1. Here and elsewhere in the paper the term “political parties” is used to refer to those organizations, calling themselves parties, whose main purpose was to engage in electoral and parliamentary politics and seek power through those institutions. The Constitutional Democrats (Kadets) and the Octobrists merit the reference; the Social Democrats and Socialist Revolutionaries do not.

2. The fullest published account of the Union's structure and operations is D. I. Shakhovskoy, “Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia,” in the Kadet miscellany Zamitsy, no. 2 (Moscow, 1909).

3. See Huntington, S. P., “The Change to Change: Modernization, Development, and Politics,” Comparative Politics, April 1971, pp. 283–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Most of the secondary works dealing with the “liberation movement” mention Beseda, relying for the most part on the published comments of former members Maklakov and Shakhovskoy; but no detailed knowledge about the circle's operations and membership can be acquired from the published sources alone. The unpublished record of Beseda has been exploited by only one historian, E. D. Chermensky, for his general study of liberal politics in the early twentieth century. In Chermensky's interpretation the liberal movement is the affair of an aristocratic fronde, and Beseda is assigned the role of GHQ in its direction. Such a view, as the reader should see from what follows, is plainly unwarranted by the circle's records. Chermensky, E. D., “Zemskoliberal'noe dvizhenie nakanune revoliutsii 1905–1907 gg.,” Istoriia SSSR, 1965, no. 5, pp. 41–60 Google Scholar, and his Burzhuaziio i tsarism v pervoi russkoi revoliutsii, 2nd rev. ed. (Moscow, 1970), esp. pp. 17-22. Mikheeva, E. P., “Neskol'ko dopolnenii k istorii ‘Besedy, ’” Istoriia SSSR, 1966, no. 2, pp. 241–43Google Scholar, is a brief note by an archivist. A brief, systematic description of the Beseda archive, accompanied by a reproduction of its membership list, has been published by Krasavin, A. S., “Obzor dokumental'nykh materialov kruzhka ‘Beseda’ v fonde V. A. Maklakova,” Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1968 god (Moscow, 1970), pp. 354–59Google Scholar. Chermensky's discussion of Beseda contains several purely factual errors, which have been repeated by other writers relying on his work. These include (1) attribution of membership to several prominent figures, including S. A. Muromtsev, I. I. and M. I. Petrunkevich, V. I. Vernadsky, and F. D. Samarin, (2) description of the “Shipov circle” as a group internal to Beseda (see below, note 10), (3) assertion that the last meeting recorded in the circle's papers was held on February 20, 1905, and (4) assertion that Beseda was responsible for calling the May 1902 zemstvo congress (there is no evidence of this in the circle's papers; if Chermensky has other evidence to that effect, he does not cite it). The note by Mikheeva also mistakenly attributes membership to several persons and claims that Beseda founded the journal Osvobozhdenie.

5. Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei (GIM), Otdel pis'mennykh istochnikov: fond 31 (V. A. Maklakov), folder no. 142, pp. 1-344. In addition to various other materials directly or indirectly related to the circle, the folder contains the minutes of its meetings of 1902 (one meeting, no exact date noted), August 25, 1903, January 11-12, 1904, February 15, 1904, August 31-September 1, 1904, October 30, 1904, January 8-9, 1905, February 20-21, 1905, May 27, 1905 (rough notes only), and October 10, 1905 (brief note on a meeting canceled for lack of attendance). The Beseda papers were held by Maklakov in emigration for many years after the Revolution of 1917. They were evidently deposited, either by him or by Peter D. Dolgorukov, in the Prague Russian Archive at some time in the interwar period, and were removed to the Soviet Union with the rest of the Prague Archive in December 1945.

6. Mirnyi, S. [Shakhovskoy, D. I.], Adresy zemstv 1894-1895 gg. i ikh politicheskaia programma (Geneva, 1896).Google Scholar

7. Zakharova, L. G., “Krizis samoderzhaviia nakanune revoliutsii 190S goda,” Voprosy istorii, 1972, no. 8, p. 120.Google Scholar

8. Belokonsky, I. P., Zemskoe dvizhenie (Moscow, 1914), pp. 58–59 Google Scholar; Shipov, D. N., Vospominaniia i dumy o perezhitom (Moscow, 1918), pp. 57–99.Google Scholar

