1. The mostly undemocratic nature of the Soviet academy has recently been admitted in the Sovietmedia. See, for example, Kurashvili, B. and Obelenskii, A., “Demokratiia po-akademicheski,” LiteraturnaiaGaxeta, 20 May 1987, p. 11 Google Scholar. For an example of the use of the academy by the political leadership, see Mikhail Gorbachev's speech on the problems of scientific and technological progress in Pravda, 12 June1985, p. 1. The phrase empire of knowledge has, of course, been borrowed from the title of Vucinich's, Alexander Empire of Knowledge: The Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1917–1970) (Berkeley: Universityof California Press, 1984 Google Scholar. The events occurring inside and around the academy during the 1920s are recountedin many monographs and articles in Russian and in English: see, for instance, Komkov, G. D., Levshin, B. V., and Semenov, L. K., Akademiia Nauk SSSR. Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk, vol. 2: 1917–1976 (Moscow: Nauka, 1977 Google Scholar; Ul'ianovskaia, V. A., Formirovanie nauchnoi intelligentsii vSSSR, 1917–1937gg. (Moscow: Nauka, 1966 Google Scholar; Ermakov, V. T., Istoricheskii opyt kul'turnoi revoliutsii v SSSR (Moscow: Mysl', 1968)Google Scholar; Esakov, V. D., Sovetskaia nauka v gody pervoipiatiletki (Moscow: Nauka, 1971 Google Scholar; Beliaev, E. A. and Pyshkova, N. S., Formirovanie i razvitie seti nauchnykh uchrezhdenii SSSR (Moscow: Nauka, 1979 Google Scholar; Ocherki istorii organizatsii nauki v Leningrade, 1703–1977 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1980); A. V. Kol'tsov, Razvitie Akademii nauk SSSR kak vysshego nauchnogo uchrezhdeniia SSSR, 1926–1932.

In English, see, besides Empire of Knowledge, Vucinich, Alexander, Soviet Academy of Sciences (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1956)Google Scholar; Graham, Loren, The Soviet Academy of Sciences and theCommunist Party, 1927–1932 (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Graham, , Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (London: Allen Lane, 1971 Google Scholar.

Émigré authors identified only by their pen names include I. Voznesenskii, Imena i sud'by nodiubileinym spiskom Akademii nauk in Pamiat’ (New York: Khronika, 1978), esp. 1: 353–410; Antsyferov, P. A., Tri glavy iz vospominanii s primechaniiami S. Elenina i lu. Ovchinnikova in Pamiat’ (Paris: YMCA, 1981) 4: 57–110Google Scholar; Rostov, Aleksei, Delo chetyrekh akademikov in Pamiat’ 4: 469–495 Google Scholar.

The availability of Graham's seminal book, Soviet Academy of Sciences, allows me to omit many detailsfrom my discussion.

2. See Ul'ianovskaia, Formirovanie nauchnoi intelligentsii, p. 152. All dates of the anti-academysatires are given with errors of up to two years.

3. The local newspapers include Leningradskaia pravda (LP), the public organ of the regional party committee, the regional soviet, and the regional trade union council; Krasnaia gazeta, the organ of the Leningrad City Soviet, the morning edition (KG) and the evening edition (VKG); Smena, the organ ofthe Regional Komsomol Committee; and Krest'ianskaia pravda, the organ of the regional party committee directed to the rural population. The last newspaper provided no relevant information and will not be cited. The daily lzvestiia proved to be especially informative in comparison with other central newspapers.

4. V. D. Esakov, Sovetskaia nauka, p. 196.

5. Graham, Soviet Academy of Sciences, pp. 120–130; Pamiat’ 4: 144, 131, 471.

6. For discussions of the Soviet attitude toward the academy and Lenin's high regard for it seeKomkov, Levshin, and Semenov, Akademiia nauk SSSR 2: 5–23, esp. 15–16; A. V. Kol'stov, Lenin istanovlenie Akademii nauk kak tsentra sovetskoi nauki (Leningrad: Nauka, 1969); idem, Lenin i Akademiianauk (Moscow: Nauka, 1970).

