Kliuchevskii and the revolution of 1905
p. 79-99
Texte intégral
1Vasilii Osipovich Kliuchevskii, who was born in the village of Voskresensk near Penza on January 16, 1841, and who died in Moscow on May 12, 1911, achieved renown in the last thirty years of his life as one of the greatest scholars of the history of Russia and as the most effective teacher of his country’s history. A man who taught a total of more than one hundred and ten academie years in five institutions of higher learning in and near Moscow from 1869 through 1910 and whose lectures won the attention, affection, and applause of thousands of students, Kliuchevskii during these same years achieved récognition and honor for his published books and articles on the economie and social history of Russia.
2Kliuchevskii’s work has attracted the admiration of men and women of all generations and of every point of view. Thus, Peter Struve, Vasilii A. Maklakov, and most liberais were warm admirers of Kliuchevskii’s writings, as were Russians as different as Leon Trotsky, Victor Chernov, and Valerii Briusov1. Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev, the symbol of reaction to most Russians, helped arrange that the Holy Synod Press publish the First four volumes of the First édition of his Kurs russkoi istorii, while Communists published the last volume. On several occasions in the last three years of his life, he wrote that one of his principal pleasures was reading this famous set and that he hoped Kliucheveskii would finish the sériés before he died2.
3Lenin, like most members of the radical and revolutionary circles, from the early 1890’s was a careful student of Kliuchevskii’s publications and often asked his sister Maria to forward Works unobtainable outside of Moscow. He used some of Kliuchevskii’s articles in Russkaia Mysl’ in preparing for his law school examinations. A.A. Zimin has pointed out that Lenin adopted a number of historical terms from Kliuchevskii, and others have demonstrated that he used Kliuchevski : materials in polemics with P.N. Skvortsev and with George Plekhanov. The copies of the many Kliuchevskii books and essays in Lenin’s private library bear Lenin’s annotations. In February 1918 Kliuchevskii’s volumes were among those which Lenin insisted be made State property and produced in inexpensive edition3.
4Kliuchevskii’s work has remained popular and greatly influential in his native country and in the outside world as well. Michael Pokrovsky, in a sense the director of Soviet historical scholarship until his death in 1932, was a bitter critic of his former undergraduate teacher. Even so, in the early 1920’s he urged Academician Militsa V. Nechkina, author in 1974 of the largest and most signifïcant Soviet study of Kliuchevskii and récipient of the Order of Lenin on February 25, 1981, that Soviet scholars should study Kliuchevskii and define his place in history, although he was « neither an authority nor a director. » Nechkina in the volume which represented more than fifty years of work declared Kliuchevskii « the most able bourgeois historian of pre – revolutionary Russia, » a scholar who « represents a whole epoch of our scientific past and of our pre-revolutionary epoch4. »
5Between 1917 and 1981, Soviet scholars have published more than one hundred books and articles on this greta Russian scholar, with the flow at a quite consistent level, except for substantial déclinés during the periods from 1931 until 1937 and from 1946 through 1955. Between 1918 and 1923, an undetermined number of éditions of various volumes of Kurs russkoi istorii were published in Moscow and in Petrograd. An edition of 20,000 copies of the five volumes was produced in Moscow in 1937, with smaller editions in the following two years in Ukrainian and in White Russian in Kiev and in Minsk, respectively. Between 1956 and 1959, an eight-volume édition containing many of Kliuchevskii’s works, including the Kurs russkoi istorii, appeared. 75,000 copies or each of the first five volumes were published, plus 55,000 of the sixth, 54,000 of the seventh, and 53,000 of the eighth. These volumes preceded chronologically the publication between 1959 and 1966 of the multi-volume history of Russia by SergeiM. Solov’ev, of which 25,000 copies of each volume appeared, and the four-volume edition of the selected works of Pokrovsky in 1966-1967 in 15,000 copies. Moreover, the Soviet Academy of Sciences publishing house in 1968 printed 40,000 copies of a 525-page édition of Kliuchevskii’s letters, diaries, and aphorisms and in 1974 13,500 copies of Nechkina’s massive biography. In short, the work of Kliuchevsky has remained as popular in his homeland after 1917 as it was before.
6The principal theses of his paper are quite simple, because Kliuchevskii’s role in 1905 was minimal. It nevertheless revealed a great deal about the folly of the govemment’s relations with even conservative men of good will such as Kliuchevskii and because his reaction to 1905 led him to concentrate his time and energy upon completing his most important book. This great teacher and scholar was basically apolitical. His character, personality, and interests were such that his involvement in even a slight way in the events of 1905 demonstrates impressively the repercussion this troubled period exerted even upon a mild and retiring scholar. The rôle he accepted reflects the concern of many educated Russians not engaged in efforts at political change for progress toward increased civil liberties and toward improved communication between govemment and Russia’s citizens. The stupidity of the government in rejecting the views of loyal supporters such as Kliuchevskii reveal the depth of the gap between those who ruled Russia and even men and women of good will who were essentially conservative but who sought change. Kliuchevskii’s reaction to 1905 drove him even more vigorously than before to concentrate upon completing the Kurs, even at the expense of substantially reducing the time devoted to his beloved teaching. His involvement in political activities, even slightly and briefly, has helped make him and his work palatable to the Soviet government and to Soviet scholarship, because it added to the flavor of criticism of the political and social System and of his love and sympathy for the Russian past which marked his scholarly career. This brief essay also reveals how isolated this humane academie was from the concems of most Russians, the middle class as well as the peasants and workers. In spite of his knowledge of Russia’s past and of his affection for the peasants, he was as surprised and alanned by the emptions of these years as were Russia’s rulers. He and many of his generation for obvious historical reasons simply lacked the interest in their country and the sense of civic responsibility which his academie colleagues in western European countries had long possessed.
7The courses Kliuchevskii taught and the comments about his views which dozens of colleagues and students hâve left in their memoirs and essays provide an enormous amount of information concerning his character and opinions. Manuscript ma tenais, the lithographs of his lectures, his diaries, the letters he wrote, and the flood of books, essays, reviews, and comments on theses which he produced constitute rich sources for his ideas and work. Analysis of this massive accumulation of material reveals that one must understand his character and personality, intellectual interests, and research and in order to explain accurately his views, his role in 1905, and the influence 1905 exercised upon him.
8Kliuchevskii’s view of the history of Russia is of course complicated beyond anyone’s capacity to analyze carefully in a brief paper devoted to his political views and his role in 1905. However, he emphasized economic and social forces and gave less significance to the rôle of even Russia’s most prominent State leaders than did his contemporary colleagues. His criticism of the dvorianstvo, especially for eits role after 1762, was so consistent and sharp from his Penza days throughout his life that it smothered any hostility he .may hâve felt toward tsarism or the political System as a whole. Both the Varangians and the Mongols receive remarkably little attention in his Kurs. The other Slavic peoples, even the Pôles, are barely noted, and Kliuchevskii neglects the border areas, even Ukraine. He gave little consideration to ethnic and religions minorities (the Jews are hardly mentioned), foreign policy and international relations, and even war. In fact, his pages on the war of 1812 are remarkable because the fighting at that time was about the only military action to which Kliuchevskii devoted substantial space in the Kurs or in his other writings and lectures.