9. Two members, Shakhovskoy and A. A. Stakhovich, have dated the founding to the year 1899; others have referred to the “turn of the century.” Shakhovskoy, “Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia,” p. 103; Belokonsky, Zemskoe dvizhenie, p. 80n.; Dolgorukov, P. D., Velikaia rasrukha (Madrid, 1964), p. 332 Google Scholar; Byloe, 1907, no. 8, p. 304. The earliest meeting mentioned in the circle's papers was one held on April 16, 1900, and referred to as the third meeting. Given the group's custom of meeting two to four times a year, one can surmise that the first meeting was held in mid-1899. See GIM, fond 31, no. 142, pp. 5-7. Maklakov is obviously in error in referring to Beseda as a “circle founded in the early 1890s.” In a later version of his memoirs he merely refers to the circle's having been founded “in the 1890s.” See V. A. Maklakov, Vlast' i obshchestvennost' na zakate staroi Rossii (Vospominaniia) (n.p., n.d.), p. 291; and his Iz vospominanii (New York, 1954), p. 302.

10. Dolgorukov, Velikaia razrukha, p. 332; Russkie vedomosti, 1863-1913: Sbornik statei (Moscow, 1913), pt. 2, pp. 63-64; Belokonsky, Zemskoe dvizhenie, p. 80 and n. It is worth mentioning that the unnamed “Moscow circle” of 1900-1901 to which D. N. Shipov refers in his memoirs was not Beseda but another group convened—possibly at Beseda's request (there is no direct evidence)—for the specific purpose of drawing up a response to Witte's memorandum Autocracy and the Zemstvo. Neither the dates nor the membership of that group as reported by Shipov coincide with the corresponding evidence for Beseda, and Shipov's memoirs are a model of accurate reporting (they are for the most part a collection of documents contemporary to the events they describe). Moreover, the independent existence of the two groups is remarked clearly in the correspondence for 1901 between Shipov and another Beseda member, M. V. Chelnokov. Shipov, Vospominaniia, pp. 131-35, 151-55; Gosudarstvennaia biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina, Otdel rukopisei (ORLB), fond 440 (D. N. Shipov); Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Oktiabrskoi revoliutsii i sotsialisticheskogo stroitel'stva (TsGAOR), fond 810 (M. V. Chelnokov), opis' 1, no. 492, pp. 14, 16. Identification of the two groups has led to several erroneous conclusions about Beseda's origins and membership in the otherwise judicious assessment by Shmuel, Galai, The Liberation Movement in Russia, 1900–1905 (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 51–57, 273.Google Scholar

11. Dolgorukov, Velikaia razrukha, p. 332; Shakhovskoy, “Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia,” p. 103.

12. Dues were ten rubles per year. At least four new members were co-opted no earlier than late 1904. Co-optation was by unanimous secret ballot.

13. Shakhovskoy, “Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia,” p. 103. As examples of persons belonging to the latter category, Dolgorukov mentions I. I. Petrunkevich and V. E. Iakushkin. Dolgorukov, Velikaia rasrukha, p. 335.

14. Maklakov, Vlast' i obshchestvennost', pp. 292-93. The two exceptions to the rule of institutional affiliation were Maklakov and S. N. Trubetskoy. Maklakov was first proposed for membership on February 15, 1904, and was made permanent secretary and member of the “Moscow bureau” on September 1, 1904, replacing I. P. Demidov, who had been mobilized (GIM, fond 31, no. 142, pp. 151, 158-59). Maklakov attributed the exception made in his case primarily to close personal relations with several members. Trubetskoy; although centrally involved in the zemstvo movement in 1904-5, apparently held no zemstvo office. Maklakov, Iz vospomindnii, p. 303; Trubetskaia, O., Kn. S. N. Trubetskoi: Vospotninaniia sestry (New York, 1953), p. 1953.Google Scholar

15. The two exceptions were N.I. Guchkov and M. V. Chelnokov, both members of prominent Moscow merchant-industrialist families. In 1903, 94 percent of all provincial board members were of gentry origin; the corresponding figure for district boards was 75 percent. Veselovsky, B. B., Istoriia zemstva za sorok let, vol. 3 (St. Petersburg, 1911), p. 434.Google Scholar

16. The Dvorianskii adres-kalendar na 1899 g. (St. Petersburg, 1899) lists only five Beseda members on zemstvo boards.

17. Moscow University, twenty-three; St. Petersburg University, eight; other universities, six. The other schools were the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy and the Imperial School of Law.

