V. I.   Lenin

Review of Home Affairs


IV. Two Speeches By Marshals of the Nobility

“It is a sadly significant fact, entirely without precedent; and many unexampled misfortunes are held in store for Russia by such facts, which are possible only because of our far-advanced social demoralisation...." Thus wrote Moskovskiye Vedomosti, in the leading article of No. 268 (September 29), commenting on a speech delivered by M. A. Stakhovich, Marshal of the Nobility of Orel Gubernia, at a missionary congress held in that gubernia (the congress closed on September 24).... Well, if “social demoralisation” has affected the marshals of the nobility, the foremost men in the uyezd and the second in importance in the gubernia, where indeed must we seek for the end of this “pestilential, spiritual canker that has seized upon Russia”?

What is the issue? The issue is that this Mr. Stakhovich (the very gentleman who wished to find posts for the Orel nobility as liquor excise collectors; see “Casual Notes”, Zarya, No. 1[1] ) delivered a fiery speech in defence of freedom of conscience and was “tactless, not to say cynical, enough to suggest the following”:[2]

It is the duty of the missionary congress more than of any other body in Russia to proclaim the necessity of freedom of conscience, the necessity to abolish all penalties for seceding from the Orthodox Church and accepting another faith. And I would suggest that the Orel missionary congress openly express itself in this sense and present such a petition in suitable manner....

Of course, Moskovskiye Vedomosti was naive enough to picture Mr. Stakhovich as a Robespierre (“that oh, so gay M. A. Stakhovich, whom I have long known, a Robespierre!” wrote Mr. Suvorin in Novoye Vremya, and it was difficult to read his speech “for the defence” without smiling), as it was naive of Mr. Stakhovich to suggest to the priests that they petition “in suitable manner” for freedom of conscience. It was like suggesting to a congress of police officers that they petition for political freedom!

There is hardly need to add that “the convocation of the clergy, presided over by the highest priest”, rejected   Mr. Stakhovich’s suggestion “both on account of the contents of the speech and of its non-accordance with the tasks of the local missionary congress”, after hearing the “weighty objections” of His Grace, the Bishop Nikanor of Orel; of N. I. Ivanovsky, Professor of the Kazan Academy of Divinity; of V. M. Skvortsov, editor and publisher of the periodical Missionerskoye Obozreniye[6]; of V. A. Ternavtsev and M. A. Novosyolov, members of the university staff; and of several missionary priests. One might say: An alliance of “science” and the church!

Of course, Mr. Stakhovich interests us, not as a model of clear and consistent political thinking, but as a model of the most “oh, so gay” Russian nobleman, who is always ready to grab a slice of the state pie. And one can imagine to what extent “demoralisation” has penetrated Russian life generally and the life of our rural districts in particular as a result of police tyranny and the inquisitorial persecution of religious sects, if the very stones cry out, if even marshals of the nobility have begun to talk strongly about freedom of conscience.

The following instances from Mr. Stakhovich’s speech give a striking picture of the outrageous state of affairs that rouses even the most “oh, so gay” to indignation:

“Go to the library of the missionary brotherhood, and take down the handbook of laws. There you will read in Article 783, Volume II, Part I, that it is the duty of the rural chief of police, in addition to preventing duelling, lampooning, drunkenness, hunting in the close season, and men and women washing together in public baths, to keep observation over the arguments directed against the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and to prevent the ’seduction of the orthodox to other faiths and schisms!" Yes! There is actually such an article in the Act, and it imposes many more such functions upon the rural police chief besides those enumerated by the speaker. The majority of city dwellers would look upon this article as a curiosity, as, indeed, Mr. Stakhovich designated it; but for the peasant this curiosity conceals a bitterer Ernst, the bitter truth about the outrages committed by the lower ranks of the police, who are only too firmly convinced that God is very high up and the tsar very far off.