7. The autonomy of higher education in the USSR was abolished by the Regulations on Higher Education Establishments adopted in fall 1921. In 1917 the academy had about 220 employees (see Ocherkiistorii organizatsii nauki, pp. 104–105). By 1925 the academy employed about one thousand staffers; seeS. F. Ol'denburg, Akademiia Nauk Soiuza Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik v 1925 g. (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR, 1926), p. iii. Preparation for a new charter was begun in fall 1923, after the Chief Administration of Scientific Establishments (Glavnauka) of the People's Commissariat of Public Educationhad issued a directive (dated 6 October) ordering the academy to present a draft variant of the charter within amonth (see Izvestiia rossiiskoi Akademii nauk, 1923, p. 311). The charter was finally approved by the SNKUSSR on 18 June 1927.

8. During the 1920s research efforts in Soviet educational institutions were generally disrupted by administrative and ideological experiments. The network of research establishments administered by different industrial and agricultural agencies was still young, and its function was far from perfect. The Socialist Academy of Social Sciences, established in 1918 and renamed the Communist Academy in 1924, was, duringthe period of our concern, nothing more than a scholarly library with a modest research staff.

9. Izvestiia, 13 September 1925, p. 2.

10. Ustavy Akademii nauk SSSR (Moscow: Nauka, 1975), pp. 120, 123. Graham explains the meaning and consequences of uniting the two in Soviet Academy of Sciences.

11. Ustavy Akademii nauk SSSR, p. 110.

12. Ibid., pp. 124, 125, 114, and 105.

13. Sobranie Zakonov i Rasporiazhenii Rabochie-Krest'ianskogo Pravitel'stva SSSR, no. 22, article197 (1928), p. 415.

14. In the late 1920s research establishments and personnel were concentrated in Moscow and Leningrad: 43.8 percent of all scientific workers were residents of Moscow and 32.4 percent were in Leningrad (see I. S. Taitslin, “Nauchnye Kadry RSFSR,” Nauchnoe slovo, no. 10 (1929), pp. 10–31). In the 1930s local branches were established rapidly in different regions (see Komkov, Levshin, and Semenov, Akademiianauk SSSR, pp. 92–98.

15. V. Steklov, “K 200-letiiu Akademii Nauk,” Izvestiia, 29 July 1925, p. 2.

16. Ol'denburg may have expressed his (not completely insincere) attitude while writing that “theacademy and its staffers should be worthy of the trust and respect which they were credited with during these festive jubilee days” (see Ol'denburg, Akademiia v 1925 g., p. xx). This characteristic of the academy, thatis, its desire to be trustworthy in its relations with its social patrons, was well recognized by the official godfathers of Soviet science.

17. LP, 15 May 1927, p. 3.

18. Although the 1927 charter was formally approved by the SNK on 18 June 1927, the principal decision on the subject appears to have been taken in the course of the SNK's meeting on 31 May (seeKol'tsov, Razvitie Akademii Nauk SSSR, p. 35). This decision was made public as a fait accompli early in June (see LP, 4 June 1927, p. 5; KG, 4 June 1927, p. 4).

19. “ ‘Byvshie’ na khozfronte,” LP, 22 April 1927, p. 5; “Eshche odin myl'nyi puzyr’ po materialam doznaniia GPU,” KG, 22 April 1927, p. 4; LP, 22 April 1927, p. 5.

20. See official directives given to the Leningrad authorities by Sergo Ordzhonikidze in his speech on 29 March 1927, LP, 1 April 1927, p. 3.

21. LP, 9 June 1927, p. 4.

22. LP, 28 September 1927, p. 4; 1 October 1927, p. 5; 21 October 1927, p. 3.

23. Izvestiia, 8 April 1928, p. 6; 14 April 1928, pp. 1, 4, 5. The Moscow press began the pre-election discussion of the nominated candidates early in May (Izvestiia, 4 May 1928, p. 3). The Leningrad media followed suit in several days (see LP, 12 May 1928, p. 2).

24. Izvestiia, 11 May 1928, p. 5.

25. Tur, “Kniaz’ Dunduk,” LP, 13 June 1928, p. 3; V. Marovskii, “Akademicheskii kovcheg—tselekhonek,” LP, 17 June 1928, p. 3.

26. S. Poles'ev, “Akademicheskie rvachi,” LP, 21 June 1928, p. 2.

27. For examples of searches for has-beens see G. B., “Podpolkovnichii aromat,” LP, 21 June 1928, p. 3, and “Romanovskie ‘teni’ v byvshem Anichkovom dvortse,” LP, 22 June 1928, p. 5; the general investigationin industry is in KG, 12 June 1928, p. 1; and examples of public invective are found in LP, 20 June 1928, p. 5, and KG, 19 June 1928, p. 5.