9Briefly, Kliuchevskii was a non-combative and cautious person. Somewhat sickly and ascetic, he disliked quarrels. He rarely disagreed with others. He was so careful in concealing his views that Count Leo Tolstoi and others concluded that he was a sly person whom one could not trust5. « A loner, » a person with few but close friends, he was a man of the study whose principal pleasures were teaching, research and writing, music, and fishing. He had a positive distaste for meetings, administration, academie and other manœuvering, and politicking. Even when he was a celebrated person and came to meet celebrities such as Fedor Chaliapin, he was not a member of the « establishment, » even of Moscow university. He was frugal throughout his life and kept very careful account books of his income and expenditures6. He wore his clothes until they were ahnost disreputably old, and travelled third class to Sergiev Posad, now Zagorsk, once each week for his lectures at the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, even when he was prospérons. He was always a « landsman, » provincial conservative, and petty bourgeois. Above ail, he remained basically a country boy, deeply marked by his twenty years of poverty in Penza and by the rigorous effort a provincial lad had made to survive in Moscow and to obtain an academie position.
10Kliuchevskii’s father was a priest, and he grew up « under the bells. » He was religious without a deep and forceful faith, but he was a faithful member of the Orthodox Church, and his wife was especially devout. His heroes were quiet. He showed particular sympathy for the clergy, who had preserved the culture of old Russia, for the Old-Believers, and for the « dobrye liudi, » about whom he gave an especially moving and effective lecture.
11The central fact of Kliuchevskii’s career consisted of his years of service as a teacher and his outstanding abilities as a lecturer, which were even more important than his publications in winning him renown. Indeed, Muscovites flocked to his lectures at the turn of the centuiy as Parisians did to those of Henri Bergson at the same time. His commitment to his profession, the conservatism and propriety of his views, and the correctness of his behavior in teaching the sensitive subject of history through the second half of the reign of Alexander II, the rule of Alexander III, and more than half the reign of Nicolas II were such that he almost entirely escaped difficulties with students, the university administration, or the govemment : few contemporaines in the academie world were as free from troubles as was he. Moreover, the institutions in which he taught : the Third Alexandrovskii Military School, 1869-1883 ; Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, 1871-1906 ; The Women’s Higher School, 1872-1890 ; Moscow University, 1871-1909 ; and the School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture, 1898- 1910, included a number whose administrators were particularly alert to views which might raise concem or cause offense. His ability to lecture successfully in such a variety of institutions and to students of different views and interests testifies to his views, skill, and caution.
12Kliuchevskii was unphilosophical, rejecting frameworks or philosophies of any kind. As a historian, he was interested fundamentally in determining what had happened and in describing accurately and faithfully what he found. A prodigious worker who usually slept in his study, he spent fïve months correcting the proofs of the first volume of the Kurs russkoi istorii. He sometimes devoted six months to preparing an essay or a lecture.
13He showed little interest in the outside world or in world affairs. Indeed, he travelled very little outside Moscow and its environs from the day he arrived in August 1861 until he died in 1911. He visited Petersburg in the 1860’s for research, but his next visit to the capital occurred only in 1893, when Minister of Education LD. Delianov invited him there to discuss tutoring one of the grand dukes. He attended a scholarly conference in Kiev on a kommandirovka in 1875, the only visit to that city of which any evidence has survived. He travelled along the Volga on a holiday in the summer of 1893, visited the Caucasus in 1893 and again in 1894 on assignment as a tutor, and spent several months in the Crimea on leave in 1903 so that he could concentrate upon finishing the first volume of the Kurs. Otherwise, he remained in or near Moscow, even for his vacations. So far as one can tell, he never returned to Penza after leaving in 1861, visited Warsaw or Helsinki, or travelled east of the Urals. He was indeed a Muscovite, just as his history of Russia is essentially a history of Muscovite Russia.
14Moreover, Kliuchevskii’s knowledge of and interest in the West and in Western institutions and ideas were slight and declined sharply in the last thirty years of his life. In the seminary in Penza in which he studied for four years before attending Moscow University, he learned French, German, Greek, and Latin. At the university, he added some Italian and English, and he used these six foreign languages in his first research and writing. In Penza, he read Goethe and Heine and other Western writers, and his undergraduate years in Moscow exposed him to professors educated in Europe and to European writers such as Buckle, Renan, Darwin, Mill, Taine, Montesquieu, Guizot, Thierry, and Taine. Moreover, Moscow of the reform years of Alexander II was alive with knowledge of the Western ideas about the values and institutions which Russian should adop7.
15His first publication, written for the equivalent of an M.A. degxee, Skazaniia inostrantsev o Moskovskom gosudarstve (Moscow, 1866) was a study of Western sources on Russian history in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. His first independent teaching, at the Third Alexandrevskii Military School, where he began as an assistant to Solov’ev and then taught a course of his own, was called a History of European Man, but in fact dealt with the history of the French Révolution and of France through 1870. He gave these lectures from 1872 through 1883, a period during which he wrote a number of essays on European history and reviews of books by French and German scholars. Except for a series of ten lectures on Western influence on Peter the Great which he presented in Moscow in 1890 to help those affected by the famine (and which he did not publish), after 1880 he wrote entirely about Russian history. When he was invited to give the same lectures to Grand Duke George Alexander in the winters of 1893-1894 and 1894-1895 which he had offered at the military school, he needed three months of study to prepare because he had after 1883 abandoned interest in European history8.
16 Most of the men under whom Kliuchevskii studied in Moscow University and the great majority of his colleagues and of his educated contemporaries had studied in Europe and travelled there at least on occasion. No doubt simply because he was so much a Muscovite and was so deeply interested in the history of Russia, but perhaps also because he was cautious, shy, and poor, and did not learn to speak any foreign language, Kliuchevskii showed little interest in travel. University records, police reports, and his voluminous papers together reveal that he applied only three times for the right to travel to Europe, in February 1880 for a month at a minerai spring in Bohemia and travel, again in 1893 for travel, and in 1903 to attend a meeting of historians in Greece and to travel about Greece. Each petition was denied. Kliuchevskii never protested privately or publicly, and he never left Russia9.
17He described his country as one possessing a culture and historical personality of its own, relatively uninfluenced by ideas and developments in other parts of the world. He was deeply critical of those intellectuals who did not know Russia and who isolated themselves from its history and culture. Neither a Westerner nor a Slavophil, found the origins of the two trends in the early seventeenth century, and thought historians vastly exaggerated the signifïcance of the controversy which had its center in the 1840’s10. Indeed, he often noted in his lectures that a country could not choose its past, any more than a man could decide whether to be a tenor or a bass, and that those who thought they were leaders because they were at the head of a church procession were totally mistaken. He was aware of the existence of classes, which helps make him acceptable to Soviet historians, but he did not read Marx and took no position for or against Marxist views of historical development. However, late in life he remarked that Marxism was as appropriate in Russian thought as a Parisian wig had been for his generation’s remote ancestors11.
18Kliuchevskii’s character, interests, and scholarly views ail help explain his conservatism. Even as an undergraduate in the heady years following the abolition of serfdom, when for a time he was called Robespierre, he remained aloof from student activities and cool toward student criticism of the university and of the govemment. He was alarmed when some students’ actions threatened closure of the university He was a daily reader of Katkov’s newspaper and endorsed most of Katkov’s views. He apparently approved the résignations of Boris Chicherin and other Moscow University professors in 1867 against violation of university autonomy, although then and later he believed that scholars, like ail State officials, had a responsibility to obey and support the government12. The course on the French Révolution and French history emphasized narrative political history, but he did describe political ideas of the time, including those of the utopian socialists. According to one Soviet scholar, he devoted more attention in this course to revolutionary ideas and movements in the West than did any other history course in Russia at that time. His lectures to the Grand Duke George Alexander followed this format. Indeed, when he told Delianov on July 8, 1893 that he should and would include political issues in the course, Delianov responded that he should describe as accurately as possible what had happened : « Teach what you fmd necessary13. »
19Evidence abounds from Kliuchevskii’s lithographed lectures and from comments by his students and colleagues that he sought to be objective and fair, that his lectures bore an oppositional flavor but were not directly critical of the political System or of spécifie policies, and that his patriotic affection for Russian history and for the Russian people was so clear and pervasive that he disarmed potential critics. The Commander and some officers who were faculty members in the Third Alexandrovskii Military School often attended his lectures because his réputation for brilliance was apparent even in the 1870’s. Some observers have suggested tha1 the presence of these men, and of similar colleagues at his lectures at the university and at the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, led him to devote less attention to such groups as the Decembrists than he would otherwise hâve done. Even so, the oppositional or critical flavor of his lectures is clear, just as is his long record of teaching in sensitive institutions under close observation.
