• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15381 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15381 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Newsletter
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Éditions de la Sorbonne
  • ›
  • Internationale
  • ›
  • 1905
  • ›
  • vII. 1905 : Son expression à travers les...
  • ›
  • The 1905 revolution and the Russian inte...
  • Éditions de la Sorbonne
  • Éditions de la Sorbonne
    Éditions de la Sorbonne
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral THE INTELLIGENTSIA IN 1905 THE INFLUENCE OF 1905 REVOLUTION ON THE INTELLIGENTSIA THE INTELLIGENTSIA AND THE 1905 REVOLUTION APPENDIX I APPENDIX II Notes de fin Auteur

    1905

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    The 1905 revolution and the Russian intelligentsia

    J. Read

    p. 385-396

    Texte intégral THE INTELLIGENTSIA IN 1905 THE INFLUENCE OF 1905 REVOLUTION ON THE INTELLIGENTSIA THE INTELLIGENTSIA AND THE 1905 REVOLUTION APPENDIX I APPENDIX II Notes de fin Auteur

    Texte intégral

    1Though they had lïttle direct influence on the outbrak and development of the 1905 revolution the Russian intelligentsia (understood primarily in the contemporary sense as the avant-gard of political and intellectual life in Russia – perhaps best translated as intellectuels in the French sense) were very rapidly stimulated and drawn into the unfolding events of 1905 and 1906. Naturally, this applied particularly to those who had been politically involved prior to 1905 but it spread far beyond them so that intelligenty for whom révolution and politics had been only a minor theme began to show great interest in political events.

    2Aleksandr Blok is a well-known example. Perhaps more surprisingly, people who might be considered as conservative in most respects, like V.V. Rozanov, Dmitrii Merezhkovsky and Zinaida Gippius, were attracted by certain aspects of the revolution. The purpose of this paper is to show the variety of responses to the révolution particularly those exhibited once the revolution was seen to have failed. The intelligentsia carried out a thorough inquiry into the reasons for that failure and for the resurgence of the autocracy’s strength under the guidance of Stolypin. This debate was particularly acute and the sense of depression particularly profound because to many contemporaries it looked as though the révolution, predicted and hoped for by the intelligentsia for half-a-century, had failed and fifty years of progress had been lost. A minority, including Lenin and Trotsky, tried to encourage their supporters by arguing that 1905 marked a step forward, but very few were able to share this optimistic view at that time.

    THE INTELLIGENTSIA IN 1905

    3Clearly the intelligentsia’s reÉlections on the events of 1905 can only be understood in the context of their experience of an participation in those events. There is no satisfactory comprehensive study of the intelligentsia in this period though a number of studies have concentrated on the rôle of the bolshevik intelligentsia and Gorky in particular1.

    4For the rest 1905 is treated as a passing phase in the individual biography of major political, artistic and philosophical figures of the time. This is not the place to fill this gap in historiography but a few generalisations and a few examples might give an impression of the period.

    5In the first place one can say that no section of the intelligentsia was left unaffected by the 1905 events, including those inhabiting the self-proclaimed « ivory tower » of art for art’s sake aestheticism. In all cases some deeper degree of political awareness began to manifest itself, inspired particulartly by revulsion at the more blatant inhumanities of Tsarism. In this respect Bloody Sunday had a penetrating effect on the intelligentsia of Saint-Petersburg who witnessed the events at first hand. Spontaneous protests broke out. On the same day speeches were made in the reading room of the Imperial Public Library. Scheduled performances in the Impérial théâtres were replaced by political meetings. Figures as diverse as Gorky and Merezhkovsky2 were involved in these activities. The ensuing arrest of Gorky served only to deepen protests by Russian and European intellectuals.

    6An additional source of intellectual opposition was the spectacle of the autocracy fighting what was seen by many to be an unnecessary and cruel war which was also tuming into a military disaster of unprecedented proportions. Tolstoy’s thundering denunciations of the war had some influence but opposition was much wider than that of pacifist anarchists and also reached into some relatively unpolitical areas of the intelligentsia. The newly-established literary-philosophical journal Vesy, for instance, which was primarily a forum for the decadent and symbolist writers, devoted a considerable amount of space to Japanese culture in the autumn of 1904. The October-November issue had a reproduction of a Japanese watercolour on its front cover. In the context of the time this can only be understood as a thinly disguised criticism of the autocracy.

    7The decadent and symbolist groups in the literary movements of the time provide an interesting example of the effects of the revolution in that its chief figures were sceptical of the value of active involvement in the political world. This did not prevent the rising star of the movement, Aleksandr Blok, from sympathising with the revolutionaries, including terrorists and attending a few political meetings. In the heady days of October he even went so far as to carry a red flag in a Street demonstration and to declare himself, not without a trace of irony, to be a « Social-Democrat ». Those around him in his upper middle-class family also sympathised from early 1905 with undemourished and ill-dressed workers, peasants and their families who composed the revolutionary crowds. One effect of this sympathy was that Blok discovered the back-streets of Saint-Petersburg and used to take his friends on tours of inspection of the squalor and misery he found there. The family cancelled their subscription to the conservative newspaper Novoe Vremia and instead began to read the liberal Rech’. This sympathy caused acute tension within the family since Blok’s stepfather was a serving Guards Officer in charge of troops keeping order in the name of a govemment the Bloks had corne to despise.