28. The academy exceeded its allowances by 16 percent during the first half of the 1927–1928 fiscal year. Some establishments in Leningrad exceeded theirs by 60 percent to 70 percent (see LP, 26 June 1928, p. 3). See also “Nauchno-issledovatel'skaia rabota v SSSR,” hvestiia, 29 April 1928, p. 3.

29. “Kollegiia RKI o beskhoziaistvennosti v apparate Akademii Nauk,” LP, 7 June 1928, p. 5.

30. Tur, “Pepel dubov,” LP, 14 June 1928, p. 3. The Moscow allegations appeared in Tur, “Byvshieliudi,” hvestiia, 11 July 1928, p. 3. The collective pen name, Tur (later Tur Brothers) was used (beginningin 1925) by L. D. Tubelskii and P. L. Ryzhay (see Kratkaia literaturnaia entsiklopediia [Moscow: Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, 1972] 7: 655). These two are said to have had close connections with the OGPU (see Antsyferov, Tri glavy in Pamiat’ 4: 131). This biographical detail appears possible, especially if one takesinto account the fact that they regularly published articles in LP with direct political implications, containing details that could hardly have been received without using special information sources. Subsequently, theseliterary relatives produced several pieces about counter intelligence operations, works apparently inspired by security organs. According to Elenin and Ovchinnikov (Antsyferov, Tri glavy in Pamiat’ 4: 129), the Cosmic Academy of Sciences was headed by I. M. Andreevskii, a philologist and church historian, and wascrushed by the OGPU in the spring of 1928.

31. Graham, Soviet Academy of Sciences, p. 108. Graham discusses the Zhebelev affair on pp. 104–108 of this book. The affair is also covered in LP, 22 November 1928, p. 5; 23 November 1928, p. 5; and30 November 1928, p. 5. For an interesting echo of this campaign see Izvestiia, 24 January 1929, p. 3.

32. Izvestiia, 23 November 1928, p. 4. The only information on the work of the RKI team in 1928 that I have managed to trace in the contemporary press was reported in November. RKI representatives inspectedthe academy's library and ordered it to “rationalize” its functioning. The library was probably checked bythe same commission that had been appointed in the summer. Anyway, the special RKI interest in the libraryis worth noting.

33. KG, 13 January 1929, p. 2; LP, 25 January 1929, p. 5. The figure of twenty-eight in favor and nineopposed was reported in contemporary newspapers (for example see LP, 25 January 1929, p. 2) and reproduced by Graham (Soviet Academy of Science, p. 114). Academician E. F. Karskii told reporters he hadvoted in favor of the plan, but his name had been mistakenly placed among the opponents (Smena, 27 January 1929, p. 6).

34. LP, 25 January 1929, p. 5, and Pravda, 25 January 1929, p. 2. Iu. Larin was the pen name ofM. Z. Lurié (1882–1932), a revolutionary activist, historian, economist, and one of the organizers of theState Planning Administration (Gosplan). In this article he suggested that the academy's membership be revisedevery ten years and that the broader scientific circles should participate in the electoral process. Neither of these suggestions was seriously considered. His third point was that the academy should be controlled by the “proletarian masses,” in other words by the party nomenklatura. Since this process was already underway, Larin's proposal was realized almost automatically.

35. hvestiia, 6 February 1930, p. 4; LP, 6 February 1930, p. 2. See examples of the campaign againstthe academy in I. Podvolotskii, “Nauka i politika,” Pravda, 1 February 1929, p. 3; N. P. Gorbunov, Pravda, 3 February 1929, p. 4; Mikhail Kol'tsov, “Anekdoty,” Pravda, 5 February 1929, p. 2; Ts. Irindliand, “Obodnoi ‘neuviazke, '” hvestiia, 1 February 1929, p. 3 (this last article even contains political accusations against I. P. Pavlov, normally a sacred cow despite his open in difference to the official ideology); A. V.Lunacharskii, “'Neuviazka’ v Akademii Nauk,” hvestiia, 5 February 1929, p. 3. The academy's specialstatus and relatively safe existence were still protected in 1929. For this reason I cannot agree with Graham(Soviet Academy of Sciences, p. 117) that the academy could have been abolished had all eight party membercandidates been rejected. Moreover, the academy already possessed a rather complicated administrative and organizational structure that more or less corresponded to the general disciplinary coordinates of scientificand humanistic knowledge. This establishment could have become a vast system that the nomenklatura couldmanipulate to produce information. While Soviet society was becoming centralized, this circumstance served as a structural factor that kept the academy secure.