20Moscow University was the only institution in which Kliuchevskii taught that was disturbed before 1904 by expressions of student dissatisfaction. Except for the celebrated lecture he gave after the death of Alexander III, which I shall discuss later, none of his talks created any reaction except enthusiastic endorsement. As a scholar-teacher, he urged students to concentrate upon their studies. However, throughout his career he was clearly sympathetic to student grievances, opposed to police intrusions into university property, and critical of police violence. He maintained relations with and quietly assisted students who were suspended or expelled. As dean from September 1887 until March 1889 and then as pro-rector until December 1890, he was sympathetic to student complaints conceming new régulations the Ministry of Education imposed upon the university. He often blamed the university beadles for failing to support the students and he frequently urged understanding and leniency upon police and ministry officiais. He wrote to the Minister of Education in 1899 protesting a number of expulsions and urged creation of a special university court to deal with student disorders. In 1899, he repeated a lecture student strikers had missed, and in 1901 he was a member of a Committee on the Reasons for Student Agitation and on Means of Restoring Order to University Life which produced an accurate list of student complaints which had led to disorder. He did not resign from the university when the government disregarded faculty recommendations or violated university rules, as his friend and colleague Paul Vinogradov did, but he did quietly adopt positions supportive of students in their complaints and critical of the 14 government14 .
21Kliuchevskii was also known in university circles and among moderate liberais in the 1890’s as one who endorsed and supported relaxation of Controls and greater liberalization. In addition to Vinogradov, who ultimately left Russia and accepted a professorship at Oxford, those scholars with whom he maintained the closest associations were men in the then liberal camp. These included Vladimir I. Ger’e, who was mainly responsible for establishing the Women’s Higher School in 1872 and who remained an active faculty member in that institution, taught European history at Moscow University and introduced the seminar System there, for years was a most active member of the Moscow City Duma, and became an active Octobrist ; Sergei A. Muromtsev, who resigned from the university in 1894, helped found the Kadet Party, and was the president of the First Duma ; K.A. Timiriazev, the eminent liberal botanist ; and Prince Sergei N. Trubetskoi, in 1905 elected the first rector of the university15.
22In 1898 and 1899, Kliuchevskii was one of about fifty men who met informally to discuss the gap between society and the government and the need for reform. This group included many of the leading Moscow Zemstvo libérais, some of whom a few years later became active politically, particularly as Kadets : DJN. Shipov, Princes P.N. and Sergei N. Trubetskoi, F.D. Samarin, Prince Peter Dolgorukov, M.A. Stakhovich, Count P.S. Sheremet’ev, and Paul Miliukov. Kliuchevskii participated in several meetings, held two or three times a year to discuss the State of the nation and possible remedies the government could introduce, such as a zemskii sobor, local self-government, elected représentatives from public institutions to participate in the work of the Council of State, and even a constitution. Kliuchevskii did not sign any of the gathering’s statements, and he apparently drifted away from this Beseda group in 1900 or 1901, but he participated briefly and quietly in the first organized group of the Liberation Movement, one of the bases on which the Kadet party was established. Moreover, his archives contain many papers which indicate that his liberal friends kept him well informed concerning their ideas and activities until the end of his life16.
23Kliuchevskii’s popularity as a teacher ; his arranging small classes and seminars in his home ; his publishing some historical essays in Russkaia Mysl’, which some thought a critical and even tendentious journal ; and his relations with known liberais attracted police attention as early as 1886. The archives of the Ministry of Interior and of the Moscow Okhrannoe Otdelenie indicate that the police monitored some of Kliuchevskii’s activities and intercepted some mail sent to him. Kliuchevskii was aware of this, as the police no doubt intended17.
24However, university administrators and State officiais correctly judged him a loyal conservative The criticisms he made were mild and muted. Moreover, the one lecture at the university which created student dissatisfaction underlined his fondamental conservatism.
25After the death of Alexander III, the Moscow University administration commissioned, or at least requested, that Kliuchevskii give a lecture about the late tsar in one of the university’s auditoria. The talk emphasized the tsar’s personal qualities and his foreign policy, which Kliuchevskii asserted had emphasized peace and had won admiration for the tsar and Russia in Europe. It attracted no attention when presented at the university on October 28 or at the Impérial Society of Russian History and Antiquities two days later. However, publication of the lecture in lithographed form and in the university journal led to pamphlets denouncing him for switching from a critic of serfdom and the monarchy to an admirer of Alexander III and for becoming a propagandist rather than a scholar. When many students whistled and hissed him at a class on November 30, the university administration hastily called the police, who arrested fifty-eight. The next day, the university suspended three students, reprimanded four, and expelled three. This led to a student petition for leniency on December 2, which the administration rejected. When students demonstrated, the police intervened again. The university then expelled fifty-nine students. Forty-two members of the faculty, including Kliuchevskii and friends such as Ger’e and Timiriazev, then drafted a petition to the Govemor General of Moscow, a request the university rector seconded, which asked that those students previously active be allowed to retum. The Governor General rejected the pétition, censured those who signed, and reprimanded Ger’e and three others most responsible for the meeting and the signatures18.
26Even though Kliuchevskii protested against the police action and the expulsions, the Minister of Education and other high government authorities had long known that he was a devoted and loyal subject. Before this incident in the winter of 1894, they had provided him an opportunity for service which probably contributed to student suspicion, the demonstrations, and the embarrassment over the talk about Alexander III. In July 1893, Minister of Education Delianov, General G.G. Danilovich, and Minister of the Court Prince I.I. Vorontsov-Dashkov invited Kliuchevskii to devote an hour and a half a day from November 1, 1893 through April 1, 1894 to tutoring Grand Duke George Alexander in European history in Abbas Tuman in the Caucasus. Kliuchevskii apparently tried to refuse, but reluctantly accepted the commission, which provided that he retain his salaries from Moscow University and the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy and in addition receive 3600 rubles and his travel and living expenses. The professer spent the summer of 1893 preparing an outline and lectures, purchased a new frock coat and an over-coat, and then served as a tutor. He continued the course the following winter and in 1895 purchased the house he had long rented19.
27Kliuchevskii’s tutoring exercised no influence upon Russian political development because his student died when still a young man. The next opportunity of which we hâve knowledge also had no impact. However, the invitation, the acceptance, and the analysis the scholar offered provide significant information concerning the government’s judgment of him, his political views, his candor, and the way in which the political vortex drew in even cautious and unpolitical men. The archives are not so clear as historians would prefer, but V.K. Plehve, then secretary of State for Finland and from 1902 until 1904 a most hated Minister of Interior, in 1901 became acquainted with the leamed historian. Late that year, he invited Kliuchevskii to discuss the political situation and to submit a mémorandum outlining his ideas Kliuchevskii’s papers contain a draft mémorandum dated January 4,1902, and correspondence between the two men indicates that he went to Petersburg in February 1902, that Kliuchevskii was working over that memorandum or another one that fall, and that he sent a draft paper of some kind on his political views to Paul Miliukov. The January 4, 1902, mémorandum notes clearly that the government and society (pbshchestvd) were in opposition and that the government had consistently rejected aid the educated and informed classes had offered. Moreover, the government neglected the needs of the people (narod), while the educated people were not only ever doser to the populace but enjoyed remarkable freedom in discussing their ideas publicly and even publishing them. The government still retained the authority and power to assert its will, but could act only with great hazard. The unexpressed conclusion of this draft paper is that the government should end its isolation, establish a bridge to society, and provide the educated and responsible an opportunity to advise and assist20.
