Post on 08-Apr-2018
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
1/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/1
The first publication of Donald Mackenzie Wallaces (1841-1919)Russia in 1877 was
one of the first detailed studies of Russian society to be published in Britain, and was also among
the most sympathetic. The Crimean War (1853-1856) had been over for only twenty one years,
and Russophobia1 was rampant. It was Wallaces detailed and sympathetic study that marked the
first time that many British people saw Russia in a positive light. It is therefore not surprising
that in 1912 Wallace decided to publish a second, expanded edition. This edition began as a
possible sequel, but Wallace concluded that the changes that had occurred between 1877 and
1912 were minimal, and had followed predictable patterns. I prepared, he writes in the preface
to the 1912 edition, a list of the principal changes which had taken place during the previous
quarter of a century, and . . . I recognised that they were neither so numerous nor so important as
I had supposed.2
Of the changes that had occurred, he said that they had been nearly all on the
old lines. Everywhere I perceived continuity . . . nowhere could I discover radical changes and
new departures.3
In making this generalisation, Wallace overlooked what would turn out to be
one of the most important social changes in Russias history.
During the period from 1877 to 1912, Russias ever-present revolutionary movement had
begun changing its goal from establishing a European-style liberal democracy based on
individual rights, to the creation of a collectivist, socialist state inspired by Marxism;4
this
important shift would culminate, years afterRussias second edition, in the rise of the Bolshevik
party and the 1917 revolution. The change was entirely opposed to the likely model by which
Wallace understood Russian social development that model being the slow transition from
autocratic backwardness towards a liberal, lasses faire, parliamentary democracy. This model
had been more or less accurate ever since Peter the Great began reforming Russian society on
explicitly European terms, but was no longer true in the parts of the revolutionary movement
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
2/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/2
which would eventually triumph in the 1917 revolution. Wallace missed the subtle ebbing of the
movements more individualist thinkers, and did not foresee the rise of socialism. In Wallaces
work, Russia receives the most praise whenever it moves closer to European (and especially
British) philosophies, which if one reads Wallace uncritically is what seems to be happening
Russia almost continuously. Meanwhile, large parts of the revolutionary movement were
beginning to reject democracy and free-market capitalism in exchange for various types of
collectivist, socialist political systems. Wallace clearly missed this shift, and he did so for several
reasons. The first, and most obvious, is that he had a hard time getting access to the revolutionary
movement due to their (entirely justifiable) secrecy. The second is that he was clearly a
Slavophile,5
and so had a tendency to describe Russia in the most flattering terms (which, for
him, meant portraying it as proto-European). Wallace was also prone to generalisations, and
often made sweeping judgements, which exacerbated this issue. The third reason is that there
were indeed many signs that Russia was moving in the direction that he thought it was. The
Orthodox church, for example, had begun to adopt lichnost(roughly, individualism) as an
operating philosophy. That many member of the revolutionary movement were secular and so
unaffected by these changes is an easy detail to miss.
That Wallace didnt see these changes is entirely understandable; his goals were broad
enough in scope that it would have been difficult to encompass the minutia of the ideological
variations of the revolutionary movement, the difficulty he had in contacting the movement
would have been unavoidable, and his personal biases while glaring are hardly
incapacitating, and are entirely understandable given the time and place in which he lived.
Ultimately, his work remains solid and historically valuable, so long as one remains conscious of
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
3/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/3
the attendant biases. By pointing out its flaws through the lens of hindsight, I hope ultimately to
makeRussia a better and much more valuable document.
Before getting into a detailed examination of Wallaces views, it is important to note the
extent to which he was considered an authority on Russian culture, as well as his place in the
wider context of British scholarship. In 1919 The Times wrote thatRussia remains for
Englishmen the standard description of the life and institutions of Russia as it was before the
cataclysm of the last couple of years.6
His work made him extremely influential. He became
head ofThe Timess Foreign Department, worked as an editor of the tenth edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica,
7
and had personally knew Tsar Nicholas II.
8
His influence and
respect was great enough that at the start of the First World War the Victoria League asked him
to write an article on [Russias] recent advance in civilisation and to explain why England and
Russia had now become allies.9
It is clear, then, that Wallaces views were main-stream enough
for him to have attained a high level of attention and respect. His writing, then, was very much in
tune with his time.
