Главная Журнал «Россия и Запад: диалог культур» Главная Рубрики Исторический контекст взаимодействия культур Andrey Fatuschenko "Communes of Russian Intellectuals in the USA in the Late 19th Century"

Andrey Fatuschenko "Communes of Russian Intellectuals in the USA in the Late 19th Century"

Andrei Fatuschenko –

PhD in History, Assistant Professor,

Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area Studies,

Lomonosov Moscow State University,

Tel.: (499)783-02-64

Email: andreifat@mail.ru


Communes of Russian Intellectuals in the USA in the Late 19 Century.

The article is concerned with the communes of Russian intellectuals set up in the USA in the 19th century. The Russian colonists pursued two goals: 1) personal spiritual improvement; 2) setting an example of ideal social relations that could eventually transform the human society. Of particular interest are the reasons for the failures and subsequent break-up of the communes. The analysis covers three most noted Russian communalists of the time – William Frey, Nikolai Tchaikovsky and Alexander Malikov. By exploring the paths of their personal quest for truth and the tangle of communal living, the present study tries to prove that the weakness of the high-minded colonists lay in the very limited relevance of their experiments to the realities of social life.

Key words: communes of Russian intellectuals, living utopias, “natural” communes, Russians in the USA.

In this work I would like to talk about communes. You might ask: Why communes? I would answer: In the life of almost every city-dweller, especially of one who spends a lot of time in the office and often turns  on the TV in his apartment, trying to  find  something  similar to the landscape he sees outside, there are moments when he suddenly raises his eyes to the ( I almost said “sky”) ceiling and says: Why shouldn't I send it all to hell and leave for the country, for the fresh air, simple and unsophisticated  people, and become a carpenter there, wake up in sawdust, fall in love with a peasant woman in an embroidered apron, and most  importantly, feel absolutely happy and completely free? But with all this said, you wouldn't like to find yourself alone, and so in order not to part with your habits and friends you will decide to take them all with you; and when you are free from constructive labour, you spend your time in a limited circle of friends, re­reading Borges and Agatha Christy and discussing plans of building a library or at least a swimming pool.  And if beforehand you read “War and Peace”, or “Death of Ivan Ilyich”, or  “Anna  Karenina”,  then  the  above­cited long-winded  ideas will necessarily  appear.

Anyway, that was my line of thinking when some time ago I decided to study the history of agricultural colonies of intellectuals. What made these educated people break off from society, (where sometimes they had wonderful career opportunities)? What did they look for and what did they find during the years of excessive labour (for which they were often not prepared)? And lastly, what is the reason for their endless failures, which sometimes even cost them their lives?

Communes may be divided into two types according to the method and purpose of their foundation: l) communes that sprang up out of necessity, e.g. different peasant communes, and 2) communes “of mind” that are sometimes called “communal experiments”, “colonies”, or “living utopias”.[1] The former appear to be “natural” communes, and the latter – “artificial” ones. At first sight the boundary-line is quite clear. But for thousands and thousands of years communes have been persistently springing up in different conditions and in different countries, so “artificiality” or chance of them accidentally emerging seem doubtful. Their prototypes are the pre-Christian and early Christian communes, and the documented history of communes dates back to the 17th century. As we will see later, the two types of communes have much more in common than it seems at the first look.

What differs utopian communes from “natural” ones is that they are “deliberately organized, relatively independent units, based on dwelling in groups. Their aim is to bring to life ideal social relations.”[2] We will examine the first period of the “communal movement” in Russia, with examples of a few communes of intellectuals - yes, of intellectuals, not religious sects, and not peasant utopian communes. It goes without saying that all these phenomena have a lot in common, and we cannot ignore any of them, because of their mutual influence.

The first voluntary Russian colonist that is of interest to us is William Frey. In many ways he is an extremely interesting and remarkable person. He went down in history mostly because of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, who met Frey and sent him some letters of a programmatic nature.[3] It is generally supposed that it was Frey who converted Tolstoy to vegetarianism. But this is not the only reason for his fame. He was one of the first “communists” in Russia, above all. I used quotation marks because in this context this word has little to do with the meaning that it aquired afterwards. Frey stood up for life in communes that were to be the prototypes for a future happy society. Later he would become an adherent of A. Comte’s “Religion of Humanity”. This explains his interest in Tolstoy - he tried (though, in vain) to convert the great writer to this religion.

Frey's real name was Vladimir Konstantinovich Heins.  A  detailed description  of  his  life  can  be  found  in  a  book  (in  English)  by  Abraham Yarmolinski[4] and  in an article (in Russian) by V. Reingardt.[5] Therefore, I will not describe in detail all reversals of his fortune. Let me highlight some moments of his life that are of special interest to us.[6]

Frey was born on October 16, 1839 in a Latvian village, Vitebsk region, in camp life conditions.  His farther, Konstantin Karlovich Heins, came from a noble family of the Estland region. He spent all his life serving in the army.  During the Turkish campaign, for which he got the rank of major, in Bucharest he met Aristea Konstantinovna  Kominari-Koreso, a daughter of a Greek emigrant “of an ancient aristocratic family”. In 1830 they got married. From their union three sons and three daughters were born. The elder sons fully used the opportunities  that their position  gave them  -  Konstantin,  the  eldest,  became  a  general,  and  the  second  son Alexander served as Governor of Kazan in the 1880s. By the way, later Vladimir (Frey) was to keep in touch only with Alexander. Throughout his life Alexander would morally and financially help his brother and constantly worry about him. One may say that their family was far from being perfect. Their father completely neglected his six children and lived separately with the wife of a doctor's assistant. The assistant also lived with them. His mother's conditions of living were no better. Once she even had  to  run  away  from  her  son-in-law  and  hide  in  a  peasant  house. Afterwards she wrote Vladimir some illiterate letters but “he probably did not answer them”.[7]

From early childhood, Frey was very good at exact sciences. For financial reasons (his father was not rich, but as a military man he was entitled to educate his children in military institutions free of charge) Vladimir was sent to the Brest-Lithuanian military school, after which he was moved to the Nobility Regiment and then “at the age of 19” (in the year 1858; or 1859, according to Reingardt) he was admitted into the Guards of the Finnish Regiment. Heins, “who was unwilling to serve in the army, chose an academic career”. He entered the Artillery Academy, where he displayed a rare talent for mathematics. (Reingardt notes that “the teachers, among them the well-known Lavrov, a future emigrant, noticed him”. It seems that this was the time when they made the acquaintance that produced a very interesting correspondence.) After   graduating from the Academy, he worked for two years as a “teacher of mathematics” in an   engineering school. At that time he was under Herzen’s influence, and he sharply felt the evil and injustice of the world. “With all my heart I came to understand the indignation of this man   against the evil that was around us; my childish soul was burning with the most angry feelings against the oppressors of people, and the intention to eradicate this evil stayed in my heart for the rest of my life.”[8]

Reingardt notes that Heins was influenced by N.G. Chernyshevsky's teaching about the need to organize collective economy on the principles of communal life: “With the enthusiasm of youth, with the fanaticism of a religious proselyte, this doctrine was accepted by Vladimir Konstantinovich, who turned it into his own flesh and blood and made almost a religious doctrine out of it. He dedicated his whole life to its realization.”[9]

In “Ruskaya Starina” (1905) Reingardt quotes V. Heins’ diary, in which he describes Chernyshevsky’s “civil execution” (mock execution).  The description is vivid and touching.