28These ideas resemble those of Loris-Melikov in 1880-1881 and of course reflect the discussions in which Kliuchevskii participated with those who had founded the Beseda group. They indicate that he was aware of at least some of the dangers the government faced and that he urged relaxation of Controls and giving responsible critics and opportunity to serve. At the same time, they show that the former student of Montesquieu recognized that the most perilous situation for an unpopular government occurs when it begins to reform.
29The Russo Japanese war and the growing political tunn0ll in 1904 and 1905 made Kliuchevskii gloomy about Russia’s future and also drew him into advisory work in the highest councils. These months and Kliuchevskii’s interest in Duma service in 1906 demonstrate how deeply the political crisis affected him.
30Kliuchevskii’s fïrst opportunity, which he accepted with particular eagerness because it affected access to information and intellectul freedom, was an invitation in February 1905 to serve on a commission chaired by D.F. Kobeko, former director of the Petersburg Public Library, to review censorship regulations. The group, which met thirty times in the Mariinskii Palace, consisted largely of conservative journalists and churchmen, but also men such as A.F. Koni. Kliuchevskii vigorously opposed restrictions on « right of the word, » urged that the courts alone should exercise authority whenever the government thought any review necessary, and declared that they should justify restrictions only to defend « State security. » A private critic of Russian Orthodox Church administration long convinced that the patriarchate should be reestablished, Kliuchevskii was especially severe in his denunciation of church censorhip. When Bishop Antonii defended the church’s right to monitor spiritual books, the historian responded that the church should abandon ail administrative measures against publications on religious issues and should instead rely upon moral authority. Kliuchevskii also joined with Koni and other members of the commission in a letter of protest to Kobeko against the use of administrative measures against the press, a step almost unique in the scholar’s life21.
31His participation in discussions with other Muscovite intellectuals, his diary in February 1905, and his outspokenness in the Kobeko meetings reveal that he was becoming increasingly critical of the government. When police broke up a student demonstration in late November or early December, 1904, and when members of the class asked him to suspend the lecture, he remarked that he did not want to lecture if they did not want to hear him. The defeat at Port Arthur and Bloody Sunday stunned him : his diary noted that the soldiers’ firing on the workers appalled him and that Bloody Sunday was a second Port Arthur. On January 11, 1905 he wrote in his diary that Nicholas II was the last tsar and that Alexei would not rule. Apparently, he also made this statement in class that day or the next day, but he told his son that the police had been too busy with other more important criticisms to pay attention to anyone who reported that indiscrétion22.
32Like many other educated Russians, he had given some thought to an advisory council or even a legislature and to the way in which its members should be elected and organized. His archives include a mémorandum dated February 14, 1905 on representation in a central State forum. This discusses several Systems and concludes that neither the zemskii sobor nor Western constitutionalism was fitting for Russian use and that « life must create its own forms. » A pencilled note dated December 20, 1905 reflected views he expressed on a number of occasions after the fall of 1905 that political groups represent spécial interests and therefore were not appropriate for a State such as Russia, but that Russia needed some System of representation.
33Kliuchevskii’s tutoring and his contacts with others in the high bureaucracy, perhaps even in the impérial family, apparently persuaded someone at court that the eminent historian would constitute a useful conservative ally and ornament in a series of meetings. Nicholas II called to discuss establishment of an advisory council. On February 18, 1905, the tsar had announced his plan to summon « the better people for preparatory elaboration and judgment of legislative proposais, » while at the same time « unfailingly preserving the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire. » Kliuchevskii quickly accepted the invitation to participate in the meetings in Peterhof to discuss a draft manifeste for this Duma prepared under the direction of Minister of Interior A.F. Bulygin. He judged he had no choice but to accept an imperial command (and an honorarium of 1000 rubles), even though this would delay progress on his Kurs, because he might exert some influence toward establishing doser relationships between government and « society23. »
34The August Manifeste on a consultative Duma which emerged from the fïve meetings at Peterhof between July 19 and July 26, over which Nicholas II presided, and a smaller session on July 30 which K.P. Pobedonostsev chaired satisfied no one and was swept away by events that summer and fall. The sessions constituted one of the last opportunities Nicholas I] and his senior experienced bureaucrats had to deal with the issues which 1905 had raised and to bridge the gap between the State and society, and they failed dismally.
35Kliuchevskii knew only two participants at Peterhof and was the only one who was not a member of the impérial family or the bureaucratie elite : five grand dukes ; the heads of ail ministries and government departments ; and several military and naval leaders, court functionaries, Senators, and members of the Council of State constituted the other forty-three participants. The meeting was formless, and no votes were taken. The men discussed two drafts, but most members had seen only one. Russian bureaucrats had not yet mastered effective committee habits and procedures. They did not engage in a systematic, clause-by-clause discussion of either draft, but instead concentrated on a few central issues, such as the nature of the autocracy, the powers of the Duma, the character of the electoral System, and how peasants were to be represented. Ail decisions remained the tsar’s, and the participants were not certain if the discussions had exercised any influence at all24 .
36Kliuchevskii spoke clearly and effectively on the central issues, particularly when one considers his singular position, his inexperience in such sessions, and his cautious character. On the second day, he delivered a vigorous talk on the need for a Duma that was représentative and that could and would inform the rulers of the people’s needs. The government must obtain advice from the Duma when formulating its tax program to ensure its obtaining public acceptance and to reduce « the errors and imperfections » of Russian life. Citing historical illustrations that showed Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Alexander II had benefited from understanding public needs, he declared that the govemment must know « the disposition of the country... and this knowledge can only be given by the Duma25. »
37He was especially outspoken in his attacks upon the proposai that voting be by estâtes or sosloviia. He launched his remarks by paying tribu te to the contributions the dvorianstvo had made earlier in Russian history, when it cooperated with the narod for the general welfare, and by offering a note of regret it had declined in power. Whatever the reasons, this class had lost its close ties to the land and the people and was intolérant and disorganized. Moreover, it possessed economie and cultural leadership and was well able to defend its interests without special representation. Above ail, most Russians would interpret elections by class as « the creation of a State Duma for defense of the class interests of the dvorianstvo. » This would create the « unjust and dangerous » idea that the tsar was a Symbol of a class. « God free us from such conséquences. » Observers who opposed Kliuchevskii’s view noted that it apparently impressed Nicholas II and many participants in the meeting26.
38On the last day, Kliuchevskii returned to this theme and urged that the peasants be given a large share in the electoral System, which would be indirect in any case. He argued that the peasant vote could do no harm, that the peasants would vote for those « competent persons who understood the interests of the rural population » and who would be able to defend peasant interests in the Duma, and that peasant voting would inform the rulers and release pressures27.
39On July 30, at Pobedonostsev’s suggestion, the historian participated in the meeting in the Mariinskii Palace which Pobedonostsev chaired to begin drafting the manifesto, of which six versions were then at hand. The brief session decided to entrust the final draft to the State Chancellory. Emboldened by his expérience and relying on his knowledge of history and on his skill as a writer, Kliuchevskii introduced a number of sensible proposals for the August Manifesto. His ideas reveal he possessed political sense. For example, he urged removal of phrases which referred to an « internai enemy, » replaced « déplorable deep internai disturbances » by « internal troubles, » and pressed that the manifeste end with a ringing declaration about Russian unity and power28.