36. LP, 7 February 1929, p. 2; 8 February 1929, p. 5; 9 February 1929, p. 2; 12 February 1929, p. 2. Academicians Vladimirtsov, Lavrov, Likhachev, Sobolevskii, and the academy's corresponding members Beneshevich, Zamotin, and Tsarevskii were accused.

37. Academicians S. F. Ol'denburg, V. L. Komarov, and N. la. Marr, for example, signed a declaration promising their full cooperation with “Soviet public organs” in the task of thoroughly examining the academy's activities (see LP, 9 February 1929, p. 2). This promise must be interpreted as a euphemism communicatingtheir willingness to collaborate with the authorities even by being informers.

38. For a recent Soviet study of this affair see Ermakov, lstoricheskii opyt kul'turnoi revoliutsii, p. 121. The academy's submissiveness is displayed, for instance, in the events surrounding the election ofD. B. Riasanov to the academy's vice-presidency by a large majority (see LP, 8 March 1929, p. 5). To myknowledge, this fact was never revealed in Soviet scholarly literature. Since Riazanov was expelled from the party in February 1931 (on the pretext of his alleged “connections with the Mensheviks “), it must be regardedas the academy's good fortune that Riazanov refused to assume his duties. G. M. Krzhizhanovskiiwas then recommended as a new candidate (LP, 25 April 1929, p. 3).

39. LP, 19 February 1929, p. 4. See la. Peters's (KG, 23 February 1929, p. 3) and E. Iaroslavskii's(hvestiia, 1 March 1929, p. 2) characterizations of the aims of the nationwide purge of Soviet institutionsthat began at the end of 1928.

40. hvestiia, 27 February 1929, p. 2.

41. See KG, 1 August 1929, p. 4.

42. In 1929 Iurii Petrovich Figatner, actually Iakov Isaakovich Figatner (1889–1937), was chairmanof the central committee of the Trade Union of Soviet and Trade Employees and also member of the board ofthe NK RKI and of the presidium of the Central Control Commission. For a complete list of the membersof Figatner's commission at the beginning of its work, see KG, 31 July 1929, p. 4. V. L. Komarov; P. M. Nikiforov, director of the academy's Seismological Institute; and V. I. Shauro, secretary of the academy'slocal trade union committee, were the academy's members. In the second half of August the membership ofthe commission was broadened. Ol'denburg (who had just returned from abroad—see VKG, 15 August1929, p. 3) and A. E. Fersman participated in its activities. Subsequently, at the second stage of the purge, the list of the representatives of different organizations and agencies examining the academy changed again.

43. KG, 31 July 1929, p. 4.

44. KG, 24 August 1929, p. 4.

45. KG, 23 August 1929, p. 4.

46. For figures on those dismissed see Izvestiia, 23 August 1929, p. 1, and 30 August 1929, p. 4.Formal approval of the commission is reported in Izvestiia, 4 September 1929, p. 3.

47. The comparatively restrained criticism can be seen in Izvestiia, 10 September 1929, p. 2. There buke for failure to inform is in both LP, 7 August 1929, p. 6, and VKG, 1 August 1929, p. 3. In praisingthose who cooperated in the purge, Figatner specifically mentioned P. M. Nikiforov, B. N. Vishnevskii, I. A. Kubasov, and P. V. Serebrovskii (see Izvestiia, 30 August 1929, p. 4). These individuals were membersof the academy's medium-level research staff (nauchny seredniak). A slogan used during the inspection of the academy demanded a considerable increase in the rights of these “under privileged scientists.” The subsequent history of the academy demonstrates with certainty that this call was without result; in 1929, however, this demagogic device appears to have been instrumental in recruiting a fifth column inside theacademy.

48. Izvestiia, 20 September 1929, p. 4.

49. A. Cherkas, “Akademicheskie anekdoty,” LP, 22 August 1929, p. 5; LP, 6 September 1929, p. 6.

50. A. Alekseev, “Nichemu ne nauchilis', nichego iz starogo ne zabyli,” LP, 14 September 1929, p. 3; VKG, 27 August 1929, p. 3. The quoted phrase was a common epithet in Soviet newspapers ofthat time.