And now some concrete instances that we shall cite together with the official denial made by the President of the Council of the Orel Orthodox Brotherhood of Peter and Paul and of the Orel Diocesan Missionary Congress, Archpriest Peter Rozhdestvensky (Moskovskiye Vedomosti, No. 269, reprinted from Orlovsky Vestnik,[7] No. 257):

“(a) In the speech [by Mr. Stakhovich] reference is made to a village in Trubchevsk Uyezd:

“’With the knowledge and consent of the priest and of the officials, the suspected Stundists[8] were locked in the church, a table was brought, a white cloth was spread over it, an icon was upon it, and each was led separately to the table and commanded to kiss the icon.

“’“I refuse to kiss idols.”

“’“So! Flog him on the spot!”

“’The weaker ones returned to the orthodox faith after the first flogging. But there were some who were flogged four times.’

“According to the official data presented in the report of the Orel Orthodox Brotherhood of Peter and Paul, published as far back as 1896, and according to the verbal information given at the congress by Father D. Pereverzev, the described acts of violence inflicted by the orthodox population upon the sectarians of the village of Lyubets in Trubchevsk Uyezd took place following a decision adopted at the village meeting and somewhere in the village, but certainly not with the consent of the local priest and on no account in the church; this regret table incident took place eighteen or nineteen years ago, long before the Orel Diocesan Mission was even thought of.”

Commenting on the above, Moskovskiye Vedomosti states that Mr. Stakhovich cited only two facts in his speech. Perhaps so. But what facts they were! The refutation based on “official data” (of the rural police) and on the report of the Orthodox Brotherhood but emphasises the shocking character of the outrages which roused the indignation of even an “oh, so gay” nobleman. Whether the flogging took place “somewhere in the village” or in the church, six months or eighteen years ago, does not alter the case in the least (except perhaps in the one respect that, by general knowledge, the persecution of sects has become even more brutal of late and that the establishment of missions is directly   related to this fact). As to the local priest’s having had nothing to do with the inquisitors in rustic garb[3] —better had you kept quiet about it in the press, Reverend Father; you will only be a laughing-stock. Of course, the “local priest” did not give his “consent” to torture, a punishable act under the Criminal Code, any more than the Holy Inquisition punished its victims with its own hands. It handed them over to the secular authorities; nor did it ever shed blood, it only had its victims burned.

The second fact:

“(b) It was stated in the speech:

“’In that case the priest will never again be able to give the answer we heard him give here: “You say, Father, there were forty families and now there are only four. What has be come of the rest?”

“’“By the grace of God they have been banished to Transcaucasia and to Siberia.’"

“Actually, in the village of Glybochka, Trubchevsk Uyezd, which is the village concerned in this case, there were in 1898, according to the report of the Brotherhood, not forty Stundist families, but forty persons of both sexes, including twenty-one children. In that year only seven persons were banished to Transcaucasia by order of the regional court as a penalty for proselytising to the Stundist faith. As for the expression of the local priest, ’banished by the grace of God’, it was a casual remark dropped at a closed session of the congress during a free exchange of opinion among the delegates, the more so, since the priest in question was previously known to every one, and at the congress proved himself to be a most worthy missionary priest.”

Such a refutation is truly priceless! Casually dropped during a free exchange of opinion! This is precisely what makes it interesting, for we know only too well the real value of the official utterances of official persons. And if the priest,   who uttered these words “straight from the heart”, is “a most worthy missionary priest”, the more significant are these words for that very reason. “By the grace of God, banished to Transcaucasia and to Siberia.” These magnificent words should become no less famous than Metropolitan Philaret’s defence of serfdom with the help of Holy Writ.

Since we have mentioned Philaret, it would be unfair not to mention the letter addressed by a “learned liberal” to His Grace Ambrosius, Archbishop of Kharkov, and published in the magazine Vera i Razum[9] for 1901.[4] The author of the letter signed himself: Jeronim Preobrazhensky, honorary citizen, formerly a member of the clergy. It was the editor who described him as the “learned [!] liberal”, no doubt because he was overawed by his “well of wisdom”. We shall cite only a few passages from the letter, which again reveals the fact that political thought and political protest penetrate by unseen ways into wider circles than we sometimes imagine.