40Kliuchevskii’s efforts in these meetings show that historical knowledge had little effect on the political destinies of Russia. Moreover, they reveal how conservative and perhaps how timid he was. Even though he was forthright on several critical issues, he did accept the principles central to the August Manifeste. At least, in the meetings he did not criticize the property requirements for participation in the electoral process, the exclusion of massive groups from the System, the multi-staged indirect electoral arrangements, the absence of reference to basic civil rights, and above all, the denial of any power to the Duma.
41Kliuchevskii’s participation in the 1905 meetings in Petersburg and Peterhof reveal how the revolution had drawn even cautions and conservative scholars into undreamed-of activities. It also apparently made him far more critical of the govemment than he had been. Above ail, each evening he informed Paul Miliukov in detail of the July discussions and provided Miliukov and his friends in the future Kadet Party ammunition for use against the govemment. Kliuchevskii was one of Miliukov’s major professors when the latter was a graduate student in Moscow University. However, when Miliukov in 1892 presented his M.A. thesis on the Russian economy and the reforms of Peter the Great, hoping that the faculty would also accept such a thesis for his Ph. D. degree as well, as happened occasionally, Kliuchevskii questioned Miliukov sharply on the accuracy of his facts and on his conclusions and voted against granting the Ph. D. ; Miliukov then decided not to pursue that degree, and relations between the two men apparently ceased for approximately a decade. Early in the twentieth century, perhaps after meetings in or around the Beseda group, the two resumed contact, according to Miliukov discussing a « more just organization of society » as a guarantee against increased popular dissatisfaction. When Miliukov was arrested in November 1902,Kliuchevskii wrote both to D.F. Trepov, chief of police in Moscow and to Count S.D. Sheremet’ev, urging release of Miliukov, « who was not at ail a radical » but a « naive, slow-witted academic liberal, even stupid in his actions, ...29 ».
42When the historian went to Petersburg in July, 1905 for the discussions of the discussions of the Bulygin draft manifeste, he sent his son Boris to Miliukov to obtain materials and advice concerning politics at the court. Each night, Miliukov came to Kliuchevskii’s hotel room on Pushkin Street, where the scholar provided a detailed account of the meetings and they discussed strategies for the next session. After publication of the August Manifesto, Miliukov used the documents Kliuchevskii had shown him and their discussions to write an article in Pravo, for which he was arrested. Kliuchevskii, in great fear, wrote again to Trepov, declaring that he had given Miliukov none of any papers found in his rooms. He also asked Prince S.N. Trubetskoî to intercede and obtain the papers. According to losif V. Gessen, Kliuchevskii later managed to supply Miliukov one of the two sténographie copies made of the Peterhof meetings, which Gessen published in Germany several years later30.
43In the fall of 1905, he resigned as president of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities, apparently because he feared the government would ask him and the society to take an official position on the war and the crisis. Later that fall, when Witte asked him to provide historical data on the concept of autocracy, he pied ignorance and proposed another scholar31.
44After the August Manifeste was published, for the first time in his career at the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, Kliuchevskii became engaged in a stormy controversy. Indeed, he was one of twenty-two faculty members then who signed a pétition that the Church grant the Academy an autonomous structure. This enraged the rector, Bishop Evdokim, who turned upon the younger faculty in particular. Kliuchevskii in a private conversation defended students who were striking over the issue and suggested to the rector that the troubles were a vaudeville act which would soon end. When the rector repeated this remak in a talk to the student body, the historian was outraged and suggested he might retire from the beloved institution in which he had taught thirty-four years. The swirl of Academy politics during the following fifteen months is very unclear, with the rector and some faculty members eager to press the retirement of the Academy’s greatest scholar and with most students and the minority of the faculty urging him to remain. Ultimately, Kliuchevskii retired late in the fall of 1906, humiliated and angered by the treatment he had received32.
45Kliuchevskii’s political actions and views in his last years are difficult to identify and describe, largely because he was so cautious and discrete about activities that were completely novel and perhaps dangerous. Throughout the 1904- 1906 period, his fondamental conservatism remained solid but concealed. He suggested to his students throughout 1905 and 1906 that the autocracy at that time was unshakeable. He saw the Moscow uprising late in 1905 as an explosion of ignorant people just seeking something to do. He was deeply critical of the Black Hundreds, but he also thought all political parties represented special interests and divided society : Russia instead need a government which sought the general welfare33.
46However, in the fall of 1905 and the winter of 1905-1906, Kliuchevskii smashed all the earlier restraints and engaged in open liberal political actions. Miliukov exaggerates greatly when he describes Kliuchevskii as a founding member of the Kadets in 1905. However, the great historian did support Kadet positions in discussions in his home with Miliukov and with others. It is clear that he voted for the Kadets in the election for the First Duma and that he ran with combined Kadet-Octobrist support from Sergiev Posad, even though he was essentially not a party man. He also stood for élection to the Council of State from the Academy of Sciences and the university early in the spring of 1906, voted for himself and won election, and then chose not to serve34.
47Indeed, March and April 1906 represent the turning point in his interest in political affairs, almost surely because he resented and refused to continue the time and energy they consumed. He was very critical of the First Duma because he thought it composed of dilettantes and reactionaries, but he thought a revolution might explode when Nicolas II dismissed it. His diary entries for 1906 and 1907 reveal that the violence of Russian political life increasingly alarmed him. He therefore turned away from participation in or even close observation of political life to concentrate upon writing. He told Peter Struve that men such as they should seek to expand éducation because the crisis had revealed the Russian people’s ignorance of their history and the basis facts of their life : completing the Kurs russkoi istorii was far more important than anything he could possibly achieve through other activities. He therefore obtained leaves from Moscow University whenever he could and concentrated upon teaching is his last years at the School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture, where he felt himself « an artist among artists » free from all social and political complications. His last lecture was giving as this school just two weeks before he went to the hospital, and he was working on a lecture for it and on student papers just before his death in May, 191135.
48It is ironie that Kliuchevskii might never hâve begun his most important work except that Sergius Witte in 1902 persuaded V.F. Kirshbaum, printer of the Ministry of Finance, to publish twenty handsome three-volume sets of lithographed lectures of his course which Kliushevskii students had made. Witte, who did not know the scholar and who did not request permission for the publishing venture, apparently wanted a copy of Lectures on Russia History by V.O. Kliuchevskii, prof essor of Moscow University for himself and for members of the imperial family to demonstrate that his views of Russian history were acceptable36.
49Already annoyed by the number of lithographed copies of his lectures floating aroung the university, Kliuchevskii was persuaded by Witte’s action to use the lithographed versions of his 1882-1883 and 1883-1884 lectures as the basis of a multi-volume history of Russia. He began work in September 1902, using a leave of absence he had obtained from the University and the Academy, and prepared first volume ready for publication by the Holy Synod Press in the fall of 1903. He then began work on a revision of that volume, which appeared in the fall of 1905, and on the second volume, published in 1906. Volume III reached the press in the fall of 1907 and was published early in 1908, with Russkaia Mysl’ publishing it serially as well. Kliuchevskii began work on volume IV late in 1907, working at the same time on the fourth édition of Boiarskaia duma drevnei Rusi and on the seventh édition of Kratkoe posobie po russkoi istorii, first published as a handbook for students in 1899. He had completed the fourth volume by December 1909, and it appeared early in 1910. By the time he entered the hospital early in October 1911 for the first of a series of kidney operations, he had completed drafts of five chapters of the last volume as well as a paper on the abolition of serfdom, the fiftieth aniversary of which was then being celebrated. He continued working until a week or two before his death, but Ja. L. Barskov, who had worked closely with him on the earlier volumes, finished that volume, which was published after the révolution, in 192 137.