18. There were two professors of law, A. F. Meiendorf (St. Petersburg) and E. F. Kokoshkin (Moscow); one professor of history, S. A. Kotliarevsky (Moscow); and two professors of philosophy, S. N. and E. N. Trubetskoy (S. N. was professor and, for a short time before his death, rector of Moscow University; E. N. taught at St. Vladimir University and later at Moscow). The lawyer was Maklakov, and the industrialist was Chelnokov. (Guchkov was apparently not directly involved in business affairs. Buryshkin, P. A., Moskva kupecheskaia [New York, 1954], pp. 111, 178.Google Scholar)

19. Many writers have remarked about the extensive participation by professional men in zemstvo affairs in this period. For the most part such participation was limited to their serving as deputies to the annual assemblies.

20. Dolgorukov at one point characterized the group as “all more or less large landowners.” GIM, fond 31, no. 142, p. 92.

21. Shipov, for example, had to look for work after his nonconfirmation in office in April 1904. His salary for the year 1903 had been 6, 000 rubles, one of the highest zemstvo salaries in the country (other provincial chairmen-members had salaries ranging from 5, 000 to 3, 000 rubles; district chairmen's salaries ranged from 3, 500 to 1, 500, generally). Salaries of provincial chairmen compared quite favorably with those of university professors or doctors, and put them in the upper third of the state-bureaucratic salary scale. Board members received somewhat lower salaries than chairmen. See Spisok chlenov ministerstva vnutrennikh del 1903 goda, pt. 2 (St. Petersburg, 1903).

22. The brothers Dolgorukov, Golovin, Kokoshkin, Kotliarevsky, Kovalevsky, N. Lvov, Shakhovskoy, A. Stakhovich, Svechin, N. Guchkov, I. Demidov, G. Lvov, Mukhanov, Novosiltsev, Petrovo-Solovovo, Kolokoltsov and E. Trubetskoy were all members of the Union. Pisarev, both Tolstoys, and Chelnokov were almost certainly members. Relative neglect by the police of the “nonrevolutionary” opposition before 1905 and subsequent historical events have conspired to make the reconstruction of the Union and other liberal organizations extremely difficult. Insofar as they knew anything about them, the police tended to confuse the organizations, aided in this by the “interlocking directorates” of the organizations which tended to meet in the same places. The separate existence of Beseda was apparently unknown to the police, although Pleve was personally aware of it in 1903 (GIM, fond 31, no. 142, p. 139). Shakhovskoy, Peter Dolgorukov, N. Lvov, Kotliarevsky, and Kovalevsky attended the Schaffhausen meeting. I. I. Petrunkevich, Iz zapisok obshchestvennogo deiatelio: Vospominaniia (vol. 21 of Arkhiv russkoi revoliutsii) (Berlin, 1934), p. 338.

23. N. N. Kovalevsky and probably V. G. Kolokoltsov among the five “Kharkov zemtsy”; Peter Dolgorukov from Kursk; Mukhanov (or possibly Svechin) from Chernigov; Shakhovskoy from Iaroslavl; Kokoshkin (or possibly Golovin) from Moscow. (The remaining five or six participants undoubtedly included E. Kuskova, S. Prokopovich, V. Khizhniakov, and I. Luchitsky.) Belokonsky, Zemskoe dvizhenie, p. 174n.; Shakhovskoy, “Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia,” p. 107n.

24. The same as at Schaffhausen, less Kotliarevsky. Miliukov, P. N., “Rokovye gody (iz vospominanii),” Russkie Zapiski (Paris), 12 (1938): 121n.Google Scholar

25. According to the secretary of “Group A,” these included Peter Dolgorukov, N. Lvov, Shakhovskoy, Kotliarevsky, Novosiltsev, I. Demidov, and N. Guchkov (in addition to Petrunkevich, P. I. Novgorodtsev, V. I. Vernadsky, Savva Morozov, and others). According to the same source, E. Trubetskoy was one of the heads of the Kiev branch, Kovalevsky was in charge of the Kharkov branch, and Petrovo-Solovovo of the Voronezh (Tambov?) branch (from notes by B. I. Nicolaevsky on an interview with G. I. Shreider, Brussels, Oct. 6, 1928; supplied by A. M. Bourguina from her private collection).

26. The four were Geiden, S. Tolstoy, Chelnokov, and Maklakov. Novosiltsev was host and chief convener of the group's meetings (whence the appellation “Novosil'tsevtsy” for the group). Shakhovskoy, the brothers Dolgorukov, and Count Geiden also occupied central positions. TsGAOR, fond 102, op. 5, no. 1000, pp. 32-35; Shakhovskoy, “Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia,” pp. 108, 120; Chermensky, Burzhuaziia i tsarizm (2nd ed.), p. 31.