“The pedagogic career did not satisfy him”, and Heins entered the Department of Geodesy at the General Staff Academy. At this time he drew closer to “some members of the secret society Zemlya i Volya (Land and Freedom). Although sympathizing with the final objective of this organization, he did not support their means of reaching it, and for this reason he did not participate in their activities.”[10] In fact, little is known about this period of his life.

After graduating from the Academy, Heins worked at the Pulkovo observatory under the sympathetic guidance of the astronomer Struve and achieved quite a success. He was appointed to represent Russia in the International Committee on measuring shaft-bows of 52 degree latitude. He had a glittering career ahead of him. The authorities valued him; he was now a captain, but ... Heins felt like a parasite. His sense of guilt had reached its peak.  According to Reingardt, it was this feeling of being indebted to people that explains Heins' thoughts about suicide.[11] Heins himself wrote afterwards: “At the age of 27 (in 1866) I came to the conclusion that life is senseless and the best way out is suicide”. Being a man with a scientific background, before committing suicide he found it necessary to write his own biography, where he expressed his opinion that history only studies the actions of rulers - traitors, deceivers, debauchees - and takes no notice of the heroism, self-sacrifice and love of millions of unknown heroes and toilers of life, who contributed their might to the endless stream of all good and valuable things. No wonder Frey made friends with Tolstoy so easily. “A genius may be grand ..., but no matter how great his power is, it is nothing compared to the total sum of billions of powers of common and completely anonymous people”.[12]

In his biography Vladimir Frey sums up his life before suicide. By the end of 1886 two passions had conquered him: “one for a woman and the other one for an idea”. He abandoned his thoughts of suicide and began to fight his passion for a woman.

Here, we come to a crucial moment in the life of Vladimir Heins. He broke off from his well-endowed life and a promising career and decided to leave for America to found a Russian colony there - a prototype for the future.

In February of 1868 Vladimir Heins married Maria Evstafyevna Slavinskaya and, leaving everything, without even retiring from service, went abroad with his young bride. In March of 1868 the couple reached “Jersey City on the Hudson, opposite New York”.

Here we shall leave them for a while and move on to the next hero of our story.

Nikolai Vasilyevich Tchaikovsky[13] is a legend, the “grandfather of the Russian revolution”. His name was given to the circle which brought together the people whose influence on Russian history was to be immeasurable: Sofia Perovskaya, P.A. Kropotkin, S.M. Kravchinsky, D.A. Klements, L.E. Shishko, N.A. Charushin, and many others.

During the famous “going to the people” movement*[14] Tchaikovsky lived in America in an agricultural commune. After many years of a rather eventful life in emigration, he joined the S.R. (Social Revolutionaries) and returned to Russia. After being arrested, he broke up with the S.R. and became one of the most active members of the cooperative movement. Following the October revolution, he became the president of the Supreme Administrative Board of the North Region and then in Paris was one of the founders of the “Centre of Action” – an organisation aiming to carry out subversive activities against Soviet Russia. His biography is rich enough for a few political figures. It might seem that he could hardly have anything in common with William Frey. Yet, there was a moment in his life when their fates did cross. It seems to me that despite the apparent incompatibility of these two personalities, we can speak of a certain type of a young intellectual of that time. It might help us to understand the ideology and illusions of the narodnik movement (populism), whose bright representative was Nikolai Tchaikovsky.

Nikolai Tchaikovsky was born on December 26, 1850. His father, a retired colonel, settled down on his wife's estate (Vyatka region) and became “a true advocate of serfdom”. “The sympathies of the boy were on the side of peasants.” After spending his childhood in the country, Tchaikovsky first entered a high school in Vyatka and then, two years later, moved to Saint­ Petersburg to a classical high school, a former naval college (it was the most prestigious school in Petersburg). He graduated with a gold medal. At this time he was greatly influenced by the works of Auguste Comte. He described it quite vividly: “The influence of Auguste Comte, which was beyond my strength, broke down my health, exhausted my thought and language, but encouraged my intuition and steered me towards studying nature and positive sciences.”[15] Later, he remembered his teachers and years in school with gratitude.

In September of 1868 Tchaikovsky entered the department of physics and mathematics at the St. Petersburg University. It was there that his social work began. “A few months after my entering the University, I was elected to be the distributor of the money and things that were donated by a philanthropic society for indigent students.”[16] He took an active part in student riots and missed only one such political meeting, though sometimes there were two or three of them a day in different parts of the city. This was how became acquainted with S.G. Nechaev. Nechaev tried to draw the circle of Tchaikovsky's friends into his plot. “We, however, didn't support either his plans or his method, which was unattractive because of its compulsory character and Jesuitism. In  our  further  activity  we  always  opposed  our  methods  of  struggle  to Nechaev's concept.”[17]

We could say a lot about the “Tchaikovskians” Circle and discuss many interesting and under-researched problems, but we will direct our attention to those of their views that might bring us closer to understanding Nikolai Tchaikovsky’s own position. According to a member of the circle, they did not support Bakunin. Even P.A. Kropotkin, who wrote one of the programmatic documents for the Circle - “Should we start popularizing the ideal of the future order?” - had to modify his anarchic beliefs (he even worked out a resourceful plan of persuading the tsar to adopt a constitution). The ideology of the Circle was also quite different from Lavrov's views. The “Tchaikovskians” were not pleased with Lavrov's programme and made him review it a few times. Tchaikovsky considered Lavrov's article “Knowledge and Revolution” to be “not only indifferent to us, but indeed harmful”.[18] The difference of opinion did not prevent them from keeping correspondence for many years. At the same time, researchers and the “Tchaikovskians” themselves spoke about the influence of Lavrov’s “Historical letters” on their philosophy. It is true that the main objective of the “Tchaikovskians”, as they saw it, was propaganda and a long preparation for the revolution. Even the resolute Sofia Perovskaya at that time said that two generations of revolutionaries would have to lay down their lives for the cause of the revolution. In “Open Letter to Friends” Tchaikovsky wrote: “We were sure that we were doomed to perish.”[19] That is the reason why the “Tchaikovskians” tried to find followers and focused their efforts on recruiting new members among common people.  P.A. Kropotkin argued that in 1872 the organization was not a revolutionary one.[20]