Wallace was a Slavophile who saw Russia as a country advancing towards a European
ideal, and his interpretation of Russian society follows this line of thought as Wallace clearly
considered Europe to have the superior culture; Russias Europeanization, then, would have been
a good thing as far as he was concerned. Wallaces appraisal of Russian society is therefore
highly relevant to any criticism of his work and in order to understand that appraisal, it is
necessary to know the environment in which it was reached. Wallace was one of many
Europeans who saw and praised Russias shift towards European ideologies. According to the
historian Michael Hughes, there were many works published in Britain which praised the
emperors Peter and Catherine for their Herculean efforts to modernise and Europeanize
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
4/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/4
Russia.10
These publications only increased after the 1877 edition, as British people became
more interested in Russian culture, and many British writers made a determined effort . . . to
take issue with the kind of negative portrayal of Russia that continued to find frequent expression
. . .11 As with the other writers, Wallace often compared Russia to Europe. In his essay in
defence of Russia, Wallace wrote that [Russia] is the modern stronghold of barbarism,
ignorance and tyrannical government, and that Russian civilisation had fallen behind Western
Europe.12
Later, he speaks unflatteringly of Tsar Nicholas I, calling him the Don Quixote of
autocracy and saying that in his struggle with England and France [the Crimean War], he
learned by bitter experience that true national greatness is not to be found in militarism.
13
These
passages show that Wallace saw Russia as a country progressing towards an ideal system taken
from Europe, which was ahead of Russia in the general march of civilisation. Tsar Nicholas I
was an irrational Don Quixote who learned an important lesson from the superior English and
French. This tendency towards European exceptionalism has not escaped the notice of other
historians. Cyril E. Black, for example, writes that Wallaces own philosophy . . . was rooted in
the belief that Western civilisation, to use the term, was the goal to which Russia was slowly
moving.14
It is unsurprising, then, that one of the first things that Wallace does when writing
about the Russian Duma is to compare it to the British parliament, and to do so unflatteringly.15
Wallace clearly saw Russia as a country progressing towards the European ideal.
One of the forces driving this change was the Russian revolutionary movement, which
had been active to varying degrees for decades; Wallaces views on this movement are largely in
line with his larger views on Russian society that the nation is developing away from
despotism and towards a European liberal democracy and his understanding of how the
movement worked is best understood in light of those views. In the 1912 edition ofRussia,
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
5/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/5
Wallace wrote that he has taken care to revise his book based on the changes that had occurred
since the 1905 revolution paying special attention, he said, to the rise and development of
parliamentary institutions which must exercise great influence in the future . . .16
Of the
revolutionary movement, Wallace wrote that it had waxed and waned, but its aims were
essentially the same as of old . . .17
The movement of old which he refers to was the same one
responsible for the 1881 assassination of Tsar Alexander II, and which had prepared a letter to
his successor demanding many reforms befitting a liberal democracy.18
Later on inRussia, Wallace elaborates on his understanding of the revolutionary
movement. His thoughts on Russian class consciousness would seem to preclude any serious
move towards socialism. He writes that if the word Sosloviya [estates] be taken to mean an
organised political unit with . . . a clearly conceived political aim. . . then it could be assumed
that Russia has no such thing.19
He later on elaborates this point, saying that those class hatreds
which appear so conspicuously in the history of Western Europe are completely absent in
Russian society20 and that in Russia at the present day there is very little caste spirit or caste
prejudice . . .21 A socio-political landscape like the one Wallace describes would be very
unlikely to erupt in a socialist (much less communist) revolution, and if one takes Wallaces
premises at face value, his prediction for the future of the aristocracy seems quite logical. He
says that they will assimilate with the other classes . . . and that new aristocrats can no longer
be created.22
Wallace sees the transition to democracy as a slow and generally peaceful process, during
which the aristocracy will gradually fade from existence. Wallace does briefly mention the
Russian socialist movement, and rightly points out that Marx has shown that capitalism, though
evil in itself, is a necessary stage in economic and social progress.23
Wallace thus characterises
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
6/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/6
the revolutionary movement as being largely made up of democrats of one stripe or another, and
mostly dismisses the socialist wing. While he is correct about Marxs views on capitalism, he
uses this admission of necessity as a means of dismissing the socialists entirely. According to
Wallace, the social changes24 are all heading towards a liberal democracy, and all that is up for
debate is the exact form that it will take, and when the transition will occur.