50Even with the help of Boris and of Barskov, completing these five volumes in less than a decade was an extraordinary achievement. Kliuchevskii relied veryheavily upon his lithographed lectures, but dedication and concentration contributed greatly to his progress. Academician Nechkina, who has compared some of the lithographed lectures with the published volumes, suggests that the latter are progressingly more critical of the autocracy and the dvorianstvo and that they devote more attention to the peasants and to peasant uprisings than the lithographed versions38. I hâve not been able to complété the careful study necessary to reach conclusions on ways in which Kliuchevskii’s views changed from 1902 until 1911 : the materials available are immense, because they include the various lithographed lectures which served as bases, his notes and drafts, and his correspondence with his son Boris. However, my preliminary judgment is that the revisions were not considerable and that Kliuchevskii was a pool of quiet in the center of a storm, writing with as little reference to contemporary events as Jane Austen had in her great novels a century earlier. In particular, I conclude tentatively that the published volumes pay even less attention to foreign policy and to the effect of war than do the earlier versions, even though the Russo-Japanese war and its consequences were evident to the author as he wrote. But this issue demands most careful analysis.
51In any case, Witte’s admiration for Kliuchevskii’s work, the months the political crisis of 1905-1906 consumed, Kliuchevskii’s disappointment with its results, and his realization by the spring of 1906 that Russians needed understanding of their past helped produce one of the most significant historiés of Russia ever published, both for those who live in the Soviet Union and for many beyond its borders. Kliuchevskii’s rôle in 1905 was minor, but illuminating, while the influence of 1905 upon his decision to resume concentration upon his massive work was décisive. Scholarship thus triumphed over politics.
Discussion
52Marc SZEFTEL
53(résumé)
54Milioukov rapporte dans ses Mémoires avoir eu à l’époque de la première Douma une conversation avec Klioutchevsky qui lui aurait dit que le tsarevitch Alexis ne règnerait pas. A-t-on d’autres témoignages à ce sujet ?
55D’autre part, lors de la rédaction des lois fondamentales où l’on recourait au terme évidemment impopulaire d’autocratie, Witte aurait souhaité avoir l’avis de Klioutchevsky mais ce dernier s’est dit trop occupé et a invoqué ses étudiants et son travail d’historien. Pour lui, en effet, le terme d’autocratie gardait son sens traditionnel de pouvoir absolu et illimité.
56Robert F. BYRNES (Indiana Univ.)
57Je vous remercie d’évoquer ces questions. De fait dans une de ses lettres à son fils, d’avril 1905 me semble-t-il, Klioutchevsky mentionne avoir dit la veille dans un cours que Nicolas II serait le dernier tsar ; et il ajoutait que la police était si occupée à arrêter des gens pour d’autres motifs qu’elle ne prêterait guère attention à ce propos. Ainsi donc, il était persuadé bien avant d’en parler à Milioukov que le régime était condamné.
58Votre deuxième point est parfaitement exact lui aussi. A un moment quelconque de l’été ou de l’automne 1906, Klioutchevsky décida de ne plus rien avoir à faire avec le gouvernement. Il démissionna de sa fonction de président de la Société d’histoire et d’archéologie, parce qu’il pensait que le gouvernement risquait de lui demander de prendre position en cette qualité dans un esprit de loyalisme, et qu’il souhaitait l’éviter. Comme bien des Russes à l’époque, aussi bien libéraux que conservateurs, il avait fini par être persuadé que le régime était condamné et il se pourrait que ce soit son expérience du début de 1905 qui l’en ait convaincu. Il repoussa également toutes les avances qui lui étaient faites, il désirait terminer son livre, ce que nous sommes bien placés pour comprendre.
59Samuel BARON (North Carolina)
60Je ne suis pas complètement d’accord avec votre présentation de Klioutchevsky comme historien ; et il me semble de plus que vous avez sous-estimé l’intérêt porté par Klioutchevsky à l’Occident. En ce qui concerne l’année 1905 proprement dite j’aimerais vous soumettre deux questions :
611° Vous accentuez dans votre communication ce que vous appelez le « conservatisme fondamental » de Klioutchevsky ce qui peut en un sens se défendre, mais qui paraît contestable par ailleurs. D’une part vous dites qu’il s’est opposé aux types occidentaux de système politique ; il pensait en effet que les partis politiques représentent des intérêts particuliers qui augmentent les divisions au sein de la société – ce qui semble annoncer une sorte de parti-pris à la « Politburo ». Si tel est le cas, comment expliquer qu’il ait choisi comme secrétaire un homme représentant toutes les tendances auxquelles il était lui-même opposé ? Après tout, il existait d’autres libéraux de tendances plus conservatrices, auxquels il aurait pu s’adresser. C’est pourquoi je me demande s’il s’agit d’un conservatisme fondamental ou si ce ne serait pas plutôt une ambivalence. En tout cas, cela vaut la peine d’examiner les choses d’un peu plus près.
622 Ma seconde question porte sur une phrase de votre communication : Klioutchevsky a jugé que l’expérience de la révolution de 1905 avait montré que les Russes ne comprenaient pas les leçons de l’histoire de la Russie. Quelles étaient ces leçons qu’ils ne comprenaient pas en ce qui concerne la révolution de 1905 ? Pouvez-vous les expliciter ?
63Robert F. BYRNES
64Je vous remercie d’avoir évoqué le cas de Milioukov, sur lequel je ne m’étais pas réellement interrogé. L’explication que j’avancerai, mais qu’il me faudra vérifier, c’est que Milioukov se trouvait à Pétersbourg qu’il ne connaissait pratiquement pas. Il s’y était rendu une seule fois en 1893 pour des conférences et il y avait également séjourné dans les années 1860, pour y effectuer des recherches. Sans quoi il n’avait jamais été dans la capitale et il n’y connaissait personne. Si bien que Klioutchevsky se tourna vers Milioukov parce que ce dernier se trouvait dans la capitale.
65Lorsque j’ai commencé mes recherches voici bien des années, je pensais que Klioutchevsky avait été profondément influencé par l’Occident parce que son premier enseignement, de 1876 au début des années 1880, portait sur l’histoire de la France et de la Révolution française. Mais, pour autant que je le sache, après avoir professé ce cours il le mit de côté et abandonna également tout intérêt pour la France ; et dix ans plus tard, lorsqu’on lui demanda de parler du même sujet au futur tsar Nicolas II il eut besoin de trois mois pour le remettre en forme. Il s’est littéralement enfermé dans l’Histoire russe. Il a oublié toutes les langues qu’il connaissait. Il refusait de rencontrer des visiteurs étrangers...
66Samuel BARON
67Il est peut-être superflu de rappeler que la thèse de doctorat de Klioutchevsky portait sur la Russie moscovite et qu’elle a eu une influence très importante sur son développement ultérieur. En fait son cours d’Histoire russe n’a-t-il pas été finalement un cours sur cette Russie-là ?
68Robert F. BYRNES
69Oui et c’est un point sur lequel il me faudra me pencher. Les volumineuses archives de Klioutchevsky ne comptent que neuf lettres adressées à des étrangers ; des gens comme Pobedonostsev ou autres, pourtant beaucoup plus conservateurs que lui, se déplaçaient pour rencontrer tout étranger de passage en Russie ! Klioutchevsky, lui, les évitait délibérément, et, comme je l’ai souligné, il ne chercha plus à se rendre à l’étranger, après trois tentatives dans ce sens, sans grande conviction d’ailleurs.
70J. D. MORISON (Leeds)
71Vous dites que Klioutchevsky a recommandé de donner aux paysans une très large représentation à la Douma. Pouvez-vous nous préciser si Klioutchevsky avait pressenti quelle sorte de représentants les paysans allaient élire à la première Douma et ce que ces représentants y diraient ? La façon dont les paysans pourraient voter a donné lieu en effet à bien des malentendus.