Later some of the researchers and Tchaikovsky’s comrades would view his Bogochelovechestvo*[21] as a sharp turn, a delusion, and even as treason of the revolutionary interests.  In fact, this was not true. Tchaikovsky  was  just  being faithful  to  the  original  plan  (to  some  extent,  of  course) that said  that  gradual  work  would  provide  them  with  successors  to  the revolutionary   cause.[22] Yet, he always sort of kept aloof. His comrades were always telling him: “Nikolai, you don't have the right anger against the existing order, you will never become a revolutionary”.  He was accused of “paying too much attention to the inner mood, as if we had created not a social and political organization, but a sect.”[23]

The conflict between Tchaikovsky and his Circle broke out in 1873 - early 1874. All members of the Circle were searching for ways to reach the ideal, but the revolutionary moods began to prevail. The ever growing impatience distressed Tchaikovsky, as he had already noticed it at the end of 1872 when the first calls were heard “to stop working in the intelligentsia circles and move on, as soon as possible, to engaging workers at plants and factories. It was deemed necessary to train propagandists among peasants.”[24] In order to understand the views of other “Tchaikovskians” we must say that they clearly realized the following: first of all, the government would not give them time for any extended activity; secondly, propaganda among workers was not a success, and a handful of those who were converted did not want to wait; thirdly, the general romantic impulse of self-sacrifice, as well as the belief in peasantry, no longer worked (it should be noted that Tchaikovsky always warned against mixing the Slavophiles’ romantic conceptions of communes with the realistic point of view held by Chernyshevsky).[25] From the outset, Tchaikovsky did not have any hopes or illusions regarding “going to the people”. “For me, the ‘revolutionary propaganda among the people was just an adventure for intelligentsia, and not a search for an objective cause.”[26] “The difficult, sometimes obviously useless political and social propaganda among the ignorant peasants ... was always a stumbling block for us.”[27]

According some researchers and Tchaikovsky himself, the further search for Bogochelovechestvo (God-Manhood) was “not breaking away from the spiritual past, but an evolution”[28] of the previous views.

The aims of the “Tchaikovskians” were revolutionary, and so were their methods intended for the future.  But in their opinion, the realization of the ideal also required long, laborious and patient work to educate the common people. It seems that the “repentant noblemen” had much fewer illusions about commoners than it is usually believed. They were going to give people not only practical, positive knowledge - something that “educated people” can be proud of - but “social knowledge” as well. For example, the first book that the “Tchaikovskians” began to popularize was “The ABC of Social Studies” by Bervi-Flerovsky. The following quote from Tchaikovsky’s writings is quite illustrative: “We can drag some workers up to our level”. “It seemed to us that history itself had given us a mission to open up in the people some kind of truth that nobody but us were aware of, and in that way to do a social wonder like in all socialist utopias. That was the way to free the people from the suffering and humiliation that they carried on their shoulders for the sake of our education and culture. That was our historical debt before the people.”[29]

In this extract Tchaikovsky's position is quite clear. The people are ignorant; the truth now lies in the hands of the educated, but the people have paid a high price for it. This means that our task is to pay off the debt, and if, in accomplishing this, we become able “to drink from the life-giving spring of the soul of the people”, it will be wonderful! We in this case does not refer to all educated people but only to those few that are ready to repay the debt. This we is somewhere between the government and the people, and it must help the people to find their fate.

Tchaikovsky and the “Tchaikovskians” clearly felt the gap between “us” and the people. A feeling of doom and preparedness for self-sacrifice arose out of the understanding that they were cut off from both “the government” and the people. Tchaikovsky tried to slowly build bridges to the “people's psychology”. After meeting Malikov, he suddenly realized that it was possible to reach the other side of the bridge - the authorities. Then what is the point in conducting an endless and fruitless struggle?

Tchaikovsky fell into melancholy. “At this time, under the pressure of doubts, with a pain in his heart, he left for Orel.”[30] It should be pointed out that he went to Orel before the “going to the people” movement had failed. That's why his turn towards Bogochelovechestvo cannot be explained by the failure of this “crusade”, as it was sometimes presumed.[31] But why Orel?

The reason was that Tchaikovsky had heard from his friends about a certain Alexander Malikov from Orel, who had developed and was now propagandizing a new theory. In this article we are not going to analyze the theory of Bogochelvechestvo - it is a theme for a large separate study.[32] For a start, let us get acquainted with its creator, another hero of our story.

Alexander Kapitonovich Malikov was born in 1839 in the family of prosperous peasants in the Vladimir region. Having entered the Law Department of Moscow University, he met K.P. Pobedonostsev. Pobedonostsev, who was quite popular with students, was asked during a student riot: “Why do professors disapprove of our demands?” Pobedonostsev answered: “The form of your demands is such that it cannot arouse our sympathy. We are people with certain positions and families, we can't run from one political meeting to another and have conflicts with the police. The form that you have given to your demands means that you are going to deal with the police and not professors”.[33] This frank answer made Malikov respect Pobedonostsev, and from that time on he always turned to him in the “difficult moments of his life”. We must do justice to Pobedonostsev: despite holding high governmental offices, he found time to answer Malikov's letters, always supported him, and quite often rescued him from unpleasant situations (this also explains the fact that Malikov was not persecuted on his return from America). The researcher of “Bogochelovechestvo” K.A. Solovyev is right in saying “that possibly it was the friendship of Malikov and Pobedonostsev that showed the creator of “Bogochelvechestvo” that persecutors of truth suffer too; and because of this friendship he started looking for ways to reconcile the classes rather than fan enmity.”[34] After graduating from the university, Malikov was appointed as an investigator in the Zhizdrin district of the Kaluga region. There the Maltsev Plants became the scene of workers’ riots suppressed by military force. Malikov took the side of the workers. In reply to the Governor's demand to come and explain his position, he said that he served in the Ministry of Justice and did not have to obey the Governor. Foreseeing the consequences, he wrote to Pobedonostsev. Pobedonostsev answered immediately and advised him to quickly leave the Kaluga region. Malikov felt hurt: “If evil is everywhere in Russia, where should I flee? Why do you want to turn me into a coward? I expected you to support me in fighting the evil, but not running away from it”. Malikov was fired. Pobedonostsev immediately came to his aid: A.K. Malikov was posted to the Kholm district of the Pskov region.