    8Blok’s literary associates also showed some degree of rising political awareness, althouth this was often fused with religions, mystical and apocalyptic views, as in the case of Merezhkovsky and Zinaida Gippius who saw the upheavals as a foreshadowing of the second coming of Christ and claimed, on these grounds, to be the only true revolutionaries and Andrei Belyi who incorporated the events of the time into an even more complex apocalyptic outlook. Belyi also enthused over Marxism for a while and in October 1905 was preparing an article on Karl Kautsky. Not ail of them approved of Blok participating in so overt a fashion. Briusov, for instance, thought carrying red flags was beneath the dignity of a true intelligent.

    9Being to some degree aware of the naïvety of their political views some of the décadents began to seek enlightenment from people who were much better versed in the ways of the political world. The decadents came doser to the small group of Marxists turned idealists of whom Berdyaev and Bulgakov were the most prominent. The Merezhkovskys invited them to participate in 1904 in the editing of the journal Novyi put’ which they controlled, and act they came to regret since the journal passed from their hands entirely and was renamed Voprosy zhizni by its new editors, although the décadents, with the exception of Rozanov, continued to contribute extensively to it.

    10A enumber of the decadents and symbolists became acquainted with figures from the revolutionary underground around this time. Belyi for instance became a close friend of N. Valentinov, the Merezhkovskys associated with Boris Savinkov and N.M. Minsky was prevailed upon by Lenin to hand over his projected journal to the Social Democrats while remaining its nominal editor. Thus the first legal Bolshevik journal was edited by a symbolist poet and critic. Needless to say these friendships tended to be limited and by and large the mystical idealism of the writers and the militant materialism of the political activists created a wide intellectual gulf between them though one of the most interesting features of the post-revolutionary years was the growth of a younger generation which found dialogue across the gulf both stimulating and rewarding3.

    11Before tuming to these post-war debates it is worth noting that the growing political awareness of the intelligentsia began to find more ample means of expression as the révolution developed and the censorhisp apparatus became less and less effective so that by the end of the year the tolstye zhumaly were coming out uncensored and a number of humorous and satirical illustrated newspapers began to appear which reproduced the drawings, paintings and cartoons of major painters and graphie artists of the time as well as authors, poets, literary critics, philosophera ane political writers who had always been able to express themselves more readily in the press.

    12Thus by the end of the year a torrent of anti-tsarist work was being penned by intellectuals from a whole range of different viewpoints. Even art exhibitions became a focus for politics. Rozanov, for example, recounted that he mused for an hour at an exhibition of historical paintings over why an artist of Repin’s talent, so well able to reproduce the boisterous vitality of the Zaporozhets Cossaks in his painting of 1891 should have portrayed the members of the State Council in such a characterless, lifeless and insipid manner in his latest major painting. Then he realised Repin had simply painted what he had seen, that is how the State Council was. « it is », concluded Rozanov, « a great painting. It is Carthage before its destruction.”Carthago delenda est”4. » Many other examples of bitter hostility to Tsarism could be given from Tolstoy’s Odumaites’ (Bethink yourselves) to Bal’ mont’s poem Nash tsar and the vicious cartoons and caricatures of Adskaia pochta and other satirical joumals5.

    THE INFLUENCE OF 1905 REVOLUTION ON THE INTELLIGENTSIA

    13Although creating great interest and some participation of intellectuals, and stimulating discussion of fondamental questions and causing new attitudes and opinions to develop, the influence of the révolution at the level of fondamental principles was rather paradoxical. Rather than bringing about deep-rooted conversions among the intelligentsia the révolution served rather to confirm intellectuals in their varions views of the world. Although many relatively limited and, as it were, tactical alterations were made in people’s political and spiritual outlook this was usually done in the name of expressing the same fondamental opinions more effectively. In this way Lenin, for example, made some changes in his views of the relative importance of the peasantry in the revolution as a resuit of 1905 but he did not question the efficacy of proletarian Marxism. Other political leaders were similar in their response. Milyukov and Struve were unshaken in their fondamental beliefs. In the literary sphere one could say the same thing. Tolstoy, Blok, Briusov, Rozanov ail manoeuvred within the limits of principles laid down prior to 1905. Even where a person considered a radical change in outlook to have taken place a large element of continuity was often acknowledged, consciously or unconsciously. For example, in his autobiography Trotsky wrote « The revolution of 1905 made a break in the life of the country, in the life of the party, and in my own live. » But then he goes on to say « The break was in the direction of greater maturity6. » As he says subsequently the revolution revealed qualities within himself7. This is a different process from changing one’s opinions. Many other intellectuals shared Trotsky’s view that the revolution confirmed and developed their own basic principles rather than changed them. A thorough recent study of Lenin’s writings in this period has corne to a similar conclusion. Lenin displayed « an unswerving consistency of themes » and « pressed to their logical conclusion all of the thèmes we hâve observed in the whole corpus of his earlier works... Practice, in Lenin’s view, had confirmed and concretely realised the fmdings of theory8 » This last statement could be applied to almost ail intellectuals in this period.

