"Lavrov Years of Emigration". Letters and Documents in Two Volumes. Dodrecht. Boston. D. Reidel Publishing Company. 1974, 1272, p. (v. I - 603 p.; v. II - 669 p.).

"Lavrov - years of emigration". Vols. I-II. 1272 pp.

Publishing House " D. Reidel Publishing Company has published two volumes of archival documents about P. L. Lavrov, which were discovered by an employee of this institute, Boris Sapir, at the Amsterdam International Institute of Social History. All documents are printed in Russian from the originals and are provided with notes 1 . The search for materials, their study, systematization, compilation of notes and comments required many years from the compiler. The publication is preceded by a brief introductory article - "The Years of Lavrov's Emigration". In it, B. Sapir, using sources and literature, highlights the most striking facts of Lavrov's life and activities during the 30 years of his stay abroad. The "Vperyodovsky" period of his activity is considered by B. Sapir in special publication 2 .

The article gives an idea of Lavrov as a person, thinker, figure and one of the central figures of the then Russian emigration. It turns out that his connections with the biggest representatives of public life of that era were more significant than previously thought. The article provides facts about Lavrov's difficult financial situation: "He did not have any savings, as he usually paid his fees to the cash register of the Vperyodovskaya commune" (p.XXXVII). This observation is also noteworthy: "His personal loneliness was softened by his friendship with Lopatin, whose arrest in 1884 and subsequent death sentence commuted to life imprisonment in Shlisselburg in 1887 were a terrible blow to Lavrov" (p.XVI).

Despite the cessation of Vperyod publications, the importance of Lavrov's activities for the Russian revolutionary movement is not only not decreasing, but, on the contrary, is increasing. Underground groups and democratic figures in legal Russia had strong contacts with Lavrov. Having moved from London to Paris, he soon created a "Circle of socialist propagandists", which managed to establish a connection with the" Beginning " - an underground publication in St. Petersburg. Unfortunately, this very significant fact is not reported in the article in any detail. It turns out that Lavrov was a member of the committee of the "Stage Ticket Office", which provided assistance to those of the emigrants who returned to Russia to continue the revolutionary struggle. As far as we know, no one has previously provided information about this cash register. The task is to find out who used the Yandex. Checkout's services, where the funds came from, and so on. The article mentions Lavrov's meetings with G. Z. Eliseev, one of the leading literary publicists of Otechestvennye Zapiski.

Lavrov listened carefully to the revolutionary pulse of Russia, and was constantly informed of everything that was going on in the underground. When the struggle between the "classics" (supporters of propaganda in the countryside) and the "romantics" (supporters of the struggle for political freedom, terrorists) unfolded, the sympathies of the author of the "Historical Letters" were entirely on the side of the former. But some time passed, and Lavrov saw in the Narodnaya Volya residents the bearers of both primary ideas and primary tasks. He recognized that the struggle against tsarism and the conquest of political liberties "are the beginning of all beginnings in the revolutionary struggle" (p.XLII). The pages of the article about Lavrov as the successor and keeper of the traditions of Narodnaya Volya also contain new factual material. This is, in particular, information that it was Lavrov who initiated and directly organized the "Group of Old Narodnaya Volya" in 1892-1896, which published "Materials for the History of the Russian Social Revolutionary Movement".

B. Sapir attaches great importance to the relations between Lavrov and Plekhanov. Interesting data about the "Bulletin of Narodnaya Volya", about the relations and disagreements of Lavrov with S. M. Kravchinsky, L. A. Tikhomirov, M. N. Oshanina and many others.