The source of Wallaces error does not lie in the rise of communismper se,but instead
comes from the individualistic philosophies which justify a democratic state, and how the
Russian manifestation of those philosophies referred to as lichnost had declined during the
period from the first editions publication to the second (1877-1912), in reversal of a process that
had begun with Peter the Greats reforms.25
Prior to 1877 edition, Russia had generally followed
the sort of pattern that Wallace desired, by transitioning from (if I can be permitted to speak so
broadly) a collectivist state towards an individualist one a process that culminated in the
emancipation of the serfs in 1861. In order to understand Wallaces perspective on Russian
history, it is therefore necessary to examine Russias social development in the period prior to
Russias publication. Historian Steven L. Hoch describes serfdom as a highly integrated social
system . . .26
which was far more socially oppressive than economically onerous.27
Hoch says
that the communal system (the mir) contributed to collectivism, arguing that it played a central
role in maintaining patriarchal authority.28
Also fitting in with Wallaces characterisation of
Russias social relations is the behaviour of the nobility, who in 1861 despite showing no
disposition at all to parting with their privileges . . . [acted like] no other elite in modern times
[and] renounced bondage so readily.29
A final point in Wallaces favour is that, according to
historian David Moon, the inadequacies of the transition brought up by the intelligentsia were
largely ignored by the nobility, and unheard of by the peasants.30
One can look upon these
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
7/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/7
movements towards a democratic government as a manifestation oflichnost a term which one
could translate variously, as personality, or individual, or even selfhood.31
The scholar Derek Offord says that prior to Peter the Greats reforms Russia lacked that
sense of worth of the human personality . . . inherited by the west from the Roman world . . .32
Offord supports this claim by pointing out that it is only in the nineteenth century . . . that the
concept oflichnostassumes a position of central importance in Russian thought, and points to
Peters table of ranks as an early manifestation of an individualistic ethic.33
Offord then says that,
since the enlightenment era, individualistic philosophies had been a key feature of Western
European thought.
34
Russia, then, had already spent decades importing individualistic
philosophies from Western Europe prior to Wallaces writing.
The long process towards social individualism, though strong at the time of the first
edition, had already begun reversing itself by the publication of the second. By the turn of the
century, collectivist philosophies would prove more attractive and productive ideologies than
lichnost. . . with its puzzling elusiveness and instability.35 Collectivist ideologies would prove
particularly appetising to members of the intelligentsia, as well as those sectors of the
population who were engaged in engineering social change36
that is, the sector of the
population most likely to join the revolutionary movement. The shift against lichnosttook on
real strength after Alexander III took power in 1881, four years afterRussias first edition.
Alexander III made many attempts to reverse Peters great reforms which had made Russia
more culturally similar to Europe37
and succeeded in returning an element of gentry control
over the peasant commune by tweaking the rules for electing officials to city government to
give the property owners more leverage.38 Meanwhile, an increase in education among the
population lead to conflicts between different ideological groups, causing a philosophical
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
8/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/8
deadlock where no single ideology could dominate.39
The intellectual class was growing, but it
has already been established that this class was of the kind particularly sympathetic to collectivist
thought. So, at a macroscopic level, there had already been some shifts away from Western-style
democracy. However, these shifts were also mixed with a rise in education (always a useful
component of a democratic government) as well as a widespread adoption of utilitarianism40
a
philosophy popular in England among Russian intellectuals.41
The more fundamental shift was
occurring in the underground revolutionary movement, which was experiencing a rise in the
popularity of socialist cliques with the Bolshevik party not least among them.42
Though socialism and Marxism do not always mean the same thing, Marx and
Engelss The Communist Manifesto was influential enough that a discussion on socialist thought
would be incomplete without mentioning it. Despite what Wallace said about Russian class
consciousness, Marx argued that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles.43
An additional conflict between Marxs goals and Wallaces projection for Russian
society is Marxs rejection of the slow-and-gradual approach, saying instead that the immediate
aim of the Communists is . . . [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and] conquest of
political power by the proletariat.44
Of course, what strikes hardest against Wallace is Marxs
desire for the abolition of bourgeois individuality . . . and his belief that the bourgeoisie only
speak of freedom for themselves, in the form of free trade and the free market.45
Marxism, then,
is antithetical to the lasses faire capitalism that was popular in England, and which Wallace
considered the ideal against which one should judge Russia. Had Wallace believed that a Marxist
philosophy was gaining popularity, he would certainly not have been as optimistic as he was
when he wrote Our Russian Ally.