72Robert F. BYRNES
73Votre question me donne l’occasion de revenir sur un point important que j’ai brièvement mentionné tout au début de ma communication. J’ai signalé que 1905 avait prouvé à quel point l’État et la « société » (obchtchetstvo) étaient éloignés l’un de l’autre, mais aussi à quel point la « société » l’était du peuple, et Klioutchevsky n’avait, pour sa part, aucune connaissance ni des paysans ni des ouvriers ! En réalité Klioutchevsky était un homme de cabinet, qui vivait dans son bureau, qui dormait dans son bureau et qui, une fois qu’il a eu quitté son village natal n’y est jamais plus revenu.
74Rien ne prouve par exemple qu’il ait jamais visité une commune paysanne ! Il partageait avec les populistes l’idée que les paysans étaient des êtres pleins de simplicité et de sagesse, qui pouvaient parfaitement réussir dans leur domaine si on leur en donnait la possibilité. Mais, fondamentalement, il était aussi coupé des paysans que Joseph Chamberlain l’était des ouvriers de sa ville du nord de l’Angleterre. Ce qui ne l’empêchait pas d’avoir en eux une sorte de foi aveugle : 1905 et 1906 l’ont détruite. Il pensait que la Russie reviendrait à telle ou telle de ses institutions du passé et les années 1905-1906 n’ont rien produit qui pût être d’une aide quelconque pour la Russie. La foi qu’il avait eue fut tout simplement détruite. C’est là un phénomène intéressant et j’aimerais étudier d’autres représentants de cette classe pour mesurer à quel point ils ont été séparés du peuple au milieu duquel ils vivaient.
75Dans l’énorme masse de papiers laissés par Klioutchevsky, dans ses carnets, ses écrits, ses lettres, dans la correspondance qu’il recevait, dans les mémoires de ses étudiants on ne trouve jamais aucune référence à l’ouvrier, aucune ! La seule fois où il a mentionné des ouvriers ce fut à propos d’une démonstration à proximité de son domicile – non loin de l’actuelle place d’Octobre – et de la manière dont les manifestants avaient mis le feu à une boutique.
76C’est là la seule référence au monde ouvrier que j’ai trouvée dans toute la masse de ses écrits que j’ai parcourus... Klioutchevsky était tout simplement un savant qui ne prêtait aucune attention à la société dans laquelle il vivait.
Notes de fin
1 Richard Pipes, Struve : Libérais on the Left, Cambridge, Harvard, 1970, p. 112, footnote ; Leon Trockij. My Life, New York. Grosset and Dunlap, 1960, p. 56 ; Vasilij A. Maklakov, Iz vospominanij, New York, Chekhov, 1954, pp. 188-191 ; Maklakov, « Klyuchevsky », Slavonic Review, XIII, 1935, pp. 320-328 ; Victor M. Četnov, Pered burej. Vospominanija, New York, Chekhov, 1953, p. 55 ; Valerij Btjusov, Dnevniki, 1891-1910, M., Sabašnikov, 1927, pp. 4,69.
2 « Pis’ma K.P. Pobedonosceva k S.D. Vojtu », Russkij arhiv, 1, 1917, p. 77 ; S. Mel’gunov, ed., « K.P. Pobedonoscev v dni pervoj revoljucii. Neizdannyja pis’ma k S.D. Vojtu », Na luioj storone, VIII, 1924, pp. 183,189 ; « Pis’ma K.P. Pobedonosceva k E.M. Feoktistovu », Literatumoe nasledstvo, n ° 22 – 24 , 1935 . pp. 530 – 591.
3 S.O. Smidt, « V.I. Lenin – čitatel’ V.O. Kljudevskogo », in G.M. Amašina, ed., Problemy istorii obščestvennogo dviženija i istoriografii, M., Nauka, 1971, p. 354-364 ; I.S. Smirnov, Lenin i sovetskaja kul’tura, M., Nauka, 1960, pp. 145-148 ; A.A. Zimin, « V.I. Lenin o ’Moskovskom carstve’ i čerty feodal’noj razdroblennosti v proletarskom stroe Rossii XVI veka », in L.V. Ceiepnin, ed., Aktual’nye problemy istorii Rossii epohi feodalizma, Sbomik statej, M., Nauka, 1970, pp. 271-272 ; Milica Nečkina, Vasilij Osipovič Ključevskij. Istorija iiznii tvorčestva. M., Nauka, 1974, pp. 20-21,47, 271-272,575,595-599.
4 M. Nedkina, « Istorija izudenija V.O. Kljudevskogo », Istorideskie zapiski, LXXXIV, 1969, p. 254 ; Nečkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 22-24, 34-39,51-52.
5 V.K. Tkorževskij, « V.O. Kljucevskij, kak sociolog i političeskij myslitel’ », Dela i dni, II, 1921, p. 170, footnote ; S.S. Glagolev, O V. Ključevskom, Sergiev Posad, Elov, 1917, p. 9 ; Nedkina, Kljucevskij, op. cit., p. 234.
6 Manuscript Division, Institute of History, Soviet Academy of Sciences (hereafter MDIH), Kljudevskij Papers, f. 4, o. 3, n °79, Prihodnaja knizka, 1888-1898.
7 V.O. Ključevskij, Pis’ma V.O. Ključevskogo k. P.P. Gvozcevu 1861-1870. Vystupitel’naja stat’ja i primečanija S.A. Golubceva, M., 1924, pp. 22-23, 33, 57-59 ; A.A. Zimin, « Formirovanie istoričeskih vzgljadov V.O. Ključevskogo v 60-egody XIX v. », Istoričeskije zapiski, n’ 69, 1961, pp. 194-195 ; Maklakov, « Klyuchevsky », art. cit., pp. 325-326 ; Nečkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 112-113,176-178.
8 Ibid., pp. 137-138, 176-178, 298-299, 339, 602. The State Historical Museum and the Manuscript Division of the Lenin Library in Moscow and the Saltykov-Ščedrin Library in Leningrad have lithographed copies of this course as Kljudevskij presented it in nine different years between 1871-1872 and 1882-1883.
9 Manuscript Division, Lenin Library (hereafter MDLL), f.131, o.24a, n° 37 ; State Historical Archive of Moscow Oblast’ (hereafter SHAM), f.418, o.48, n° 341 Central State Historical Archive (hereafter CGIA), f. 193, o. 733, n ° 126.
10 Raissa A. Kireeva, V.O. Ključevskij kak istorik russkoj istoričeskoj nauki, M., Nauka, 1966, pp. 179-182.
11 Izjaslav H. Štejngauz, Sociologičeskie vzgljady V.O. Klučevskogo, Irkutsk, 1974, p. 11.
12 Ol’ga Trubeckaja, Knjaz’ S.N. Trubeckoj ; vospominanija sestry, New York, Chekhov, 1953, pp. 113-119 ; Zimin, « Formirovanie istoričeskih vzgljadov Ključevskogo », art. cit., pp. 178-196 ; Nečkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 88-93,126-127.
13 M.D. Rabinovid, « Evoljucija kursa vseobsdej istorii V.O. Ključevskogo », Novaja i novejšaja istorija, n° 6, 1969,pp. 103-109 ; Nečkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 327-347.
14 MDLL, f.131, 0.32, n° 4, p. 7 ; CGIA, f. 30, n° 1885 ; MDIH, Ključevskü Papers, f.4, o. 2, n ’ 8, p. 47 ; Central State Archives of the October Révolution, M., Ohrannoe otdelenie Papers, f. 63, o. 9, n° 397 ; Nečkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 92, 372, 380-383, 393, 607.