1 Previously published documents (a small part of them) are specified in each individual case.

2 " Go ahead!". 1873-1877". Materials from the archive of V. N. Smirnov. Dordrecht, 1970.

page 196

with the opinion of N. Rusanov3 that Lavrov, having failed to assimilate Marxism, nevertheless resolutely defended this doctrine against many attacks and prevented the transformation of Vestnik Narodnaya Volya into an anti-Marxist organ. Sapir believes that Lavrov, not being a Marxist, felt the living Marxism better than Plekhanov. Claiming that K. Marx and F. Engels attached more importance to Narodnaya Volya than to the Black Redistribution and the Emancipation of Labor group. He concludes: "From the point of view of Lavrov's political biography, it is important to emphasize that by breaking with the Black Peasants and joining Narodnaya Volya, Lavrov acted much more in the spirit of the living Marx, i.e. if he was much more of a Marxist than the Emancipation of Labor group headed by Plekhanov and Axelrod" (pp. XLIII-XLIX).

These words reveal the author's unwillingness to see the fundamental difference between Marxism and Laurism. We cannot speak of narodism in general without ignoring its class nature and its objective significance. Without this, no comparison of representatives of Marxist and narodnik thought is legitimate. Of course, there were mistakes and miscalculations in the worldview and activities of the Plekhanov group, but the very fact of its birth marked a decisive rejection of Narodnaya Volya. In addition, the activities of Narodnaya Volya largely paved the way for the emergence of a new ideology and a new system of practical activities. In this respect, the lavrism of even the era of Narodnaya Volya turned out to be a stage already passed, although it left a useful legacy for the revolutionary struggle of the new generation.

The same approach is necessary when solving the very complicated question of the relationship between Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin. Personally, there were subjective elements on both sides. Lavrov did not understand the root cause of the struggle between Bakuninists and Marxists in the International, and therefore, referring to Marx and Bakunin, he turned to Lopatin with the question: "Why are these gentlemen so angry with each other?" The antithesis of political doctrines is the reason for this struggle. Life has shown that the future, both in Europe and in Russia, belonged not to Bakuninism, but to Marxism.

This two-volume book about Lavrov provides researchers of Russian social thought with a lot of new materials.

The first volume contains the correspondence of Lavrov and G. A. Lopatin for the years 1870-1883. Lopatin was (and correspondence confirms this) Lavrov's closest friend. There were no secrets between them. They remained like-minded, and disagreements on individual issues only further emphasized the unity of their worldview. Of the letters published in volume 341, some are actually articles, correspondence, and sometimes even small treatises. The subject matter of the correspondence is very diverse, but the central place is occupied by the events of the revolutionary life of Russia (information about S. G. Nechaev and the Nechaev people; condemnation of the actions of Nechaev and S. Serebryannikov; ironic attitude in this regard to M. A. Bakunin and N. P. Ogarev, etc.).

Lavrov and Lopatin eagerly follow the revolutionary activities of A.V. Dolgushin, P. A. Kropotkin, M. V. Kupriyanov, and all those who conducted propaganda among the people. At the same time, Lavrov's desire to reproach the younger generation of the 70s of the XIX century, to oppose it with samples of the revolutionary enthusiasm of the sixties, is revealed. He is particularly displeased with the" fritschs " (a circle of Russian revolutionary women in Switzerland, named after the hostess of the house where they gathered) and, it seems, unfairly denounces them. He is even more irritated by Malikovism, the appearance of which he refused to believe. "A certain Malikov," he writes to Lopatin, " is currently under arrest, the founder of a sect. He wanted to convert Bakunin and me, but he found that we were already too spoiled. The information given to me is not particularly dogmatic, but its essence lies in the incarnation of God in man in general, in humanity. When this process is completed and a person realizes that he, collectively, is God, then exploitation, evil, etc., will stop at once. This incarnation of God in man should be preached openly, but revolution, homicide is deicide - a terrible sin, and therefore the new preachers are enemies of the revolution and revolutionaries. Tchaikovsky is exactly the leader of the radicals, turned into a sectarian... So much for the realism of the new nihilism. You can hardly believe it "(p. 147).