    14At first sight this would appear to be contradicted by the fact that deep and bitter arguments broke out after 1905 and also by the apparent radicalising effect of the revolution on a number of thinkers. However, doser examination shows first that the positions defended with such vigour after 1905 were little changed from previous ones to such an extent that it became increasingly frequent to hear charges that the intelligentsia was in a sense « conservative » in that it would not acknowledge that 1905 had shown up any faults in itself. In the second place, the new ideas of the post 1905 debates and the principles of the new intellectual génération which was being formed at this time had their origin in the years immediately preceding 1905. Thirdly, political enthusiasm such as that shown by Blok, tended to be short-lived, though not entirely uninfluential in later years.

    15The intellectual life of the period is perhaps best understood by applying the concept of intellectual generations (which are not, of course, necessarily identifiable with age) What emerged in the intelligentsia response to 1905 was a conflict between what one might call the « traditional » revolutionary position based on positivism, materialism, collectivism and, not infrequently, dogmatism which looked to Comte, Marx and Chemyshevsky among others for inspiration, and a developing generation in which these principles were modified or in some cases replaced by idealism, subjectivism, individualism and seeking of answers rather than preaching. The latter group was inspired by Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and Vladimir Solov’ev among others. These groupings do not coincide with political classifications. Representatives of both generations can be found in all main areas of intelligentsia politics – namely among Kadet libérais, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Social-Democrats. Thus the older « génération » in this period was led by Miliukov, Mikhailovsky, Plekhanov and Lenin among others while the new « generation » was led by the Trubetskoi’s, Struve, Berdyaev, Ivanov-Razumnik, Bogdanov, Gorky and Lunacharsky among others. This is not to suggest any identity of views within these groups but it is striking that versions of the same clash of principles should be taking place at the same time in a number of different political forms. Needless to say not all intellectuals fit neatly into a schematic pattern. Trotsky and Tolstoy, for instance, stood on rather more independent and individualiste positions. Similarly, it is particularly difficult to classify artists and writers especially since many of them had naïve and chaotic political and philosophical ideas. The remainder of this paper will be devoted to giving examples of these discussions and finally to attempting to draw some conclusions.

    16Perhaps the most surprising aspect of these new influences is the impact they had on Russian Marxist intellectuals impelling a number of them in the direction of trying to incorporate the new ideas within the framework of revolutionary Marxism. The keynote of these people was that they were prepared to join non-Marxists on the search for a deeper understanding of truth and that in some areas of interest to the new génération – religion, philosophy and the arts – Marxism had a great deal to gain from constructive dialogue. The movement of so-called ”Godbuilders” (Bogostroiteli) which included Gorky and Lunacharsky is relatively wellkown and was based on the view that socialism could take on aspects of a religion in order to deepen its appeal. As one of the characters in Gorky’s novel Ispoved. (The Confession) explained when asked about the nature of the God being built :

    « I spoke of the working classes of the world, of their united strength, the one and eternal source of déification.... Even now many are seeking the means of fusing all the forces on earth into one, and creating out of it a splendid and beautiful God who shall9
    embrace the universe . »

    17The essential core of Lunacharsky’s ideas of this time was that study of religion and its development showed that Marxism was the true fulfilment of mankind’s previous religious quest because it contained a richer treasury of ideals and was more truly in tune with the human aspirations behind religious belief and practice than were the religions themselves. He differed from other socialists in that he wished to incorporate the religious aspect of life within socialism rather than to see socialism as its antithesis10.

    18P.S. lushkevitch, the radical philosopher, shows this openness to dialogue even more distinctly. He wamed of the danger of sharing the attitude of the Caliph Omar towards knowledge. The Caliph had ail the books in the library of Alexandria burned, his reason being that if what was in them was also in the Koran then the books were unnecessary and if it were not in the Koran then it was contrary to God’s teachings11. He rejoiced at the intellectual revolution of early twentieth century Europe and pleaded that Marxism should not shun or fear contact with new ideas and the Marxists should be confident of the victory of truth in a conflict of opinion. What, then, ought Marxism to be, he asked ? Potentially it was universal :

