to sacrifice careers for more general political objectives. It was only in 1905 that the mass of the students temporarily moved beyond their normally limited horizons in response to outside events. Even then, their degree of effective politicisation was probably limited. The Social Democrats succeeded for a short while in merging them with the mass revolutionary movement. However, the students had no unity of political views ; their common denominator was a concern with academie issues. Freedom of learning and of teaching, self-governing student organisations and self-government of the universities were the real student objectives. If the government had been more conciliatory and sensitive in its handling of these issues, the series of confrontations which helped to develop a certain degreee of political awareness amongst ordinary students could hâve been avoided. Government ineptitude drove them into the hands of the political activits, and made them into a political force of at any rate some significance in 1905.
DISCUSSION
20François-Xavier COQUIN (Paris I)
21M. Morison peut-il nous préciser dans quel esprit – si esprit il y avait – avait été décidée la réouverture de l’Université qui a eu lieu vers la fin du mois de septembre et dont les responsables ne prévoyaient apparemment pas toutes les répercussions ? Comment cette réouverture-surprise a-t-elle été accueillie par le monde étudiant qui allait être rapidement submergé par la foule de Saint-Pétersbourg, puisque l’Université ainsi réouverte devenait un des uniques lieux où l’on pouvait jouir à cette époque de la liberté de parole ?...
22Robert F. BYRNES (Indiana Univ.)
23(résumé)
24Il existe toutes sortes d’informations sur le mouvement étudiant en 1905 qui proviennent directement des étudiants eux-mêmes et des professeurs – notamment de Pétersbourg et de Moscou – sur les principaux épisodes de la révolution. Je suis surpris de l’absence dans votre communication de toute référence explicite à ces documents, qui constituent pourtant les meilleures sources originales pour le sujet. Pouvez-vous nous donner quelques renseignements sur ce point ?
25Claudie WEILL (EHESS, Paris)
26Tout d’abord j’ai été étonnée par votre présentation des années 1899-1905 comme d’une période uniforme, comme s’il n’y avait pas eu le mouvement de 1901 qui a eu un très grand retentissement. Par ailleurs vos critères de politisation me semblent contestables.
27Je sais que beaucoup de personnes continuent à penser qu’il n’y a politisation qu’à partir du moment où il y a appartenance à une organisation politique. Il me semble que ce critère est par trop simplificateur et donc insuffisant pour rendre compte de la politisation du milieu étudiant, comme le prouvent les études récentes de l’engagement étudiant au cours des années 1960. A plus forte raison en période révolutionnaire ! Les organisations politiques sont loin me semble-t-il d’être alors l’unique mode d’expression de la politisation et de l’engagement révolutionnaire du milieu étudiant.
28A. STRYCEK (Centre d’études russes de Meudon)
29Excluez-vous de votre étude les étudiants des académies ecclésiastiques, qui ont joué un rôle important eux aussi dans cette société étudiante ?
30Céline GERVAIS-FRANCELLE (Paris I)
31Ce mouvement étudiant tel que vous l’avez présenté avait aussi une composante nationale, que vous n’avez pas évoquée et qu’il me paraît particulièrement nécessaire de prendre en considération au cours de la révolution de 1905.
32Sans m’arrêter au cas très spécifique des étudiants polonais, puisque le Royaume de Pologne a déjà fait l’objet d’une mise au point en marge des problèmes russes et qu’une séance particulière lui est consacrée, je voudrais rappeler d’une manière plus générale que, dans le cadre de l’Empire russe, les étudiants avaient des réactions et des engagements marqués aussi par leur appartenance nationale.
33Si nous prenons Riga et ses étudiants d’origine et de culture allemandes ou les Caucasiens – Géorgiens et Arméniens – et surtout les Ukrainiens, nous pouvons constater que leur relation à l’évolution politique de la Russie, au mouvement socialiste proprement russe et enfin à la révolution de 1905 était différenciée par leurs préoccupations nationales.
34En 1905 leur engagement révolutionnaire ou simplement politique (quand il existe) a forcément une dimension nationale.
35M. PARA (Nehru Univ. New Delhi)
36(résumé)
37Deux questions qui sont d’ailleurs liées : quelles étaient les relations professeurs-étudiants en 1905 ? Dans quelle mesure les étudiants ont-ils été influencés par l’engagement des professeurs et que pensaient-ils ? Quelles étaient leurs opinions et l’évolution de celles-ci face aux événements ?