27. The members of the Union of Liberation listed earlier, minus Guchkov and Petrovo-Solovovo, as well as Tatarinov, Bulygin, Shishkov, and Chelnokov (positive identifications). Dolgorukov wrote in his reminiscences that the “majority” of Beseda members entered the Kadet party (Velikaia razrukha, p. 334).

28. Peter Dolgorukov, Kokoshkin, Kotliarevsky, and Shakhovskoy were in the bureau (all represented both the zemstvo constitutionalists and the Union of Liberation there). Maklakov, Chelnokov, A. Stakhovich, Pavel Dolgorukov, and Golovin were also members of the bureau. See Konstitutsionno-demokraticheskaia partita: S“ezd 12-18 oktiabria 1905 g. (n.p., n.d.); Otchet tsentral'nogo komiteta Konstitutsionno-demokraticheskoi partiii (Partii Narodnoi svobody) za dva goda: S“esd 18 oktiabria 1905 g. po oktiabr' 1907 g. (St. Petersburg, 1907), pp. 16, 55; TsGAOR, fond 523 (Konstitutsionnodemokraticheskoi partii), op. 1, no. 34; Raúl A. Garcia, “A Prosopographical Sketch: Cadets in the First Duma and the First, Second, and Third Central Committees” (unpub. paper, Stanford, 1972). Central Committee members from Beseda were the brothers Dolgorukov, Shakhovskoy, Kokoshkin, Kotliarevsky, N. Lvov, and Maklakov.

29. Shipov, Guchkov, M. Stakhovich, Khomiakov, Geiden, Volkonsky, and Maslov. Other Octobrists from Beseda included A. Meiendorf, D. Olsufiev, Petrovo-Solovovo, and Kamensky.

30. Geiden, M. Stakhovich, N. Lvov, and Volkonsky.

31. A. Bobrinsky and Sheremetev. Bobrinsky was also first president of the Union of Russian Nobility.

32. The bureau included Pavel Dolgorukov, Golovin, Pisarev, I. Demidov, Maklakov (from September 1904), and several other Moscow-resident members at one time or another.

33. The secretary was provided with an assistant hired with the circle's funds. Some examples of materials distributed to membership are a report by Shakhovskoy in early 1904 on the Union of Liberation and other “parties” in formation, a report by S. Tolstoy and Golitsyn on the redemption operation, a questionnaire on the effects of the war on local economic conditions (autumn 1904), and the draft constitution prepared by the Union of Liberation (October 1904).

34. This campaign is described by Veselovsky, Istoriia setnstva, 3: 542.

35. The creation of the Special Conference was the direct provocation leading to reactivation of the zemstvo congress movement in 1902: the undertaking of a major government inquiry into the agrarian situation which demonstratively by-passed the zemstvo institutions was generally taken in zemstvo circles to be a frontal attack on the “zemstvo idea.” See Shipov, Vospominaniia, chap. 6; Nathan Smith, “The Constitutional-Democratic Movement in Russia, 1902-1906” (Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois, 1958), pp. 62-72. Beseda adhered to the position on the conference adopted by the May 1902 zemstvo congress. It is possible, as Maklakov surmised in his memoirs (he was not at the time a member of the circle), that the elaboration of a general line of response by the zemstvos to Witte's provocation was begun in Beseda, and that the initiative for the summoning of the May congress lay, in some way, with it. Unfortunately, the circle's archives throw no light on the background to the May congress. The discussions among some forty zemstvo men in April 1902 described by Shipov (Vospominaniia, p. 159), which led Shipov to organize the congress, were undoubtedly attended by many Beseda members. The number of zemstvists attending (exceeding the current membership of Beseda) and the circumstances suggest, however, that these were not meetings of the circle as such. It has also been surmised that Beseda was responsible for the composition and circulation in mid-1901 of the “Letter of Zemstvo Veterans” (“Pis'mo starykh zemtsev”), which called for zemstvo subscription to a list of liberal reforms (Galai, Liberation Movement, pp. 133-34). There is no trace of such a connection in the archive, however. At least two other open letters, similar in style and orientation, were circulated in the zemstvos in 1901-2: Chto zhe nam delaf: Otkrytoe pis'mo k zemskim deiateliam, signed “Starye zemtsy. Gruppa Osvobozhdeniia,” TsGAOR, fond 102, Departament politsii, Osobyi otdel, no. 14, part 67, 1898, pp. 1-4. Otkrytoe pis'mo k zemtsam, signed “Gruppa Osvobozhdeniia,” TsGAOR, fond 1241, op. 11, no. 1337, 1902, pp. 2-3. The first letter mentioned has been published in several places, including Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 5th ed., vol. 6, pp. 349-55. All three letters were most likely the work of the zemtsy initiators of the Union of Liberation.