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
9/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/9
As influential as Marx was, it is the work of Vladimir Lenin which carries the most
weight in a discussion of Russian socialism. Lenin had been active in the revolutionary
movement in one form or another since the mid-1880s, when he had confessed to his fellow
students that he planned to work for the revolutionary movement full-time in 1887.46 During
this early period Lenin read Marxs Das Capitaland joined an illegal Marxist discussion
circle.47
After the failure of the 1905 revolution, Lenin devoted himself to his studies, and
eventually published a major volume of his work in 1909 at the same time establishing himself
as the intellectual leader of the Bolshevik party.48
Though Lenin was not yet the party leader, he
was influential enough that he was able to claim control during the aftermath of 1917.
49
His
actions during the October revolution are, obviously, outside the scope of this essay, so it is to
his 1902 workWhat is to be Done? that we turn. Though Lenin speaks frequently of social-
democrats, he is very clearly a Marxist, and has several problems with the free-market ideals
that Wallace would have liked to see take hold. Freedom is a great word, Lenin wrote, but the
most rapacious wars were waged under the banner of free trade; the workers were robbed under
the banner of free labour . . . The cry Long live freedom of criticism . . . calls vividly to mind
the fable of the empty barrel.50
The term freedom of criticism is the subject of his books first
chapter, and on it he blames many kinds of ideological problems. Under freedom of criticism,
he says that many of socialisms core tenants were abandoned, including the theory of class
struggle and the difference between socialism and liberalism.51 Lenins philosophy was in tune
with Marxist communism, and advocated the restriction of the ability to criticise the party. His
philosophy is highly incompatible with lichnost, and it is almost exactly the opposite of what
Wallace had envisioned for Russias future. During the period between Wallaces editions, Lenin
and his ideals gained increasing prominence in the revolutionary movement, and were part of an
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
10/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/10
overall trend towards the popularisation of collectivist ideologies. While it would be asking too
much for Wallace to predict the 1917 revolution, his characterisation of the revolutionary
movement is still too far from the genuine truth. Wallace was objectively and provably wrong.
All that remains is to ask why.
The main sources of Wallaces error likely lie in, first, the minimal access that he had to
the revolutionary movement, second, his personal biases and tendency to over-generalise, and
third, the increasing popularity of individualistic philosophies amongst the Orthodox church,
which had the ear of much of the Russian population but which the socialists largely rejected.
The first reason is relatively straightforward, Hughes has established that while Wallace did
have some contacts with the revolutionaries it was rare for British researchers to have more
than a superficial look at the radical wing of the revolutionary movement, but it was by
comparison rather easier for the [British] Embassy staff to cultivate links with the respectable
opposition parties . . .52
Wallace was therefore subject to sampling issues while surveying the
revolutionary movement, as only the more moderate groups would be willing to speak with him.