While in the Zhizdrin district, Malikov met A.A. Bibikov, who served as a conciliator there. Later Bibikov became the manager of Lev Tolstoy's estate. In 1866, Malikov's career as an investigator came to an end: Bibikov and he were brought to trial in the “Karakozov case”. Researchers argue that the accused in this case faced two types of charges: for peaceful activities (education and propaganda) and for political activities. Malikov and Bibikov were tried on the charges of the first type; that's why the sentence was quite mild - exile to Kholmogory. Pobedonostsev helped again. At first Malikov was posted to Archangelsk as a secretary of the regional committee of statistics, and in 1872 he was allowed to move to Orel where he got a job in the administration of the railways. By that time Malikov was married to Elizaveta Alexandrovna and had three children. In Orel Malikov became the centre of attention of the youth. The author of a book about the “Tchaikovskians” claims that Malikov was an agent of this organization. P. G. Zaichnevsky also lived in Orel at that time. The creator of the proclamation “Young Russia”, calling to destroy the enemies by all means, undoubtedly had an influence on Malikov.

This is what V.G. Korolenko  wrote  about  Zaichnevsky  and  Malikov: “Both  were talented,  both  appreciated  humour , but still  both  continued  to act mad on the roads of thought that lacked any connection with the general stream of life, which was full of slavery and deceit ...”.[35]

Malikov laughed at Zaichnevsky's efforts to consolidate the central cell and “would tell how the converted young men joined other parties once they found themselves in the capitals”.  Zaichnevsky retaliated. He liked to say that when Malikov discovered Bogochelovechestvo, he was met in the hall of his house by a shout from his son: “Daddy is God!”[36]

What is interesting is that Zaichnevsky helped Malikov to create a theory that was completely contrary to his own views. Yet, he remained his faithful friend.

So, what is the essence of the theory of Bogochelvechestvo and the theory of non-resistance to evil by violence, which made some researchers call Malikov a predecessor of Tolstoy?

As has already been said, we are not going to provide a detailed analysis of the theoretical tenets; we will just use a few quotations from the interrogations of Malikov and his friends in order to clarify their philosophy:

A.K. Malikov: “My main religious belief, based on a thoroughly Christian foundation, is that all people do evil not for the sake of evil itself but out of ignorance, blindness and backwardness.” [37] He thought, “that those who are subordinated should not allow themselves to take any violent action against the government and the administration even for the sake of saving their own lives.”[38]

“That's why all our actions, if they don't agree with Christian ethics, not only contradict it (knowledge), but run counter to science and  truth, and  for this reason they will only bring  evil  and  poison  both to a man's true happiness and to the whole society. Proceeding from this statement, Malikov proves that any desire to change the society by any means of violence - both physical and moral - is harmful and does not only fail to reach its goal, improvement of society, but does exactly the opposite, because instead of developing social and human feelings - the basis of personal and common happiness - such actions and desires encourage only feelings of hostility and anger, bringing man back to his wild prehistoric condition.”[39]

When Tchaikovsky, who, like all other “Tchaikovskians”, was still searching for the truth, learned about A.K. Malikov and his new theory, he rushed to Orel. Malikov was waiting for him impatiently.

The theory of Bogochelvechestvo appeared in April, 1874. Malikov started propagandizing his views focusing his attention on his revolutionary friends. His preaching aroused interest and amazement. Besides Zainchevsky, the circle of his friends included Lidia Eihgoff and Klavdia Prugavina (according to the records, “poor girls, and that's why he sheltered them”), Leonid Egorovich Obolensky - the future editor of “Russian Wealth” (his first wife was Malikov's sister), and Malikov's colleague A.S. Golubev. A lot of the “Tchaikovskians” took part in the discussions but for some reason Malikov expected more from Tchaikovsky than from anybody else. And Tchaikovsky lived up to his expectations.

This is how Tchaikovsky describes his meeting with Malikov: “Malikov asked me, ‘What do you believe in?’ I answered, ‘In man’. He asked, ‘But do you know that to believe in man you've got to find God in him, because otherwise man is as relative and controversial as our whole life is’.”[40]

Tchaikovsky converted right away and started to propagandize Malikov’s teaching vigorously. But when he was in Orel, the transition period came to an end. O.V. Aptekman says: “In the spring of 1874, the wave of revolutionary and propaganda movement reached its peak. There were no more associations and gatherings. There was no need for them anymore. All problems had been solved. It was time to go to the people. It was necessary to make everything ready for it. But first of all it was necessary to master manual labour.”[41] Not knowing this, Tchaikovsky started arguing with his comrades. “When he came to convert them to Malikov’s religion, almost all of his main followers had moved from Petersburg to Moscow. Having converted quickly himself, he expected his comrades to do the same. But by that time his comrades had already found a different path.”[42] Tchaikovsky returned from Orel renewed. (Frolenko did not even recognize him at first: "Quietness and calm had come upon him. This calm and complete satisfaction even had an effect on his health: from a skinny student he had become a tall, stately young man.”)[43] Tchaikovsky tried very hard to persuade his friends, and his teaching was met with enthusiasm. Some people, D.A. Klemenst for example, went to Orel to meet Malikov and take part in the endless discussions.  S.F. Kovalik believes that the result of those debates was the following: “Logic was on the side of revolutionaries, but sympathies were on the side of Malikov”.[44] However, despite the “wide interest among the progressive youth” only five members of revolutionary organizations adopted “Bogochelovechestvo”: “Tchaikovskians” - N.V. Tchaikovsky, S.L. Klyachko, V.I. Alexeev; and "artillerists" - D. Aitov and N. Teplov.

The government was not mistaken about the real goals of Bogochelovechestvo: “Taking into consideration all the above, it can be assumed that there are two secret societies - one in Orel, and the other one in Saint-Petersburg. Both societies pursue the same goals but preach different means; they both strive to change the state system: the first one by means of revolution, the second one by means of religious and political propaganda.”[45]

This is where the teaching of Bogochelovechestvo and the propaganda of the revolutionary narodnik movement, that often took religious forms, got mixed. Referring to Christ, who was deeply respected by narodniks, and to the Gospels, which provided religious form for their thoughts, they tried to make their thoughts more comprehensible for peasants.