    « Nothing human or cultural is alien to it. Religion, ethics, aesthetics, philosophy, literary problems, criticism, to all these it should give its answers – positive or negative – but in any case defined, clear and linked in one, structural, organic whole’ Actual Marxism has bareky touched on them, even in the most timid way, normally keeping absolutely silent about them, at best satisfying itself with scorn, with casual remarks about the bourgeois or anti-democratic nature of existing ideological forms12. »

    19Needless to say, not all Marxists shared this openmindedness. Plekhanov and Lenin, from different points of view, condemned the new tendencies. In Materializm i empirio-krititsizm, published in 1901, at the height of these disputes, Lenin said :

    « At the moment I would only remark that if our philosophers had spoken not in the name of Marxism but in the name of a few °seeking” Marxists they would hâve shown more respect for themselves and for Marxism. As for myself, I too am a”seeker” in philosophy. Namely, the task I have set myself in these comments is to seek out what it was that stood in the way of these people who, under the guise of Marxism, are offering something incredibly muddled, confused and reactionary13 . »

    In Lenin words :

    « One expression of the genius of Marx and Engels was that they despised pedantic playing with new words, erudite terms and subtle”isms”, and said simply and plainly : there is a materialist line and an idealist line in philosophy, and between them there are varions shades of agnosticism’ The vain attempts to find a”new” point of view in philosophy betray the same poverty of mind that is revealed is similar, efforts to create a”new” theory of value, a”new” theory of rent, and so forth14. »

    Lenin’s equation of poverty of mind with new ideas boded ill for the future of Bolshevik philosophy.

    20Plekhanov also devoted a series of articles to an attack on « religions seeking » aimed mainly at Gorky, Lunacharsky, Minsky and Merezhkovsky. He was particularly scathing about the influence of Lunacharsky on Gorky at this time and explained how a great artist could have been under the influence of such a thirdrate thinker15.

    « Even great geniuses are frequently helpless in the field of theory’ One does not hâve to go very far to find examples / Gogol, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are great in the field of artistic creativity but they displayed the feebleness of a child whenever they considered a fondamental question16. »

    21If these examples illustrate the dispute between varions social-democrats, similar examples could be given of Miliukov’s defence of « traditional » intelligentsia values against Struve and other Kadets of the new generation. Similarly attacks on Mikhailovsky’s positivism began to develop among Socialist-Revolutionaries, one of whom, R.V. Ivanov-Razumnik, gave a considered welcome to the new ideas.

    22The fact that these ideas and arguments had begun before 1905 can be shown by a glance at the attached appendix giving a chronological table of major works published on these themes. The séminal work Problemy idealizma (1902) plus Berdyaev’s Sub”ektivizm i individualizm and Struve’s préfacé to the latter (1901) marked the emergence of an antipositivist and idealist group within the intelligentsia itself. Many older génération idealists (who were often conservative Slavophiles or prominent members of the Orthodox church) refused to recognise this heretical brand of relatively radical idealism. They tended to dislike idealist intelligenty as much as they disliked materialist ones. The debate was taken up in the intelligentsia joumals particularly Russkaia mysl’, Russkoe bogatstvo and Mir Bozhii but it was not long before a materialist counterblast was published in the form of Ocherki realisticheskogo mirovozzreniaa (1904) which included articles by Lunacharsky, Bazarov, Bogdanov and Friche. Significantly, it was the new materialist generation which produced the first response to the new idealist generation. It was only after 1905 that the big guns of the older materialist generation Aksel’rod (Ortodoks), Lenin and Plekhanov began to attack both the idealists of ail varieties and the innovating materialists from lushkevich to Bogdanov17. Thus from the point of view of intellectual history the revolution of 1905 was a catalyst rather than a cause of new development. The debates in Russia were not brought about by immédiate political circumstances but through interest in Western European ideas such as symbolism, German idealism, neo-Kantianism and Nietzscheanism plus specifically Russian éléments derived above ail from Vladimir Solov’ev, Dostoevsky and even slavophilism in the form of the concept of sobomost’ which had wide intellectual currency of this time.

    THE INTELLIGENTSIA AND THE 1905 REVOLUTION

    23The above sketch has attempted to show that the 1905 révolution had important, but not decisive effects on the intelligentsia in that it focussed attention and confirmed opinions rather than changed them. This is hardly surprising since the autocracy was thoroughly despised by the whole intelligentsia long before 1905 and had done nothing during or since that year to endear itself to the intellectuals. Even constitutionalist intellectuals like Struve remained distrustful of church and State. The rapprochement the constitutionalists advocated was seen by them as a more successful way of transforming those hated institutions not, as their enemies constantly changed, of propping them up. It was this barrage of hostility, this reaffirmation of unaltered principles by the old guard that led Struve to accuse them of conservatism in the sense that they were locked into the outdated principles of the 1860’s and refused to incorporate the development of European thought since Comte and Marx18. Bulgakov was also of the opinion that in part the intelligentsia’s responsibility for failure in 1905 was due to its spiritual conservatism, its refusai to contemplate a revolution in its own intellectual apparatus of the kind which Struve, Berdyaev and Bulgakov himself had undergone between 1898 and 1903 when they had joumeyed from Marxism to Idealism. In Bulgakov’s view only a better understanding of philosophy and religion by the intelligentsia could lead it to a true revolution of the mind and the heart19. For Struve such a revolution was a prerequisite if the intelligentsia was to engage in a fruitful dialogue with the narod 20.