15 Sergej P. Mel’gunov, Vospominanija i dnevniki, Paris, Les Éditeurs réunis, 1964, I, pp. 63-69 ; K.A. Markova, « Arhiv V.I. Ger’e », Zapiski otdela rukopisej, XXI, 1959, pp. 33- 64 ; Sir Bernard Pares, « Sir Paul Vinogradoff. The Public Man », Slavonie Review, IV, 1926, pp. 544-550 ; Prince Evgenij N. Trubeckoj, Vospominanija, Sofia, Knigoizdat, 1921, pp. 181- 182.
16 MDIH, Ključevskij Papers, f.4, o.53 ; Evgenij D. Čermenskij, Buržuazija i carizm v revolucii 1905-1907 gg., M., Mysl’, 1970, pp. 18-22 ; Shmuel Galai, The Liberation Movement in Russia, 1901-1905, Cambridge, 1973, pp. 52-55.
17 Central State Archives of the October Révolution (hereafter CGAOR), f.63, 0.7, n° 397 ; f. 102, o. 114, n° 90 ; f. 285, o. 3,n° 635 ; « Redakcija i sotrudnikiRusskoj Mysli », Byloe, IV, 1917, pp. 101,107 ; Nečkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 321-327,456.
18 CGAOR, Moscow 0hrannae otdelenie Papers, f.63, 0.7, n° 3572 ; MDLL, f. 131 o. 30, n° 7-8 ; P.S. Tkačenko, Moskovskoe studenčestvo v občdestvenno-političeskoj iizni Rossii vtoroj poloviny XIX veka, M., Moskovskij universitet, 1958, pp. 214-219 ; Trubeckaja, Trubeckoj, op. cit., p. 21.
19 SHAM, f.418, o.62, n-538 ; MDLL, f.131, o. 2, n” 2, 4 ; f.131, o. 28, n’ 11 ; Nedkina, Kljčdevskij, op. cit., pp. 325-328,332-347.
20 MDIH, Ključevskij Papers, f. 4, o. 3, n” 1 ; f.4, 0.5, n • 21 ; f. 4, o. 5, n ° 53 ; MDLL, p. 131,o. 33, n° 32.
21 Archives of Saltykov-Ščedrin Library, f. 9 ; Tkorževskij, « Klyuchevsky », art. cit., p. 168 ; Neckina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 446-447,454-459,615.
22 V.O. Ključvskij, Pis’ma. Dnevniki. Aforizmy i mysli ob istorii, M., Nauka, 196 , p. 306 ; Neêkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 455-456.
23 MDIH, f.4, o. 3, n ° 4 ; CGIA, f. 1544,o. 3,n- 477.
24 The July meetings in Peterhof are well-documented. On addition to the stenographie report which was published later, two memoirs are particularly useful : Nikolaj A. Tagancev, Pereïitoe : Učreždenija gosudarstvennoj dumy v 1905-1906 gg., Pg., Gos. Tip., 1917, and Sergej E. Kryžanovskij, Vospominanija. Iz bumag poslednego gosudarstvennogo sekretarja Rossiiskoj Imperii, Berlin, n. d. ; Sergej P. Mel’gunov, ed., Nikolaj II. Materialy dlja harakteristiki lilnosti i carstvovanija, M., Golos minuvšago, 1917, and Ann Erickson Healy, The Russian Autocrary in Crisis, 1905-1907, Hamden, Conn., Archon, 1976, also provide full accounts.
25 Petergofskoe soveščanie o proekte Gosudarstvennoj Dumy pod ličnym Ego Impera-torskogo Velilestva predsedatel’stvom. Sekretnyj protokol, Berlin, Frohwein Verlag, n.d., pp. 90,78-81.
26 Ibid., pp. 120-124.
27 Ibid., pp. 185-187.
28 N. Culošnikov, ed., « K istorii manifesta 6 avgusta 1905 », Krasnyj arhiv, I, 1926, pp. 263-268 ; Tagancev, Pereïitoe, pp. 36-39.
29 MDLL, f. 131, o. 22, n° 17 ; Vasilij A. Maklakov, « Otryvki iz vospominanij », in Vasilij B. El’janovič, A.A. Kizevetter, and M.M. Novikov, ed., Moskovskij universitet, 1755- 1830. Jubilejnyj sbomik, Paris, 1930, pp. 302-307 ; Maklakov, « Klyuchevsky », art. cit., p. 323 ; Galai, The Liberation Movement, op. cit., pp. 120-121 ; Neêkina, Kljutevskij, op. cit., pp. 375- 376, 410-411.
30 MDIH, f.4, o. 5, n° 14 ; Paul Miliukov, Political Memoirs, 1905-1917. Edited by Arthur P. Mendel, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967, pp. 41-194 ; Miljukov, God bor’by. Publicisti-teskaja hronika, 1905-1906, SPb., Obščestvennaja Pol’za, 1907, pp. 54-72 ; Trubeckaja, Trubeckoj, op. cit., pp. 152-153 ; losif V. Gessen, V dvuh vekah. Žiznennyj otlet, Berlin, Speer und Schmidt, 1927, p. 202 ; Bernard Pares published a translation of the stenographie report in 1913 : « The Peterhof Conférence (On the Draft Project of the Imperial Duma), Augusw 1-5,1905, » Russian Review, November, 1913, pp. 87-120.
31 Marija A. Golubcova, Vospominanija o V.O. Kljutevskom, M., Sytin, 1914, pp. 6-7 ; Neêkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 460,468469 ; Odesskoe obozrenie, May 23,1911.
32 MDIH, f.4, o. 2, n”2, 3 ; MDLL, f. 131, o.24b, n° 7, 9, 11 ; Golubcova, Vospominanija, op. cit., pp. 7-8 ; Nečkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 467468,497498 ; Sergej A. Glagolev, O Kljutevskom, op. cit., 1917, pp. 1-16.
33 Kljuêevskij, Pis’ma, pp. 297-303 ; Miliukov, Political Memoirs, p. 134 ; Tkorzevskij, « Ključevskij », art. cit., pp. 170-171 ; Richard Pipes, ed., P.B. Struve. Collected Works in Fifteen Volumes, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1970, IX, n’ 413, p. 8 ; Nečkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 493494,500-501,557-559.
34 Golubcova, Vospominanija, p. 6 ; Glagolev, O Kljutevskom, op. cit., p. 11 ; Miljukov, PoliticalMemoirs, op. cit., p. 41 ; Nečkina, Ključevskij, op. cit., pp. 470471,474477.
35 CGIAL, f. 305 (Ključevskij letters of February 12 and September 15, 1910 to Sergej P. Mel’gunov) ; A.A. Presnjakov, « V.O. Ključevskij, 1911-1921 », Russkij istoričeskij iurnal, vyp. 8,1922, p. 221 ; Maklakov, « Klyuchevsky », art. cit., p. 325.
36 Ključevskij, Kurs russkoj istorii, M., Holy Synod Press, 1906, Il, preface, pp. 1-2 ; Kljuêevskij, Kurs, M., 1921, V, préfacé, pp. 3-5 ; Neêkina, Kljulevskij, op. cit., pp. 398401, 403, 411414,545-546,563. The three-volume unauthorized édition was printed again in 1907, as Russkaja istorija with no author listed, in 6,000 copies, allegedly to finance the revolutionary movement, according to Barskov’s préfacé to volume V in 1921.
37 MDIH, Ključevskij Papers, f. 24 ; Manuscript Division of the Institute of History, Leningrad, f. 197,0. l, n- 1,2,3 ; MDLL, f. 131,o. 24b, n-5 ; o.32,n-13.
38 Nečkina, Kljucevskij, op. cit., pp. 449450,495496,502-504,507,523-526,540-542, 548-550,615,619.
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