36. Belokonsky, Zemskoe dvizhenie, p. 196.

37. GIM, fond 31, no. 142, p. 145. The record does not show, that Beseda elaborated any official policy on the situation of the peasantry beyond calling for abolition of redemption payments (September 1904), although by the time of the February 1905 meeting the level of peasant disturbances had reached such startling proportions in the view of the members present that the need for an “economic program” was recognized. If such a program was ever elaborated in the circle, it has not been preserved (ibid., pp. 157, 239).

38. Ibid., pp. 157-58. By a directive of June 20, 1903, the Committee of Ministers had informed the governors of their right to remove at their discretion any zemstvo officer or employee and to designate interim replacements.

39. Ibid., p. 12. The Beseda members participating in the St. Petersburg discussion were Peter Dolgorukov, M. Stakhovich, and Sheremetev. The “representatives of the capital press” with whom they met were K. K. Arseniev, P. N. Miliukov, A. A. Kornilov, and G. A. Falbork.

40. The record confirms Shakhovskoy's observation: “Already by 1901, the political question had decisively inserted itself among the questions considered in Beseda, and this subsequently provoked a direct confrontation of opinions—constitutionalist and Slavophile“ (Shakhovskoy, “Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia,” p. 103).

41. GIM, fond 31, no. 142, p. 22. The only question raised by this recommendation in the meeting was whether the memorandum ought to be presented directly to the tsar over influential signatures or published abroad. The majority preferred publication abroad.

42. Ibid., pp. 30, 33. It would be incautious to assume that Shipov's political philosophy was shared by all those who with him (inside or outside-the circle) were generally called “Slavophiles” or “neo-Slavophiles.” Those who were suspicious of constitutional limitations on the crown did not necessarily share Shipov's romantic ideas about moral union and nonresistance to evil. Thus, in the discussion in question, Sheremetev admitted he was less interested in the religious and moral foundations of autocracy than in the practical question of its utility as a bulwark against revolution (ibid., p. 30).

43. Ibid., pp. 28-33. “Constitutionalists” in attendance included the brothers Dolgorukov, Shakhovskoy, Pisarev, Novosiltsev, Golovin, Lvov, and Petrovo-Solovovo. The “Slavophile” group counted Shipov, Stakhovich, and Sheremetev. (A. D. Polenov, who was present at this meeting, but whose name figures nowhere else in the records, also sided with the “Slavophile” position.)

44. Ibid., p. 34.

45. The record of the meeting in which the proposition was made has not been preserved. The decision was mentioned in a later meeting (ibid., p. 93). If the circle as a whole took no responsibility for the journal, some of its members (Shakhovskoy, the Dolgorukovs, and others) were deeply involved in its creation, and, as Shakhovskoy later recalled, the policy articles for the first issues of Osvobozhdenie were discussed in Beseda in May 1902, prior to their publication. “Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia,” p. 104.

46. GIM, fond 31, no. 142, pp. 90-98. Petrovo-Solovovo confessed that until recently he had believed Beseda could operate on the basis of accommodation of differing views (nedogoverennost'), but had come to change his mind after becoming convinced that “administrative arbitrariness is an unavoidable attribute of an autocratic regime” (ibid., p. 95). Petrovo-Solovovo was by all counts one of the most moderate of the circle's constitutionalists: he was one of the few to object to discontinuation of the moratorium on political opposition in late 1904; he became an Octobrist in 1905, rather than a Kadet.

47. Ibid., pp. 92-93.

48. Ibid., p. 97.

49. Ibid., p. 141.

50. Ibid., p. 253.

51. Ibid., p. 147.

52. Ibid., p. 146. Beseda's policy did not prevent fifteen provincial zemstvos from designating 4, 710, 000 rubles of their tax revenues to the war effort (half of that explicitly earmarked for military expenditures). Veselovsky, Istoriia zemstva, 3: 590n. An initiative on united zemstvo aid to the wounded had already been taken by the Moscow zemstvo. Shipov became president of the “all-zemstvo organization for aid to sick and wounded” which resulted from the initiative, and both its representatives at the front were also Beseda members: G. E. Lvov and S. N. Maslov.