38J. D. MORISON (Leeds)
39J’avais le premier conscience des lacunes de ma communication, qui tiennent non seulement au temps limité que je lui ai consacré, mais aussi à la difficulté qu’il y a à saisir ce qui s’est passé à l’intérieur des universités en 1905 du point de vue de l’étudiant moyen, par opposition aux étudiants militants et politiquement engagés. Seuls dix pour-cent environ des étudiants se définissaient eux-mêmes nettement comme membres de partis politiques, et en écrivant ma communication, je songeais surtout aux quatre-vingt-dix pour-cent restants.
40Quant aux nationalités, c’est une question à laquelle j’aimerais bien pouvoir répondre. Il est sûr qu’il existait des différences ; mais je ne sais pas bien de quels documents on dispose sur les étudiants polonais, ou les étudiants allemands de Riga, et je serais très heureux que l’on complète mon information sur ces points. Indéniablement, la nationalité dut jouer un rôle et entraîner des différences. Je me demande même jusqu’à quel point on peut parler d’un mouvement étudiant pour tout l’Empire, ou si l’on ne devrait pas parler plutôt des seuls étudiants de Moscou, de Saint-Pétersbourg, ou même peut-être de Kharkov, ou de telle ou telle autre des douze universités, et je regrette de devoir confesser mon ignorance sur ce point.
41Que signifie politisation ? Quelles preuves a-t-on de cette politisation ? Il me paraît très difficile d’expliquer pourquoi en 1905 des étudiants agissaient soudain de façon apparemment différente, si ce n’est qu’ils étaient devenus en 1905 des citoyens russes, influencés ou même dépassés par les événements. Il est difficile de parler dans le cas des étudiants d’un « mouvement étudiant », car on a constamment affaire à un manque de continuité, à des changements d’affiliation, et quand on fait cours à des étudiants, on se rend compte qu’il existe des états d’esprit, des attitudes au sein du monde étudiant. Tout cela évolue sans que l’on sache bien pourquoi ces réponses différentes ou ces différences d’attitude. Il est clair qu’en 1905 les étudiants et la société dans son ensemble furent emportés par une vague d’agitation, et en ce sens ils furent politisés. Il est probable que les étudiants de 1905 restèrent politisés, mais les nouveaux étudiants de 1906-1907 auront à réagir face à une situation qui évoluait, et l’on a affaire alors à un phénomène quelque peu différent. Les espoirs de 1905 s’en étaient allés, et les nouveaux étudiants de 1906-1907 durent réagir avec les espérances qui étaient les leurs.
42En ce qui concerne les dates-tournants, c’est une question que je n’ai pas abordée, mais vous avez probablement raison. Quant aux relations professeurs-étudiants, la seule chose certaine que je pourrais dire c’est que les professeurs libéraux cherchèrent à jouer un rôle en 1905. D’après les rapports que j’ai lus, les étudiants les écoutaient parfois, poliment, mais en règle générale leurs attitudes étaient en 1905 sensiblement différentes.
43Que pensaient les étudiants en 1905 ? C’est un point sur lequel je ne me suis pas assez étendu, bien que l’on ait davantage d’informations à ce sujet. Mais, comme je l’ai dit, je m’intéresse moins aux étudiants engagés politiquement dont on peut lire les souvenirs qu’à démêler ce que pouvaient penser les étudiants qui n’étaient pas réellement engagés. Les sources ne disent pas grand-chose sur ce point ; il faut lire entre les lignes des récits faits par les étudiants engagés, et les conclusions auxquels on aboutit restent incertaines.
44Quant à l’état d’esprit des étudiants lors de la réouverture des universités en septembre 1905, j’ai essayé de montrer que les universités ont bien été occupées par les révolutionnaires, dans le sillage des activistes. Mais ces derniers étaient pris eux-mêmes dans le tourbillon ; ils ne savaient pas exactement ce qui se passait, ne comprenaient pas réellement, bien souvent, les enjeux, écoutaient un orateur, puis un autre. C’était avant tout une période d’espoir : ils pensaient pour de bon que les murailles de l’autocratie allaient peut-être tomber ; et sur ce point je suis d’accord avec ce qui a été dit sur l’apathie comme forme, si l’on veut, d’opposition à l’autocratie. Je suis persuadé que dans son ensemble le mouvement étudiant n’était pas favorable à l’autocratie ; mais il fallait bien survivre sous l’autocratie. Quand on revient, comme je le fais, d’un séjour de cinq semaines en Tchécoslovaquie, on se rend compte quels problèmes se posent aux gens ; et je pense que nombre d’étudiants, au moment décisif, bien qu’ils aient pu n’avoir aucune sympathie pour l’autocratie, comprenaient où était leur propre intérêt ou, si vous préférez, ressentaient le besoin de poursuivre leurs études sous l’autocratie. L’année 1905 : les espoirs de 1905 avaient offert, cela est vrai, la possibilité de prendre le train en marche ensuite de militer politiquement ; mais face à une situation incertaine, où il semblait impossible de l’emporter sur l’autocratie, les étudiants furent certainement effrayés par l’appui que donnaient au gouvernement les bandes de Cent noirs et autres, et il est certain que beaucoup d’étudiants furent alors malmenés. Indéniablement, quand on lit les récits d’étudiants, on les sent bel et bien intimidés vers la fin de cette période. Mais quelle confiance faut-il accorder à ce genre de documents ? Il est sûr que ces mémoires sont loin d’être scientifiquement exacts, et peut-être ai-je voulu trop en tirer.