These words are important as a decoding of the concept of "malikovschina" by a well-known revolutionary, the decoding of which, in particular,

3 See N. Rusanov. Lavrov. "Byloye", 1907, N 2, p. 270.

page 197

there was no such thing in the literature until now. They are also important as a new problem statement. In fact, why did far from ordinary people of the underground (and one of them, N. V. Tchaikovsky, even gave his name to a well - known circle) find themselves in the direction of a movement that completely denies revolutionary methods of struggle, but proves, however, the depravity and unsightliness of the existing living conditions of the entire people? Moreover, these people were full of desire and indomitable energy to prove by their own example the possibility of new, communist forms of life. Religious forms of democratic protest are thus emerging, which is interesting in itself. The author of the notes here could point to the writings of Malikov himself, note that similar phenomena occurred before and after the Malikovschina, and explain how they were interpreted before Lavrov. This example shows that the most complex issues addressed in the published documents need to be commented in more detail.

A large part of the correspondence is devoted to Lavrov's polemic with P. N. Tkachev. Behind the clash of personalities was hidden, or rather revealed, the struggle of two trends of social and political thought, although related in class essence, but irreconcilable in their internal structure. Lavrov's worldview was based on the belief that a social upheaval could occur only when the majority of the people realized the need for it. Tkachev, on the other hand, believed that such an idea was not only utopian, but also harmful to the cause of the revolution. In his opinion, the task of a revolutionary is not to prepare the people for a social upheaval, but to destroy the government and establish a revolutionary dictatorship, which will help the people to understand their task and implement it. In the letters of Lavrov to Lopatin and Lopatin to Lavrov, there is a lot of interesting material about this.

According to Lavrov, propaganda should be based on the following principles: "1) The current state of affairs can only be corrected by a social revolution. 2) It can only be performed by the people. 3) We must prepare ourselves and our people for it. 4) It must consist in the destruction of the economic, political, and family structure of the present society. 5) It cannot be based on a religious principle, but must be based on critical rational thought. 6) Only such means can be used for it that do not undermine the very purpose, and therefore no means can be used to lie, deceive one's own or the people, incite non - socialist tendencies, etc." (pp. 158-159). In fact, this letter alone reveals the basis of the foundations of Lavrism. At the same time, it is a direct reaction to Nechayivism (all techniques are good for achieving the goal) and Malikism (God - manhood is a religious principle). The principle of truthfulness and socialist orientation should be decisive in propaganda among both the intelligentsia and the people. The techniques are different, but the essence is the same.

And in this regard, Lopatin's understanding of Lavrov's views on the social revolution is important. "Of course, I did not know from yesterday that you regard the social revolution as a revolution that can only take place by force through an insurrection prepared by the propaganda of the majority" (p.521). This evidence completely removes from Lavrov the reproaches of populist liberalism, of disbelief in the strength of the masses, and of his alleged preference for heroes from the intelligentsia in the revolution.

Of considerable interest is Lavrov's letter, which contains a description of Lopatin. Lavrov reproaches his friend for the misuse of his powers and abilities. The emails also contain estimates of individual events. I got the alarm today. Nechayevshchina" (p. 314). Approximately the same negative statement is made about the hoaxes of Chigirin residents. Both Lavrov and Lopatin did not accept any form of hoax or deception. In the distortion of information, Lavrov saw both a mistake and a crime at the same time. Incorrect information about the enemy replaces the enemy, incorrect information excludes the possibility of a scientific approach to solving emerging problems.

Since the mid-70s of the XIX century, new phenomena have been maturing in the underground life of Russia. The correspondence reflects this process in detail. At the beginning of 1878, Lopatin states a turn to Jacobinism. In the summer of 1878, he left for Russia, where he got acquainted with the state of affairs in the revolutionary circles. In his letters, the course of the struggle between "classics" and "romantics" is described in detail and it is concluded that the new wave of the current is not an act of despair and that it is a certain phase in the development of the dvi-

page 198

applications. The visit to Russia confirmed for Lopatin his own opinion that Russia is entering a period of very important and responsible events.