53. GIM, fond 31, no. 142, pp. 152-55.

54. Ibid., p. 153. Attending were S. Tolstoy, P. Tolstoy, Peter Dolgorukov, Shakhovskoy, N. Lvov, A. Stakhovich, Golovin, Geiden, Novosiltsev, Petrovo-Solovovo, Maklakov, Shishkov, Ershov, (?) Demidov, Golitsyn, Smirnov, and Orlov.

55. Ibid., p. 155. But only Count Geiden took exception to the general proposition that the country was ready for a regime of popular sovereignty based on universal suffrage. He preferred to see the “gradual expansion of local self-government” (ibid., p. 156).

56. Shakhovskoy, “Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia,” pp. 118-21; Smith, “The Constitutional- Democratic Movement,” pp. 187-89, 204. Pleve's most recent affronts to zemstvo sensibilities included the aforementioned audits and nonconfirmation in office of zemstvo officials, and an attempt to wreck the all-zemstvo medical organization, among other things.

57. GIM, fond 31, no. 142, p. 170 [misnumbered 159], In attendance were Kotliarevsky, Pisarev, Novosiltsev, S. Tolstoy, Geiden, A. Stakhovich, Maklakov, Peter Dolgorukov, Mazarovich, Smirnov, Shakhovskoy, Shishkov, Bobrinsky, P. Tolstoy, Chelnokov, Orlov, and N. Lvov.

58. This project was “going from hand to hand” at the meeting. At least two Beseda members, Kokoshkm and N. Lvov, had participated in the drafting of it. Smith, “The Constitutional-Democratic Movement,” pp. 304-8.

59. This was in particular anticipation of the forthcoming Moscow gentry assembly. As things turned out there, Trubetskoy, Pavel Dolgorukov, and Novosiltsev cosponsored with Khomiakov and Shipov a minority address asking the tsar “to summon elected representatives to participation in state affairs” against the majority address of a markedly reactionary character. GIM, fond 31, no. 142, p. 234.

60. Ibid., pp. 230, 304-5.

61. Ibid. Three numbers of Trubetskoy's paper were set in type in May 190S, under the title Moskovskaia nedelio, but all three failed to pass the censor. The paper was revived by E. N. Trubetskoy in 1906 (his brother having died on September 29, 1905) and was published by him until 1910 under the original title Moskovskii ezhenedel'nik,

62. Attending were Ershov, Geiden, Shishkov, Kovalevsky, the brothers Dolgorukov, P. Tolstoy, S. Tolstoy, Kotliarevsky, Pisarev, S. Trubetskoy, Novosiltsev, G. Lvov, N. Lvov, Orlov, Shakhovskoy, P. (?) Demidov, Maklakov, Golovin, Chelnokov, and Petrovo-Solovovo.

63. GIM, fond 31, no. 142, pp. 238 ft.

64. Ibid., p. 245.

65. Only Petrovo-Solovovo among those present objected to the general idea of popular agitation: “The tsar is holy to the people, as a counterbalance to the masters…. Propaganda can provoke only anger. Only when Russia will have become a little used to public activity in the form of a consultative organ will it be possible to agitate” (ibid., p. 242). He may have been thinking of Lvov's report that the peasants in his region were being subjected to governmental propaganda to the effect that the “masters want to get rid of the tsar and seize power” (ibid., p. 245).

66. The rescript had announced the tsar's intention of summoning elected representatives to legislative consultation and called for creation of a “special conference,” to be chaired by Bulygin, to realize this intention. The ukas directed the Council of Ministers to study proposals addressed to the government concerning the “improvement of state organization and amelioration of the popular welfare,” and thereby appeared to affirm the right of the public to petition the Council for reforms. The ministers had drawn up the rescript and persuaded the tsar to sign it when they learned that the tsar had signed the manifesto calling on the population to support the throne “against foreign and domestic enemies” and to pray “for the greater strengthening of the true autocracy.” All three documents were published on the same day.