    24Thus the 1905 revolution, though it did little to change opinion in the short run (and indeed there was no long run since the outbreak of war and the ensuing révolution of 1917 completely changed the context) some contemporaries saw indications that a new creative convulsion was beginning within the intelligentsia, one that might open up an exciting new road of development. The idealist movement, which had raised new questions fo all branches of the intelligentsia appeared to have great significance. For Ivanov-Razumnik they had shown that idealist and even religions principles could be linked with démocratie politics and did not have to be synonymous with reaction. « This significance » [he wrote] :

    « cannot be overestimated’ Neo-idealism led Russian thought out of the positivist cul-de-sac in which it had helplessly lain for more than half a century’ It showed it wider horizons opening on to the height of critical philosophy ; it demonstrated that this philosophy could provide a firm foundation for a world view ; it overturned the °potting of Hegel on his feet” and delivered a cruel blow to the philosophical conceptions of dialectical materialism. Finally, and perhaps most important, idealistic individualism Consolidated on a new foundation and proclaimed with renewed strength the principles of ethical individualism, forgotten since Dostoevsky 22. »

    APPENDIX I

    CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF MAIN SOURCES*

    BOOKSPERIODICALS
    Periodicals appearing throughout the period :
    Russkaja mysl’
    Russkoe bogatstvo
    Voprosy fïlosofii i psihologii.
    Periodicals not surviving the period :
    Mir iskusstva (to 1904)
    Mir Božij (to July 1906).
    1900Volynskij, Bor’ba za idealizm
    1901Berdjaev, Sub”ektivizm i individualizm (preface by Struve).
    1902Problemy idealizma.
    Volynskij, Borec za idealizm.
    1903Bulgakov, Ot marksizma k idealizmu.Novyj put’ (1 903-4).
    1904Bogdanov, Empiriomonizm.
    Mahajskij, Umstvennyj raboëij.
    Oëerki realističeskogo mirovozzrenija.
    Sokolov, Ob idejah i idealah russkoj intelligencii.
    Pravda (1904-6).
    Vesy (1904-9).
    Voprosy žiz ni (1904-5).
    1905Minskij, 7îe/zgja buduščego.Poljamaja zvezda (1905-6).
    1906Aksel’rod, Filosofskie očerki.
    Artsybašev, Sanin.
    Sovremennyj mir (from
    August 1906).
    Culkov à Ivanov, O misttčeskom anarhizme.
    Fakely, NOL. 1.
    Voprosy religii, vol. 1.
    Zolotoe runo (1906-9).
    1907Berdjaev, Novoe religioznoe soznanieProtiv tečenija (February-
    i obščestvennost’.
    Fakely, vol. 2.
    Gorkij, Ispoved’.
    Ivanov-Razumnik, Istorija russkoj obsfe-stvennoj mysli.
    Merezkovskij, Gippius à Filosov, Le
    Tsar et la Révolution.
     Valentinov, Filosofskie postroenija marksizma.
    JuSkevic, Materializm i kritiëeskij realizm.
    March 1907).
    1908Fakely, vol. 3.
    Literatumyj raspad, voï. 1.
    Lunačarskij, Religija i socializm.
    Očerki po fllosofii marksizma.
    Plehanov, Osnovnye voprosy marksizma.
    Voprosy religii, vol. 2.
    1909Lenin, Materializm i empiriokriticizm.Apollon (from October 1909).
    Literaturnyj raspad, vol. 2.
    Na rubeže.
    Oéerki fîlosofii kollektivizma.
    Plehanov, « O t.n. religioznyh iskanijah v Rossii ».
    Vehi.
    Veršiny.
    V zascitu intelligencii.
    Zaprosy žizni (1909-12).
    1910Kuda my idem ?
    Intelligencija v Rossii.
    Iz istorii novejsej russkoj literatury.
    Vehi kak znamenie vremeni.
    1911Lunačarskij, Religija i socializm, vol. 2.

    * From Ch. J. Read, Religion, Révolution and the Russian Intelligentsia 1900-1912, London, 1979.