51. LP, 18 September 1929, p. 4.

52. See Izvestiia, 30 October 1929, p. 3; KG, 10 September 1929, p. 2.

53. KG, 29 October 1929, p. 4; Kol'stov, Razvitie Academii nauk SSSR, p. 180. From 1925 to 1929A. S. Enukidze (1877–1937), secretary of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, headed a special commission appointed by the SNK to deal with the academy's affairs. The telegram toFigatner and its contents were described to me in a private communication. The academy's budget for the1929–1930 fiscal year was increased by 41 percent over that of the previous year and amounted to 4.84 million rubles. The salaries of full members were raised from 250 rubles a month to 325 rubles a month, andthe monthly wages of the junior staff increased from 50 rubles to 75 rubles (see KG, 31 October 1929, p. 4).Ol'denburg's resignation is in VKG, 10 October 1929, p. 3.

54. VKG, 24 October 1929, p. 3. KG, 31 October 1929, p. 4, and 3 November 1929, p. 3; VKG, 31 October 1929, p. 3.Stalin's article can be found in Pravda, 7 November 1929. Some official reports about the academy arein Izvestiia, 6 November 1929, p. 2; LP, 6 November 1929, p. 2. Figatner recounted the events of the academy's10 November staff meeting in KG, 13 November 1929, p. 3.

55. Pushkin House was established in 1905 as a research center for the study of Russian literature, particularly Aleksandr Pushkin's literary heritage. Formerly an independent scholarly institution, PushkinHouse became affiliated with the academy in 1918. Academician S. F. Platonov headed Pushkin House from1925 to 1929. The Permanent Historical-Archaeographical Commission (PIAK) was established as oneof the academy's scholarly departments in 1926, when the Permanent Historical Commission and the ArchaeographicalCommission were merged. Platonov was chairman of the PIAK from 1926 to 1929.

On the history of the security forces in the Russian Empire see Eroshkin, N. P., Istoriia gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii (Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1968 Google Scholar; see also Pipes, Richard, Russiaunder the OldRegime (New York: Scribner's, 1974)Google Scholar, chap. 11. Okhrannye otdeleniia functioned as localsecurity agencies dealing principally with subversive activities. The first special establishment of this typewas set up in St. Petersburg in 1866, although the term itself was not coined officially until 1903. The documents in question probably belonged to its archives.

56. KG, 13 November 1929, p. 3.

57. Ibid.; hvestiia, 16 November 1929, p. 1; KG, 14 December 1929, p. 4.

58. VKG, 14 November 1929, p. 2. V. G. Druzhinin (1859–1937), a historian of Russian culture and specialist in archaeography and paleography, was elected corresponding member of the academy in 1829. Heprobably died in a concentration camp. Figatner accused Druzhinin of having been a private informer to V. K. von Pleve, director of the Department of Police, later the interior minister, assassinated in 1904 (SeeKG, 13 November 1929, p. 3).

59. The denunciation of the presidium's keeping the documents is in LP, 6 November 1929, p. 2. Althoughthe letter from the presidium to SNK seems never to have been published, its existence was openly hinted at in LP, 6 November 1929, p. 2. V. D. Esakov reported Rykov's telegraph and the general assembly's response in Sovetskaia nauka, p. 197. Rostov reported that Platonov was arrested on 14 January 1930(Delo chetyrekh akademikov, pp. 473–474). See also LP, 13 November 1929, p. 3, and KG, 21 December1929, p. 4.

60. LP, 24 January 1930, p. 3; 26 January 1930, p. 5; 12 June 1930, p. 2; 15 November 1930, p. 4.The first rather vague allusion to the peculiar events at the academy can be traced to Kirov's speech made on10 January; see LP, 14 January 1930, p. 3.

61. Izvestiia, 20 February 1930, pp. 3–4, and LP 12 November 1930, p. 2.

62. Ioffe's proposal can be seen in LP, 30 November 1930, p. 4. On the authorship of the draft variant of the 1930 charter, see LP, 1 March 1930, p. 6; Za sotsialisticheskuiu rekonstruktsiiu Akademii Nauk SoiuzaSovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, no. 1 (April 1930), p. 1; the pope's slander is protested in LP, 14 March 1930, p. 1; and competition with the Ukrainian and Belorussian academies is in LP, 4 March 1930, p. 6. In 1930 the academy had seven vacant chairs; only three new academicians, all party members, were elected. That year the party bureau was established at the academy, and by the end of 1930 the number of party members, including graduate students, amounted to one hundred (Komkov, Levshin, and Semenov, Akademiia Nauk SSSR, p. 67). Only forty-six full members participated in the voting for the presidium (seeVKG, 4 March 1930, p. 2). After the March 1930 election, the presidium included A. P. Karpinskii, president;V. P. Volgin, permanent secretary; V. L. Komarov, G. M. Krzhizhanovskii, N. Ia. Marr, vice-presidents;and A. A. Borisiak and A. N. Samoilovich, secretaries of divisions.