67. These proposals were made under the impact of Lvov's report on agrarian violence in Saratov (ibid., pp. 245-46).

68. Ibid., p. 253.

69. Vseobshchee obrasovanie v Rossii: Sbornik statei L. N. Blinova, N. P. Bogolepova, N. F. Bunakova, N. M. Bychkova, V. la. Murinova, Narrator'a, F. F. Ol'denburga, A. I. Shingareva i A. A. Shteven, pt. 1, ed. D. Shakhovskoy (Moscow, 1902); Melkaia semskaia edinitsa: Sbomik statei K. K. Arsen'eva, V. G. Bashaeva, P. G. Vinogradova, I. V. Gessena, G. B. lollosa, M. M. Kovalevskogo, N. I. Lasarevskogo, M. K. Lemke, Barona A. F. Meiendorfa, M. N. Pokrovskogo, V. lu. Skalona, V. D. Spasovicha, I. M. Strakhovskogo i G. I. Shreidera, ed. P. D. Dolgorukov, D. I. Shakhovskoy, and editors of Pravo (St. Petersburg, n.d., but 1902); Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa: Sbomik statei …, 2nd rev. ed., ed. P. D. Dolgorukov, D. I. Shakhovskoy, and editors of Pravo (St. Petersburg, n.d., but 1903) (the second edition included amendments to several articles, the deletion of Shreider's article, and new articles by O. Solnerdal, N. E. Kudrin, V. M. Gessen, and A. D. Gradovsky); Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa v 1902-1903 gg.: Sbomik statei, pt. 2, ed. P. D. Dolgorukov, D. I. Shakhovskoy, and editors of Pravo (St. Petersburg, 1903) (the supplement includes Shreider's article, displaced from the second edition, articles by S. Bleklov and M. Ippolitov, and documents); Nuzhdy derevni po rabotam komitetov o sel'skokhoziaistvennoi promyshlennosti, vol. 1: Sbomik statei K. K. Arsen'eva, V. M. Gessena, I. V. Gessena, M. I. Ippolitova, A. A. Leont'eva, P. N. Miliukova, V. A. Rozenberga, I. M. Strakhovskogo, N. V. Chekhova, i G. I. Shreidera, ed. N. N. L'vov and A. A. Stakhovich (St. Petersburg, 1904); vol. 2: Sbomik statei N. F. Annenskogo, M. la. Gertsenshteina, A. I. Kaminki, A. P. Mertvago, A. V. Peshekhonova, M. N. Soboleva, V. V. Khizhniakova, A. A. Chuprova, ed. N. N. L'vov and A. A. Stakhovich (St. Petersburg, 1904); Agrarnyi vopros: Sbomik statei prof. M. la. Gertsenshteina, kn. P. D. Dolgorukova, prof. V. E. Dena, prof. I. A. Iveronova, A. A. Kaufmana, prof. A. A. Manuilova, I. I. Petrunkevicha, prof. A. F. Fortunatova, prof. A. A. Chuprova, ed. P. D. Dolgorukov and I. I. Petrunkevich (Moscow: Knigoizdatel'stvo “Beseda,” 1905); Krest'ianskii stroi, vol. 1: Sbomik statei A. A. Komilova, A. S. Lappo-Danilevskogo, V. I. Semevskogo i I. M. Strakhovskogo, ed. P. D. Dolgorukov, S. L. Tolstoy, and editors of Pravo (St. Petersburg: Knigoizdatel'stvo “Beseda,” 1905); Politicheskii stroi sovremennykh gosudarstv: Sbomik statei, vol. 1, ed. P. D. Dolgorukov, I. I. Petrunkevich, and editors of Pravo (St. Petersburg, 1905) (contributions by M. A. Reisner, V. M. Gessen, P. G. Vinogradov, M. M. Kovalevsky, N. E. Kudrin, and P. N. Miliukov); Konstitutsionnoe gosudarstvo: Sbomik statei, ed. I. V. Gessen, A. I. Kaminka, and editors of Pravo (St. Petersburg, 1905) (contributors include N. I. Kareev, A. K. Dzhivelegov, M. B. Gorenberg, M. A. Reisner, N. I. Lazarevsky, N. E. Kudrin, S. A. Kotliarevsky, V. V. Vodovozov, Z. D. Avalov, L. V. Shalland, M. N. Pokrovsky, and V. M. Gessen); Konstitutsionnoe gosudarstvo: Sbomik statei, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1905).

70. Paramonov's firm also published Marxist “classics” and S.D. and S.R. tracts. It was closed down by the police first in December 190S, reopened after four months, and closed for good on November 25, 1906. The total volume of publishing was enormous, numbering millions of copies which were widely distributed by the parties, zemstvos, and other organizations (they were regularly displayed alongside the Beseda collections at the zemstvo congresses in 1905). The police spent many months after suppression of the press in eliminating stocks of Paramonov's publications. TsGAOR, fond 102 (Departament politsii), no. 13, pt. 3, p. 88.