    APPENDIX II

    25НАШ ЦАРЬ

    Наш царь – Мукден, наш царь – – Цусима, Haut napb – Kpoeaeoe ivitho,
    Зловонье пороха и дыма
    B KoropoM pasyjuy – tcmho.
    Наш царь – убожество слепое.
    Тюрьма и кнут, подсуд, расстрел.
    Царь – висельник, тем низкий вдвое,
    ito o6ema.n, ho dan He CMe/i.
    Он трус, он чувствует с запинкой
    Но будет, час расплаты ждет
    Кто начал царствовать – Ходынкойд
    ТОТ КОНЧЦТ – – встав на эшафот

    Anpenb 1906. V. Brjusov

    (Source : Stihotvornaja satira pervoj russkoj revoljucii 1905-1907, L„ 1969, p. 120.)

    Image

    З.И.Г. Жебшh
    Open – όборотень
    hjih nOUHTMKa BHeilJHHfl
    И внутреhhяя
    « Жупел », 1905, N° 1.
    A

    .A. Sidorov, Russkaja grafika natala XX veka, M„ 1969, pp. 124-126.)

    26NOTES

    Notes de fin

    1 V. Onjani, Bol’ševistskaja partija i intelligencija v pervoj russkoj revoljucii, Tbilisi, 1970 ; L. Erman, Intelligencija v pervoj russkoj revoljucii, M., 1966 ; E.D. Cermenskij, Buržuazija i carizm v pervoj russkoj revoljucii, 2nd ed., M., 1970.

    2 Erman claims that Merežko vskij’s motive in calling for the postponement of performances was to prevent anti-tsarist protests from occuring. The authority for this is an unquoted archivai source. See Erman, op. cit., p. 48.

    3 This account of Blok and the symbolists in 1905 relies on the following memoir sources : M.A. Beketova, Aleksander Blok, Pg., 1922 ; N. Valentinov, Dva goda s simvolistami, Stanford, Calif., 1969 ; A. Belyj, in Zapiski mečtatelej, Pg., 1922 ; N.M. Minsky, « Istorija moego redaktorstva », Na obščestvennye temy, SPb., 1909,pp. 193-199. The most thorough secondary account is to be found in A. Pyman, The Life of Aleksander Blok, Oxford, 1979, vol. 1, pp. 177-220. A shorter account can be found in C. Read, Religion, Revolution and the Russian Intelligentsia 1900-1912, London, 1979, pp. 132-139.

    4 Vesy, n ° 6, 1905, p. 45 (quoted by G. Culkov in Voprosy žizni, n ° 8,1905, p. 217).

    5 See Appendix II for some examples.

    6 L. Trockij, My Life : an Attempt at an Autobiography, Harmondsworth, 1975, p. 188.

    7 Ibid., p. 190.

    8 N. Harding, Lenin’s Political Thought, vol. I : Theory and Practice in the Democratie Révolution, London, 1977,p. 248.

    9 M. GorTcij, Sobranie sočinenij v tridcati tomah, M., 1949-1955, vol. 8, p. 332.

    10 A. Lunačarskij, Religija i socializm, vol. 1, SPb., 1909, p. 18.

    11 VerSiny : Literatumo-kritičeskij i filosofsko-publicistčieskij sbomik, SPb., 1909, pp. 389-390.

    12 Ibid., p. 391.

    13 V.L Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sočinenij, 5th ed., M., 1958-1965, vol. 18, pp. 10-11.

    14 Ibid., p. 150.

    15 G. Plehanov, « O tak nazyvaemyh religioznyh iskanijah v Rossii », Sovremennyj mir, n“10 (1909), pp. 199-200.

    16 Ibid., p. 188.

    17 Problemy idealizma : sbomik statej, M., 1902 ; N.A. Berdjaev, Sufc "ektivizm iindividualizm v obSiestvennoj jïlosofii, kritičeskij ėtjud o N.K. Mihajlovskom. S predisloviem Petra Struve, SPb., 1901 ; Olerki realistideskogo mirovozzrenija. Sbomik statej po filosofii, obSUestvennoj nauke i žizni, SPb., 1904 ; L. Aksel’rod (Ortodoks), Filosofskie očerki. Otvet jïlosofskim kritikam istorideskogo materializma, SPb., 1906 ; P. Juškevič, Materializm i kriti- (eskij realizm. O filosofskih napravlenijah v marksizme, SPb., 1908 ; A.A. Bogdanov, Empiriomonizm. Stat’i po filosofii, 3 voL, 2nd ed., SPb., 1905.

    18 P. Struve, « Konservatizm intelligentskoj mysli. Iz razmyšlenij o russkoj revoljucii », Russkaja mysl’, 1907,n” 7,pp. 172-178.

    19 S. Bulgakov, « Geroizm i podvižničestvo », Vehi. Sbomik statej o russkoj intelligencii, 2nd ed., M., 1909, p. 27.

    20 R.V. Ivanov-Razumnik, Istorija russkoj obščestvennoj mysli, SPb., 1907, vol. 2, p. 468.

    Auteur

    J. Read

    University of Warwick

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Les Europe des Européens

    Les Europe des Européens

    René Girault et Gérard Bossuat (dir.)