Notes de fin
1 Vsepoddannejšij otčet ministra Narodnago prosveščenija za 1905 god, SPb., 1907 pp. 10-11.
2 Ibid., pp. 25, 34. The total number of students in this category had risen to 9 879 by 1 January 1906.
3 Ibid., p. 11.
4 V. Ag-ov, « Vyssija učebnyja zavedenija i Revoljucija », in Soznatel’naja Rossija, vyp. 1, SPb., 1906, p. 55.
5 P.S. Gusjatnikov, Revoljucionnoe studenčeskoe dviženie v Rossii, 1899-1907 M 1971, p. 21.
6 VsepoddannejSijotiet ministra Narodnago prosveščenija za 1905god, p. 18.
7 P. Ivanov, Studenty v Moskve, M., 1903, pp. 3,11.
8 N.A. Kablukov, ed., Studenčeskij kvartimyj vopros v Moskve, M., 1908, p. 27.
9 Ibid., pp. 33-39.
10 Boris Frommett, « Ekonomiišeskoe položenie rossijskago studenčestva », Žizn’ dlja vseh, SPb., 0ctober 1910,n° 10, p. 150
11 Kablukov, op. cit., pp. 65-68.
12 Studenčeskaja mysl’, Odessa, n • 1,23 November 1906.
13 Ivanov, op. cit., pp. 41-54.
14 S.P., « Anketa v S-Peterburgskom Tehnologičeskom institute », Golos studenčestva, M., n° 6, 21 October 1910.
15 « Student-Bukinisty », Studenâeskie otkliki, SPb., n° 2, 2 October 1907.
16 Ivanov, op. cit., pp. 95-96 ; V. Ja. Kanel’, « Bol’noj vopros », Golos studenčestva, M., n • 1,16 September 1910.
17 Ivanov, op. cit., pp. 88-93 ; Frommett, op. cit., p. 147 ; A. Popov, « Bjuro truda », Golos studentčestva, M., n ° 2, 23 September 1910 ; S.P., « Anketa », ibid., n • 6,21 October 1910.
18 Ivanov, op. cit., pp. 59-60.
19 S.D. Kirpidnikov, « Čto čitaet i ôem interesuetsja naše studenčestvo ? », Vestnik 0bščestva tehnoIogov, SPb., vol. XII, n° 9, September 1905, pp. 387-394.
20 K. Levin, « Çto čitaet i čem interesuetsja učaščajasja molodež’ ? », Mir Božij, SPb., vol. XI, n’ 11, November 1903, pp. 185-198, and vol. XII, n° 12, December 1003, pp. 103- 123 ; Richard D. Davies, « Nietzsche in Russia, 1892-1917 : A Preliminary Bibliography », Germano-Slavica, Waterloo, Fall 1976, vol. II, nos 2-3, pp. 107-146,201-220.
21 S. Serebrovskij, « K voprosu o zemljaèestvah », Studenleskaja Gazeta, M., n° 1, 8 October 1906.
22 Samuel David Kassow, The Russian University in Crisis : 1899-1911, unpublished Princeton University Ph. D. dissertation, 1976, pp. 103-104.
23 Ibid., pp. 110-130 ; Gusjatnikov, op. cit., pp. 27-28 ; Robert Jean Burch, Social Unrest in Impérial Russia : the Student Movement at Moscow University, 1887-1905, unpublished University of Washington Ph. D. dissertation, 1972, pp. 63-75.
24 Gusjatnikov, op. cit., pp. 31-37 ; Kassow, op. cit., pp. 150-155.
25 G. Rokov, « Iz novejsej istorii studenceskih volnenij », Vestnik vospitanija, M., vol. XVII, n – 2,February 1906, pp. 90-118.
26 Kassow, op. cit., pp. 246 250-251.
27 A census of Moscow student attitudes in 1903-1904 found that 35.1 % of its respondents had participated in illegal circles of self – education at their gymnasia, Butch, op. cit., p. 261.