“I am already an old man, nearly sixty. During my lifetime I have observed not a few departures from the fulfilment of church duties, and I must say conscientiously that in every case the clergy was to blame. As for ’the latest events’, I think we should fervently thank the clergy of our day for opening the eyes of many. Now, not only volost clerks, but young and old, educated and uneducated, and even those barely able to read will strive to read the writings of the great Russian author. People pay high price s to get his books (published abroad by Svobodnoye Slovo,[10] and freely obtainable in all countries of the world except Russia); they read them, discuss them, and finally come to conclusions that are, of course, not favourable to the clergy. The people are now beginning to understand where truth and where falsehood lies; they see that the clergy say one thing and do another, and that often even their words are contradictory. Much that is true might be said, but unfortunately one cannot speak frankly with the clergy; they would immediately report to the authorities and demand punishment and execution.:.. But Christ did not attract converts by force and by executions, but by justice and love....

“... In concluding your speech, you write: ’We possess a great force for the struggle—that is the autocratic power of our most devout sovereigns.’ Again a subterfuge, and again we refuse to believe you. Although you, the enlightened clergy, strive to assure us that you   ’imbibed loyalty to the autocrat with your mother’s milk’ (from the speech of the present vicar, delivered at the time of his consecration as bishop), we, the unenlightened, refuse to believe that a year-old infant (even a future bishop) could reason about the form of government and give preference to autocracy. After the abortive attempt of Patriarch Nikon to play in Russia the role of the Popes of Rome, who in Western countries combined within themselves spiritual and temporal power, our church, through its highest representatives, the metropolitans, has wholly and for ever subjected itself to the power of the sovereigns, who sometimes, as was the case with Peter the Great, despotically imposed their will upon the church. (The pressure Peter the Great brought to bear upon the clergy in the condemnation of Tsarevich Alexei.) In the nineteenth century, we see complete harmony between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities in Russia. In the stern epoch of Nicholas I, when, influenced by the great social movements in the West, social consciousness began to awaken in Russia and here, too, individual champions arose to fight against the outrageous enslavement of the common people, our church remained completely indifferent to the popular sufferings, and despite Christ’s great commandment of human brotherhood and brotherly love, not a single voice was raised among the clergy in defence of the dispossessed people, against the cruel tyranny of the landlords; and the only reason for this was that the government did not yet dare to lay its hand upon serfdom, the existence of which Philaret of Moscow openly sought to justify with biblical texts from the Old Testament. Then came the storm: Russia was defeated and politically degraded at Sevastopol. The defeat clearly exposed all the defects of our pre-Reform[5] system, and before all else our young, humane sovereign (who owes the education of his mind and spirit to the poet Zhukovsky) broke the ancient chains of slavery; but, by the irony of fate, the text of the great act of February 19 was submitted for revision from the Christian point of view to the selfsame Philaret, who apparently hastened to change his views regarding serfdom to suit the spirit of our times. The epoch of the great reforms left its mark also upon our clergy, which, under Makarius (afterwards Metropolitan) carried on the fruitful work of reorganising our ecclesiastical institutions in which they hacked a window (even if a small one) into the world of light and publicity. The period of reaction, which set in after March 1, 1884, enabled an element of leadership corresponding to the manner of Pobedonostsev and Katkov to penetrate into the clergy; and while the progressive people of the country in the Zemstvos and in society are presenting petitions for the abolition of the survivals of corporal punishment, the church remains silent and utters not a word in condemnation of those who defend the rod—that atrocious instrument for the degradation of human beings created in the image of God. After all this, would it be unjust to suppose in the event of changes in the régime from above that our clergy, through its representatives, would praise a constitutional monarch just as it now lands the autocratic monarch? Why then the hypocrisy? Strength lies, not in the autocracy, but in   the monarch. Peter I was also a heaven-sent autocrat, but the church to this day does not favour him, and Peter III was a similar autocrat who wanted to shear and educate our clergy—what a pity he was not allowed to reign for two or three years! And if the present reigning autocrat, Nicholas II, decided to express his kindly feelings for the famous Lev Nikolayevich, [Lev Tolstoi.—Tr.] where would you then run to hide with your snares, your fears, and your threats?

“In vain you quote texts of the prayers which the clergy sends up for the tsar; this jumble of words in an incomprehensible jargon convinces no one. We live under an autocracy: if ordered to do so, you will write prayers thrice as long and even more expressive”.

*     *

The second marshal’s speech, as far as we know, was not published in our press. A hectographed copy, sent to us by an unknown correspondent last August, bore the following pencilled inscription: “Speech delivered by an uyezd marshal of the nobility at a private meeting of marshals called to discuss student affairs." We give the speech in full:

“For lack of time I shall express my views on this meeting of marshals of the nobility in the form of theses:

“The cause of the present disorders is known approximately: They are called forth, first, by the disordered state of our entire govern mental system, by the oligarchic régime of the bureaucratic corporate body, i.e., by the dictatorship of the bureaucrats.

“This state of disorder in the bureaucratic governmental dictator ship reveals itself throughout the whole of Russian society, from top to bottom, in the form of general discontent that finds its outward expression in the general politicalism, a politicalism that is not temporary or superficial, but profound and chronic.

“This politicalism, the common disease of the whole of society, permeates all its manifestations, its functions and institutions, and for that reason necessarily the educational institutions, with their younger, more impressionable public, which is oppressed by the same régime of the bureaucratic dictatorship.

“It is recognised that the root evil of student disorders lies in the general disorganisation of the state and in the general disease resulting from this condition; however, in view of the spontaneous sentiments and of the necessity for checking the development of the local evil, the disorders cannot be ignored and efforts must be made at least from this side to diminish the frightfully destructive manifestations of the general evil, in the same way as, when the whole organism is diseased and is in need of prolonged and radical treatment it is necessary to take urgent measures to suppress local, acute, and destructive complications of the disease.

“In the secondary and higher educational establishments, the evil of the bureaucratic régime finds expression principally in the substitution of human (youthful) development and education by bureaucratic training, which is combined with the systematic suppression of human individuality and dignity.

“The distrust, indignation, and anger against the officials and the teachers roused among the youth by all these manifestations are being transferred from the high schools to the universities, where, unfortunately, the universities being what they are at present, the youth encounters the same evils and the same suppression of human individuality and dignity.

“In a word, for the youth, the universities are not temples of learning, but factories for converting the impersonal student masses into the bureaucratic commodity required by the state.

“This suppression of human individuality (in the process of converting the students into an impersonal, pliable mass), which reveals itself in the form of a systematic and chronic suppression and persecution of all personality and dignity, frequently in the form of brutal violence, lies at the base of all student disorders that have erupted for several decades and threaten to continue with greater intensity in the future, carrying off the best of Russia’s youth.

“All this we know—but what are we to do in the present situation? How can we help the present acute situation with all its bitterness, with all its misery and sorrow? Give up all efforts? Abandon our youth to the mercy of fate, to the bureaucrats, and to the police, without attempting to help them—wash our hands of the whole thing and walk off? This, to my mind, is the main issue, namely, what can we do to assuage the acute manifestation of this disease, now that we recognise its general character?

“Our meeting reminds me of a crowd of well-intentioned people who have entered a wild forest for the purpose of clearing it, and who stand in utter amazement at the enormity of the general task, instead of concentrating on any one special point.

“Professor K. T. has presented to us a striking general picture of the true state of affairs today in the universities and among the students, pointing Out the various harmful influences from the outside, not only political, but even police influences, upon the unstable students; but we knew all this before, more or less, albeit not so clearly as we know now.

“He suggested a radical change in the whole of the educational system and its substitution by a better system as the only possible measure to adopt, but the professor remarked that this would probably require considerable time; and if we bear in mind that every particular system in the Russian state, as in every other state, forms an organic part of the system as a whole, then perhaps the end of that time is not foreseeable.

“But what must we do now in order at least to assuage the unbearable pain caused by the disease at the present time? What palliative can we adopt? Even palliatives that temporarily soothe the patient are frequently recognised as necessary. This is a question we have not answered. Instead of a reply, we have heard vague, wavering opinions   as regards the student youth in general, which, I might say, obscure the question even more. It is even difficult to recall those judgements, but I will endeavour to do so.

“Something was said about girl students: We gave them courses and lectures, and see how they thank us—by taking part in student disorders!

“Now, had we presented bouquets or costly ornaments to the fair sex, such a reproach would be conceivable; to organise lecture courses for women, however, is not a favour, but the satisfaction of a social need. Women’s lecture courses are nut a caprice, but as much a socially necessary educational institution as are the universities for the higher development of the youth of both sexes. That is why full social and comradely solidarity exists between the male and female educational institutions.

“This solidarity, to my view, likewise fully explains the fact that the unrest among the student youth has also spread among the students in women’s educational institutions. All the students are in a state of unrest, irrespective of attire, male or female.

“Someone else then spoke about the student unrest, saying that we must not be indulgent with the students, that their outrages must be halted by force. To this, in my opinion, the rational objection was made that even if the conduct of the students can be set down as outrageous, these are not fortuitous, but are chronic and deep-rooted and that therefore the resort to mere punitive measures, as past experience has shown, will prove unavailing. Personally, as I view the matter, it is highly questionable as to which side is responsible f or the greatest outrage of all the outrageous disorders that excite our educational institutions and are bringing them to their doom; I do not believe the government’s reports.

“This is the very point, that the other side is not listened to and cannot be listened to; it is gagged (the justice of my words, that in its reports the administration lies and that by its atrocious conduct it is chiefly responsible for the outrages, has not been fully confirmed).

“Reference was made to the outside influences of various revolutionary forces upon the student youth.

“Yes, those influences exist, hut too much significance is attached to them. Thus, the factory owners, in whose factories these influences are mainly felt, also throw the blame for everything upon them, arguing that, were it not for those influences, there would be quiet and contentment and the peace of God in their factories; they forget or ignore all the legal and illegal exploitation of the workers, which brings about their impoverishment and rouses amongst them discontent and finally leads to disorders. Were it not for this exploitation, the revolutionary elements working from the outside would be deprived of the many grounds and causes that enable them to penetrate so easily into factory affairs. All this, in my opinion, may also be said with respect to our educational institutions, which have been transformed from temples of learning into factories for the manufacture of bureaucratic material.

“The power of the small but purposive handful of young men and women, of whom the professor spoke, to hypnotise and incite crowds   of young men and women, apparently not in the least so predisposed, to strikes and to disorders, lies in the general, instinctive consciousness of the oppression weighing over the whole of our student youth, and in the generally unhealthy state of mind that is created by this oppression among student youth at all levels. This is what happens in all factories.

“I recall also that something was said about not flattering the students, about not showing them sympathy during disorders, since expressions of sympathy merely incite them to fresh outbreaks to illustrate which argument a number of varying instances were cited. On this point I would say, first of all, that in view of the manifold con fusion and the diversity of occurrences during disorders, it is impossible to point to single cases as illustrative of all, since, for every such case, numerous others of a directly contradictory character can be found. One can only dwell on the general indications, which I shall here briefly undertake to do.

“As we all know, the students are far from being coddled; not only have they not been scented with incense (I do not speak of the forties), but they have never enjoyed any particular public sympathy. At the time of the disorders, the public was either indifferent to the students or even more than negative towards them, throwing the blame entirely upon them, without knowing (or desiring to know) the causes of the disorders (credence was given, without the slightest doubt as to their veracity, to the government reports, which were hostile to the students; apparently for the first time the public has begun to doubt them). To speak, therefore, of flattering the students is quite beside the mark.

“Failing to find support among the intelligentsia in general or among the professors and the university officials, the students finally began to seek sympathy among the various popular elements, and we know that they succeeded more or less in finding it; they have begun gradually to gain the sympathy of the popular crowds.

“To be convinced of this, one need only note the difference be tween the present attitude of the crowd and that displayed towards the students at the time of the Okhotny Ryad[11] assaults. Herein lies the great evil: the evil is not that sympathy is expressed, but that this sympathy is one-sided, that it is assuming a demagogic tinge.

“The absence of sympathy and support of any kind on the part of the settled intelligentsia, and the distrust this gives rise to, throws our youth inevitably into the arms of demagogues and revolutionists; it becomes their tools and, again inevitably, demagogic elements begin more and more to develop among the student youth, drawing it away from peaceful, cultural development and from the existing order (if it can be called order) and driving it into the enemy camp.

“We ourselves are to blame if our youth has ceased to have confidence in us; we have done nothing to deserve its confidence.

“These, I think, are the main ideas that were expressed at this meeting; the others (considerable in number, too) are hardly worth recalling.

“I come now to the conclusion. In gathering here, our intention was to do something to calm the passions of the present day, to lighten   the heavy burden of our youth today, not some time in the future, and we were defeated. Again the youth will be justified in saying and will say that today as in the past the peaceful, settled Russian intelligentsia neither can nor wishes to render it any assistance, to come to its defence, to understand it and to ease its hitter lot. The gulf between ourselves and the youth will become wider, and the youth will increasingly join up with the various demagogues whose hand is outstretched towards it.

“We were not defeated by the fact that the measure we proposed, a petition to the tsar, was not accepted; perhaps that measure was not a practical one (although in my opinion no attention was paid to it); we were defeated by the fact that we ourselves destroyed all possibility of applying any measure whatsoever to help our suffering youth; we have confessed our impotence, and once again we grope as before, in darkness.

“What remains for us to do?

“Wash our hands of the affair?

“This darkness constitutes the terrible and gloomy tragedy of Russian life.”

This speech requires no lengthy comment. It too, apparently, belongs to a still sufficiently “oh, so gay” Russian noble who; either for doctrinaire or for selfish motives, ex presses reverence for “peaceful, cultural development” of the “existing order” and waxes indignant with “revolutionists”, whom he confounds with “demagogues”. But this indignation, if examined closely, borders on the grumbling of an old man (old, not in age but in views) who perhaps is ready to recognise something good in the thing he is grumbling about. In speaking of the “existing order” he cannot refrain from remarking, “if it can be called order”. He smoulders with resentment against the disorder caused by the “dictatorship of the bureaucrats”, the “systematic and chronic persecution of all personality and dignity”; he cannot close his eyes to the fact that all the outrages are committed chiefly by the administration. He is sufficiently straightforward to confess his impotence and to recognise the indecency of “washing one’s hands” of the entire country’s misery. True, he is still frightened by the “one-sided” sympathy of the “crowd” towards the students. His aristocratically effeminated mind is haunted by the menace of “demagogy”, and perhaps even by the menace of socialism (let us repay candour with candour). But it would be absurd to attempt to test the views and sentiments of a marshal of the nobility who is fed up with the disgusting Russian bureaucracy by the   touchstone of socialism. We have no need to be diplomatic either in regard to him or to anyone else; when we hear a Russian landlord, for example, storming against the illegal exploitation and the impoverishment of factory workers, we will not fail, incidentally, to say to him, Cast out the beam out of thine own eye, friend! We shall not for a moment conceal from him that we stand and will continue to stand for the irreconcilable class struggle against the “masters” of modern society. But a political alignment is determined, not only by ultimate aims, but also by immediate aims, not only by general views, but also by the pressure of direct practical necessity. Whoever clearly sees the contradiction between the “cultural development” of the country and the “oppressive regime of the bureaucratic dictatorship” must, sooner or later, be compelled by the very facts of life to come to the conclusion that this contradiction cannot be removed unless the autocracy is removed. Having come to this conclusion, he will unfailingly assist—grumble, but assist—the party that can rouse a menacing force against the autocracy—a force that will be menacing, not only in the eyes of the autocracy, but in the eyes of all. In order to become such a party, we repeat, Social-Democracy must purge itself of all opportunistic pollution, and under the banner of revolutionary theory, basing itself on the most revolutionary class, it must carry its agitation and organising activity among all classes of the population.

Taking our leave of the marshals of the nobility, we say, Au revoir, gentlemen, our allies of tomorrow!


[1] See present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 383-413.—Ed.

[2] Moskovskiye Vedomosti, September 29, No. 268. I apologise to the reader for betraying such a predilection for Moskovskiye Vedomosti. But what can one do. In my opinion, it is the most interesting, the most consistent, and the most serviceable political newspaper in Russia. One can hardly term “political” literature, in the proper sense of the word, that which at best simply makes a selection of some interesting, though raw, facts and then offers sighs instead of “wisdom”. I do not say that such writing cannot be very useful, but it is not politics. Nor can the Novoye Vremya type of literature be described as political literature in the real sense of the word, notwithstanding (or rather because of) the fact that it is excessively political. It has no definite political programme and no convictions; it merely possesses the ability to adapt its tone to the moods of the moment, to cringe before the powers that be and carry out their every order, and to flirt with an illusion of public opinion. Moskovskiye Vedomosti, however, has its own line and does not fear (it has nothing to fear) to march ahead of the government, and to touch upon, at times very frankly, the most delicate subjects. It is a useful newspaper, and in dispensable helpmate in revolutionary agitation! —Lenin

[3] In his rejoinder to the official denial, Mr. Stakhovich wrote: “I do not know what the official report of the Brotherhood contains, but Father Pereverzev related the details of this incident at the congress and stated that the civil authorities knew of the decision of the village meeting [sic!!]. I asked him personally whether the priest knew and he answered, “Yes, he knew too.” Comment is superfluous. —Lenin

[4] We take this opportunity to thank the correspondent who sent us the reprints from the magazine. Our ruling classes very often are not ashamed to expose themselves an naturel in prison, church, and similar special publications. It is high time we revolutionaries systematically utilised this “rich treasure-house” of political enlightenment. —Lenin

[5] Prior to the Peasant Reform of 1861.—Tr.

[6] Missionershoge Obozreniye (Alissionary Review)—a monthly theo logical journal published from 1896 to 1898 in Kiev and from 1899 to 1916 in St. Petersburg. The journal fought against all non-Orthe dox Christians and was supported by the most reactionary clergy, notorious for their obscurantism and operating in close contact with the police.

[7] Orlovsky Vestnik (Orel Herald)—a daily newspaper, moderately liberal, with a social, political, and literary content; it was published in Orel from 1876 to 1918.

[8] Stundists—one of the religious sects persecuted in tsarist Russia.

[9] Vera i Razum (Faith and Reason)—a fortnightly theological and philosophical journal published by the Kharkov Theological Semi nary from 1884 to 1916. The journal maintained an extreme reac tionary position and made violent attacks on the democratic movement and on progressive ideas.

[10] Svobodnoye Slovo (Free Word)—a publishing house that issued abroad (in England and Switzerland) the works of Lev Tolstoi banned by the Russian censor and pamphlets against the oppression of non-Orthodox Christians by the tsarist government. From 1899 to 1901 the house published the journal Svobodnaya Mysl (Free Thought) and from 1901 to 1905 the journal Svobodnoye Slovo (Free Word).

[11] Okhotny Ryad—a street market in pre-revolutionary Moscow where mainly poultry and cooked foods were sold; the Okhotny Ryad traders were active participants in raids organised by the police, especially in breaking up student meetings and demonstrations.

  III. The Third Element |  

Works Index   |   Volume 5 | Collected Works   |   L.I.A. Index
< backward   forward >