63. Izvestiia, 16 November 1929, p. 1; LP, 30 November 1929, p. 4.

64. KG, 13 November 1929, p. 3; 4 December 1929, p. 2; and 19 December 1929, p. 4. The numberof those employed at the academy before the purge is in LP, 23 August 1929, p. 3. Graham's interpretation ofthe numerical results of the purge that “128 workers were taken into custody and another 520 were fired” is, thus, incorrect (Soviet Academy of Sciences, p. 125).

65. VKG, 2 February 1930, p. 4; Izvestiia, 26 January 1930, p. 3. Both differences are statistically insignificant at an alpha level of 0.05, and only the difference between the academy and the Leningrad population at large is significant at an alpha level of 0.1. I had no statistical data on the real population proportions for the RSFRS, thus the standard error for the differences between sample proportions was estimated.

66. Figatner himself admitted that in 1926 the academy had informed the state authorities of the existence of some documents, including Dzhunkovskii's archive (VARNITSO, no. 2 [1930], p. 75).

67. V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, “V. K. Lenin i Biblioteka Academii Nauk,” Novyi Mir 8 (1945): 99–102.Lenin's approval is in Istoricheskii ocherk i obzor fondov Rukopisnogo otdela Biblioteki Akademii Nauk (Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR, 1958) 2: 35. On the library's history see Biblioteka Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1728–1929 (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR, 1929), Istoriia Biblioteki Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1714–1964 (Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka, 1964), and lstoricheskii ocherk i obzor fondov. Bonch-Bruevich (1873–1955), a professional revolutionary, was the head of the administrative office of the SNK RSFSR in1917–1920; he was later engaged in scholarly work. In 1903–1905 he was in charge of the party's archivesand dispatch office in Geneva (V. Bonch-Bruevich, “Nelegal'nyi otdel biblioteki Akademii nauk,” Izvestiia, 6 September 1929, p. 5).

68. Izvestiia Akademii Nauk, 1917, p. 740; lstoricheskii Ocherk i obzor fondov, pp. 46–47; 250 letBiblioteke Akademii Nauk SSSR (Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka, 1965), p. 126.

69. V. Maksakov, “Arkhiv Revoliutsii i Vneshnei Politiki XIX i XX vv.,” Arkhivnoe delo 13 (1927): 27–41.

70. Istoricheskii ocherk i obzor fondov, p. 48. For example, see Materialy dlia istorii akademicheskikhuchrezhdenii za 1889–1914 gg., part 1 (Petrograd, 1917), pp. 25–28.

71. Maksakov, “Arkhiv Revoliutsii i Vneshnei Politiki. “

72. For example, see “Sekretnye sotrudniki v avtobiografiiakh,” Byloe, 1917, no. 2, pp. 232–261;Bol'sheviki: Dokumenty po istorii bol'shevizma s 1903 po 1916 gg. byvshego Moskovskogo okhrannogootdeleniia (Moscow: Zadruga, 1918).

73. Generalizing from Richard Pipes's idea, one could maintain that Russian revolutionary extremists “could not have been more effective in scuttling political reform had they been on the police payroll” (Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime, p. 303).

74. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1962) 32: 557–558. Bezbozhnik, 3 February 1929, p. 3. Vecherniaia Moskva, 7 February 1929, p. 3.

75. B. K. Erenfel'd, “Delo Malinovskogo,” Voprosy htorii, no. 7 (1965). Voslenskii, Mikhail, Nomenklatura: Gospodstvyiushchii Klass Sovetskogo Soiuza (London: Overseas Publications Interchange, 1985, pp. 65–73 Google Scholar. For a critical assessment of this hypothesis see Tucker, Robert C., Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879–1929 (New York: Norton, 1973, pp. 110–114 Google Scholar.

76. Rostov, Delo chetyrykh akademikov, p. 494.