28 D. (A.A. D’jakonov), 1905 i 1906 god v Peterburgskom universitete, SPb., 1907, pp. 7-11.
29 Moskovskija vedomosti, 2 November 1905, n • 291.
30 M.K. Korbut, Kazanskij Gosudarstvennyj universitet imeni V.I. Ul’janova Lenina za 125 let 1804/5 – 1929/30, Kazan’, 1930, vol. 2, p. 215.
31 Kassow, op. cit., p. 19.
32 D’jakonov, op. cit., pp. 20-24.
33 Kassow, op. cit., pp. 401-403.
34 M., « K reforme naših universitetov », Moskovskija vedomosti, 17 September 1904, n° 257.
35 Daniel R. Brower, « Student Political Attitudes and Social Origins : The Technological Institute of St. Petersburg », Journal of SocialHistory, vol. 6,Winter 1972-1973, pp. 212-213.
36 D’jakonov, op. cit., pp. 80-86.
37 James C. McClelland, Autocrats and Academics, Chicago, 1979, pp. 58-74.
38 D’jakonov, op. cit., pp. 54,66-67.
39 W.S. Woytinsky, Stormy Passage, New York, 1961, pp. 16-17.
40 I.G., « Zametki », Studenčeskajagazeta, M., n ° 2,11 October 1906.
41 P. Ivanovskij, « Izbiratel’naja kampanija i studendestvo », Studenleskaja gazeta, M., n° 13, 18 November 1906.
42 Gusjatnikov, op. cit., p. 146.
43 D’jakonov, op. cit., pp. 23, 32-33,52.
44 Al. Vilenkin, « O formah studenčeskoj organizacii », Studenčeskie otkliki, SPb., n ° 1, 24 September 1907.
45 I.G., « Zametki » ; Fenomonov, « K voprosu ob organizacii studenčestva », Studen-ceskaja gazeta, M., n ° 3,14 October 1906.
46 V. Abramov, « K organizacionnomu voprosu », Studenčeskaja gazeta, M., n° 7, 28 October 1906.
47 D’jakonov, op. cit., pp. 64-66.
48 N. Tihonovič, « Politideskaja differenciacija studendestva », Studenčestvo, SPb., n° 1, 16 October 1906,p. 9.
49 A. Vilenkin, « Universitetskij parlamentarism », Studenčstvo, SPb., n – 4,6 December 1906, p. 5.
50 Moskvic, « Zemljaèeskie zadaôi i celi », Golos studendestva, n • 13,9 December 1910 ; Boris Frommett, « Kooperacija učaščihsja », Studenčeskaja žizn’, M., n° 18, 16 May 1910 ; M. Bogaevskij, « Dejatel’nost’ zemljačestv i ekspertnaja kommissija ». Studenčeskie otkliki, SPb., n° 3, 30 October 1907 ; I. Pivovarov, « Bjuro truda pri universitete », Studenčeskie otkliki, SPb., n ° 3, 30 October 1907.
51 P. Ivanovskij, « Izbiratel’naja kampanija i studendestvo », Studenčeskaja gazeta, M., n° 13, 18 November 1906.
52 B. Birman, « Naši perspektivy », Studenčskij golos, Odessa, n° 2, 29 October 1907 ; ’Viktor’, « K momentu », Studenčskijgolos, Odessa, n ° 4,12 November 1907.
53 N. L-ü, « Kadetskaja politika i universitetskaja avtonomija », Studenčskie otkliki, SPb., n ° 3, 30 October 1907 ; « K momentu », Studendeskaja mysl’, Odessa, n ° 2,10 December 1906 ; D’jakonov, op. cit., pp. 74-79.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
L’Europe des Français, 1943-1959
La IVe République aux sources de l’Europe communautaire
Gérard Bossuat
1997
Les identités européennes au XXe siècle
Diversités, convergences et solidarités
Robert Frank (dir.)
2004
Autour des morts de guerre
Maghreb - Moyen-Orient
Raphaëlle Branche, Nadine Picaudou et Pierre Vermeren (dir.)
2013
Capitales culturelles, capitales symboliques
Paris et les expériences européennes (XVIIIe-XXe siècles)
Christophe Charle et Daniel Roche (dir.)
2002
Au service de l’Europe
Crises et transformations sociopolitiques de la fonction publique européenne
Didier Georgakakis
2019
Diplomatie et religion
Au cœur de l’action culturelle de la France au XXe siècle
Gilles Ferragu et Florian Michel (dir.)
2016