Supporters of Bogochelovechestvobogocheloveki - did not use religious means just to conceal their revolutionary goals. The teaching was a sincere belief of sincere people who were appealing to both the sides: to the revolutionaries - in an attempt to stop the useless waste of effort and later the growing violence, which, as the bogocheloveki believed, could not lead to anything good; and to those with the authority to stop persecuting the decent people who were ready to die for common happiness.

Russia was not the right place for this sermon. Two of Malikov’s followers, N. Teplov and D. Aitov, were arrested because of their carelessness and unwillingness to hide anymore. (Later they were convicted in the “case of 193”. Soon, Malikov himself was arrested).

Thanks to the protection of Pobedonostsev, he was released and then got an opportunity to go abroad. (There is another version of the events offered by Faresov. He allegedly heard from Major Ch., personally involved in the case, that A.K. Malikov got permission to go abroad after his preaching before the investigators, who at the end of the sermon “rose from their seats and stretched out their hands towards Malikov”.)[46]

After a lot of hesitation, the bogocheloveki decided to emigrate to America. There were a few reasons for that: they realized that the tactics chosen by their revolutionary friends were meaningless; they expected the failure of the “going to the people” movement; they realized that the propaganda of their new teaching among their comrades had failed; they knew that it was impossible to struggle against evil using evil methods. And there was one thing that was evident to all of them: implementing their ideas in Russia would be impossible because of the inevitable persecution by the government.

In emigrating to America and founding a colony, they pursued two goals:

  1. Transforming their souls
  2. Showing to the world a means of escaping from the state of war to universal peace and unity.

Feeling sad about the delusions of their revolutionary friends, the bogocheloveki decided to concentrate on attaining their first goal - self-education and self-perfection. In his letter to Tolstoy, Alexeev writes that he went to America to save his soul. Yet, they wanted their comrades to follow their example of self-perfection. They did not want to “escape from the world”, and they kept in touch with those few “Tchaikovskians” who remained free after “going to the people”. Strictly speaking, the organization of the colony was a measure forced by circumstances, and they chose the form of commune that suited those circumstance best (obviously, it is almost impossible to start anything new in a strange country without mutual support).

In summer of 1875 the future colonists gathered in New York. There were 15 of them. At first they did not want to join Frey. Their attitude to him can be illustrated by a letter from Tchaikovsky to Klements of April 19, 1875. In this .letter Tchaikovsky asks not to mix up their future commune with the social experiments of socialists-communists-utopianists. Justifying his negative attitude to the communes, he wrote: “Yes, all these Freys fully confirm your disapproval of that kind of people training. It couldn’t produce any other result - castration of a man can’t lead to anything but deformity”.[47]

So, those who came to America - A.K. Malikov, his wife E.A. Malikova and their three children, K.S. Prugavina, L.F. Eihgoff, N.S. Bruevich, V.I. Alexeev (who later became a teacher of Tolstoy's children), G.I. Alexeev (his brother), N.V. Tchaikovsky, his wife V.A. Tchaikovsky, S. Klyachko, his wife A. Klyachko, some Khokhlov - all lived together in one apartment in New York in September – October, 1875.

That autumn a delegation of three was sent to Frey. They were Malikov, Tchaikovsky and an American. The scene of their arrival is vividly described by Faresov who heard the story from Malikov himself: “The autumn of 1875 was cold and windy. Approaching Frey's village, I expected to find a line of huts, cultivated fields and happy faces of new Christians. But the land was wild, and the house that stood before us was all cracks, and a few steps before the house through a crack we could see its inhabitants and what was going on there. They all were fighting the cold as hard as they could. Frey himself went out to welcome us in a soldier's greatcoat, suffering from a fever. His wife, a sister of Slavinsky, who wrote about America in “Otechestvennye zapisky”, was also wearing a greatcoat, and her face was sad and depressed. It was full of suffering and hidden fear of the future. These greatcoats were bought in the sales on the occasion of the end of the war of deliverance.” Malikov summed it up: “We expected to meet not only new people, but Kulturtragers. In reality, before us were poverty-stricken people who thought that they were doing the world a great favour by their self-perfection”.[48]

It seems that Malikov laid it thick. From the descriptions by Grigory Machtet, who lived in Frey’s Progressive Commune three years before the coming of the bogocheloveki to America, we can see that not all was so bad. According to Machtet, “the house was typical of these lands”. He was much more depressed by the “impossible despotism of opinions and beliefs” that prevailed in the commune. About Frey he says: “Frey's mind lacks original creativity and analysis; he easily gives in not in the face of the strong but in the face of the stubborn and persistent, and having surrendered to an opinion, he later defends it fanatically.”[49] Machtet asked Frey a question that would plague all the colonists: "Listen, are we going to waste our whole lives on peas and beans?! Are we going to just sow, plant and eat – over and over again?” Frey answered: “Yes, only on that!”

“And people?”

“People?” he replied almost angrily. “Let people look at us and follow our way. We'll work out an example for them, a new form!”[50]

Because of some global and local reasons, Frey soon came to distrust all Russians who wanted to take part in those communal experiments. There were also personal reasons for that. Frey's wife Mary started feeling depressed by the communal life. She was a woman of a more active, open character. As a result, she constantly had affairs with Russians who came to experience communal life. And some of those affairs took open and lingering forms. Once she even left Frey for some Muromtsev and had a son from him. When Muromtsev went back to Russia, Mary and her son Volodya returned to Frey.

In a letter of October 2, 1874 William Frey writes to P.L. Lavrov: “On the whole, the creative ability is not sufficiently developed in Russians. Phrase­mongers, they are far too bad when the time comes to bring their theories to life. And the absence of persistence and energy in reaching their aims makes them even more ridiculous as reformers.” And further: “By and large, the Russian emigration here doesn't represent any holistic, distinctive structure. Sometimes honest, talented (in their own way) natures appear, but for every such person there are ten chatterboxes, who left Russia only to escape the compulsory military service, and not knowing what to do, they call themselves communists. This word has become too fashionable - it’s a bad sign.”[51]

Before meeting with the bogocheloveki, the Freys had spent more than seven years in America. All these seven years were filled with work beyond one's strength and countless unsuccessful experiments, like agricultural colonies or a printing house.