71. In an introduction Arseniev summarized the two basic arguments in favor of creating a small zemstvo unit: (1) it would better satisfy local administrative and fiscal needs, (2) it would lead to social rapprochement between the classes. “The small zemstvo unit” was the successor in the liberal program to the “all-class volost1” of the 1860s and 1870s. (In the liberal view, the volost’ had been rendered unsuitable as the basis for local reform as a result of the “counterreforms” of Alexander Ill's reign.)

72. Nushdy derevni, 2: 3-4.

73. Politicheskii stroi, pp. v-vii.

74. Konstitutsionnoe gosudarstvo (2nd ed.), p. v.

75. Ibid., pp. vi-vii.

76. GIM, fond 31, no. 142, p. 253. Second volumes of the collections on the political order and the agrarian question were published under the Beseda imprimatur in 1905 and 1907, respectively: Politicheskii stroi sovremennykh gosudarstv, vol. 2, ed. P. D. Dolgorukov, I. I. Petrunkevich, and editors of Pravo (St. Petersburg, 1905); Agrarnyi vopros, vol. 2: Sbornik statei L. K. Breiera, M. Bruna, N. I. Vorob'eva, pro]. M. la. Gertsenshteina, prof. V. E. Dena, A. A. Kaufmana, N. N. Kutlera, prof. V. L. Levitskogo, prof. A. A. Manuilova, I. I. Petrunkevicha, O. A. Khauke, prof. A. I. Chuprova i V. E. Iakushkina: Posviashchaetsia pamiati M. la. Gertsenshteina (Moscow: Knigoizdatel'stvo “Beseda,” 1907).

77. In the meeting of October 30, 1904, A. Stakhovich asked for a decision by the group in his dispute with N. Lvov over the contributions of Khizhniakov to the collection for which he and Lvov were assuming editorial responsibility. Lvov had found Khizhniakov's articles too sharp and tendentious and wanted them removed; Stakhovich favored some editing only. The question was left open until the articles could be read in a later session. The decision, if taken, is not in the record. The articles by Khizhniakov did appear. There is no other example in the record of direct consideration by the circle of the merits of individual articles; and this example is one in which the circle's attention was invited by the editors. GIM, fond 31, no. 142, p. 170.

78. The Soviet historian L. V. Cherepnin appropriately cites four of the Beseda publications in a recent article on the “crisis of bourgeois historiography” as “containing the political credo of the liberal Russian bourgeoisie …, part of which subsequently entered the Kadet party,” apparently without being aware of their common sponsorship. See Ocherki istorii istoricheskoi nauki v SSSR, vol. 3 (Moscow, 1963), pp. 246 ff.

79. Gessen, I. V., V dvukh vekakh: Zhiznennyi otchet (Berlin, 1937), pp. 166–67 Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that Gessen Uses the term “intelligentsia” in a way that excludes himself and other members of the Pravo staff (most of whom were of nongentry origin and without zemstvo ties). He apparently applied it only to persons in the radical socialist tradition. The semtsy with whom he met would certainly have applied it to Gessen and his colleagues. M. K. Ganfman was Gessen's chief editorial assistant.

80. Hoover Institution Archives (Stanford, California). Nicolaevsky Collection, no. 104, box 1, folder 1; and Nicolaevsky interview with Shreider in Brussels. According to Shreider he left the Union in late 1904 because he saw it was about to be transformed into a constitutionalist political party “in which, of course, there was no place for me or for other revolutionary and socialist elements.” His editorship of Syn otechestva lasted until December 1905, when he fled abroad to avoid arrest. Shreider was apparently suggested for the Moscow Union job by Gessen (V dvukh vckakh, p. 188).

81. The record again confirms Shakhovskoy's observation: “The times were such that the number of convinced and determined constitutionalists in Beseda grew, both by the entrance of new members and by natural evolution among the old members.” See “Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia,” p. 103; also Maklakov, Vlast’ i obshchcstvennost', pp. 291-97; and Dolgorukov, Velikaia rasrukha, pp. 332-35.

82. The general characteristics of the political generation of the 1880s are described with extraordinary insight in the memoirs of Kizevetter, A. A., Na rubezhe dvukh stoletii (vospominaniia, 1881-1914) (Prague, 1929), pp. 167–71.Google Scholar