    1993

    Le marché du charbon, un enjeu entre l’Europe et les États-Unis de 1945 à 1958

    Le marché du charbon, un enjeu entre l’Europe et les États-Unis de 1945 à 1958

    Régine Perron

    1996

    L’Europe des Français, 1943-1959

    L’Europe des Français, 1943-1959

    La IVe République aux sources de l’Europe communautaire

    Gérard Bossuat

    1997

    Les identités européennes au XXe siècle

    Les identités européennes au XXe siècle

    Diversités, convergences et solidarités

    Robert Frank (dir.)

    2004

    La soif de Jérusalem

    La soif de Jérusalem

    Essai d’hydrohistoire (1840-1948)

    Vincent Lemire

    2011

    Misère de l’historiographie du « Maghreb » post-colonial (1962-2012)

    Misère de l’historiographie du « Maghreb » post-colonial (1962-2012)

    Pierre Vermeren

    2012

    Autour des morts de guerre

    Autour des morts de guerre

    Maghreb - Moyen-Orient

    Raphaëlle Branche, Nadine Picaudou et Pierre Vermeren (dir.)

    2013

    Capitales culturelles, capitales symboliques

    Capitales culturelles, capitales symboliques

    Paris et les expériences européennes (XVIIIe-XXe siècles)

    Christophe Charle et Daniel Roche (dir.)

    2002

    Le Paris des étrangers depuis 1945

    Le Paris des étrangers depuis 1945

    Antoine Marès et Pierre Milza (dir.)

    1995

    Au service de l’Europe

    Au service de l’Europe

    Crises et transformations sociopolitiques de la fonction publique européenne

    Didier Georgakakis

    2019

    Le laboratoire démocratique : le Mexique en révolution 1908-1913

    Le laboratoire démocratique : le Mexique en révolution 1908-1913

    Elisa Cárdenas Ayala

    2001

    Diplomatie et religion

    Diplomatie et religion

    Au cœur de l’action culturelle de la France au XXe siècle

    Gilles Ferragu et Florian Michel (dir.)

    2016

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    Les Europe des Européens

    Les Europe des Européens

    René Girault et Gérard Bossuat (dir.)

    1993

    Le marché du charbon, un enjeu entre l’Europe et les États-Unis de 1945 à 1958

    Le marché du charbon, un enjeu entre l’Europe et les États-Unis de 1945 à 1958

    Régine Perron

    1996

    L’Europe des Français, 1943-1959

    L’Europe des Français, 1943-1959

    La IVe République aux sources de l’Europe communautaire

    Gérard Bossuat

    1997

    Les identités européennes au XXe siècle

    Les identités européennes au XXe siècle

    Diversités, convergences et solidarités

    Robert Frank (dir.)

    2004

    La soif de Jérusalem

    La soif de Jérusalem

    Essai d’hydrohistoire (1840-1948)

    Vincent Lemire

    2011

    Misère de l’historiographie du « Maghreb » post-colonial (1962-2012)

    Misère de l’historiographie du « Maghreb » post-colonial (1962-2012)

    Pierre Vermeren

    2012

    Autour des morts de guerre

    Autour des morts de guerre

    Maghreb - Moyen-Orient

    Raphaëlle Branche, Nadine Picaudou et Pierre Vermeren (dir.)

    2013

    Capitales culturelles, capitales symboliques

    Capitales culturelles, capitales symboliques

    Paris et les expériences européennes (XVIIIe-XXe siècles)

    Christophe Charle et Daniel Roche (dir.)

    2002

    Le Paris des étrangers depuis 1945

    Le Paris des étrangers depuis 1945

    Antoine Marès et Pierre Milza (dir.)

    1995

    Au service de l’Europe

    Au service de l’Europe

    Crises et transformations sociopolitiques de la fonction publique européenne

    Didier Georgakakis

    2019

    Le laboratoire démocratique : le Mexique en révolution 1908-1913

    Le laboratoire démocratique : le Mexique en révolution 1908-1913

    Elisa Cárdenas Ayala

    2001

    Diplomatie et religion

    Diplomatie et religion

    Au cœur de l’action culturelle de la France au XXe siècle

    Gilles Ferragu et Florian Michel (dir.)

    2016

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Éditions de la Sorbonne
    • amazon.fr
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1 V. Onjani, Bol’ševistskaja partija i intelligencija v pervoj russkoj revoljucii, Tbilisi, 1970 ; L. Erman, Intelligencija v pervoj russkoj revoljucii, M., 1966 ; E.D. Cermenskij, Buržuazija i carizm v pervoj russkoj revoljucii, 2nd ed., M., 1970.

    2 Erman claims that Merežko vskij’s motive in calling for the postponement of performances was to prevent anti-tsarist protests from occuring. The authority for this is an unquoted archivai source. See Erman, op. cit., p. 48.