Malikov said to Faresov: “We bought some land, independently from Frey, and suggested that he move in with us.”[52] It seems that the purchase was not quite independent from Frey; otherwise, why buy land “near Siderwel”? Exactly the place where Frey himself lived. They “bought 160 acres at 25 dollars an acre, plus a little farm. With the farm, we also got two horses and a cow”[53]. The bogocheloveki moved to the farm at the end of October. It had only two rooms suitable to live in. During the winter Alexeev and Tchaikovsky built new lodgings. “In the spring we bought two more cows and started ploughing and planting maize..., and we also sew 5 acres of wheat”. “At first we lived joyfully and in concord, as long as the novelty of the environment excited us.” But soon “discords” started. “It turned out that we had retained a great amount of egoism from our childhood, or even inherited it.”[54]

Tchaikovsky, drawing on his previous experience, suggested introducing a kind of confession. “At first it produced brilliant results. Everybody left with a joyful, loving feeling for one another. But little by little it stopped satisfying us. Instead of confession, mutual reproaches were heard at these evening meetings.” At that point the bogocheloveki invited Frey - "perhaps he will help us to sort out our mess.”[55] But it only sped up the denouement.

Malikov recalls: “The great misfortune of our colony was that Frey overwhelmed all of us with his selfless devotion and asceticism, and deprived us of any critical attitude to the reality”[56] Alexeev: “Frey was a straightforward man with a strong iron will, a man more of dogma than of feeling.  And we all were men of feeling.”[57]

Frey, who by that time had noticed that all economic communes had collapsed and only religious sects were prospering, burst into energetic activity. He tried to introduce a religious basis, “though he himself was far from being religious”. Alexeev notes that Frey thought about “setting up the custom that was practiced in the Shakers commune and involved meeting each sunrise by common singing of psalms on a hill”.[58] Using the experience of other communes, he introduced “criticisms” instead of confessions (similar “criticisms” existed in the well-known “Oneida” colony, which Frey once wanted to join but failed.) A note-book survived in which Tchaikovsky wrote who he wanted to scold and why. Malikov told Faresov: “Our idea of public condemnation sometimes got ridiculous. Condemnation came down to accusations that “somebody did not wash the saucepan properly, and that too much time was wasted on leisure, and so on”.[59] Alexeev: “This form of improvement was too sensitive and didn't ease the strained relations in the commune; on the contrary, it only spoiled them.”[60] What is more, it was prohibited to respond to the reproofs right away; it was to be done in a week's time. It is easy to imagine the feelings of the communalists who were storing up their counter arguments during the week.

Alexeev notes that Malikov was the first to give up: “We are growing mouldy, mouldy”. On fine days he simply wanted to daydream or wander in picturesque surroundings. Once he broke down and instead of planting maize went fishing. When he came back with empty hands, he tried to justify himself by saying that he wanted to diversify the commune’s menu. Frey “indirectly” gave him a scolding. (I can imagine how they waited for the next “criticism”!) Finally, Malikov became sick of it and built himself a house on the other side of the river. Some “like­minded persons” followed him. Most likely, there were personal reasons involved. Malikov's wife would leave him for Alexeev. (Later Korolenko would write in his memoirs about Malikov: “He broke up with his first wife. However, they remained friends. It seems that she couldn't put up with her husband's vagrancy and left him, falling in love with one of his friends and taking her daughter along.”)[61] In America Alexeev could not register a church marriage; that's why his son Kolya had the surname Malikov and the patronymic Alexandrovich. Malikov in his turn married Klavdia Stepanovna Prugavina (sister of the well-known publicist A.S. Prugavin, who, by the way, wrote a book about bogocheloveki). Korolenko wrote that it was the most wonderful woman that he had ever met; she was “shining with warmth”.[62] She tragically died in Perm in 1881 - an inexperienced doctor infected her after delivery.  It is interesting to note that both of them - Malikov and Alexeev - were on good, friendly terms afterwards.

So, Malikov, K.S. Prugavina, Khokhlov and Bruevich broke away. Frey sped up the break-up of the commune, and here is just one example of how he did it. Once Tchaikovsky fell ill. Klyachko went shopping into town, and Alexeev, left alone, had to spend a lot of the time fixing the fence. As a result, he was late for dinner. Frey called a meeting and suggested leaving Alexeev without dinner. The latter got furious: nobody helped him, and he was punished for that. Tchaikovsky rose from bed and started accusing Frey of formalism. It was finally decided to give Alexeev his meal. Frey himself was not a very diligent worker. He was mostly busy with his children, and he made it a principle.

Malikov told Faresov one remarkable episode (this story is cited by many researchers but it is so eloquent that we cannot help citing it too.)

“He (Frey) madly loved his little daughter Bella and taught her mathematics. But he gave her extremely artificial problems (...) for example, to multiply 25,200,28,353 by l,243,003,000,049. Once we heard the girl crying, and her farther was walking from one corner of the room to the other and kept telling her:

- Write it, Bella, you know the multiplication table; you only lack attention and accuracy. Develop these qualities in yourself and don't be a sloven. Now you are inattentive to the rules of multiplication and make mistakes; when you grow older, it will become a habit and you'll be inattentive to the rules of life and will make mistakes in life. You are only spoiling the paper now but later you will spoil your soul.

We heard the girl sobbing and whimpering

.  I

.

-          Bella, said Frey with reserve, - stop crying and solve the problem. Really, otherwise I'll pour a bucket of water on you.

Bella was sobbing loudly, and suddenly we heard a splash and in a moment a heart-rending cry of the girl. We rushed to Frey's room and found him with a bucket in his hand.

-          You are an idiot, Mister Frey! You are an idiot!

-          Gentlemen, I had to keep my word. Otherwise what would the child think of me? I threatened to pour water on her and I kept my word.

-          You are a martyr of the wrong system, and you are torturing your wife and daughter.

-          Excuse me. These are my convictions. On Wednesday we are having a meeting of criticism, and then you can publicly accuse me and I'll defend myself.” [63]

Frey demanded sacrifice from everybody and tried to set an example. But sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice cannot produce anything but irritation. “One winter evening the freezing colonists were crowding around the stoves. ‘The firewood has run out,’ somebody said. To go to the woods in such cold and windy weather was terrifying, so we had put up with the cold till the morning. ‘Gentlemen’, said Frey. ‘I am going to get some firewood’. And though the colonists tried hard to convince him not to go, he tied a scarf on his head instead of a hat, harnessed a horse and went to the woods in his blue greatcoat.”[64]

From what has been said, it might appear that Frey was a disagreeable fanatic and a bore. But we must take into account the fact that all these episodes are told by people who, to put it mildly, did not quite accept and understand him. By the way, later he did not conceal his attitude to some members of this commune: “He (Frey) doesn't have a high opinion of your acquaintances in America, for example of Malikov, but of Vasiliy Ivanovich he speaks well”.[65] In our view, it was not by accident that Tolstoy liked Frey so much. He was also able to captivate many people (especially enthusiastic women) with his belief in the bright future of mankind. Till the end of his days he took affectionate care of his children, including Volodya, and when the Murovtsev couple sent a letter from Russia demanding that he send Volodya to them, Frey refused with indignation.

Unfortunately, he was a slave to his ideas. He would sacrifice practically everything to reach his illusionary goals. At the same time he was ready to do anything in order to keep the commune alive. If religiosity is needed - let us believe; communes with rituals do better - let us have rituals; let us introduce “criticisms”, let us have despotism of opinions and convictions, if it benefits the commune. Rejecting “active” violence, he created “passive” violence, hoping that it would bring him closer to his goal. In Herzen’s article about Robert Owen he read the following: “We should not just sit twiddling our thumbs, we should not descend into oblomovshina (inertness, apathy), but we should in the first place try to destroy the evil inside us, transform ourselves and our lives according to the ideal”. He would be fighting evil using all the means of Good, without noticing that Good requires very subtle treatment and takes revenge on maximalists.

The bogocheloveki did not want to transform themselves according to Frey's model, and the commune eventually broke up. They were people with a sense of humour and love for life, so they were moving farther and farther away from Frey's lifestyle. They could not find a satisfactory answer to the question “What is the point of it all?” Frey, who went to the limit of absurdity in his vegetarianism (he made a stick from plain flour, which the colonists called “Frey's  hygienic  pine-cone”, baked it and then ate it piece by piece, avoiding any other food; he did not use either sugar or salt), was losing his influence on the colonists. Korolenko recalls a funny story about a pig: The colonists “had a pig, God knows what for, and once they had a felonious intention to butcher that pig. Frey would not allow a thought about it. When the plot was exposed, Frey declared: “You can do what you like; I will go to the forest in order not to be present at your cannibal feast”. The communists “declared with a cynical laugh that they would not be ashamed to do it even if he did not go.”[66]

Tchaikovsky was the first to leave the commune. Alone, with 10 dollars in his pocket (the ticket to Philadelphia where he was heading cost 20 dollars), on July 23, 1877 he set out on a very difficult journey. He travelled 420 miles in 23 days. After a lot of hardships, in early 1878 he found himself in the Shakers commune. This opened a new period in his life, which T. Polner called “the second Bogochelovechestvo”.[67] Tchaikovsky tried to reflect on the experience he had gained. The Shakers commune clearly demonstrated the superiority of religious sects over all others. Here is what he wrote about the Shakers: “Freyism is not worth a brass farthing in comparison with their influence. He is narrower than us, they are wider, though they are behind us; they are raising us upwards, he is drawing us down, though they are both behind us and they are farther than him”. In half a year he wrote: “… the sect started to suffocate me”.[68] In February of 1879 he moved to New York, then to Paris, and in a year and a half to London.

In the summer of 1877 Alexeev and Malikov came back to Russia, where they were literally starving. In the autumn of 1877 Alexeev started working as a teacher of Tolstoy's children. Malikov and his wife moved to Perm in 1879. At that time he was firmly standing on the Orthodox positions.

Frey carried on with his communal experiment, and in 1883 he was invited to the “New Odessa” commune as a specialist on communal life. He did not even wait for its break-up and in 1885 moved to London to propagandize positivism and the “Religion of the Humanity”. In 1886 he went to Russia where he met Tolstoy.

So, what was the reason for the failure of the commune?

Frey, and later Prugavin, believed that the most important factor was the lack of emotional and psychological unity between the communists, the absence of a common religion; secondly, complicated personal relations (Korolenko and Polner); thirdly, the inability to work physically (Korolenko and Polner); fourthly, nostalgia for Russia (Polner).

The bogocheloveki pursued the following goals: l) to transform themselves; 2) to transform the world by setting an example.  What does it mean to transform oneself? To become what? How? Here is what V. Alexeev says in his memoirs: “Here we noticed that the desire to live in a good way was not enough and we needed to transform ourselves for that . We thought that as long as we lived together - all of us having the same views of life and the same level of education - we would work together and lay the foundation for a new good life; and then other similar communes would be founded, and a whole society would emerge, in which no-one would hurt and no-one would be hurt.”[69]

In 1875 Tchaikovsky wrote to Klements: “Offering people to always be what they are, we shouldn't be afraid of pouring out all that we have in our hearts - wider, wider, more fully! Because love (and you can’t doubt it) is our most precious content – as a feeling, as a thought, as the purpose in life!” And further: “Being in peace with oneself inevitably gives peace with other people and harmony in relations with the universe.”[70] And here is what he wrote in his diary in 1878: “I have neither strength nor ability to lead such kind of social life that would set an example. My feelings are not yet ripe enough to lighten and warm up even my everyday routine. They are not ripe to become a harmonious and stable form of life. And there are no forms that would suit them.”[71]

Feeling themselves a part of the Universe, willing to help the society, the bogocheloveki were sure to leave the commune, as they saw that the results of their co-operation with the society were insignificant.


Literature:

  1. A Voice from the Past on a Foreign Side. No 3, XVI, 1926
  2. Alexeev, V.I. Recollections/Chronicles of the Government Literature Museum, issue 12, V.2, Moscow, 1948
  3. Aptekman, 0.V., The Society "Earth and Will "of the 1870s. Petersburg, 1924
  4. Baikun, M., Communal Societies as Cyclical Phenomenal/Communal Societies, 1984
  5. Bogucharsky, V.Ya ., Active Populism of the 70's. Moscow, 1912
  6. Citation from N.V. Reingardt, An Unusual Personality.  Life and Science, 1905
  7. Faresov A., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905
  8. Forward, 1874, No.3
  9. Fronlenko, L. F., Notes of a 70-er, Moscow. 1927

10.  GARF, archive 109

11.  GARF, Fund 112

12.  Korolenko, V. G., The History of My Contemporary.  Moscow, 1985

13.  Kropatin, P., Notes of a Revolutionary. Moscow,  1988

14.  Literature inheritance LXIX, 1961

15.  Machtet, G. A., A Full Collection of Essays. Saint Petersburg, 1911

16.  Perris, D., Pioneers of the Russian Revolution. Saint Petersburg, 1906

17.  Reingardt, N. V., An Unusual Personality. Life and Science, 1905

18.  Solovyev, K. A., Religious Movement in the Freedom Movement in the 70's of the Last Century.  Moscow, 1990

19.  Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929.  An Open Letter to Friends.

20.  Yannolinskiy, Avraham, A Russian's American Dream, A memoir on W. Frey. Kansas, 1965



[1] See, e.g.: Batalov, E. Ya., In a Utopian World. Moscow, 1989, p. 224.