The second volume contains 224 documents, which are divided into sections: the period "Forward"; Lavrov and the Emancipation of Labor group; around Narodnaya Volya ;Lavrov and foreign socialists; letters from various individuals to Lavrov; letters from Lavrov to various individuals; "A Group of Old Narodnaya Volya Members"; from Lavrov's literary heritage; appendices.

The most extensive correspondence is with a member of the group "Vperyod" S. A. Podolinsky, and it concerns the preparatory work for the Vperyod edition. At the same time, the letters constantly contain messages about events in the social and revolutionary life of Russia. Often mentioned, as in the first volume, is the name of Nechaev and the Nechayevites. Nechayevism is condemned everywhere. And at the same time, the Russian emigration (and not only Russian) is outraged that the Swiss government has turned Nechaev over to the tsarist authorities. It is protesting against such an act of violence against a revolutionary. The correspondence reflects the struggle of trends in the Russian emigration. Podolinsky indiscriminately accuses Bakunin and the Bakunists of radicalism and demagogic despotism. However, when he speaks of Bakunin's supporters, he calls them the purest representatives of Russian socialism (p. 65). Unfortunately, the commentator does not explain this apparent contradiction in the ratings. Even more sharply, in his letters to Lavrov, Podolinsky criticizes Tkachev and his pamphlet " Tasks of Revolutionary Propaganda in Russia." The materials of the volume give grounds to assert that Tkachev's pamphlet undermined the authority of its author and intensified the struggle within the emigration.

A significant number of documents are devoted to the renegade Tikhomirov. The fact is that the relatively extensive literature on this issue does not explain much in the essence of the matter, and therefore any new sources about this episode in the history of the social movement are especially important. P. B. Axelrod in a letter to Lavrov characterizes this event as follows:: "Now it has been revealed that Tikhomirov himself is a pure reactionary. But a reactionary is extremely dangerous for many reasons. In the first place, it has become so, of course, not for selfish purposes, but again for the common good. He is not a renegade in the ordinary sense of the word, but an unfortunate victim of our Slavophil or Narodnik socialism, on the one hand, and of the mental cowardice and immobility of our revolutionary intelligentsia in the 80's, which is truly terrible and capable of driving anyone to despair. But it is precisely because of its sincere and convinced tone that his pamphlet makes a strong impression on many" (p.73).

A lot of unknown and important information is contained in the materials related to the Calendar and Vestnik Narodnaya Volya. It turns out that already in the early 80s of the XIX century there was talk about the unseemly role of the "Free Word". New information is available about S. P. Degaev and Degayevshchina; letters of the Degaev brothers are published. It seems that without the materials of the second volume of the peer-reviewed publication, it is impossible to reproduce any complete history of Vestnik Narodnaya Volya.

The volume contains new data on the second Pervomartovtsy, their view of political terror and those servants of tsarism against whom it should be directed. "Terrible political oppression has made terror so popular that many people do not see anything outside of it that can lead us out of the current terrible situation; for many, the question is: either shoot yourself in the head, or one of those under whose oppression millions groan and must die or wither themselves." (page 169). In this connection, a brief but brilliant description of A. I. Ulyanov is given: "A noble, highly humane person, a loving nature. For a long time he hesitated to join the ranks of practical revolutionaries: whether it would be moral to enter into practice without having completely solved all the questions scientifically, he used to say. But the question is: will it be morally correct to discuss questions calmly and theoretically, when despotism does not even make it possible to solve these questions satisfactorily and scientifically? He soon became convinced that the only productive form of political struggle in Russia was terror, and he became a terrorist" (p.175).

Many of the letters contained in the volume clearly reflect the clashes and relations between Narodnaya Volya groups and social-democratic groups. In view of the fact that the history of the "Old Narodnaya Volya Group", in fact, has not yet been studied, the materials published on this issue are very important.

page 199

Permanent link to this publication: