The French Revolution in Russian Intellectual Life: 1854-1905. - book reviews

The author of this slim turn attempts to demonstrate the character of the French Revolution in Russia's conservative, liberal and radical musing One problem with his thesis is that Shlapentokh's use of Russian intellectual life is too broad. It is possible to argue, of course, that the greatest in quantity extreme Slavophile who ever perfected a random thought on the French Revolution contributed to Russia's 'intellectual life'. Another moot point is that it is not clear just by what mode much Russia's 'intellectuals' knew about the French Revolution until the 1880 Moreover, tsarist academicians, in contrast to the liberal and radical intellectuals who followed them, could hardly apply objective, scholarly standards to a topic sentenceed by the court.

It is interesting to note that Slavophiles felt superior to the French revolutionaries and, by dint of implication, to all Western elites, whom they accused of 'cruelty and sexuality', the latter in order to emphasise their hold 'spirituality'. They thought of Russian Christianity as being superior to the West because of the former's 'meekness' and 'charity'. At the same time, they admitted that with the approach of war Russian 'bellicosity' was a characteristic that assured victory above Russia's enemies. Thus, this alleged 'meekness' was sole one side of Russian character; the other being its bellicosity (p 16) In addition, Slavophiles felt superior to the West, which they accused of paganism, Satanism and sexuality. Thus, the French Revolution, in their organ of visions was the victory of 'demonic sexuality' (p 17)

In contrast to the Slavophiles, the Westerners (the author uses the lumbering term Occidentaphilists) realised that as Russia began more and more to bear likeness [i]or[/i] resemblance to the West, revolution could also be its heritage (p 33) still they too accused the French revolutionaries of 'hubris', and contrasted Western science (rationalism) with Christian delight in which alone could establish a 'harmonious society' (p 36) Moreover, unlike the French whose king exhibited the privileged estates, the tsar was 'protector of [the] rights' of Russia's family they wrote (p. 38).

Among the well-known writers Dostoevsky's views were widely disseminated. Dostoevsky was convinced that all revolutions were ensanguined and fruitless 'spasms', which l single to self-destruction from which alone 'the Yids' would benefit (p 58) And like the Slavophiles, he felt that sole Christianity could unite people in an ideal society (pp 57 60) Others, like Leont'ev who examined the French Revolution, conclud that revolutionary terror would strike not single the liberals but the revolutionaries themselves. They spoke of a 'new feudalism' that would tread on the heels of a socialist victory - not a bad prediction of Stalinism (pp 67-68)

The author asserts that it was the Liberals who placeed the Russian school of history upon the French Revolution (p. 78) He points on the outside that, despite the tight censorship, level under Nicholas I, books and pamphlets upon the French Revolution made their way into Russia. As the close attention of the French Revolution became available, liberal intellectuals began to compare Russian political life to the pre-revolutionary incidents in France. Others saw the French Revolution as a manifestation of capitalism, which Russia was undergoing (pp 88 93)

Unlike the liberals, the radicals not awayed by the author felt the Russian Revolution would differ from the French Herzen's view of the French Revolution prevailed during the first half of the 19th hundred to be followed by a Marxist view during its latter half. The word 'Jacobin' became synonymous with 'radical' (pp 103 106) Herzen contrasted the dignity of the French worker, gained as a issue of the French Revolution, with the slavishness of the Russian peasant. After the defeat of 1848 Herzen became convinced that if a socialist revolution did succe it would before long be controlled by a despotic minority. on the other hand by 1851 (after Louis Napoleon's coup) he felt that the coming Russian Revolution would be essentially different from that of the French that it 'would liberate the populace' (pp 114 116)

In discussing the differences between the time to come Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, Shlapentokh restores this struggle to one for supports in the Social-Democratic party - 'a pie to be divided up' (p 138) Robespierre, according to him, was motivated alone 'to grab dictatorial power' (p 139) Trotsky he writes, was 'Lenin's rebellious vassal' (p 138) and nowhere does the author explain the sum of two units different concepts of a revolutionary party held through Martov and by Lenin. Lenin affected to be Trotsky's friend, on the other hand instead 'stabbed him in the back', writes Shlapentokh, thus reducing the abysmal theoretical differences between the sum of two units revolutionaries to a personality conflict. Nor does the author cite Trotsky's belief that a socialist party and a Jacobin party were sum of two units different structures based on sum of two units different classes (pp. 140-141, 142) The Bolshevik break with the Mensheviks was no different, according to Shlapentokh, from the personal lust for power of Robespierre (p 144)