[2] Baikun, M., Communal Societies as Cyclical Phenomenal/Communal Societies, 1984, V.4, p.35 (translation by E. Ya. Batolov).

[3] See Gershenzon, M. 0., Russian Propilei.,V.!, Moscow, 1915, and also: Correspondences and Personal

Meetings of V. Frey with L.N.Tolstoy. Geneva, 1886.

[4] Yannolinskiy, Avraham, A Russian's American Dream, A memoir on W. Frey. Kansas, 1965.

[5] Reingardt, N. V., An Unusual Personality. Life and Science, 1905, 2-4.

[6] Besides the above-mentioned, see: Semevski, M.I., Acquaintances. Saint Petersburg, 1988, Batuturinski, V., Heinz V.K. I Russian Biographical Dictionary, and others.

[7] Yarmolinskiy, Avraham, A Russian's Dream, A Memoir on W. Frey. Kansas , 1965.

[8] Citation from N.V. Reingardt, An Unusual Personality.  Life and Science, 1905, 2-4.

[9] Ibid p. 462

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] About him, see: Tchaikovsky N.V., Paris, 1929.

[14] * In the early l870s, as part of the norodnik movement, about 1000 people went "to the people" in order to call them to revolution.

[15] Ibid Recollections of N.V. Tchaikovsky.

[16] Perris, D., Pioneers of the Russian Revolution. Saint Petersburg, 1906, p. 16.

[17] Perris, D., Pioneers of the Russian Revolution. Saint Petersburg, 1906,  p. 17, Tchaikovsky,  N.V., Paris, 1929,  p. 31.

[18] Forward, 1874, No.3, pp.  147- 153.

[19] Tchaikovsky,  N.V., Paris, 1929.  An Open Letter to Friends.

[20] Kropatin, P., Notes of a Revolutionary . Moscow,  1988,  p. 193.

[21] * The double essence of Jesus Christ. In the late 19th c. it represented for the Russian intelligentsia an attempt within the framework of Christian terminology to rise above human nature not by deeds but by realizing one's relationship to the divine.

[22] Ibid

[23] Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929, p.118.

[24] Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929.

[25] Review of the book, Active Populism, A Voice from the Past, 1913, No. 6.

[26] Bogucharsky, V. Ya ., Active Populism of the 70's. Moscow, 1912, p. 185.

[27] Ibid .

[28] Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929, p. 74.

[29] Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929,  An Open Letter to Friends.

[30] Fronlenko, L. F., Notes of a 70-er, Moscow. 1927,  p.94.

[31] See, e.g.: Charushin , N. A ., Tchaikovsky, N. V., Penal Servitude and Exile. 1926, p.129 .

[32] About "Bogochelovechestvo " see, e.g.: Tchaikovsky,  N. V., Paris, 1929; and also: The dissertation by K. A. Solovyev.

[33] Tchaikovsky, N. V., Paris,  1929.


[34] Solovyev, K. A., Religious Movement in the Freedom Movement in the 70's of the Last Century.  Moscow, 1990, p. 70.

[35] Korolenko, V . G. , The History of My  Contemporary.  Moscow, 1985, p. 147.

[36] Korolenko, V . G. , The History of My  Contemporary.  Moscow, 1985, p. 148.

[37] GARF, Fund 112, An Attendance of the Government Senate, list No. I , unit of storage  293, p.47.

[38] Ibid, p.46

[39] Ibid, p.50

[40] Tchaikovsky, N .V., Paris, 1929. An Open letter to Friends .

[41] Aptekman, 0. V., The Society "Earth and Will "of the 1870s. Petersburg, 1924,  p. 154 .

[42] Frolenko, L.F., Notes of  a 70er. Moscow, 1927,  p. 98.

[43] Ibid, p.100

[44] Kovalik, S. F., The Revolutionary Movement of the 1870's and the Process of the l 930's. Moscow , 1928, p.180

[45] GARF, archive 109(3 cpoies), 1974, unit of storage 144, part 105, p .2.

[46] Faresov A., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905.

[47] A Voice from the Past on a Foreign Side. No 3, XVI, 1926.

[48] Faresov , A .,  The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905, p.142.

[49] Machtet, G. A., A Full Collection of Essays. Saint Petersburg, 1911, p.76.

[50] Ibid

[51] GARF,Fund  112, An Attendance of the Government Senate, list 4, unit of storage 458,  p. 2.

[52] Faresov, A., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905, p.144.

[53] Alexeev, V. I.Recollections/Chronicles of the Government Literature Museum, issue 12, V.2, Moscow, 1948. p. 134.

[54] Ibid

[55] Ibid

[56] Faresov, A., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905, p.145.

[57] Alexeev,V. I., Recollections/Chronicles of the Government  Literature  Museum, issue 12, V. 2, Moscow, 1948, p. 146.

[58] Ibid

[59] Faresov, A., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905, p.146

[60] Alexeev,V. I., Recollections/Chronicles of the Government Literature  Museum, issue 12, V. 2, Moscow, 1948, p. 139.

[61] Korolenko, V. G., The History of My Contemporary. Moscow, 1985.

[62] Ibid

[63] Faresov, A., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905, p. 147.

[64] Ibid

[65] Literature inheritance LXIX, 1961, book 2, p. 77.

[66] Korolenko , V. G.  The History of My Contemporary.  Moscow, 1985, p.152.

[67] Tchaikovsky , N.V. Paris, 1929.

[68] Ibid

[69] Alexeev,V .I., Recollections/Chronicles  of the Government  Literature  Museum, issue 12, V . 2, Moscow , 1948, p .134.

[70] Voice of the Past on a Foreign Side, N o.3, XVI, 1926.

[71] Tchaikovsky, N . V., Paris , 1929.


 
Нравится Нравится  
Из сборников конференции Россия и Запад:

Школа юного регионоведа


Основная информация
Запись в школу:

Заполните форму по ссылке - запись
E-mail: regionoved2005@yandex.ru
https://vk.com/public149054681


Выпуски журнала "Россия и Запад: диалог культур"

№ 1, 2012 г.  
№ 2, 2013 г.  
№ 3, 2013 г.  
№ 4, 2013 г.  
№ 5, 2014 г.  
№ 6, 2014 г.  
№ 7, 2014 г.  
№ 8, 2015 г.  
№ 9, 2015 г.  
№ 10, 2016 г.  
№ 11, 2016 г.  
№ 12, 2016 г.  
  № 13, 2016 г.  
№ 14, 2017 г.  
 
№ 15, 2017 г.