Wallaces relationship with the Embassy leads to the second issue his personal and
professional biases. Wallace makes no secret that he is a great Slavophile, admitting as much
when he wrote that I am often reproached by my Russian friends with taking too favourable a
view of the Duma and of many other things in Russia.53
Wallace genuinely appreciated Russian
culture, and he wanted to spread this appreciation amongst the rest of British society. However,
his approval of Russian political culture came from comparing it positively to Britain, leading to
a tendency to make Russia seem like a proto-European society whenever possible. Exacerbating
this tilt is Wallaces tendency to over-generalise. Wallace makes several broad statements, like
saying, for example, that unlike the English, who crawl cautiously along the rugged path to
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
11/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/11
progress . . . the Russian dashes boldly into the unknown,54
or that Russians are rarely in a
hurry, and like to have frequent opportunities of eating and drinking.55
It is unthinkable that
such statements could apply universally to a population as large as Russias, but Wallace makes
them unselfconsciously. The coexistence of these two traits makes Wallaces tilt towards
promoting Russias Europeanization quite predictable. Aiding this personal bias are Wallaces
professional ones. Hughes makes it clear that Wallace had done diplomatic work for the British
Embassy in Russia, and that he did so when the priority of British diplomats in Petersburg was
to maintain and strengthen England and Russias alliance.56, 57
Wallaces connections with the
diplomatic realm were both the result of, and a boon to, his reportage on Russian culture, and he
would have had several material benefits in keeping Russias portrayal as positive as possible. It
is no accident that his essay in defence of Russia was written by specific request, rather than his
own volition,58
boosting Russia had become an important part of his job.
A final reason for Wallaces error may come from a misunderstanding of the role of the
Orthodox Church, which had begun moving towards more individualistic ideologies, but which
also had very little effect on the socialist revolutionaries. Wallace describes the Orthodox Church
as being deeply intertwined with the state,59
which would give it far reaching influence over the
population. According to religious historian Vera Shevzov, said church had been making some
slow, but prominent movements towards lichnostand its associated ideals. Shevzov writes that
growing literacy and a significant increase in the availability of devotional literature fostered
some degree of spiritual independence, which culminated in the 1905 freedom of conscious
laws.60
This devotional literature, she says, was very often oriented to the individual.61
The
mainstream of Russias religious community was therefore becoming noticeably more
individualistic, and a cursory glance would have made a conclusion like Wallaces very easy to
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
12/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/12
come to. However, there is strong evidence that the revolutionaries were largely secular. In his
autobiography, the activist Semn Kanatchikov writes of his first meeting with a socialist
revolutionary, saying that he is nervous around the man because he is an atheist and he might be
able to shake my faith as well.62 This group, then, would have been largely unaffected by most
changes in Russias religious culture. That Wallace didnt pick up on this distinction is likely due
to his minimal contact with the revolutionary movement.
That WallacesRussia failed to notice many of the ideological changes in Russias
revolutionary movement is clear, and that those changes are due to the interconnection between
Wallaces personal biases and his professional ones is even clearer. Wallace missed the ebbing
tide oflichnostamong the revolutionaries, and missed also the rise of the socialist movement.
These errors were because of his own enthusiasm and desire to see Russia become more
European, as well as his connection with British diplomacy. Wallace also missed the subtleties of
Russias religious culture. Having said that, these problems do not renderRussia useless, nor do
they condemn the work to being a mere historical curiosity. So long as one keeps Wallaces
faults in mind, the work remains a remarkable achievement in cultural reportage. The point of
this essay was not simply to wield the power of hindsight and modern historical research in
knocking down a turn-of-the-century writer, but instead to rescue Wallace from obscurity by
saving it from the broad brush of bias by instead pointing out, clearly and specifically, what
Wallace did wrong so that a reader can understand the flaws and benefit from his work in spite of
them. Hindsight should not be a tool for condemningRussia, but for improving it. So long as
Wallaces flaws are kept specifically in mind, his work remains an authoritative study of Russia
at the turn of the century.
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
13/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/13
Notes
1. Fear or hatred of Russian people, culture, or government. May also extend to otherobjects or institutions that are related to Russia in some way.
2. Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, London: Cassell and Company, 1912, v.3.
Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, vi.4. Marxism refers to the philosophies of economy and government as professed by KarlMarx 1818-1883. It follows an interpretation of socialism that sees the advancement of
human history as a struggle between social classes. It also sees the economic system ofcapitalism as a fundamentDonald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, oppressive
system, and seeks to overthrow it and install some form of communism in its place. Formore information on Marxism, see An Introduction to Marxismby Emile Burns.