    3 This account of Blok and the symbolists in 1905 relies on the following memoir sources : M.A. Beketova, Aleksander Blok, Pg., 1922 ; N. Valentinov, Dva goda s simvolistami, Stanford, Calif., 1969 ; A. Belyj, in Zapiski mečtatelej, Pg., 1922 ; N.M. Minsky, « Istorija moego redaktorstva », Na obščestvennye temy, SPb., 1909,pp. 193-199. The most thorough secondary account is to be found in A. Pyman, The Life of Aleksander Blok, Oxford, 1979, vol. 1, pp. 177-220. A shorter account can be found in C. Read, Religion, Revolution and the Russian Intelligentsia 1900-1912, London, 1979, pp. 132-139.

    4 Vesy, n ° 6, 1905, p. 45 (quoted by G. Culkov in Voprosy žizni, n ° 8,1905, p. 217).

    5 See Appendix II for some examples.

    6 L. Trockij, My Life : an Attempt at an Autobiography, Harmondsworth, 1975, p. 188.

    7 Ibid., p. 190.

    8 N. Harding, Lenin’s Political Thought, vol. I : Theory and Practice in the Democratie Révolution, London, 1977,p. 248.

    9 M. GorTcij, Sobranie sočinenij v tridcati tomah, M., 1949-1955, vol. 8, p. 332.

    10 A. Lunačarskij, Religija i socializm, vol. 1, SPb., 1909, p. 18.

    11 VerSiny : Literatumo-kritičeskij i filosofsko-publicistčieskij sbomik, SPb., 1909, pp. 389-390.

    12 Ibid., p. 391.

    13 V.L Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sočinenij, 5th ed., M., 1958-1965, vol. 18, pp. 10-11.

    14 Ibid., p. 150.

    15 G. Plehanov, « O tak nazyvaemyh religioznyh iskanijah v Rossii », Sovremennyj mir, n“10 (1909), pp. 199-200.

    16 Ibid., p. 188.

    17 Problemy idealizma : sbomik statej, M., 1902 ; N.A. Berdjaev, Sufc "ektivizm iindividualizm v obSiestvennoj jïlosofii, kritičeskij ėtjud o N.K. Mihajlovskom. S predisloviem Petra Struve, SPb., 1901 ; Olerki realistideskogo mirovozzrenija. Sbomik statej po filosofii, obSUestvennoj nauke i žizni, SPb., 1904 ; L. Aksel’rod (Ortodoks), Filosofskie očerki. Otvet jïlosofskim kritikam istorideskogo materializma, SPb., 1906 ; P. Juškevič, Materializm i kriti- (eskij realizm. O filosofskih napravlenijah v marksizme, SPb., 1908 ; A.A. Bogdanov, Empiriomonizm. Stat’i po filosofii, 3 voL, 2nd ed., SPb., 1905.

    18 P. Struve, « Konservatizm intelligentskoj mysli. Iz razmyšlenij o russkoj revoljucii », Russkaja mysl’, 1907,n” 7,pp. 172-178.

    19 S. Bulgakov, « Geroizm i podvižničestvo », Vehi. Sbomik statej o russkoj intelligencii, 2nd ed., M., 1909, p. 27.

    20 R.V. Ivanov-Razumnik, Istorija russkoj obščestvennoj mysli, SPb., 1907, vol. 2, p. 468.

    1905

    X Facebook Email

    1905

    Ce livre est cité par

    • Reis, Daniel Aarão. (2021) As revoluções russas de 1917. Estudos Ibero-Americanos, 47. DOI: 10.15448/1980-864X.2021.3.41624

    1905

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    1905

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Read, J. (1986). The 1905 revolution and the Russian intelligentsia. In F.-X. Coquin & C. Gervais-Francelle (éds.), 1905 (1‑). Éditions de la Sorbonne. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.psorbonne.52561
    Read, J. « The 1905 Revolution and the Russian Intelligentsia ». In 1905, édité par François-Xavier Coquin et Céline Gervais-Francelle. Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne, 1986. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.psorbonne.52561.
    Read, J. « The 1905 Revolution and the Russian Intelligentsia ». 1905, édité par François-Xavier Coquin et Céline Gervais-Francelle, Éditions de la Sorbonne, 1986, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.psorbonne.52561.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Coquin, F.-X., & Gervais-Francelle, C. (éds.). (1986). 1905 (1‑). Éditions de la Sorbonne. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.psorbonne.52221
    Coquin, François-Xavier, et Céline Gervais-Francelle, éd. 1905. Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne, 1986. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.psorbonne.52221.
    Coquin, François-Xavier, et Céline Gervais-Francelle, éditeurs. 1905. Éditions de la Sorbonne, 1986, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.psorbonne.52221.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Éditions de la Sorbonne

    Éditions de la Sorbonne

    • Mentions légales
    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Facebook
    • X
    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://editionsdelasorbonne.fr/

    Email : edsorb@univ-paris1.fr

    Adresse :

    212, rue Saint-Jacques

    75005

    Paris

    France

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement