Comrade Kerensky. Boris Kolonitskii

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Fleet in Russia’s history. The defence of the city of Sevastopol during the Crimean War and the mutinies at the time of the First Russian Revolution bolstered the view that the officers and committees of the navy had a right to act as a nationwide focus of patriotic mobilization. Some of Admiral Kolchak’s supporters went even further, representing him as the heir of Lieutenant Schmidt.²¹⁸

      Modern biographers of the Black Sea Fleet commander tend to omit mention of his role in advancing the cult of champions of freedom, and Kolchak himself can hardly have been at ease glorifying the mutineers. However, both he and his supporters understood the practical necessity of behaving as if they did, and they lent their authority to the movement.

The cult of fighters fallen in the cause of freedom was exploited pragmatically by others who supported continuing the war. On 25 March, at the opening of the Seventh Congress of the Constitutional Democratic Party, the deputies honoured the memory of those fighters who had ‘laid down their lives for the freedom of our people and opened up the way for developing our work.’ Prince P. D. Dolgorukov, a prominent representative of the party, included members of the armed forces among the champions of freedom, declaring: ‘I suggest you unite the sacred memory of the champions of freedom from the foreign threat, from the external foe, with the sacred memory of the champions of Russia’s freedom from the enemy within, and honour their sacred memory by rising and standing in solemn silence.’ The deputies, naturally, responded to his call.²¹⁹ If the socialists, when glorifying their champions of freedom, had in mind principally their participation in the struggle for social liberation (‘champions of freedom for working people’), the liberals sought to combine the rhetoric of the liberation movement with the language of patriotic wartime propaganda. The simultaneous existence of projects of diverse, and sometimes rival, cults of champions of freedom is evidence both of just how prevalent the tendency was and of its potential for political application. The fact that representatives of literally every political movement, from the supporters of Lenin to those who venerated Kolchak, were busily promoting this cult testifies to a short-lived consensus on the memorialization project of sanctifying fallen revolutionaries.

      Kerensky’s involvement in promoting the cult of champions of freedom did not, of itself, stand out as anything exceptional, but his biography, his political position and authority, and the resources he controlled imbued his actions with a special significance and importance. Compared with Kolchak and others active in the political process, the ‘revolutionary minister’ venerated the champions of freedom more enthusiastically and more sincerely. From early youth he had been a bearer of the radical intelligentsia’s political culture; the cult of champions of freedom was extremely important for him personally, for his friends and family, and he kept in his apartment a relic of the mutiny led by Lieutenant Schmidt.²²⁰ The rhetoric and rituals of sanctification of the champions of freedom were well familiar to Kerensky and emotionally important to him.

      The version of history the revolutionary minister proposed to the new Russia did also have a place in it for certain tsars. On 5 March 1917 he ceremonially presented to the First Department of the Senate the acts of abdication of the throne of Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. In the process, Kerensky had words of appreciation for this ‘institution created by the genius of Peter the Great to protect the laws and the rule of law.’ That is unlikely to have gone down well with all who were opposed to the monarchy, but it is significant that Tan, a veteran of the revolutionary movement, quoted him, remarking only: ‘It is instructive to note this tribute from a man of culture to the genius of Peter the Great, who had been such a fierce and mighty revolutionary on the throne. Unlike others, Kerensky could see clearly the difference between Peter the Great and Nikolai Romanov, his pathetic successor.’²²¹

      Kerensky’s respect for Peter the Great was manifested in other ways. A number of warships which bore the names of monarchs began to be renamed. The Central Committee of the Baltic Fleet suggested changing the name of the Peter the Great, a training vessel, to The Republic. Kerensky thought, however, that it should retain its historical name. Many sailors evidently also thought it appropriate to let the ‘crowned revolutionary’ keep his place in the pantheon of great predecessors of the new Russia. There were three ships in the navy named in honour of Peter I, and they all kept their original names despite the revolution.²²²

It was, however, the cult of heroes of the revolutionary movement which had a special role in the version of the past which Kerensky was proposing to Russia. There was a clear link between the sources of his own power and his practical involvement in the revolution’s politics of memory: in the process of promoting a sacrosanct cult of champions of freedom, he was simultaneously reinforcing his own authority.

      The Decembrists had an important place in Kerensky’s version of Russian history. In the stressful climate of the revolution, he found time to discuss the project of a memorial to the first generation of champions of freedom. He discussed the idea of erecting a monument to the Decembrists with Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich, a Freemason with specialist knowledge of the era of Alexander I. This scion of the Romanov dynasty declared himself willing to donate a substantial sum of money to the project.²²³ About a month later Kerensky sent a letter to the main newspaper of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, offering his opinion on where the monument might best be sited.²²⁴

      Kerensky’s veneration of the memory of the Decembrists was evidently sincere, but, at the same time, commemorating officers who had challenged the autocracy was an important political gesture in 1917. Reminding rank-and-file soldiers of this particular cohort of champions of freedom could help to ease tensions between them and their officers, and this was a particularly sensitive issue in the early days of the February Revolution. On 14 March, during a meeting with the writers Dmitry Merezhkovsky and Zinaida Gippius, Kerensky asked Merezhkovsky, who was working on his novel The Decembrists, to write a pamphlet reminding soldiers of the feat of those first revolutionary officers, with the aim of reducing friction in the army. Merezhkovsky’s pamphlet, The Firstborn of Freedom, was published in short order. (It was actually written by Gippius: in the earlier version of her diary she writes that she is working on The Decembrists ‘for Kerensky’.) The first version of the text, published in the journal Niva, was dedicated to ‘A. F. Kerensky, who continues the Decembrists’ cause.’²²⁵ Kerensky’s revolutionary work was presented as the culmination of the struggle begun by the ‘firstborn of freedom’, of whose memory he was the guardian. The revolutionary minister took to recalling the firstborn of freedom in speeches addressed to soldiers.²²⁶

      The Decembrist theme figures in Kerensky’s speeches particularly often after he was appointed head of the Ministry of War. To some of the guards’ regiments he pointed out their historical legacy and ‘drew especial attention to the guards’ regiments from which the Decembrists had emerged.’²²⁷

      The minister of war returned to this topic at the All-Russia Congress of Officers’ Deputies in Petrograd. He urged the deputies to think of themselves as the heirs of the Decembrists’ cause and to apply the memory of them to strengthen the morale of the revolution’s armed forces. ‘I am fully confident that a tradition of the Russian army which dates from the times of the Decembrists will be raised by the officer corps to the level required.’ His speech was enthusiastically received.²²⁸

Speaking shortly afterwards, on 17 May in Sevastopol, Kerensky reminded his listeners of the ‘fighting and revolutionary traditions’ of the Black Sea Fleet: ‘The cherished memory of Lieutenant Schmidt is closest of all to you, and I am certain, comrades, that you will fulfil your duty to your country to the end.’ In Sevastopol, Kerensky was trying to resolve conflicts which had flared up between Kolchak and the fleet’s elected organizations, between the naval command and the ordinary sailors. Referring to the memory of a revolutionary officer was intended to contribute to resolving urgent political problems. Kerensky was seeking to reinforce Kolchak’s authority, mentioning the role of the navy’s commander in stabilizing the new order. He reminded the sailors of their historic responsibility, of their duty to remain true to the memory of СКАЧАТЬ