5. A person who loves or appreciates Slavic culture and traditions. Can often be understoodin opposition to Russophobia.
6. Death of Sir D.M. Wallace, The Times, January 11, 1919.7. Death of Sir D.M. Wallace, The Times, January 11, 1919.8.
Cyril E. Black, Introduction, inRussia: On the Eve of War and Revolution, by DonaldMackenzie Wallace, New York: Vintage Books, 1961, x.
9. Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, inNew York Times Current History ofthe European War1.6 (1915): 840.
10.Michael Hughes, The English Slavophile: W.J. Birkbeck and Russia, in SEER 82.3(2004): 680.
11.Michael Hughes, The English Slavophile: W.J. Birkbeck and Russia, 682.12.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 840.13.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 841.14.Cyril E. Black, Introduction, x.15.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 843.16.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, vii.17.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, vi.18.Vera Fingers autobiographyMemoires of a Revolutionistprovides a detailed description
of the interior workings of the revolutionary movement, particularly its liberal wing. Thisbook contains the letter, which calls for numerous individual freedoms, freedom of
speech among them.19.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 366.20.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 368-9.21.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 369.22.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 321.23.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 675.24.The social changes that lead up to the 1917 revolution are many and complex. To speak
very generDonald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally,, there had been a general
trend towards Europeanization ever since Peter the Great, but that trend had been arrestedby the last few Tsars, who were generDonald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally,
conservative. Meanwhile, industrialization began to ferment worker discontent, whichlead many to join the socialist movement. For a full and proper description, seeRussia in
the Age of Modernisation and Revolution, 1881-1917by Hans Rogger.
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
14/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/14
25.The Tsar Peter 1672-1725 was an admirer of European culture, and instituted manyreforms meant to bring Russia closer to what he saw to the west. Of particular note is his
lauded Table of Ranks, which proscribed a hierarchy of ranks based on merit by which aperson could ascend through government service to eventuDonald Mackenzie Wallace,
Our Russian Ally, become a member of the nobility. While entry level positions were
not open to everyone, it was still a highly individualistic enterprise unlike what hadhappened in Russia at any time before. For a full description of Peters reforms, seeJames Cracrafts The Revolution of Peter the Great.
26.Steven L. Hoch, Serfdom and Social Control in Russia, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1986, 14.
27.Steven L. Hoch, Serfdom and Social Control in Russia, 187.28.Steven L. Hoch, Serfdom and Social Control in Russia, 133.29.Daniel Field, The End of Serfdom: Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855-1861.
Cambridge: Harvard University press, 1976 102.
30.David Moon, TheAbolition of Serfdom in Russia. London: Longman, 2001, 86-7.31.Derek Offord, Lichnost: Notions of Individual Identity, in ConstructingRussian
Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881-1940, edited by Catriona Kelly and DavidShepherd, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, 13.
32.Derek Offord, Lichnost: Notions of Individual Identity, 13.33.Derek Offord, Lichnost: Notions of Individual Identity, 14.34.Derek Offord, Lichnost: Notions of Individual Identity, 16.35.Catriona Kelly and Vadim Volkov, Obschestvennost, Sobornost: Collective
Identities, edited by Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1998, 27.
36.Catriona Kelly and Vadim Volkov, Obschestvennost, Sobornost: CollectiveIdentities,27.
37.Louise McReynolds and Cathy Popkin, The Objective Eye and the Common Good, inConstructingRussian Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881-1940, edited by
Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd, 57-105, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998, 58.
38.Louise McReynolds and Cathy Popkin, The Objective Eye and the Common Good, 58.39.Louise McReynolds and Cathy Popkin, The Objective Eye and the Common Good, 60.40.A moral philosophy arguing that the value of any object or action should be determined
by its usefulness and its ability to contribute to human society. A very popular philosophy
in Britain during the nineteenth century. For more information, see ClassicalUtilitarianism from Hume to Millby F. Rosen.
41.Louise McReynolds and Cathy Popkin, The Objective Eye and the Common Good, 82.42.There were a number of political parties and subgroups in Russias opposition movement
prior to the revolution. The two primary parties being the Bolsheviks majority and theMensheviks minority. The two groups split over a dispute over party organization, and
their names refer to their sizes relative to the communist party as a whole. TheBolsheviks would eventuDonald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, take full
power after the revolution. For a full description, see Comrades!: a History of WorldCommunism by Robert Service.
43.Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Translated by SamuelMoore, Edited by Gareth Stedman Jones, London: Penguin Classics, 2002, 219.
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
15/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/15
44.Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto 234.45.Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto 237.46.Christopher Hill, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, London: The English Universities
Press, 1947, 37.
47.Christopher Hill, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 37.48.
Christopher Hill,
Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 41.49.Christopher Hill, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 42.
50.Vladimir Lenin, What is to be Done?: BurningQuestions of Our Movement, Moscow:Progress Publishers, 1967, 43.
51.Vladimir Lenin, What is to be Done?: BurningQuestions of Our Movement, 41.52.Michael Hughes, British Diplomats in Russia on the Eve of War and Revolution, in
European History Quarterly 24 (1994) 350.
53.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 844.54.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 84255.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 1.56.Michael Hughes, British Diplomats in Russia on the Eve of War and Revolution, 35057.
For an entertaining and informative description of the inner workings of Russias pre-revolution diplomacy, see chapter three of Michael Ignatieffs The Russian Album.
58.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 840,59.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 294-7.60.Vera Shevzov,Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2004, 5.
61.Vera Shevzov,Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution, 8.62.Semn Ivanovich Kanatchikov, A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia, translated by
Reginald E. Zelnick, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986, 27.
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
16/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/16
Works Cited
Burns, Emile. An Introduction to Marxism. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1962.
Cracraft, James. The Revolutions of Peter the Great. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
2003.
Field, Daniel. The End of Serfdom: Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855-1861. Cambridge:
Harvard University press, 1976.
Finger, Vera.Memoires of a Revolutionist. New York: International Publishers Co. Inc., 1927.
Hill, Christopher. Lenin and the Russian Revolution. London: The English Universities Press,1947.
Hoch, Steven L. Serfdom and Social Control in Russia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1986.
Hughes, Michael. British Diplomats in Russia on the Eve of War and Revolution.EuropeanHistory Quarterly 24 (1994): 341-366.
Hughes, Michael. The English Slavophile: W.J. Birkbeck and Russia. SEER 82.3 (2004):
680-706.
Ignatieff, Michael. The Russian Album. New York: Viking, 1987.
Kanatchikov, Semn Ivanovich. A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia. Translated by Reginald E.Zelnick. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986.
Kelly, Catriona, and Volkov, Vadim. Obschestvennost, Sobornost: Collective Identities. In
ConstructingRussian Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881-1940. Edited by CatrionaKelly and David Shepherd, 26-27. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Lenin, Vladimir. What is to be Done?: BurningQuestions of Our Movement. Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1967.
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. Translated by Samuel Moore.Edited by Gareth Stedman Jones. London: Penguin Classics, 2002.
McReynolds, Louise, and Popkin, Cathy. The Objective Eye and the Common Good. In
ConstructingRussian Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881-1940. Edited by CatrionaKelly and David Shepherd, 57-105. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Moon, David. The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia. London: Longman, 2001.
8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution
17/17
Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/17
N.A. Death of Sir D.M. Wallace. The Times. January 11, 1919. Accessed March 12, 2011.http://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy.library.brocku.ca/itw/infomark/13/185/109623007w1
6/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS100863019&dyn=3!xrn_2_0_CS100863019&hst_1?sw_aep=st46245
Offord, Derek. L
ichnost: Notions of Individual Identity. In ConstructingRussian Culture inthe Age of Revolution: 1881-1940. Edited by Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd, 13-25.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Rogger, Hans.Russia in theAge of Modernisation and Revolution, 1881-1917. New York:
Longman, 1983.
Rosen, F. Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Service, Robert. Comrades!: A history of World Communism. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 2007.
Shevzov, Vera.Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2004.
Wallace, Donald Mackenzie. Our Russian Ally.New York Times Current History of theEuropean War1.6 (1915): 840-849.
Wallace, Donald Mackenzie.Russia. London: Cassell and Company, 1912.
Wallace, Donald Mackenzie.Russia: On the Eve of War and Revolution. Edited by Cyril E.
Black. New York: Vintage Books, 1961.