From the Editors
1905: One hundred years of oblivion

Topic 1: One hundred years of what?

MARIA FERRETTI
The silence of memory: Russia and the 1905 revolution

ALEXANDER SHUBIN
The First Russian Revolution in Historical Context

ABRAHAM ASCHER
From dress rehearsal to contingency; from social history to the history of nationalism: The historiography of the revolution of 1905

Topic 2: 1905 – 2005: Back to the future or forward to the past?

VADIM DAMIER
The 100th anniversary of the soviets and the contemporary Russian Left

JUTTA SCHERRER
A revolution without revolutionaries: 1905 in contemporary school textbooks

Topic 3: Between war and constitution

ANDREY MEDUSHEVSKY
A comparative analysis of constitutional revolutions in 20th century Russia

MICHEL TISSIER
What kind of legal education do Russians need? From popularising the law to popularising civic rights

TIMUR VALETOV
The ‘workers’ question’ and the outcome of 1905

IGOR YERMACHENKO
On the road to revolution: Russian liberals in front of the ‘Japanese mirror’

Topic 4: Universities under the old and the new regime

ANATALY IVANOV
Russian academics in the mirror of the First Russian Revolution

The Memorandum of the 342

ALEXANDER DMITRIEV
The burden of autonomy (the revolution, the intelligentsia, and higher education, 1905-2005)

Humane Economics. Yevgeny Saburov’ pages
After the lessons

Topic 5: The first revolution in Russia

OLEG BUDNITSKY
The Jews and the 1905 revolution: meeting the people

SALAVAT ISKHAKOV
The First Russian Revolution and the Muslims

KONRAD ZELINSKI
Revolt or Revolution? 1905 in the Polish Kingdom

Sociological Lyrics. Alexander Levinson’s pages
The Awakening of Asia

The culture of politics

ELENA FILIPPOVA
The country of unlearned lessons

ALAIN BLUM, SILVIA SERRANO
Reply to Hélène Carrère d’Encausse

HERVÉ LE BRAS
The last uprising?

Journals review

VIATCHESLAV MOROZOV
Review of Russian intellectual journals

New books
Reviews

1905: 100 YEARS OF OBLIVION

This special thematic issue of NZ marks the 100th anniversary of Russia’s first nationwide political revolution. 1905 has been overshadowed by 1917 for as long as anyone can remember. Our task is to analyse why this Leninist view of history has been dominant for so long, but we also want to offer a fresh look at the events that gave birth to Russia’s first Constitution, elected parliament, and legal party landscape.

The first section asks, ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF WHAT? Historians from three different countries offer their responses. Maria Ferretti analyses The Silence of Memory: Russia and the 1905 Revolution. She casts her glance over the social and political context in the rural and backward, though rapidly modernising, Russian Empire at the onset of the 20th century, then asks why both major political camps in contemporary Russia -- the liberals and the nationalists -- have chosen to forget 1905. Ferretti concludes by arguing that both would be well-advised to pay more attention to that first revolution. Alexander Shubin, in The First Russian Revolution in Historical Context, compares 1905-7 with other revolutions in world history and argues that it was an ‘intermediate’ revolution in that it did not divest the ruling socio-economic group of its political power, although it did challenge that group’s political authority. Abraham Ascher, the foremost Western historian of 1905, entitles his article From Dress Rehearsal to Contingency; From Social History to the History of Nationalism: The Historiography of the Revolution of 1905, proposing a ‘broadly liberal’ interpretation that acknowledges the significance of 1905 in its own right.

Our second topic is 1905-2005: BACK TO THE FUTURE OF FORWARD TO THE PAST? Vadim Damier reviews The 100th Anniversary of the Soviets and the Contemporary Russian Left, retracing the history of the Soviets and critically examining contemporary left-wing debates on Soviets as organising principles. Jutta Scherrer finds A Revolution without Revolutionaries: 1905 in Contemporary School Textbooks. Through a detailed textual analysis of passages about 1905 in a range of post-Soviet history books, she shows that with the demise of the official Soviet interpretation, which made much of 1905 as a dress rehearsal for 1917, most textbook authors no longer find it necessary to deal with the first revolution in any detail. The link between the upheaval of 1905 and the formation of the Russian parties as well as the first and second Dumas is obscured, and socialist figures are mostly left out of the picture.

Topic 3 is entitled BETWEEN WAR AND CONSTITUTION. Andrey Medushevsky provides A Comparative Analysis of Constitutional Revolutions in 20th Century Russia, meaning in particular 1905 and the crisis of 1993 which resulted in the Yeltsin-era constitution still in force today. Michel Tissier asks What Kind of Legal Education Do Russians Need? From Popularising the Law to Popularising Civic Rights. He re-examines early 20th-century debates about Russians’ allegedly insufficient ‘legal consciousness’ as well as attempts to overcome this insufficiency, and draws parallels with contemporary debates. Timur Valetov writes about The ‘Workers’ Question’ and the Outcome of 1905. Valetov shows what the labour conflicts of 1905 brought workers, entrepreneurs, and the state, and argues that the first two groups were in many ways ahead of the state’s centralising and interventionist view of labour relations. Finally, Igor Yermachenko, in On the Road to Revolution: Russian Liberals in Front of the ‘Japanese Mirror’, looks at negative and positive images of Japan during the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-5 and shows how the confrontation with that rising Asian power convinced many Russian liberals of the need to modernise the country -- by revolutionary means if need be.

In Topic 4, two historians look at UNIVERSITIES UNDER THE OLD AND THE NEW REGIME. Anatoly Ivanov writes about Russian Academics in the Mirror of the First Russian Revolution. He dwells particularly on the role of academics in the creation of Russia’s first underground liberal organisations and, later, political parties. Special attention is also paid to the ‘Memorandum on the Needs of Enlightenment’, better known as the ‘Memorandum of the 342’, a call for sweeping educational reforms that was one of the most important documents to come out of the semi-legal liberal ‘banquet campaign’ of late 1904 and early 1905. We also publish the text of that Memorandum. Alexander Dmitriev, in The Burden of Autonomy (the Revolution, the Intelligentsia, and Higher Education, 1905-2005), reflects upon the reasons why 1905 has not become a rallying-point for contemporary academics. Dmitriev then asks why this social group has failed to raise its voice forcefully in Russian politics. His response is that Russian academia as it exists today is a child of the Soviet era, and bureaucratic games and financial schemes are so dominant that they leave very little room for innovation or the emergence of a civic consciousness.

Yevgeny Saburov, in his HUMANE ECONOMICS column, compares two famous literary responses to 1905: a legendary collection of articles entitled Vekhi (Milestones) and Andrey Bely’s novel Peterburg. Saburov stresses the quality of the political and economic analysis in the latter, which he prefers to the former’s panic-stricken all-round criticism of the intelligentsia. The lesson for contemporary Russia, in Saburov’s eyes, is that sober investigation of social reality should take pride of place over ideological battles.

The issue’s final thematic section is entitled THE FIRST REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA, to stress that 1905-7 was not an exclusively ethnic Russian affair. Oleg Budnitsky writes about The Jews and the 1905 Revolution: Meeting the People; Salavat Iskhakov looks at The First Russian Revolution and the Muslims, and Konrad Zelinski discusses what happened at the Empire’s westernmost fringe in Revolt or Revolution? 1905 in the Polish Kingdom.

Alexey Levinson, in his SOCIOLOGICAL NOTES, links the Awakening of Asia that Lenin saw as one of the results of 1904-5 to the issue of terrorism as well as this autumn’s youth revolt in France, which he interprets as parts of a post-colonial backlash.

The CULTURE OF POLITICS section features three texts about the hot French autumn. Elena Filippova, in The Country of Unlearned Lessons, criticises the racist interpretation of events in France that has been dominant in Russia. Alain Blum and Silvia Serrano write a Reply to Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, a well-known historian of Russia and Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy, who recently gave a number of TV and press interviews in Russia in which she accused France of a worse-than-Stalinist insistence on political correctness and blamed the revolt on wide-spread polygamy among immigrants. Finally, sociologist Hervé Le Bras, in a very short text entitled The Last Uprising?, compares the recent revolt with previous insurrections in French history (the French Revolution, the Paris Commune, and May 1968) and concludes that the revolutionary drive is petering out and the poor are rapidly losing their last means of expression.

As usual, we conclude with a JOURNALS REVIEW focusing on Russian periodicals specialising in political and social issues, as well as a number of reviews of recent Russian and English books on 1905 and a biography of Vyacheslav Molotov, the USSR’s long-time foreign minister, written by his grandson.

The issue is illustrated with political caricatures from early 20th century Russian and Armenian satirical papers.